Democrats Could Have Just Lost the Catholic Vote

As a Catholic myself, I have been greatly irritated by polls that suggest that despite Obama's horrific HHS mandate attack on religious freedom, Catholics still lean towards the incumbent President.  There are some caveats here (some polls suggest that actually practising Catholics lean Romney, while those who are non-practising lean left) but Obama does seem to be clinging on -- just -- to what is known as the Catholic vote that he won in 2008.

Yet things might be changing.  The attack on religious freedom back in March may be out of the minds of a lot of Catholic voters, but two things are about to happen that may lead to a shift in the Catholic vote, and move the vote that has been decisive in all Presidential Elections in recent history into Romneyville.

The first is that the Democrats are using their convention not to focus on jobs and the economy, but on abortion and gay marriage - two things that faithful Catholics oppose vehemently.  It is necessary to know that faithful Catholics who vote Democrat tend to justify their choice by saying that the above policies are just part of a much wider Democrat program.  By putting these two issues at the forefront of the convention, the Democrats are contradicting this and saying "Nope, this isn't just a part of our program, this is who we are." This is going to make a lot of Catholics very uncomfortable and could send them running Romney's way.

The second is that Timothy Cardinal Dolan -- Archbishop of New York -- is going to lead the closing prayer at the Republican Convention.

Dolan is one of the most popular clerics in the Catholic Church, loved by liberals and conservatives alike, as well as many people in wider society.  Dolan would be the first to say that leading the prayer is by no means an endorsement of the Republican platform -- although many whining left-wingers are claiming this is the case.

The reason it is important is not just that he is leading the prayer at the Republican convention, but because it sends an interesting question -- would a Catholic leader be welcome at a Democrat convention filled with pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion activists who often spew pure venomous hatred at the Catholic Church? Quite clearly not - a Catholic leader is more likely to get booed and heckled at an abortion/gay marriage lovefest

That leads to a question that will be in the minds of many a Democrat Catholic in the next few weeks, "If the Cardinal isn't welcome in the Democrat Party - am I?"

The Cardinal's presence at the GOP Convention, and the Democrat's focus on abortion and gay marriage, suggests the answer to that is an emphatic NO.  Expect this to start showing in polls in September.

Paul Ryan on Fixing Medicare

Why should we be excited about Paul Ryan?  Take a look at this video, and see how easily and convincingly he lays out his Medicare reforms.  This is just brilliant - if he could cut it to a minute, I'd run it as an ad tomorrow!

Why Paul Ryan is the Right Pick for Romney

So, as I called for yesterday, it's Paul Ryan!  I'm not suggesting any connection between my post and the pick of course, but who knows, maybe Romney tuned in to "The Anglo-American Debate", read my piece, and yelled to his pilot "Turn away from Portman!!  I'm going to see Paul Ryan!"  I can dream...

But anyway, it's Paul Ryan and the conservative side of the Republican party are delighted.  Ryan is young, slick, has intellectual weight, and has for a long time argued strongly for fiscal responsibility and has backed it up with real proposals.

Yet there are some in the GOP, as well as many in the MSM, who are less sure.  A lot of this focuses on the fact that Ryan wants to reform Medicare, and this opens the campaign up to left-wing attacks about pushing granny of a cliff, in spite of these claims being proven demonstrably false.  As last week's "Romney gave my wife cancer" ad showed - the truth and the left have only a passing acquaintance.

Yet I believe these worries are not something to worry about.  Ryan is a tough talker and I believe that he can win the argument any day of the week.  All he needs to do is say "Ok, what are you going to do about Medicare" and watch his opponents mumble.

However, it ignores what Ryan really brings to the table - he makes this election about ideology, not about personality.  For some unknown reason Obama is still personally fairly popular, in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans hate his stance and positions on just about anything and everything.

It is for this reason that Romney needed to stop making this election about Obama's personality, and more about an ideological debate between conservative and liberal - a debate conservatives always win.  Charles Krauthammer argued this very persuasively in his latest column  - for this election to be won it needs to come down to an ideological debate about where Americans want America to go.

If Americans want to go down the path of European socialism, vote for Obama; if they want to continue the American dream, vote Romney/Ryan.  This is the debate that Romney wants to have, this is something Ryan can provide, and it is for this reason why Paul Ryan is the right pick for Mitt Romney!

Time for Romney to Go Bold

Stephen F Hayes and William Kristol have an article in "The Weekly Standard" that has been causing a fair bit of discussion.  If you haven't read it already, go take a look because I think it sums up the choice that Mitt Romney faces before him.

I've made it clear before that I would pick Condoleezza Rice in a heartbeat, but it seems that that is not the case, mainly because she has been listed to speak formally at the convention in a different capacity.  Bah!

So Kristol and Hayes propose that the four candidates left are:

1. Paul Ryan
2. Marco Rubio
3. Rob Portman
4. Tim Pawlenty

Other sources, such as this morning's Wall Street Journal, having pointed to a possible option of Chris Christie, but let's keep it to these four because I think Christie is just a bit of wishful thinking - I can't foresee a situation where Romney picks Christie.

The first two are identified as "bold" picks, while the latter two are "safe" picks.  While I agree with the separation, I'd be more likely to label Portman and Pawlenty as disastrous picks, while the only two viable options out of these four are Ryan and Rubio.

My reasoning is thus: basic poll analysis tells us that it's tight, with Obama probably having an ever-so-slight edge based on the various swing-states he can win.  There are a few possible factors that can boost Romney into victory, and he needs them.  They include the unemployment numbers (which won't be going down significantly anytime soon), issues to do with money (O is already spent up), the debates (maybe, maybe not) and the convention, where the challenger will always attract more attention than the incumbent.

One of the ways he could take advantage of the prospect for a boost from the convention is by picking someone interesting as a VP, the same way in which Palin attracted interest initially in 08.  Romney's biggest weakness at the moment is that he is dull, and so what he doesn't need is more dullness from a Portman or Pawlenty who, frankly, bring nothing to the table.

If Romney had a 10 point lead, I'd say go for the safe choice, don't rock the boat, and let's coast to victory.  But Romney can't afford to coast to victory, this race is tight, tight, tight.  He needs to spice it up, and take advantage of the possible boost.

He has given a great case for why Obama shouldn't be president.  Now he needs to bring attention to why Romney should be President.  One of the great ways to do this is to fire a bolt of interest into the campaign by picking a Rubio or a Ryan (preferably Ryan, but that's for another blog post), and take advantage of the opportunity to tell America why the Romney ticket is something that people should really be excited to vote for.

Let America Be America Again

Great new ad by Scott Brown.  If I were Romney, I'd ask to replace the last set of clips from Brown to Romney at the end and I'd run it nationally!  It shows not only how far Obama is disconnected from the ideas that made America great, but also how far he is from other Democrats including Clinton and even Carter!  Great ad!

Dirty Harry's Slur Shows Democrat's Desperation

Remember when the Democrats were all about civility and "tone"?  Remember all the finger-wagging and head-shaking we were subjected to by Obama and friends after Rep. Giffords was shot?  Yeh?  Well, apparently that's well and truly out of the window now.

This week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has come out in an interview with HuffPo and claimed that Romney's father (who is deceased) would be ashamed of his son.  Classy, Dirty Harry!

Now, obviously this is shameful behaviour.  Saying to anyone in any situation that their deceased parent would be ashamed of them is reprehensible.  I'm not one to bang on about tone, but this shot is just low, and well out of order for anyone with even an iota of self respect.

But the more interesting question is why.  Why did Dirty Harry fire this one out? It clearly isn't going to benefit him in any way, even  he can realize that it will more likely disgust people than give them a reason to vote O in November.  So why do it?

The answer to this is simple - the American left are panicking right now, and they should be.  With just over 3 months to go until the election polls are tight, but this doesn't tell the whole story.

At time of writing Rasmussen has Romney leading Obama by 47-44.  Gallup basically has a dead heat, and other polls have round about the same numbers, either a close race, or Obama or Romney leading by a point or two.  I gesture towards Rasmussen as they go off "likely voters" so produce a more accurate picture. We also know from electoral history that undecided voters are more likely to break against a sitting President, so that makes things even worse for Barry O.

However, the Obama campaign has a significant number of things to worry about just with their campaign.  The first is that they are already resorting to negative ads in July.  Negative ads are not unusual, but they usually come in greater quantity later in the campaign, and are usually a hallmark of a challenger not an incumbent -- who should have a record to brag about.

For them to be resorting to negative attacks this early suggests that Obama's gang know they have no achievements on which to rest a campaign, and so can only smear Romney.  What's worse is that it isn't working - the Bain attacks have made nothing more than a minor dent in the numbers, and they were a pretty weak attack to begin with.  Did they really think that with 8%+ unemployment and $15 trillion debt, that anyone cares what Mitt was up to in 1999?

In addition, reports are coming out that the Obama campaign is not only being significantly out-raised by Romney, but that the Democrats have already spent a large amount of their dwindling war chest, so much so that they are already running a deficit..  Simply put, they have played their best card, used a huge chunk of cash to do so, and Romney is still ahead.

It appears that Obama's campaign is running out of money, has played what it feels is its best attack, and have no achievements to spout.  Meanwhile Romney still has the VP pick, the Convention and a huge war chest to be spent on tv ads, all that can be relied on to give the Republican a significant shot in the arm in the polls.  With a possible European meltdown coming up in the next few months to top it all off, things look very bad for Obama.  An October with rising unemployment, stale arguments from the Dems, and new aggressive, well-funded attacks from the Republicans look likely.  The Democrats are understandably cracking up.

It is with this in mind that we must look at Reid's hideous attacks.  Yes they are tasteless, but they must be seen what they are - attacks from politicians who know that their goose is cooked. They are desperate, out of money, and out of ideas.  Expect more frenzied, hysterical attacks as America's left begin to act more and more like cornered rats and aim for the throat.

Romney should keep his cool and keep doing what he is doing - we are winning...

Condoleezza Rice Should be the Next VP.

The following is a blog post I wrote for "The American Thinker" a few weeks ago.  I am fully aware that the odds favor Rubio being the pick, and I don't doubt that he would be a good choice, but I think Condi definitely has to be seen as a good prospect.  Anyway, here are my four reasons for why Rice would make the perfect VP pick for Romney.  The article in its entirety can be found here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To focus on Condoleezza Rice's skin color or her gender is to miss why she would be the perfect VP pick for Mitt Romney.

On Thursday evening, "The Drudge Report" reported the rumor that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was being considered by the Romney campaign as a potential pick for Vice President.  Predictably, talk has focused on the fact that Rice is African-American and a woman, with a Washington Post op-ed framing her as the "anti-Palin."

While these are certainly factors to consider -- anything that could make a dent in Obama's unfathomable domination of the black community would be welcome -- it is folly to focus on these as Rice's strengths.  I propose that she has four characteristics that make her the perfect choice for Romney's running mate.

Foreign Policy Background

Rice's biggest strength by a mile is also Romney's biggest weakness -- knowledge and experience of foreign policy.  Romney's two pillars of experience are his work in the private sector and his time as the governor of Massachusetts.  While perfectly serviceable credentials, and certainly much stronger than the man currently occupying the White House, they contain no foreign policy background. 

This is exemplified in Romney's book "No Apology."  The chapters on domestic policy are written with large helpings of personal experience, while the foreign policy sections rely almost exclusively on secondary sources.  His international arguments are sound, but reek of speculation.

Possibly for this reason, the Romney campaign has shied away from sinking its teeth into Obama's dismal record abroad, for it knows that the Democrat's attack will be "Obama knows what it's like to make these decisions - Romney doesn't."

Rice is a game changer here.  First as National Security Advisor from 2001-2005 and then as Secretary of State from 2005-2009, Rice played a fundamental role in forming foreign policy during the Bush Administration.  Although these roles contained failures as well as successes, it means the Republicans would have a VP pick who (in terms of time served) has more foreign policy experience than the current President.

It would form a devastating tag team whereby Romney could savage the President for his dismal domestic record, and then step back while Rice takes apart his foreign policy "achievements."

Executive Branch Experience at the National Level

Linked closely to Ms. Rice's background in foreign policy is the fact that she held the office of Secretary of State between 2005 and 2009 and therefore has national experience in the executive branch.  This again fills in for one of Romney's imperfections - that he has no experience at the national level. 

While this is by no means a weakness (many presidential candidates do not), Rice's time as the third-highest official in the executive branch not only rule out questions of whether the VP pick is "ready" for the job, it also intensifies the spotlight on the current President's complete lack of previous qualifications. 

When the Republican's Vice Presidential nominee could argue that she has more experience under her belt than a sitting President, it would be an uncomfortable situation for the Democrats to say the least.

Likeability

Although the Palin experience tells us how quickly popular poll numbers can change, it is undeniable that Rice's numbers are astonishingly high among both Republicans and the public at large for a nationally well-known political figure. 

In a CNN poll of Republicans in April, she held an 80% approval rating - which seems to dismiss concerns that her soft tendencies on issues like abortion could upset grassroots conservatives.  This, with the fact that the Obamacare Supreme Court decision has fired up conservatives on an unprecedented level, should quell the fears of anyone worried that a Romney-Rice ticket wouldn't mobilize the base.  They are mobilized to the teeth, and a Rice pick won't change that.

Yet it is her likeability with the public at large that should raise eyebrows.  Among likely US voters, Rasmussen reports that Condi has a 66% favorability rating, with 32% viewing her Very Favorably.  Only 24% have a somewhat or Very Unfavorable view of her. 

It is for this reason I disagree with Erick Erickson who dismisses her for her connection to Bush.  Yes, Ms. Rice is connected to the Bush administration, but she has managed not to be tainted by it.  It's the best of both worlds for conservatives.

Argument/Rhetoric

This last point is probably the point in which she is the least unique, as there are a whole host of candidates who have solid rhetorical skills and who are good in a debate.  Yet the fact that it is just another feather in her cap as opposed to a defining characteristic -- as is the case with someone like Chris Christie -- proves what a strong candidate Condi is.

As an academic, Rice knows how to make her point clearly, in a concise and professional manner, and with passion.  Although judgments on these matters are largely subjective, rumors that her recent speech in Park City led to two standing ovations amongst Republican elites, and immediately put her at the top of Romney's list, give weight to this claim.

Condi also brings an unflappable calmness in the face of intense criticism that allows her to stop an attack in its track and deconstruct the opposition argument in a way that can be truly breathtaking.  I saw her at a book signing a few years ago at which she was heckled by a number of screaming liberals throughout.  Each time she'd let them speak before annihilating their talking points with a polite smile, in the same way she has been filmed doing time and time again.  A debate between Rice and Joe Biden would be a bloodbath.

Therefore, Condoleezza Rice has a wealth of experience that would both compensate for Romney's weaknesses and open up new avenues of attack against Obama, she is hugely popular with both Republicans and the public at large, and we know that she is going to be a fierce foe in any debate in which she participates.

There is no need to discuss her skin color or her gender to know that Condoleezza Rice would be an incredibly effective pick for VP.  Yes, it's a bold move, but should Romney stick his neck out on this one, Ms. Rice could prove to be a game changer who could deliver a landslide for the Republicans in November.

The European Left and the Fall of the Euro

My latest article in the American Thinker is up.  The essay focuses on the idea that Europe has somehow learnt from its mistakes and will now abandon the Euro and the European project as a whole.  It is the argument of the article that this thesis is false, and that the elites of the European governments have no intention of admitting their mistakes.  It is therefore necessary to understand that the bailouts will continue until the right can take control of individual national governments and slowly dismantle this failed project.

The article can be found in its entirety here.

Now Italy too?

Greece, Spain, Portugal and now Italy? Well, as bonds go beyond 7% it seems inevitable that they will need bailing out - if that is even possible, which many economists doubt.

What is so interesting about the downfall of the Italian economy is that it is one of the world's largest economies, and it has demonstrated just what a nasty machine the Euro is when it can take down a giant as big as Italy.

Certainly some responsibility lies at the feet of Berlusconi and his party - especially as it was under him that Italy went into the European project with a full throated cry - but it also shows just how false the promises of the New Europe were.

The idea was one enormous superstate with layers of government, "fair" taxes paying for more and more government projects, and a united currency encouraging everyone to, you know, just get along. How did that work out for you?

The result has been a continent submerged in debt, with too many free-lunchers and not enough people paying into the system. It is no coincidence that Italy is borrowing at 120% of GDP and is the third biggest borrower behind the US and Japan. It is entirely symptomatic of the continental mentality that has throttled the European economies.

What is truly frightening about this whole thing is that there is no reason why this can't happen to most EU countries, who have all been encouraged to borrow and spend beyond their means.

Two Prime Ministers have resigned this week. As the Eurozone falls deeper into turmoil, how many more will follow?

The Tories Are Lacking Principle

So, George Osborne has announced that there will be no new tax cuts before the next election. Hopefully Cameron will do another one of his Heath-like U-turns on this in the next year or so; if not, we won’t see the economy recover for the foreseeable future, and the Tories could get panned at the next election as a consequence.

No amount of massaging the figures can hide the obvious – our economy is stagnant. Granted, we aren’t in an economic crisis yet, but Britain is not moving forward in the way that we would like. This shouldn’t surprise anyone who adopts a conservative economic analysis. Britain’s specific economic problems are twofold – excessive spending and a dwindling private sector. It is a common myth that it is just “the deficit and debt” that are the problem. It is true that they are worrisome, but the enormous deficits are symptomatic of the real problem – excessive spending. Part of this spending problem is because our job-creating private sector is being scared abroad by oodles of red tape and high taxes, meaning we have to spend more money on unproductive public sector jobs and welfare.

Fixing the problem from a conservative (small c) perspective is simple – cut the spending (which we’ve already started to do, albeit slowly) and make Britain a more pro-business country, after hard-left socialists like Miliband, Cable, Balls and Brown have scared businesses away, or discouraged them from forming in the first place with their anti-business policies and taxes.

Therefore to most conservatives the answer is clear. Get us out of the EU – the number one source of stupid costs and red tape, cut useless spending projects, and limit government spending to the legitimate roles of government. Finally, cut taxes to a level that fosters the private sector and maximises revenue, not one designed to punish “the rich” and to try and redistribute wealth. This is the road to recovery and everyone with a conservative brain knows it.

Yet this is not a Tory party with a conservative brain; it is a party that is like an eighteen year old girl wanting to win X Factor. As a consequence it is more interested in what it looks like than doing the right thing; hence Cameron’s determination not to be seen as the party of those evil, horrible rich people.

If the Tories are the eighteen year old wannabe-singer, then the Lib Dems are the fat, loser friend that offers bad advice, convinced of their own self-importance because they happen to be friends with the popular girl. It is this useless, misguided friend that no-one likes anymore who is calling for property taxes, caps on bonuses, and the retention of the 50p tax rate on successful job-creators. The problem is that the Tories are listening.

Britain is a tired country, just like it was in the 1970’s, with unions too powerful, no private sector, high taxes propping up inefficient public sector industries, and too many people unable to find employment and stuck on welfare. Thatcher found a way out of this by following a pure conservative ideology, and by the end of the 80’s she had won three terms, and had turned Britain into a prosperous economic powerhouse.

The Tories can have the same success this time round, but only if they stop paying attention to their image and what people think of them in the short term, and stop listening to their annoying little friend that no-one else likes or cares about.

Osborne and Cameron have the opportunity to put Britain back on the road to prosperity – cut spending, reduce red tape, drop the EU, and cut taxes across the board to stimulate the private sector. Failure to do this will cost them the next election, and the blame with be on their shoulders. Unfortunately, from Osborne’s statements last week, it seems that they do not have the courage to do what they must.

Anders Breivik is No Conservative

If you’re a conservative, you can guarantee that if there’s a terrorist attack or an act of violence, there is going to be a pack of leftists letting you know that it is somehow your fault.  The rise in Irish terrorism was blamed on conservatives because apparently it was Margaret Thatcher that had upset them; when the planes hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, we had academic leftists like Noam Chomsky informing us that this was actually the fault of neoconservative US foreign policy; when London was bombed on 7/7, that was because Britain had bent the knee to conservatives in America on Iraq; when Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot earlier this year along with other innocent civilians, this was due to “hateful rhetoric” from right-wingers such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (despite the fact that the shooter identified himself with anti-capitalist left-wing views).

So when it was first reported that some nutter had set off bombs and had started shooting people in Norway, I knew that conservatives would be blamed for it somehow.  To prove my points, when the first reports came in that a radical Islamic group had taken responsibility, lefty journalists started pointing towards Norway’s involvement in Afghanistan – “Shouldn’t have gotten into bed with Bush” was the implication.  It was the fault of conservatives!

And of course when it turned out it was in fact a blonde haired, blue eyed (did you ever hear a news report inform you about the colour of someone’s eyes before?) Norwegian, it was still the fault of conservatives.  However, this time it was actually partly justified; as drips of information came in, we found out that Breivik actually claimed to be a conservative, was against forced multiculturalism, opposed the appeasing of radical Islam, wasn’t a fan of the European Union and opposed his nation’s open immigration policy.

Could this be the case, could we have found this “violent conservative” that the left have been warning us about?  Whenever a conservative group gets momentum, such as the Tea Party in America, we have hysterical leftists telling us about how it’s going to provoke violence etc, despite the fact that almost all political violence belongs to either Islamists, radical leftists or plain old nutjobs.  Was this the exception that proves the rule?

In short, no.  A closer look at Breivik doesn’t fit the model of “angry conservative” that many in the media are trying to fit Breivik into.  My first suspicion that something wasn’t right was when the media told us that this guy was right-wing “just like Timothy McVeigh.”  I winced at this, because the “Timothy McVeigh = Rush Limbaugh Republican” is one I hear a lot in America.  Yet although McVeigh was a registered Republican and was against the federal government, that was about as far as it went.  His primary motives for the Oklahoma bombings were the attack on the Waco compound (which garnered more objection from the left than from the right) and his opposition to the Gulf War, in which he accused the US of hypocrisy for having WMDs and not letting Iraq have them too – a staple left-wing view of the time!  I’m not arguing that he was left wing, just that McVeigh doesn’t fit the mould made for him.

Suspicions were raised further when we were told that Breivik’s manifesto had enormous chunks of it lifted from the manifesto of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.  Would this be the same Unabomber who, although opposing what he called “leftism”, was motivated primarily by his ardent anti-capitalism and called for a “worldwide revolution” against industrial-technological society, and described the Industrial Revolution and its consequences (i.e. global capitalism) as the biggest disaster ever witnessed by the human race?  The Unabomber’s manifesto was not a right-wing document by any stretch, so why is Breivik using it?

The real answer is that there is some truth to the media reports, but the correct conclusions are not being drawn as they are based on false premises.  There is a widespread view that both McVeigh and Kaczynski were right-wing terrorists and that by association Breivik is too.  Throw in his anti-EU, anti-multiculturalist sentiments and we have the classic right-wing terrorist, right?
Wrong.  The fundamental flaw with this logic is that it assumes McVeigh, Kaczynski and Breivik all had coherent political ideologies, and close examination proves this to be false.  Picking out a few beliefs that sounds right-wing is not a sufficient analysis.  Yes, Breivik was anti-EU (does this make anti-EU politician Tony Benn a right-winger then?) and yes he rants about the effects of cultural Marxism, but he is also anti-individualist, anti-globalisation, anti-free trade, he uses Kaczynski’s anti-capitalist rants as his own, his actions don’t suggest he is pro-life, and he spends much more time wittering on about reforming the “Knights of the Templar” than talking about anything else – perhaps it’s all Dan Brown’s fault?

Again, I am not trying to paint Breivik as a left-winger, nor do I deny that there are elements of conservative thought quoted in his manifesto, but ultimately Breivik is not a socialist loon, nor a conservative loon, he is just a loon.  His final tweet was a quote from John Stuart Mill, but I have not seen anyone try to say that he Breivik is a libertarian.  Whatever political “viewpoints” he espoused were the expression of his deranged anger, not the cause of it, and desperate attempts to crowbar him into a coherent political ideology are opportunistic and pointless.

Ed Miliband Reveals His Inner Marxist

It’s always nice to be proven right when making a political prediction, and thanks to Ed Miliband, it’s happened to me once again.  For in last week’s article, I predicted that the Murdoch hysteria would be so great that it would open the door for meddling politicians to initiate entirely unnecessary legislation and unconnected governmental interference.

Hey presto, a week later and we are being told by Ed Miliband, along with a whole host of other left-wing politicians, journalists and bloggers that the Murdoch empire needs breaking up.  Miliband has called for drastic new laws governing media ownership, and slammed Mr Murdoch for having “too much power over British public life.”  Ouch!

First of all, this condemnation may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with phone hacking.  As we have been told repeatedly over the past few weeks, phone hacking can be performed quite easily by those with the knowhow and the will to do so; it matters not what sort of market share that person commands.  Additionally, any corruption by the Met Police is an issue to do with the integrity of the police force, and has little to do with the size of News Inc and/or News Corp.

So as predicted Miliband et al have been using this scandal to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with the phone hacking saga.  It is also interesting to note that neither Miliband nor Harman (who also condemned Murdoch’s structure as “too powerful and too rich) nor Kinnock (who has this week called for a press entirely regulated by the state) didn’t see a problem with all this when The Sun was supporting Labour from 1997 to 2010.

Yet what all this really shows is Labour’s condescending belief in the Marxist concept of “false consciousness” – the idea that the working masses can be duped by big powerful capitalists and will therefore actively fight against what the Marxists say are their real interests.  This get-out clause has been trotted out time and time again when middle class Marxists discover that the proletariat they claim to be fighting for actually don’t want any of their hard left nonsense.

It is this understanding that underpins Miliband’s attack on the power of Murdoch.  For when he calls Murdoch “too powerful” what he actually means is “too successful.”  For all Murdoch has done to become powerful is to provide news sources that people want to read or watch.  For in the free market the only people who are powerful are those who are successful in continuing to meet the needs and wants of the consumers, who have their own free choice whether or not to buy the product in question.

So when I (along with millions of Brits every day) walk into my newsagent and peruse the morning’s papers, I have a choice.  I can certainly choose to read a Murdoch paper like The Sun or The Times, or I can go for The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Star, The Independent, The Observer, The Guardian or The Financial Times, along with a range of other papers that are perhaps not in wide circulation in the UK such as The Morning Star and The Wall Street Journal.  If I don’t like those choices I can shun newspapers altogether, and get my daily fix from online sites, blogs and Twitter.

Unlike the BBC – which forces taxpayers to fund it whether or not they approve of the service it provides or the views that it presents – the Murdoch Empire cannot force a single penny out of your pocket.  I for one have not purchased a Murdoch paper for years – that is the choice I have made.  Similarly, the people who do buy those papers make their own free choice every day whether or not to buy them, and read the views held inside.

Murdoch is therefore not powerful in the same way the BBC or the government are; he cannot force any money out of your pocket without you first giving it to him via the purchase of one of his products.  The only power he holds is due to the fragile and free relationship between business and each individual consumer that chooses to buy their products.  If people don’t like what is being produced, or are disgusted with the way in which they have gone about their business, they can stop buying the product immediately.  There is nothing forced about this relationship; that is, unless you subscribe to the Marxist view that the masses are nothing by mindless “sheeple” who can be brainwashed at the drop of a hat.

If the law has been broken, then the law should investigate and prosecute those involved.  Yet this should not be used by the left as an excuse to promote some pseudo-Marxist critique of the free market.  Murdoch’s power is nothing more than the fruits of success in providing the people with what they want, and in a modern Britain there should be no politicians slamming anyone for being successful in doing that.

Dunblane Syndrome Strikes Again

So, The News of the World is gone. Yet if you think the high-pitched outrage that has been yelled at you over the last week is over, think again. Not only can we be sure of a constant drip of stories over the coming months, there is also too much political capital at stake for this to just be about getting The News of the World shut down.

For by breaching every code (written and unwritten) of decency, The News of the World have created the kind of public outrage that can be very dangerous if political opportunists are allowed to get their hands upon it – and this is exactly what is happening now. It is reminiscent of a phenomenon that can correctly be termed “Dunblane Syndrome.”

The Dunblane massacre in 1996 triggered spontaneous outrage and grief from the British public. The public mood in the months after the tragedy was emotionally sensitive to say the least, drifting between grief, anger and the desire that “something must be done” to prevent another massacre of innocent schoolchildren.

It was this emotionally taut mood that Tony Blair (at that point Leader of the Opposition) used to push forward his drastic anti-gun legislation. In his 1996 speech to the Labour Party conference, he famously responded to Tory criticisms that he was guilty of emotional blackmail with this sickeningly cheap shot,

“Well, if they had been in that gym, if they had talked to those parents, sitting on the tiny chairs where once their children sat, they would have been emotional too.”

The implication was clear; if you opposed Blair’s gun legislation (which would have done little to prevent Dunblane) then you didn’t care about dead children, or were too ignorant to understand – after all, you hadn’t seen the tiny chairs! The fact that Blair’s visit to Dunblane was a bipartisan visit with the Tories, and therefore they had talked to the parents and seen the tiny chairs, wasn’t allowed to get in the way of Blair’s “passionate” speech.

Say what you like about Blair, the fact is he knew how to get things done, and this was no different. The Tories didn’t want to be seen as people who didn’t care about dead children, and so shut up, and in 1997 the legislation was passed. Fourteen years later and the fact that gun crime has almost doubled, and that we have the highest burglary rates in Europe is still irrelevant – anyone who tries to revoke or change any of those laws will be tarred with not caring about Dunblane. Poor legislation described by the Home Affairs Select Committee at that time as “panic legislation” and that would never have been passed under normal circumstances was allowed through as wily, agenda-driven politicians tapped into an emotionally sensitive atmosphere.

Fast forward fourteen years and we have The News of the World scandal; a scandal that appears to be constantly evolving. It seems that the outcry from this will not be a short thing, but will be long lasting as more and more sordid details are drip fed to the public over the next few months. This opens the door for left-wing politicians and journalists with a grudge against Murdoch (“How dare he be successful and mildly right-wing!”) to steer this outrage to implement far reaching restrictions on press freedom that have nothing to do with the News of the World scandal.

The activities The News of the World engaged in are illegal, and therefore they should be investigated and prosecuted by the police. If there are questions of police corruption (as there were in the 2006 investigation) then it is that is a separate matter and should be looked at. As David Cameron correctly stated (over the hoots and jeers of the hyenas that pass for Labour MPs), now is the time for the rule of law to work and to take its course.

But that isn’t enough for the politicians and journalists looking to use this for their own political purposes. We are hearing the constant refrain that “there must be regulation.” Ignoring the fact that there are already press regulations, one should always be cautious when one hears cries for “regulation.” For “regulation” in and of itself is neither a good nor a bad thing; it is a question of what kind of regulations we are looking at, what specific regulations will be implemented, and what problems will it seek to solve that are the important questions.

Yet in this whipped up emotional frenzy, we will not see any of those questions asked nor answered. Instead, those with a long standing grudge against a successful media empire will call for the law to be bypassed with whatever haphazard, half-arsed, over the top legislation some slapdash committee of MP’s with no clue about journalism have come up with. Then, it will be forced through Parliament, with anyone who objects to it being put down as “not caring” about Milly Dowler, the Soham girls, Gordon Brown’s son and the 7/7 victims.

The big victim of all this will be press freedom – the most fragile of all freedoms, and the first to fall on the long road to tyranny. Dunblane Syndrome strikes again.

The Importance of Economic Freedom

This is a great little video about just how important economic freedom is.  In both the UK and the USA, even the limited economic freedom we enjoy today is under attack, and many people don't understand just how important it is, or believe that economic freedom only benefits millionaires and billionaires while hurting the poor.  This video helps to dispel this myth, and show the precise opposite to be true.  Enjoy!

Have Labour Destroyed Britain's Democracy?

We often see democracy as a sturdy political machine; leaders and parties come and go, but the system of democracy remains.  This is not reality however, merely wishful thinking.  The history of man is one of tyranny after tyranny, with democratic freedom being unusual in both history, and even in our world today where most people live not in a free society, but under the iron fist of tyranny.

The quote often attributed to James Alexander Tytler states, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
Who actually said these words and where does not change their truthfulness, and the last Labour government has given our democracy an uncertain future.  For Labour exploited one of the “flaws” with democracy; namely that you can get elected time and time again on the back of promises to spend other people’s money, whilst leaving the economics and the bill to future politicians to deal with.

The consequences of this were on display last week, with public sector workers striking about renegotiations of what are laughably unsustainable pensions.  It gets worse when one realises that not only did Labour make these outlandish pension promises, but they made no effort to provide any sort of money to pay for it.  The tiny contributions that workers are paying into the system are only being used to dole out money for current pensions, and even that is making a loss.  There is absolutely nothing in place to pay for the public sector pensions in the future, where there will be more pensioners living for longer, and with bigger pensions.  There is no money – Britain is in denial.

Yet none of this mattered to Labour – they promised big money and contracts to the unions, and the unions responded by giving money back to the Labour Party and making it clear which way their members should vote.  Labour bought votes with taxpayer money and have left future generations to worry about how to pay up on those promises – it’s that simple. We have seen this time and time again.  The Private Finance Initiative was nothing more than a way to get schools, hospitals and other buildings built so the Labour could take the credit and the votes, while booting the bill down the road for future politicians (preferably the Tories) to worry about.

Additionally, the culture of welfarism exploded under Labour, with them even allowing the shipping in of more people from abroad to live off the back of our glorious welfare system.  This has encouraged vast segments of our population to believe that they have a right to live off the back of the state without ever working; and who will therefore vote for any party who allows this to continue.  Even those who are not relatively poor have fallen into this trap.  Recent proposals to cut housing benefit so that taxpayers are no longer paying for other people to live in expensive houses that they themselves cannot afford have been met with outright hysteria.  Polly Toynbee declared the plans to limit housing benefits to £400 a week as the Tories’ “final solution” for the poor.

Although it is laughable that £400 a week in housing benefit is remotely close to austere, Toynbee has a point in the sense that even a reduction of benefit to remotely sensible levels will cause major disruption for some families.  They have been taught that they are entitled to extravagant amounts of benefits, and have adapted their plans as a consequence.  All sorts of people, (working or not) rely on massive handouts from the state, having been promised them by Labour with the assurance that “someone else” will pay for them.  French economist Frederic Bastiat’s description of government as “that fiction whereby everybody believes that he can live at the expense of everyone else” seems apt in this situation.

Labour has therefore inculcated the myth that it is legitimate for more and more people to vote themselves more money from the public purse, and the way to do this is to vote for Labour.  Should anyone (such as the Tories) try and cut this gravy train even slightly, then they face the wrath of those people riding on that gravy train, who now make up such a large percentage of the population that it scares off any politician from making any significant cuts in fear of losing their job.

It is for this reason that the minor cuts the Coalition has made (that will not even start reducing the deficit for another three years – who knows when we will ever start working on our £1 trillion debt) have been met with such hostility.  The responsible option is the tough one, and Labour have been choosing the irresponsible easy option for years – promise to spend more on anyone who promises to vote for you, and boot the bill forward a few decades for someone else to worry about.

If Labour keep doing this, failing to acknowledge both their blame in this crisis, and not accepting that it is morally reprehensible to make unsustainable promises for future generations to deal with, then it will make it very difficult for democracy to survive.  For the road to economic meltdown is clear, and if our nation lacks the political will to get off that road due to the mass entitlement mentality created by Labour, then destruction and tyranny can only follow.

A Conservative's Guide to the Republican Primaries: Part 2

Newt Gingrich

The former Speaker of the House can be described as the veteran of the group.  Gingrich headed the Republican midterm campaign of 1994, which resulted in an unprecedented landslide for the GOP that forced President Clinton into the political centre.  Although this unwittingly allowed Clinton to win re-election in 1996, and then allowed him to take credit for the success of Republican measures, it means that Gingrich is a man who knows how to get things done politically.  He is also very eloquent when speaking — preferring cold hard logic to buzzwords — and is armed with a library of statistics at his fingertips.  However Gingrich has also been the source of infighting within the party, recently criticising Paul Ryan’s budget in a way that many felt was unnecessarily harsh.  Also, his softness on certain issues leads many of the more ideological conservatives to turn their nose up at him.  A potentially very strong candidate, with a medium chance of winning the nomination.

Sarah Palin

If you ask any man or woman in the street for the name of one Republican who may run for President, I would gamble that a comfortable majority would say “Sarah Palin.”  Since 2008 she has become (for better or for worse) an international sensation, both loved and hated in America and beyond.  Both inside and outside the Republican Party, Palin has surprisingly strong support, yet for a presidential run, those numbers quickly turn sour.  Palin is becoming the female version of radio host Rush Limbaugh; conservatives love her, but understand that a presidential run would be disastrous.  Apart from her folksy attitude that many see as unpresidential, most Republicans want the next election to be just like 2010, i.e. a referendum of the policies of Barack Obama.  Yet a Palin run would make 2012 about Sarah Palin, not about Barack Obama, leading many people to vote for Obama simply because he isn’t Sarah Palin.  It is for this reason above all that make Sarah Palin unlikely to win the nomination, if she chooses to run for it at all.  The conservative mood seems to be that Palin has a great number of skills, but becoming president isn’t one of them.

Jon Huntsman

Every set of candidates always has a “centrist” amongst them; one who eschews “ideological” politics, choosing instead that lovely buzzword of “pragmatism.”  Jon Huntsman is that candidate this year, having served as the Ambassador to China under Obama, and the one posing as the moderate.  This moderate stance is based mainly on attitude rather than policies (fiscally Huntsman is very conservative, although liberal on climate change, immigration and gay marriage), recently stating that he wanted his to be a civil campaign based on only differences of opinion rather than nasty attacks and loud rhetoric.  Such a statement has put him out of the race for many conservatives, who see this as naive in the extreme.  What is worse for Huntsman is that he is being labelled as this election’s John McCain – who also posed as a moderate obsessed with civility.  Most Republicans would be unlikely to pick yet another candidate who could only mumble in disagreement while being more concerned with not offending Obama than winning the election.  Republicans seem determined not make the McCain mistake again, and are therefore unlikely to go for Jon Huntsman.

Rick Perry

Rick Perry has been Governor of Texas since 2000, and has long been rumoured to be running for President in 2012; but as of yet he has not declared.  He is worth mentioning not only because he is likely to run, but because the conservative base is so excited about him.  A run from Perry, even late on, could be a real game changer. He is seen as a strong conservative who would still have excellent national appeal, and he has a long career of success as a tax cutter who balanced budgets.  In the Bachmann/Cain style of candidates, he has the ability to speak powerfully and inspire audiences with his fierce conservative rhetoric, and would be competing to be the candidate of the right if he were to run.  Yet his likeability and record of success means that a Perry candidacy could appeal to the mainstream as well, and it is here wherein lies his power.  Perry is seen by his supporters as proving that one does not have to be a wishy-washy moderate in order to appeal to mainstream Americans.  Whether they are correct is yet to be seen.

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum is in the Pawlenty school of candidates in that he is running and yet it is difficult to get too enthusiastic about him.  Although known for his confrontational style of politics, he has failed to show that style in recent debates, and has failed to make a significant impression on the race so far.  The former Senator for Pennsylvania has solid conservative credentials, but often fails to offer anything particularly unique.  He is a fiscal and social conservative who was also a Senator for a while; but that’s about it.  Additionally, many conservatives are bothered by certain statements he has made in the past; for instance, while speaking on the Boston Catholic Church sex abuse crisis, he placed some of the blame on the shoulders of Boston cultural liberalism, declaring “it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”  Although such statements are rare, they could provide the final nail in the coffin of a candidate who already doesn’t offer a great deal.

The Conservative's Guide to the Republican Primaries: Part 1

Although the Republican nomination for the next Presidential election will not be chosen until early 2012, those who intend to run for the position are beginning to make themselves known, with two notable debates taking place over the last month. Over the next two article, I’m going to give a brief rundown of some of the main candidates.

Mitt Romney

If you were a betting man or woman, the wise money would be on Romney. The former businessman and governor of Massachusetts was a strong candidate for the 2008 nomination, but just missed out to John McCain, and therefore has been named “the establishment choice.” Strong in debates, good with the media, generally solid on conservative issues and with a somewhat presidential look about him, he has the potential to be a strong candidate for 2012. He has three big problems facing him; the first is the Massachusetts’ healthcare law he passed, dubbed “Romneycare”. With one of Obama’s weaknesses being his unpopular healthcare reforms, Romney will find it difficult to take advantage of that particular weakness due to the similarities between the two laws. His second problem is linked to the first – many conservatives are sceptical about whether he is a “true” conservative; with commentators pointing both to Romneycare, and to his flip-flopping on the subject of abortion. Finally, his Mormon faith – although more common in the USA than the UK – is still perceived by many Americans as weird, and will also make the evangelical segment of the conservative grassroots uncomfortable. Romney is still the bookies favourite, but he is by no means perfect, nor is he a shoe-in.

Michelle Bachmann

Unfairly, Congresswoman Bachmann was, until a few months ago, seen by many as a poor man’s Sarah Palin. A darling of the Tea Party, the ex tax attorney and mother of 5 (as well as foster carer of 23) was known for her strong conservatism, combatative stances on issues, and fiercely polemic rhetoric against the Democrats and the current President, and was seen as much more of a fringe candidate – possibly second in line to Palin. Yet her performances in the Republican presidential debates have been outstanding, and she was considered by many (including this writer) to have easily won the most recent debate. A lot more straight-laced and less folksy than Palin, and with a fiercer, clearer speaking style as well as a successful record of leading and getting things done in Congress, Bachmann has the potential to be a powerful candidate. She is still an outsider, but as is a rising star within the GOP who is even beginning to eclipse the once mighty Sarah Palin, it is by no means impossible that she could gain the nomination.

Tim Pawlenty

In any set of candidates, there is always one about whom there is little to say. Tim Pawlenty fits that role perfectly. The governor of Minnesota is running on a strongly conservative campaign, but it is sometimes difficult to tell due to his flat language and often poor delivery. His emphasis has been on social issues, specifically on opposing gay marriage and on limiting abortion for all but the most extreme cases. This could easily be a misstep, as the conservative mood at the moment tends to be less concerned with social issues and more concerned with the economy. Also, however socially conservative he may be, Bachmann will always match him, and do it convincingly. Some conservatives have also questioned his conservative credentials, pointing to some large tax-hikes as governor, a state-wide smoking ban and mandatory ethanol mixtures with gasoline. Ultimately, Pawlenty is supported by those who believe that all that is needed to win 2012 is to elect a standard candidate who won’t rock the boat and who will point to Obama’s failings. Those of us who believe that it will need more than that to beat Obama will want someone other than this uninspiring governor.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul is the true radical of the Republican Party; he is best described as an out and out libertarian as opposed to a conservative. Famously given the motto by The Onion – “Fiscally I’m a right-wing nutjob, but on social issues I’m f**king insanely liberal”, this sums up Paul’s strengths and weaknesses at the same time. He has shown himself to have a broad base of support that reaches out well beyond traditional areas of Republican support. His fierce dedication to the free market and his small government, low tax economics makes him attractive to conservatives, while his isolationist foreign policy stance and social liberalism on issues such as gay marriage and drugs (but not abortion – he is pro-life) opens his appeal up to many on the left as well. Yet, while he has been winning straw poll after straw poll, leading many to believe he can win the nomination, his broad base is also his potential weakness. A Ron Paul presidential run risks falling between two stools by failing to appeal to conservatives due to his socially liberal policies and pacifist foreign policy, while failing to appeal to the left due to his economic policies. Simply put, a Ron Paul run would be an enormous gamble, and could result in a landslide for the Republicans, or an easy second term for Obama – there is no middle ground with Ron Paul.

Herman Cain

The Baptist minister and former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza is easily the character of the bunch so far. Sounding strangely like Samuel L Jackson (one is waiting for him to yell “They speak English in What?” at any moment), Cain has won many people over with his straight-talking yet jocular debating style. The unique appeal of the only black candidate currently running lies in his success in the private sector: he boasts that he is not a know-it-all politician, but instead a business man who knows how to get the right people in to get things done. In a straw poll as to who won the first Republican presidential debate, Cain won easily and has support from both the Republican mainstream and from the Tea Party. His strength is certainly his private sector experience, as well as his excellent debating style which leads many conservatives to believe he could destroy Obama in the debates. His biggest weakness is that his jocular style means people don’t take him seriously as a candidate. Additionally, his unusual claim that he would be uncomfortable appointing Muslims in his Cabinet as they may support Sharia Law is one that has drawn criticism from all sides of the political spectrum, and leaves many wondering whether Cain is a lunatic disguised as a legitimate candidate. Cain is still an outsider, but not be dismissed outright.

Britain Needs It's Own Sarah Palin

If you ever wish to hear the dulcet tones of a snort of derision, the best way to do so is to wander into a middle class left-wing dinner party, or a trendy university halls of residence (preferably one where there are pictures of Che Guevara on the wall, and all the boys look like girls, while the girls look like boys) and say two words – “Sarah Palin.”

The resultant snorts of haughty condescension will be loud enough to shatter windows and will result in severe sinus trauma for many of the occupants. For what “we all know” about Sarah Palin is very clear, especially to the left. Sarah Palin is a moron, a stupid imbecile who represents everything that is wrong with America; she is a hard-right nut job who makes gaffe after gaffe, and the only people who support her are gun toting red necks who hate gays and evolution. It is widely accepted that she cost the Republicans the 2008 election, and if she receives the nomination for 2012, she will certainly hand the election to Obama instead. Right?

Wrong! In fact, everything in the above paragraph is wrong. I could go through everything that is wrong with the paragraph, but it would take more space than this article allows. I could point out that most “gaffes” that Palin is known for are usually either not gaffes (but instead opinions with which the Guardian and the New York Times disagrees) or were not said by her at all – such as the famous “I can see Russia from my house” gaffe, which was actually spoken by Tina Fey. I could say that she is only hard-right if you class someone who believes in free market economics as “hard-right” or point to her consistently high poll numbers as governor of Alaska (where her approval rates reached the 90%+ mark), and the wide success of both her TV show and two books.

Yet instead of going through these arguments, I instead want to point to her biggest strength – the venom with which the left hate her. For as a Palin fan myself (although I think there are better candidates for 2012) it is obvious that I am going to claim that she isn’t a stupid, illiterate moron who has hit a good patch. But the left also unwittingly agree with this assessment by their hatred and obsession for her.

For when I hear Sarah Palin mentioned by various left-wing friends, they spit out her name with the same revulsion and disgust that most people say “aggressive yeast infection.” Furthermore, it seems that it is the left-wing media that want to report on her the most. Streams of journalists and camera crews have been following Palin’s tour bus, while at the same time tutting at how she is getting above her station. However, what is really interesting is the way in which the media has reacted to the release of her emails, with the New York Times and the Guardian both asking their readers to help them scour through the emails for dirt or possibility of scandal.

Why anyone would want to spend their free weekend going through a political opponent’s dull emails unpaid is beyond me. The fact that there have been thousands of unpaid lefties spending a June weekend going through these emails, as well as an organised campaign by the Guardian, the NYT and other media outlets, shows an unhealthy obsession for the ex-Alaskan governor.

It seems a strange hatred to have if we are expected to believe that Palin is a no-hoper. I think of left-wing no-hopers here in England such as Ed Miliband and Diane Abbott, and I have no hatred for either; in fact I enjoy their presence on the television as I know that the longer they speak, the more harm it does to their cause. I don’t react to the very mention of their names by foaming at the mouth, nor would I spend a sunny weekend scouring through Diane Abbott’s thousands of emails telling her friends just how racist everyone is.

The obvious explanation for this hatred is simply that Palin is not as stupid or as useless as the left try to make us believe – and they know it. They know that despite her folksy Alaskan accent and occasionally peculiar ways of expressing herself, that Palin has an incredible appeal. A strong independent woman (without needing to be reliant of left-wing radical feminism) who stands for common sense conservatism and core American values as found in the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, Palin is admired by many Americans and has the skills to be able to change the media narrative and set the debate with a mere tweet or Facebook update.

Whether she becomes President or not, Palin is going to have a powerful influence on both American conservatism, and American politics as a whole in the upcoming future. British conservatives should not buy into the left-wing smears of Palin and should learn from her. Conservatism is at its best when it isn’t hidden away in buzzwords or sound bites; but when it is expressed clearly and simply as an expression of liberty, common sense and personal responsibility. Britain needs its own Sarah Palin; and when the left begins foaming at the mouth at the mention of their name and spending days going through their emails, we will know that we have found them!

The Public Sector Unions Just Don't Get It

Although I always enjoy watching Vince Cable get booed, I was curious to see the GMB Union giving him such a hostile reception, and even resorting to booing and heckling him, during his speech at their annual conference this week.

That a non-Labour Cabinet Minister gets booed at a public sector union conference should not be a surprise in and of itself.  Past experience tells us that union cronies rarely have any manners whatsoever, and love to enjoy acting like thugs in ties whenever the opportunity arises.  Additionally, given that unions almost exclusively fund Labour, it is not surprising that anyone who does not belong to Labour is seen as the enemy.

Yet Vince Cable is probably as left-wing as they come, and is probably more left-wing, anti-business and pro-union than many Labour MP’s.  One may therefore be forgiven for thinking that he would receive a positive reception in a union that, like many other public sector unions, appear to have stopped fighting for workers and are instead acting as arms of the Socialist Worker Party.

Cable’s speech was a clever and shrewd warning from a socialist to a fellow socialist organisation.  He noted that while the right to strike was an important right, there was a strong movement in the government to update and tighten up strike law.  He went on to state that as long as strikes remained limited and low (as they have been for the last year) then “the case for changing strike law is not compelling.”  Yet Cable was clear that if there was an attempt at widespread, organised mass industrial action designed to provide another “winter of discontent”, then the case to update strike law would be stronger, and that there would be little that he could do about it.

The message Cable was sending was clear and correct; the Conservatives wish to update strike law to make sure that the public sector unions can’t throttle the nation like they did in the 1970’s and tried to in the 1980’s.  Yet while strike rates are low, such a move is politically impossible.  Only if the unions try to bring the country to its knees and damage the national economy would the Tories have the support needed to clamp down on union action.

Cable finished this part of his speech (after pausing while he was booed and abused) by saying “that is something that you and I will both collectively want to avoid.”  In other words, “I’m on your side, but if you engage in mass industrial action, I can’t keep the Tories at bay.”

Yet he was booed and jeered anyway.  What the GMB members do not appear to understand is that Vince Cable is being a friend not a foe.  He is warning them that there are plenty of Tories (this writer included) who want to see the hand of the public sector unions loosened from around the throat of the British taxpayer, and are looking for the opportunity to do so.  Cable is not stating opinions or views, but is simply observing reality; if strikes are limited, the Lib Dems can keep the Tories at bay, but if there is a 1980’s insurrection, the hands of the Lib Dems are tied, and we Tories get to crush the unions like we did under Thatcher.

This is not what the unions, nor Vince Cable wants to happen; and this is what Cable’s speech to the GMB was trying to prevent.  Yet if public sector unions like the GMB are unable to distinguish friend from foe, then their narrow minded pseudo-communist mindset will surely lead them to destruction, just like it led the NUM to destruction in the 1980’s.