Monthly Archives: March 2010

Tormented to death

The Today programme this morning carried a report on an incident in Greater Manchester in which David Askew, a 64 year-old man with learning difficulties, had been found dead outside his house.

According to a neighbour, Mr Askew had been subjected to many years of torment by local youths, who had picked on him because of his disabilities.  The only way he could obtain temporary relief from their otherwise ceaseless bullying was by handing them cigarettes or money through the window of his home.

I can’t think of any recent news item that has made me angrier.  The police, according to Mr Askew’s family, had done their best to protect him, but the problem persisted.

The trite, but nevertheless pertinent, question that has to be asked is: what the hell were the parents of these youths doing?  Why did they apparently abdicate responsibility for their children’s appalling behaviour while this poor man was tormented to death?

No doubt there will be a trial and then, in due course, a report.  We will all be earnestly told that “lessons must be learned”.

But the principal lesson is one of which we are all well aware: in many parts of Britain, the social fabric is so weak that it may be said to have broken down completely.  It has taken generations to come to this and it may well take generations to repair.  But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make a start.

The Gordon and Mandy Show

Techie Labour MP Derek Wyatt (the only Member with his own iPhone app) has suggested that the Prime Minister should deliver a regular address to the nation over the internet, a proposal apparently inspired by President Obama’s weekly radio talk.

A few months ago, it was mooted that Lord Mandelson was to be appointed Minister for Information, in which guise he would deliver a weekly televised briefing from No 10.  To my great personal disappointment, nothing came of it.

Perhaps the way forward would be for the First Secretary and the Prime Minister to combine their undeniable communication talents and deliver a joint weekly televised homily over the World Wide Web, perhaps with the occasional guest and light musical interludes.  I have no doubt that it would be the most tremendous popular success.

Infallible Gordon

Hard on the heels of my post of yesterday (showing that, contrary to Gordon Brown’s assertion that defence spending is rising year on year, it has in fact drastically declined as a share of GDP), come the findings of an inquiry by Channel 4’s FactCheck.  These reveal that in real terms – taking inflation into account – defence spending has fallen year-on-year four times since 1997.

Shadow Leader of the House, Sir George Young, raised the issue in the House at Business Questions today:

Sir George Young: May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on his assertion at Question Time yesterday? He said that under this Government

“the defence budget has been rising every year.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 291.]

That is a claim the Prime Minister made repeatedly at the Chilcot inquiry last Friday, but as he should know, spending on the Ministry of Defence was in fact cut in real terms between 2003–04 and 2004–05. The Leader of the House will know that the ministerial code requires Ministers to correct

“any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”

Given that the Prime Minister is at risk of inadvertently misleading Parliament, when will he put the record straight?

The Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, would have none of it:

Ms Harman: The Prime Minister gave evidence to the Chilcot inquiry last Friday, he answered questions about defence spending in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, and there will be a defence debate on Monday. I strongly refute any suggestion or implication from the shadow Leader of the House that the Prime Minister has in any way misled the House or, indeed, anyone else. He has been absolutely forthright about the defence budget and about this Government’s long-standing and strong commitment to ensuring that our defence forces have the resources they need. They have the full backing of the Government and, indeed, the British people.

So no prospect of an admission of fallibility from Gordon.  Indeed, he was  in denial again today.  When it was put to him that senior commanders – Lord Guthrie included – were adamant in their contention that he had rejected requests of additional funding, he replied simply: “They are wrong.”

Insulting our armed forces

For the first time, there was a flash of real anger from David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions today.

Cameron was questioning Gordon Brown about his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war:

Mr. Cameron:   Following his evidence, one former Chief of the Defence Staff said that he was being “disingenuous” and another said that he was “dissembling”. Both those people worked with the Prime Minister—

From the Government benches, most particularly the area below the gangway occupied by the most hairy-knuckled members of the Labour awkward squad, came the cry: “Because they’re Tories!”

Cameron was incensed:

Mr. Cameron:  Oh, it is because they are Tories, is it? That is what this tribalist, divisive Government think about people who serve our country.  I think, first of all, the Prime Minister should get up and dissociate himself completely from what those people behind him have said.

But Brown didn’t dissociate himself from his backbenchers; how could he?  In a few short weeks, after all, he will have to rely on the support of each and every one of them if he is to remain as leader of his party.  He did, however, say that he had “never at any time criticised the patriotism of anybody who has been involved in the defence establishment of this country”, which wasn’t really the same thing.

Cameron then proceeded to criticise the Government for attempting “to fight two wars on a peacetime budget”.

Brown, in answer, contended that:

the defence budget has been rising every year. He might have had a complaint if we were cutting the defence budget every year, but it is rising every year.

This is a claim that the Prime Minister has made on several occasions, but it does not bear close scrutiny.  As a proportion of GDP, government spending on defence has fallen by almost half over the last two decades.  Last, week, Ian Godden, chairman of ADS, the UK’s defence trade organisation, commented:

“Any criticism of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) must be seen in the light of the defence budget having fallen from 4.4 per cent of GDP 20 years ago to 2.3 per cent today while many other departmental budgets have continued to grow. The MoD has been given an insufficient budget by the Treasury with which to support our armed forces during a period of increased operational commitments.”

It is difficult to think of any greater insult that Gordon Brown could offer our armed forces than to contend that defence spending has increased when, as a proportion of our national income, it has in fact significantly declined.

Apart, of course, from allowing the integrity of their commanders to be gratuitously traduced by his own backbenchers.

Big Brother Watch

Those of my readers who are concerned about the ever-advancing power of the state and its agencies (and there are, I can assure you, quite a few) could do worse than bookmark the Big Brother Watch website.

Big Brother Watch’s mission statement is as follows:

Big Brother Watch fights injustice and campaigns to protect our civil liberties and personal freedoms.

The British state has accumulated unprecedented power and the instinct of politicians and bureaucrats is to expand their power base even further into areas unknown in peace time.

Big Brother Watch campaigns to re-establish the balance of power between the state and individuals and families.

We look for the sly, slow seizure of control by the state – of power, of information and of our lives.

We advocate the return of our liberties and freedoms and look to ordinary people to join our cause. 

Regular readers will know that  this blog has long railed against the apparently unbridled proliferation of CCTV cameras, the heavy-handed actions of officious jobsworths, the insidious expansion of the national DNA database and, of course, the unstoppable rise of the healthansafety  industry.

I am therefore delighted at the formation of an organisation dedicated to exposing and countering these sinister and essentially New Labour trends in our society and am equally delighted to add a link to its website.

Tweet to tweet

Did an interview with the BBC’s David Cornock today for this week’s Dragon’s Eye on the likely impact of blogging and tweeting on the general election.

I told David that I thought that it wasn’t likely to be as great as some bloggers thought.  It seems to me that, for the most part, the electorate doesn’t tweet or read blogs and still takes its news from the established media.  

However, journalists do follow Twitter avidly (a large part of my followers appear to be journos), so the new media may well influence the speed at which election issues break and develop. 

Furthermore, there may be many more gaffes of the sort committed by the Telford MP, Labour’s David Wright, who in an incautious moment put out a somewhat less than tasteful tweet that met with general opprobrium, as a consequence of which he appears not to have ventured onto Twitter since 15 February.

The essentially incestuous nature of the new media was ironically underlined by the fact that the interview consisted of one blogger/tweeter interviewing another.

I wonder if anyone else is interested?

No chivalry in London

Was interviewed yesterday by the BBC’s Bethan James, in advance of the Welsh party conference.

Bethan, who is five months pregnant, arrived wearing a London Underground “Baby on Board” badge.  I asked her if it worked.

“No, it doesn’t,” she said.  “People look at, read it, and then return to their papers.”

She then told me of an incident a few weeks ago, when a very heavily pregnant lady got on the very full Tube compartment in which Bethan was sitting.

“She was obviously distressed,” said Bethan.  “Nobody moved, so I got up and gave her my seat.  I then said in a very loud voice, ‘It has come to something when one pregnant woman has to give up her seat for another.’  But no one batted an eyelid.”

Just what has gone wrong with Londoners? 

If Boris wants to do a favour to pregnant women across the capital, he could do worse than order a Stand When You See A Baby On Board Badge poster campaign.