Great Minds, etc...

If the Conservative Party were on solid ground I would wager that two of the big thinkers at the forefront of the Party would be Lord Tebbit and Daniel Hannan. They are not, and neither is the Conservtaive Party.  It was somewhat endearing to have had a quick look over on the Telegraphs today and see these two basically agreeing with me on some points I have recently tried to make, but they of course being much smarter and better writers put things across much better that I ever could.

Lord Tebbit first. He is saying today that basically people as individuals will generally not understand every facet of every issue in the run up to a General Election, but invariably the British public, irrespective of party political associations have usually returned the right decision in elections, including on four occasions since World War 2 a Parliament that is reliant on coalitions. In fact here is what Lord Tebbit says:

The thought of that brought back to my mind some of the studies by animal behavioural scientists of bees and ants. The brain power of a bee is pretty small and that of an ant even less, yet the hive or the nest seems to be capable of taking far more complex decisions than any of its members. The behaviourists call it “swarm intelligence” and I often wonder if electorates enjoy the same ability.

Not very many individual electors understand quantitative easing, the risks and benefits of early cuts in public expenditure or increases in taxation, or the merits of Blair’s wars. Some may say the same of Members of Parliament, of course – but, whatever the arguments, we ask the electorate to take a decision comprised of judgments on a mass of matters outside their individual competence, and time and time again that electorate delivers a reasonably sensible judgement. Looking back over the last 65 years and 17 general elections, it would be hard to say that any of those results were irrational however much one might have wished that they had gone the other way. On four occasions, 1950, 1964, February ‘74, and October ‘74, the elections led to an indecisive outcome, and it could be well argued that so too would the election of 1951, but for the quirkiness of our system.

Looking at those indecisive results, it seems to me that the swarm intelligence of the electorate was in fact telling the politicians that the choice they were being offered was not one they could be reasonably asked to make. A good example was Heath’s February 1974 question: “Who governs?”

I had said THIS about a week ago:

And it all leads up to what I have written in the past and have more polling on today that people are looking to engineer a hung Parliament because we ain't happy with what's on offer and do not wish to grant any party 5 years.

As implied, this is a recurring theme; People are not happy with what Labour has done and just as importantly the wisdom of crowds seems to me in my conversations to be pointing to the desire for a more traditional Conservative offering. On the economy people actually do want big cuts, they are fed up of paying for a bloated public sector, and want some tax relief. On the EU people are actually taking notice of what is going on, but my take is there is generally no agreed mechanism that everyone sees for which to issue a protest, other that the token offering of the EU elections which even if there were an all UKIP return to the E U Parliament would not really affect the course of how the EU controls us. And more recently I am not detecting any support for the Union and Cabin Crew actions at BA, and I work quite close to Heathrow.

The feeling is that the Private Sector (to which I earn my salary from) is that we took our medicine and made the cost savings needed over a year ago when the credit crunched. The highly Unionised Sectors have been slow and have not had to make the same cuts. The Public Sector has since grown on increased borrowing and low tax yields. So, as far as me and my chums in the productive sector are concerned, were paying for the public sector and want it reduced massively in size, because we are sick of paying for it and as far as the Cabin Crew of BA goes, it seems that you were on a very cushy deal especially looking at your industry, grow up and accept that you are damaging your company to protect an overly generous set up. If a business cannot operate in profit then there will no jobs because the company will fold. Cuts must be spread.

If Mr Tebbit were a little younger I think there would be calls for his inclusion in a Conservative or Coalition cabinet.
Then I moved along and Daniel Hannan has posted a response to his UKIP supporting readers about why he remains in the Conservative Party.

What I’d ideally like – and what I assume my UKIP readers also aspire to – is a situation where UKIP no longer needs to exist: where it can award itself a medal and retire with honour, job done. Obviously, we’re not at that point yet. But I worry that every activist who deserts the Tories for UKIP is retarding the prospects of a Euro-sceptic Conservative Party without taking his or her energies to an alternative party of government.

I realise that I won’t have convinced my UKIP critics with one short post. But I would urge you to ponder one thing. Eventually, the issue will have to be settled in a referendum. If we are to win that referendum, we shall need the support of people on the Left, people on the Right and people in the Centre. UKIP won’t win on its own. So when you come across people in other parties who believe in British independence, don’t snarl at them, or tell them that their support is worthless unless they join UKIP. Encourage them.

Which neatly brings me to… and don’t groan… the Albion Alliance.

Daniel Hannan is of course right that UKIP will not be winning this election, and that UKIP are generally a good bunch who have been driven to UKIP generally because of their understanding of the EU situation. I have been to a few marches and rallies where the turnout is predominantly UKIP, and this is a knowledgeable collection of people who hold a frankly stunning amount of EU Legalese in their heads ready to quote in any conversation. UKIP are a party borne out of an intellectual argument rather than reactionary urges. Thus UKIPers are generally quite polite and open to others opinions. I have never met a UKIPer how was not armed with wealth of information and ready to politely debate policy on any issue to help win over others to their position.

We need a referendum to exit the EU now, and with Lisbon we have passed the point where an “amicable divorce” would be available. By supporting people of others parties who are prepared to say before an election that they too will support that referendum effort we can urge people to vote for people who share the same aim on what many of us consider the greatest of electoral issues and by doing this we can get people into Parliament who are not afraid to make the EU the debate.

Hannan and Tebbit may not have said exactly what I am saying, but we would appear to be of a similar mind in terms of direction. So I only hope their views can resonate more clearly through the halls of the Tory headquarters.

Anyway. Back to the football.

Daily Politics - Will Bercow Be Unseated?

Clearly I am a sucker for Nigel Farage videos, but this one is interesting as it is from the BBC.  They focus a little less on Farage and a little more on the possibility of the Speaker of the House being unseated in a usually uncontested seat by convention.



Farage would be an interesting MP and most people who read my blog will have seen his speeches in the EU Parliament and know that he would be someone who could draw attention back to Westminster.  I hope that Farage wins the seat, and that Mr Hannan who is also a star speaker in Brussels decides to run for Westminster also.

The Great EU Debate

The Tax Payers Alliance last week launched The Great EU Debate which is a cross-party effort to encourage public debate on the future of Britains EU membership.  As part of the lauch they are giving away 5,000 copies of the book Ten Years On, Britain Without The EU.

Additionally the TPS is conducting numerous interviews with people on all sides of the arguement.  Here is Daniel Hannan's cogent contribution.

++Daniel Hannan - Returning To Back Benches++

I should not be shocked, but I still was.

Daniel's latest post.

Daniel Hannan's Message To The People Of Ireland

Please add to your blog or social network.




If you want to see Daniel in Westminster, please sign and spread the word of this petition.

Daniel Hannan Petition

I have just started a petition over on The Voice Of The Resistance Blog regarding Daniel Hannan.

If that sounds interesting, please go take a look.

Another Daniel Hannan Interview

Just seen this on Paul Waugh’s politics blog, it’s another interview with Daniel Hannan from the US. This one, like his recent NHS one, is bound to cause a stir as Daniel when asked cites Enoch Powell as one of his political influences.

Interviewer: "Who are your political influences? I've seen you reference Ron Paul, I believe you have referenced Hayek and Freidman on your blog.

Hannan: "Yeah, all of those guys. In the British context, Enoch Powell. He was, as somebody who understood the importance of national democracy, who understood why you need to live in an independent country and what that meant, as well as being a free marketeer and a small government Conservative."

A Few Thoughts On The NHS "Debate"..

Daniel Hannan is again grabbing the political headlines by giving some talks in America about the drawbacks to Socialised Medicine, and dispelling some of the myths there about how the NHS really is over here.

The most annoying and depressing aspect of this is the immediate attempts by the British left to smear Hannan and shut down a debate before it has even happened. Andy Burnham even went so far as to suggest that Daniel Hannan is “unpatriotic”… I know few people Andy Burnham seriously, but still he is a Minister, and to make such a suggestion is not just comically inaccurate, but a calculated insult.

Here’s what I want to add to the debate. Firstly I am like most people in the UK, my family and I have had good experiences of the NHS and we have had dreadful experiences, but I have not experienced to any degree healthcare in any other country first hand. So, my experiences and opinions stem from a bubble of prescribed ignorance.

If we can have the debate, it needs to be wider than offering the US system as the alternative, there are others. Dan has pointed this out already but he and Douglas Carswell’s preferred alternative is that of the model used in Singapore, and this is the alternative that they set out in their book, The Plan, published last year. [In contrast to another smear, this time allegedly from Tom Watson, who claimed Dan Hannan was going abroad casting assertions that he would not make at home.] I have read The Plan, and from memory their healthcare idea is to have citizens save through health schemes their own money to pay for healthcare to be drawn upon as it is needed, additionally people will need insurance to pay for more expensive healthcare should it be required. The poorest in society will be provided for by the State, as and when it is needed. The system itself becomes open to price influence and consumer pressures and will naturally seek ways to compete for custom by improving service and offering competitive pricing. Medical staff will naturally seek to be better so that they can themselves do better. When the system fails, individuals can seek recompense openly and fairly.

This may not be exactly as was written in “The Plan” but is the motion at a high level.

The well off do have the advantage of being able to pay for better doctors and facilities; but in contrast to the UK system now this will be more widely available than is currently available to the smaller, but wealthier who can still buck the system. Perversely the less than 10% who can afford to do so in the UK now, simply buy their way to the front of the queue and will likely end up in the same operating theatre, with the same doctor using the same tools, the other 90% or so have to wait their turn for a slot to open for their treatments.

So, what troubles me is; why exactly is it so offensive to the British Left that alternatives systems are discussed that may actually improve the state of health in the people of this country? There is compelling evidence that there are other systems employed in the developed world where a UK equivalent could save more lives; so it cannot be a body count issue.

It is of course because the NHS is the bedrock of the Socialist argument in the UK; it is held up as universally popular and universally acknowledged as being a success. But away from the Government and out of the mainstream press that is not entirely how everybody views the NHS. If you tug at the threads of the NHS and show that things can actually be done better, cheaper and more efficiently then the whole of the Labour Parties core beliefs can come into question. The criticism and attacks we hear from Labour come from a position of fear, rather than of confidence.

I gave it some, but not really a lot of thought over the last week, and I am personally in no hurry to bring down the NHS. Firstly, there has been no debate and no consensus that an alternative should be sought. This however I would like to contribute to. Secondly, as with all change the fear of change clouds the uncertainty of the potential of improvement. Without more cheerleaders and an inspired vision it is hard to have confidence that a change would be successful… but that can change.

The fear stems from the certainty of what almost certainly will go wrong. Though I am not convinced the whole of the NHS is behind the notion that the State must run all, there would be enough organised opposition to ensure that any moves to change will be fiercely opposed. We can be sure of this fact because we have the benefit of history on our side. Also, no matter what changes are made, and no matter how good things get, we can only move from an imperfect system into a different imperfect system, and it is there that those who are ill served and neglected will be held up as the victims of what I would assume will fast be referred to as corporate healthcare.

So, as is probably evident, I am personally clearer on the fact that I think we should just be open and allow ourselves the luxury of talking about how we could make things better, than I am on how I personally would advocate how we can really make improvements. But the more everyone talks, the clearer these positions and alternative will become. That is the benefit of living in a free society, power and change can emanate from public debate, rather than from those who prescribe how they think we should governed.

If you are still convinced we can do no better than to allow the State to run the Health Service, I invite you to imagine for one moment a contrasting example. In your mind’s eye, look at how the State has taken more and more control in the past 40 years of Education. Think about how things were in all terms, does the money the rich have buy more or less of an advantage today compared to 40 years ago? What standard of service do the poorest get? Are the standards better or worse than 40 years ago? Now ask yourselves the same questions of your food supply?

Perhaps a bizarre example, but what I am trying to illustrate is that in 40 years, through private enterprise, Supermarkets like Tesco’s & Sainsbury’s, as well as your local stores and restaurants have done more for food and diet equality to the people of the UK than the State has done for education equality. For the few of you who scoff, I invite you to now image the reverse scenario, if food supply was a ring fenced competence for Government? Would it be cheaper, or as widely available? Try to imagine how that would affect yours and everyone standard of living. In that bizzarro world, you would be hard pushed to imagine how the free enterprise system could be providing food much more easily and cheaply, but we know it to be possible.

Hopefully, such an example illustrates that it is not unpatriotic to simply aspire to live our lives free from State control. Also, just because we don’t yet have all of the answers to how we can make things better, the first step is to talk openly and to include everyone in those discussions, because everyone is affected. Then hopefully, down the line and with popular consensus try some new ideas out for real giving them a real chance to succeed or fail.

Finally, and just because I think it is important to mention something that is sometimes, strangely ignored and occasionally spun inaccurately. The NHS is free at the point of use, in that an ambulance driver no more needs a credit card than does your GP’s receptionist; but the NHS is not free. It is in fact very expensive and consumes a big chunk of the taxes we pay.

Daniel Hannan Speech

I see that Daniel Hannan has delivered another blistering speech, you can view it on the Tory Bear blog.

The Hannan Effect?

Perhaps this is the wrong name for this, but is what we saw this week the beginning of a wide backlash in some quarters of Western Society from the increasingly oppressive state structures we live within?

Lets informally take a look for a minute.

We have in the UK at the moment a structure which see's a man holding the Executive position and Royal Prerogative who was not elected to this position. He was not elected in a General Election, he did not even have an internal Labour Party election. He was elected by his constituents as as an MP, who was holding the role and continued to hold the role of Chancellor at the time.

In that election Labour published a manifesto which stated that the country would be consulted on the EU Constitution. By way of a name change, this Treaty was not put to a referendum, but secured passage through a tightly whipped, poorly debated few sessions of Parliament. The EU had the opportunity to open its institutions up to be Democratic, but it did not do this. Instead the new structures take away what little accountability there was by securing a wider legislative remit, by weakening the influence of member states, and by making this treaty self amending (thus no further consultation from member states on its size and actions is required).

The EU by admission makes about 75% of all laws (Though higher proportions have in the past been argued) yet these laws emanate from a commission where the UK has but one voice in 27, until recently that voice was the much mistrusted Peter Mandleson and is now held by Baroness Ashton.

The EU Commission is charged as the "Executive Branch" of the EU, it is also the body which proposes Legislation, implements decisions (usually its own decisions) and upholds the law on existing treaties.

The EU Parliament gets to vote on EU laws, it is made up of 785 MEP. It is the only elected part of the five structure EU. The UK has 78 MEPs all of whom are elected via Single Transferable Voting. This system means, that if you want to vote for say Daniel Hannan in the upcoming elections you can't, you can only indicate a preference for him or indicate Daniel within an order of preference on your ballot.

Once a candidate has secured sufficient votes, they stop counting for that candidate and transfer surplus and unused votes according to the stated preferences on the ballot. I may be in the minority here, but the requirement of a hare or droop quota in counting votes, rather than simply counting votes does not seem very transparent or representative to me. It might be why EU elections regularly see a low turn out across Europe. But those that are elected, represent less than 10% of the vote in the EU Parliament, and less than 10% of the argument.

Anyway I digress.

We have 75% of laws coming from a fairly undemocratic system in the EU.

We have an unelected, unmandated Prime Minister who is spending us in to debt deeper and faster than Winston Churchill (who had the small matter of World War 2 to tend to.)

We have a toothless, greedy Parliament, one house of which is largely appointed the rest inherited. The other half is elected, but most members upon election seek to please their Party Whip before their constituents.

The Party in Government is not willing to stand up to its leader, so has decided to play out its final year milking as much money for ill gotten houses and ridding us of yet more constitutional protections.

We have a state broadcaster, drip feeding us no dissenting conservative opinions, except those it can control and shout down. They purport to lead, and others have followed in the MSM by denying political debates from happening on TV and in our media.

Who makes the decisions and laws that effect us all every day? It is not you and me, there is now a political class that makes all decisions. It is only every interrupted by those who find a way to make themselves heard and who provide a message that instantly resonates. We have, in effect a democratic defecit.

So when Daniel Hannan was permitted the opportunity to stand up and given three minutes uninterrupted, despite all that is stacked up in its way, despite the continued attempts to silence, a majority, conservative, rational opinion was heard. And appreciated.

Looking at You Tube now this video has had 1,359,382 views in 3 days. He is somebody the BBC claims he is an unknown (despite having been invited on the Daily Politics a week earlier). The MSM has largely ignored it. It has only shown it (in the UK) when a prepared argument against Daniel and his words was in place. Daniel made a speech that was so sorely needed that people have gone out of their way, and found a way past the established media to watch it nearly 1.4million times. It was 2pm Friday before the BBC finally put it on their website and that was after many emails of complaint.

Could what we have witnessed this week be described as "The Hannan Effect" whereby no matter how hard an establishment tries to deny and hide a political argument, and present only alternatives that seek the same end; that that dissenting voice will always find a way to be heard in some form. And that it will be sought and defended in equal measure to the contempt shown in the measures in which were used to hide it? I am sure this has been seen before in countries that have and do not have elected representation. But in this case, the new medium is not symbolism, anti-propaganda leaflets or pirate radio, it was the Internet.

We are unaccustomed to seeing such a response to a speech. But it was a really good speech, and it rang true for a lot of people, and was seized upon by the American political right, whose Republican Party is straining to coherently present an opposition voice to President Obama and the Democrats.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I enjoyed the speech, I have joined those in telling Daniel that on his blog, and I think I am not alone in hoping that this can galvanise all dissenting opinions to our governments here, and in Europe to reverse these crazy plans to make us more indebted, to make it harder for our voices and opinions to be heard and to accept that a fundamental tenant of capitalism is that risk can reap reward, but also failure. Those who fail must as a general rule be allowed to do so. Those who failed in their leadership of banks should be civilly investigated to probe for illegalities which should be identified and punished through the courts.

Guido vs Dolly

If you didn't see it earlier, here are the videos of Guido vs Dolly.





I am glad that the BBC found time to show a clip from Daniel Hannan's speech, but I suspect it will still be absent from tea-time telly on the Beeb tonight. They may poorly claim that not many people know about Daniel Hannan, but they fail to realise that a tax-payer funded broadcaster must take a big chunk of the blame for that given Daniel's tireless work. A balanced broadcaster would have long ago picked up Daniel's work and given him some airtime. The Beeb has been shown up by Fox News. I imagine some BBC news editors sneer at Fox News, but they are more balanced than the BBC and they have scooped them on this.

Anyway, once you have watched the above, come join in the banter and make Question Time bearable by live blogging with us over at Biased BBC.

Hannan On Fox News

He has taken America by storm, here is Dan Hannan on Neil Cuveto.



Before you know it, he will be on the Simpsons.

Political Betting

May take some time to get a return here, but Ladbrokes are still offering 100/1 for Daniel Hannan to be the next Conservative Leader. I have just put my cash on Daniel Being the next leader.

Daniel is safe in his EU seat and will be returned this spring for another 5 year stint to the EU Parliament, David Cameron looks certain to win an election next year.

I suspect that if things go well Cameron will call his first General Election after four years which will co-incide with the end of Daniel's next term, meaning that he may at that time look to run in Westminster.

Think I am crazy? Ladbrokes are also offering 100/1 for Ken Clarke, John Redwood, Dominic Grieve, Damian Green and Francis Maude. See here.

Adam Boulton Blog Has Daniel Hannan Clip

Daniel Hannan's video made Adam Boultons blog this morning, here.

As there is a web-round up on their evening Sky News.Com programme, can I encourage everyone to click on the link to Sky as as to drive up the hits on Sky's site, that way perhaps Daniels Speech can will get a mention on the tea-time telly tonight. Perhaps if enough people do, they will show the whole speech.

Balanced BBC

There is no mention of this video on the BBC website.



However, this was worth a mention. How do they keep getting away with their political bias?

Hannan Bitch-Slaps Brown In EU Parliament

You can leave messages of appreciation for Daniel on his blog, here.

Crime Is Up, Crime Is Down..... Thanks BBC

The BBC reported today that reported crime numbers are up. The figures are as follows:

Knife/Sharp Instrument Robbery - Up 18%
Fraud/Forgery - Up 16%
Drugs - Up 9%
Home Burglary - Up 4%
Other Burglary - Up 3%

However, at the same time, a separate BBC report states that crime numbers are down. The key points being:

Gun Crime - Down 26%
Knife Crime - Down 12%
Robbery - Down 17%
Rapes and Domestic violence - Both Up

The difference between them being that the figures that show the increase are for the UK, where as the figures showing a reduction are for London only.

The two BBC reports, despite being online do not make reference to each other.

So let me ask the question. How is it that crime nationally continues to rise, but crime in London is falling? Could the answer be that in London the Met Police Authority is Chaired by the Mayor, currently Boris Johnson? This is not a Tory/Labour Comparison, as the figures show in London year-on-year trends meaning this is a continuation of a trend started under former Mayor Ken Livingstone. It is the only authority in England that is not completely controlled from Centralised targets sent down from the Home Office, and where the Met Authority has a say on policing, rather than the Chief Constable rolling out initiatives based on centrally set Home Office targets.

Could this be the real evidence that can be used to further the case for locally elected sheriffs and/or elected Police Commissioners? With the Mayor being an elected official in London chairing the Met Authorities meetings we can see a tangible link between an elected official conveying the concerns of the public that they are elected to represent.

A convincing case for local Sheriff's has been made by Daniel Hannan and Doug Carswell in their book The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain. I must confess that I was sceptical about local Sheriffs until I read their proposal, but they won me over on this particular point.

Conservatives in the EPP

I was thinking about posting something about the Conservative Party pledge on leaving the EPP to form a new alliance within the EU Parliament. However, as usual Daniel Hannan has summed the situation up nicely... so I will be lazy today and reccomend you read what he has said here.

I feel quite strongly that the Conservative should leave the EPP, but perhaps I will save this debate for when I have a few more regular visitors and nearer the EU elections next year.