It is now an archive for my newspaper and magazine pieces. My blog can now be read at: www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard
Politics, economics and culture from the master. Unmissable.
Melanie Phillips home page
Melanie Phillips' peerless blog. Read, and learn.
Daniel Finkelstein's Times Comment Central
A daily must-read.
Tim Worstall
Lots of interesting nibbles - and a ruthless swatter of economic gibberish.
Harry's Place
Must-read left of centre blog from writers who understand the threat to the West.
Clive Davis
Always interesting selection of culture and politics, from an Anglo-American bent.
Samizdata
Libertarian blog, packed every day.
Norm's blog
The thoroughly sensible thoughts of renowned left-wing academic Norman Geras, Professor of Government at Manchester. And cricket, too.
Public Interest
Peter Briffa's inimitable take on The Yazzmonster and other assorted demons.
Reform
The public sector reform group; their website is an invaluable source of data and ideas.
Centre for the New Europe
The leading European public policy think tank.
Developed by:
| May | 29 |
| 2004 |
Phew. I have found something on which to differ from Oliver Kamm.
Oliver's latest post is a summary of the upcoming elections. Quite rightly, he attacks UKIP and cites an admirable piece by Johan Hari which digs behind the veneer.
That's the problem with UKIP. There might seem to be every good reason to vote UKIP next month but for one small problem: what it believes in. So much about the state of British politics today points to making a protest via UKIP about the failure of both Labour and the Conservatives to offer anything except the usual tired centrist agendas.
But even voting Green in 1989 would have been more sensible, despite that party's lunatic beliefs, than voting UKIP today. The Green vote was taken, rightly, not as an endorsement of its specific policies but as a general concern about the environment. UKIP, however, only has one recognisable message: pulling out of the EU. Supporting that idea - and a vote for UKIP cannot be seen in any other way - would be a terrible blow to euroscepticism, since it undermines the idea that we can reform from within and hands the argument to the Eurofanatics who have always alleged that eurosceptics are in reality eurohaters.
Leave aside the distinctly unpleasant views and associations of some of its leading lights; a vote for UKIP now has nothing to commend to it. We are at a critical juncture in the future of the EU. The accession of the 10 new Member States will, in time, change the culture and balance of the EU almost beyond recognition. The British vision now has real support across the EU. Even if the purported new constitution would frustrate that, we have the chance to vote 'no'.
(And I would bet my small fortune on there being no constitution emerging from the Brussels summit next month. My Brussels tenure has taught me one thing above all - the deplorable coverage of the British media, which seems to have not the least idea what is going on. Far from the French and German view gaining ground, as one would believe from our media, it loses ground with every passing minute. And far from the change of government in Spain meaning there is now a renewed push towards that vision, it has had zero impact on its acceptance - indeed, if anything it has had made it less likely to prevail. And, finally, I wonder if anyone from the UK media actually bothers to speak to policy makers from the new accession countries. If they did, they would realise that we have a whole new bunch of allies. And when they get richer - as they will - they will not be so timid about standing up for their views. This is a theme to which I will be returning when I have more time.)
I digress. That's not the issue on which I disagree with Oliver. It's on something far more parochial: voting Labour.
Unlike Oliver, I have a vote in the mayoral election in London. There are three realistic choices. Simon Hughes is beyond the pale, a man whose canmpaigning tactics are so vile that no civilised man or woman should contemplate putting an x by his name. His campaign in the Bermondsey by-election was quite foully homophobic. Peter Tatchell, his Labour opponent, ought never to have been selected by his party, and ought never to have got near to a council election, let alone a parliamentary by-election. But that was because of his warped politics. His sexual preferences were not remotely relevant, and certainly should not have been the subject of the Liberals' obscene smears. But as anyone who has had to deal with them knows, the Liberals' squeaky clean image is quite wrong: they fight viciously and dirtily. My own experience of them in Tower Hamlets in the late 80s and early 90s revealed to me that they were racist, too.
In some circumstances I might have voted for Steve Norris, but since he has chosen to make the election a referendum on the congestion charge - he has no other recognisable policy - I have no choice but to vote to keep him out of office, since I believe the charge to be one of the politically bravest and most successful public policy developments since the demise of Margaret Thatcher.
Which leaves Ken. In normal circumstances I would never, ever, vote for him. I did my damndest to keep him out in 2000.
But.
First, since this is, as Norris wants it to be, a referendum on the charge, I can think of no other worthwhile vote than Livingstone.
But there is another factor in his favour. Whatever his own views on the Iraq war and the US, and however much I would not have wanted him readmitted to the Labour Party, he is the official Labour candidate and as such it is important that those of us who support Tony Blair register that support wherever possible. That means, perhaps perversely, voting for one of the most vocal opponents of the war on terror.
So Livingstone it is.
MessageSpace
"The accession of the 10 new Member States will, in time, change the culture and balance of the EU almost beyond recognition."
i.e. make it even more of a corrupt, pork-barrelling, deadlocked shambles.
"when they get richer - as they will"
At our expense.
Conclusion: Support the Coalition of the Wilting by voting for a man who says George Bush is not welcome in London and should be tried for war crimes.
I think you over look the negotiating point - Britin doesnt get its way in EU negotiations because it cant credibly say if you don't agree with us we'll leave the EU and join EFTA. If British ministers have a 20% UKIP vote at their backs, then they enter the negotiations with more credibility.
Its true that we have new allies, but realisiticalyy it will be at least 20 years before their incomes are sufficent that they can eye the coe states down.
Ken Livningstone?
KEN F***ING LIVINGSTONE?!
The world is mad.
Stephen - you really have lost it this time.
First Ken Livinstone is one of the strongest opponents of the war in Iraq. He marched at the head of the million or so misguided people who believe the terrorists will leave us alone if we do nothing. By helping to give him the largest poltical mandate in Europe, you do not bolster Blair - quite the reverse - you weaken him by strenghtening an internal opponent. And as M Thatcher found out internal opponents are always the most damaging.
Secondly Steve Norris has not sought to turn the mayoral election into a referendum on the congestion charge. In fact he only mentions it when asked. Of the 250 posters now up around London, not one mentions the charge - they all talk about the main plank of his campaign which is crime. He has talked purely about crime for 6 months now. He has published a number of detailed policy documents (which have obviously passed you by) in various areas and I woudl suggest you have a look before you pass judgement so harshly.
Having seen Ken at close quarters over the last 4 years and seen how the GLA operates, it is frankly terrifying to think this man might get back in power.
And just because the congestion charge was "brave" as you put it doesnt make it right. It has been a financial disaster for London and is really damaging business, especially small business. 350,000 fewer people a week are entering central London, by any form of transport, and for a city that survives on retailing, entertainment and trade this has to be bad news. How about we improve public transport FIRST, then think about a charge if still necessary?
Even if you cant vote for Steve Norris, abstain, spoil your paper rather than vote for the anti-american, freedom hating trot.
There's one very real reason for voting for Ken that hasn't been mentioned here, or on any other blog that I've come across.
If you're a Londoner, have you noticed how good the buses are lately? I have: I used to avoid using them because it was impossible to rely on one turning up in time. Now, you might have an indicator at the stop which will tell you when to expect the bus, and there's a good chance said bus will either be brand new or completely refurbished.
It's a different world. I find his views on Iraq wrong, and his views on Americans verging on bigotry, but I'll be voting for him because, contrary to my expectations, he's actually made my life easier.
I voted for Dobbo last time. Remember him?
I agree with Kit. I have hardly heard Steve Norris mention the congestion charge, although I agree with him on it anyway. Every time I have seen him on the tele, he has focused on his plans to cut crime.
If Hari and you think a sufficient reason not to vote for a party is that it contains some very dodgy, dubious people with whom one would not wish to dine, then that leaves me with the choice of abstaining or spoiling my ballot!
Your economic arguement, vis a vis our trade with Europe, is somewhat weakened by the fact that they sell more to us than we sell to them, consequently, I doubt they will let their umbrage exceed their self-interest.
Having read Johan Hari's article, it strikes me as being nothing more than the standard smear against any group that challenges the "liberal" Lefties. There may be a few people in the UKIP who ought to be in the BNP, but I'm sure they are all saints by comparison with George Galloway.
Baroness Thatcher has concluded that the EU is "unreformable". She is right as usual, and the Conservative Party should be advocating withdrawal. So, for that matter, should the Labour Party. Until they do, the UKIP is the only game in town.
My money's with the GrimReaper - he always wins in the end!
Stephen - I agree with you on the EU's unmistakably British trajectory (which will be reaffirmed when Romania joins in 2007) and am glad that you will be writing more about this in future, as no one else seems to be (even my ultimate New Right hero, Michael Gove).
My concern is simply that Britain will not exploit this opportunity to become the leading state in the EU, not because of public euroscepticism but because of the attitude and sheer ineptitude of our foreign office. I know it's a stereotype, but these people really are a bunch of patrician generalists of the Lord Bright ilk who think that there is something uncouth about asserting the national interest. We have the least able, least serious civil service of any rich country (though arguably the least corrupt too), but the Foreign Office in particular are a joke.
As for voting for Ken, forget about it. I want the man deported, not re-elected. Ivan Massow gets my vote: economically conservative, socially liberal, rags-to-riches life story, etc. He represents the dynamism and individualism of London (and indeed Britain) better than that grim lunatic on the Labour ticket.
It's not at all clear that the EU can be reformed from within. It really depends on what reforms you are talking about. If you want fewer EU-wide rules and regulations (i.e. less political centralisation), there would appear to be no way to get it. The EU constitution will give us more of it, cement much of what has been built up without formal approval, and attempts to make it easier to grant more powers to the EU level in the future. There is nothing in it to make further centralisation more difficult.
Now it is possible that the new members will be less keen on some social regulations and some protectionism than some of the existing member states. But so far their entry has been used to argue successfully for more centralised EU-decision-making and easier central decision-making i.e. more QMV, less unanimity.
And in fact of course some ideas of the new member states will not be in UK interests. For example, as poor countries, they all want a larger EU budget, and will fight like hell to get one. In fact in many federal states, the poorer countries are always pushing for more central powers and spending - Germany is one example.
This is not an endorsement of voting UKIP or anyone else. Just a rejection of the easy argument that the admission of the new member states mean a Eurosceptic agenda is on the cards. No reform from within is going to reduce EU competences. At most, and even this is on balance unlikely, the new members may lead to a slowing of even further centralisation.