One of the lessons of this election has been the illiteracy of many of UKIP’s candidates.
The literature you distribute is one of the ways you reach those you hope to represent. A failure to spell basic information correctly – you know, like the constituency – risks saying to voters ‘I don’t know your area and don’t even care to pretend to know it’. Similarly, if you can’t communicate coherently with your voters, how can they trust you to be able to communicate clearly on their behalf?
Here are some of the finest examples.
Earlier this month, the Western Morning News reported that the rag-tag bag of political misfits that constitute the Liberal Party had decided to withdraw candidates in Cornwall and encourage its supporters to back UKIP.
In a disgraceful betrayal of liberal values, the Liberal Party is using the cloak of its anti-European policy to encourage support for a party that is the antithesis of a vibrant, liberal and tolerant Britain.
The remnants of the Liberal Party should be utterly ashamed of themselves and I trust that the Liberator Collective will sever any remaining connections it has with them.
Since Simon Danczuk highlighted the appalling crimes of Cyril Smith by raising them under privilege in the House of Commons, he and fellow Labour MP John Mann have campaigned vigorously on behalf of those who have had to live with the consequences of historic child abuse.
They have also been dogged in pursuing any cover-up by the establishment.
Danczuk and Mann’s investigations have also had a political angle. They have levelled numerous accusations at Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. For instance, Danczuk clearly thinks Clegg must have known about the allegations around Smith:
Mr Danczuk says the Liberal Democrats have been “defensive, slippery and shifty”. “They are a party in denial,” he said. “I don’t think they’re fit for government. They are a small political party, I find it incredible that they are claiming that they didn’t hear the rumours about Smith.”
Recently, he accused Cameron and Clegg of colluding to cover-up Smith’s abuses. If he has evidence, he has yet to produce any and, if such allegations of conspiracy are unfounded, his remarks must surely border on the slanderous.
Mann has also made unfounded assertions about what the Liberal Democrats must have known:
‘I don’t believe that they knew nothing. The Liberal Democrats need to hold their own investigation into what they knew and what they covered up.’
With typical sanctimony, Michael White, writing in The Guardian, argued:
‘Nick Clegg may have been a child in 1979, but that was no excuse in 1988 (when Smith was knighted) or 2014 to pretend the Lib Dem machine did not know about the allegations. But that goes for everyone else, too – most conspicuously the police, who failed to prosecute Smith and his network despite powerful evidence, and for those in higher authority, including No 10 and Buck House.’
What is not widely reported – or acknowledged by Danczuk, Mann, White etc – is that Clegg has done more than any other party leader to take the issue of historical child abuse seriously. It is clear from The Daily Telegraph that, rather that cover-up Smith’s activities, Clegg has been determined to ensure maximum openness and co-operation:
‘Nick Clegg wrote to every Liberal Democrat MP, Peer and former MP last year urging them to come forward with any information that could help unearth the truth about what happened.’
It’s apparent from his LBC show that he has also been proactive by instructing comprehensive interviews of former MPs and searches of his party’s archives. Those are not the actions of a party leader seeking to cover-up the activities of a child abuser. That these activities don’t produce the information that Danczuk, Mann and White want doesn’t mean they haven’t been carried out and carried out in good faith.
Since the revelations regarding Smith, allegations have been made about a number of other politicians. They include the Labour MPs Leo Abse, George Thomas and Greville Janner (now Lord Janner, who has strenuously denied the allegations). Conservative MPs Peter Morrison, Leon Brittan, Rhodes Boyson and David Atkinson have also been the subject of equally shocking allegations. Perhaps most shocking of all is the allegation that Conservative MPs were present at the murder of some of those being abused.
There is also mounting evidence of some form of cover-up. Thatcher is said to have known about Smith and Morrison. There are questions emerging over the role of the police. Uncomfortably for Danczuk and Mann, the establishment, at the time of the most substantiated allegations against Smith (from the late sixties and early seventies), was dominated by Labour politicians and sympathetic officials.
Danczuk and Mann are rational, intelligent men. If they are also honest men they must accept the logic of their arguments:
- Allegations are now encompassing a significant number of Labour and Conservative politicians;
- To continue to be regarded as being interested in championing the issue, rather than political point scoring, they need to start asking the same tough questions of Ed Miliband and David Cameron.
If Clegg is expected to have known the rumours about Smith, the logic of Danczuk and Mann dictates that Miliband knew the rumours about Abse, Thomas and Janner and that Cameron should have known the rumours about Morrison, Brittan, Boyson and Atkinson. To remain credible, Danczuk and Mann must show they are interested in the issues above party considerations and pursue Miliband and Cameron at least as doggedly as they have pursued Clegg.
What did Cameron and Miliband know? What did successive Labour governments from 1997 to 2010 know? What did Tony Blair and John Prescott know? What did John Major know? Where are the instructions from Miliband? What effort is being made by Labour to quiz MPs of the era or trawl the whips’ black books? At least Cameron instructed his whips to open their books.
But Danczuk and Mann are strangely silent.
Despite accusations around seven Labour and Tory MPs, Danczuk and Mann remain fixated on Smith and the Liberal Democrats. They do not harangue Miliband and Cameron the way they pursue Clegg. They do not encourage the press to pursue them and make the sort of unsubstantiated accusations made against Clegg.
It’s not good enough for Danczuk and Mann to leave these questions to the Goddard Inquiry. That will rightly take its time to examine the evidence in forensic detail, but it will be years before its conclusions are published. To avoid accusations of tawdry party politicking, if Danczuk and Mann have names and evidence regarding other MPs, whether still serving, out of office or deceased, they should make them known now. They should ask the tough questions now.
Ahead of the General Election. However uncomfortable that information is for Miliband, Cameron, Clegg or any political party.
In the end, Danczuk and Mann cannot have it both ways: they cannot accuse people of a cover-up and then not volunteer what they themselves know.
Our politics deserves more than that.
The victims deserve more than that.
Apparently David Steel has been speaking for me and plenty of other party members about the future of the party. Except he is not speaking for me in the slightest.
How anyone who was out of touch with his party even as party leader can claim to know what the party is thinking when he hasn’t dignified a conference for years, is basically unknown to many younger Lib Dems and lives on for others as one half of a Spitting Image double-act is beyond me.
In his wisdom he says that:
“I’m pretty certain that the mood in the party will be to say the very most we would accept would be confidence and supply.
“I just detect that there’s a general feeling that we need to recharge our batteries and recharge our values and that association with another party is not the way to do it.”
I’m also not sure what sort of idiot thinks a confidence and supply arrangement would help us recharge our batteries? It seems like a recipe for all of the criticism and none of the credit. And I don’t know what sort of idiot thinks talking about in the ins and outs of post-election arrangements is a Good Thing? Perhaps one who hasn’t been involved in democratic politics for the best part of twenty years and who has not engaged properly with the party in coalition or been an advocate for its achievements.
Such considerations are for the other side of May 7th, not pointless and distracting speculation at the start of the campaign.
Steel should stop patronising the electorate and the party, get off his ermined backside and get out and campaign hard to ensure Lib Dem achievements in government are championed and as many Lib Dem MPs as possible are elected. (They’re called leaflets, David. You put them through letterboxes.)
I have admired Sarah Champion for quite some time. She has always come across as a refreshingly honest and engaged MP. She has also been a tireless advocate for those affected by the awful revelations regarding abuse in Rotherham.
It was with quite some disappointment that I read Champion’s statement on her ten minute rule bill. For someone who has made candid plain-speaking a trademark, it is depressing to see she is very willing to deliberately mislead the public when it suits her politically.
Champion’s bill is an important one, with a single, substantive requirement:
“Require the Secretary of State to make Regulations under Section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 to require employers of more than 250 employees to publish information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing whether there are differences in the pay of male and female employees.”
Champion’s speech is well worth a read. And it is reassuring testimony to progressive politics that both Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs voted overwhelmingly for her bill, opposed only by a handful of entitled, dinosaur Tories.
My complaint is not a big thing in the grand scheme of things. It is one for the constitutional nerds among us. It also speaks volumes about honesty in our politics, however.
Champion claims that:
“A second reading had been planned for next week, on the 27th February, but the Government scheduled it as the 16th bill to be read, meaning in reality it would never get called.”
Champion “strongly criticised the Government for kicking her recent motion for gender pay equality into the long grass.”
This is simply not true.
Her bill is a form of private member’s bill known as a ten minute rule bill. They are called this because, unlike other bills, the person hoping to introduce the bill is allowed to make a ten minute speech at the point of introduction, making the case for the proposals. Unlike other bills, it is at the point of introduction that votes are often taken on ten minute rule bills.
After introduction, a day is nominated by the MP in charge for the bill’s second reading (usually a Friday). It will take the first available slot after other bills already nominated. This is done entirely by the MP without any input from government. There are various complex rules which inform the ordering or private members bills, but one thing is very clear: the government has no say in deciding the order bills will be considered. It is not a regular business day.
Champion’s bill was introduced late on in the private member’s bill process and so naturally fell behind bills introduced earlier. The government did not schedule it to come sixteenth on the 27th February. Champion did – by nominating a day on which other bills were already scheduled.
Either Champion has poor understanding of procedure, or else she is deliberately misleading people to manufacture a reason for bashing the government.
If it is the former, I am sure she will be quick to issue a correction. If it is the latter, it is disappointing that someone like Champion would play on the public’s understandable ignorance of arcane parliamentary rules quite so cynically.
The really stupid thing is she has a great point to make about transparency in gender pay and doesn’t need to mislead people in order to make it.
Occasionally I turn on Fox News. There is something about the way it is so brazenly partisan that fascinates me.
To someone who occasionally under appreciates the enforced neutrality of the BBC and the general objectivity of our other broadcast media (yes, even Sky News), Fox News is a useful way to reset my critical compass.
There is no-one as odious, sanctimonious and downright unpleasant as Bill O’Reilly. America is an incredible country of opportunity. It is politically and culturally diverse and its landscapes and cityscapes can be awe-inspiringly beautiful. Its people are a remarkable testament to optimism and hard graft. O’Reilly, however, is the caricature that misinforms so many British and European views of Americans.
His bigoted ignorance and his resort to insult to ‘win’ arguments make for entertaining current affairs television. He also encapsulates the fantasy of that small, but vocal and influential section of the population who are angry, middle-aged, wealthy white men: gun-toting, church-going, apple-pie loving, R&B listening, testosterone-driven conservatives who cloak their prejudices (and insecurities) beneath a trumpeting of values and freedoms that they hate extending to those who are not like them.
Unpleasant as these characteristics are to many, none disqualify you as a journalist. What does destroy your credibility, however, is screwing around with the truth.
Bill O’Reilly has been caught with his metaphorical pants down and it is not a pleasant sight.
Like veteran NBC news anchor Brian Williams, he has apparently lied about his experiences as a ‘war’ reporter, including in El Salvador and the Falklands War. It was this latter assertion that prompted me to write, as his coverage has the potential to influence the views of our closest ally on that conflict and how it was conducted.
This article in Mother Jones started off the furore. Subsequent reports in the Washington Post reveal quite how serious O’Reilly’s position is. More recent reports still are suggesting that Fox has stopped defending O’Reilly.
It couldn’t have happened to a nicer man.
The USA is a liberal democracy and, like Britain, proud of its raucous, chaotic free press. And so it should be. But truth should not be a casualty of war in a liberal democracy, particularly amongst those who claim to uphold the torch of press freedom. We have to be able to have confidence in those who report on what is happening in government and between governments.
If these revelations result in the final dispatch of Bill O’Reilly, both our democracies will be stronger for it.