“The reason I fell out with Ken Livingstone wasn’t his cronyism, waste, or arrogance. The reason I, and I think many other Londoners, parted company with Ken was that he got rid of the Routemaster.”

He hasn’t at all referred to Routemasters as a “wedge issue” with which to batter Ken. No, it’s genuine now, apparently. And always was, oh yes…

A couple of predictions, though: should the enquiry exonerate Lewis, he’ll be back. The Tories have invested far too much in his ideas, and his methods, to let such a prime exponent go to waste. And if it finds him guilty and it goes to the police? BoJo can now come out and say that this can’t be his fault, as Lewis admits he lied on his CV - so he couldn’t have known. That’s the tone set by his new statement:

When pressed with a string of unsubstantiated allegations my instinct was to fight and fight hard for Ray. I still hope that he can clear his name. I cannot deny however that my confidence in Ray was shaken by the discovery today that he is not a fully fledged Justice of the Peace and I cannot deny that to be misled on this issue made it harder for me to give Ray the backing necessary to continue in his role as Deputy Mayor.

Dissect that sentence by sentence. You should get;

1. He’s on my side, it’s not my fault I defended him.
2. I still hope he can clear his name, because I want to employ him - and will do if he does.
3. But if he doesn’t, well, I’m shocked, just shocked. Meaning it’s not my fault and please don’t report this too badly.

Notice the, “it’s not my fault,” theme. Or, rather, the damage limitation theme; Boris talked Lewis up to the point that this now becomes embarrassing, so is talking him down just as fast in the hope it all stops. A tactic to expect in the future with other heavily-hyped but unfeasible projects?

After all, there’s the statue of Keith Park, and a no-strike deal with the RMT, and neo-routemasters before 2012…

These allegations did not stop him from becoming a JP. They did not stop him from becoming an outstanding and respected prison governor. They did not stop him founding a school that has done untold good for East London children and they should not stop him from serving as my deputy Mayor.

In short: “Ray Lewis is a wonderful person who couldn’t have done this because he’s wonderful, and even if he did somehow manage it then, look at everything he’s done since.” And so pinning himself firmly to the, “Ray Lewis is innocent,” crowd. He really needs Lewis to be innocent, now…

Note another interesting parallel with the Lee Jasper case. Quoth the Mayor:

I believe that my deputy Mayor Ray Lewis is being made to suffer now because he has had the guts to serve in this administration and because he has had the courage to speak out against a stifling orthodoxy that has failed too many of our children.

Notice what that is? A diversion, designed to shift attention from the accused to the accuser by smearing their motives. Why the charges have been made has nothing to do with the charges themselves - but it serves as a useful means of ducking them. For Ken and Lee Jasper, it was because Jasper was black. For Boris and Lewis, it’s because Lewis is Boris’.

Noting these diversion tactics, I begin to wonder how honest the enquiry will be. Now he’s so firmly tied to Lewis’ protestations of innocence, it must be tempting for BoJo to make sure the panel is, “sound.” And pack it with primed and paid-up supporters. It wouldn’t be the first time, even in this administration; Forensic Audit Panel, anyone?

But we’ll see. Bet Boris regrets appointing so many important sounding, “Deputy-Mayors,” (with all the closeness the term implies) now…

(Hat-tip to Tory Troll for the quotes)

That’s the parallel that springs most to mind. Allegations of financial and sexual impropriety, as yet unproved, against a senior figure in the Mayor’s administration. And damaging ones at that; to take money from a disabled parishioner and then withold it hardly says good things about the man’s character.

But there comes the major difference - this was more than ten years ago. If Lewis admitted to the charges - if, of course, they’re true - it could be explained away. A lot changes in ten years, and Lewis could point to his record in the community since as evidence of that. It’d stain, but it might not sink him.

He’s denied everything, though. Which is fine, if he’s telling the truth - but simply deadly if it’s not. He’ll be damned as a liar and a cheat, and simply disappear from the face of politics. And it’ll stain the regime, too. Who wants a Mayor who employs a social parasite?

And who wants a Mayor who employs a potential social parasite? Even the allegations smears an unpleasant air of corruption over the administration; one which BoJo needs to eliminate. To cast aside the whole matter, and any parallels with Lee Jasper, he can only follow one course - an immediate, thorough enquiry. Otherwise, it’ll all begin to look even more suspicious…

Notice anything? Yes, that’s right. It’s not very good - again. The actual video is simply dull, visually. Very blocky, dark and far less intelligent than Obama’s. The comparison that springs most readily to mind is a Japanese hybrid car advert, not a brilliant piece of political propaganda. The closest this comes to actual visual or emotional manipulation is the relentless focus on technology and space - signalling a forward looking McCain quite at odds with that white.

White hair McCain seems very reluctant to display, mind. Compare Obama’s presence in his spots - young, smiling and all over the place - with McCain’s gloomy avoidance of the camera. Just two, short appearances in this, and short and sombre at that. It’s almost as if he’s afraid the voters will see him.

But perhaps that’s the point. The video’s underlying message is far more concerning. On the surface rides the usual bumpf; America is wonderful, McCain wants to keep it that way, he’s a patriot. To summarise: Blah. But underneath that comes the real message.

Observe the constant emphasis in the script:

American technology protected the world. We went to the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard.

John McCain will call America to our next national purpose: Energy Security. A comprehensive bipartisan plan to: Lower prices at the pump; Reduce dependence on foreign oil through domestic drilling; And champion energy alternatives for better choices and lower costs.

Putting country first. McCain.

Emphasis, as usual, mine. Just look at it; over and over, a focus on resolution and security. McCain will provide a, “purpose,” for America. He’ll, “reduce dependence,” on foreign oil, and so increase America’s economic security. And he’ll cross boundaries as a, “bipartisan,” leader.

The final picture: a strong, resolute leader who’ll work across traditional boundaries for the nations’ good. A uniter, not a divider (sound familiar?). And completely uncontroversial, and not a right wingnut you need to worry about.

And, unfortunately for McCain, it’ll flop. The claims he makes can be scotched in easy terms. The ad says he’s a resolute man who’ll keep at a task until it’s done; which, naturally, explains why this is his third slogan in as many ads. He’s an uncontroversial bipartisan - whose last spot was an attack ad. He isn’t a rightist loon, the ad implies - just one who wouldn’t be averse to, say, bombing Iran.

Oh, and the “uniter not a divider” bit. Already gone, I’m afraid. Change and unity have been Obama’s message from the start, articulated in soaring rhetoric; McCain is a member of the (conservative) Republican Party. That he’s been forced to snatch the meme for himself suggests one thing only - that he’s already lost the election on his own views, and must find someone else’s.

So, he’ll lose?

Note the careful imagery again: Barack in shirt-sleeves, because he’s not a stuffy office boy but a man of the people. Barack as a young man, because he’s not a 71 year old who won’t see his second term. Barack at a community meeting, because he’s a man of the people. Barack on the phone (at 3AM?), concentrating - because he’s a hard worker, who’ll never let you down. Barack signing a law, because he’s got some experience in Washington and isn’t the callow youth of Republican propaganda. Barack with workers, smiling, because he’s a man of the people. Barack with children, because he loves them as much as you. Barack talking to workers, because he’s a man of the people. Barack shaking hands with more workers, because he’s a man of the people. Barack hugging an old (working) lady, because he’s a caring and happy man of the people who everyone loves.

Conclusion: Barack Obama is a kind, friendly, hard-working man of the people, and not at all the aloof, inexperienced elitist of Clintonite agitprop.

And so on. And the message of the script? Much the same:

Obama: I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.
Announcer: He worked his way through college and Harvard Law. Turned down big money offers, and helped lift neighborhoods stung by job loss.

Fought for workers’ rights. He passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by eighty percent. Passed tax cuts for workers; health care for kids. As president, he’ll end tax breaks for companies that export jobs, reward those that create jobs in America. And never forget the dignity that comes from work.

Emphasis mine. The message boils down to:

Barack Obama is a hard-working, ordinary guy. He worked his way through college; hard-working. And he’d rather work hard for others; turned down big money.

He’s a man of the people. He gave them what they wanted; but didn’t let them lounge on the dole like that nasty quasi-socialist the Malkinites claim he’d be. No, he protects American workers, and loves children. A Man of the People, and a Patriot.

So, a message totally consistent with his last ad. There, he talked to camera, espoused mainstream values, and painted himself a man of the people. Here, he protects workers, works hard, loves his countrymen - and paints himself as a man of the people. And rebuffs accusations of cold, unpatriotic, middle-class elitism from Malkin et al.

It’s pure political positioning. Obama needs to erect a break against shit slung by Republicans who smear him as foreign, aloof and socialist; so he emphasises hard work, “American values” and his populism. Vacuous? Mostly. Lacking in a policy message? Certainly. Dull? For anyone across the Atlantic, very probably.

But that’s not the point. 30 seconds isn’t enough to preach a sermon, but it’s enough to give an impression - and that’s what Obama’s doing. And it looks like he’s hit the right (hah…) spots so far…

Selective, divisive, a law unto themselves: faith schools have been depicted by Ed Balls, secretary of state for schools, families and children, as a danger to Britain’s 9.8 million school-age children. Balls made his allegations last March, and has commissioned Sir Philip Hunter, the chief schools adjudicator, to investigate the 7000 faith schools in England and Wales. Hunter’s report is scheduled to reach ministers in September – and will, once again, stir up the row over faith schools.

Ball’s charges against faith schools can be dismissed one by one.

Really? They seem justified to me. Faith schools ground pupils in a seperate religious community, and so are divisive; they virtually require pupils to hold that faith, and so are selective; and raise hell (hah…) whenever the state which funds them imposes the same controls as it does on other schools it funds. Selective, divisive and a law unto themselves? Just a bit.

But, let’s hear what Ms. Odone has to say:

The schools do not select middle-class pupils or reject troubled ones. The intake of Christian schools reflects a broader ethnic range than comprehensive schools in the same area.

Class and race are synonymous? Look, we all enjoy a decent non-sequitur now and then, but to cite one phenomena and cite evidence (strangely without validated statistics) from another defeats itself. Balls’ point isn’t even addressed, save with unsupported assertion - so it isn’t addressed.

Moving on:

The schools are not divisive. Fully 76 of the 77 British citizens convicted under the Terrorism Act of 2000 attended a secular state school; the exception was home-schooled.

And this is meant to be serious journalism? When an author manages two complete non-sequiturs in 6 sentences, they need to be denied the oxygen of publicity. It doesn’t matter how many citizens arrested under the Terrorism Act attended secular schools; that’s simply not the point.

Faith schools are inherently divisive. They encourage pupils to conform to the tenets of a certain religion and inculcate a sense of community with others of that religion; they thus perpetuate faith communities. These faith communities are seperate and frequently opposed to each other. In a word, they’re divided - and faith schools perpetuate this. So, actually, it’s got nothing to do with arrests under the Terrorism Act of 2000 and more to do with the socio-cultural implications of telling a child they’re different to other children because of what’s written in an ancient tome.

But there’s more:

Faith schools do not charge parents for places. Although some schools did ask for voluntary contributions from parents even before admission, these pay for extra teaching for religious studies and, in the case of Jewish schools, for protection.

So, what you’re saying is that they do charge parents money and so exclude low-income families? A “voluntary contribution” before admissions sounds suspiciously like one on which admission could hang. Nothing would need said; the very fact that the charge comes before admission would simply worry parents, who then pay out just in case something goes wrong with the application goes through.

Not that those charges would be necessary in a secular school anyway; surely, “protection” money is required because of the school’s very insularity? The group seperates itself off from the community; that community is left in ignorance of that group’s traditions and finds it harder to challenge prejudices; the prejudiced, meanwhile, have an easy target in the isolated group. They’re not asking for it - but they’re hardly making the problem better.

Ed Balls’s attack fed, and amplified, the strident secularist stereotyping of faith schools as ghettoes that teach a backward mentality.

Let’s check a popular definition of the term, “Ghetto”: “a part of a city, especially a slum area, occupied by a minority group.” Substitute, “education system,” for, “city, especially a slum area,” and, actually, that’s about right. A faith school sets itself up as a seperate entity within the state education system justifying its existence by its religious status - an educational ghetto.

In fact, Labour’s own Commission on Integration and Cohesion found that faith schools support local communities in terms of sharing their resources, and generating social capital.

Note the strange jargon to confuse the uninitiated; “social capital,” is an evasive non-phrase straight out of a sociology textbook. The author again misses the point; the schools might support their own, local communities, but their perpetuation of an insular, religious mentality seperates them from the national community (such as it is) and so is divisive.

Moreover, faith schools are crucial in the emancipation of Muslim girls: those who attend Muslim schools are more than twice as likely to go on to higher education than those who attend secular state or independent schools.

Perhaps more importantly, they’re more than twice as likely to have the doctrines of a religion elements of which treat women as second-class citizens forced on them. As they would do with a Christian or Jewish school; the patriarchal elements of Abrahamic faiths are inescapable.

Very emancipating.

As for the urban myth that faith schools teach creationism in science classes, this is precisely indeed a myth.

Now this just needs editting; “precisely indeed”? Ugh…

Faith schools have an excellent academic record, serve their local communities, and ground their students in a religious as well as national identity. Why squander this force for good?

Because they ground their students in a religious identity, and because that grounding is tax-funded. Parents have the right to educate their children as they wish, so long as that doesn’t harm the child; but they don’t have the right to do so on other taxpayers. All parents fund the education system. That system should thus be open to the children of any parent at any point, regardless of faith. That requires universally secular state schools; that requires an end to state funding for faith schools. Simple, really.

Oh - and since when was a religious and national identity a force for good? Division is the word she’s looking for.

For Ed Balls – and Gordon Brown – the answer is obvious: to woo the “old Labour” rump of the party, equally committed to secularism and comprehensive education.

Or maybe it’s because they believe in an open and fair education for all children?

With an eye to the No 10 succession, Balls is setting himself up as the old Labour candidate by bashing faith schools.

This is just laughable. Balls is setting himself up as Old Labour - by bashing faith schools? Odone could at least do the scaremongering properly and realise that the Labour left aren’t very well disposed to Balls because of City Academies and more. They care about socialism as well as secularism.

He deserves to fail.

Oh, look, another unsubstantiated point. Typical, no?

The Anglican Church faces what is in effect a schism this weekend after the declaration last night of conservative evangelicals to create a “church within a church”. The new body, called the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, will have its own bishops, clergy and theological colleges.

The conservatives enjoy irrelevance, it seems. They don’t understand that erecting a wall around themselves will simply further cut them off from reality. Their ideas are rooted in a dogmatic, hardline interpretation of an ancient socio-cultural text not known for its consistent practical relevance. That ancient culture no longer exists; and so its stranger emanations simply don’t wash anymore.

“Modernising” Christians (hah…) get this. They realise that the bigoted fury of a vicious desert-society rests at odds with modern civilisations (such as they are) - but argue a relevant message rests beneath. Very debatable; but a more pragmatic approach to doctrine does allow them slightly more leeway in fighting the losing battle that is attempting to convince the public of a scientific age to believe in the sky-god. They can drop they hair-shirted adulterer-stoning no-wearing-clothes-of-two-materials bit and try and address the issues relevant to modern life.

So - part of the Anglican church drops away and seals itself off to new converts. The rest, meanwhile, goes on as usual - but looks weaker. Humanity looks on puzzled at a sectarian squabbling which for many outside the church equates to a dispute over whether God is a sky-fairy or a cosmic-pixie. And then decides religion is clearly barmy. Just so long as nobody dies for it…

Reporter: “When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost?”

MCCAIN: “Oh, I don’t remember. Now there’s Secret Service protection. But I’ve done it for many, many years. I don’t recall and frankly, I don’t see how it matters.“

McCain doesn’t know how much it costs Americans to live. So - when are those elitist headlines the media clobbered Obama with going to start?

Oh, wait. He’s a Republican - and thus clearly a national hero who’s loyal service requires secret service protection which stops him from filling up his car in case those nasty terrists blow him up. Clearly.

Need more be said?

(Hat-tip: Steve Platt via Tory Troll via Boris Watch)

In the light of growing economic difficulties for many Londoners, will you consider indefinitely continuing the provision of half-price bus travel for those on income support?

Boris Johnson replied:

Many Londoners face growing economic difficulties at the moment, but I believe this can best be addressed by keeping the overall level of bus fares as low as possible. I do not believe that an extension of the Venezuela funded scheme can be justified. As I have already said, I think many Londoners felt uncomfortable about the bus operation of one of the world’s financial powerhouses being funded by the people of a country where many people live 10 in extreme poverty. I simply think there are better ways of benefiting Londoners and better ways of benefiting Venezuelans.

So, Boris will cut the Venezuala oil deal - and isn’t looking for an an alternative source of funding for subsidies. And this in a time of “economic difficulties” for Londoners. Need I say more?

EDIT: Yes, apparently. Dave Hill points out that Boris says in a subsequent answer “I have therefore asked TfL to investigate more suitable forms of fares concession for low income Londoners for consideration at the next fares revision.” So he’s scrapping the concessions, but only until the next fares revision?

That’s in January. I’d welcome a return of the subsidy - but what about the people who have to cope in the 5 month gap between their subsidies ending and (possibly) reappearing? It’s not as if they’ve copious (any) saving to cover the increased costs.

And I do worry - what does BoJo consider “suitable?”

Instead, BoJo and co. decided he must go. And so made the story. McGrath’s comments were made to seem serious, and so the story shot to the front pages. The issue went from being a barely reported misdemeanour, confined to the inside of the Guardian, to an issue so serious that a Mayoral aide had to resign. Tactical mistake: I think so.

But it’s more than that: Boris now appears a complete hypocrite, especially to his own side. Quoth an unusually critical Iain Dale:

I’m told that McGrath honourably fell on his sword. But I am not sure he was given any choice in the matter. All Boris has done is attempt to appease people who are quite frankly not capable of being appeased. What he should have done is stand by the man who has stood by him through thick and thin over the last eight months. Instead, Boris has hung James McGrath out to dry - apparently either with the connivance of or at the behest of the Party leadership - in the most despicable and and cowardly manner possible.

And this the man whose blog practically reads as a series of watered-down CCHQ press releases. He must be furious to break through the programming. Other Tories certainly are:

Public figures can get away with misusing expenses and terrible policy failures but an unfortunate phrase on racial issues causes something to go wrong in the wiring of politicians and the media. ConservativeHome celebrates multiracial Britain but we also worry about what should be called an industry that is determined to see racism when there is nothing but an unfortunate remark. Is there a gutsy politician willing to face up to the hysteria that this industry generates? Without such guts there’ll only be more false charges of racism.

Boris was himself accused of racism at the start of his Mayoral campaign. Out of context his remarks appeared unfortunate. In the context of his full career they rightly didn’t worry fair-minded Londoners. Boris should have had the backbone to stand by such a loyal aide. There should have been no pressure to resign and no acceptance of a resignation.

So, he’s angered his own supporters by crumbling to the political correctness they so despise. Clever. Maybe for his next trick, he’ll decide to keep bendy-buses, see how that goes down with the voters.

(Oh. Wait…)

And there’s still more! BoJo has set a dangerous precedent for himself here. He defended McGrath from charges of racism, arguing that he was misquoted; as in, “James’s remark was taken out of context and distorted.” An explicit defence based in the same rhetoric he used to defend himself from charges of racism in the campaign. And yet McGrath’s gone. Inconsistency much?

The precedent is clear here. (gah, horrible sentence.) You misspeak, you go - whether that’s actually justified by the comments or not. Given Boris’ record for gaffes, that’s a very risky direction to head in.

BoJo shot himself in the foot by letting McGrath go in the first place. He’s since inserted the gory stump in his mouth and began gnawing when he released a statement defending then dumping McGrath. Perhaps he likes the taste of his own political blood?

Please tell me this is inexperience and not his typical managerial style. I could understand the former, but the latter would mean he’d crossed the line between delegation and utter cluelessness…

(Hat tip: Mr. Stop Boris)