Need more be said?

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

I was at the Liberal Conspiracy/Guardian Blog Nation event on Wednesday evening.  One of the many thoughts to come from it (more of which might be written up at a later date) was that female blogging was alive and kicking.  I admit to not regularly reading blogs written by women, and for presuming that only a handful of women actually blogged.  I am well aware of the statistics showing the tiny minority of women bloggers, but have opened my eyes to the joys of some of the female blogs out there*.  Upon hearing Harriet Harman’s latest proposals for “equal opportunities” legislation, therefore, I made a concerted effort to see what the female and feminist blogs had to say.

The message is fairly clear - the proposals are extremely confusing.  It is unclear as to whether allowing women to be chosen above men of equal ability is anything new: surely this is already legal?  In fact, it is unclear as to whether or not any sort of positive discrimination is being proposed at all.  The draft proposals seem to be a wrapping up of existing legislation, being spun as a great move for feminism.  It seems as if the feminists aren’t buying it.

The Westminster media narrative has moved on, but it is worth considering the effect of this legislation.  It has been spun to appeal: one Tory commented that it was the most politically correct announcement from the most politically correct minister.  He couldn’t be more wrong.  I was ready to get on a high horse about the evils of positive discrimination, but found that I couldn’t.  Instead, I was left wondering why Harman needed to bother at all.  This is no new announcement, no change in policy, just a way of lubricating the existing regulations.  It is dull, but exactly the sort of legislation Parliament should be churning out - like the fertilisation bill, which gathered the loose ends of a whole sphere of regulation into one manageable bunch.  It actually allows employers to arbitrarily discriminate in any direction: not very PC at all.

The Daily Express ran with some tripe about how white middle class men are to be slain by the feminist monster, but the proposals give equal rights for potential employers to pick white men over black women arbitrarily.  This was a confusing announcement because of the spin.  The substance of the proposal is limited, but commendable.  If Harman had dared to present it for what it was, she may have missed headlines but would have done the important work of government.  One cannot help but think that Labour, in its current state, should not so easily sacrifice a rare display of good governance for the sake of a failed attempt at positive headlines.

- - -
*Penny Red is a favourite already.  Our Recommended Links list has more.

The Tories have (predictably) won in Henley, increasing their share of the vote.  Labour lost their deposit.

I am going to be controversial here, but here goes: it was a brilliant result.  Labour is in disarray, and they deserved the beating they suffered, albeit in very un-Labour territory.  The LibDems should stand to benefit from a seat in which they poll second, and where the predecessor ran away mid-term to get a better job.  But their campaign was disgusting (genuinely, not just reflecting the usual Tory complaints about LibDem tactics…) and should be seen as the real cause for their failure to make ground.

The party has a few good ideas, and is clearly preferable to the Tories, but I cannot say that I would vote for a campaign that behaved in the way the LibDems did.  It is a shame that they have so utterly failed to grow up and debate, not slander.  I sincerely the party learns from this, and Crewe, to play positive politics in the future.  They might actually gain votes that way!

(Or: And lo, the imploded party did implode once more…)

As if the Left wasn’t having as disastrous enough a time as it was yesterday we heard that both the Left List and the Respect Coalition (or was that Respect Renewal? I don’t think anyone really knows any more) seem to have suffered such a substantial defection that the appear to have almost vanished from the political landscape. Worse still the traitors abandoned them not to form some third party {which would at least have been amusing} but instead went to Labour.

{Or “New Labour” as the hard-core socialists would put it. Not that they thought Old Labour was left enough either…}

That article fails to make it entirely clear but those Respect members were three parts Left List/SWP and one part George Galloway/Respect Renewal. This sort of a disaster could well be enough to finish both the Trotskyite party and assorted Galloway-tolerating leftist party and I imagine it may well. How exactly they feel about being deemed less desirable than the Labour Party has yet to be heard but some degree of humiliation is appropriate. Prepare yourselves, however, for some desperate, snarling spinning from the SWP’s Central Committee.

Their understanding of the split as a right-left schism with the SWP upon the left has, however, been thoroughly punctured. According to the SWP the Labour Party are crypto-rightist Neo-Conservatives interested in dismantling the welfare state via Neo-Liberalism who are entirely committed to neo-colonialism, yet all of their Left Listed councilors have opted to join it? Inexplicable.

There has been numerous references, hints, or allusions to a “Left Party” formed along the lines of the German party of the same name, which has enjoyed increasing success of late. The Campaign for a New Worker’s Party has, of course, always been keen on this idea but an increasing number of individuals have stated an inclination towards something fresh and left, including at least one union leader. This event will give such an suggestion momentum but it is also possible that both groups will continue to hobble onwards.

Hopefully, though, they will realise the futility of this pathetic spectacle and put an end to it. The scale of their failure considered what follows in the aftermath can scarcely be worse.

We’ve all been at BlogNation this evening. So, unfortunately, no posts today. Sorry!

Darren Johnson asked:

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?”

…Brown gets that Thatcherism hurts. So why has he spent the past 11 years aping Thatcherite economic policy?

This shouldn’t be a story. The reporter asked a provocative question, McGrath replied - and the reporter quoted him out of context. All that McGrath needed to do was explain and apologise. And the story would’ve died.

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?

And about time to.

My own write-up of events is forthcoming although I might not get around to it seeing as I only showed up at about half twelve or so. Notably afterwards there was Buck Foris which led me to believe the Blonde Devil may well have lost the youth, so is most likely worth of an article or a half.

Their article is a fine one and was a front page article in the Times 2. Most pleasing, but a placing that has left many of the old school anonymous fearing that the next shall be flooded with “newfags” apparently convinced that protesting is sexy again. I wouldn’t worry.

Also note the article by Caitlan Moron. One of three in that edition. She started off as a singular tumour located in the Times 2 but her inexplicable popularity has led to her spreading through the newspaper like the cancer she truly is. It may be too late for chemotherapy and Murdoch doubtless considers this part of his lunge for Middle England and the logical next step (although unfortunately far from the conclusion) of his ongoing project to turn The Times into a more expensive Daily Mail so would never authorise it. Perhaps once he’s dead we can purge her, although to do so may require amputation of the T2 and extensive radiotherapy of the rest of our Paper of Record.

Regardless, her rise makes me thoroughly miserable. I do hope that it is followed by a particularly grisly downfall.

Strangely enough no article has enamoured me more to the prospect of Jim Webb as Vice Presidential candidate that this article by The Economist when it turns critical:

The main worry about Mr Webb, however, is that he is a genuine fire-breathing economic populist. He appears actually to believe the sort of stuff that Mr Obama only says during Democratic primaries.

The Economist dislikes populism for a number of reasons, perhaps the strongest being that populism precedes socialism. This is the sole reason I can stand the stuff.