ThunderDragon Blog

The Conservatives are beginning to really start pushing the online battle back towards Labour. I commented a while back on the Labour’s far more web-orientated economic propaganda - even though it was pretty useless, as it was too large to be embedded in a blog, even in the main post!

But since then, the Conservatives have really been developing a far better approachm with the landing page being turned into a national debt counter, depicting Alistair Darling and a elongated red box.

And now they’ve developed a real time widget showing our personal share of the national debt created by Brown and Darling. Which, unlike the Labour embeddable tool, can actually fit in a blog sidebar, or in a header like I have.

Alongside this, they have also developed the iconic poster a bit further, with the tax bombshell now unwrapped [click to enlarge]:

However, what they haven’t done is put a dedicated page on their website to deal with the economic crisis or tax bombshell. There is nothing to develop these points further, to explain what they mean to us. Yes, there are speeches, news articles and the like, but they really need to be together in one place and part of a developed/developing narrative. And a repository of propaganda, so we don’t have to rely to emails and newspapers to get it, and so that they don’t have to rely on blogs to publicise it. This page - or pages - should also linked to from the tax bombshell header, so it’s more than just a pretty picture on the site.

So the Conservatives are on the way to using the internet a bit better, but there’s still a looong way to go.

For the first time in ten quarters - 2 and a half years or, to put it another way, since Gordon Brown became leader - Labour raised more money than the Conservatives.

Between July and September this year, Labour raised £5 million and the Conservatives raised £4 million. In contrast, between April and June, the Conservatives were donated £5.6 million and Labour £3.8 million.

Labour’s increase in donations come through the million-pound donation by JK Rowling, the conversion of loans to donations, and the continued bankrolling of the trade unions:

Britain’s biggest union saved Labour from bankruptcy by guaranteeing its finances in a secret deal that the party is refusing to make public.

Unite, which has given £13.4 million to Labour since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, gave formal assurances in June that it would support the debt-ridden party. Labour and Unite have confirmed its existence to The Times but refused to provide details. (The Times)

This looks like good news for Labour, but had it not been for the the £1 million donation from JK Rowling, Labour would have received no more than the Conservatives. And had it not been for the trade unions, Labour would have been donated not far off £1.5 million less than the Conservatives.

When it comes to debt, Labour do appear to be in not as bad shape as previously, having debts of nearly £16 million, compared to the Conservatives debt of just over £12 million - with ten quarters of higher levels of doinations than Labour. Though it really depends what exactly they’re using the money for.

And the Lib Dems I hear you ask? They were given less than £600,000 in the quarter, only slightly more than they got in public funding.

As large as these amounts sound, when it comes down to it, we get our democracy pretty damn cheap.

If you’re in the South, Labour don’t give a shit about you. Not only do they have a massive Northern bias in the Cabinet, they want to help their chums oop North at the expense of us in the South:

Nick Brown, the Chief Whip, called yesterday for the North East to be exempted from the Government’s controversial tax on empty commercial buildings. However, Mr Brown, who is also Minister for the North East, said that the tax was appropriate for London and the South East. (The Times)

So only the businesses and people in the North need and/or ‘deserve’ tax relief in the middle of a recession? That’s like saying only Labour supporters want the recession to end at all. Utter bollocks, in other words.

Labour only care abour channelling money to their supporters. This has been evident over the past eleven years. It is entirely unacceptable. [But then again, even the North might be going blue come the next general election...]

Nick Brown should be severly rebuked by Gordon Brown for making such a ridiculous statement. However, as he is Chief Whip and an ardent Brownite we can but presume that Gordon Brown is smiling on this.

Brown should act as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not just of the areas where Labour have their voters, or he should resign.

Douglas Alexander is squashing “chatter” that Labour are planning to call a spring election in order to benefit from their current recovery in the polls:

As election coordinator I haven’t spoken to Gordon Brown about the possibility of an election…

Not a poster site has been booked - we are getting on with the job of focussing on how we can help families through the difficult times they are facing…

Of course there will be chatter in the newspapers, there may be chatter in the tearoom but I can assure you at the level of the cabinet we are entirely focussed on trying to help people with rising food bills, rising fuel bills and all the concerns they have got.

He’s dusting off the old “getting on with the job” mantra. But he is certainly right that a snap election at the moment would be extremely foolish.

Both for Labour and for the British people: A snap election now would not help Brown hold on to power, but just turn the electorate even more aginst politicians altogether, seeing them as even more sleazy and grasping as ever. They won’t appreciate being asked to make a decison for next four years in the middle of a financial crisis.

Surprisingly, Labour won the by-election in Glenthrothes. I say “surprisingly”, but Labour were never out of the game. They always had a chance of winning, and only idiots *cough*Salmond*cough* said that it was in the bag for the SNP.

However, the amount of its vote that Labour managed to keep is surprising. In 2005, Labour had a majority of 10,664, and in 2008 a majority of 6,737, a loss of 4,000. The SNP increased its vote by 4,500, and both the Conservatives and Lib Dems lost their deposit. The biggest loser of the night was the Lib Dems, who were dismissed by the electorate into fourth place - down from third.

Gordon Brown has hailed this victory as a “vote of confidence” in the government. Err, excuse me? How, precisely?

Let’s look at the facts: Glenrothes is a Scottish constituency right next to Brown’s own; Gordo is a local boy, “a citizen of the Kingdom of Fife”; Labour’s candidate was the head teacher of a local school; neither Glenrothes or any of it’s constituent parts have ever had a non-Labour MP. So Glenrothe isn’t exactly a neutral area on which the success of policies can be based, since Brown and Labour had such an inbuilt advantage.

It simply cannot be regarded as any form of vote of confidence in Labour’s policies on a national basis - even though it is an undoubtedly a good thing for them.

Not exactly ground-breaking news is it? Since they began with a 10,000 majority, it is hardly surprising that Labour still stand a fighting chance of keeping Glenrothes - Gordo’s neighbouring constituency, remember - red.

From the start it has been a straight fight between Labour and the SNP, with the Conservatives and Lib Dems standing no chance of winning. From when the result of the Glasgow East by-election was announced, no Labour MP was safe.

However, since the recession, Labour’s polling woes have lessened - though the polls still put the Conservatives 9% in the lead, which would give them a majority of 22 in the Commons after a general election. So even though Labour have improved their polling position, it’s still not exactly looking rosy for them.

There is, as Guido Fawkes points out, a difference of opinions betwen pundits and punters - the former forcasting a Labour hold and the latter putting their money on an SNP win. Personally, I’d side with the punters - even though Gordon Brown has broken Prime Ministerial convention and visted Glenrothes twice, I think the SNP still have the edge and will carry the day despite the economic situation.

But we won’t know for sure until volcano day.

One thing, however, is certain: Labour’s not dead yet…

Labour’s anti-drugs campaign has not really achieved its aim. Why? Because cocaine used has doubled since it was launched.

[Home Office] data show[s] that even after a modest fall in cocaine use from 2006/07 to 2007/08, the drug is roughly twice as heavily used now as it was a decade ago.

Labour launched a ten-year national drug strategy in 1998, promising to “focus on those that cause the greatest damage, including cocaine”.

In the 1998 crime survey, 1.3 per cent of people said they had taken cocaine at least once in the previous year. This year, the figure was 2.3 per cent.

In 1998, some 0.5 per cent of people had used cocaine in the previous month. Now, it is 1 per cent.

However, the total amount of the drug seized actually fell by 15 per cent a year, and it has halved in five years. (The Telegraph)

That is a a vey large increase. When the fact that the amount of coaine seized by the police has fallen at the same time, what does that tell us? That this anti-drugs campaign has failed miserably.

Personally, I couldn’t care less what people do their own bodies so long as they don’t harm anyone else, but when an anti-drugs campaign encourages drug taking then there’s a problem somewhere. Most likely with the moralising of the campaigners, as usual.

Labour really are making a habit of stealing Tory policies, shortly after calling them unworkable, too expensive, or generally rubbish.

A couple of quick examples:

• Inheritance tax and non-doms, shortly after George Osborne’s 2007 conference speech, and
• Promoting marriage and the “traditional family” through the tax system.

Now they’re at it again, stealing the Conservatives plan for a high-speed rail despite having ruled it out as too expesive last year.

And what did they say when the Conservatives proposed it? Oh yes:

Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly said the plans were “politically opportunistic” and would be “hugely damaging” to the national interest…

“It is the Tories who cannot face up to the tough decisions needed to support the economy, hiding behind unfunded, ill-thought-through policy announcements which only reinforces their reputation as lightweight, shallow and only interested in grabbing a headline.”

Presumably it’s not “politically opportunistic” and won’t be “hugely damaging” to the national interest now that Labour are proposing it…?

Like tax and spend, but it costs us even more.

And is just as effective - ie. not very.

It certainly appears the no Labour government can ever exist without resorting to the old tired-and-failed tactic of tax-and-spend.

Though at least Gordon Brown has selected a very slightly different path, meaning that we pay the taxes later, most likely under a Conservative government, rather than now.

After all, if he can’t be Prime Minister of an economically stable UK, then he won’t let anyone be.

Even the Guardian is proclaiming the Brown caused the recession:

In January, Gordon Brown said of the credit crunch: ‘Britain is better placed than most to withstand the global turbulence.’

It was an optimistic claim and Mr Brown probably believed it. But that doesn’t mean it was true.

Statistics released last week showed Britain’s economy shrank by 0.5 per cent, more than was widely forecast, in the last quarter. Technically, it is only a recession if growth shrinks again between now and Christmas, but few doubt that will happen…

Last week, Mr Brown acknowledged what the rest of us have known for months. Recession is likely, he said, ‘in America, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and - because no country can insulate itself from it - Britain, too’…

The credit crunch may have started abroad, but it was custom-made to hurt Britain.

Naturally, Mr Brown does not want to admit that, since he was in charge of the economy for the last decade. Naturally, the Conservatives take every opportunity to remind people of that fact. David Cameron wants voters to blame Mr Brown for the recession; Mr Brown wants them to blame the rest of the world.

Brown has been in charge of Britain economy directly or indirectly for the past eleven years. There can be no doubt that he caused the recession. He is responsible for the Age of Irresponsibility, because he presided over it and did nothing to prevent this inevitable and disastrous end.

It certainly appears to prove the fact that the economy did well despite Brown rather because of him.

And that all Labour governments screw up the economy.