ThunderDragon Blog

As Conference season is very nearly upon us, it’s time to start a new mwm based on what you would say if you had a platform at any party conference. [Idea nicked from Mike Ion.]

So here goes:

Conference,

I believe that we, the Conservative Party, are once more ready to take office. Let’s be frank - for a while, we had lost it, as can sometimes happen. But now, we have developed and moved on. We have taken a look at ourselves, done our navel gazing, and then we have taken a look at modern Britain and seen how we can make it better. And we are now in the process of setting out our vision for the future, after the destruction befalling us from a decade and more of Labour mis-management.

When Labour took power in 1997, Britain was at the start of an economic upturn. Thst continued, despite the policies they pursued which has driven our economy to the edge of a precipice. Rather than spending that time developing and reforming our public services, they resorted to the tried-and-failed Labour tactic of tax-and-spend.

Last time they tried that, we had to go in and fix it. We had to reform the state and bring back economic security to the nation, because they broke it.

And it looks like we need to try and fix it all over again.

The truth is, as the Chancellor recently alluded to, is that we have been screwed by Labour. They promised much, took the money from our wage packets to pay for it, and then squandered it. Time and time again. Gordon Brown failed when he was at the Treasury and the economy survived despite him. But he took it right to the precipice, and as soon as the world economy slowed, the hollowness of his boasts about economic competence were revealed.

The country is clearly calling for us to step up our game and set out our stall with how we can fix it - and so far they seem to like what they are seeing. In every vote and in every poll, we are the clear winners. But now, the present is the time that we must lose sight of. We must not get cocky and see the next election as “ours”. Instead, we must respect that it is up to the people, the voters of this country, whether or not we are allowed to govern them for one Parliament.

Our country needs us. But it is up to us to go to them and tell them what it is we stand for - the freedom for them to spend their own money however they like, the freedom for them to do what they like in their own homes without government snooping or disapproval of them drinking more than than they say we should or smoking at all, and greater protection from criminals through putting real police on the street.

Our politics is about reform - change for the better, rather than for the sake of change. About cutting waste and providing more efficient and less polluting services. About making Britain cleaner, greener, and safer.

Thank you.

To write their own ‘pretend’ conference speech, I tag:

• Letters From A Tory
• Tony Sharp
• Nich Starling
• James Graham
• Sadie Smith
• Dave Cole
• Ordovicious
• And anyone else who wants to.

Is it now “official” that first-borns are smarter?

To a certain extent that is true. But considering that IQ tests actually reveal little more than the ability to take IQ tests, and that three points is a really minimal amount, I think that it can be put down primarily to issues with the IQ test itself. And the way in which each individual’s brain is wired to deal with the problems. My older brother is far more mathematical and scientific than me, but lacks any real creativity or imagination, almost a diametric switch to me. We have different interests and specialities. I wouldn’t say he’s more intelligent than me, but his brain works in a different way.

But being the second of three boys, this is the bit that interested me most:

This is something which I have very much noticed all through my life. But is it really being “shortchanged”? Maybe in purely financial or resource-specific ways, but in the long term as a human being, I disagree - it has made me be far more able to deal with a greater range of situations than my brothers. I don’t have to lead like my older brother does but I can, and I don’t have the greed and feel the need to differentiate myself from others like my younger brother. I can adapt to fit the situation. I can lead and follow, teach and be taught. This bit, however, it utter bollocks:

When it comes to birth order, it really makes very little difference in the long run. They give different advantages and disadvantages. The gap in the IQ test is minimal and within the accuracy of IQ tests. The social differences allow people to fit into different niches. Birth order itself doesn’t give benefits without disadvantages, or vice versa.

Source: TIME

This demonstrates just one of the reasons why I am against guns being freely available to anyone, for any reason. Gun control is essential in a modern society. Guns don’t kill people themselves, but they are used to kill people - and do that job extremely easily.

I certainly wouldn’t feel safer with a gun or with all police officers being armed - if the police have guns, the criminals then need them too. Gun crime may be on the rise in Britain, but it certainly isn’t anywhere near the level of that in America. In Hertfordshire, the last time a policeman fired a gun in anger was about 1985 - the year I was born.

Guns breed guns. If people have guns, criminals need them too. If they don’t, few criminals have them. And then there are fewer guns around, so fewer shots get fired, and fewer people die.

Morningstar says that he is leaving

That’s fair enough. But then he adds in the comments:

Which is pretty damn stupid, really. In a follow-up post on the same issue, he also says:

The problem with that if he won’t vote for Labour or the Lib Dems or the Conservatives, his vote will have pretty much no point, or even be possible since not all seats will have other parties contesting them, let alone the party you choose. We only have three decent sized parties in our political system, and only two with any chance of winning an election. Labour and the Conservatives. The choice is thus pretty much just between them.

No person agrees entirely with another person. Be it on minor issues or huge ones, there will be differences between each and every person. Thus no party can ever possibly completely represent you and hold all of your views within it - unless, of course, you are the leader, and not even necessarily then. Thus we have to make compromises. I don’t agree with everything that the Conservative Party says or does, plenty of which has been documented at one point or another on this blog - and will continue to be.

Our political system means that if you don’t vote for one of the three main parties, your vote is almost always completely wasted. Thus you have to compromise, and choose the party who you most agree with and who represents your views more than the others from those three and vote for them. Whilst that doesn’t mean that you should stay as a member of a party that you are not sure fully represents your views any more, it does mean that you should still vote for them - or you are giving those with whom you agree with least more chance of getting in. That is simply how this system works.

The best and pithiest response to Gordon Brown’s speech at the Labour Conference that I have read has to be John Redwood’s. He sees right through Brown’s boring rhetoric used to ensure that nothing he actually says is ever really paid attention to, but just what his spin doctors tell the media he said. Under the title “Using the word British or Britain more than 70 times doesn’t make you a patriot” he writes:

Read his full post to find out what he thinks a real Conservative speech should contain. Will david Cameron’s speech at the Conservative Conference meet this? Only time will tell.

UPDATE: West Brom Blogger has put Brown’s speech through a tag generator. A very cleaver idea, and it has some interesting results.

She’s guilty.

You can’t help but feel sorry for her. She is said to have been a “rising star in Labour ranks” and now she has lost her council seat and been suspended from her party. Quite a come-down.

I doubt, however, that she did it on purpose. It is far more likely to have been just an indiscreet, and very ill-advised, slip of the tongue. I don’t think she’s likely to be stupid enough to have deliberately set out to smear her opponent - as much as my political prejudices may make me like to believe that she did.

I feel sorry for her. She has lost so much now, as well as many possibilities for the future. If she ever stands for public office again, this case will constantly rear its head. It is the sort of thing that could happen any politician, a foolish and indiscreet remark putting paid to a potential future career.

No party can claim to have had no problems in the past. There can be rotten apples in any basket, after all. No political party has an immaculate yard. What happened to Miranda could happen oh-so-easily to numerous others.

Image: Miranda Grell
Sources: BBC, The Times

Sam Coates [of the Times, not ConervativeHome] is writing the Times’ News Blog during the Conference season. His latest entry is on the Lib Dems Conference focuses on the discovery of Facebook by politicians:

I have to say that I disagree with him. I think it is a good thing that politicians have discovered Facebook, if they use it to actually connect with young people. It’s all too easy to write it off as a gimmick and as a cringe-worthy attempt to be “down with the kids” but if they actually use it to connect with and listen to the young people in their constituency, then it can be nothing but an unqualified good.

The reason that young people are often seen as disconnected from politics is because it operates in a different way to them, in different spheres of human life and society. Politicians have a duty to attempt to connect with all members of the electorate, and they’re not able to connect with the vast majority of young people through the normal means.

Facebook is a good way for politicians to link with young people in their constituency. They can connect with them and hear their opinions. They can find out which issues most concern them, and what they think could or should be done about them.

That politicians are ready and willing to take the initiative to get in contact with and listen to the concerns of young people is certainly a good thing. They should do everything that they can in order to get young people interested in politics, and to hear their opinions.

Even if it can be as cringe-worthy as the uncle on the wedding dance floor.

In today’s Times, a comment article has been written entitled “Wouldn’t you feel safer with a gun?” and claims that “British attitudes are supercilious and misguided”.

My answer to the question is a very simple “No, I wouldn’t”.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But people use guns to kill people. The more guns there are in open circulation, the more deaths there are going to be from been shot. A gun makes it very easy to kill. Point, aim, shoot. Bang, they’re dead.

The less guns there are in open circulation, the safer I feel.

If everyone has a gun, a criminal with a gun knows this, and will thus shoot to kill, and shoot and kill, far more so than if no-one has - so he knows that no-one can shoot and kill him, and thus doesn’t feel a need to strike first.

Yes, if someone goes on a rampage with a gun someone else with a gun can shoot back and stop them - but if guns weren’t in such open circulation in the first place, it would be far far harder for that person to get a gun to go on the rampage with.

The more guns that are available, the more people will die. Yes, people still die if guns aren’t in open circulation, but far fewer. Through guns comes death. It’s as simple as that. And that is why I feel safer with gun control - because if I have a gun, so does the person behind me, and that scares me far more than if someone starts shooting I can’t shoot back.

“I’m only 18 - but my opinions are important. It’s my generation that will have to clean up after you” claims an article on Comment is Free. Matthew Sinclair deals with most of rubbish he spouts, but there is one point in the CiF article that I want to address, the one in the title quoted above - “I’m only 18 - but my opinions are important”. In the article, Charlie writes:

“[Y]oung people feel strongly about things that will affect them… To dismiss young people’s opinions simply because they are young is ridiculous; no wonder so many of my friends have no interest. If we aren’t allowed to participate in debates with the older generation, what is the point of our becoming interested in politics?…
So let’s stop moaning about our young people. We have opinions and ideas on political issues , and it would be nice to be able to express them. Let us get involved in decision making - and, just once in a while, talk about the positive things that we’re doing rather than the negative.”

The opinions of young people tend to be dismissed for one very simple reason: they have nothing - or very little - to base them on. An 18 year old’s opinion has less “value” than that of a 40 year old because the 40 year old has life experience on which to base them. At 18, you have no real life experience. All your life you have lived at your parent’s home and under their protection. Your opinions are immature, unformed, uninformed, and easily manipulated - and very much the result of school indoctrination [for lack of a better word].

At 18 you think you know everything. I know I did. You think your opinions are intelligent, well though out and based on sound principles - but, of course, they’re not. They’re based on bullshit. 18 year olds know little or nothing about the real world outside of the closed and structured environment of school, where you are effectively spoon-fed ideas and answers. When you finally leave that safe environment and move out, you begin to realise that where you are wrong, and that things aren’t like you thought they are or would be.

Over the last four years at university, I have learnt a significant amount about life - but I know I still have a hell of a long way to go. But the first, and arguably most important, step is realising that your opinions are almost certainly wrong in at least one way, and that experience can and will teach you where that is. That is why an 18 year old’s opinion means little. Even that of a 22 year old like me doesn’t mean all that much - but I know why it doesn’t. As a mark of how opinions and understandings change, even just over the last year when I have been writing this blog, my opinions have significantly adapted and matured - and that is one of the reasons why I blog.

The voice of the ‘yoofs’ isn’t taken too seriously for one main reason: because they don’t mean squat yet. There is no real foundation on which they have been built, and they will change as you grow up. Mine have [and will continue to do so, I'm sure], and yours will. In forming opinions, experience is key - and 18 year olds simply don’t have any.