Politics

  • The curse of conflation

    The news of another PopCon conference is droll news for those tired of more of it.

    The notion that conservatives can work their way out of another mess is old news. It’s really another stamp on a missive that is delivered but neither read nor cared about.

    The icons of the Conservative Party are trying desperately to shore up a ship that doesn’t go away. It was due to sink under William Hague, Michael Howard, Ian Duncan Smith – and allegedly even Michael Portillo.

    It’s a recourse to a defensive position that is needless.

    The fact is the majority of Tory voters want the Tory party, they just don’t agree this time.

    A vote for Reform UK is hardly a swing to Labour and to the left. Nigel Farage & Co. represent a brand of conservatism that is fresh, new, and exciting but in ways that have yet to be explained.

    The point is not to see the future but explore – and explain – the present.

    The curse of conflation is seeing conservatives conflate every known issue and to come up with solutions to its problems. The only problem I can see is the need for a new leader.

  • Conservatives: Total results

    The total outcome for the Conservatives this election is remarkable considering past performance.

    The final tally shows a sharp drop in its number of seats in Westminster. In comparison to previous general elections, the Tories have lost at least 150 seats.

    In a few past elections the tally has been so high it makes 2024 look like a washout.

    Conservative Party’s seat share
  • Sunak polls highly in North Yorks

    In North Yorkshire Rishi Sunak retained his seat in the Richmond and Northallerton constituency. His vote share is 23,059, which is a strong showing against 10,874 for a second place Labour rival Tom Wilson.

    Reform UK presented a respectable third place with Lee Taylor who polled 7,142 votes. It confirms a strong showing for a relatively new party.

    In other news, turnout was particularly high in North Yorkshire. It shows democracy remains vigorous there.

  • Challenging healthcare narratives

    Now that health alarmism is behind us, how does the state of things look now?

    In my view, fairly good. I’ve visited surgeries and hospitals on numerous occasions in recent years and nothing has looked better than the NHS.

    Its facilities are clean and up to scratch (a new ‘robotic’ surgery aid was delivered to one hospital), and its staff seem happy to help.

    The only trouble is getting an appointment.

    In past visits the waiting room has been largely empty. I guess doctors have FaceTime now. At other times such as at the A&E side of things the waiting area has been packed.

    I guess accidents can still happen.

    The NHS is in rude health by the looks of it, but the funding side of things is largely kept apart from a patient’s own experience, that is apart from an odd charity collection.

    It’s a freebie, but it’s worth having still.

  • GB News will not win just yet

    The advent (or innovation) of GB News is a project to be admired simply because it exists.

    There was a time when it seemed no one could stop complaining about BBC News and a dearth of ‘alternative’ news channels that didn’t fit the “mainstream” mould of both the BBC and Sky’s attempts at twenty-four hour news streaming.

    These days are not yet behind us, as GB News and also Talk TV lag behind not just in viewers but in significance in the UK news media market.

    It’s not just a question of a make-or-break interview, but it’s also a matter of working out how a news channel makes itself significant anymore.

    Is anyone really taking note, and is it worth watching at all?

    These are questions for a political culture, and not for news journalists, but analysis of both sides of the spectrum amount to dire news for these agencies.

    It looks as though they all lag behind in some respects, and GB News isn’t on honeymoon anymore.

    According to analysis by Redfield & Wilton Strategies, published at the end of April, it appears as though GB News is doing ok in respects of the demographics of its audience base. They’re Tory voting, mostly beer drinking football fans, who enjoy the banter and gossip on the rolling news channel.

    Gone are the days of conservative politics just being about… exactly the same thing. It means they’ve managed to reach the over 55 age range, which you would imagine makes up much of today’s television viewing habits (or at, least those still willing to see it out in long form).

    It’s instead of the younger folks, like the University generation of graduates, and those wanting to still see themselves in on the act of following politics, and don’t fit a particular mould.

    In my view, this is still a niche considering the complaints about the BBC and Sky, but it’s one that is not easy to fill pockets with, if you get my drift.

  • The Muslim vote wat’ won it

    In the recent local elections, a few ‘truths’ emerged; sometimes the Tories lose badly, other times Labour actually poll fairly well.

    These are, of course, two extremely broad definitions of politics that almost defy definition, sometimes, in that they seem such a broad a church respectively that to even bother explaining them without just a sheer focus on Jesus is pointless.

    Many of us beg to differ, of course.

    We don’t see politics like that, and thanks to modern enlightenment we see things in a very different way between each other. We don’t see ‘truths’, we see ourselves.

    This leads us to an organisation called The Muslim Vote, aptly titled and so-called aside, it looks to be a very engaging if only dynamic political group online, and off.

    There has to be substance or weight to a political movement if it’s going to succeed and not just stick in our imaginations as a clever idea or some great new effort that won’t go anywhere. Take Momentum for example, and you get the point.

    The group The Muslim Vote says that this year the Muslim community politically organised in its first ever coordinated effort to influence a set of elections. These would be local elections where Muslims tend to feel that things are not reflective of the way they want to live in local areas in England.

    The import of the far-right (which is neither imported nor exported) in the UK is usually in local areas and has its effect in local neighbourhoods and around the sort of Mosque’s that don’t always invite trouble but get the addresses right if they do.

    These are the more provocative times and moments that the Press in the UK want to ignore, but they happened, and they still do, I guess.

    Yet, The Muslim Vote has trended in the same Press behind a ‘character’ in Leeds who won his seat on a local council through that old fashioned method of campaigning, and connecting with local voters through a blog about growing vegetables.

    This is how ‘truths’ come up, now, but it’s not the way realities bear down on us.

    Councillor Mothin Ali is certainly not an eccentric for wanting to grow his own food, and get a seat on a local authority, but anything else about his life may still fall into this unfortunate category.

    It’s a fact that being Muslim is still not understood unless it’s there, in person, and not the subject of debate or controversy.

    The feeling and reality of being Muslim is still not in the political mindset or public perception of what it’s like to feel and live like a Muslim. These two ways of describing the situation will never include my own thoughts unless I meet the criteria for being one.

    Hence, our way of representative democracy.

    The election of a candidate who is not you is not a cause for celebration, unless you voted for him or her, or that you missed hearing about them but their work will benefit you, anyway. It means though that there are at least a portion of the local population who definitely felt the need for someone else, rather than the preferred candidates of other residents.

    This is democracy, and this is the way it works. It’s upsetting at times but it gets the initial job done. The rest is left to Mr Ali and what he decides to do with the time allotted to him.

  • A squatter’s nature

    It’s interesting where squatter’s put down their stuff, these days.

    The days of a patch of land or a disused residence are passing into the mists of time to allow for more upmarket, expensive real estate.

    The moving-in of squatting groups into restaurant/retail units in London for example that cost millions to rent, is an example of a more premium sort of activism that hopes to capitalise on location and clientele to get its point across.

    I’m sure if the squatters at the York & Albany in Camden had been successful, they would of passed over a few latte’s in favour of their cause (whatever it is, as it isn’t clear what anyone believes anymore when it’s so obvious). In actuality, they weren’t able to open their own cafe – however informal – for free.

    The rents are high if it’s the only place going on a plot of land which isn’t available anywhere else (at times, with views not seen everywhere else).

    The market is tight if it has to be just right, and this is a travail experienced by many who could just open up anywhere if they were given the same opportunities as the ‘eco-SAS’, who just seem to try it anywhere.

    However, those such opportunities don’t exist and the places where restaurants, hoteliers, and the like want to set down their roots are hard to come by. It appears the same is also true for the opportunists in our midst.

  • Is conservatism stuck in the recent past?

    A telling point about today is that it is indeed different from the past.

    It’s difficult for us not to argue this, if the argument needs to be made, although, there is a lot still present that speaks of our past.

    There is a bit of a misnomer about trying to define things, as if more things need to be said.

    It’s pretty clear what some believe by what they say, do, and, how they respond to what goes on.

    After a while, their reactions become second nature, almost.

    I am in no doubt how a developing story will affect the worldview – or narrative – of certain politicians; in absolutely no way, whatsoever. It’s not given to them to disagree with something that seems to affirm their worldview, or give in to a point that seems to contradict it, either,

    This is the case also with conservatives, who tend to stick to what they know, and ignore whatever they find contradicts their worldview.

    This is common in politics, when you’re trying to make an argument.

    It may be a politician has a point to prove, to a committee, or to another politician, or even a book to sell, and so on. In fact, their contributions in private and public dialogue will reflect this because it’s their politics as a politician.

    It’s not a case of a national debate, but ongoing point-scoring and rebuttal, that can make up the transitory career of someone trying to make a difference in life.

    If they are successful, or not, is another matter.

    I don’t think conservatism is ‘stuck in the past’, but it does have its own historic arguments to make, in response to overt triggering and point-scoring by leftists, who want to bring up all the old debates but without the lessons of the past.

    It’s not that conservatism has all the right answers, either. Yet, it has a presence, here, particularly when these issues mattered last time around. It proves that longevity has its benefits, still.

    While the ‘new’ and ‘improved’ struggles to fit in, other conservatives may look back in history for answers, as they too struggle over the same issues.

  • A flyover isn’t what Parliament is for

    The centre of gravity of English politics, Westminster in London, that is, shapes itself as a welcoming and transparent place.

    It looks endearing, almost teddy bear-like, and stands erect if lonely in a sea of other buildings and meanings.

    It’s a friend of the city, but pretty well damn friendless, as well. This isn’t a situation that can last, surely?

    It’s meant in a way that marks out some significant differences between “now, and then” so to speak, which is a dangerous game in a place that marks itself out now as being so much more than what it was – in its heyday.

    It’s the same with many of the buildings and monuments that make up a nation’s “public library”, in that it has something very specific to say, but not a lot hear it.

    If you take for example the recent Gaza protests that beset that part of the city, it becomes clear.

    It’s a ‘thing’ nowadays to see ‘taking your cause’ or representation as being a constant, gradual process that doesn’t involve the usual democratic process, but one of your own making (and that is own).

    It’s not a point for MP’s to make for us – salaried as they are – but rather it’s seen as a cause to get on with by ourselves, or by themselves, as the case may be.

    This isn’t an acceptable or safe way of doing things in a business-like state, especially when those active in protests are unvetted, and therefore present a risk (as they have done) because of their slogans, but also because of their often antisemitic beliefs.

    The Palace of Westminster therefore has a difficult place in our modern history, as it stacks up its rebukes from the people sky-high and struggles to overcome its difficulties and differences with all hues of people. It seems as if it can’t win, whatever it does.

    How does such a venerated institution reach a state like this? What is its answer to its own problem of not only aiding it, but abetting such activity, as well?