Second Carrboro, NC Community Forum On Policing

Yes, folks. After six months of waiting, it is finally here. The Second Carrboro, NC Community Forum on Policing, being hosted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Chief of Police, Walter Horton, this coming Monday, at the Carrboro Town Hall, beginning at 7.00pm.

I will, at that forum, be proposing that Carrboro adopt the concept of 'citizen design of policing.' Ok. By the stages. What is citizen design of policing?

Very simple. It arises from the belief that, even if your own community is an oasis of calm, there are communities in this country where there is deep distrust between police and those they are policing. The notion is that the distrust might end if it is citizens who design policing methods, not police on their own.

How does this work. Again, very simple. People forget that police are employees of the agency funding them. You demand of the elected officials of that funding agency that they start to take the lead in designing policing policy, not leaving it to the police themselves. And you make the design process open and transparent and totally accessible to concerned citizens, so that aggrieved citizens have the opportunity, not merely to complain, but to design away those aspects of policing they do not like.

Will it work. Who knows? What I do know is that it won't even get a chance if you don't turn up.

Why Carrboro? Not because it is a hotbed of tension. Precisely because it is not - even if there are some difficulties. Better to implement and test the process in a small, friendly community, so that it can then be available for those larger communities more at risk.

But once again, we can't design that template if you don't turn up. As some of you may know, I have been trying to lay the groundwork these past several months, by advocating, blogging, explaining and meeting with Carrboro Aldermen and other concerned groups. I have now followed up with an e-mail dealing with the logistical nitty-gritty of next Monday. Tucked away in that e-mail, you will also find useful links to all that groundwork, explaining, advocacy, etc., for more background information:

"Dear Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Chief Horton,

I do not think I need to re-canvass here what is citizen design of policing, and why I think it is urgent that we move towards such a concept with our policing in Carrboro, not just for Carrboro, but as a part of our nation, where there is considerable tension between the police and community, even if that tension does not exist in our community. You can remind yourself of a summary of my thinking with this link:

http://orangepolitics.org/comment/48234#comment-48234

I have discussed, both in meeting and on blogs, how I think this concept might look in its beginning stages:

http://citizenpolicing.com/2015/04/28/second-carrboro-nc-policing-community-forum/

The purpose of this e-mail is to get down to the nitty-gritty of the second Carrboro community forum on policing next Monday itself. And I think I am not alone in believing that the meeting next Monday should be the beginning of a process. Not a stand-alone event.

I am one person. Owed no particular favors. I have some thoughts. So do other people. But I would hope that the meeting is not too taken up merely with reporting by the Board and the Police Chief. I think folks want interactive involvement.

I would like to suggest the outlines of a working, citizen-oriented agenda. We have brief reports from the Police Chief and the Board on what they have been doing since the first Carrboro community forum on policing. You then invite groups which have been taking an interest to report, also briefly. I know that the local NAACP and Orange County Justice United have certainly been holding meetings. Perhaps get a sense of who else might want to report when those present confirm the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. After that, open the floor. And let those present drive the meeting.

I certainly will wish to have citizen design of policing on the agenda. I have a motion I wish to propose, and will be open to answering questions on the concept and how I see it working.

The final point is that I think it would be useful to have an item at the end of the agenda where the meeting determines what happens next. Once again, my sense is that people want an ongoing process. I think it would be useful if the meeting was given a chance to set a time period for what happens next, when another such meeting should be held, and so on. How we might want future meetings and process to be different. If there is anything specific we might want on the agenda, so that folks have a chance to prepare. And if there are any side issues people might want to be researching or undertaking.

I am happy either for you to propose something like this, or I can propose it from the floor at the start of the meeting.

The motion I will be proposing is s follows:

"This meeting of concerned Carrboro citizens believes that, henceforth, policing policy in Carrboro should be designed by the elected officials of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, in conjunction with the Carrboro Police Department, and that such design should take place in an open and transparent manner, involving those concerned Carrboro citizens who wish to participate."

It may well be that some folks will want some idea of how I think citizen design might work in its first steps. I refer to that in the second link above. I also set out some thoughts about what I personally might want citizen design to address early on, in this link:

http://orangepolitics.org/2014/10/chapel-hill-and-carrboro-citizens-police-forums-1

There is one last link which includes some thinking about citizen design, just to round out the information (!):

http://orangepolitics.org/2014/12/citizen-oversight-policing-carrboro

I look forward to the meeting next /monday, and the beginning of a process which I hope may serve as a successful template for other, more troubled communities in our nation.

All the best,
Geoff"

Maggie's Hammer: The Galley

Yup. It finally arrived. The first galley of the book. Next up: the beginning of the pre-launch promotion campaign. Meanwhile, you can pre-order your copy on Amazon ...

Article In National UK Newspaper

I'm sat here. On break. Stunned. In tears. One of the UK journalists who helped to break the Jimmy Savile story in 2013, and for which he co-won a London Press Club award, has just e-mailed me to ask if he could write the story of my book for a national UK newspaper.

This has been a very, very long time coming. I'm not in tears for me. I'm in tears for Hugh Simmonds' grown-up children, who now may finally learn the truth. I'm shocked. I'm humbled. I'm grateful. And I'm terrified. I've not been in touch with those children for twenty-some years. Their mothers, quite rightly, shielded them from me.

The universe sure works in strange ways ...

Israeli Intelligence Review of My Book

Great news on the book front. My Israeli Intelligence source, who is something of a controversial figure himself in the world of politics, intelligence and publishing, and with whom I have been playing all manner of games these past 22 years, has signed off this morning on the following quote to be placed on the outside cover of the book:

"In the Eighties, Margaret Thatcher ... attempted dramatically to rebuild British industry by rapidly expanding [UK] arms sales. In this regard, the [British] Conservative Party sold arms to Iraq, with help from Israel. And the Labour Party, with Robert Maxwell, sold arms to Iran. [Hugh Simmonds] was one of a team who laundered the political kickbacks from such sales."

Bearing in mind one of the primary contentions of my book is that political kickbacks associated with UK arms sales continue to this day, built upon the foundations laid in the Eighties, it is my hope that such a quote might draw some attention to the book, and encourage a couple of MP's to start asking serious questions in the House of Commons.

This will be my focus with the book this coming summer, the book itself being sent to the printers at the end of June, with formal launch due at the end of August. Hmm. Fingers crossed. I mean, it's only taken 27 years to get this far ...

David Cameron -vs- Maggie's Hammer

 
So. The British newspapers this morning are reporting an extraordinary speech by David Cameron, in which he rails against global corruption, and the link between foreign aid, defense build-up and bribery.

I'm not sure whether to launch an all-out attack, or invite Our Dave to write the Foreword to my book, in which I set out a reasonably compelling case alleging the involvement of his (our) British Conservative Party in receiving hundreds of millions of pounds of kickbacks from UK arms sales, and the steps his own government have taken to link UK foreign aid to arms purchases from the UK.

Blimey. Where to start? I know. At the beginning.

In 2006, after Dave became the new Leader of the Conservative Party, I wrote to Dave (a wee bit tongue-in-cheek), inviting him to expose bribes corruption in the Tory Party.

I did so in connection with the first, self-published version of my book, chronicling the painstaking process of determining how my mate Hugh Simmonds, CBE had met his death as a consequence of laundering kickbacks from UK international arms sales to the British Conservative Party - among others.

At the Conservative Party Conference that same year (2006), Dave launched his first personal weblog, called Webcameron. I posted my open letter on his blog. And to his credit, he left it there the entire time of its existence. Got 80 views. Whoop-di-doo. Point is, Dave is aware of me and my allegations.

Dave then becomes Prime Minister of a LibCon Coalition Government in 2010. Promptly announces that he will be making a huge effort to increase UK arms sales, to spearhead a drive for more exports generally. Further announces that he will be complying with the UN request for governments to spend 0.7% of their GNP on foreign aid. And rounds out his announcements by making clear that the 'security' of recipients will be a primary criterion in determining eligibility for UK foreign aid. With the unspoken stipulation that the UK government will regard a recipient as 'secure' if it is buying UK arms to stay 'secure.'

Indeed, throughout the term of the LibCon Government, there was a close connection between UK foreign aid and arms sales. The vetting process for both was run by the same department in the Ministry for International Development, and was overseen by a very senior Conservative politician (Alan Duncan), who had his own controversial past connections with iffy arms deals.

Were there continuing arms bribes under the LibCon Government? I can't say. I'm a one-man investigating band. One man and his dog, without the dog. I can only extrapolate forward from what I was told about the Conservative governments in the Eighties and Nineties, and the Labour administrations of the Nineties and Noughts.

Arms sales continued through all governments, into and including the LibCon Government. The same criteria applied. And there were worrying signs that the same apparatus for bribery was in place. For more detail, you're going to have to read the book. Something of a summary of concerns can be found in this post.

The years passed. And eventually, Trineday, a charming little publishing house out of Oregon, agreed to publish a commercial version of the book. Which will be in print at the end of June. And formally launched in August of this year.

Then, lo and behold, along comes Dave with his speech yesterday. What gives?

On the one hand, there is further worrying evidence that Dave is all set to put the arms sales/arms bribes machine back into top gear. On the other hand, maybe Dave, flush from his second election victory, feels he can now take on the toxic influence of arms bribery in Whitehall and Westminster, and genuinely bring an end to arms political corruption in the UK?

Former British Prime Minister, Sir John Major, tried to do the same in the Nineties, and fell victim to the alliance of the defense industry, civil servants, the intelligence services and the City of London, along with support from right-wing newspapers and rebellious, former Thatcher-supporting Tory MP backbenchers.

So. I am where I began. Can't tell whether Dave is being disingenuous, in order to divert attention from nefarious, continuing naughty no-no's. Or he genuinely wants to break with the corrupting influences within the British establishment and body politic.

What I do know is that it is fascinating that the universe has compelled him to make his speech so in conjunction with my own efforts. Thank you, universe. And maybe I'll drop him a line when the book comes out ...

Nobody Owes You Nothing

Gonna stick my neck out here. In my opinion, one of the biggest problems in society today is the recurring belief that people owe people something.

They don't.

Unless there is a direct and evidenced relationship, one person to another, or society, hopefully by means of a demonstrable majority vote of those choosing to vote, has made it so, then, to put it ungrammatically, no-one owes you nothing. Get over it.

We are not born equal. Personally, I believe in a political philosophy that works for the greatest possibility of ensuring equal access for all. But that is not a right that is guaranteed. And you have no right to take it out violently on others if it is not fully achieved.

Historically, attempts to impose equal outcome have never worked. Attempting to do so merely creates new imbalance and tension, which always ends in tears.

I deeply regret that, as a society, we have become so consumed (literally) by envy and anger. Transfixed by the antics of those who have celebrity and possessions. Yearning for what they have. Bitter if we have less.

The result is a spiritual void. Which we fill with all manner of distorted faith. Or violence.

I have friends with left-wing views in the UK, who completely misread the mood of the UK electorate in the recent General Election, and genuinely were surprised that the election was won by the Conservative Party.

They now compound their misunderstanding, in the election of a new leader of the Labour Party, by pretending to themselves that they will win next time if only they can further stoke the fire of envy and anger.

The election was misread, even by talking heads on the right, because, as even Iain Dale, prominent right-wing commentator, admits today, very few in the media could believe what the polls were telling them.

Which was that the British people have become short-sighted, selfish and uncaring. If they're ok, they don't give a fig about anyone else. And they'll vote for the political party which says it's ok not to have to worry about those without.

Same goes for the US. Which is why we have Republicans in charge of so much.

So. What is the answer?

Take a deep breath. Take a good, long look around. God is a bloody comedian. No-one without a sense of humor would have designed this world.

Accept that we are born the way we are. Enjoy who we are. Try as hard as possible to find a way to design a life that expects no more than who we are. Enjoy it. And attempt to rely on others as little as possible.

It's why I left the rat race. It's why I believe it is so futile either to depend upon or to punish rich people. They are who they are. It is why I force myself to enjoy my days. Smile at the sun. And go to bed with a laugh in my throat. Always.

Tory Arms Corruption - The Next Phase?

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has now finished his appointments to the first full Conservative Government in 18 years (for the past five years, the Conservatives were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who may - or may not - have had some restraining influence on the Tories pursuing their quest for kickbacks from arms deals, legal and illicit).

What was clear, even during the past five years, was that David Cameron saw arms exports as an important element of his plans for economic recovery in Great Britain. What is also clear, at least to anyone who understands how arms-exporting works in countries which rely heavily on arms exports for earnings (Britain still ranks as the world's No. 5 arms exporter, and roughly one in five people employed in Britain are in some fashion connected to arms sales), is that, if you want to be taken seriously as an arms exporter, you have to be willing to deal under-the-table as well as over it.

In any event, the point of this post is to comfort any of you who might have been worried about Our Dave's re-conversion to compassionate conservatism. It's ok, guys. It apparently does not extend to arms deals and arms kickbacks. After an 18-year hiatus, it seems that Dave has put a very high-powered team of Ministers in charge of arms sales - and um, the attendant goodies.

First up, Francis Maude. He is the first give-away. Here is a guy who has the political pedigree to be a Cabinet Minister. So, why has he been made a lowly Trade Minister?

Answer: because that role puts him in charge of the Export Credit Guarantee Program, and keeps him under the radar. Sort of. So, what is the ECGP? It is the Program which underwrites the loans commercial banks make to countries which are buying weaponry from British companies.

Gerald James, former Chairman of controversial British defense contractor Astra, is on record as saying that, in the Eighties, Margaret Thatcher used the Program as a piggy bank to build up Britain's defense industry. Underwriting was granted to tinpot dictatorships like Iraq, in the absolute certain knowledge that those countries would renege on their loan obligations, and the British taxpayer would pick up the bill. According to Gerald, to the tune of some £10 billion a year in the Eighties.

Is Francis up for the job? Oh yeah. This man is a definite Keeper of the Secrets. He's known where the skeletons have been buried ever since he was a finance minister for Thatcher herself. Plus Dad (Angus Maude) had military intelligence written all over him. Was a part of the sordid interface between intelligence, the City and the right-wing in the Seventies. And was a prime backer and confidante of Thatcher.

Next up, the man actually responsible for arms sales, who has, in fact, held the position since 2012, one Philip Dunne, is ridiculously establishment, of the most elitist clandestine variety. Daddy was the Queen's Lord Lieutenant of Herefordshire, and was appointed Knight Garter by the Queen. Family owns farmland just down the road from the SAS base. Philip is Eton and Oxford. Background not only in farming, but also in banking. Yawn. Another Keeper of the Secrets.

Finally, Grant Shapps. Now, all the narrative is that young Grant got demoted because he's a sleazebag, who liked to use fake cover names, and 'adjust' his entries in Wikipedia. Sigh. Oh ye of little faith and understanding. Haven't you ever watched those movies where the hero spy is cashiered and humiliated, so that no-one pays any attention? For sure Grant is a cad. For sure Dave had to get rid of him. I mean, what do you do with such an obvious opportunist and sleazebag? I know. Make him Minister of State at the Department for International Development. Which position just happens to be responsible for the process that not only vets foreign countries for aid, but also vets them for the ECGP, when it comes to arms. Hello.

So. All the evidence appears to be that the Tory Arms Corruption machine is back and in the highest gear. Just in time for the publication of the book ...

Parliamentary Transition

A little known fact concerning British Parliamentary elections. There is no transition period. The election was last Thursday. On Friday, LibDem Ministers resigned en masse. Bright and early this morning, newly-elected MP's arrived to take possession of desks which should have been cleared out by losing occupants over the weekend. As and when new Ministers are appointed (and that has been happening in a steady stream since last Friday), they also expect to arrive at their Departmental desks, and find them cleared and ready.

So. A quick shout-out. Which will likely be worth next to nada. To those clearing desks. Of all political persuasion. Thank you for your service. For those arriving, have a heart. Maybe find something pressing to do for a few more hours? There are many MP's for whom the position was not just an expenses claim; it was a vocation, an opportunity to make life better for their fellow citizen. Remember that.

As for the pic? It is of a bunch of the new Conservative intake. I'm not sure if he is in the photo. But that intake includes Facebook Friend, Mike Wood, the new MP for Dudley South, and for whom I am still tickled and delighted. As I am for all of his constituents. Who made a fabulous choice. From the little I know of Mike, he will serve every last one of his constituents with honor, diligence and humility. Good luck to us all!

#GE2015: Picking Up The Pieces

To be honest, I haven't really liked any part of this election. It was about opportunism, from beginning to end. Frankly, Great Britain now has the government it deserves. A party of opportunism for a land of opportunism. Not opportunity. Opportunism.

Ed Miliband wasn't wrong. He looked at the Great Recession. Saw austerity was coming. Had a gander at history. And firmly positioned the Labour Party as the vehicle for resentment towards both.

Ed is an economist. He ain't stupid. He knew that the economy would improve. After down, the only way up is ... well ... up. He leapt ahead. And took advantage of his opportunity by getting some digs in at the pain the Tories were inflicting, and then trotted out his message. Yeah. The economy is improving. But not for everyone. Let's make this a One Nation recovery. And by the way, we should all hate predatory capitalism.

His approach was, actually, a textbook response to history repeating itself. The only problem was that he underestimated the ruthless selfishness of the British people. As I have written elsewhere, once the economy stabilized - no more than that - and folks felt more comfortable about their immediate job prospects, they abandoned any pretense of being concerned about the welfare of others.

Blame it on the 'me' generation. TV reality shows. Rampant consumerism. Whatever the cause, the net result was that this election was always going to be about folks voting for their own self-interest. And that meant, gimme a job, gimme a house, gimme lolly, and keep as far away as possible from me anything that might interfere with that, namely immigrants, Europe, tax, other people's welfare, and especially the Scots.

I don't mind saying I was surprised. But it became clear to me, especially at the end of last year, that altruism was dead, at least for this election. People might - might - start thinking thoughts about, well, what about others, what about cost of living, what about predators, they might just start thinking about that the next election or the one after. But for the immediate election of 2015, folks actually wanted the very things Ed was campaigning against.

The people want non-dom unfeeling billionaires. Because they run the likes of Boots, which gives the people jobs and cheap pharmaceuticals. The people want a Tory government, because it will slash and burn the things that get in the way of what the people want, right now.

And therein lies the actual future for Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

As usual, a lot of guff is being spoken by opportunists in the Labour Party. Let's get a few things clear. Folks do not immediately want more socialism. Ed offered a little. It was rejected. Folks don't want a return to Blairism. Are we all forgetting the BBC Question Time when Ed was eviscerated primarily for not apologizing for Blairism?

So, what is needed? Hate to say this. But, time. Ed's message was basically right. Just find someone who can eat a bacon butty to deliver it. And then wait for the British people either to hurt enough or feel safe enough to want to start feeling altruistic again. 2025 sounds about right to me.

As for the LibDems. Not so easy. History will evidence that Nick Clegg and his cohorts delivered a tremendous service to the UK. They kept check on the ravages that necessarily accompany the medicine required when a country goes on a thirty-year debt binge.

But, in the meantime, for all their opportunism, the people of Great Britain wanted to hurt someone. They wanted to take out their anger for their own excess, their dashed expectations of Blair, the humiliation suffered at the hands of Tory medicine, they wanted to lash out at someone. And the LibDems were in the line of fire.

Bottom line? You can't rebuild overnight, or even over the course of a couple of elections, when you've lost all your big guns, and you're reduced to a rump of eight MP's.

It took decades for the LibDems to win each of the 57 Parliamentary constituencies they represented before this recent election. Decades of painstaking door-knocking, issue-campaigning, council seat winning. For sure, all that work remains. The council representation is there. But the national party, the national message is gone.

The whole point of coalition, for the LibDems, aside from responding to the national need, was to build national credibility by creating a whole phalanx of big guns with ministerial experience. The biggest guns just got wiped out. And you're not going to see the likes of Vince Cable tramping streets for five years to get back.

So, even though the Liberal machine still exists in all of its former constituencies, it will take decades to find new candidates of Parliamentary and ministerial caliber. And the hard work of national credibility essentially starts from scratch. I think an estimate of about 50 years to make a comeback is about right.

Which leaves the Tories in the driving seat for at least a couple more elections. Which makes me less than happy. And I'm a Tory! I want a party to be in power because people want it there. Not because there is no alternative.

And, on the subject of opportunism, don't go blaming the Tories for anything. Yes, they ran a negative campaign. But, the British people bought it. And they did so because of their own naked opportunism.

And don't think you get off lightly because you voted for someone other than a Tory. Aside from the Liberal Democrats (maybe), there is not one serious political party in Great Britain that is not founded upon opportunism at the moment. For why? Because we are a greedy electorate, with no or little concern for others.

Without for one moment thinking of the consequences for other people, we want, we need, gimme, can I have. We vote Tory because we want a tax cut. We vote UKIP because we want rid of immigrants. We vote Labour for a tad more child benefit. We vote Green because we want a wind farm, even if it is an eyesore for those who live near it. We vote SNP because we want rid of the hated English.

All politics at the moment is opportunistic. And it is merely a knee-jerk response to our own opportunism. We have no-one to blame but ourselves. If we want better government, we must first become better people.

How Did The Tories Win?

There is much guff being written about how the numbers conspired to give the Tories an overall majority.

It's guff because, in the main, it is being offered by those talking heads who told us, right up to 10pm election night, that this was a tight election.

Here are the thoughts of someone who never thought this was a tight election.

First off, yes the Liberal Democrat vote collapsed. But no, it did not go directly to UKIP. Nor did it go in the main to Labour. This latter movement occurred in 2011. In disgust at the LibCon Coalition.

It went in the main to the Tories. Which is what led to the Tory gains from the LibDems in the South and the South West.

There was some movement from UKIP to the Tories. Which helped the Tories in the North of England. But there was a huge movement from Labour to UKIP in the North. Which helped the Tories in the North even more.

This is why pundits think there was a move from LD to UKIP. They don't get it was several moves. LD to Tory, and a little to Labour. Labour to UKIP, with a little UKIP to Tory.

Net result? LD collapse. Allowing Tories to gain in SW and South. UKIP do well on votes, but mostly from Labour in North, allowing Tories to win there. UKIP get votes, but not seats. Labour suffer, especially in North. Overall majority for Tories.

And now, I'm going to have a couple of Aspirins ...

#GE2015: Geoff's Triumphalism

C'mon. You knew it was coming. And I'm giving you lots of flag, so you can pass on by this post if you can't bear reading it. But. I did tell you so.

In a post written on March 1, I said:

"At this stage of the game, I'm going to stick my neck out a bit further. I think the Tories are going to win, with a very small overall majority. And Labour will actually lose a few seats overall. Not to the Tories. But to SNP (in the main) and to UKIP (a bit; possibly one seat; possibly Grimsby; but lots of votes; which may hand some seats to the Tories)."

Now, this post, and a succeeding one also written on March 1, were essentially wondering out loud why all the pollsters were saying #GE2015 was a tight race between Labour and the Tories, when all the sub-polling data and evidence suggested otherwise. Data and evidence which, among other things, made very clear that the election was about jobs and fear of Labour.

Now, hang on, I hear you say, polling doesn't 'suggest,' Geoff. And nor do pollsters. It's a science. There is no interpretation. No guesstimation. You ask some folks a question and publish the answer. Um. Actually. That's wrong. Polling is all about bias and interpretation. Although the pollsters don't call it that. They call it weighting and sampling.

It's all about how many people you ask. How you choose the people (remember the argument about how ICM chose the audiences for the BBC?). What questions you ask. How you follow up. How you then interpret the answers, in terms of variation between regions of Great Britain, etc.

There is now argument raging among pollsters themselves about how and why they got their predictions so wrong - here and here. Indeed, they've even asked their professional group organization to set up an independent inquiry.

The results of that inquiry might well be interesting to read. But, I suspect they will be woven in impenetrable mock-geek language, in order to avoid the inescapable truth that their member pollsters got it wrong, because they are either biased, or not very good. And I don't mean simply left-wing or right-wing biased. I mean making-the-wrong-assumptions biased.

For sure, most polling firms in Great Britain are left-of-center. But they are, for the most part, pretty much straightforward and honest. Much more so than the polling firms in the US, which are becoming renowned for tilting all over the place.

Indeed, even one of The Telegraph's senior political editors, James Kirkup, was forced this morning to apologize for getting his predictions wrong.

So, what 'bias' am I talking about? Well. The primary one is that no-one believed what was before their eyes. Either didn't believe it, didn't want to believe it, or quite plainly, did not have the nous to understand it.

I don't entirely blame them. I didn't believe it at first, either. Ok, ok, Geoff. You're brilliant. But, get to the point. Look. I'm entitled to my moment in the sun. Ok? Pause. Right. Enough of that.

They didn't believe that they were seeing a surge to the Tories, because the surge was predicated on the underlying assumption that, by and large, the people of Great Britain didn't blame the Tories for austerity. They blamed Labour for the Great Recession. And besides, they just got over both really quickly.

Forget all this guff about caring people. We do not live in a caring age. Not even among young people. The mantra is: if I'm ok, I don't care; where is my next selfie? It sounds harsh. And it is. But the truth became clear to me from polling done for The Guardian at the end of last year. Polling which suggested that young people in Great Britain had just moved on from the Great Recession.

So? Well, as a child of the Seventies, I had concluded that the primary effect of the Great Recession and the following austerity would be a resurgence of socialism among the young. I was wrong. But I wasn't the only one. It was the primary predication for the failed approach of Ed Miliband. We both made the mistake of assuming people cared. At least I woke up to the awful truth.

Once I had absorbed the import of that polling, I took a wholly new view of upcoming polling and the associated data and anecdotal evidence. Which is why I was able to write the two posts I mention above. And why. Heck hem. My prediction was better than those of the people getting paid to make predictions. Which is a hint, someone.

As for them, and including right-wing commentators like James Kirkup, they read the same information as me (I am assuming). But they simply chose not to believe what they were reading. I'm guessing they all said to themselves: this can't be right; we're not that cynical; surely we haven't just 'got over' the Great Recession, austerity and their tragic human consequences and costs that quickly? Surely not? Hmm. I know. I'll adjust my weighting. My interpretation.

Don't believe me? I know. Why not take a poll of them ... ??

Oh. By the way, if you wonder what I mean about underlying this and anecdotal that, I think this post gives the best idea of what I look at, and what I'm talking about.

Let's end on a prediction. Anthony Wells, CEO of YouGov, will be looking for a new job. He also runs UK Polling Report. And is pretty much regarded as the dean of British polling.

It was quite clear to me as far back as last summer that he was skewing his weighting and sampling in favor of Labour. Brazenly.

Now, I'll try really hard to engage in humility for the rest of the weekend. But I really am open to job offers ...

Tory Triumphalism?

Comparisons are already being made between 2015 and 1992. Not just in terms of the shock overall Tory majority, but in terms of Tory triumphalism, followed by Tory right-wing rebellion, shambles and paralysis. I'm not so sure.

For certain, there is only a slim Tory majority. On paper, this renders David Cameron liable to every twist and turn of his capricious and loathsome right-wing.

But this is a Prime Minister who, after the omnishambles of 2012, has found his footing. Is more confident and relaxed about what he wants, how to get it, and how not to get too worried about setbacks.

He now knows how and when to listen, when not , how to manage his government, his Cabinet, his Party and his backbenchers. When to make a stand. And when to shrug off a Parliamentary loss and just move on.

Plus, we have the Fixed-terms Parliament Act 2011. Back in 1992, John Major had to pay minute attention to right-wing rebellion, because a bad vote could have spelt the downfall of his government.

Having been through five years of this new Act and coalition, when Parliamentary defeat, compromise and U-turn have become commonplace, Cameron will feel much less threatened by rebellion.

The right-wing threatens. Then rebels. Cameron shrugs. And moves on. He knows that not even right-wing Tories will push it to a vote of confidence he might lose.

Besides, he has other numbers to back him up. Contrary to what left-wing columnists are suggesting, in the bitterness of early morning hangover, Cameron is not about to launch on a triumphant, radically right-wing agenda.

So, on pretty much any agenda item where right-wing rebellion might be a serious threat, Cameron will know that he can count on the few remaining Liberal Democrat votes, along with some amongst the now-chastened Labour ranks.

I expect from Cameron an inclusive legislative program, much discussion with other Parliamentary parties (look for a strong candidate for Leader of the House, in this regard), and a relaxed but deft hand at the helm. All the while continuing to ignore the strident demands of his rumbunctious right-wing.

Election Reflections

It is 7.00pm US time. Midnight in the UK. I am deliberately not gathering any UK news of the election there. I am going to go home. Have a meal. Watch the second Bourne movie. And check the UK news at midnight my time.

I am an old political hack. Idealistic to the core. Pragmatic from experience. I love the wins. I've got used to the losses. But I want to share a few thoughts before the results become known (at least to me!).

Great Britain has been through a remarkable experience in the past five years. It matters not whether you support all of the actions of the immediate past LibCon Coalition government. The point is, there was coalition.

Two venerable parties learned how to co-exist. To compromise. Without losing their faith. I want to see more of that in British politics.

Another important thought. I love the fact that there has been a fracturing of the three party system. There are a gazillion different ideas and a million different ways of solving problems. No one, two or three party system can have all the answers.

That said, with this fracturing will come disappointment. Not everyone is going to like the outcome. But I want to shout out to my fellow old hacks. It is incumbent on us to help those for whom the feeling of loss is new. It is up to us to keep them engaged.

I have fought eight different elections. I won only one. I know about loss. I also know the inestimable joy and pride in bearing witness, in speaking for others, in being a part.

Whether you lose or win tomorrow morning, every single person who voted, who stood as a candidate, who delivered a leaflet, made a speech or gave a lift to a voter, every single one of you made democracy stronger in Great Britain. Be proud. I thank you.

And remember. Elections are only the beginning. Folks are elected to lead the discussion, not impose some transient mandate. Pick yourself up, dust yourself down, and continue the good fight. With every last breath in your body. Until the next election ...

Ed Balls Election Night

Ed Balls picked to be Labour's primary spin doctor from 10.00pm on, after the UK polls close? Bad choice. This is where dynamics take over from numbers.

Balls was Miliband's boss when both worked for Gordon Brown. Balls screwed Brown during negotiations with Liberal Democrats in 2010. Balls has been murmuring about Labour's legitimacy if they are the second largest party. His wife, Yvette Cooper, will be one of the prime candidates in any leadership election to replace Miliband.

My guess? Balls will knife Miliband. Subtly. Sometime between midnight and 1.00am, Balls will mutter something about Labour's difficult position. And will then spend the rest of the night underlining the political assassination of Miliband, by loudly denying what he has inferred.

All the while maintaining an innocently evil expression of surprise on that cherubic face. As he consigns Miliband's chances of forming a government to a carefully-prepared dustbin. Just in time for Cameron's early Friday announcement of a Tory victory.

Your enemies are always closer than your friends ...

Legitimacy

And so, the pre-election ball-swinging shoutfest about 'legitimacy' of claim to government seems to be coming down to how much better or worse your party did in 2015, versus 2010.

Huh. In which case, why not cut the crap, and ask SNP to form the next government, since they are forecast to increase their representation by more than 40 seats - twice as many as Labour ... ??

The Book - The Index - The Strut

So, my publisher contacts me today to seek advice on The Index for The Book. He has a list ...

Hang on. What?

He has a list ...

No. Before that.

Er. Book? Publisher?

No, no. In between ...

Index?

Yes.

Index?!

Yes.

People. My Book. Is going. To have. An Index.

An Index.

Puff. Strut. Preen.

Tory Win - Foregone Conclusion?

Blimey. I thought I was done until Friday. But here's an interesting thing. Literally overnight, the narrative has changed in the UK General Election campaign. From neck-and-neck, to who has legitimacy if the Tories are the largest party. Absolutely no talk any more of Labour ending up as the largest party.

Final Round-Up British General Election 2015

This is my last piece of UK election geekdom before polling day this Thursday. It's a mess out there. Don't even try to understand it. I'm guessing that by now the result is pretty much set in stone in any event. Geddit? Stone? Oh why do I bother?

You want a real idea of what is happening, forget the news (ass-covering, last minute propaganda) and the national polls (unadjusted mood music). Take note of the following. My very own immutable stone monument of prediction:

NARRATIVE

The primary serious cheerleader for Labour (The Guardian) gushes about the election from its first inkspot. But leads with Tory commentary, Tory plans for government, and a vicious attack on Ed's heart of stone. Not exactly hinting at over-confidence.

The Torygraph meanwhile leads with Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana. Elsewhere, Cameron's allies are talking up government. Minority. Not majority. Can we please work out the difference between a stated ambition and a big, fat fib?

The allies tell the other parties that, if the Tories are the largest party, Cameron, as sitting Prime Minister, will stay put, rock solid, and challenge the other parties to undermine their legitimacy by trying to vote down his Queen's Speech. Er. As I've been predicting.

A Labour chappie, either in The Independent or on BBC News, at least for a little while, was seemingly quoted as saying that, if the difference between Labour and Tory is more than 12, Labour will not challenge the Tory QS. Can't find that quote now. Perhaps not surprisingly.

Perhaps this is more evidence of a Labour Party already in turmoil over what to do about SNP? Where my best prediction is that stalemate will continue up to and through a vote on a Tory QS, leading to abstention.

Apparently the jitters are even getting to Nicola Sturgeon, who states that the results in Scotland in the UK General Election this week will not be regarded as a mandate for a second Scottish independence referendum. All the while refusing to rule out the possibility that she will make next year's Scottish elections a referendum on ... er ... a referendum.

I still maintain that, in the next month, Cameron will announce that, if he is PM next year, and receives a request from the new Scottish government for a second referendum, he will grant it. And the SNP will abstain in the vote on a Tory QS.

There is something very peculiar playing out between Nick Clegg and Cameron. Out of the blue, Clegg lays down his conditions for supporting a EU referendum. Cameron counters by saying he will not form a government without a EU referendum. Sounds like negotiating to me.

Back on the Tory backbenches, murmuring has begun about replacing Cameron if his result is not decisive enough. Dave feels confident enough to slap them down. Telling 'em, a victory for the Tories will be a vote for him as PM. Cameron threatens that, if his backbenchers try to change the Tory PM on the voters, he'll advise the Queen to invite Ed to form a government. And then blame them. Heady stuff, coming from someone with his own acknowledged incredibly accurate political intelligence operation.

All of which narrative suggests that the players expect a minority Tory government. At the very least.

ANECDOTE

Meanwhile the Tories announce they are now focusing on 23 marginals. Basic rule of thumb in the last week of an election. Look to see where the leaders are campaigning. Most of the 23 marginals are LD. The Tories feel confident enough to go after other people's seats. Watch Ed. I predict he will be in London and the North, shoring up Labour marginals.

Another typical anecdotal throwaway? LabourList, the Labour activist blog to which I subscribe, begging Labourites to vote heavily in safe Labour seats, to put up the Labour vote. Anyone who has ever experienced the inner workings of a national election campaign knows what that means.

SUB-POLLING

Forget national polls, which by the way, are all moving the way of the Tories. All the constituency polling, focus groups, leadership polling, issues polling, all of it is especially moving the way of the Tories. Much of it since March.

So, peering through the settling dust, what do I see? 80% chance of Tories on 280-290 seats. Minority Tory government. With 'status quo' and 'abstention' being the most-used keywords in political articles come this Friday. 20% chance of a surprise.

Oh. And one further point to ponder, in the context of 'status quo' and 'abstention.' Everyone keeps talking about 'getting the Tories out of No. 10.' And where the LibDems factor in that bean-counting.
People, the LibDems are still a part of government. Their leaders have as much investment in 'status quo' and staying put as the Tories.

All this talk of no new LibCon coalition without a special conference of LibDem members is fine and dandy. There doesn't have to be a new LibCon coalition. There is one already.

Think I'm wrong? Ask Vince Cable who he thinks is the Business Secretary ...

Harvey Proctor - Liar

Harvey Proctor - nasty, greasy, rent-boy abusing liar. I have written elsewhere a couple of articles, attempting to paint a picture of how all this abuse by establishment figures occurred in the Seventies and Eighties. And why it was not stopped at the time.

It was all about networks. Gentlemen's circles. Primarily in London. People who thought that their secret lives were above the law. Whether those secret lives revolved around harmless activities, like a night out playing poker with the boys at plush clubs in Mayfair, hanging out with Lords at those Greek gentlemen's clubs in Piccadilly, or more nefarious past-times, like child abuse parties in the East End, illegal arms-dealing, Cash-for-Questions, and the like.

For sure, much of this activity centered on those with Tory affiliation. But not all of it (cf. Lord Janner, Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith). I knew bits and pieces. The whacky right-wingers, and their machinations to defeat what they saw as the coming internal socialist/communist threat. Harvey Proctor was one of those. Which is how I knew him. Hugh Simmonds, the subject of my forthcoming book, before he got involved with the arms-dealing network in the Eighties, was one of those right-wing manipulators in the Sixties and Seventies, along with Harvey Proctor. Who was never to be seen without a 'rough trade' young man in tow. Often at the annual Conservative Party conferences. To the discomfort of the other attendees. The more worldly-wise of whom knew what was going on.

The essential point of my earlier articles is that these circles overlapped. The lobbyist who engineered the Cash-for-Questions network also arranged the nauseating child-abuse parties at Elm House. Hugh was laundering money from the illicit arms deals in the Eighties, had been a part of those groups of right-wingers in the Seventies organizing against what they perceived as pernicious left-wing influence, all the while playing bridge with Iain Macleod in a club in Curzon Street.

I believe the London establishment of the current is resisting investigation of the pedophile rings as vehemently as it is, not just because of the pedophile allegations themselves, but because of the other networks that might get exposed.

In the meantime, Harvey? You're full of sanctimonious shit. It's not just that you were a whacko, weirdo right-wing nut. That's forgivable. You were a nasty piece of work. Who thought nothing of traipsing your sordid sex life around in public. We knew what you were doing. Maybe not the underage part. But we saw the rent-boys. And even the public ones skirted the edge. So. Stop with the recreation of history. You may well be innocent of the specific allegations being made. But your lifestyle renders you open to suspicion, and therefore to investigation. Man up.

As for us. Those of us who saw. Who raised an eyebrow. But who never took to one side. Never told him to stop. Never looked further. We are to blame too. We stand culpable. There is not much we can do about the past. But we can do something now. With this caveat. Harvey did. For sure. But we stood to one side. We are not the criminals. But we need to be a little less sanctimonious about the fervor with which we condemn others. Historic crime needs to be addressed. Those who perpetrated need to be prosecuted, so that those who have suffered may receive some measure of justice. But it does not help if those of us who were there, even if we did not know, because we did not look closely enough, it helps nothing if we pretend, if we cover our own shame by shouting the loudest, throwing rocks the hardest. We bear some of the guilt too. We need to man up, as well.

You Can Always Count On The LibDems ...