POLITICS CORNER

[Stanley]

So, Fiona Woolf and the government has bowed to what we could all see was inevitable. The victims representatives rejected her. (LINK) Do you think that the government will come to its senses and appoint someone outside the Westminster bubble? Don't hold your breath! The latest murmurings are for a senior judge to head the enquiry. Why can't they realise that the bottom line in all this is that Joe Public has lost all confidence in the establishment? They should go outside the village and appoint someone who is clean of any involvement with 'our leaders'.
One worrying thing is that concerns have been voiced that the enquiry may never get off the ground. This is not only bad governance but bad management and it reinforces the impression that our leaders don't really understand what is going on in real life.

[Stanley]

I heard a lawyer saying that perhaps we should look to the Commonwealth for a new chair for the Child Abuse enquiry, "particularly those with a legal system close to ours". This is just another example of how the point is being missed. The general distrust which is blocking these appointments is against the whole of the political/legal system. he best reports I have seen so far on Rochdale have been produced by academics. There are people out there in real life capable of running the enquiry who are not connected with politics, the legal system or London. The search for a candidate doesn't seem to have looked beyond these areas. One wonders if the 'victims' have put any names forward? If so, have they been considered? If they put Private Eye in charge Ill bet there would be overwhelming agreement in the wider world! (What a dangerous thought....)

[Stanley]

It would appear that the Belfast Telegraph is leading the field on the CSE enquiry. See THIS for their report this morning on something that was mentioned briefly on the BBC but I can find no other report about it. It appears that Theresa May is going to reveal today that she has decided to consult the representatives of the victims (The people whom Fiona Woolf described as 'The Victim Community' causing outrage amongst them). The BBC said that a government spokesman has said that this will not be a veto but it's hard to see how it can be anything but that as it looks as though at last the victims have gained a significant voice in the choosing of a Chair. One thing is certain, they are dead against anyone from the political/legal establishment. Quite right and I hope they succeed.
News from the EU that Angela Merkel has marked Cameron's card by saying that if he persists in his efforts to cut back free movement inside the EU it will be seen as "approaching a point of no return" for the UK. This is an attributed quotation from a message issued by her office. At the moment government representatives are denying that this is the case. Question is, who do you believe?

[Bruff]

Well I believe Frau Dr Merkel who is only stating the obvious. There is going to be no change to the free movement of people for a few of reasons. One reason is that the principle of free movement of people is a founding principle of the European project (Article 45 I think of the Treaty of Rome). That too many British (English, actually) don’t understand this is nobody’s fault but their own. I know it’s hard in the face of an almost overwhelmingly hostile/anti EU media to get a simple education on the EU and its institutions and its operations but it can be done. Another reason is that it seems partial and perhaps dishonest to believe that free movement of goods and capital can come without free-movement of labour. Corporations can move but labour can’t follow? No thanks. Finally there’s a practical consideration. Any change to the principle of free movement would require Treaty change. This would require referendums in many countries. All would have to agree. As someone has noted, who will put the argument to the Irish voters that they must sign away a principle they are very supportive of?

The PM is being fundamentally dishonest with the British public in suggesting he can make progress on issues where as the German Chancellor has rightly noted he has no chance at all. That said, Frau Dr Merkel pointing this out is amusing of a sorts. As a country we appear to be characterised by on-going and unyielding resistance to the Kaiser and Nazi Germany (which an outgoing German Ambassador only half tongue-in-cheek noted some time ago, and this current year has done little to dispel). The current intervention from the German Chancellor will give the usual suspects a chance to hum the Dambusters theme, dream of old Blighty and dust-down their Churchill speeches.

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

Thanks for that Richard. Brilliant post which could be taken by some to be tongue in cheek but of course it isn't, it's accurate and timely. I agree that Cameron is devious and dishonest, see his latest diatribe about the EU surcharge. At no point does he say he (surely that should be 'we'?) won't pay, simply that he won't pay on the due date.
Cameron has not got a monopoly of dishonesty. There is something basically dishonest in the arguments deployed against immigration (Dodgy statistics leading to erroneous conclusions and hypocrisy in using services staffed largely by immigrants... do any of them refuse treatment from ethnically diverse surgeons or nurses?). I heard an interesting statement by a Kent MP yesterday who said that the soft fruit industry of the 'Garden of England' was in terminal decline until the influx of East European workers because 'ethnically pure' workers wouldn't accept the hard work. I'm sure that there are many more examples like that.
As for our attitudes towards the Germans... History says that we should be distrusting the French rather than the Germans! One of the things that struck me in 1954 talking to the ex Wehrmacht men who staffed our Border Posts in Berlin was that they were good men and we should never have been in conflict with them, without exception they said "It was Hitler!" and I'm sure they were right.
Angela Merkel is right. Cameron has boxed himself into a corner by suggesting that the treaties can be altered and as long as his attitudes govern our policies exit from the EU is almost certain. I for one don't want to go back to the situation we were in during the first half of the 20th century when a combination of inept politicians, punitive reparations and internal unrest resulted in another 50 million dead for no good reason. Of course the EU can be improved, but from the inside not by standing shouting nonsense and thumping a lectern. The fault dear Brutus lies not in the stars but in ourselves, that we are underlings. We need to have enough confidence to commit to the political aims of the EU but not the flawed economic policies.
I see Norman Baker has resigned from the Home Office over what he sees as flawed policies on drugs. He could have a point. Expect more of this the closer we get to the General Election..... (LINK)

[Stanley]

Attention shifts for a while to the US where the Republicans have regained control of the Senate. Not extraordinary, it often happens in the sixth year of a two term President's tenure but a heavy blow for the Democrats. They have to pin all their hopes now on the Republicans cocking up before the 2016 Presidential elections. It's happened before but in the meantime we can expect some fiery politics coming out of the US as the Republicans try to roll back some of Obama's reforms.
One interesting facet. In every state where the Minimum Wage was part of the Democrat's election slate. they won the seat.

[Stanley]

The general opinion this morning is that the vote for the Republicans was not so much support for them but protest against the perceived inefficiencies in the system. Rather like the EU elections and the convulsions in UK politics. I have always averred that we are being manipulated by our leaders and it looks as though this feeling is spreading. All right, I have read Stiglitz, Piketty and Naomi Klein so I might be biased but their theories and evidence all point the same way. The system is more concerned with the safety of the financial system and the higher capital owners than the ordinary people in the real world. As this become more obvious expect even more reaction from the grass roots. Exactly what Piketty predicts.....
I note the screams of outrage from the usual suspects after Unison won the court case for the workers who claimed that holiday pay should be based on actual earnings and not basic rates. They forecast reductions in the number of apprentices and increased difficulty for small businesses. What strikes me is that this was always the norm in my days and applied to redundancy payments as well. When did it change?

[Stanley]

Ed Milliband tells us that rumours of moves to oust him as leader are nonsense. Really? Some well founded reports disagree with him but it's doubtful whether it will happen. It would be political suicide so close to an election. If truth be told, all three leaders are in danger and after May next year there will be blood running in the gutters.

[Stanley]

George Osborne trumpets the miracle from Brussels but his only problem is that it';s all smoke and mirrors and both his critics at home and finance ministers in Brussels rubbish the announcement. My impression is that the accountants have got together and helped Cameron to save face by re-scheduling payments, deducting the rebate and making adjustments to future rebates. The net result will probably be that leaving aside the threat of interest payments on the debt which have been dropped, the payout will be roughly the same as the original bill. In other words the problem has been kicked into the long grass after the election. Result!

Students of US politics might like this article in yesterday's NYT by Paul Krugman.

Triumph of the Wrong

NOV. 6, 2014

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet midterms to men of understanding. Or as I put it on the eve of another Republican Party sweep, politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth. Still, it’s not often that a party that is so wrong about so much does as well as Republicans did on Tuesday.
I’ll talk in a bit about some of the reasons that may have happened. But it’s important, first, to point out that the midterm results are no reason to think better of the Republican position on major issues. I suspect that some pundits will shade their analysis to reflect the new balance of power — for example, by once again pretending that Representative Paul Ryan’s budget proposals are good-faith attempts to put America’s fiscal house in order, rather than exercises in deception and double-talk. But Republican policy proposals deserve more critical scrutiny, not less, now that the party has more ability to impose its agenda.
So now is a good time to remember just how wrong the new rulers of Congress have been about, well, everything.
First, there’s economic policy. According to conservative dogma, which denounces any regulation of the sacred pursuit of profit, the financial crisis of 2008 — brought on by runaway financial institutions — shouldn’t have been possible. But Republicans chose not to rethink their views even slightly. They invented an imaginary history in which the government was somehow responsible for the irresponsibility of private lenders, while fighting any and all policies that might limit the damage. In 2009, when an ailing economy desperately needed aid, John Boehner, soon to become the speaker of the House, declared: “It’s time for government to tighten their belts.”
So here we are, with years of experience to examine, and the lessons of that experience couldn’t be clearer. Predictions that deficit spending would lead to soaring interest rates, that easy money would lead to runaway inflation and debase the dollar, have been wrong again and again. Governments that did what Mr. Boehner urged, slashing spending in the face of depressed economies, have presided over Depression-level economic slumps. And the attempts of Republican governors to prove that cutting taxes on the wealthy is a magic growth elixir have failed with flying colors.
In short, the story of conservative economics these past six years and more has been one of intellectual debacle — made worse by the striking inability of many on the right to admit error under any circumstances.
Then there’s health reform, where Republicans were very clear about what was supposed to happen: minimal enrollments, more people losing insurance than gaining it, soaring costs. Reality, so far, has begged to differ, delivering above-predicted sign-ups, a sharp drop in the number of Americans without health insurance, premiums well below expectations, and a sharp slowdown in overall health spending.
And we shouldn’t forget the most important wrongness of all, on climate change. As late as 2008, some Republicans were willing to admit that the problem is real, and even advocate serious policies to limit emissions — Senator John McCain proposed a cap-and-trade system similar to Democratic proposals. But these days the party is dominated by climate denialists, and to some extent by conspiracy theorists who insist that the whole issue is a hoax concocted by a cabal of left-wing scientists. Now these people will be in a position to block action for years to come, quite possibly pushing us past the point of no return.
But if Republicans have been so completely wrong about everything, why did voters give them such a big victory?
Part of the answer is that leading Republicans managed to mask their true positions. Perhaps most notably, Senator Mitch McConnell, the incoming majority leader, managed to convey the completely false impression that Kentucky could retain its impressive gains in health coverage even if Obamacare were repealed.
But the biggest secret of the Republican triumph surely lies in the discovery that obstructionism bordering on sabotage is a winning political strategy. From Day 1 of the Obama administration, Mr. McConnell and his colleagues have done everything they could to undermine effective policy, in particular blocking every effort to do the obvious thing — boost infrastructure spending — in a time of low interest rates and high unemployment.
This was, it turned out, bad for America but good for Republicans. Most voters don’t know much about policy details, nor do they understand the legislative process. So all they saw was that the man in the White House wasn’t delivering prosperity — and they punished his party.
Will things change now that the G.O.P. can’t so easily evade responsibility? I guess we’ll find out.

[PanBiker]

Simply put, Osborne, Cameron and crew have spent the inheritance for any future Government. Kettle, pot, black no difference to their carp on the state of the economy when they came into power.

[Stanley]

Dead right, a bunch of con men desperately trying to persuade the electorate that their policies are successful and everything is under control. No wonder the EU is laughing at them. Big problem is that they are persuasive to 90% of the electorate and there is no obvious 'better offer' unless you are a complete nutter and go for one trick ponies....

[Stanley]

The dishonesty of the Tory claims that the economy is doing well as highlighted by THIS REPORT in today's Financial Times. Far from cuts being relieved in 2015 this investigation using the government's own figures shows that they will have to be doubled if the ring fences stay in place. This is the government that is contemplating tax reductions for the higher earners as election bribes.
Meanwhile in another part of the Westminster Bubble tensions mount in all the parties. Cameron is still under attack for the phantom 'victory' over the EU repayment and this could come to a head with the vote on EU matters today that includes the EU arrest warrant, as many as 40 Tory backbenches are expected to abstain from supporting their own party. Ed Milliband tries desperately to convince everyone that there is 'no substance' in the reports of moves to oust him before the General Election when it seems obvious that this is not the case. Wheeling Neill Kinnock out in support is not going to cut it. Nick Clegg is keeping quiet on party matters but can giver no credible explanation why they are melting down in the polls. Labour's biggest problem is the Scottish MPs and we are treated to the unedifying spectacle of MPs of all parties having their minds concentrated by the possibility of losing their seats.
This is not healthy. Instead of contemplating their navels and engaging in stupid political skulduggery triggered by current affairs we need to here political leaders speaking truth to power, making innovative decisions based on principle and acting as leaders rather than members of an exclusive club. Some plain speaking on the really major problems facing us would be a good start.

[Stanley]

A chaotic day in Parliament yesterday, I shan't even try to describe it. Have a look at THIS for the report in the Telegraph, not noted as an anti-Tory organ. The root of the problem seems to have been inconsistency on the part of the Home Secretary, Theresa May. Criticism of her is piling in from all shades of the political spectrum. Bottom line is that it was an attempt to manipulate parliament. What makes it even more puzzling is that the Coalition was guaranteed support from every other party, there was no need for this. Incompetence or a natural tendency to manipulate?
07:30. Just listened to an interview on BBC R4 with a reporter who was given the Dickens evidence by Barbara Castle but subsequently had a visit from Cyril Smith who threatened him and wanted the dossier back, The reporter refused but the next day Special Branch turned up, threatened him with 16 years in Gaol and took the materials away. He has not been contacted by the Wanless inquiry, See this slightly earlier BBC report, the website hasn't been updated yet. LINK.
This yet another example of murky dealings inside the Westminster Bubble. It has to be resolved! (Think Chilton as well.....) Are we being kept in the dark?

[Tizer]

It's a depressing time in the UK with the big political parties in disarray and failing miserably, and the extreme parties getting more votes. There's nobody I want to vote for and I'll probably end up using my vote simply to try and keep out UKIP. We need an influx of new MPs with more experience of life and work and a greater understanding of science, technology, engineering and maths but, not surprisingly, people no longer want to be politicians - who'd want to join that club with its present reputation. It's no better in the USA where the Republicans are gaining ground and even they are seen by many there as too liberal. All this at a time of increasing unrest and danger in the world.

[Tripps]

When our MP Andrew Lansley said he was going to quit, there were rumours that Boris Johnson had his eye on the constituency, when he was casting around for a seat to be parachuted into.

However we are saved, and now have this lady to consider.

Heidi Allen

I think she'll do nicely. Degree in Astro Physics, has run a family paint business, and coped with Royal Mail in London. I think she'll fit the bill.

[Tizer]

You lucky man - she's better looking than Boris too - I can see you'll be popping down to her `surgery' to discuss politics and pulsars!

[Stanley]

Apart from being an attractive lass she fills Tiz's criteria as well.
More damning evidence of the chaos in the Tory Party. Cameron makes an unequivocal statement that the Wanless enquiry has proved there was no cover-up in the Home Office and that everyone should read it. Then Theresa May states in the house (quite correctly) that the report did not say there was no cover up, only that none had been discovered. She also disclosed a shambolic state of affairs where file movements were not adequately logged and reasons for discarding given. Surely standard library practice? Then Peter Wanless was asked whether Cameron had got it right and had really read the report. His answer was unequivocal as well, No and No!
Then I heard an 'expert' arguing that the people who had been abused shouldn't be allowed a veto on the appointment of the chair.
I have a lot of respect for the Civil Service and the people who run it but I was reminded that one of a departments high priorities and greatest skills is preserving their image of probity and efficiency. If there is any attack in these areas they close ranks. I think that there is an element of that here. Someone knows about the fate of these documents.
What's interesting me is that the early morning report on the BBC where a reporter who was given the dossier by Barbara Castle and then threatened with 16 years in gaol by Cyril Smith and the Special Branch has sunk without trace. Is someone censoring what we are told?
I have seen this happen before. An embarrassing piece of news that passes the sub editors early in the morning while the
'safe hands' are still in bed goes out on air and then vanishes when the senior persons realise what has happened. That's the sort of small clue that can blow things wide open....

[Stanley]

See this REPORT about the news item I heard yesterday regarding the investigative reporter Don Hale, and how he was treated. I'm pleased to see it has surfaced and to hear on Today this morning that the matter has been raised in Parliament.
Later at 07:30 I heard an interview on Today with a man called I think Hulbert who had worked as a consultant at the Home Office and while he was there he noticed that the Home Office was funding an organisation linked to Paedophiles and who were campaigning for the age of consent to be lowered to four years old! He went to his boss to draw this to his attention and protest. He was told that they were a legitimate campaigning body, had good connections and that the Special Branch had recommended the funding be continued. This conversation wasn't minuted so no record exists, it's his word against the Home Office. Now who would you tend to believe? Who profits from burying this exchange? What possible benefit to the man can accrue from his blowing the whistle?
For more detail about this sorry affair read this LINK.

[Stanley]

I listened to Danny Alexander doing his piece on how marvellous it was that wage rises and the rate of inflation coincided yesterday. He refused to answer the direct question 'Does this mean the squeeze on domestic incomes is over and families can now start to claw back what they have lost since austerity was introduced'. It was embarrassing to hear him fighting to reinforce the lies he had been tasked with promulgating.
The answer is of course very simple, "NO!" What has happened is that due to global recession some energy and commodity prices have fallen and as a result price inflation has fallen yet again. It is not due to increased rate of wage rises.
Another thing he didn't touch on was the fact that the proper economists are getting very worried about the inflation figures because all the evidence is that due to lack of solid economic activity they will continue to fall and there is a danger they could go negative and signal the worst of all worlds, 'Stagflation'. This is deflation in a stagnant economy. Problem there is that having reduced interest rates to the bare minimum, the BofE and the Treasury have nothing left in the toolbox to stimulate growth. One signal that this is the case is that Mark Carney has already said that the possibility of an interest rate rise before October 2015 is remote even though the general economy is crying out for it. They daren't raise the rate because if they do it will be a catastrophe in these circumstances. Oh, and Cameron et al are still talking about reducing the higher rates of tax, good electioneering but rotten economics!
I have a bit of sympathy for Milliband as he tries to tell the truth about the economy and the rising rates of debt and inequality in the lower 50 percentile of the population. He is right but isn't putting the case hard enough or with any believable passion. The unions are doing a far better job but of course they are a red rag to a bull.
One of the major factors in this ongoing problem is that far too much money is being sucked out of the economy by the returns the large capital holders are getting on their investments. Add to this the banks being forced to hold even more capital to protect them against the inevitable future and once in the coffers this is dead money as they are not allowed to risk it in investments.
One of the big puzzles at the moment is that nobody clearly understands why it is that the general sow down in Europe isn't affecting the UK economy more than it is. One of the answers to this is that despite what the politicians say, exports and foreign earnings as a percentage of the UK national income is at an all time low. The only driver that can materially improve our position in real terms is an increase in the domestic spend and 85% of this depends on the very people who have been hit worse by falling incomes, the lower 50 percentile and they are promised even more cuts over at least the next five years. The ting that is keeping spending up at the moment is increasing levels of household debt and in the end this is self defeating.
Sorry Kids, I can see no break in the clouds..... My advice as usual is Tin Hats On!

[Bruff]

'...unions ................ but of course they are a red rag to a bull.'

Ah, the good old British fear of the Trade Unions. Fear of Trade Unions emasculated under the most restrictive industrial relations laws in Western Europe. One wonders how on earth they cope elsewhere, how on earth employers, employees and Government can sit down and have adult and mature conversations on industrial and public policy. Here, Government Ministers refer to them as ‘the blob’ and think they’re clever, egged-on by a media that sees the Unions as just one step from us all ending up in the gulag.

Meanwhile, in other news British corporatism continues in its usual course of cabalistic sharp practice, perhaps criminality. I think we all know now aspects of banking (the Masters of the Universe bit) is a fetid swamp peopled only by the shameless and/or the psychotic. Coming up fast though are Tescos, now under investigation by the SFO, hot on the heels of the likes of G4S and those other titans of private enterprise addicted to public money whose primary skills are lying about their performance or otherwise fiddling the figures.

Makes you proud to be British.

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

Bleak post Richard but entirely accurate. I'm not going to go into a dissection of the unions but what strikes me is that despite all the draconian measures taken against them they still function and are a power in the land. I often think that the root of the present lot's hatred of them is that they know in their heart of hearts that there continuing influence is rooted in the fact that they know the grass roots, what its problems are and are effective in acting as a voice for the denizens of those regions. I also look back at the political giants who emerged via service in the unions and how effective they were in politics.
I watch Cameron doing his statesman bit in Oz and electioneering at the same time and wonder why he isn't here looking after the shop. It seems he never alerted hid LibDem colleagues as to the contents of his anti-UKIP speech!
Thinking of UKIP. Farage's ill considered statements on the NHS have come back to haunt him just before Rochester. Funny thing that.... See this LINK for the full story and his hasty retraction. Of course he was only advocating 'a form of privatisation'. Really?
For an example of how low morals in public life can fall have a look at THIS account of a letter written to Martin Luther King accusing him of the most foul behaviour and suggesting he kill himself. Sent by the FBI at the instigation of J Edgar Hoover who, as it later transpired was not without stains in his own personal life. The letter was thought to exist but had been buried by the FBI and has now come to light. Lord Acton's famous aphorism springs to mind. "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Can we honestly say that this doesn't hold true today?
What I see in politics today is a system dedicated to preserving itself and its power. It is not focussed on the well being of the vast proportion of the electorate. My problem is that I can remember when the opposite was true, political principle and notions of fairness were predominant and out of that sprang the best welfare state in the world. Now I watch these sods chipping away at it 'because we can't afford it'. Who exactly is we?

[Stanley]

I listened last night to the anonymous informant detailing (as far as was possible, some of the things he describes can't be broadcast) treatment he received from his father who then passed him on to 'The Group' who shared in the abuse of children at organised meetings. He said that they were prominent members of the police, legal profession and politics.
How do we factor this and what will probably follow into our view of our social system? Is it all historic or are some perpetrators still active and in public life? We are told that we should beware of subscribing to conspiracy theories but when you listen to evidence like this (which must have some credence or it wouldn't be publicised) you can't help reflecting on the number of people who must have been involved from the drivers and keepers of the premises used to the police who surely must have had some inkling what was going on. What is keeping these people quiet? The anonymous informant says it is fear of what could happen and there is even the suggestion of a death in the chain.
If these accusations have substance and are expanded it could be seismic. I feel as though I have been sleepwalking through my life, concerned only with matters of immediate concern while in another part of the forest unspeakable things were happening. I suppose that is always true but in this case seems to have been in the part of society we have to trust to have the highest standards...

[Stanley]

See THIS REPORT of the Cameron article in the Guardian and his recent speech. All right, we have to recognise that he's over-egging the pudding a bit to reinforce Tory claims to be the best custodians of the economy as part of his electioneering for 2015 but there is more than a grain of truth in what he says. Piketty pointed to this and forecast that historic rates of growth exceeding 3% are not going to be sustained, the projected figure is more like 1.5% average. This has implications for the way governments operate in that tax takes are going to remain low. What Cameron doesn't admit is that the best tool left to government to maintain the tax take is to borrow instead of tightening austerity and to increase the tax on the highest incomes. This is anathema to the Tories and as long as they control policy nothing will change.

[Stanley]

THIS REPORT From Conservative Home is worth reading for an analysis of the Cameron approach to the 2015 election from the Party point of view. The body of the report is accurate but the conclusion they reach, skewed by far right DNA is erroneous. Read by an old sceptic like me it proves that in terms of economic thinking the Tories haven't moved on since 1920. They are still talking about a balanced budget and sound currency coupled with the reduction of debt. The first two strategies triggered the inter war depression and the last ignores the fact that debt under the Tory regime is rising. Not only the national deficit but private sector debt as well.
It completely ignores the fact that everything they say actually proves that the current policies are wrong. They are squeezing the very sector that has the power to increase activity and hence GDP, the domestic spend. Further, they are saying that they have to increase the pressure by imposing even more cuts. As long as these mistaken policies are pursued, the position will worsen.
In truth, the UK economy at the moment is rather like a Ponzi scam. On the surface it is a success but if you dig into the detail it is in fact basically flawed because it relies on austerity and inequality to massage the figures. Even the BofE states this clearly but they are ignored. The Autumn statement can no longer avoid giving a very bad picture of the UK economy and Cameron's aim at the moment is to forestall criticism of current policies by blaming everything on the global economy in general and Europe in particular.He will not admit that economic policy since 2010 has been as mistaken as the decisions made under Labour in 2008 to support the banks at the expense of the general taxpayer.
Perhaps they should go back and read some history, particularly Keynes!

[Stanley]

Mark Reckless put under some close questioning yesterday in the Rochester by-election hustings. Everything points to UKIP taking the seat. The Tories seem to have accepted the fact and Labour and LibDems are regarding this as private grief. The defence from the Tories on Friday will be that this is a rogue by-election result and no indication of what will happen in May next year. All they can do really..... Whether they are right remains to be seen, I doubt if any of the parties has correctly assessed the depth of feeling that exists against the established politicians. The public are desperate for a change and protest will be a big component of the vote, just as it is now in Rochester. Remember the European elections?