Spurious spin

The recent survey of mayoral voting intentions showed Conservative Geoff Gollop in 3rd place not second and a very, very large number of undecided people. The Tories now have just 14 councillors across Bristol compared to 32 Lib Dem, 22 Labour and 2 Green. The Tory led Coalition Government is hardly popular at the moment...and yet it is said (here by Kerry McCarthy MP) that there is a real threat from the Tories!! The facts have shown right from the start of this campaign that in an all-Bristol election the Tories cannot win or get close to winning and that's one reason why the bookies have never rated them as having a realistic chance. Labour have an electoral interest in talking down the chances of Bristol 1sts George Ferguson the person who IS a real threat to them because of the breadth of his appeal and thus his ability to pick up lots of second preference votes in the second round of counting. Tribalism from Labour may well get them lots of first preference votes but restricts their ability to attract the second preferences needed.

Reality vs Rogers

Bristol Lib Dem mayoral election spin (some might say lying) says 'Dr Jon Rogers is quickly emerging as the only serious challenger to Labour' in their latest leaflet, rather deceptively presented in a newspaper style entitled 'City News: Community News for Bristolians'. The spin goes on, saying 'Dr Rogers odds to be Mayor have rocketed reaching a high of 3/1 and second favourite to Labour'. It says that the Conservatives are out of the race and refers to a 'Jon Rogers surge..' describing how many Conservative voters are turning to the Lib Dems. It says the independent vote is split and many voters may turn away from Bristol 1st's  George Ferguson.

The reality is completely opposite to the spin, as the latest survey of voter intentions shows. Jon Rogers is still saying (here) 'any of the next 4 candidates could still overtake him [Rees] on a combination of first and second preferences' but the Lib Dem is not even in third place let alone second place on first preference votes! There are many undecided but even so this report says 'Labour's Marvin Rees...clear favourite, with 21 per cent. But this is nowhere near the 50 per cent required to prevent the election race going to a second round.The second and third favourites on first choice votes were George Ferguson (Bristol 1st) with nine per cent and Geoff Gollop (Conservative) with seven per cent'. The Greens Daniella Radice is in joint fourth and may be set to beat the Lib Dems in the way that Green Jenny Jones did in the last London mayoral elections.

Halfbaked Hopkins

In the ongoing online discussions on this Post story about the mayoral election Lib Dem Councillor for Knowle, Gary Hopkins chips in this spin,

by gary_hopkins ...Polling shows
1 Non voters and genuinely undecided in a clear lead.
2 Mr Rees in a narrow first preference vote in front of Jon Rogers.
3 The Tories nowhere with their voters either giving Jon First or second preference to keep out Labour.
The other overwhelming stat that comes back is that, liked or not ,George Ferguson is known to that tiny % of the chattering politically active classes but 95% + are completely unaware of him...__________________________________________

My reply: What polling is this? Who is it conducted by? Please give actual figures and the source(s) - otherwise what you say is not backed by facts we can check out. Its quite a common practice for Lib Dems to state a so called 'fact' or a quote in the 'Focus'  newsletters without giving the source for it. Lib Dem materials very often skew figures via very dodgy bar charts and illustrations. If its deliberate its unethical if its not its very poor and sloppy thinking and communication.

By choosing to have a dig at George Ferguson the Lib Dems, a) show they have something to be concerned about and, b) reinforce Ferguson's credentials as a candidate independent from party politics.

[Update 14 Oct: Cllr Hopkins has been challanged three times to produce figures and sources but has not done so - in fact he's made things worse through more party politics and attempted point scoring. No surprise there then.]

Canny Cable's Capitalist Con

Vince Cable was reported as attacking capitalism in his Lib Dem conference speech but in fact he played it pretty cannily - if you view politics on terms like his ie NOT 'what you see is what you get'. He was entertaining, used humour and exaggeration effectively and saw to it that his speech was widely circulated to the media beforehand. He used some colourful language, ‘spivs’, ‘gamblers’, ‘murky world’, ‘markets...rigged’ – which the media zoom in on – and drew just the (‘angry’) reaction he wanted from the business world. All of this created the general impression that Business Secretary Vince wanted and more than got him through what might have been a difficult Lib Dem conference. West Country Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg described it -pretty accurately - as ‘throwing a few lentils’ to his party faithful. I’d describe it as leading everyone on a merry dance (see picture for evidence) - using spin in an attempt to put us in a spin, confusing and causing problems for us with deception/disguise and behaving in a way that hides realities.

Being keen to understand all variations of and views on capitalism – never more so than since capitalist economic systems around the world took many industrial economies to the very brink due to the banking crisis – I closely watched the Cable speech and have followed some of his pronouncements since. Vince Cable stressed the importance of finance, the deficit and its ‘correction’ through cuts and freezing public sector pay. He spoke of how economic growth is essential, how we must remove obstacles to growth and how it should be led private enterprise (he's since stressed the importance of growth eg here). He referred to his agenda as pro-market, pro-business – with competition central - and how high taxes on rich people and companies could send them abroad. The privatisation of Royal Mail was mentioned and he referred to graduates as having to make a bigger contribution to the cost of their higher education (what has since emerged is the creeping privatisation of higher education through the establishment of a free market in tuition fees). Vince has since stressed how he wants to speed up Royal Mail privatisation.

Does this sound like a firmly capitalist approach or an attack on capitalism to you?? Andrew Neil said in his analysis immediately after the speech that he thought it faced in two directions at once. Ex-Chancellor Alistair Darling described Cable’s speech as ‘political hokey cokey’ (great phrase!). In my view the speech liberally (and Liberal Democratically!) sprinkled firm capitalist policies and actions amongst crowd-pleasing rhetoric designed to create the impression of anti-capitalism! There is certainly debate about precisely what capitalism is but few, if any, would dispute that it involves private ownership, private profit, decisions made by a market and economic growth as the primary aim – all which are extended by Vince Cable’s policies and actions along with those of the Coalition Government he is fully signed up to. So, its Vince Capitalist then.

[I'll follow up on this post with a further analysis of capitalism later]

Please let me know if I spout gibberish and nonsense!

Co-writer of the enormously funny and entertaining Yes, Minister TV series Anthony Jay, concluded an article he wote recently by saying:

Voters no longer believe anything they hear from our leaders and mass apathy is the result.

I think he certainly has a point. The whole article is well worth a read. Please comment often and with great vigour if I ever spout gibberish and nonsense on this site!! I've done my best to be clear and straightforward up to now and will endeavour to continue this in the future.