Monday, 30 November 2009
"Staff at certain grades can take part in national and local political activities provided they do not occupy sensitive posts. We can confirm that the civil servant in question is not in a politically restricted role. The Civil Service code sets out the duties and responsibilities of all civil servants, whatever their jobs. Defra takes the impartiality of its employees seriously and is confident that impartiality has not been compromised in this case."
Some further questions:
Why then was "the civil servant in question" allegedly prohibited from attending Labour Party conference this year due to the sensitivity of her role in briefing ministers?
So Defra is fine with their civil servants writing for an
How do the following not compromise impartiality:
"I pay my union dues (I'm a proud Unite member) and a couple of quid to Amnesty. I'm also shelling out for my Labour Party membership, plus Compass and the Fabian Society."Compass and Fabian both actively lobby departments such as Defra.
"I'm beginning to think it's time to revive tactical voting. I disagree with the Lib Dems on substantial issues. That's why I'm not a Lib Dem, interestingly enough. Still, if I live in a constituency where it's a choice between a Lib Dem and a Tory MP, where the Labour candidate is unlikely to get a look in, I'd strongly consider voting for the Lib Dem candidate."
"In 2005, I had the dubious privilege of a meeting with Davey C, then Shadow Education Secretary, along with university classmates. (Yep, Dave and I have the same degree from the same Oxford college. Only I didn't get a first.) I asked him his feelings on proportional representation. He slammed me down fairly comprehensively in that charming oh-what-a-silly-young-Irish-woman, don't-ask-me-difficult-questions sort of way."
Conservatives - "They'd be funny if they weren't so dangerous."
Plus TB's favourite: "Every time I hear anything about the Tories these days, it reminds me ofHow can they be confident impartiality has not been breached when this impartial civil servant is so clearly repulsed by the prospect of a potential incoming Conservative government?this."
UPDATE 16.15: DEFRA Senior Press Officer Sima Parmar has refused to comment on why Quigley was not allowed to go to Party conference. Funny that.
For those faceless anonymous commenters, with a limited number of IP addresses, who are asking why TB wants this person fired, let him make a couple of things clear. He has no desire to see this person fired just the blog and the Young Labour chairmanship to go while she is taking the taxpayers shilling.
Firstly is Miss Quigley's role political?
If yes, then fine, move along. Nothing to see here.
But if not, as inferred by the press officer this morning, then how is her position as a regional office holder, not local, but regional office holder of the Labour Party acceptable as a non-partisan civil servant?
Secondly how does the fervent anti-Tory rhetoric on
DEFRA claim to still be "looking into the matter". How long can it take?
Is she political or not?
While TB waits for the DEFRA press office to call back he thought he would share this:
ImpartialityIt's a riveting read.
carry out your responsibilities in a way that is fair, just and equitable and reflects the Civil Service commitment to equality and diversity.
You must not:
act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals or interests.
serve the Government, whatever its political persuasion, to the best of your ability in a way which maintains political impartiality and is in line with the requirements of this Code, no matter what your own political beliefs are;
act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of Ministers, while at the same time ensuring that you will be able to establish the same relationship with those whom you may be required to serve in some future Government; and
comply with any restrictions that have been laid down on your political activities.
You must not:
act in a way that is determined by party political considerations, or use official resources for party political purposes; or allow your personal political views to determine any advice you give or your actions.
The reaction to TB's post last week about the need for a new leader for the Scottish Conservative Party had mixed reactions. He was particularly amused by the amount of Labour people claiming she is the Tories best asset north of the border. If they are the ones that like her, things are clearly not going in the right direction. There was a combination of texts ranging from "I can't believe you said that!" to "thank god someone said that!" to "I can't believe you said that, people are going to think it came from me!"
TB already knew he wasn't alone in his thinking and yesterday's Sunday Herald had more:
Tory industry supporters, in common with other senior party figures, do not believe she is the leader the Conservatives need. One senior party insider said: “She fits none of the requirements of the modern Conservative party.” While the UK Conservatives continue to record substantial leads over Labour in UK opinion polls, the Scottish Tories are struggling to make an impact. At the last Holyrood poll, Goldie won 16.6% of the first-past-the-post vote, and 13.9% of the regional vote.TB gets the impression a ball is beginning to roll.
However, Cameron is believed to support Goldie as he cannot see an obvious alternative. One well-placed Tory source said Goldie’s inability to persuade Cameron to back more financial powers for Holyrood was an example of her ineffectiveness. MSPs were said to be taken aback at Goldie’s anger at the piece, with one insider saying that the Scottish Tory leader had been “furious”. A small number of culprits have been identified as the potential source of the leak.
This is Christine Quigley:
Well TB understands Miss Quiqley better go tell her day job boss about her new very very political role. TB hopes she realises that it could potentially be against the law if she hasn't...
The Bear will be calling in an hour so to make sure everything is hunky dory.
Sunday, 29 November 2009
"No it's a coordinated Old Etonian take over."
Hello! and OK! better credit him!
"It's like the break up of The Beatles, during the fall of the Roman Empire, while fucking Jordan is divorcing that bloke. All happening in a tiny fucking terraced house."
Oops, no surprising then that one Mark MacLachlan no longer works for the SNP and his blog has now disappeared. As
"Mr MacLachlan suggested some Labour politicians got a sexual thrill from bullying women, branded a prominent Tory “the biggest liar in the Scottish legal system”, and posted a picture of Gordon Brown in a noose with the headline “duplicitous lying bastards”.Sounds fairly typical for a nationalist blog then. The now defunct
He also alleged a married Labour MSP visited gay cruising spots, badmouthed the daughter of Lord David Steel, the former presiding officer at Holyrood, and described several opponents as “c***s”"
Who could have leaked a thing like that eh?
TB occasionally enjoys his banter with soon to be former Labour MP Kerry McCarthy. Kerry,
There is an air of desperation creeping in to the Labour netroots, perfectly encapsulated by Kerry's actions. Playing the man instead of the ball is an understatement. She has clearly been taking evening classes at the Damian McBride School of Political Campaigning™ as she has managed to stoop to new lows of comparing Tory Bear to Nick Griffin. The highly tenuous connection being both are sceptical of global warming.
Her thought process
Nick Griffin = Racist + Global Warming "denier"Well Kerry that is too far, shall we have a look through the Labour manifesto and the BNP one for a little game of spot the difference? This pathetic attempt to bat away a debate you know you would lose by smearing by association is a step to far. You don't drag Nick Griffin's name into a debate unless you are going for the cheap shot.
Tory Bear = Global Warming Denier
Tory Bear = Nick Griffin... shortly followed by "HEY ELLIE, GUESS WHAT!"
TB has been pulling his punches so far but from today until your agent turns to you on election night with a "sorry", the gloves are off.
Saturday, 28 November 2009
Labour HQ went into
It will take a very brave rat to join a sinking ship.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Lord Pearson is sound. Outflanking potential in Tory heartlands could be massive...
Thursday, 26 November 2009
TB is finds himself increasingly using the term Global Cooling Deniers. Problem is he uses the phrase in jest. Others throw the word denier around in a far darker fashion. He is sick to the back teeth of the pious, tedious, deceitful and at times violent extremist stance that has been adopted in the last few months by the climate lobby and their spiteful mouthpieces.
TB disagrees with you about global warming. Ok? Got that? However much you hound him and rile him he is grown up enough to make a judgement all on his own. Vicious lists of “deniers”, drawn up and then spread around so others can target and bombard and harass are totally fucking unacceptable. What next? Will all the deniers be made to wear little green stars on their jackets?
The left are pathetic in their attempts to use a disputed and increasingly shaky idea to promote their hidden political agendas. There is a difference between being green, being respectful, being sensible and being sustainable out of choice rather than having to subscribe to a highly dubious scientific theory. You can want to leave this planet in a better state than it was inherited in without having to be forced to subscribe to a theory that makes you want to do it.
Being sustainable is common sense, it shouldn’t have to be forced upon us. TB understands and knows the need for the UK to reduce our dependency on oil and coal. We need to develop new energy creating technology. The wind and sea is free, we’d be stupid not to use it. Nuclear power is clean and efficient and in the long run far far cheaper than burning oil. TB knows this without having to subscribe to a quasi-religion, with all the dangerous pitfalls theology brings.
Of course TB doesn’t want to pollute and destroy the planet. Recycling is of course a necessary thing, but not because WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE if we don’t. The obsession with global warming is a patronising and pathetic attempt to control the individual. Hence why it is no surprise where on the political spectrum it’s most vocal advocates lie.
Now Will, Sunder, Grace, George, Brian etc and the anonymous lot, leave TB the hell alone. He has chosen on the base of his own decision making ability where his views on this lie. No amount of harassment and attempted shaming is going to change that until TB sees some bloody evidence (not nursed figures!)
TB respects this world because we should, not because we are made to.
TB was fairly whelmed when he saw Philip Blond speak during conference season and has been less than enthused by the sort of people who are making swooning noises about him. Good news today though is he is reducing
There is much that is right with the state and there is much that is wrong. What is right is that the state embodies in structured form a common concern – it represents the coalesced will of the people that there is a level below which you cannot fall and an undertaking that we as a body politic have a stake, a care and indeed a provision for you and every other citizen . In that sense the welfare state really does represent the best of us. In that sense the great triumph of the left is indeed the 1945 Labour government which laid the foundation of the modern welfare state. But what the working class thought would save and secure became something that gradually and over time, eventually helped to destroyed them. Why? Because the state instead of supporting society - abolished it. The welfare state nationalised society because it replaced mutual communities with passive fragmented individuals whose most sustaining relationship was not with his or her neighbor or his or her community but with a distant and determining centre. Moreover that state relationship was profoundly individuating - unilateral entitlement individuated and replaced bilateral relationship.Interesting stuff. Jury is still out somewhat at this end but one to keep an eye on.
The working class did not ask for this – they wanted something far more reciprocal, more mutual and more empowering. All existing working class welfare organisations were sidelined by a universal entitlement guaranteed by the state based upon centralised accounts of need. Local requirements, organisation or practices were simply ignored and thus rendered redundant. Thus the welfare state began the destruction of the independent life of the British working class. The populace became a supplicant citizenry dependent upon the state rather than themselves and the socialist state aborted indigenous traditions of working class self–help, reciprocality and social insurance. Rather than working with each another in order to alter their situation or change their neighbourhood or city, relying on the welfare state only to get them through a temporary rough patch, working class people increasingly became permanent passive recipients of centrally determined benefits. As such welfare ceased to function as a safety net through which people could not fall, becoming instead a ceiling through which the supplicant class – cut off from earlier working class ambition and aspiration – could not break. This ‘benefits culture’ can be tied directly to the thwarting of working class ambition by a middle class elite that formed the machinery of the welfare state yes to alleviate poverty but also to deprive the poor of their irritating habit of autonomous organisation.
Busy day for TB but amused by this continuing tête à tête between Christian May and Heydon Prowse. CM has replied with a fisk. Scroll down the page for background.
Over to your Heydon.
So it seems that Heydon Prowse didn't actually know he was being interviewed for LabourList in their
Some points: I never agreed to have an interview published in Labourlist. I've never met Christian May (although I'm pretty sure he definitely reads The Guardian and maybe even Red Pepper). I can't think of a bigger waste of my time than to get involved in this petty left/right bickering. I can't believe a hugely important guy like Christian had time to write a 500 word response to a misquoted article that about 100 people read. I didn't read all of your reply Christian cos it was very boring and I have work to do, but it all sounds very good and noble. I guarantee, however, that your darlings Cameron and Osborne will sell out the Conservative roots and young idealists just as thoroughly as Labour did.Praise all round then.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Michael and I share much in common. One such trait is that we don't often read LabourList, and I'm sure we’re not alone in this. It seems to be not much more than a collection of press releases from Government departments, broken up by a few over excited Tweets from their "grassroots" or "online movement." Although to be fair to Alex Smith, he has at least succeeded in bringing in a bit of debate and opinion after the downfall of its original editor.Over to you Heydon, TB is more than happy to publish right of reply.
However, Alex Smith stills lets the odd howler through his editorial sift and the website was drawn to our attention this morning after the political highwayman Heydon Prowse appeared to articulate our views, and the views of Conservative Future, to the readership of Labour's flagship online presence.
Apparently, having spoken to us both, he concludes that we’re all Guardian readers, that we would agree with most of what he thinks, and that the the only change we’re interested in is from opposition to government.
Where to begin?! Well for starters, I’ve never met Mr Prowse. I wasn’t at the infamous gathering where he filmed my friends and colleagues, and I certainly haven’t met him anywhere else. Michael has had a conversation with Mr Prowse, on camera in fact, but I think it's fair to say Michael isn't particularly well known for his Guardianista views, and there wasn't much policy discussion. So how Mr Prowse claim to know which papers we read and what our political views are, is beyond me.
To be fair, he probably doesn’t have to meet either of us to know that we want the Conservatives to move from opposition to government, but it’s a touch unfair to claim that our thoughts on “change” are as basic as that.
Why do Michael and I want change? Well Mr Prowse, Michael and I have decided to break it down for you:
We want a change from an overbearing State to a smaller government. We want a change from punitive taxes on the poorest to incentives to work. We want a change from a broken society to a renewed civic conservatism. We want a government that cares about people, not headlines. We want the armed forces to be led by Dr Fox, rather than the embarrassing “Bungling” Bob Ainsworth. We want a Health System that trusts doctors, not targets. We want schools that ensure teenagers leave with the ability to read and write. We want Britain to be an effective trading partner with Europe, not a willing cash cow in the ongoing project of EU imperialism. We want a Prime Minister that doesn’t employ people to smear political (and military) opponents.
There’s a lot that we want to see changed, not least the credibility that Mr Prowse seems to have gained through duplicity, spin and mistruths.
They’re getting absolutely nowhere, slowly. More than 12 years after they were wiped out in 1997, and 10 years since the launch of devolution (which they thought might enable them to rebuild) they are stuck down on 18%.
The findings will trouble David Cameron, who has attempted to make great play of his Unionist credentials. But with a Labour government in trouble, and a fresh-faced Tory leader, the best his Scottish wing can manage is 18%.
Remember, in what will likely be a closely fought election campaign, every seat counts. For context: Thatcher secured 31% of the vote in Scotland in the 1979 election that brought her to power. Her party had 22 Scottish seats. Now it has one. On 18% it’ll be lucky to do any better than that.
While Annabel Goldie has many fine qualities she is clearly not leading the charge effectively. While many like her personally, the numbers tell a different story. Any course of action need not be brutal, merely pragmatic. There are some very talented potential successors in the Holyrood grouping who could hit the ground running.
A change at the top could be the very catalyst required to restart the fight back north of the border.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
It seems all echelons of the Labour Party are in capable off saying sorry for anything, unless of course it is for the actions of the British people hundreds of years ago. It seems the official line of "regret" will have to do from Ellie Gellard. As for the cowardly councillor Tim Cheetham he deleted his words in silence. Says a lot!
Just a few final words on all this. Regular commenter here, blogger
Now, it has been mentioned in the comments that TB is being a trifle precious here, and, in an ideal world, they would have a point. However, this is Labour we are talking about. You know, the party which has systematically thinned the collective skin of the entire nation?Well said that man. Read the whole piece
They have not merely discouraged comments which could be construed as offensive, they have legislated to criminalise them but, and this is crucial, only for those who are deemed worthy by socialists. Hate speech is illegal if others utter it towards Labour's friends, but perfectly acceptable if aimed by their elected officials and party apparatchiks at those who are not stamped as 'approved' by the left.
Say you don't like Muslims and you could end up behind bars, but wishing death on Thatcher is fair game even for tinpot Tim and ever ready Ellie.
See, the commenters at TB's place tend to possess more of a spine than that attributed to the public by Labour during their tenure, but then, those who are not socialist have always tended to believe that the world is a difficult place and one should learn to cope with it rather than be nursemaided through the whole experience.
Labour, though, have decided that the country should be filled with individuals who have the right not to be offended ... ever. So much so, that we regularly read of innocuous ads receiving complaints from dainty flowers who either see offence that wasn't there, or who are quite simply too stupid to understand the joke.
So surely, if Labour aren't to be accused of hypocrisy (hey, stop laughing, I'm trying to be serious here), Mrs Thatcher should be expecting an apology quite soon, no?
Well. No. Because the response has been depressingly predictable.
"The official line to take tonight seems to be smear TB as a sexist, all very well coordinated kids."
Hammer. Knee. Jerk.
As usual, rather than tackle the problem, the preferred method is an ad hom smear.
Talking about a woman? That'll be sexist. Concerned that immigration policy is wrong-headed? That'll be racist. Worried that schools are putting too much emphasis on same sex relationships? You're a homophobe.
The implication is that this was only a joke and not meant to be offensive, so TB, and Mrs Thatcher's friends and family, should just chill out.
Perhaps they might be inclined to if Labour hadn't spent a couple of decades just not getting the fucking joke themselves. Or, as A N Wilson put it at the weekend.
"I would much rather live in a world where comedians sometimes 'go too far', than in a tight-lipped dictatorship where you do not dare to make a joke because someone else will think it 'totally unacceptable' - to use that pompous phrase which is trotted out all too often nowadays by the thought police. Acceptable to whom?
It is patronising to women, Jews, black people, Irish people, or indeed to anyone, to suggest they are too thin-skinned ever to hear a joke in which some stereotypical attitude is betrayed."
Them's your rules, Labour. You're the ones who promoted this atmosphere of instant mistrust of the jovial word. You're the ones who dictate that no offence should ever be perceived, let alone intended. You're the ones who have set the agenda and acted on it.
Yet wishing death or injury will be conveniently set aside in this instance, because Labour are not consistent, merely selfish.
They scream when they, or their pet groups, are even mildly offended - hell, they even scream when their pet groups are not offended but Labour think that they should be. But when it comes to Labour offending others, that's a different matter entirely. Their own right to post objectionable messages or hate speech is assiduously guarded. After all, theirs is the righteous ideology and cannot ever be questioned.
You must understand. It's not offensive when Labour do it. Got that?
"It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them."
Of all the things TB laughed at in this morning's Guardian
Monday, 23 November 2009
The problem whe
It takes a pretty sick individuals to look at the footage of a frail old lady enjoying a reward for years of loyal and great service to her nation and
TB got in touch with senior Conservative source, and friend of Mrs Thatcher and showed them this filth, their response said it all:
"Healthy political debate is one thing, but it is quite another to spread vile jokes like this around the internet. This young lady should be ashamed of herself. It's clear that gutter politics aren't just confined to the top of the Labour Party."A joke here and there and a bit of banter is one thing but a line has very much been crossed here.
TB has had a busy day making life difficult for a certain MP, but he did have the opportunity to laugh, and promptly send hoards over to James Macintyre's
"Indeed, yesterday's poll and the apparent trend reminded me that, after I dared to suggest in my new year predictions (some wrong, some right), that the two main parties' positions in the polls would switch by the end of this year Iain Dale, the aimiable and popular partisan Conservative blogger, reacted with "cackling laughter" and said "In your dreams, sunshine".Course it is James.
In fact, private polling commissioned by Number Ten is today showing just that."
TB's fav comments have to be the "Did Gordon slip you some of his happy pills?" and "Is this secret poll No.10 has, is like the secret intelligence report no. 10 had about iraq having WMD's?"
Now as far as TB is aware there are very strict rules on how Downing Street can use party political polling, and particularly if they brief the media on them. British Polling Council
2.3. Public opinion polling organisations reporting results will endeavour to have print and broadcast media include the above items in their news stories and will in any event make a report containing these items together with full computer tables of the results available on their web site within 2 working days of the original release.2.4. In addition to the information outlined above, the public opinion polling organisation responsible for conducting the survey that has entered the public domain will place the following information on its own web site within 2 working days of the data being published.
· A full description of the sampling procedures adopted by the organisation
· Computer tables showing the exact questions asked in the order they were asked, all response codes and the weighted and unweighted bases for all demographics and other data that has been published
· A description of the weighting procedures employed and weighted and unweighted figures for all variables (demographic or otherwise) used to weight the data, whether or not such breakdowns appear in any analysis of sub samples.
· An e-mail address for further enquiries. It is assumed that all other reasonable requests for other data, over and above the requirements specified herein, necessary for readers of the polls to assess the validity of the data will be answered
· A link to the BPC web-site
So who is the pollster and where is the report on their website?
Are they not a proper BPC registered polling organisation?
Or was Macintyre making up anonymous LOOK AT ME I'M IMPORTANT briefings from No10?
Well they have 48 hours to publish, but TB isn't holding his breath...
Contact Tory Bear
Tory Bear Feed
- December (2)
- November (5)
- October (4)
- September (17)
- August (4)
- July (26)
- June (26)
- May (49)
- April (91)
- March (79)
- February (56)
- January (84)
- December (73)
- November (114)
- October (144)
- September (132)
- August (77)
- July (94)
- June (138)
- May (107)
- April (185)
- March (98)
- February (87)
- January (60)
Copyright 2010 Tory Bear. All Rights Reserved. Email Tory Bear on firstname.lastname@example.org
This Blogger.com template designed by