The government consulted on the proposal and promised to publish the results. But ministers have now changed their minds, since "a backlash by “middle England” generated hundreds of letters of protest" after a Labour MP suggested that the flag should be changed to incorporate the Welsh dragon.
Officials told the FT the “hundreds” of responses had focused mainly on the perceived threat to change the flag. “Although that was not remotely part of what we were consulting on, it provoked middle England to reply,” an official said.
Asked if the government decided not to publish the responses because of their Daily Mail-style outraged tenor, the official replied: “That’s a fair assumption.”
The FT claims that "the decision to relax the flag-flying days will now be slipped out, as part of a white paper on constitutional changes to be issued shortly".So Brown's government will only publish the results of consultations if they get the right answer. This contempt for truth and accountability might have amused my Umbrella Blog colleague Tony Sharp, but he seems to be in an angry mood these days.
Maybe he will be cheered by the news that McBrown is seen to be in danger of losing southern England. Hence, reports the FT in a spiky report worth reading in full, an ideological debate is raging in the PLP.
Nearly half of Labour’s most vulnerable seats are in the south, says the FT, and 20 of the party’s 47 losses at the last election were in the south-east.
Seats in London and along the M4 corridor, the north Kent coast, the south coast and the M11 corridor are known in the Labour high command as the “killing fields” of the next election.Lord Radice has taken to referring to "southern discomfort".
Twisting the knife, the paper suggests that Gordon Brown may privately welcome a row with the Labour left: "it sends out a useful political message to the aspirational middle classes and it is cheaper than trying to buy back their votes – something he cannot do because the coffers are empty".
Voters seem to have seen through McBrown's Britishness wheeze. And Mr Cameron is about to point out that inflation for most voters is running far above Mr Stalin's figure of some 2%, hammering Mr Stalin rather than Mr Eyebrows. Quite right. Mr Eyebrows will doubtless be jettisoned when it's convenient, whereas Mr Stalin seems highly unlikely to walk the plank.
Mrs Balls' response to the Tories is feeble as usual: "We can't afford the Conservative approach of unfunded tax cuts and taking risks with stability and inflation." This is the political answer to those who would like promises of big tax cuts: because the Tories aren't promising them, they are depriving Labour of their target. Mrs Balls is flailing at a target which isn't there.Economically things will continue to get worse for the government, so all the Opposition has to do to maintain its lead on economic competence is to keep pointing out that the government - and McStalin in particular - have been profligate with our money and are lying about the worsening inflation numbers, making them look out of touch. Was it not Mrs Balls herself who claimed she could buy 4 pints of milk for under £1? - or maybe I misheard her.
Mrs Balls it was who introduced the harmful Home Information Packs - and even managed to botch that. Mrs Balls it was who said she made no apology for "greenplating" the measure. For expenses purposes Mr and Mrs Balls claim their expensive London house as their second home (which it clearly is not), while pretending that their constituency residences are their main homes. Richard Littlejohn reports that between them they receive more than £580,000 a year. No wonder Mr Balls shrugs his shoulders at the prospect of higher taxation.
Mrs Balls is probably more useless than Alan Johnson or Charles Clarke - no mean achievement. Perhaps we'll return to them in a future post.
0 comments:
Post a Comment