Posts Tagged ‘The Daily Telegraph’


Bild: Matt i The Daily Telegraph.

Read Full Post »

The TimesThe Time den 25 juni 2016

The Daily Telegraph

The Daily Telegraph den 25 juni 2016

The Guardian

The Guardian den 25 juni 2016

Daily Mail

Daily Mail den 25 juni 2016

Read Full Post »

VAL 2016 | Säg den glädje som varar. När Labour valde Jeremy Corbyn till partiledare var det många konservativa som tackade högre makter.

New Statesman 8-14 April 2016

Inom partiet var näst intill säker på att regeringsmakten var näst intill säkrad för lång tid framöver när det största oppositionspartiet valt en partiledare långt ut på vänsterkanten.

Detta naturligtvis under förutsättning att man inte förflyttade partiet för långt ut åt höger. Detta var också premiärminister David Camerons strategi efter partiets överraskande valseger. Man ville säkra sin position i mitten.

Men det var innan de interna partistriderna inför folkomröstningen om medlemskapet i EU. Nu befinner sig Conservatives i ett inbördeskrig mellan ”Leavers” och ”Remain”.

Skiljelinjerna mellan anhängarna till Brexit respektive Bremain går rakt igenom regeringen. Sex ministrar har t.ex. valt att stödja ett utträde.

Och detta är bara de som öppet har tagit ställning för ett utträde. Hur stort mörkertalet är i realiteten är det ingen som vet.

Simon Heffer, kolumnist i The Daily Telegraph och The Sunday Telegraph, har skrivit i New Statesman om stridigheterna och David Camerons krishantering.

The Conservative Party is approaching not only a historic referendum, but a historic moment of crisis. It is deeply divided over whether or not to stay in the European Union, and the divisions are unequal. At the top, most want to stay in: not out of conviction, but because most ministers have found it politic to agree with David Cameron, even if they cannot support his view that he got a great deal from other EU countries after his supposed “renegotiations” with them. Among MPs generally the mood is far more hostile; and at the party’s grass roots it is predominantly in favour of leaving. Where this ranks in the history of Tory party crises is not easy to say.


The current division is open and is breeding hostility, luxuries afforded by one of the Tories’ few unifying beliefs: that Labour poses no threat at the moment, and they can have a quarrel that may even verge on civil war without fearing electoral consequences. Whatever the outcome, the present quarrel allows the opportunity for a major realignment of the party without it having to go out of office. A minister who is (just, and after much soul-searching) committed to our staying in the European Union told me frankly last week that the Tory party was “a mess” and that, whatever happened on 23 June, the referendum would be the beginning and not the end of a painful process for the Conservatives.


There is an idea on both sides that scores will have to be settled after 23 June, and, the way things are going with party discipline and out-of-control aides in Downing Street, such an outcome is inevitable. Should Remain prevail, a wise prime minister would understand that this was a time to heal wounds and not deepen them. It remains a matter of conjecture how wise Cameron, whose vindictive streak is more often than not on the surface rather than beneath it, is prepared to be.

Those who work for his party at the grass roots, and on whom MPs depend to get the vote out at elections, will be unimpressed by a purge of those who have not backed him over Europe. There isn’t much of a voluntary party left, and there will be even less of one if he acts rashly in victory. If it is a narrow victory – and it is, at this stage, hard to envisage any other sort – his party could become unmanageable unless he acts with restraint and decency.


Conservatives worried about the stability of their party believe that only Labour under a new, more effective and less factional leader could present the serious electoral challenge to them that would shake them out of these unprecedentedly acrimonious and self-indulgent divisions. We can only imagine how differently the In campaign would be conducted if Labour had a nationally popular and an obviously electable leader.

As it is, many more dogs are likely to be unleashed. Things promise to become far nastier, dirtier and ever more internecine for the Tories, not just before 23 June but for a long time afterwards: and with the party in power for at least four more years, one can only guess what that means for the governance of Britain.

Tidskriftsomslag: New Statesman, 8-14 april 2016.

Read Full Post »

VAL 1992 Att föra ut sig budskap, stående på en gammal ”soapbox”, har alltid varit lite av sinnebilden av engelska politiker under en valkampanj.

John Major 1992 General Election

Under valrörelsen 1992 ställde sig premiärminister John Major på just en sådan tvållåda (i Sverige skulle det ha varit en upp- och nervänd ölback).

Men detta går inte riktigt att jämföra detta med våra sömnframkallande svenska torgmöten. Här handlar det om att verkligen ge sig ut i folkvimlet.

Lite av poängen är, just som bilden visar, att man skall vara beredd att ta emot spott och spe från häcklarna. Tänk Speakers´Corner i Hyde Park i London.

Det hela signalerar att man är beredd att kämpa för varje röst. En väljare i taget; om så skulle behövas.

Den nederlagstippade konservativa regeringen vann en överraskande valseger.

Det anses allmänt att det var Majors ”soapbox campaign style” – och att man framhävde hans blygsamma bakgrund – som gav Conservative Party deras valseger.

The Daily Telegraph skrev nyligen om Major och valrörelsen 1992:

In 1992, when the polls put Labour ahead a week or so into the election, John Major threw away an overly cautious battle-plan and engaged in some old-fashioned soapbox stump oratory. “People say that you cannot do it these days,” Sir John said. “It is fashionable to say, for security and other reasons, that you cannot get up on a soapbox. I think you have to – and I am going to do it.”

Bild: John Major, tydligen stående på sin tvållåda, i valrörelsen i Storbritannien 1992.

Read Full Post »

Matt cartoon - The Daily Telegraph

Bild: Matt i The Daily Telegraph. Fler teckningar på deras nättidning

Read Full Post »

VAL 2015 | Exit polls indikerar att premiärminister David Cameron får fortsatt förtroende och kan bilda sin andra regering.

Daily Mail May 8 2015

Daily Mail, 8 maj 2015

The Times May 8 2015

The Times, 8 maj 2015

The Daily Telegraph May 8 2015

The Daily Telegraph, 8 maj 2015

The Independent May 8 2015

The Independent, 8 maj 2015

The Guardian May 8 2015

The Guardian, 8 maj 2015

The Sun May 8 2015

The Sun, 8 maj 2015

Läs mer: Fler framsidor på nättidningen för The Daily Telegraph.

Read Full Post »

Cartoon by Matt

Bild: Matt i The Daily Telegraph. Se fler av hans teckningar på nättidningen.

Read Full Post »

Matt cartoon

Bild: Matt i The Daily Telegraph. Se fler av hans teckningar på deras nättidning.

Read Full Post »

ELITER | Vad är anledningen till UKIP:s framgångar? Många skulle automatiskt svara deras EU motstånd och deras kritik av invandringspolitiken.

The Spectator 24 maj 2014

Men det finns även en annan, mer sofistikerad, förklaring. Nämligen att övriga partier inte riktigt gillar sina egna medlemmar.

Detta öppnar upp för partier som UK Independence Party som uppfattas som mer ”äkta” och ”folkliga”.

Trogna partimedlemmar och kärnväljare är ofta fullständigt ointresserade av strategiska överväganden kring vilka frågor partiet bör driva för att kunna locka väljare.

De är ofta inte speciellt intresserade av att sakfrågor skall testas i opinionsundersökningar och fokusgrupper. De vill bara se att partiet kämpar för att få genomslag för deras hjärtefrågor.

Den ökade professionaliseringen av partierna för med sig att partitoppen och deras anställda ofta har mer gemensamt med motsvarande personer i konkurrerande partier än vad de har med sina egna medlemmar.

För partieliten är medlemmarna, i bästa fall, ett nödvändigt ont.

Peter Oborne, på The Daily Telegraph och The Spectator, beskriver en utveckling i Storbritannien som lika väl skulle kunna vara en beskrivning av Sverige.

Nigel Farage is a subversive who has reintroduced the vanished concept of political opposition into British politics.

When he emerged as a force ten years ago, Britain was governed by a cross-party conspiracy. It was impossible to raise the issue of immigration without being labelled racist, or of leaving the EU without being insulted as a fanatic. Mainstream arguments to shrink the size of the state, or even to challenge its growth, were regarded as a sign of madness or inhumanity […].

Meanwhile, the three main political parties had been captured by the modernisers, an elite group which defied political boundaries and was contemptuous of party rank and file. As I demonstrated in The Triumph of the Political Class (2007), politicians suddenly emerged as a separate interest group. The senior cadres of the New Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem parties had far more in common with each other than ordinary voters. General elections were taken out of the hands of (unpaid) party activists and placed in the hands of a new class of political expert.


In this new world, the vast majority of voters ceased to count. The new political class immediately wrote off all voters in safe seats — from unemployed ship-workers in Glasgow to retired lieutenant colonels in Tunbridge Wells. Their views could be disregarded because in electoral terms they were of no account.


For ten years, academic theorists and political experts have been wringing their hands about voter apathy. The Hansard Society would annually come up with a new proposal to remedy declining turnout at general elections. Baroness Helena Kennedy’s Power Inquiry conveyed its earnest bafflement about the readiness of the British people to join charities like Oxfam while turning their backs on our national politics.

In reality, it was the British politicians who turned their back on the electorate, not the other way around. The voters were much less apathetic than the national politicians assumed and (horrifying for the Helena Kennedys of this world) Ukip is the party that has proved it.

Tidskriftsomslag: The Spectator den 24 maj 2014

Read Full Post »

SYMBOLISM | På partikonferensen 1975 dammade Magaret Thatcher symboliskt bort socialismen med en turkos dammvippa.

Enligt The Daily Telegraph fick hon dammvippan av ”a member of the audience at the Conservative Party Conference”.

Talet var ideologiskt och retoriskt skickligt uppbyggt. Dessutom hade det en rad roliga poänger som gick hem i församlingen.

Här är ett litet utdrag:

The economic challenge has been debated at length in this hall.

Last week it gave rise to the usual scenes of cordial brotherly strife.

Day after day the comrades called one another far from comradely names, and occasionally, when they remembered, they called us names too.

Some of them, for example, suggested that I criticised Britain when I was overseas. They are wrong.

It wasn’t Britain I was criticising. It was-Socialism.  

And I will go on criticising Socialism, and opposing Socialism because it is bad for Britain—and Britain and Socialism are not the same thing.

As long as I have health and strength, they never will be.

Läs mer: Talet kan läsas i sin helhet på Margaret Thacher Foundation.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »