Right leader, wrong time?

So, Nick Clegg has been elected as the leader of the Lib Dems by the slenderest of margins. He now has a monumental task ahead of him. How to make the Lib Dems a real force at a national level.

The Lib Dems are suffering from the classic two party squeeze and it will be difficult for him to keep the seats he has at the next election, never mind improve upon the present level of MPs.

The Lib Dems have for so long looked in two directions, not surprising given the merger of the old Liberal and SDP parties. The old Whig party of free trade now annexed to the social democrats. Nick Clegg now has to choose which horse to back and drag his party in that direction kicking and screaming. I think his instincts are for the Liberal wing, free markets and Libertarianism. Unfortunately most of his MPs are from the SDP wing, wanting more state control.

If the party continues in the current two faced approach they will continue to be a rump varying in size but never making the breakthrough.

Recently it looked like the best chances for Lib Dem success was to oust the Tories as a centre-right party based on the Liberal traditions. Now it looks likely that the best bet is the Social Democratic way on the left to outflank Labour. So it looks like Nick Clegg has just missed the boat, he may be right leader but 5 years too late.

Squiffy.

Just when you thought it was safe

It looked like we were going to have a little quiet time in politics over the Christmas. In fact it has been reported that Gordon Brown has already departed for the holiday period, and I think he deserves a chance for some peaceful rest. He has been looking tired of late and according
to the press the problems experienced by the Government have only made him work harder.

So let's wish him a good break.

Unfortunately, he does have some more bad news. At the Labour Party Conference he said,

"Let me be clear: any newcomer to Britain who is caught selling drugs or using guns will be thrown out. No one who sells drugs to our children or uses guns has the right to stay in our country...If you commit a crime you will be deported from our country. You play by the rules or face the consequences."

Today, a leaked memo has said that foreign prisoners with a prison sentance less than 12 months will not be deported. So GB has been stung by his own speech yet again, remember "British jobs for British workers"!. It's all well and good saying these things if you have a cat in hell's chance of putting it into action. Apart from, in some cases, being illegal it just makes
the public trust politicians less.

So GB, do have a good break. It can be a time to think about the last few months, and remind you of some of the things you've said that people don't believe. How about "I don't look at polls." No-one believed that. You wanted to build trust, well please don't treat the electorate as idiots.

Merry Christmas, GB.

Squiffy.

Id's rubbish

That wasn't a typo. The Government have lost more data, 3 million details of learner drivers in Ohio in the US. Quite what a hard drive was doing over there is another matter, but it's now clear that the Government cannot be trusted with our details.

The ID card scheme must now be seen as dead as the proverbial. We cannot be sure they will be able to keep our details secure and if that data happened to be a print of our eye's iris, where do we get a new eyeball from? Unlike a bank account, it's not something that's easily replaceable.

So when will the Government decide to ditch it? Probably the New Year. If they don't then I think they will regret it!

Squiffy.

Another bad spell?

It could be said that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. There have been no Government crises over the last week, no big revelations in the proxy cash affair and even Gordon Brown wasn't as bad in PMQs. (He may have even had the upper hand on DC).

So maybe the Government is on the up? There have been some announcements on policy, such as the children's plan.

But there have been some bad moments too. The Home Secretary seems to be heading for some more bad times. Today, the 5 thousand illegal immigrants cleared to work in the UK has been upgraded to 11 thousand (including those that hadn't been checked yet). I wonder if the Home Office has worked out how to release this information!

Also in the select committee on the 42 day detention plan, Ms Smith conceded that Parliament might meet after a detainee has been detained for 42 days to agree that they can be detained up to 42 days. If that sentence does not make sense, it's like the policy. What happens if Parliament says no? What a joke!

Ms Smith may also regret having a go at David Davis, he's knocked down 4 ministers and I think Ms Smith is putting herself in position to be the fifth.

Finally for Ms Smith, denying independent arbitration for a public service which does not have the right to strike is bad. And doing it for the sake of £30 million which has already been accounted for by the police authorities just looks stupid. It will have a miniscule effect on inflation but not on other public service pay claims, after all the headline figure is 2.5%.

The PR blunder of the timing of the signing of the constitution reform treaty is small beans but indicative of how this Government's spinning machine has stopped working. Alistair Campbell would have this sorted. Gordon Brown is going to make a speech saying that the EU should now reform economically, I think I've heard of that one before. They're not interested in it - only in more regulations and harmonisation. There will be another treaty in a few years, taking more powers away.

So I don't think the Government is out of the woods yet, although I expect Labour to creep up slightly in the polls. If they don't then maybe they have had their 'Black Wednesday' effect.

Squiffy.

Detention without charge roulette

This week it was announced that the Government are pushing for 42 days detention without trial for terrorist suspects. Only recently, it was publicised that 56 days would be the figure. Last year it was 90 days.

Talk about pulling the figure out of a hat. At the start of this issue, it was always stated that the figure would be what the security services and police required. It no longer seems as such, it now looks like what the Government can get away with. Not exactly principled is it?

I don't think it will work. Most M.P.s are too wise to it and will deny the attempt to extend the time without evidence. At least I hope so.

Also, another announcement made to the media and not to the House of Commons. So much for the change Gordon Brown promised.

No change.

Squiffy.

Fairness, please

From across the pond I read with incredulity the decision by the FIA that allowed Renault to get with a smacked wrist over their version of the Spygate saga.

In many ways, the verdict was similar to the one in the middle of the summer when McLaren were found guilty but let off any fine. But the later hearing which gave McLaren the largest fine in sport's history set a precedent. Some McLaren employees had discussed the Ferrari car, there was no evidence provided that McLaren had used Ferrari secrets on their car. I see the same case provided in the Renault case.

So either both teams were at fault, or neither. I think the FIA have been slightly pragmatic; a £50 million fine for Renault would make it very likely they would leave F1, it is easier for a Manufacturer to leave than a company whose primary purpose is racing.

But where does this leave the idea of fairness? Nowhere. It has long been suspected that there is some kind of vendetta against McLaren, and at every point where the FIA could do something to show fairness in it's hearings it fails. I was really hoping that this time there would be an ounce of consistency, but no, I feel very disappointed yet again.

Looking back over 10 years the following events have occurred.

• 1998 Brazil, Ferrari protested McLaren's brake/steer 3rd pedal. Winner : Ferrari, Loser : McLaren
• 1998 Britain, Schumacher given a penalty for overtaking before the start/finish line after the safety had gone in. The penalty was given late and Schumacher made a stop/go after the finishing line. Had he made the stop/go before, Hakkinen who was 22 seconds behind would most likely have won. Winner : Ferrari, Loser : McLaren
  
• 1999 Malaysia, Ferrari's bargeboards are found illegal, banned giving the championship to McLaren. The decision is then reversed keeping the championship alive. Winner : Ferrari, Loser : McLaren
• 1999. Berylium engines banned. An aluminium-berylium alloy used in McLaren's engine was banned at the end of the season. Winner : Everyone else, Loser McLaren
• 2003, Monza. Before the GP the FIA made a 'clarification' which effectively banned the current Michelin tyre which had been legal since Michelin's return. Just before this, Schumacher had finished 8th in Hungary. From then on, Ferrari went on to win the championship. Winner : Ferrari, Loser : All michelin runners
• 2005. After a season with one tyre allowed for a race, Michelin had a good tyre and Bridgestone a bad tyre, they were banned. Winner : Bridgestone (Ferrari), Loser : Michelin (McLaren/Renault)
• 2007, Australia. Ferrari race an illegal car, it is question but Ferrari's race win stands. Winner : Ferrari, Loser : McLaren
• 2007, Hungary. Intra-team rivalries lead to Alonso holding up Hamilton in the pits. The FIA should not have intervened, it did and dropped Alonsio 5 places and removed all constructor points. Winner : Ferrari, Loser : McLaren
• 2007, SpyGate round 1. Ferrari secrets found in McLaren's possession. McLaren lose all constructor points and have the largest fine in sport's history. Winner : Ferrari, Loser : McLaren
• 2007, Fuelgate. The temperature of fuel in BMW/Williams cars is too low, the cars are banned, then re-instated. A lengthy appeal by McLaren (which would hand the title to Hamilton) is thrown out a technicality. Winner : Ferrari/Raikkonen, Loser : McLaren/Hamilton
• 2007, SpyGate round 2. McLaren secrets found in Renault's possession. Renault found guilty but let off any fine. Winner : Renault, Loser : McLaren

A catalog of rulings which when weighed up seem biased. The FIA needs to change, and Mosely should go. Now.

Squiffy.

We're bad, we're all bad....I don't think so

Following the twists and turns of the Labour funding fiasco should be a full time job. Unfortunately, I already have one so blogging on this quickly evolving story has been difficult.

It looks like more people in the Labour party know about the donations than they are saying. Several careers are dangling by a thread, including Harriet Harman, Jon Mendelson and Wendy Alexander (different matter, but related). I think Mr Mendelson and Mrs Alexander will both have to resign while Mrs Harman will struggle on until the next time.

Gordon Brown made three mistakes at his press conference. The first being that he declared the donations illegal, whilst that is obviously true it means that a police investigation was inevitable. By not mentioning the legal status he may have got away with internal and electoral commission enquiries. He has left himself open to being the second PM (in only the space of a year) to be questioned in Downing Street. This PM ain't as astute as he was cracked up to be.

The second mistake was to not to proclaim confidence in Mrs Harman from the start. The press detect the nuances of what you say and don't say, and the fact that he needed to be goaded into support maybe truthful but plays badly in the press. The press will now look for any differences between the two and exaggerate them.

The third was to proclaim that only one person knew about the arrangement with Mr Abrahams. The PM should know by now to not say something categoric if you don't know the answer. He's behaving like a political novice.

The latest move by the PM is to turn the attention to funding of the parties. This needs to be sorted out but, as ever, if it is done in the atmosphere of panic bad legislation will ensue. Dangerous dogs anyone? I suspect that GB will not do this in the spirit of fairness either. Throughout his career, he has tried to batter the Tories and I guess he will do the same again.

Although there were some mentions in the press that he was willing to put union funding in the mix, I doubt that he would. There will be a small concession but nothing designed for fairness. He will, most likely, try to cap spending on General Elections, limit individual and corporate donations, and spending between General Elections whilst exempting union funding. So Labour's funding fiasco will be turned to their advantage. If this happens, David Cameron will rightly walk away.

My proposal would be:

• Cap General Election spending at £15 million.
• Cap individual and corporate donations to £50,000.
• Enrolling into a union will present the employee which a choice of which party to donate a sum to. None would be a valid choice, in which case there would be a refund.
  
• Cap limits on the spending between General Elections on a seat to £10,000 per year for all parties.
• Scrap the communication allowance of £10,000 for M.P.'s.

Now that would be fair. Bet we don't see it.

Squiffy.

Sleaze is back

The Labour party is in a right old pickle. Members of the party must have thought they would be rid of sleaze, given the departure of Tony Blair and the end of the loans for peerages investigation.

But it's back. And this time it has caught several cabinet ministers in it's trap. Gordon Brown probably did not know about the donations coming from David Abrahams, but the party's General Secretary, Peter Watt, did and resigned. It now looks like Harriet Harman, Hilary Benn and Margaret Jay knew about donations from David Abrahams. Hilary Benn was approached with a donation, but on advice from Baroness Jay, refused it until it came directly from David Abrahams. Harriet Harman did accept a donation from an intermediary and there is a lot of speculation whether she will remain as Deputy PM. Certainly GB was only lukewarm in his press conference.

There is likely to be a criminal investigation. This evening, an intermediary, Janet Dunn, has denied sending the money and says she votes Conservative. So this now looks like identity theft too. The web is becoming tangled, and the on top of this the Government's woes are piling up.

Every time Gordon Brown tries a re-launch something crops up to knock him back down again. Such is the way, when the skids start. He maybe able to find a plateau but a recovery is looking less likely. The Labour Party are less likely that the Tories and Lib Dems to ditch a leader when the going gets tough, but just over a year ago there was an attempted coup. How long before there is another one?

Squiffy.

The Forces of Brown

I've never heard before of 5 ex chiefs of the defence staff complaining about the funding and treatment of Britain's armed forces. Joined to the criticism from the present chief of defence staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, about the over-stretch of fighting two wars, it looks like a full scale onslaught on the Government.

Although the funding for defence has crept up from the lows of 2001, it has not reached levels where fighting two simultaneous wars is sustainable. After the demise of communism, it looked like a sensible plan to reduce the size of the defence budget as we seemed to have no enemy. The scourge of renewed terrorism though makes this seem premature, and with an interventionist foreign policy budgets should rise to levels similar to that of the cold war.

In a an apt sentiment from the best ever programme on television, The West Wing, “Democrats want to intervene but reduce the defence budget, and Republicans want to be isolationist but give greater funding to defence”. It is so true of the current Labour and Conservative parties.

The Prime Minister should now either reduce the commitments of the armed forces, or provide the funding required to equip and sustain the greatest armed forces on Earth. I think the latter. And while we’re at it, he should give Britain back a full time Defence Secretary. I still find it hard to believe that Gordon Brown could not foresee how this slap in the face for the armed forces would be interpreted by those on the ground. We’re fighting wars on two fronts, PM, for goodness sake. Now get a grip.

Squiffy.

Was it Black Tuesday?

Did the current crisis facing the Government create their 'Black Tuesday'? Many commentators have pronounced that it is, others have said it is totally different, and others, myself included, think that it is too early to tell.

I remember, as a 19 year old, the conditions which led to 'Black Wednesday'. It had been rumbling around for a couple of weeks, the pound nearing it's lower limit in the ERM, the Chancellor pleading with the Governor of the Bundesbank for Germany to lower interest rates, and John Major stating there was no chance of devaluation. When the Wednesday arrived, the atmosphere was exhilarating. Obviously, I didn't have a mortgage to pay so I didn't seem to affect me, but the turmoil of interest rates rising to 12% and then 15% in the afternoon made for an exciting story. Late that evening, watching Norman Lamont announce our suspension from the ERM and rates returning to 10%, gave the story its climax.

On that day, nobody could predict that it would signal the end of the Tories' reputation for economic competence, while at the same time ushering in a new age of low interest rates and sustained economic growth which we are still experiencing today. It's quite ironic that the Tories were seen as economically competent when they had two recessions and boom, and incompetent when they had low inflation with growth!

It was only later on that the seeds of the Tory Government's long decline could be traced back to that day. The economy improved, but the ERM debacle along with Maastrict had highlighted European divisions in the Government, and back-to-basics had brought the papers out to find all the adulterers (apart from one), so nothing that the Government did was given credit and everything was seen through the prism of incompetence.

Time will tell whether Tuesday will become known as 'Black Tuesday'. I suspect not. I think it will be 'Brown Saturday' when the Prime Minister announced that there would be no General Election that the wheels came off this Government. At the moment, two wheels are off and two wheels are acting like they're attached to a dodgy Somerfield trolley.

Squiffy.

The ID card death knell

The scandal now rocking the Government may sound the death knell for the ID card scheme. The unbelievable admission that the personal details of 25 million UK residents have possibly been lost after being posted on 2 unencrypted CDs has shown how details can so easily get into the wrong hands.

In this case there is no evidence of criminal intent just sheer incompetence. We should be getting used to Government incompetence now, after all the complications to the tax system and wastage in the tax credit system, and are able to blame a certain Mr Brown. The scale of these problems on top of the Northern Rock fiasco should be scaring Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown. If banks have to give money back to customers due to the child benefit account details, they will probably sue the Government. And for quite a lot.

On top of all this, the competence of Government to handle personal details must now be questioned. As I have said before, ID cards pose a risk of holding details all in one place - open to a hacker or someone silly enough to store the details on a CD. Maybe GB will now sense some way of getting out of present problems by announcing the abolition of plans for ID cards. He would be wise to do so, before the clamour to have them subsides significantly.

Squiffy.

The Lib Dems and Proportional Representation

Watching Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne on Question Time, again doing the "we're not going to talk about hung parliaments, we'll try to maximize our vote" act, I started thinking about the Lib Dem's predicament.

They say that they are not interested in talking about hung parliaments because it is in their interest to maximize their vote. But it is a bit of double speak, they want to maximize their vote so that a hung parliament occurs and they become the power brokers, like the Earl of Warwick in the Wars of the Roses.

Their price for partnership in a coalition Government is proportional representation, obviously this ensures that the British Government will always be a coalition with the Lib Dems. They will be permanently power propping up either a Labour or Conservative administration. Both Labour and the Tories know this and so they are unlikely to be open to PR (for Westminster at any rate). It would seem extremely unfair to the electorate if the party which formed the Government were decided not by themselves but by a smaller band of Lib Dem MPs.

So would the Lib Dems agree to anything less than PR? I think so, because the opportunity to be in Government will be to hard to ignore. On the surface it looks like Nick Clegg would favour a Con/LibDem coalition and Chris Huhne a Lab/LibDem coalition, but I think that is too simplistic. It will come down to the state of the latest Government (would it be possible to prop up a discredited Government), what other policies the Lib Dems can trade and what cabinet posts can be filled.

Of course, if Proportional Representation were to be implemented in Westminster there could be a seismic shift in all the main political parties. They could all splinter, the free-market Lib Dems could join the libertarian Tories leaving the authoritarian Tories to their rump, the big Government Lib Dems could join the free-market New Labour centre-left, the Old Labour left could join the Socialist Alliance. All without fear that their voices would not be heard. Possible , but unlikely.

I'm sceptical though, I think it would be extremely difficult to get a sea-change in politics which comes along once a generation. The Thatcher revolution, which was needed to change the economy of this country, would be a dulled twinkle in her eye had she had to form a coalition with the then Liberals. We would most likely still be crippled by strikes and noted as the sick man of Europe.

Squiffy.

I'm not a number

Why is the Government so obsessed by ID cards? They seem to think it is the panacea for many ills. Terrorism/illegal immigration/benefit fraud/ID theft are all supposed to be tackled by this magic card.

The Madrid bombings were not stopped by ID cards. Biometric passports will be available, and a better way to tackle illegal immigration would be to have effective border controls. National insurance numbers are there to stop benefit fraud. I can't think of a better way to achieve ID theft than having everyone's complete details on one computer system - what a target for the thieves!

The latest cost of the ID card scheme is £5.7 billion. With the Government's record on IT systems, it will be late and double that at completion. OK, let's be generous and say it's £10 billion, what else could be bought with that? How many police officers could be funded with that money? Over 300,000 for a year or 50,000 for six years. That should help more to tackle the aforementioned problems.

I completely disagree with the changes being made to the bond of trust between Government and populace. I should not need a card to prove who I am, as Ian Brown said 'I ain't no number'.

Squiffy.

La Westwood voting Tory?

Who'd have thought it. On yesterday's Daily Politics, Dame Vivienne Westwood announced that she would be voting Tory at the next election. It's hard to think of the doyenne of punk voting for the party that has stood for all things establishment for so long.

For Dame Westwood the issue of civil rights and liberties has led her to consider voting for the party which she must have opposed for so long. She says that she has never seen a more autocratic Government than what we have now. I agree with her (and I can't abide ID cards too - but more of that later).

Apparently Dame Vivienne will also be attending a Tory Christmas dinner too, which would seem to be taking 'voting Tory' to the next level.

Has the world turned upside down?

Squiffy.

GB 0 - DC 4

Another rubbish performance from the PM at PMQ's. David Cameron boxed him around the House again. GB would have done better to answer DC's question today and knocked him off guard.

A little lesson from a certain Jim Hacker, honesty in politics always surprises your opponents.

How many more weeks can GB survive this pummelling before the Labour benches start muttering?

Squiffy.

The shelf life for Home Secretaries is reducing

It appears that the turnaround of Home Secretaries might be about to get quicker. The first Labour Home Secretary, Jack Straw, lasted four years. The most recent, John Reid, lasted just over a year. Could the latest, Jacqui Smith, be about to bring the time down to six months?

I doubt it, but she will be damaged by the latest revelations of a cover-up of illegal immigrants not being vetted for security posts. Any other revelations could mean a premature end to her tenure. Shame, because I quite like her.

I believe that the Labour Government have been pretty keen legislators, but write bad legislation and are bad at administration. It seems that the Home Office, the most difficult and controversial department to run, has been gradually becoming more of a shambles. Jack Straw lasted four years but his successor, David Blunkett, famously said that it was left it in a mess. It appears that it has been going downhill since.

The Government would do well not to introduce any Home Office bills for a couple of years and sort out their woeful performance.

Squiffy.

The view from the bunker

A fascinating insight into the view from the Government's civil servants as told by Sue Cameron here.

Apparently the PM has reverted to his old ways, and working with his old coterie of advisers to the detriment of other cabinet ministers. Balls, Milliband (that's Ed) and Alexander have the PM's ear and are his gatekeepers. Hasn't GB learnt anything from the non-election fiasco?

The summer seems like so long ago.

Squiffy.

Tory referenda for council tax

This morning David Cameron announced his plan for referenda to be required for councils planning to increase the council tax above a limit agreed by the relevant parliament or assembly. This is a reasonable plan to try to link the expenditure of councils to their spending.

At present the link between how much we spend on council tax and the improvements to local services seem tenuous. A large majority of this is due to the Government stipulating what councils have to do and then only providing the council with a small amount of Government grant with which to do it.

If I was DC, I would try to make the link more obvious. With schools becoming more independent following on from the Academy programme, it would seem sensible to channel money from the Government directly to the school. It's not apparent any more what influence councils have over their local schools. This would mean a rise in central taxation and a decrease in council tax. If possible I would extend this strategy to other areas. Local taxation should pay for what is controlled locally.

Squiffy.

The Blair Years

This week the BBC are beginning a three part series on the 10 years that Tony Blair was premier. It should be fascinating to watch.

Already there are stories in the press describing how TB had to treat Gordon Brown as a wayward child. TB has obviously shown GB a lot more loyalty than he received during his time in office. We all wonder why TB put up with all of GB's disloyalty and bad behaviour during the time they led the New Labour project. The parent-child relationship seems to be apt here too, TB dealt with GB in the same way a mother would to a drug dependant child. TB didn't want to throw GB out on the streets only to see him harm himself or more importantly in case he came back with his friends and burgled the place!

Unfortunately, GB only seemed to kick the habit for three months. Since the conference season, he seems to be back to his old tricks!

Squiffy.

Nearly out of jail

The news that Jonathan Aitken is to help Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice is to be welcomed by anyone with a sense on how to do grown up politics. Using a convicted ex-cabinet minister's experiences in jail to inform on how to transform the lives of the prison population, in the hope that the re-offending rate can be reduced, is surely wise.

Unfortunately, there are already calls for David Cameron to distance himself from this decision, and some MPs are trying drag up the old 90's memories of Tory sleaze. I hope DC knows that the Tory party of today is seen as different to the late 90's and is not scared into running away from the great work the Centre for Social Justice has done.

I really wish all politicians could see further than the next week's headlines and work out ways to tackle the long term problems which are neatly swept under the carpet.

Squiffy.

Honda's got Brawn

The news that Ross Brawn has become the Team Principal for Honda must be music to the ears of Jenson Button. It was only this weekend that he let it be known that Honda must pull their socks up to keep Jenson going into 2009.

Ross Brawn is an outstanding engineer and strategist, and his loss to Ferrari will be Honda's gain. I don't really understand why Jean Todt was not able to stand back to let RB take the reigns. For many years now it has looked like JT was ready to let someone take over so that he could take a rest from his 18 hour days, but he seems unable to leave the day to day running of the team he loves to someone else.

For Honda, it is undoubtedly a coup that could coincide with an upswing in its form. Over the last year, Honda have been recruiting heavily into their engineering departments and one can see why. This year's car has been one helluva dog and Honda have felt the full force of sacking Geoff Willis last year. Hopefully they will regain their ability to provide front running cars and, with Ross Brawn on board, be able to provide JB with a car which will be able to win races when the sun is out.

Squiffy.

The Paxman Interviews (2)

Another interview, with Michael Howard refusing to answer the famous question 14 times!



Squiffy

The Paxman Interviews (1)

In the first of a series, here is a great interview on Newsnight between Jeremy Paxman and George Galloway on the night of the 2005 election



Squiffy.

A Motto - How very Un-British

The British Government is very un-British. Not a very patriotic thing to say. But listening to the last ten minutes of the Today programme on this Saturday morning made me shout out to the radio - "OH GOD NO!".

Apparently the new Ministry of Justice (not a very British sounding department) is wanting a new motto for Britain. Having worked in the IT industry for 12 years, every so often the company decides it needs a new Vision/Mission statement and my heart just sinks. It's all very well to have something to advertise to the outside world with a simple motto, but to the employees it is just an exercise in money wasting for executives who have more important things to do.

So, the MoJ's idea makes me think that the Government is wanting an exercise in money wasting for ministers who have more important things to do.

It is just so un-British, though, and I don't understand how the Government just don't get it. They seem to think that we need a strap-line to define our values, and every house to have a Union flag outside so that we feel British. Well, I understand our values - fairness, quiet determination, pulling together in adversity, stoicism, self deprecation, humour, cynicism of the establishment. I also feel very British as well as English. The very fact that this Government needs to find a statement to define these makes me think that they don't understand Britishness and so are the least able to define what it is.

So if they want a motto here it is - "Oh God No - Not Another Motto".

Squiffy.

Another Prezza policy is a glowing success

After an undoubted successful 10 years in office as Deputy PM, transport, environment, regional and community Secretary of State, another of John Prescott's policies has been singled out for praise.

Following on from ground breaking policies such as:
- The 10 year transport plan
- Promising to nationalise the railways
- The M4 bus lane
- The promise to reduce car usage in 5 years and resign if he hadn't
- Regional assemblies
- Not messing around with secretaries

The Pathfinder scheme has been described as "radical but high risk" by the National Audit Office. High praise indeed. Apparently clearing dilapidated housing has made it possible for those residents, who were forced to sell their homes under compulsory purchase orders and lose money in the process (rather than selling the property at market rates), to look in awe at the new houses which replace them knowing they cannot afford to buy one because they are now out of their price range.

Just another glittering Prezza policy. I'm glad we paid him all that taxpayer's money to keep the Labour party united, and to provide little kiss and make up dinners for Tony and Gordon.

Good one.

Squiffy.

Sir Ian Blair must go

The momentum behind a movement to evict Sir Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has now become unstoppable. Last week the Metropolitan Police were found guilty of carelessness with regard to health and safety when Jean Charles de Menezes was wrongly shot in Stockwell tube station, as head of that organisation Sir Ian should have considered his position. Now the Independent Police Complaints Commission in a report on the incident have publicly pointed to Sir Ian as obstructive.

Any sensible man would be signing the letter right now, but Sir Ian is clinging on hoping that he can survive this latest row in a controversial reign. He denigrates himself, the office, the Metropolitan Police, the citizens of London and the Government ministers who foolishly stand by him. As just pointed out by Sir Michael Mansfield, the timing of yesterday's release of new evidence in the Stephen Lawrence case is bizarre. If Sir Ian is implicated in this timing, could it be that he has something in common with his namesake?

The Greater London Authority has voted for no confidence in Mr Blair. The Tories, Lib Dems and the media have joined them. In a couple of weeks the deputies will also have a chance to vote for no confidence. Let hope they take it.

Squiffy.

Formula 1's spying takes another bow

On the day when F1 inspectors go to McLaren's Technology Centre (Paragon) to view next years McLaren, to make sure there are no Ferrari parts present, the FIA have announced that Renault will now be facing spying charges at a meeting of the World Motor Sports Council on the 6th December.

According to the FIA, "The team representatives have been called to answer a charge that between September 2006 and October 2007, in breach of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code, the Renault F1 Team had unauthorised possession of documents and confidential information belonging to Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, including, but not limited to the layout and critical dimensions of the McLaren F1 car, together with details of the McLaren fuelling system, gear assembly, oil cooling system, hydraulic control system and a novel suspension component used by the 2006 and 2007 McLaren F1 cars."

This would indeed be a great irony, if Fernando Alonso was just about to pitch up his tent back in Enstone at Renault's HQ at the very moment they got themselves embroiled in the spying scandal (part 2). If it were to happen, would team managers start thinking that Alonso is bad luck?

Squiffy.

The Co-op returns

I have just read some proposals from the Tories about the formation of Conservative Co-ops. This is not a new blue-tinged supermarket, but groups of cooperatively minded people able to form a group in order to set-up and run a local school or other local services.

I know that this is part of the Tories 'Social Responsibility' agenda and a very worthy aim, and I wish it every success. I think, though, we need a sea change in public opinion and I'm not sure we are there yet. At present, when a school is failing most commentators say the 'Government should do something' and this Government and previous ones are all to complicit in this pact. They try so many initiatives that the schools don't know whether they are coming or going.

I like Matthew Parris's imagery of Tony Blair frantically pulling at the levers of Government in the hope of making things happen only to find that the levers are not connected to anything. Gordon Brown's tendencies are the same, only with enough brute force to pull the lever out of the floor.

In order for real improvements, the changes must come from ground level and be supported by Government in a way we have not seen before. Politicians must step back and not overreact to any immediate problems, giving groups on the ground time and public money to find solutions.

As members of the public, when problems occur we must not clamber on board the 'Government needs to act' lever-less bandwagon. We need to ask is there anything we can do to help. We need to become members of the Co-ops and stand up and be counted, rather than grumble on about how things never change. Until then, I'm not sure that enough co-ops will be created to make a large enough impact on the problems of today.


Squiffy.

Lord Drayson for 24 hours

Lord Drayson quit his unpaid Government post today in order to race in the American Le Mans series and hopefully have a crack at the Le Mans 24 Hours. Well in a merger of my two favourite past-times, politics and motor sport, I heartily approve.

Good luck Lord Drayson.

Squiffy.

Gordon Brown's shakes

Guido has posted the youtube video of the GB shakes.

Here it is.



Also, while we're talking about GB's hands. He does fidget a bit, also courtesy of Guido...



Squiffy.

John Humphries on top form

This morning I listened to an interview with the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, on the 8:10 Today spot. They were discussing the thorny subject of the length of time that a suspect can be detained without charge.

JH was asking JS what she thought the upper limit should be, but the Home Secretary repeatedly said that she hadn't made up her mind. Which made me think of a Victoria Wood/Patricia Routledge quote "That's leadership for you, where were you when they bombed Plymouth?". But JH then said, "Well, how about 70 days, 80 days, maybe even 12 days". At the 12 days comment, I would have been spitting out my cornflakes had I been eating any. Pure Basil Fawlty moment of sarcasm.

I did want JH to ask at that moment, "What did you vote for in the 2005 vote?" in which I believe that JS voted for the 90 day period. The next question could then be "How were you able to vote for 90 days, but now you're not sure?". The last point could then be, "Home Secretary, you're not trying to put a case for the correct length of time to detain a suspect but whether you will be able to get away with it!"

Squiffy.

What did Gordy say to DC when walking to the House of Lords

Watching the state opening of Parliament, it was interesting to watch the body language of the two main party leaders as they were summoned into the House of Lords to hear the Queen's speech.

Gordon Brown and David Cameron clearly don't like each other. Apparently they were discussing foreign affairs, well actually GB was talking and DC was nodding his head. I wonder if GB was threatening a new act of Parliament to send opposition leaders for a tour of duty in Iraq!

Squiffy.

Hands are a shakin'

Just watched some coverage (from Newsnight) of Gordon Brown v David Cameron (or is that David and Goliath) at the dispatch box discussing the Queen's speech. It really was interesting to see GB getting so angry that his hands started shaking with what I presume is rage.

If it had been PMQs it would have been another clear win for DC, as it is we will have to wait until tomorrow for the next installment. I wonder what GB is beginning to dream about every Tuesday?

Squiffy.

First impressions on the Queen's speech

I haven't actually seen the Queen's speech yet, so this commentary is based on the web reports of the new bills.

The speech is supposed to be the agenda for the next year setting out Gordon Brown's vision for Great Britain. Unfortunately Gordon Brown's innovation of pre-announcing the legislative agenda for the next year before the summer takes away any real element of surprise.

So what have we learnt?

1) School/training leaving age to be raised to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015. This is possibly a good idea, taking the Neets (what an awful phrase) - Not in Education, Employement or Training - out of the system and hopefully providing them with the facilities to make their lives more worthwhile. But I have a suspicion that it will not make much difference, how are the Government going to support this? They have been hopeless at getting kids not to play truant. It will be very difficult for the teachers to manage unruly young adults who are only there to keep some kind of income.

2) Some tougher security measures. It's good that they are able to continue questioning suspects after being charged, but - still - phone tap evidence will not available in court. The Government haven't yet stated what number of days they would like to see suspects detained before being charged, but when they do they'll have a struggle getting it through the Commons.

3) Nuclear power back? Maybe they will start building some more after the never ending consultation!

4) 3 million new homes. It feels like this has been peddled since the beginning of time.

5) Climate change, a 60% in CO2 decrease by 2050. Great, I support that. But it is so far in the future - how are we going to get there?

So, not much new then really. If this is the 'change' that GB mentioned when he was on the steps of number 10 then he needs a dictionary. If this is the 'vision' then I think he could do with eating some more carrots!

Squiffy.

The art of timing

I think I may be getting a little bit cynical. Tonight has seen some disturbing headlines, the Evening Standard had headlines of '2000 terrorists in UK' and Newsnight ran with 'Children being radicalised in Mosques'.

The announcement by Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, is indeed disturbing. But I also find the timing of the announcement disturbing. Tomorrow will be the Queen's speech and it is widely reported that there will be a new terrorism bill with harsher measures for possible terrorists including an increase to 56 days of detention without trial.

The security services have found their intelligence used as a tool of Government before (Iraq anyone?), let's hope they're not being used as a political pawn again!

Squiffy.

One small step Frank

Labour MP Frank Field has made some comments that this Queen's speech must show direction and vision from our new Prime Minister. He says the Labour party is stuck in a rut.

I would think that the highly thought of Labour politician would look more at ease sitting with the ranks of HM's opposition. In many areas of policy, especially pensions and welfare, Mr Field has shown that he is closer to the Tories rather than Labour.

So I would urge Mr Field to make the few small steps crossing the floor of the House where your views will be listened to rather than ignored.

Squiffy.

56 Days Later

I mentioned in an earlier post that both Gordon Brown and David Cameron had made some good speeches recently. Of course I am deliberately forgetting GB's speech at the Labour Party Conference when he used a very BNP phrase 'British jobs for British people' for a policy which he cannot enact.

No, I meant his speech on liberty. He pushed all the right buttons. It is great to hear such oratory but it will be the policies which will determine GB's commitment to liberty. If all the leaking (from the no spinning Government) is to be believed tomorrow's Queen's speech will announce a proposal to increase the number of days a person can be detained without trial from 28 days to 56. So much for liberty and the British sense of fair play.

I wonder why GB would push for this, there has been no evidence provided that prosecutions have failed due to the 28 day limit. Is it to look tough? I think it would fail to get through the Commons leaving him looking weak. As it is the Labour benches are beginning to act Zombie like, just like the film 28 Days Later.

Squiffy.

Out of the mouths of idiots

The Conservative Party prospective parliamentary candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis has resigned. Yesterday he said that Enoch Powell's "Rivers of blood" speech was right.

Whatever the arguments around Powell's 1968 speech, anyone commending the speech will face the same fate as Powell all those years ago. So Nigel Hastilow has resigned, before he was sacked! It's a shame that unthinking people without the necessary skills to be politically astute are selected as parliamentary candidates.

Just what was he thinking?

Squiffy.

Alonso to Red Bull?

There's some speculation that McLaren may have imposed a condition on Fernando Alonso's exit. It is possible that McLaren have stipulated that Alonso cannot go to a manufacturer backed team. This would preclude Ferrari, Renault, Toyota and Honda.

So if in the next few days Alonso is signed as a driver for Red Bull, the likelihood is that the exit clause exists. Apparently David Coulthard's contract is watertight, so Mark Webber could find himself as a Renault or McLaren driver.

I would dearly love to see Jensen Button in a McLaren, though, to see what he could do in a top class car. With traction control banned next year, he would be spectacular to watch.

Squiffy.

Alonso's out

It has been confirmed that Fernando Alonso is leaving McLaren. It is hardly surprising given the events of the last year, most memorably Fernando threatening to go to the FIA and give evidence of e-mails about the spying scandal if the team did not favour him.

But where does this leave the driver merry-go-round? The driver silly season usually starts in late summer, but this year has been in a state of suspended animation due to Alonso's situation.

The most straightforward solution would be for Alonso to return to Renault and swap with Heikki Kovalainen, which may be beneficial for McLaren. But if I were Flavio Briatore, I would ditch Fisichella instead and keep Kovalainen. McLaren could then swoop on Nico Rosberg. Alternatively, Kovalainen could still go to McLaren and Nelson Piquet Jnr could replace Fisichella.

There is talk of Alonso going to Ferrari, but would he want to be partnered with Kimi Raikonnen? Unlikely, given all the tantrums Alonso throws when a team mate is faster than him. But if he did go next year or the year after, Felipe Massa could then go to McLaren or Renault.

So many permutations! It should be a fascinating month!

Squiffy.

2007 General Election, 1st November

If Gordon Brown had not been scared of the polls in the marginals wanted time to explain his vision, today would have been a General Election. It would have been a fascinating election campaign, instead we have had a scintillating month in which the trend in politics has turned upside down.

We would have seen whether the upswing in support for the Tories after their conference would have held during a full Labour onslaught. We would have witnessed some hastily put together manifestos, maybe we could then have seen GB's vision. Ming would still be leader of the Lib Dems, would they have made an advance from 11% in the polls? The bad news about immigration workforce figures would not have been released. Gordon Brown would have had to face difficult questioning from the Paxmans and Humphreys, and some Question Time specials - something which he shies away from.

Instead, we've had a run of bad PMQ performances from GB, U-turn after U-turn on policies, some impressive speeches from both leaders (Security for Brown, Immigration and Foreign Policy for Cameron) and the knifing of Sir Menzies.

Tomorrow Iain Dale on his blog will be running a counter-factual (a what if) on the election that never was. Here's my counter-factual.

1) Both parties would have started the campaign on roughly equal polling.
2) Labour would have then pulled into a two or three point lead after the publication of their manifesto.
3) There would be some sniping from the sides of the Tory Party, which would have been brushed off by DC.
4) The Tories would pull level after their manifesto is published.
5) The Tories would announce some tax cuts, leading to accusations of cuts to public services by Labour.
6) The EU constitution reform treaty would be a major issue, after GB had threatened to veto it.
7) GB would do badly on a Question Time Special, DC would do well.
8) Sir Ming Campbell would be competent if uninspiring.
9) Going into the last day, the Tories would pull ahead by 1%.

After the results of the GE would be Labour 37%, Conservatives 40% and Liberal Democrats 15%. Leading Labour to be short of a majority by 5 seats.

A Labour/LibDem coalition would last for two years until a security issue split them apart. The 2009 election would be convincingly won by the Tories.

Interesting how things might have turned out.

Squiffy.

U turn if you want to: Yes I think I will

How many U-turns can a Government make in one week?

Well, I'm counting 5 at the moment.

1) 'Pay-as-you-throw' bin collection. Is the plan in or out? In? More like a smelly okey cokey to me.

2) 5% of surpluses on school budgets being reclaimed by the Government. The money is now to be left to the schools. Hurrah!

3) 800,000 immigrants figures, then 1.1 million. Who knows?

4) 30% of new jobs going to immigrants, then 40%, maybe even 52%? Again, who knows?

5) Capital Gains Tax may now have £100,000 retirement allowance, to offset the uproar from the business community at the Chancellor's CGT plans in the CSR.

It's only early on a Wednesday, I wonder how many by the end of the week. If it gets to ten, I may be tempted to treat myself to a dark chocolate Toblerone.

This isn't a Government, more like a bad driving school.

Squiffy.

Gordon Brown critique

Michael Gove, the Shadow Schools Secretary, has delivered a fantastic speech about the first four months of Gordon Brown's premiership. Obviously it is partisan, but well thought out and he has spotted the trends that typify Gordon Brown's career so far. Read it HERE.

Squiffy.

David Cameron's immigration speech

I'm quite a fan of David Cameron and I thought that yesterday's speech on immigration was well thought out, well argued and thought provoking. I find it impressive that a modern politician can make an engaging speech which talks about an issue without the quick sound bites that we're used to.

It was DC's first speech on immigration since becoming leader and I'm glad that he took his time to think about the implications to the entire apparatus of Government of immigration policy. We've grown so used to politicians implying either 'send them home' or 'it's racist to discuss immigration' and it is easy to get the idea that politicians will pander to voters prejudices. So to hear someone arguing about the issue in the round is refreshing.

What a contrast to Liam Byrne, immigration minister, on Newsnight last night. He talked about the fine words but lack of policies. It takes time to come up with a selection of coherent policies (not just one headline grabbing one) to tackle complicated issues, and Labour recently haven't shown that they have any of their own. I believe their points-based system was an old Tory one from years ago, so more pinching of Tory clothes then?

Squiffy.

Return of the bins?

Last week's news that the idea of taxing people for how much rubbish they use had been binned now seem premature. This week the idea is back again.

The idea has been parcelled up into the new climate change bill which will allow authorities the option of using a 'pay-as-you-throw' tax. I quite like the idea if there is a rebate for those that recycle, but I don't think many councils will introduce the proposals unless they can guarantee that they will make serious gains from the tax.

If the costs to administer the scheme (which will including training up the bin men, using new technology to weigh the waste, a new database, a new billing system, chasing up those that don't cough up and the costs of dealing with increased fly-tipping) are higher than the money they make from it, there will be little incentive for the councils to play along.

Unless the councils get together to share the costs then I can't see it happening and it will end up being another high profile gimmick from the Government!

Squiffy.

Personalised carbon trading

After thinking about ways to reduce CO2 emissions, I think I've come to embrace the idea of personalised carbon trading. This has been advertised by other environmentalists, and I think it could work even though it would be technically very difficult.

The idea is that each person in the UK has an allotted annual (or maybe quarterly) CO2 limit. They each have their own CO2 number on something like a credit card. When the person pays an energy bill, buys petrol or train and airline tickets their card is charged the appropriate CO2 emission count. At the end of the annual or quarterly period, the person has to pay extra tax for any CO2 emissions above the limit. If the person is under their limit they earn a rebate.

The fees should hit people who use a lot of CO2 and pay those that use less. At the end of each period the bill will be a visual reminder of how much CO2 costs, and should be an incentive to change behaviour.

I would also like to see this extended to companies, and not just to those companies already in the carbon trading scheme. Companies I have worked in quite often use a lot of energy leaving lights and computers on, and putting staff on flights at the drop of a hat when video conferencing would work just as well.

Now that would be radical.

Squiffy.

Where's the manners?

Travelling by tube this evening I found myself infuriated (I often am) by passengers trying to get on the tube at a station before letting people off first.

Why do they do it? Probably to try to get a seat before anyone else. And yes, it is tempting, but good manners stop me. Maybe empty seats should be electrified until everyone getting off the train are on the platform. Technically impossible, but I'd love to see it.

Rant over.

Squiffy.

English votes (part 2)

With a resigned ear, I heard the obvious protestations from Labour MPs about Malcolm Rifkind's plan for an English Grand Committee of only English MPs voting on English matters. It was to be expected that out would trot the 'This will lead to the break up of the UK' arguments. I'm not saying that it isn't true, it very well may lead to the break up of the UK.

This Government has systematically changed the constitution and put in half-thought out plans without looking for far reaching consequences. The English Grand Committee or an English Parliament was the natural consequence of devolution, and to deny that is to deny common sense. The electorate will look at the unfairness of the current system and want an answer. So as I said in my previous post, once the genie is out of the bottle it's hard to put it back in.

Maybe it is time to rethink the post devolution settlement. Several options exist which would provide fairness to the whole UK. One option would be to revert to the pre-devolution UK, although I don't think this would be acceptable now. Another would be to have five parliaments, Scottish, English, Welsh, N. Irish and the UK parliament. Finally, we could abolish the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly and have four Grand Committees using the current MPs to vote on matters regarding their constituency.

This matter will need resolving one way or another.

Squiffy.

Will GB's PMQs get better?

An article in today's Sunday Times reports that there will be changes in the way Gordon Brown is briefed in preparation for the weekly PMQs.

I don't believe the problem is with the briefing notes, he can and does use all the statistics available to him. He does not seem to have the capacity to turn difficult questions into a Prime Ministerial response, this was a skill that Tony Blair used to great effect. With humour and some self deprecation he could bat away a question to irk the leader of the opposition. GB simply gets angry, stutters and then falls over himself. Even his jokes fall flat, they seem too pre-prepared, and the stuttering to get them out spoil the punchline.

We'll see a week on Wednesday whether there is any improvement, but don't hold your breath.

Squiffy.

McLaren's hearing date has been set

The 2007 Formula 1 season will have a last throw of the dice on 15th November. Not on the track but, to follow the pattern of the year, in the FIA court.

After the Brazilian Grand Prix, both the Williams and BMW cars were found to have been running fuel outside the permitted temperature. The fuel entered the cars lower than the permitted ten degrees Celsius lower than the ambient temperature at the fuel stops. This allows for faster refuelling and a 5 to 10 BHP engine boost for a few laps.

The Williams and BMW teams argued that there are two sources of information of the ambient temperature, the FIA timing screens and the French Meteorological office which provides weather readings for viewers. These differ from time to time and the Meteorological office readings were higher than the time screens. The teams also argued that the temperature would be higher by the time the fuel entered the car. The stewards at the race agreed with the uncertainty and back Williamsddd and BMW.

I understand that McLaren will show that advice from the FIA earlier in the year stated that the FIA timing screens are used as the basis for the ambient temperature readings. Also there is an FIA thermometer on each fuel rig to monitor the fuel temperature to police this regulation.

It appears to me that Williams and BMW do not have a leg to stand on. If their cars are thrown out of the Brazilian result, in theory, Lewis Hamilton will be promoted to fourth and the winner of the driver's World Championship. However, I find it hard to believe that the FIA will allow Lewis to be champion after the event. They may only discard the constructors points or choose to keep Lewis in seventh place. Given the FIA's perceived bias towards Ferrari, this would seem the likely outcome, even if it seems unfair.

The time has come to change some of the regulators of F1. I think Max Mosley should resign as he can no longer provide any confidence of equanimity of treatment of the teams when problems arise. Incidentally, he should resign anyway for his outrageous remarks regarding Sir Jackie Stewart. Also, it is time to have professional stewards at each race who can provide consistent rulings during and post race.

How about Eddie Jordan as FIA president?

Squiffy.

English votes for English M.P.s?

Having just watched Harriet Harman voicing opposition to the possible Tory plan of excluding Scottish MPs from English only matters, I started wondering why Labour are so against it. It is, in some sense, a natural conclusion to devolution. Maybe conclusion is the wrong word, for a possible endpoint is independence for Scotland.

Is it possible that Labour can now foresee the break up of the United Kingdom? Devolution was supposed to stop the pressure for independence. But after two terms in office north of the border, the SNP are now in power and will try at every point to create friction with Westminster. It seems to be working in some respects, a new poll states that 33% of English people support independence for Scotland, maybe not the electorate the SNP were targeting but it will still help their cause.

Or is it possible that Labour can foresee that, as a Government, they will not be able to enact much of their legislation without co-operation from the English Grand Committee. Without the many Scottish Labour MPs, they may find it hard to have a majority in an English Grand Committee.

Either proposition is unattractive for Labour. They face an uphill struggle to gain a majority in a Scotland-less UK, or become an impotent domestic Government in a UK with a probably Tory dominated English only grand committee.

If I was Gordon Brown, I would persuade the Labour Scottish MSPs to vote for a referendum on Scottish independence. The outcome would, at present, likely be a No vote which would take independence off the agenda for thirty years or so. This would give me some breathing space to find some imaginative plan to fend of the English only plan for votes. Once this genie is out of the bottle it may be very hard to put it back in again!

Squiffy.

On the hard shoulder

The Government has announced that they will be expanding their plans to allow drivers to use the hard shoulder as an extra lane on some motorways. Ten years on from John Prescott's promise to resign if he hadn't reduced car usage in a decade, which he then abruptly forgot about, using the hard shoulder seems to be the only plan in town.

Is this Gordon Brown's new vision? More cars, reduced bus usage (apart from Scotland and London) and expensive trains. Oh well!

Watching the Daily Politics on Thursday commenting on the new plan, transport minister Tom Harris mentioned 'Active Traffic Management' roughly once in every sentence. Apparently, this is traffic cameras (not more cameras) keeping a beady eye on traffic levels and changing speed limits automatically. It may even help for a few years.

Mr Harris seemed to be in some difficulty in the interview over tolls roads, though, which made me think of 'Active Minister Management'. When one minister slows down or breaks down even, the Government could wield another minister at a moments notice, a kind of ministerial substitution bench. Let's not have an extra time though!

Squiffy.

Could Alex scupper Gordy's day?

The ink is not yet dry on the EU constitution reform treaty and parliamentary approval has not yet begun, but could Alex Salmond be about to throw a spanner in the works?

The SNP are holding their conference in Aviemore and may decide to hold their own referendum on the treaty. They are unhappy about control over fisheries become an 'Exclusive Competence' of the EU. Competence being a strange word to use when talking about the Common Fisheries Policy.

For the SNP this is one of their 'red lines' and is one of the areas which were devolved to the Scottish Parliament in the original devolution act. So will they decide to go for a referendum? I suspect they will, and not only to protect Scottish fishermen. It will be another popular position they can take and create another fissure along the Scotland/England union. (Forgetting, of course, the SNP's enthusiasm for the EU project as a whole).

If they do go for a referendum the likelihood will be that they will win it. Where will this leave the treaty and devolution? GB could try to ignore it, or he may feel compelled to go for a full UK referendum. Maybe this could end up in the courts (which court though?).

Interesting times ahead.

Squiffy.

Bin plans rubbished

Apparently the plan to tax how much we throw away and not recycle has been thrown out after a late intervention from Number 10. I wonder why, David Miliband as Environment Secretary was very keen.

Could it be that Gordon Brown heard from the 5 Citizen Juries (which have incidentally cost over £400,000 of taxpayers money so far) that the plan was unpopular? I would actually be in favour of the plan if it could be guaranteed that council tax was reduced by the same amount as the average 'rubbish tax', but I wonder if people are now suspicious that the tax would be used as another stealth tax designed to push up local council revenue.

It's interesting to note that one of GB's first plans was to set up the citizen juries, which sound to me like glorified focus groups and should probably be funded by the Labour Party itself. Is this the new direction? The new vision? Wasn't Tony Blair's first term decided by the opinions of focus groups?

How times change.

Squiffy.

Gordon Brown's performances at PMQs

Iain Dale has written an excellent article on Gordon Brown's performance at PMQs these last three weeks HERE.

Squiffy.

Brown on the ropes

Today's PMQs show just how much Gordon Brown is on the ropes. For three weeks running David Cameron has plastered GB all around the House.

During DC's first three questions regarding the Government's plans to recoup five percent of schools surpluses, twice GB made reference to the fact that the schools would not have a surplus had it not been for the Government's generosity. How condescending.

Schools are given a budget and (hopefully) try to live in their means, if there are some plans for a big project then they would naturally keep some of the money back each year to plan ahead. But GB thinks he knows better and can take the money back 'for the good of the children' and for who knows what. What are the incentives for schools to plan wisely? None, if this continues we'll see annual deficits in school budgets.

DC's second set of questions were designed to get at GB via Douglas Alexander and the fiasco of this year's Scottish elections. This is Dougie's second public cock-up recently after the failure of GB to call an election. Will a third mistake lead to a resignation? I doubt it. I guess this will be where GB follows in the steps of Tony Blair...

GB was visibly riled by DC's questions and he typically started throwing his notes down on the dispatch box. After accusing DC 'of misleading the house' and being reminded to use 'temperate language' by the Speaker, he gave DC the opportunity to use the line about Brown 'A new kind of politics...a hundred days ago and it feels like a hundred years ago'. At this point the Labour benches were clearly silent, similarly to three weeks ago. If this continues and the polls don't improve, how long before the mutterings begin?

A clear win for DC.

P.S. Is it me or is Vince Cable asking better questions than Ming Campbell?

Squiffy.

F1 2007

I'll kick off with some thoughts about the recent Formula 1 season.

And what a fantastic season, if you love the politics and intrigue of F1. There could have been more overtaking, but we say that every year. I can't quite remember a season where four drivers have had the opportunity to become world champion, probably the last time was in 1986 until Ayrton Senna's chances diminished.

Of course four things will stick in people's minds.

1) The F1 Spygate saga. This has made the F1 season this year the most political since the FISA-FOCA war of 1982. I believe that both McLaren and Ferrari have failings in dealing with disgruntled employees, which led to McLaren receiving the largest fine in sport. Unfortunately, Ferrari seem to have been the beneficiary of this, claiming this year's constructors championship.

Luca di Montezemolo, Ferrari President, has made some ludicrous claims that McLaren are racing a chassis which contains a large amount of Ferrari intellectual property. The McLaren is a short wheelbase car whereas the Ferrari is a long wheelbase car, different solutions will be required for the same problems.

I tend to believe that Ron Dennis and his team have been hung out to dry by the FIA and have been treated harshly. Possibly due to some past personal antipathy with the head of the FIA, Max Mosley.

2) Kimi Raikkonen is a worthy champion. Although I would have liked Lewis Hamilton to have been crowned champion this weekend, my second preference was for Kimi. He started great with a win in Australia (in an illegal car - no punishment for Ferrari, I wonder why), dropped back for a while but then reinforced his superiority over his team mate with some cracking drives at the end of the season. He's been, too often, the victim of faulty machinery but if Ferrari find their previous rock solid level of reliability then this year will be the first of many.

3) Lewis Hamilton has star quality. From the first races of the season it was clear that this guy has star quality in abundance. He can qualify like Ayrton Senna (a vast improvement on his GP2 days), overtake like Nigel Mansell, have his wits about him like Michael Schumacher and be relentless like Fernando Alonso. A shame that he didn't win the championship as he did deserve it, but with a little more experience he will make it. Sometimes he needs to drive like Alain Prost and not Gilles Villeneuve to claim the big prize.

4) Fernando Alonso behaved like a spoilt brat. Until this year I had the utmost admiration for Alonso. He is spectacularly fast and can put in a fast consistent lap time, lap after lap. But last year there were a few signs of his petulance when he said that he 'felt alone' in Renault, even when he knew that Renault were doing all they could to help him (to the detriment of this year's car). This year he's shown how rattled he is by a fast team mate, to the extent that he was prepared to blackmail his boss into getting his own way. He throws his toys out of extremely fast pram when he's bettered, what a contrast to Lewis and Kimi. Expect Alonso to only be in teams which guarentee number one status from now on.

Well that's my thoughts on this year, shortly I will be blogging what I think will happen during the winter.

Squiffy.

The First Post

Hello and welcome to my blog. I'm hoping for this to be a cathartic experience, getting things off my chest and onto the computer screen.

I will be aiming to provide my thoughts mainly on politics and occasionally other such as motor racing (formula 1 - my other passion - which has a lot of politics too). If you agree or disagree with me then feel free to vent your spleen (in the politest way possible of course).

If my thoughts make anyone think for just one minute then I will be happy.

Enjoy.

Squiffy.