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.
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Friday, 23 November 2007
The Forces of Brown
I've never heard before of 5 ex chiefs of the defence staff complaining about the funding and treatment of
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
Thursday, 22 November 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
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.
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.
Friday, 16 November 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, 15 November 2007
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
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.
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.
Monday, 12 November 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, 10 November 2007
The Paxman Interviews (2)
Another interview, with Michael Howard refusing to answer the famous question 14 times!
Squiffy
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.
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.
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.
Friday, 9 November 2007
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.
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
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.
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.
Thursday, 8 November 2007
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
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.
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.
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 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.
Monday, 5 November 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, 4 November 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, 3 November 2007
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.
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.
Friday, 2 November 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, 1 November 2007
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 EUconstitution 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.
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
