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.
Friday, 21 December 2007
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.
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.
Monday, 17 December 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, 13 December 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, 9 December 2007
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.
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.
Friday, 7 December 2007
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.
Squiffy.
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
Squiffy.
Sunday, 2 December 2007
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:
Squiffy.
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.
Squiffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
