No sooner had I posted that David Cameron should withdraw the whip from Derek Conway, he did just that. Well done Mr Cameron. What a contrast to the dithering by Gordon Brown.
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
Derek Conway, another fool
It appears Derek Conway has been very foolish, maybe even fraudulent, in paying at least one son a wage totalling £44,000 to work as an aide in his office when the son was actually studying at Newcastle University. The parliamentary standards committee have ordered Mr Conway to give £13,000 pounds back, and be suspended from the House of Commons for 10 days. There maybe a police investigation too.
For David Cameron this is the moment when he must display the decisiveness that he claims Gordon Brown lacks. He must make sure that Derek Conway loses the Conservative whip. The likelihood is that he will be de-selected by the local party at the next election.
Tony Blair claimed, when coming into office, that his party would be "whiter than white, purer than pure", a foolish claim but one which looked utterly stupid and disingenuous when he let minister after minister cling on while investigations were carried out. He stood by several ministers even when misdeeds were proven.
Mr Cameron has not been so silly to make the same claim, but he should achieve a more robust reputation by acting decisively now. The voters will praise him for his actions. Come on Mr Cameron, throw him out.
Squiffy.
For David Cameron this is the moment when he must display the decisiveness that he claims Gordon Brown lacks. He must make sure that Derek Conway loses the Conservative whip. The likelihood is that he will be de-selected by the local party at the next election.
Tony Blair claimed, when coming into office, that his party would be "whiter than white, purer than pure", a foolish claim but one which looked utterly stupid and disingenuous when he let minister after minister cling on while investigations were carried out. He stood by several ministers even when misdeeds were proven.
Mr Cameron has not been so silly to make the same claim, but he should achieve a more robust reputation by acting decisively now. The voters will praise him for his actions. Come on Mr Cameron, throw him out.
Squiffy.
Saturday, 26 January 2008
Gordon Brown, economic genius?
The Prime Minister's record on the economy has come under scrutiny recently due to turmoil in the stock markets and the impending downturn. Many commentators have been drawing on the successes of Mr Brown's chancellorship to provide a contrast to the latest difficulties, let's take a closer look at the 10 years.
Mr Brown declared in PMQ's this week that he inherited difficult economic conditions from the Tories in 1997. This is not true, the economy had been growing healthily for 4 years. Although there was a budget deficit, this was diminishing and due to go into surplus by 1998 - which it did. Mr Brown's policy was to keep to the Tory spending plans for the first 2 years of Labour in power. Surely this was to make sure that the thought of Labour in power would not frighten the horses! So rather than follow his own beliefs, he followed his opponent's plans which led to some reasonable surpluses.
His first decision, which has been rightly applauded, was to make the Bank of England independent. Although according to Mr Blair, in The Blair Years, he claims that it was his idea.
Mr Brown then started to reform the benefits system, bringing in the tax credit system. Tax credits are a reasonable system to get money to those in need, but the implementation has lead to major problems with overpayments, underpayments and attempts to reclaim money from people who need it most. Several billion pounds have been wasted.
Between 1999 and 2002 Mr Brown sold off half of Britain's gold reserves at a price of $215 per ounce, it now stands at around $800 per ounce. Not a great deal.
In the 2001 election campaign Mr Blair announced that NHS funding would increase to the EU average. His bounced Gordon Brown into it, who then allegedly stormed into number 10 saying, 'You stole my f***ing budget'. It just so happens that this was around the time that the dotcom bubble burst. So with a budget surplus and an election commitment, billions of pounds were pumped into the economy - effectively fighting off the prospect of recession.
After economic growth was secured, GB continues pumping money into the economy - leading to a large budget deficit. Now that we're facing the prospect of another downturn, the cupboard is bare.
So after 10 years, I think the verdict is that the early decision to make the BoE independent was a good idea - whether it was GB's we don't know. When GB went against his own instincts, staying to Tory spending plans then being bounced into spending by TB he has managed to keep the economy growing.
I think the best that can be said is that he didn't mess it up, but in the end all Labour chancellors run out of money. Which he has now. He has left a very complicated tax system which haemorrhages money through the tax credit system, he has run down our gold reserves, he's increased our taxes. Finally, his reform to the tripartite financial monitoring system, using the Treasury, Bank of England and Financial Services Authority has been found wanting with respect to monitoring of Northern Rock.
So I don't think the record is as good as people say, and we now have a problem. The chickens have come home to roost.
Squiffy.
Mr Brown declared in PMQ's this week that he inherited difficult economic conditions from the Tories in 1997. This is not true, the economy had been growing healthily for 4 years. Although there was a budget deficit, this was diminishing and due to go into surplus by 1998 - which it did. Mr Brown's policy was to keep to the Tory spending plans for the first 2 years of Labour in power. Surely this was to make sure that the thought of Labour in power would not frighten the horses! So rather than follow his own beliefs, he followed his opponent's plans which led to some reasonable surpluses.
His first decision, which has been rightly applauded, was to make the Bank of England independent. Although according to Mr Blair, in The Blair Years, he claims that it was his idea.
Mr Brown then started to reform the benefits system, bringing in the tax credit system. Tax credits are a reasonable system to get money to those in need, but the implementation has lead to major problems with overpayments, underpayments and attempts to reclaim money from people who need it most. Several billion pounds have been wasted.
Between 1999 and 2002 Mr Brown sold off half of Britain's gold reserves at a price of $215 per ounce, it now stands at around $800 per ounce. Not a great deal.
In the 2001 election campaign Mr Blair announced that NHS funding would increase to the EU average. His bounced Gordon Brown into it, who then allegedly stormed into number 10 saying, 'You stole my f***ing budget'. It just so happens that this was around the time that the dotcom bubble burst. So with a budget surplus and an election commitment, billions of pounds were pumped into the economy - effectively fighting off the prospect of recession.
After economic growth was secured, GB continues pumping money into the economy - leading to a large budget deficit. Now that we're facing the prospect of another downturn, the cupboard is bare.
So after 10 years, I think the verdict is that the early decision to make the BoE independent was a good idea - whether it was GB's we don't know. When GB went against his own instincts, staying to Tory spending plans then being bounced into spending by TB he has managed to keep the economy growing.
I think the best that can be said is that he didn't mess it up, but in the end all Labour chancellors run out of money. Which he has now. He has left a very complicated tax system which haemorrhages money through the tax credit system, he has run down our gold reserves, he's increased our taxes. Finally, his reform to the tripartite financial monitoring system, using the Treasury, Bank of England and Financial Services Authority has been found wanting with respect to monitoring of Northern Rock.
So I don't think the record is as good as people say, and we now have a problem. The chickens have come home to roost.
Squiffy.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Prodi has also resigned
Romano Prodi, the Prime Minster of Italy has been forced to resign after a junior coalition party pulled out of the Government leading to a vote of confidence.
If there were to be another election, Silvio Berlusconi is well placed to lead a new centre-right coalition back to power. It does look like Italy has fallen back into its habit of having short term Governments paralysed by electoral mathematics. Although a parliamentary term runs for 5 years, no Government has achieved such a long time (!) in office.
The most recent long term Government was Berlusconi's from 2001 to 2006, elected under a first past the post system. Unfortunately, Berlusconi changed the system to PR and, hey presto, we're back to instability. The PR system in Italy (pre-1993) led to a proliferation of small parties which formed centre-left and centre-right coalitions. FPTP usually leads to a smaller set of parties but Italian politics was too fragmented for too long for FPTP to have an effect. It now looks like the smaller parties will continue.
If there was ever an argument against PR, Italy is it.
Squiffy.
If there were to be another election, Silvio Berlusconi is well placed to lead a new centre-right coalition back to power. It does look like Italy has fallen back into its habit of having short term Governments paralysed by electoral mathematics. Although a parliamentary term runs for 5 years, no Government has achieved such a long time (!) in office.
The most recent long term Government was Berlusconi's from 2001 to 2006, elected under a first past the post system. Unfortunately, Berlusconi changed the system to PR and, hey presto, we're back to instability. The PR system in Italy (pre-1993) led to a proliferation of small parties which formed centre-left and centre-right coalitions. FPTP usually leads to a smaller set of parties but Italian politics was too fragmented for too long for FPTP to have an effect. It now looks like the smaller parties will continue.
If there was ever an argument against PR, Italy is it.
Squiffy.
So Hain has gone
It was only a matter of time for him to do the decent thing. It's such a shame that Gordon Brown saw fit to keep him in position for so long after the many revelations. So the cabinet has lost another big hitter, there's not many left.
As some commentators have pointed out, we are now be ruled by political pigmies. The Tory party front bench is now looking a lot more qualified to do the job, even the Lib Dems don't look too bad. Just look at the big jobs:
Brown vs Cameron
Darling vs Osborne
Miliband vs Hague
Smith vs Davis
Browne vs Fox
Will this resignation now lead to other scalps, Harriet Harman for instance? Will the next resignation follow quickly. It certainly seems as though the Brown Government is looking more doomed than ever.
Squiffy.
As some commentators have pointed out, we are now be ruled by political pigmies. The Tory party front bench is now looking a lot more qualified to do the job, even the Lib Dems don't look too bad. Just look at the big jobs:
Brown vs Cameron
Darling vs Osborne
Miliband vs Hague
Smith vs Davis
Browne vs Fox
Will this resignation now lead to other scalps, Harriet Harman for instance? Will the next resignation follow quickly. It certainly seems as though the Brown Government is looking more doomed than ever.
Squiffy.
Max Mosley says that the next cheating team wil be thrown out
Max Mosley, the head of the FIA, has pronounced that the next team to be caught cheating will most definitely be thrown out of the F1 championship.
It didn't happen with Renault, but McLaren faced a similar punishment. I'm guessing if the next team to be caught were Williams, they would be thrown out, but if it happened to be Ferrari they'd get a small slap.
Consistency eh? Don't you just love it.
Squiffy.
It didn't happen with Renault, but McLaren faced a similar punishment. I'm guessing if the next team to be caught were Williams, they would be thrown out, but if it happened to be Ferrari they'd get a small slap.
Consistency eh? Don't you just love it.
Squiffy.
John Prescott lives on
And he's changed sex, from the Today programme this morning.
"It won’t be hypothetical if and when it occurs. We are not legislating now on the basis that we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future; we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future; we are bringing in a position for if it becomes unhypothetical. If, unfortunately I and many other experts are right and we do need it in the future it is in place."
Step forward Ms Jackie Smith. I nearly swallowed my toothbrush when she said she was an expert!
Squiffy.
P.S. Well done on inventing the word unhypothetical.
"It won’t be hypothetical if and when it occurs. We are not legislating now on the basis that we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future; we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future; we are bringing in a position for if it becomes unhypothetical. If, unfortunately I and many other experts are right and we do need it in the future it is in place."
Step forward Ms Jackie Smith. I nearly swallowed my toothbrush when she said she was an expert!
Squiffy.
P.S. Well done on inventing the word unhypothetical.
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
The Lib Dems and Europe
I've just watched Nick Clegg on the Daily Politics discussing the Lib Dem position on the EU referendum. Apparently, the Lib Dem manifesto commitment at the last election to hold a referendum was not about the details of the provisions in the EU constitution, but because it encompassed all the other treaties; it was a de-facto in or out.
That's not how the public sees it. We want a chance to say no to never ending integration but keep the trading block and global measures to combat climate change.
Nick Clegg knows that he won't for a referendum, but may abstain or vote against. He'll vote against if he doesn't get a promise to hold an in/out referendum from the Government. Erm, hello, there is no chance. The Government are terrified of any referendum on Europe - so it won't happen.
Again, the Lib Dem leader is missing the point of the referendum. Some people want to keep integrating, some people want out. The vast majority want to stop where we are and this was the opportunity to have our say.
Fortunately, there may be dissent in the Lib Dem ranks. Some of them can see sense!
Squiffy.
That's not how the public sees it. We want a chance to say no to never ending integration but keep the trading block and global measures to combat climate change.
Nick Clegg knows that he won't for a referendum, but may abstain or vote against. He'll vote against if he doesn't get a promise to hold an in/out referendum from the Government. Erm, hello, there is no chance. The Government are terrified of any referendum on Europe - so it won't happen.
Again, the Lib Dem leader is missing the point of the referendum. Some people want to keep integrating, some people want out. The vast majority want to stop where we are and this was the opportunity to have our say.
Fortunately, there may be dissent in the Lib Dem ranks. Some of them can see sense!
Squiffy.
Monday, 21 January 2008
The EU conveyor belt
I've not made my feelings known about the EU yet, but the time has come to muse about this never ending process. The Lisbon treaty is just about to go through the House of Commons for its second reading.
The EU issue has been burning through Britain's psyche for years. The British public have been lied to, misled and treated with contempt year after year.
For a start, when Britain went into the EEC back in 1973, the general consensus was that this was to be a trading block more powerful and close nit than Efta. Maybe, if we'd studied the treaty of Rome more closely we would have known what to expect. Unfortunately, our politicians did not make it clear. Probably because they didn't know how far the integration would go and what they were letting themselves in for.
The referendum, the only referendum we've had on this important issue, did not state in the question that it would be for "ever closer union". It was "in" or "out", and so the public voted for it.
Since that referendum, every few years there is a new inter-governmental conference where further powers are ceded from national governments to Brussels. Although our Governments have been reluctant to whole heartedly support further integration, for they know that the British public are sceptical, they have been dragged further in. They also know that to put each treaty to the British public would effectively kill it, and harm the relationship with the other European countries.
At each IGC, the EU partners compromise a little bit to bring the British Government in on the act. The Government then jumps through hoops to get it ratified in Parliament, and the British Government becomes complicit in the stitch up.
When any country actually does have a referendum and decides to reject the treaty, the EU decides to do one of two things. Either it thinks that the public of that country have got it wrong and then they have the same referendum later. Alternatively, it re-words the treaty and removes some aspects of the treaty - just enough to get it passed. The referendum is then either put to the people again, or jettisoned and passed by the country's parliament. No matter, the controversial aspects will come back in the next treaty, only there will be even more controversial measures to be argued over.
The political class rules over us and ignores us, again and again. When we protest, we are told that we are wrong. When we ask for the facts, we are told lies. When we are promised something, the promise is reneged (the current treaty for instance).
I am nearly 35, and I have never had the chance to have a say on the never ending conveyor belt. Nobody under the age of 50 has had a say. It is wrong, plain wrong. I want the EU to return to a trading block, with a focus on fighting global poverty and climate change. Unfortunately the politicians at the centre want more power and to move the public as far away as possible, so that we can't get in the way of their plans.
So please, can someone allow us a say? A referendum with a question such as a) Never ending integration, b) Return to Economic trading and global issues and c) Out altogether.
Squiffy.
The EU issue has been burning through Britain's psyche for years. The British public have been lied to, misled and treated with contempt year after year.
For a start, when Britain went into the EEC back in 1973, the general consensus was that this was to be a trading block more powerful and close nit than Efta. Maybe, if we'd studied the treaty of Rome more closely we would have known what to expect. Unfortunately, our politicians did not make it clear. Probably because they didn't know how far the integration would go and what they were letting themselves in for.
The referendum, the only referendum we've had on this important issue, did not state in the question that it would be for "ever closer union". It was "in" or "out", and so the public voted for it.
Since that referendum, every few years there is a new inter-governmental conference where further powers are ceded from national governments to Brussels. Although our Governments have been reluctant to whole heartedly support further integration, for they know that the British public are sceptical, they have been dragged further in. They also know that to put each treaty to the British public would effectively kill it, and harm the relationship with the other European countries.
At each IGC, the EU partners compromise a little bit to bring the British Government in on the act. The Government then jumps through hoops to get it ratified in Parliament, and the British Government becomes complicit in the stitch up.
When any country actually does have a referendum and decides to reject the treaty, the EU decides to do one of two things. Either it thinks that the public of that country have got it wrong and then they have the same referendum later. Alternatively, it re-words the treaty and removes some aspects of the treaty - just enough to get it passed. The referendum is then either put to the people again, or jettisoned and passed by the country's parliament. No matter, the controversial aspects will come back in the next treaty, only there will be even more controversial measures to be argued over.
The political class rules over us and ignores us, again and again. When we protest, we are told that we are wrong. When we ask for the facts, we are told lies. When we are promised something, the promise is reneged (the current treaty for instance).
I am nearly 35, and I have never had the chance to have a say on the never ending conveyor belt. Nobody under the age of 50 has had a say. It is wrong, plain wrong. I want the EU to return to a trading block, with a focus on fighting global poverty and climate change. Unfortunately the politicians at the centre want more power and to move the public as far away as possible, so that we can't get in the way of their plans.
So please, can someone allow us a say? A referendum with a question such as a) Never ending integration, b) Return to Economic trading and global issues and c) Out altogether.
Squiffy.
Why don't the spin doctors learn?
The Home Secretary has had a tough weekend.
I admire her for stating the truth, that she would be afraid to walk down a street in Hackney late at night. I think I would too. Unfortunately she did go on to say that after 10 years of a Labour the streets are safer. I know that nobody feels that way, no matter what the statistics say.
It could have been left at that, but up pops some aide to tell the press that "only the other night Ms Smith had a late night kebab in Peckham". Obviously she would have had a bodyguard with her, she is the home secretary after all, it now transpires that there is a new definition for late night. Apparently 4pm is now late night, as the owner of Katie's Kebab, Mr Ender Ginel, says that's when she appeared for a kebab. She stayed inside to eat the kebab, without chips, before leaving.
So, she wasn't quite facing the same apprehension that the rest of us face when we have a kebab at the real late night of midnight then!
Squiffy.
I admire her for stating the truth, that she would be afraid to walk down a street in Hackney late at night. I think I would too. Unfortunately she did go on to say that after 10 years of a Labour the streets are safer. I know that nobody feels that way, no matter what the statistics say.
It could have been left at that, but up pops some aide to tell the press that "only the other night Ms Smith had a late night kebab in Peckham". Obviously she would have had a bodyguard with her, she is the home secretary after all, it now transpires that there is a new definition for late night. Apparently 4pm is now late night, as the owner of Katie's Kebab, Mr Ender Ginel, says that's when she appeared for a kebab. She stayed inside to eat the kebab, without chips, before leaving.
So, she wasn't quite facing the same apprehension that the rest of us face when we have a kebab at the real late night of midnight then!
Squiffy.
Saturday, 19 January 2008
F1 2008 is here
We're halfway through January and F1 has started to create a buzz again. We've had team launches from Ferrari, McLaren, BMW, Toyota and Red Bull. So far all of the teams are buoyant with enthusiasm, and there are a lot of positive comments. So let's assess what is happening with the first teams out of starting block for 2008.
Ferrari
Ferrari must start this year as favourites. They had the fastest car in 2007, even if it lost some of it's well known reliability. The car had a few limitations, it did not handle slow and twisty tracks well (Monaco and Hungary), and its suspension gave it problems at bumpy tracks or those where riding kerbs is a must (Canada and Italy). To combat these shortcomings, they have gone for a slightly shorter wheelbase and changed the suspension. They have also tackled some of the problems in getting heat into their tyres which caused some problems in qualifying.
The car is an evolution of F2007, but if Ferrari have done a good job, and there is no reason to believe that they won't the F2008 will be a more rounded performer and the car to beat.
I expect Kimi Raikkonen to perform even better than last year. After his first win, he had a slump while he was getting on top of the new Bridgestones. This year he should hit the ground running. He knows the team now, and they respect him, so he is the man to beat. I see Felipe Massa as a David Coulthard type figure, he can be unbelievably fast and will win a lot of races, and every year will go into the season thinking (and saying) that he's much stronger than last year and can win the world championship. Unfortunately, he still doesn't seem able to keep the consistency going and wilts a little when not leading. If he starts the season by beating Kimi then I think the situation could change however.
McLaren
McLaren had some incredible highs and lows last year. A very strong team, a fantastic rookie and a great car for the first time since 1999 (2005 was good but way too fragile). But the team tore itself apart, lost all its constructor points and lost a drivers world championship that seemed like a certainty with two races to go.
The good points were that they did have a great car, and a fantastic driver which they take into 2008. McLaren have changed their philosophy on car building recently. They used to push for absolute speed (under the guidance of Adrian Newey) at the expense of reliability, and the cars would quite often be a revolution rather than evolution. This lead to a great but fragile car followed by a consolidating year making the concept more reliable. They are now changing to look for speed but also reliability, last year the car was bullet proof for the first time since at least 1988 (even then there were more failures). This year looks like more of the same.
If the Ferrari had characteristic problems at some tracks, McLaren lived in the alternate universe where their car would be slow at fast sweeping and smooth tracks (Australia, Barcelona, Belgium). They had great qualifying pace but could eat their tyres up more. So, McLaren with the new MP4-23 have gone for the reverse changes to Ferrari. Slightly longer wheelbase, softer suspension, improved aero efficiency and softer on the tyres.
Lewis Hamilton will be an even better driver this year, with more confidence and
experience. I don't think we'll see him slide off the road at China this year - he will call to the pits and make sure they change his tyres! He will put up a great fight with Kimi. I expect to see Heikki Kovalainen perform better this year. He says he's happier now than at any other time in his career, and McLaren have been good to Finns. He should come close to Lewis on several occassions.
Although Ferrari and McLaren both had great cars last year, they were approaching the same problems from two sides and came up with diametrically opposite car characteristics. So even with a close title fight, we had too few close track battles. If both teams have done a great job, both cars should be approaching the same happy medium, and expect sparks to fly!
BMW
The BMW squad have done a great job to be snapping at the heals of McLaren and Ferrari. They seem to have tackled some of the perceived weaknesses of the old Sauber team and can develop a car through the year. The new BMW, the F1.08, seems to be an evolution of last year's car and needs to push the development in order to make up the 0.5 second deficit to the two top teams.
The new car will have a longer wheelbase, tighter sculpted sidepods and some interesting wings sprouting from the engine cover. Also, there are improvements to mechanical grip, in order to gain stability, downforce and keep a good balance.
Nick Heidfeld and Robert Kubica are great drivers, and will both need to push really hard to get BMW their first win. I think it will be possible but difficult to break through to the winners circle, but if the first two teams have problems then it may be possible.
Red Bull
It will be the fourth Red Bull car this year, the RB4. The new design from Adrian Newey is an evolution from the RB3 but is physically very similar. The RB3 was fast but unreliable, a particular trait of Adrian Newey I'm afraid. Red Bull seems to have taken on board the characteristic development ethos of McLaren under Newey's technical directorship. The addition of Geoff Willis, though, may bring some focus back to reliability and it may be for this reason why the RB4 seems a little less ambitious than other new cars.
Both Mark Webber and David Coulthard are good drivers and evenly matched, Mark goes well in qualifying and David does better in races. It's possible this maybe David's last year in F1, so he really needs to remind people of his previous victories with some memorable drives if he is to appear on the grid in 2009.
This year Mark Webber needs to stamp his authority in the races, he needs to out-race DC and become a consistent front runner. Webber looked an exciting prospect a few years ago but has been marginalised by the new rookies making a splash. This year he will have to push his way back into the paddock's consciousness.
Toyota
On paper, Toyota should be winning races regularly. They have a big budget and a good motor racing history in the WRC and IndyCar/Champcar. So far, they have not broken out of the midfield. Their best season was 2005 and the 2006 and 2007 cars have followed the same design philosophy. Unfortunately, this has meant that they have not made big strides and fallen back.
The new TF108 looks like a more radical approach, and has poached some ideas from the other teams. Unfortunately, design does not look entirely consistent. I think Toyota suffer from 'management by committee' without a strong technical leadership focusing everyone is a specific direction. Losing Mike Gascoyne in 2006 was a big error, and they seem not to have recovered yet. Noises from Japan are saying that Toyota have another two years to start making the big strides to regularly fight for podiums. Undoubtedly, this car will be an improvement, but it's looking like fairy steps to me.
On the driver front, losing Ralf Schumacher was a good decision. He's great when out front but is a bit wayward when in the midfield. I'm glad to see Jarno Trulli keep his place, as changing both drivers would be a big mistake, but he needs to be more consistent to earn a place for 2009. Timo Glock looks good, and as the current GP2 champion should help to push the team forward. I'm not expecting the same kind of hype as Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton however, which is a shame.
More from the other 6 teams later.
Squiffy.
Ferrari
Ferrari must start this year as favourites. They had the fastest car in 2007, even if it lost some of it's well known reliability. The car had a few limitations, it did not handle slow and twisty tracks well (Monaco and Hungary), and its suspension gave it problems at bumpy tracks or those where riding kerbs is a must (Canada and Italy). To combat these shortcomings, they have gone for a slightly shorter wheelbase and changed the suspension. They have also tackled some of the problems in getting heat into their tyres which caused some problems in qualifying.
The car is an evolution of F2007, but if Ferrari have done a good job, and there is no reason to believe that they won't the F2008 will be a more rounded performer and the car to beat.
I expect Kimi Raikkonen to perform even better than last year. After his first win, he had a slump while he was getting on top of the new Bridgestones. This year he should hit the ground running. He knows the team now, and they respect him, so he is the man to beat. I see Felipe Massa as a David Coulthard type figure, he can be unbelievably fast and will win a lot of races, and every year will go into the season thinking (and saying) that he's much stronger than last year and can win the world championship. Unfortunately, he still doesn't seem able to keep the consistency going and wilts a little when not leading. If he starts the season by beating Kimi then I think the situation could change however.
McLaren
McLaren had some incredible highs and lows last year. A very strong team, a fantastic rookie and a great car for the first time since 1999 (2005 was good but way too fragile). But the team tore itself apart, lost all its constructor points and lost a drivers world championship that seemed like a certainty with two races to go.
The good points were that they did have a great car, and a fantastic driver which they take into 2008. McLaren have changed their philosophy on car building recently. They used to push for absolute speed (under the guidance of Adrian Newey) at the expense of reliability, and the cars would quite often be a revolution rather than evolution. This lead to a great but fragile car followed by a consolidating year making the concept more reliable. They are now changing to look for speed but also reliability, last year the car was bullet proof for the first time since at least 1988 (even then there were more failures). This year looks like more of the same.
If the Ferrari had characteristic problems at some tracks, McLaren lived in the alternate universe where their car would be slow at fast sweeping and smooth tracks (Australia, Barcelona, Belgium). They had great qualifying pace but could eat their tyres up more. So, McLaren with the new MP4-23 have gone for the reverse changes to Ferrari. Slightly longer wheelbase, softer suspension, improved aero efficiency and softer on the tyres.
Lewis Hamilton will be an even better driver this year, with more confidence and
experience. I don't think we'll see him slide off the road at China this year - he will call to the pits and make sure they change his tyres! He will put up a great fight with Kimi. I expect to see Heikki Kovalainen perform better this year. He says he's happier now than at any other time in his career, and McLaren have been good to Finns. He should come close to Lewis on several occassions.
Although Ferrari and McLaren both had great cars last year, they were approaching the same problems from two sides and came up with diametrically opposite car characteristics. So even with a close title fight, we had too few close track battles. If both teams have done a great job, both cars should be approaching the same happy medium, and expect sparks to fly!
BMW
The BMW squad have done a great job to be snapping at the heals of McLaren and Ferrari. They seem to have tackled some of the perceived weaknesses of the old Sauber team and can develop a car through the year. The new BMW, the F1.08, seems to be an evolution of last year's car and needs to push the development in order to make up the 0.5 second deficit to the two top teams.
The new car will have a longer wheelbase, tighter sculpted sidepods and some interesting wings sprouting from the engine cover. Also, there are improvements to mechanical grip, in order to gain stability, downforce and keep a good balance.
Nick Heidfeld and Robert Kubica are great drivers, and will both need to push really hard to get BMW their first win. I think it will be possible but difficult to break through to the winners circle, but if the first two teams have problems then it may be possible.
Red Bull
It will be the fourth Red Bull car this year, the RB4. The new design from Adrian Newey is an evolution from the RB3 but is physically very similar. The RB3 was fast but unreliable, a particular trait of Adrian Newey I'm afraid. Red Bull seems to have taken on board the characteristic development ethos of McLaren under Newey's technical directorship. The addition of Geoff Willis, though, may bring some focus back to reliability and it may be for this reason why the RB4 seems a little less ambitious than other new cars.
Both Mark Webber and David Coulthard are good drivers and evenly matched, Mark goes well in qualifying and David does better in races. It's possible this maybe David's last year in F1, so he really needs to remind people of his previous victories with some memorable drives if he is to appear on the grid in 2009.
This year Mark Webber needs to stamp his authority in the races, he needs to out-race DC and become a consistent front runner. Webber looked an exciting prospect a few years ago but has been marginalised by the new rookies making a splash. This year he will have to push his way back into the paddock's consciousness.
Toyota
On paper, Toyota should be winning races regularly. They have a big budget and a good motor racing history in the WRC and IndyCar/Champcar. So far, they have not broken out of the midfield. Their best season was 2005 and the 2006 and 2007 cars have followed the same design philosophy. Unfortunately, this has meant that they have not made big strides and fallen back.
The new TF108 looks like a more radical approach, and has poached some ideas from the other teams. Unfortunately, design does not look entirely consistent. I think Toyota suffer from 'management by committee' without a strong technical leadership focusing everyone is a specific direction. Losing Mike Gascoyne in 2006 was a big error, and they seem not to have recovered yet. Noises from Japan are saying that Toyota have another two years to start making the big strides to regularly fight for podiums. Undoubtedly, this car will be an improvement, but it's looking like fairy steps to me.
On the driver front, losing Ralf Schumacher was a good decision. He's great when out front but is a bit wayward when in the midfield. I'm glad to see Jarno Trulli keep his place, as changing both drivers would be a big mistake, but he needs to be more consistent to earn a place for 2009. Timo Glock looks good, and as the current GP2 champion should help to push the team forward. I'm not expecting the same kind of hype as Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton however, which is a shame.
More from the other 6 teams later.
Squiffy.
Wednesday, 16 January 2008
Note to the God of Conspiracy
Dear God of Conspiracy
Why is it that when a deadline looms something goes wrong with your PC? As you know, I have a deadline to submit a document for review today, so why was it that yesterday you chose to make my PC lose its profile? You know that I keep my current working documents on my desktop, so making my desktop folder inaccessible was the best way to screw up my plans! And you know that giving me problems with my PC would put me in the hands of those other Gods, the I.S. department.
Thankfully, I.S. have fixed my PC (hopefully my e-mail will be fixed today), so I could recover my document and continue working on it at home last night. It still needs some tweaks, so I decided to wake up early and go into work early to finish it. How come whenever I decide to go to work early, not very often I admit, you deem it necessary to give the Jubilee line problems? Either it has major problems every day, or just the days I travel on it early. Normally, as you know, if the tube is busy I'll wait for the next one. But when I have switched off the alarm clock early, I'd rather get the benefit of it!
So there I am, with my nose up someone's arm pit on a slow train. Lovely. If I was Alanis Morissette I'd write a song about it, although mine would be about ironies rather than minor annoyances.
So could you please give me a break.
Squiffy.
P.S. What's with the Princess Di and 9/11 stuff?
Why is it that when a deadline looms something goes wrong with your PC? As you know, I have a deadline to submit a document for review today, so why was it that yesterday you chose to make my PC lose its profile? You know that I keep my current working documents on my desktop, so making my desktop folder inaccessible was the best way to screw up my plans! And you know that giving me problems with my PC would put me in the hands of those other Gods, the I.S. department.
Thankfully, I.S. have fixed my PC (hopefully my e-mail will be fixed today), so I could recover my document and continue working on it at home last night. It still needs some tweaks, so I decided to wake up early and go into work early to finish it. How come whenever I decide to go to work early, not very often I admit, you deem it necessary to give the Jubilee line problems? Either it has major problems every day, or just the days I travel on it early. Normally, as you know, if the tube is busy I'll wait for the next one. But when I have switched off the alarm clock early, I'd rather get the benefit of it!
So there I am, with my nose up someone's arm pit on a slow train. Lovely. If I was Alanis Morissette I'd write a song about it, although mine would be about ironies rather than minor annoyances.
So could you please give me a break.
Squiffy.
P.S. What's with the Princess Di and 9/11 stuff?
Monday, 14 January 2008
2008 Predictions
A bit late, but here's my predictions for the coming year.
Squiffy.
- Gordon Brown's government will continue to unravel slowly. By the end of the year, the polls will look like Labour 28%, Lib Dems 18%, Tories 45%.
- The economy will slow, but avoid a recession. GDP for 2008 will be 1.5%.
- Interest rates will end the year on 4.5%, CPI 1.9%, RPI 3.9 %.
- Several ministers will resign, stating irreconcilable differences of opinion with the PM.
- Charles Clarke, Alan Milburn and Stephen Byers will all pipe up asking for a real revolution in New Labour and stating that GB is not the change the country needs.
- Nick Clegg will move the Lib Dems to the right whilst being put under pressure from his party for moving too far.
- Funding scandals will claim a scalp on the Labour and Conservative front benches. Probably Peter Hain, but not George Osborne.
- Barack Obama will face John McCain and beat him to become President-Elect by the end of the year.
- Ken Livingstone narrowly beats Boris Johnson for Mayor of London.
- Kimi Raikkonen wins the F1 championship by 10 points from Lewis Hamilton. Felipe Massa comes third, Fernando Alonso fourth, Heikki Kovalainen fifth and Nick Heidfeld sixth.
Squiffy.
Hain and Osborne
To me it seems that the similarities between Peter Hain's and George Osborne's funding problems are tenuous, other than their timing.
It would appear that Peter Hain ran a shambolic deputy leadership campaign and could not vouch for those in his campaign raising money for him. One of them found a way to channel money to him through an unthinking think-tank, which looks suspicious.
Mr Hain says that he was too busy to get involved in the money raising and aspects of his campaign. It doesn't wash, especially after the various funding problems that have appeared over the years. He has a duty to care about the funding of his campaign, just as any M.P. has to justify their additional earning and spending.
Mr Hain has refused to answer questions from the press, and the various underlings answering questions on his behalf have not given any reason for the strange think tank. They also state that Peter Hain came forward, but only after he had been found out for declaring to the Parliament late.
The case surrounding Mr Osborne is different. There is a similarity in the fact that some money was channelled. But it was channelled from benefactors into the Conservative Party central office with a wish for some of the money to be directed into the office of the Shadow Chancellor. The donations were declared to the Electoral Commission. George Osborne asked the Commons Authorities whether the donations should be declared, the advice given was not very clear. The print of the letter on Guido's blog shows that the advice is confusing. It appears that Mr Osborne tried to do the right thing.
Unlike Mr Hain, George Osborne has made himself open to questions from the media. Whereas Mr Hain looks like he has something to hide.
Squiffy.
It would appear that Peter Hain ran a shambolic deputy leadership campaign and could not vouch for those in his campaign raising money for him. One of them found a way to channel money to him through an unthinking think-tank, which looks suspicious.
Mr Hain says that he was too busy to get involved in the money raising and aspects of his campaign. It doesn't wash, especially after the various funding problems that have appeared over the years. He has a duty to care about the funding of his campaign, just as any M.P. has to justify their additional earning and spending.
Mr Hain has refused to answer questions from the press, and the various underlings answering questions on his behalf have not given any reason for the strange think tank. They also state that Peter Hain came forward, but only after he had been found out for declaring to the Parliament late.
The case surrounding Mr Osborne is different. There is a similarity in the fact that some money was channelled. But it was channelled from benefactors into the Conservative Party central office with a wish for some of the money to be directed into the office of the Shadow Chancellor. The donations were declared to the Electoral Commission. George Osborne asked the Commons Authorities whether the donations should be declared, the advice given was not very clear. The print of the letter on Guido's blog shows that the advice is confusing. It appears that Mr Osborne tried to do the right thing.
Unlike Mr Hain, George Osborne has made himself open to questions from the media. Whereas Mr Hain looks like he has something to hide.
Squiffy.
Friday, 11 January 2008
It's the economy stupid
Today the Tories are launching an attack on Gordon Brown's stewardship of Britain's economy. It may be the right time to do so. In years gone by, the Conservatives have been saying that there has been too much borrowing, but with an economy ticking away nicely nobody has been interested.
Now that the forecasts are for a difficult year ahead maybe the chickens will come home to roost. I really hope that the economy does not suffer a serious downturn, as it will not be a pleasant experience. In fact, I find it puzzling that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling keep mentioning the difficult times ahead. I always thought that talking about downturns (and the dreaded R word) made it more likely that it would occur.
George Osborne is making the point that when the economy is doing well, it's the Government's duty to repay debt, reduce borrowing and try to save some money for any bad times. It's what sensible people do with their household finances so they don't get caught out when the unexpected happens, such as the trip to the other side of the world to visit a dying relative. Unfortunately, even though we've had uninterrupted growth for the last 15 years the Government has been borrowing ever larger sums to meet its inflated needs. There have been
odd windfalls such as on the utilities and the sale of mobile 3G licenses to pay back some debt but not a concerted effort to tackle the underlying bad borrowing figures.
Now, with a possible squeeze on the public finances the cupboard is bare. We should not borrow even more, but we may have to. I half expect GB and AD to turn up on an Ocean Finance type add on channel 5, GB turning to AD saying "How much was it we want to borrow again Darling? 250 Billion. That's right". The country's finances are in a very sorry state and we don't really have a rainy day fund to bail us out. It is for this reason that he is resisting calls for public pay increases over 2% - he simply does not have the money, it has nothing to do with inflation!
Gordon Brown knows all this, so does George Osborne. The Prime Minister's strategy seems to be to highlight the foreseeable problems now (even if it makes the downturn more likely), just after the problems in the American sub-prime market so that he can link the two and say that "it's not my fault, guv". Mr Osborne is trying to head this strategy off at the pass, highlighting
the PM's failure to plan ahead for the inevitable downturn and that he is complicit in the bad state of the public finances.
It now depends on the public, which message will resonate more?
Squiffy.
Now that the forecasts are for a difficult year ahead maybe the chickens will come home to roost. I really hope that the economy does not suffer a serious downturn, as it will not be a pleasant experience. In fact, I find it puzzling that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling keep mentioning the difficult times ahead. I always thought that talking about downturns (and the dreaded R word) made it more likely that it would occur.
George Osborne is making the point that when the economy is doing well, it's the Government's duty to repay debt, reduce borrowing and try to save some money for any bad times. It's what sensible people do with their household finances so they don't get caught out when the unexpected happens, such as the trip to the other side of the world to visit a dying relative. Unfortunately, even though we've had uninterrupted growth for the last 15 years the Government has been borrowing ever larger sums to meet its inflated needs. There have been
odd windfalls such as on the utilities and the sale of mobile 3G licenses to pay back some debt but not a concerted effort to tackle the underlying bad borrowing figures.
Now, with a possible squeeze on the public finances the cupboard is bare. We should not borrow even more, but we may have to. I half expect GB and AD to turn up on an Ocean Finance type add on channel 5, GB turning to AD saying "How much was it we want to borrow again Darling? 250 Billion. That's right". The country's finances are in a very sorry state and we don't really have a rainy day fund to bail us out. It is for this reason that he is resisting calls for public pay increases over 2% - he simply does not have the money, it has nothing to do with inflation!
Gordon Brown knows all this, so does George Osborne. The Prime Minister's strategy seems to be to highlight the foreseeable problems now (even if it makes the downturn more likely), just after the problems in the American sub-prime market so that he can link the two and say that "it's not my fault, guv". Mr Osborne is trying to head this strategy off at the pass, highlighting
the PM's failure to plan ahead for the inevitable downturn and that he is complicit in the bad state of the public finances.
It now depends on the public, which message will resonate more?
Squiffy.
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
Gordon Brown tells a lie
Ok, so it's only over a small thing. Yesterday, in GB's monthly press conference he was asked whether he was going to have a meeting with David Beckham. GB replied that he had "no specific plans". Yesterday evening, who was it who turned up at Number 10? None other than David Beckham for a "private" meeting with the Prime Minister. "Private" because there was one journalist from the Daily Mirror there. Meetings with the Prime Minister of Great Britain are surely planned in advance so he must have known.
Why did Gordon Brown tell a lie? I cannot see a reason for it, unless he needed some advice on how to deal with Northern Rock.
The meeting isn't really important here, but it goes to show the nature of the man who is now presiding over Great Britain. Even over the smallest matter, he cannot bring himself to tell the truth. When he said that he wouldn't call a General Election even if Labour were 5 points ahead in key marginals we knew that he'd been "economic with the actualité", but this is politics so we accept it. This time it is just bare-faced.
Squiffy.
Why did Gordon Brown tell a lie? I cannot see a reason for it, unless he needed some advice on how to deal with Northern Rock.
The meeting isn't really important here, but it goes to show the nature of the man who is now presiding over Great Britain. Even over the smallest matter, he cannot bring himself to tell the truth. When he said that he wouldn't call a General Election even if Labour were 5 points ahead in key marginals we knew that he'd been "economic with the actualité", but this is politics so we accept it. This time it is just bare-faced.
Squiffy.
Saturday, 5 January 2008
The third rail
The other day many people were stranded at London Euston and Liverpool Street stations due to engineering works overrunning after Christmas. I, myself, had a rubbish journey up to Yorkshire just before Christmas having to change onto a bus at Hatfield, back to train at Peterborough, then again at Doncaster. Not nice, especially with a hangover!
The cause of the problems came from a lack of skilled maintenance engineers being booked to carry out the work. Inevitably, this has lead to a renewed discussion of the merits of Privatisation and Nationalisation of the nation's railways.
The Labour Opposition in 1996 (another of Prezza's pronouncements) stated that they would re-nationalise the railways. Of course, they did no such thing - it would have cost them a fortune to buy all the Railtrack shares and untangle the Train Operating Company (TOC) contracts. In the end, they were able to re-nationalise by default when Railtrack went into Administration.
John Major's Government failure was not to privatise the railways but to do it such a cack-handed way so as to separate track from train. It may have looked ok on paper, and boy, how much paper? Contract after Contract after Contract. Probably the most complicated privatisations in history. One too far for Margaret Thatcher anyway!
So how to get out of this mess? I don't believe full scale nationalisation will improve matters. One of the good things to come out of privatisation has been a wealth of new rolling stock, I believe we'd still have slam door trains if we had the old BR. We do, however, need to tie track back to train.
Before nationalisation there four big train companies, LNER (London and North Eastern), LMS (London, Midland and Scottish), GWR (Great Western) and Southern. We should return to the same sort of regional private companies which control some services and the tracks for an area. There should then be a secondary level of private railway company, these would operate on the tracks provided by the regional companies and pay for the privilege (a similar arrangement to now). This would allow for competition on the railway (ORR would still enforce fair rates) and mean that the train companies have a good reason for providing good tracks (as they would be penalised by overruns too) and trains.
There would still need to be some public subsidy, of course, that will not change. But we could witness the re-birth of Britain's railway.
Squiffy.
The cause of the problems came from a lack of skilled maintenance engineers being booked to carry out the work. Inevitably, this has lead to a renewed discussion of the merits of Privatisation and Nationalisation of the nation's railways.
The Labour Opposition in 1996 (another of Prezza's pronouncements) stated that they would re-nationalise the railways. Of course, they did no such thing - it would have cost them a fortune to buy all the Railtrack shares and untangle the Train Operating Company (TOC) contracts. In the end, they were able to re-nationalise by default when Railtrack went into Administration.
John Major's Government failure was not to privatise the railways but to do it such a cack-handed way so as to separate track from train. It may have looked ok on paper, and boy, how much paper? Contract after Contract after Contract. Probably the most complicated privatisations in history. One too far for Margaret Thatcher anyway!
So how to get out of this mess? I don't believe full scale nationalisation will improve matters. One of the good things to come out of privatisation has been a wealth of new rolling stock, I believe we'd still have slam door trains if we had the old BR. We do, however, need to tie track back to train.
Before nationalisation there four big train companies, LNER (London and North Eastern), LMS (London, Midland and Scottish), GWR (Great Western) and Southern. We should return to the same sort of regional private companies which control some services and the tracks for an area. There should then be a secondary level of private railway company, these would operate on the tracks provided by the regional companies and pay for the privilege (a similar arrangement to now). This would allow for competition on the railway (ORR would still enforce fair rates) and mean that the train companies have a good reason for providing good tracks (as they would be penalised by overruns too) and trains.
There would still need to be some public subsidy, of course, that will not change. But we could witness the re-birth of Britain's railway.
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
Will the real Mr Brown please stand up?
I have just read an article in the Times quoting Tessa Jowell asking Mr Brown to start being himself. She says that courting popularity is a bad thing.
Up to now we have seen two sides to Mr Brown, but according to people who know him well there is another side we have not yet seen.
Apparently outside of politics there is a joyful, happy, funny (!) Mr Brown, quick witted with a fast riposte. This is the person that the friendly politicians like Ed Balls and Ed Miliband see. The second side to Mr Brown is the politician tactician, always looking for an upswing in the polls and looking for a masterplan to confound the Tories. The third side is the Tony Blair wannabe, trying to create the listening GOAT (Government Of All Talents), the one who is the father of the nation, a paternal figure we can all look up to.
For the first three months of his premiership we saw the Paternal figure looking after the nation in our time of troubles, the second three months saw a return to the calculating politician. The general public have never seen the the funny, joyful side to Mr Brown. Until he can let a glimpse of this side of his personality to slip out, the public will be left with a personality swing between the other two. Unfortunately it appears that the calculating politician is the default mode and the protective father of the nation is an aberration, to be seen in extraneous circumstances.
Until GB can resolve these conflicts in the personality that he projects, I think Tessa Jowell will have to wait and count her majority.
Squiffy.
Up to now we have seen two sides to Mr Brown, but according to people who know him well there is another side we have not yet seen.
Apparently outside of politics there is a joyful, happy, funny (!) Mr Brown, quick witted with a fast riposte. This is the person that the friendly politicians like Ed Balls and Ed Miliband see. The second side to Mr Brown is the politician tactician, always looking for an upswing in the polls and looking for a masterplan to confound the Tories. The third side is the Tony Blair wannabe, trying to create the listening GOAT (Government Of All Talents), the one who is the father of the nation, a paternal figure we can all look up to.
For the first three months of his premiership we saw the Paternal figure looking after the nation in our time of troubles, the second three months saw a return to the calculating politician. The general public have never seen the the funny, joyful side to Mr Brown. Until he can let a glimpse of this side of his personality to slip out, the public will be left with a personality swing between the other two. Unfortunately it appears that the calculating politician is the default mode and the protective father of the nation is an aberration, to be seen in extraneous circumstances.
Until GB can resolve these conflicts in the personality that he projects, I think Tessa Jowell will have to wait and count her majority.
Squiffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
