A look at my 2009 predictions

It's the end of the year and so it is time to mark my predictions for the year. Here is what I said:

1. There will be no general election in 2009. Although Gordon Brown will have been lining up a May/June election for seven months, the polls won't look good enough to risk it, and so GB will go until the last moment in 2010.
   CORRECT.
2. The recession will last throughout 2009. CORRECT.
   
3. Several other high street names will experience problems. I'm guessing at HMV, W.H.Smiths, and Robert Dyas. I just hope I'm wrong. OTHERS DID, BUT NOT THE ONES MENTIONED. HALF POINT.
   
4. Interest rates will reduce to 0.5%, the CPI will also go down to 0.5%, and the RPI will briefly go negative. CORRECT.
   
5. Robert Kubica will win the F1 World Championship. WRONG.
   
6. A bad set of economic figures in the beginning of the year will signal a reversal to Labour's recovery, the polls will go back to a good Tory position of Con 45%, Lab 26%, LD 17% by year's end. CORRECT.
   
7. Ken Clarke will come back as shadow Business secretary. CORRECT.
   
8. David Blunkett will come back as Home Secretary. WRONG.
   
9. The Tories will win the Local/Euro elections on a percentage share of 43%. Labour will get 22% with the LibDems at 26%. CORRECT, BUT FIGURES WRONG. HALF POINT.
   
10. Peter Mandelson will be forced to resign over some business dealings as EU Comissioner. WRONG.
    

So, that's 6 points out of 10. Not bad. Tomorrow for my 2010 predictions.

Squiffy.

Exciting - the leaders debates

The excitement has already started to build. Next year the UK will see its first leaders debate in a general election. All across the globe these events are standard practice, but here in Blighty we’re used to one party calling for a debate and another saying no.

 

Now that the blockade has been broken, they will form a part of every general election campaign here on in. Halleluiah, it’s taken a long time to get here but thankfully we’ve got here. The old refrain that every PM puts himself to questioning once a week at Prime Ministers Questions as an excuse will now be put to sleep.

 

I like the fact that the three debates will be 85 to 90 minutes long, quite a serious amount of time!

 

Who’s got something to lose, and who’s got something to win?

 

On the face of it, Gordon Brown, being an unpopular, PM has nothing to lose. David Cameron has everything to lose by starting  ahead. Nick Clegg has the gift of a lifetime in that he will get equal airtime to the two main party leaders.

 

So far the commentary follows these lines. I think that is too simplistic. For David Cameron, the repeated mantra that he hasn’t sealed the deal may be getting wearing. I don’t think things will change before the campaign, but a good performance may see him get closer.

 

David Cameron comes across well on TV, whereas Gordon Brown is notoriously bad and has a tendency to make mistakes under pressure (remember the investment of 0%). I’ve blogged before that the PM may well lose his temper and blow up under sustained questioning by the public (something he has never faced as PM) and if this happens it could be a real game changer.

 

Finally, I think Nick Clegg will do well whatever happens to the other two, if he gains 4 to 5 % on the back of a good performance I’d expect it to be at the expense of Labour rather than the Tories. It could make this election more like 1983 or 1987 with a seriously divided left leaving the Tories to win handsomely.

 

Only a few months to wait and we shall see.

 

I can’t wait, I wonder if I can get tickets for the audience?

 

Squiffy.

 

Why David Cameron cannot seal the deal.

During the last year or so there have been many articles about current polling trends, many pointing out that the Tories are stuck around the 40% mark and that David Cameron is seemingly unable to 'seal the deal'.

 

My thesis is that this is not a problem with David Cameron and that any Tory leader would have the same problem.

 

Many people remember the Tories from the last time they were in power, it's only 13 years ago, and many of them have a visceral hatred for them from that time. Two things which people remember is the sleaze at the end of the Government and the harshness at beginning, they put them together and get a corrupt and uncaring Government. They tend not to remember the transformed economy, the end of the strike culture, the international head held high etc.

 

When Labour were evicted in 1979, the feeling (I'm guessing as I was 6 years old) was that many people thought that the Government had their hearts in the right place but were incompetent, especially economically. Throughout the 80's and early 90's the population wanted a Government who could mix the caring image with economic competence. When Labour promised that with Tony Blair's election with a pledge to stick broadly to Tory economic principles, the populace embraced them with glee. Hence the national jubilation on May 2nd 1997.

 

For the Tories, now, this is not possible. The abiding memory will not allow it. David Cameron can only do his best, and the best that can be achieved is that floating voters reluctantly vote Tory. It will be for David Cameron to demonstrate, if he gets into office, that he can mix the economic competence with a compassionate conservatism whilst bringing down the deficit. If he can do this then he will seal the deal, and the following election will be easier to win. It's a very tall order, but with the right mix it is possible.

 

P.S. The Labour party are in a worse position now than the Tories were in 1997. As well as sleaze, they now look incompetent and are increasingly looking like they don't care what happens to the country whilst trying anything to stay elected.

 

Squiffy.

 

Will my prophesy come true, it looks like it has started...

I don't know when the polls will come in but looking at the newspaper headlines, it appears that the media narrative will change once again from a Labour recovery to Labour disaster.

 

Yesterday was another bad day, for everyone. Bad for the Government because they had precious little to give away as an election sweetener, and also bad because they didn't tackle the deficit and showed that everyone earning above £20, 000 is seen as a cash cow to plunder. Bad for the taxpayer, spending is going up next year and the day of reckoning has been put on hold again. It will only get worse. It was another opportunity lost.

 

Thankfully the tax on jobs, i.e. National Insurance rise, may not happen as it is penned to come in 2011 and there will be an election before then. Will the Government risk another awful budget next spring? Maybe not, maybe March 25th is now more likely than not. I hope so. We need rid - now!

 

I'm intrigued by the strategy, if you can call it that, of keeping on with the mantra that you don't cut the deficit and stimulus until the economy grows. The stimulus of the VAT cut will be taken away in 21 days time. What happens if this quarter's growth shows there is none and another contraction? It blows their whole argument out of the water! There's no wonder they reduced the tax on Bingo, they're hoping their numbers come in pretty quickly.

 

Squiffy.

 

 

Why is it always me?

The country is in a mess, and so people like me have to pay a bit more. Fair enough. Beforehand, the country is growing with a booming economy so we need to tax those making money to pay for services. Me again.

 

And so it goes on, under a Labour Government, whatever the occasion people who are not the poorest will pay more and more and more. Until you think is it worth it? I could go on benefits and do some things that I enjoy rather than sit around at work getting bored, putting up with the horrible commuting experience, in winter never seeing daylight and earning money which gets taxed more and more heavily.

 

When do I get a break? Oh yes, I remember, under a Tory Government. A party that believes that doing work is good for you, and letting you choose how to spend your own money gives you responsibility, and with extra responsibility you can maybe set up an entrepreneurial enterprise and employ someone else and that by doing such the whole economy grows, tax receipts go up and there is more to spend on the poorest.

 

I'm just counting down to the days when whenever the Government makes a mess of it, they don't just decide to take a look in my wallet and help themselves.

 

So ends the moan.

 

Squiffy.

 

Why can't Gordon own up

Again Gordon Brown has told a mistruth, albeit a minor one. Yesterday in PMQs he said that Spain was a member of the G20. They do attend meetings but are not a member of the G20.

 

Harriet Harman has just popped up and said that he was exactly right to say what he did and that Spain is a member of the G20. Well he wasn't so why can't he just fess up. Last week David Cameron made a mistake in the House about the two schools linked to dubious organisations, but he came back and apologised. The PM seems pathologically unable to do the same.

 

If he needs a refresher, these are the members of the G20, taken from the G20 website www.g20.org:

• Argentina
• Australia
• Brazil
• Canada
• China
• France
• Germany
• India
• Indonesia
• Italy
• Japan
• Mexico
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Turkey
• United Kingdom
• United States of America

Hello, where is Spain? I've looked up and down the list but cannot find it. No, not there. Come on, just be a man.

 

Squiffy.

 

 

Gordon wows at last

Gordon Brown's performance today at PMQs was his best - by far. He may not have answered any questions but he was able to get his one liners in effectively and was able to make David Cameron uncomfortable.

 

Will he be able to keep up this level of performance? Only time will tell.

 

Squiffy.

 

My view on the polls

There has been much talk lately of a narrowing of the polls, of hung parliaments and of difficult times ahead for David Cameron. Yes, there been a small narrowing in the polls, mainly due to a softening of the Tory vote and not through a resurgence of the Labour party.

 

I think this has mainly been through the following reasons. Gordon Brown and the Labour party have not managed to slip on a banana skin for the last month, in fact the PM was seen with pity when The Sun made an attack on him. David Cameron had to make the change on policy over the Lisbon referendum, leading to some people talking about moving to UKIP. There was also the incident of Elizabeth Truss and the 'Turnip Taliban'.

 

It all adds up to some small movements in the polls. I don't think this is a defining time though. Never underestimate Gordon Brown's propensity to turn some good news for him into bad news. Next week is the Pre-budget report, and if history is any guide then it will be full of partisan announcements designed to create dividing lines. The public see this for what it is, and want some honesty about what to expect after the election in putting UK Plc's finances back on track. They will not get it, and I think the usual backlash will occur.

 

By mid December, expect to see the Tories back in the low 40's and Labour around 25.

 

Squiffy.

 

The Iraq truth is already starting to disseminate

Two items in the Chilcott Iraq war inquiry have already come to light. The first was that the USA and Britain had already discussed deposing Saddam Hussein before September 11th 2001, and the second that the Attorney General had advised that it would not be legal.

 

We expected the first, to be honest, and we're probably not surprised by the second. But just these two facts really do ring big alarm bells over why we went to war. The whole terrorist link which was trumpeted by George Bush and WMD report by the British Government were a means to an already wanted end. And what was it that changed the Attorney General's mind?

 

It's no surprise really, but it confirms our doubts that the public were heavily misled about the war. The words 'in good faith' will be used time and again over the next few months, but if the first few days are anything to go by we should not hold much store in those words.

 

Squiffy.

 

Tony Lloyd re-elected as Labour PLP chairman

Last night Tony Lloyd was re-elected unopposed as the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. This seemingly small piece of news has bigger implications than what first appears.

 

There are precious few moments when the Labour Party can do the most sensible thing and get rid of a Mr. G Brown of 10 Downing Street. One moment was last night. Barry Sheerman had said that he may stand as chairman of the PLP as a "Get Brown Out" candidate. If he had succeeded it would have shown that the Labour Party did indeed want him to go. Without the vote, that's another chance gone.

 

Maybe the poll over the weekend showing the Tory lead down to 6% had an impact. But as they were voting another poll put the Tories' lead at 17%, and Labour at a low of 22%. It now looks likely that the previous poll was rogue and normal service will be resumed.

 

There are now two more set pieces which could trigger the downfall. The PBR and Budget. So far each PBR and Budget of Mr. Brown's reign has immediately lead to a worsened poll position.

 

It is beginning to look like Labour will stick with Brown and face a severe drubbing. Of which we can all be truly grateful.

 

Squiffy.

 

The Queen must have been cursing inside her crown.

What a pitiful Queen's speech. Getting the Queen to read out a Labour Party political broadcast is horrible. It was cringeworthy.

We know there are only 33 days in Parliament before a General Election is called and so hardly any bills with any opposition will become law.

The worst law is the promise to reduce the deficit by half in 4 years. Sure the aim is fine, but what happens when it isn't adhered to. Can't imagine the PM being taken down. No, it's just the worst politics. Just bloody do it. I can't believe the Labour party can though, at every turn they just spend more money. It's the only thing they know.

Oh, by the way, what happened to the fiscal prudence rules which were passed into law in 1997/1998. They were supposed to keep out debt down. When it went slightly wrong they redefined the economic cycle. Then when it went further wrong, it was the global downturn. So who's going to prison for breaking this law? No-one. So what's the whole point.

Yesterday we heard Lord Mandelson on the Today programme being interviewed by Evan Davis. It was handbags at dawn, as Davis put it to Mandelson that the law to make sure no families would be in fuel poverty by 2010 was going to be broken. Who would be prosecuted. Mandelson did his usual trick of blaming Evan for not listening to his answer (the fact that there was no answer, didn't seem to matter to Mandelson). He's good, but soon the interviewers will cotton on to his technique!

Please put this Government out of its misery. I don't think I can wait another 5 months.

Squiffy.

Jenson to McLaren. Probably not good.

Now that it has been confirmed that Jenson Button will be joining Lewis Hamilton at McLaren, we take a look at his chances.

Firstly, we know that both are very good drivers and both should win races. But both like different set-ups. Lewis prefers an oversteer based car, but for Jenson it has to be perfectly balanced.

We know that Lewis has been McLaren's favoured son for many years. The likelihood is that the car will be built to Lewis' preferred set-up making it very difficult for Jenson. When Lewis doesn't have his perfect set-up he can grab the car by the scruff of the neck and make a good fist of it. Unfortunately, Jenson can struggle in a non-balanced car.

It does look to me that he may have made the wrong choice and will be beaten by Hamilton. I'm hoping I'm proved wrong and they are more evenly matched, but my suspicion is that Lewis will blow Jenson away.

Squiffy.

Degrees in Nursing?

I heard with incredulity that everyone who goes into nursing will need a degree in a few years time. What has happened to this country?

 

My mum was a night sister, very respected, well liked, firm but fair. Everyone knew where they stood with her and the patients knew they were getting the best of care.

 

She didn't get a degree, she left school at around 15 to go into training. In fact, she didn't have O-levels and I was extremely proud of her when she decided to get GCSE's later in life to make up for her lack of formal general qualifications from earlier schooling.

 

You can't tell me that hospital care is so different now to what it was two decades ago. Sure things will have moved on, there will be new treatments, drugs and a bit more administration but the care being provided by a nurse will greatly similar.

 

By making nursing a degree only profession, it will close off another job prospect to those kids who find they're not as academically gifted and be another reason why vocational qualifications are not taken seriously in this country.

 

I suppose this is one way to fulfill the Government's aim of getting 50% of people into university. There'll be no jobs for anyone without a degree soon! What does this mean for the policy of raiding other countries for nurses in recent years? Is it going to be that only British nurses need a degree, whilst others can transfer in without the necessary qualifications?

 

How flaming ridiculous.

 

Squiffy.

 

 

 

Reaction to the Tory change of policy on Europe

Now that we know what the new Tory policy on Europe is (or we think we do), I can give my first thoughts.

 

Firstly, disappointment that my recommendations weren't taken on board. I guess David Cameron does not want to go on board the train that could lead us out of the Union.

 

Secondly, though, I believe the policy is largely pragmatic and will have the best possible chance of keeping the Tory party united. I like the sound of the legislation to keep British Sovereignty, make sure future treaties have a referendum, and stop the ratchet clauses. I just hope they are strong enough to hold legal force!

 

Thirdly, when the dust has settled and we're on a path to economic recovery and a debt-reduction plan is in place, he will need to start playing hardball with the EU on his promises to bring back powers. Any lack of determination will be as much as a broken manifesto promise as the Labour party's promise to hold the Lisbon referendum. He must be prepared to withhold money, and must be prepared to play the EU countries at their own game and be very slow at implementing new laws.

 

Finally, in private he must be telling the EU partners that we must being to look at Association and not Union unless we get our powers back. Anything less will not get them thinking.

 

And for  all those people who harp on about the "cast-iron guarantee", they forget to mention the line after that which reads "No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum." i.e. the cast-iron guarantee is only while the treaty is not ratified.

 

Overall, probably the best the Tories could hope for. But as Vic and Bob used to say, 'you wouldn't let it lie' - and the public won't!

 

Squiffy.

 

David Miliband as EU foreign representative? No

In a column in the Mail on Sunday William Hague talks about David Miliband's recent comments about the Conservative's partners in Europe.

He points out that the EU partner's are not very happy about these comments, and it just so happens that some of them form coalition partners in their Governments or have the position of President. Do you think that they will want David Miliband to represent them at an EU level? I don't think so.

Mr Miliband has been disgraceful and will have to apologise before he gets that job. Even then his behaviour has been less than diplomatic and should rule him out completely!

Squiffy.

Europe: The proposal

Earlier in this post I gave some options that David Cameron can use for his European policy.

I've now got my proposal.

Firstly David Cameron should be up front and say that he didn't want to be in this position. He had said that Lisbon was a step too far, and it is. He now has to push for Britain's rights to have the relationship we want with Europe. With that in mind he will have one or two referenda.

The first referendum will have a question such as "Britain should have its own rights over Fishing Quotas, Immigration, Taxation and Employment rights. Agree?". The exact list should be set out at the time, but be at a level where we are happy. I can now hear the laughter - how naive, Europe will never agree to such repatriation of powers (even though the original Constitution was supposed to bring some powers back to nation states - look how that turned out!).

That's the reason for the second referendum. In case the EU turns away and chooses not to listen to the UK's point of view, the second referendum is asked. "Britain should have an Economic relationship with the EU, and have associate membership". This is the nuclear option.

Both referenda will be set out at the start. It is blackmail, but the EU does not listen to its people and Governments collude to deny the electorate their say - so needs must.

It will then be a matter of how much the EU wants the UK as a member. If they do want us, then we will continue to contribute to the coffers but we want some powers back. If they don't then fair enough we will go our own way.

I think it is time to play hard ball with the EU political elite.

Squiffy.

The Brown jinx hits again

Whenever the PM wishes someone well before an endeavour or publicly supports someone, you know it's curtains. Last night he publicly back his old friend and foe, Tony Blair, as new President of the Council of Ministers. This morning we hear that EU leaders have cooled on the idea.

 

He's done it again! Maybe that was the plan…

 

Squiffy.

 

David vs William: Part two

An infrequent series of interviews seem to be occurring on the Today programme where at 8.10 a.m. both David Miliband and William Hague are interviewed together. It's always entertaining.

 

In this morning's exchanges, William had the killer point in the earlier part of the interview and David in the latter.

 

Firstly, William Hague pointed out that the Labour Government claimed that the treaty was not a constitution and was just a tidying up exercise and so the referendum was not needed. But Hague then pointed out how David Miliband is stating that we need a strong new EU President who can stop the traffic to push forward EU views to the rest of the world. Surely that role is quite a constitutional change from the rotating presidency with limited powers now. David Miliband had no real comeback on this hierocracy.

 

Then in a discussion about the polish head of the Conservative grouping in the EU, Michael Kaminsky, David Miliband read out an interview in which Kaminsky said that the death of 300 Jews  was not of a scale as the Holocaust and should not be apologized for. William Hague had no come back for that.

 

1 all, I would say.

 

P.S. When I think about the EU and how the electorate (of the whole EU) are being treated, I get angry. Very angry. In fact I've nearly had enough. I am now close to changing my position on the EU and thinking that we should go for associate membership, like Norway. I'm not there yet, but it's getting closer.

 

Squiffy.

 

Iceland closes down McDonalds

No this has nothing to do with Kerry Catona's advertising prowess, making the burger giant fold!

 

This morning it is reported that the recession is so bad in Iceland that the three McDonalds restaurants (can I call them that) will be shut. Apparently the Icelandic Krona is so weak that it is now too expensive to buy a Big Mac. Wow, it must be really bad, or possibly a blessing is disguise.

 

Maybe they will be able to get their fix by digging up the semi-putrified fillet-o-fish buried last summer and eating those!

 

Squiffy.

 

The failure of Labour's schemes

George Osborne today made a significant speech about Labour's failures in tackling the recession and what the Tories would do about it. It was an impressive speech, but what struck me was the scale of the failure of the Governments plans. If George Osborne is correct then these are the figures.

- The Capital for Enterprise fund has helped just 5 companies.

- The Mortgage Rescue Scheme has helped 15 families.

- The Trade Credit Insurance Scheme has helped 58 businesses with £13 million, it was designed to supply £5 billion!

- The Guarantee for Asset Backed Securities has not provided any guarantees yet.

- The £2.3 billion Automotive Assistance Programme has not provided funds to anyone yet.

We know that the car scrappage scheme has worked, but it looks like nothing else has. Including the VAT cut.

What a waste of time. Gordon Brown says the Tories would do nothing to help, well he should look to himself because that is what his government has achieved. I think the £50 billion loan guarantee would have been better than all these schemes!

Squiffy.

The Frenchman wins round one

There are two French vs Finnish motor sport contests this weekend. The first is for the Presidency of FIA, the governing body. Unfortunately Jean Todt has beaten Ari Vatanen to it. I say unfortunately, because Max Mosley has been a big supporter of the ex-Ferrari team boss and he hopes that it is more of the same.

 

I wanted there to be a big change. Some more consistent rulings, a push for reduced carbon emissions throughout motor sport, less intrigue and less politics overall. Todt is made in the Mosley mould, so get ready for more stories of motor sportshooting itself in the foot.

 

The second contest is for the World Rally Championship, between the Finn Mikko Hirvonen and Frenchman Sebastien Loeb in Wales. Loeb has won the championship for the last five years and I think it would be good for the sport if another were to win it this time around.

 

Squiffy.

 

Question Time : The verdict

I quite enjoyed the car crash telly of last night. I didn't know whether all the questions would be BNP based or follow the normal pattern of current affairs. In the end they plumped for the former, which worked but I think that if they were to repeat the exercise they would be advised to do a normal format.

 

Most people were worried that Nick Griffin would be articulate enough to strike a chord with the working class who feel hard done by. In the end I don't think that happened, he was simply not good enough. He came across as more evasive than most politicians and tried not to explain why he had been a holocaust denier. I don't think, and I sincerely hope, that he didn't do the BNP any favours. Most of what he said seemed to deny reality in a way Gordon Brown could only dream of. His insistence on the "indigenous English" coming from the ice age 17000 years ago, floating down on an ice sheet I suspect, is just laughable. Doesn't he know that even the word English comes from the Angles (invaders from Germany), what an eejit.

 

I thought Jack Straw was awful tonight, he's usually much better than that. Baroness Warsi argued a good case and Bonnie Greer had a good one liner ("I've brought  some good history books for you, you should read them"). David Dimbleby was excellent though and asked some probing follow up questions, he's  hopefully put to one side his woeful presentation the US Presidential Election last year.

 

Great TV.

 

Squiffy.

 

"Best placed to weather this recession". Humbug.

At the beginning of this recession the Prime Minister and ministers were often telling us that Great Britain was best placed to weather this recession. Well today's GDP's figures shows how wrong they were. Whilst France and Germany pulled themselves out of it, we're still stuck in negative territory.

 

We were the first into this recession and now it looks like we'll be the last out of it. This one tops the 80s and 90s recessions with six quarters of negative growth, worst since 1955.

 

So stick that up your quantitive easing.

 

Squiffy.

 

No to all women shortlists

David Cameron is mistaken in considering all women shortlists for Tory MPs. If he genuinely believes it then he is simply wrong. His argument that parliament is not working well because it is unrepresentative is wrong. It's not working well because the executive is too strong.

 

We now have more women than ever in parliament, is our politics better than ever? No, it's in the gutter. Have female ministers proved to be more able than their male counterparts? No. Am I blaming women for any of this? No. The number of women in parliament is irrelevant to this argument. If we had better MPs maybe we would be in a better position, and by better I mean more able to think for themselves and formulate an intelligent argument whilst supporting their constituents. So they should get to be an MP on merit, i.e. not by being on some favoured list or minority only list.

 

It is completely un-Tory. Which makes me think that DC is up to something? Is he wanting a clause 4 moment? If he is, he's chosen the wrong argument because he will lose.

 

If all jobs were chosen on merit, we'd be in a better country.

 

Squiffy.

 

It's October FFS

Just watching TV, and there's already been three Christmas adverts on. God help us.

Squiffy.

Congratulations Jenson

This is a slightly tardy message of Congratulations to Jenson Button on his first World Championship. It's slightly late because I'm recovering from a hangover, brought on by the champagne we drank last night toasting the 2009 champ!

 

We'd planned for some friends to come round to watch the Brazilian Grand Prix in the hope that Jenson would secure the title. On Saturday night, though, it looked like we were being premature. As he placed his car on the 14th spot to set off, I didn't think he could win it there and then. Just get around the Senna S and hope for the best!

 

Instead, in a fantastic race, Jenson pulled off 4 great overtaking manoevres to make a drive worthy of a champion. In a neat symmetry, both Lewis Hamilton and Nigel Mansell won the world championship coming home in 5th place.

 

As an aside, I was impressed by Kobayashi. Many Japanese drivers seem to be in F1 due to their relationships with Honda and Toyota and not purely on merit. Kobayashi's first race was very good. He was aggressive and fast, and didn't make any significant errors. He deserves to be in F1 next year.

 

At the beginning of the year I predicted that Robert Kubica would take the championship. How wrong was that? Big time - but I'm glad I was and now I'll take my hat off to Jenson Button. Deserved World Champion 2009.

 

Squiffy.

 

The fire sale has started

The news that the Government is now looking to sell off assets to fund its huge amount of debt is to be partly welcomed. I welcome it because many of the proposed assets should not have been in Government hands in the first place - can anyone think why the Government should own a betting company?

 

I add caution though. The sale will occur near the bottom of the market for many of these assets, they should have been sold when we were booming to help to pay off accumulated debt. If Gordon Brown was a spread better or trader he'd lose so much money. Just take a look at how much he got for the nation's gold reserves when he sold them off at a quarter of the current price. Maybe the Tote isn't best placed in his hands!

 

The other point is that you can only sell them off once. This does nothing to bring down the structural deficit. As an example, we would have to sell off the assets identified every month to break even! They still need to outline a plan for cutting costs.

 

Squiffy.

 

David Cameron speech : The verdict

David Cameron's speech was bit more positive than George Osborne's, but was still a bit downbeat. It was a good speech, but not great. Two years ago I was ecstatic, this time I'm merely impressed!

 

It was a personal speech, and he was obviously trying to look Prime Ministerial. I think he succeeded in that aim. He gave a broad brush of conservative values and there were no policy announcements, which is as expected.

 

So my verdict is 7 out of 10.

 

After all the conferences, George Osborne's speech stood out. It was extremely candid, and brave. But I don't think any speech will be seen as a game-changer.

 

Squiffy.

 

The Tories are reverting to type on law and order

I was dismayed last year when David Davis resigned as shadow home secretary to force a by-election, but thought that the appointments of Dominic Grieve and then Chris Grayling as replacements would be a good thing. The former is thoughtful and the latter a bruiser. Unfortunately, the speech yesterday by Chris Grayling showed that the current thinking on law and order has reverted to a traditional Tory message. More prisons and tougher sentences are the refrain we hear time and time again.

 

I find it disappointing, not because I don't like those proposals. We obviously need more prison places and I'm all for tougher sentences for the worst crimes. There was a lot ideas which remain unsaid, which were apparent in Tory thinking a few years ago. I thought the 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' was a great Tony Blair line, unfortunately nobody has pursued it and I was under the impression that the Tory party were genuinely interested in thinking out of the box on some issues.

 

This country needs a fresh approach on law and order. Here's a few ideas:

 

1) For a start, we need to acknowledge that the war on drugs has been lost. We need to look at legalisation, taxation and a vast increase in the number of rehabilitation centres. If we can take drug dealers off our streets and have drugs available over the counter from Boots the amount of crime in this country will plummet. The police would then be able to redirect resources to murder and violent crime.

 

2) In a similar vein, we need to legalise brothels and take the working girls off our streets.

 

3) We need to provide compulsory education in prison for all, only when people are able to take employment when leaving incarceration will the re-offending rate be reduced. It should be a condition of release that everyone can read and write (unless there are some medical reasons why not).

 

That's for starters. If Chris Grayling cannot deliver new thinking, he should be replaced by someone who can. Maybe David Davis again?

 

Squiffy.

 

The public say they want honesty - let's see how they react to it

Yesterday was  a major speech by George Osborne and also a major gamble. Not since the shadow budget in 1992 has an opposition told the people that they will have to suffer some pain to get the things they want. Generally in the run up to an election the parties try to give some cheap give-away, who can forget the reduced council tax for pensioners in 2005 - it only lasted one year!

 

So George presented a list of policies which would affect people negatively and that is brave. In fact, in Sir Humphrey speak it could be 'courageous'. After the expenses scandal, the public said they wanted honesty. They now have some. By all means, they are not getting the full picture - there would be other cuts and tax rises under a Tory Government. But after the Labour party conference, when the debt mountain was hardly mentioned and another list of spending pledges were made, half a picture is better than looking at the reverse of the frame!

 

For me, I thought it was a deeply serious message and would have done George Osborne some credit as a future Chancellor. The bond markets have already improved. So for him, I think it was job done. It was a depressing speech though, so for David Cameron's speech I want him to touch on the tough message, but bring some light and optimism back to the nation. We need to see the darkness, but the light at the end of the tunnel must be visible and within reach.

 

Squiffy.

 

Lord Falconer makes an arse of himself

On the Today programme this morning Lord Falconer asserted that it is right to separate out the law lords from the House of Lords because the House makes laws and the judiciary do not. What an arse!

 

As someone who sat on the woolsack for several years in the House of Lords he should know something about the place! Has he never heard of legal precedence? Law Lords can change the law by interpreting the law differently, hence creating a precedent. It's common practice, and sits alongside the two Houses as being creators of laws in this land.

 

I would have thought he would know this, but wonders never cease. The fact that law lords (people who actually understand the law) sat in the Lords actually can help make better laws. If the Labour party had made more use of them we may have more effective law rather than page after page of the muddled thinking which has passed on the statute book over the last 12 years. It's not surprising that the Labour party has done much to wreck the great constitution of this land when they don't even understand it. The supreme court was a fudge after a botched re-shuffle, and they have not given a good enough reason to practice this constitutional vandalism.

 

Squiffy.

 

What is wrong with good grammar and spelling?

I was listening to the Today programme this morning, and there was piece about the state of written English. Written English from English students showed three times as many errors than from foreign students. It sounds quite shocking, but you must remember that most people in Britain start learning English orally. Written language comes later.

 

The argument seems to have been distilled down to whether we need to teach spelling and grammar, or whether we need to change the English language to make it less confusing and hence easier to write. For me, it's quite straightforward - we must resume teaching of spelling and grammar.

 

As someone who went through the schools system from 1978 to 1991, I never had an English lesson on grammar and only a few on spelling. My first lesson on grammar came in French, when I first found out about nouns, pronouns and verbs. At the time I couldn't believe that we weren't being taught this in English, and my incredulity grows with the years. I've always thought hard about the words I use in my blog posts to try to express what I feel, but I guess a greater grasp on grammar and a wider vocabulary would help. I'm still a stickler for typing full words in text messages, and I try never to use smilie's - as I think it's cheating!

 

The opposing argument reminds me of one of those English lessons, when we learnt about newspeak in George Orwell's 1984. Words were stripped out of the language which could be expressed by other means, so "bad" became "ungodly". It's a horrible, dumber down vision of the future.

 

We should respect our language. Allow it to evolve by all means, but organically rather than as some get out clause for correct teaching. We must bring back proper English lessons, teach grammar and allow ourselves some pride in the language of Shakespeare, Dickens, Fry and Chaucer.

 

Squiffy.

 

Why Tony Blair should not be EU president, and why he will be

Now that it looks likely that the Lisbon treaty will be ratified by all countries, the focus has now turned to the who will be the first President. Most believe it will be Tony Blair, and under normal circumstances I would find that ok. He would, in my opinion, be preferred to a European socialist such as Valéry Giscard d'Estaing as he does have a feel for the English middle classes and would try to protect the British Financial centre.

 

The big but, though, is that it was this man who duped the British public over the Lisbon treaty in the first place. He duped us by promising us a referendum, getting re-elected and then reneging on his promise. He knew he would not have to face the electorate after the referendum plan had been revoked.

 

If you believe in conspiracy theories you could almost imagine,  in the weeks leading up to his announcement of the referendum, Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson looking at the options of what Tony might do after he left number 10. How about another big job? EU President. All he needed to do was make sure that he could deliver the British public, which meant he had to win the election (against the public who were hostile to the treaty), retire and then come back when the job was done. The plan has worked out brilliantly for TB.

 

I don't believe that they could have been so clever to pull everything off, so it just happens that it has worked out this way. But for the simple reason that he pulled the plug on the referendum at the first possible opportunity means he should be stopped from being the EU president but also why he will be the first. The EU leaders must have known it would be extremely difficult to ratify the treaty in Britain. If Michael Howard had won in 2005 it would have failed, if the referendum had happened it would have failed. They have a lot to thank Tony for! Hence, Gordon Brown will be able to greet his old friend and foe as Mr. President not long from now.

 

Squiffy.

 

Europe, what to do?

Now that the Labour Party conference has finished, the spotlight will turn on the Tories. But the beam of light will be shining at midday on Saturday, rather than on Sunday when the conference begins.

At noon-ish, the Irish referendum result will be announced and the likelihood is that it will be yes, which is a great shame. I would have liked the Irish to say "no means no", but the scare tactics of the yes camp seems to have worked.

David Cameron will then be faced with the problem of what to do with his sentence "We will not let matter's rest". What does it mean? If he doesn't spell it out, it will cast a shadow over the whole conference - and he won't want that.

There's several things he could do, all of them difficult.

1. He could say that it's unfortunately a done deal. There's not much that can be done, but he will be make sure that there are soon negotiations on a new treaty which will repatriate some powers.

2. He could announce a referendum on a package of measures he wants to put forward to the EU. He may then have the backing of the public to go to the EU for some repatriation of powers.

3. He could say that he will enshrine in law that any future EU treaty will need a referendum to be passed in the UK.

4. He could make a British written constitution enshrining that referenda are needed to pass EU treaties.

5. He could go deliberately obstructive. He could threaten to withhold funds until the accounts are signed off and he gets a treaty to reduce the EU powers.

6. He could continue with a referendum on Lisbon, and then renegotiate our EU position. Effectively being out of the EU.

7. He could propose a referendum on associate membership of the EU. Taking us back to the single European Act.

8. He could propose complete withdrawal.

All of these are very difficult and electorally dangerous. I think options 1 to 3 are viable, option 4 fills me with dread. Trying to create a new constitution is extremely difficult. 5 just looks petulant. 6 to 8 are extremely problematic, possibly an election loser.

Wouldn't want to be in DC's position this weekend.

Squiffy.

Did the Labour party have a good week?

A common commentary at the end of this week, is that not much changed at the Labour party conference, but that the troops have been slightly re-energised which means it's not as bad as it was before.

I could agree with that partly. There weren't the splits of the year before and it was subdued but good natured.

I think though that the Labour party is in a worse position now than before. It was their last opportunity to explain a new vision for the country, and it takes time to bed an idea in the public's collective head - a new idea will need longer than an official general election campaign.

They repeatedly said "change", but the scatter-gun of policies announced by the Prime Minister and others were more of the same. There was no new vision and no change of direction. The run up to the general election campaign will now resume from the point before the conference season.

It's an opportunity lost. There's only the pre-budget report and budget to change the narrative.

Squiffy.

Massa wants Lewis stripped of the 2008 title

Apparently Felipe Massa wants the Singapore Grand Prix wiped from the record books because of the Renault crashgate scandal.

I can understand that, Lewis would lose his points from that race and Massa would be crown World Champion.

It's not as simple as that, you would have to at the impact of that changed result on the rest of the races. Or imagine that the Singapore race had not taken place at all.

Without the points Lewis Hamilton took at Singapore, would he have driven differently in the remaining races. I think so. For a start he wouldn't have driven for a 5th place in Brazil.

In that Singapore race, Massa and his pit crew screwed up (with Massa setting off with the fuel hose still attached). That was the reason that he didn't win that race, otherwise he could still could have done it. In the following races, their pit lights gantry was removed. If that race hadn't taken place, would the pit cock-up have happened later, possibly at Brazil?

We just don't know. The fact is that the race was held, and Alonso won it albeit by circumstances contrived by his team-mate. But he drove magnificently that day, and should not be stripped of the win. And so, Lewis Hamilton should not be stripped of his World Championship.

Squiffy.

The incredible sulk, you wouldn't like it when he gets angry

How will he cope in general election campaign?



Squiffy.

And lo, the unravelling begins...

Usually it takes a few days for a speech (be it conference/budget/pre-budget) from this Government to start unravelling. This time it's less than 24 hours.

Firstly, it transpires that the plan to house 16 and 17 year old single mums was put forward by Tony Blair in 1999, has in fact been in operation for a few years, and may only help 2000 teenage mums, and is a BNP policy, shows that it's not the revolutionary policy as originally thought. Some Labour MPs hate this policy and have been spouting off about it.

Half of the new apprenticeships have already been been offered.

More will be spent on schools, but surely there's £2Bn savings identified by Balls? Maybe those savings won't be used to bring down the burgeoning debt...

The Child Tax credit will be removed to pay for 250,000 2 year old's child care of the poorest, but doesn't that squeeze the already 'squeezed middle' more?

There will be no compulsory ID cards. That's already the policy!

A referendum on PR and removal of hereditary peers. Hello, wasn't that 1997?

And to top it all, the Sun's had enough.

Nuff said.

Squiffy.

Gordon Brown: the Verdict

It was a good speech for Brown, delivered with passion and only a few stumbles. Though, if it had been delivered by Blair or Cameron it would have been mediocre.

It still suffered from terminal initiativitis. No idea where all the money comes from for all these new plans, savings have been mentioned by ministers on Sky - but weren't they supposed to bring down our debt?

7 out of 10.

Squiffy.

Hardworking majority?

What's that all about?

Squiffy.

Gordon Brown is going to woo middle England

A bit like the executioner wooing Mary, Queen of Scots. He calls them the 'squeezed middle', hmm, who did the squeezing again? And who will squeeze them again if he got elected for a first time. Gordon Brown. He set the scene with the raid on pensions, and Middle England will now get it's revenge.

George Osborne, reverse that pensions raid and the job will be done.

Squiffy.

What happened to conference?

I just popped out for some lunch and managed to miss all of Alan Johnson's speech. I was only gone for 10 minutes. This was the secretary of one of the most important offices of state speaking, and he only had 10 minutes.

We remember some of the embarrassing moments from the past, such as the 'I have a little list' and the SAS one, because they were lengthy speeches with some playful (cringe-worthy content). Now, anything below the chancellor is not covered on terrestrial TV and the speeches are unbelievably short.

A travesty.

Squiffy.

The next month: a prediction

Following yesterday's terrific speech by Peter Mandelson at the Labour party conference, and the ensuing surge in optimism for Labour, I thought I'd predict what happens in the next month or so.

Firstly, today. I think Gordon Brown will make a good speech and pull a few rabbits out of hats. At the end, everybody will say that he's made the speech of his life, that it's game on and his leadership is now settled. In the polls, Labour will briefly touch 30% with Conservatives at 38% and LibDems at 22%.

Next week, at the Tory conference, George Osborne will also make a good speech and make another policy which changes the mood - the idea put to me is reversing the pensions raid Gordon Brown made in his first year. David Cameron will then "have to make the speech of his life", and again will. At the end of the week the polls will say Conservatives 40%, Labour 28% and LibDems 20%.

Within a few weeks, an "event" will happen which Gordon Brown will handle badly, his MPs will start asking questions over his leadership, and hey presto the polls will be at Conservative 43%, Labour 25% and LibDems 19%.

And hence, nothing will have changed.

Squiffy.

Brown knows only one thing, to spend.

An interesting comment in this month's Total Politics by David Starkey was spot on. He says that Gordon Brown's claim to have got us out of recession was the same behaviour as usual.

Basically, Gordon Brown's solution to everything is throw money at it. The banking crisis and recession were no different, and now we will pay for his habit.

Squiffy.

Button as champion?

Yesterday's Singapore Grand Prix was great for the Brits. Lewis Hamilton won from flag to finish and Jenson Button was able to extend his lead over Rubens Barrichello by one point.

Those saying that Button is going to be the champion should remember back to 2007. Hamilton had 17 points lead with two races to go and lost by one point, Button's lead is 15 points with three races to go.

It looks like Button will probably win, but don't count your chickens. Interestingly, if the medals system had been brought in as Ecclestone wanted at the beginning of the year, Button would have been crowned yesterday as no-one can now top his 6 victories. Thankfully, that is not in operation and so the championship race is still on...

On other news, it looks like Alonso will be confirmed as a Ferrari driver, Raikkonen back to McLaren, Kubica to Renault, Rosberg to Brawn and Barrichello to Williams. The next few weeks should see the merry go round start.

Squiffy.

Deja vu?

I had a sense of deja vu this morning when I was reading Simon Barnes' column in The Times. The first section seemed to follow the pattern of my post here.

Great minds think alike.

Squiffy.

Has Gordo found a way out?

The chatter on the blogs is that the exit of Baroness Vadera to a lowly position in the G20 (paving the way for South Korea to take over chairmanship) is a convenient way for Gordon Brown to resign and take up a post in the G20.

How true could it be? I don't know. There's two Gordon Brown traits which provide conflicting signals. The first is his tenacity, to hang in there when times get tough and come back for more. The second is to back out of a fight, and the next General Election will be the toughest of his life.

What do I believe to be the winning trait? His willingness to avoid a fight, he's done it time and time again - but will he want to go down as the biggest cowardly PM in history? I don't think so, but who knows...

Squiffy.

Clegg fails to inspire

Having listened to Nick Clegg's final speech before the General Election, I couldn't help but feel a sinking feeling.

I know that it is difficult for the third party in British politics but always seems to me that he's failing to face up to realities. Rattling off what a LibDem cabinet would look like may make the conference smile, but it made me want to laugh out loud. Apart from Vince Cable and Chris Huhne, Ed Davey and Norman Lamb, don't make me laugh.

He should look the voters in the eye and say that he would not prop up a defeated Brown Government and would try to get the best out of a Cameron Government.

Attacking the Tories for being lightweight and conmen this week seems laughable when he had no policies to mention in his speech. There were no resolved issues surrounding tuition fees, means-tested child benefit and the rubbish mansion tax. So it all remains an open issue. Don't get me started on sharing an Earl Grey with the Taliban.

The one thing that stands out is a lack of charisma or gravitas. David Cameron seems to have both, which tend to leave me entranced, Gordon Brown reels off his numbers but does it with some kind of gravity. Nick Clegg's words bounce off you or make you laugh at the unrealism.

I now know why Sky covered Obama's speech instead.

5/10

Squiffy.

Let Obama be Obama

It's been 9 months since Barack Obama became President, and if like me, you were hopeful of a great new direction with clear thinking then you will also be feeling a little disappointed.

With a pliant Congress, I would have hoped that he would have been able to make progress on US healthcare, the Middle East and Afghanistan. Unfortunately the former two of those have been ground down to stalemate, and for the latter it seems as if he is going in wrong direction (especially by refusing more troops for the war).

It takes me back to a fantastic episode in the first series of the West Wing, my favourite programme. After one and a half years of trying, the administration has achieved little but compromise and obfuscation and President Bartlett is very unhappy. With characteristic aplomb Leo pulls out a hanky on which "Let Bartlett be Bartlett" was written, taken from the presidential primary campaign. It was the signal that compromise should be eschewed in favour of positive action even if they lost a few battles.

I think someone needs to show Obama a similar monikered hanky. Let Obama be Obama.

Squiffy.

Baroness Scotland: Resign now

Baroness Scotland was fined £5000 today for admitting that she allowed an illegal immigrant to work for her and failed to photocopy a letter stating she had the right to work.

The fact that she broke the law and amazingly had put this particular law through the lords shows that she should resign. In his usual cowardice, Gordon Brown has not fired her and said that she unwittingly broke the law. Excuse me, the law really doesn't care whether you broke the law unwittingly or did it on purpose. Ask someone arrested for doing 20 mph above the speed limit, doing it unwittingly didn't stop them getting points on their licence and a fine.

No, she should resign. If forgetting to photocopy a letter is good enough for a £5000 fine, then the Attorney General should be good enough to remember it!

Squiffy.

Will KERS stay for 2010?

One of the regulation changes for 2010 was the abandonment of KERS, the energy recovery system, announced as a voluntary agreement by the members of FOTA.

It now looks likely that this may now unravel, the Williams team have been developing a different system of KERS since last year but have not raced it. Rather than a battery, Williams have invested in a flywheel system. They've found it problematic but like the idea of KERS and intend to race it next year.

If Williams do race it, then I expect McLaren will continue with it - it makes sense for them as they have the best system on the grid. It will then snowball and the voluntary ban will be gone.

I'm in favour of KERS, as well as a ban on refuelling. Over the next few years I'd like to see a gradual reduction in the size of fuel tanks and increase in BHP provided by KERS. This could increase fuel mileage and provide green technology to most cars and that can only be a good thing.

Squiffy.

Where's the consistency? Renault were let off.

As RacingForIndia pointed out here, Renault are not the new McLaren. The punishment to the individuals involved were similar, for Flavio Briatore read Mike Coughlan, but for the organization itself the punishments were light years apart.

McLaren got the largest sporting fine in history at $100M, were stripped of all their constructors points and were given warning that any other infringement could lead to permanent exclusion. Renault got a two year suspended ban, i.e. a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again.

What are the differences between the cases? McLaren received technical information form Ferrari and some personnel discussed it. It was not clear whether any of the information was used on the McLaren MP4-22. Renault conspired to crash one car to benefit another, putting lives at risk. Incidentally in 2007, Renault were also handed technical details about the McLaren but got off scott free.

No, the real differences are that McLaren's raison d'etre is to be in F1 and that Max Mosley hated Ron Dennis, as opposed to Renault being a big car manufacturer who could walk away tomorrow, whilst Flavio is a business partner of Bernie Ecclestone.

After losing Honda and BMW, it looks like the FIA was not willing to punish a team and risk losing another. But that is a load of rubbish, they have just had to ask the teams to allow a 14th team on the grid for next year - they are not down on teams.

The truth is that the original punishment for McLaren was way in excess of what was necessary, and they found it impossible to match the punishment for Renault in the case of a worse crime. They should have stripped the constructors points for this year at the very least, and a $5M fine wouldn't have been too arduous.

Again, this has been a case of inconsistent punishment, to go along with the inconsistent rule making. There needs to be new governance.

Squiffy.

Envy not fairness

The new LibDem policy of adding 0.5% annual tax to the people who have houses in excess of £1M is daft but based on the old politics of envy and not fairness.

Vince Cable cited mansions owned by Roman Abramovich as an example, but what about the old dear living in a house in an affluent part of country. She bought it with her husband in the 60s when they were both working, now he's dead and she has retired. The house price shot up and it's now worth over a million.

As well as paying a huge amount of council tax to clear up the one bin bag she throws out once every two weeks, she now has to pay an additional tax out of her dwindling savings and then the inheritors will have inheritance tax to pay when she pops her clogs. Is that all fair? No, just envy based on property.

I expected this sort of clumsy thinking of union leaders and left wing thinkers on in the Labour party, not of St. Vince Cable.

It doesn't take into account regional house prices, which if nothing else, the hated council tax does.

The LibDem conference seems to be a mess. Clumsy thinking and conflicting messages. Yesterday Nick Clegg said that Middle Income Child Benefit should be looked at, this morning Steve Webb said he'd looked at it in the last 24 hours and stated it will stay the same. That's quite a slap for a leader from the underling.

What a mess.

Squiffy.

If they don't know now they never will.

Whilst staying in Bournemouth I saw this.




Or proof that the LibDem campaign will be run by 4 year olds!

Squiffy.

Briatore: down and out

The news that Flav has been fired probably means that the allegations are true. If so, it means the that worst cheating case occured in Singapore.

I think that this is the end for Flav and probably for Pat Simmons. Hopefully Renault will not pull out!

Gordon Brown: "We'll cut inefficient and unnecessary projects"

Hmmm, which inefficient and unnecessary projects. And why were you spending money on unnecessary projects exactly?

This man should not be in charge of any taxpayers money.

Squiffy.

Is Renault the new McLaren?

After spygate, McLaren's name was mud. It wasn't helped by the events of Melbourne this year when McLaren and Lewis Hamilton were accused of cheating. McLaren faced the biggest fine in sporting history of £50m in 2007 and were thrown out of the championship.

Now Renault stand accused of the a similar cheating story. In the Singapore GP of 2008, Fernando Alonso went to the pits early after qualifying only 15th. A strange strategy, usually when you qualify low down you put loads of fuel in and hope to make up places. A couple of laps later Nelson Piquet, Alonso's team-mate, crashed but not heavily, just enough to bring out the safety car.

From there, most of the field went into the pits leaving Alonso high up the grid. When Rosberg, Webber and Massa went into the pits Alonso was in the lead and garnered Renault's first win of the year.

Just a coincidence? Probably. But what if it isn't? At the time, there were murmurs that Renault had concocted the crash but these were dismissed. The timing of the new story at Spa was not a coincidence though, Nelson Piquet had just been fired by Renault and had been very vocal about Flavio Briatore's treatment of him. Did Nelsinho spread the story, and was it made up?

It will be fascinating to see. If Piquet did spread the story his career is over. If Renault did cheat, their championship is over. Alonso will look murky too, having been in two teams which proceeded to cheat.

Squiffy.

Gordon makes Barack depressed

An interesting interview on this morning's Today with Richard Wolffe, an author who followed Brack Obama's campaign trail, was quite revealing. So far we have been led to believe that President Obama believes Gordon Brown has 'substance' and David Cameron has 'sizzle' but is all froth.

Today we find the truth a little different, Obama found Cameron impressive and although they are from different ends of the political spectrum, they had chemistry. Apparently, Gordon Brown was depressing. This was from President Obama's aides, but I'm sure we can extrapolate that this is the view of the POTUS himself.

I wonder whether Vodafone do upgrades?

Squiffy.

Will there be televised leaders debate?

Sky News has lobbed a David Frost sized bomb into the political scene by sending an open letter to all three major party leaders inviting them to a TV debate in the General Election campaign. They say it is going to happen with whoever has the guts to turn up. David Cameron has already accepted.

It's interesting to see what will happen with this, if we have this debate it will be fantastic. I think a lot of the country will tune in to a political programme, and it will most likely be the biggest factor in improving turnout at the next GE, forget dodgy postal votes.

There still has to be many months of behind the scenes negotiations on format length of questions etc. Anyone who has watched The West Wing will be familiar with the concept in the states. Should it be 2 minutes to answer the question each and then a 30 second comeback? Maybe the leaders are allowed to ask each other questions. Would Nick Clegg get the same airtime? That would be something of a coup for him. In the end, for the support staff, it can be more trouble than its worth.

For the PR consultants and press officers, they have to put the leader through days of training and working out whether the Leader calls the others, opponents, Leader of the XXX party, or Gordon/David/Nick. Should they make eye-contact, what should they wear? What kind of language should be used? It's quite tricky.

I'm getting excited already. Unfortunately, though, I have the hunch that it won't happen. Traditionally it is seen that the one with most to lose backs out, in this case it would be David Cameron. So would he? I hope not, but look out of some squabble of procedures as an excuse if it doesn't happen.

My feeling is that Gordon Brown will back out though. Why? Because he has backed out of every tough confrontation going so far. He backed out of a leadership tussle with Tony Blair, he backed out of the coup attempts against TB and backed out against the election that never was. He also goes to ground when things get difficult, such as the al-Megrahi case. So, if there is an empty chair in the Sky studios where the Prime Minister should be, I hope that Sky take a leaf out of Have I Got New For You's book (when they replaced Roy Hattersley with a tub of lard), and replace GB by his own tome, entitled 'Courage'.

Squiffy.

Has he something to hide or is he just rubbish?

I thought that the early release of Ronnie Biggs was wrong, and also the early release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. In both cases, they did not serve their full sentences - yes I know most people only serve just over half but these people had not even done that. To release them on compassionate grounds sounds great, but where was their compassion when they allowed or made innocent people die?

Following on from these bad decisions, the attention has turned onto our PM and his views about the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Yesterday, on his release from a forced holiday, Mr Brown stated that he found the jubilant scenes in Libya of al-Megrahi's return repulsive.

The PM was repeatedly asked whether it was right for al-Megrahi to be released, and the line repeated was that this is a decision for Scotland's parliament alone and the UK should not have a view.

What a load of bunkum. Firstly, although the legal decision was for Scotland alone its impact on UK foreign policy is profound and should have been considered. Secondly, if GB takes that view then he will not be able to express a view on other issues for which Scotland has sole responsibility. So what happens when the SNP recommends a referendum on independence? Can you imagine Gordon Brown saying that it's entirely a matter for Scotland? Not on your nellie, he'll be the first to say that it shouldn't happen.

So why does he say things which are plain wrong? If he has nothing to hide then it's simply bad politics, it would be bolder to express a view and cope with the consequences. So maybe he is just rubbish at politics.

Or is it that he has something to hide, and we would all want to know what deal had been done for GB to agree with the SNP's release policy. Or would he be exposed if he disagreed with the judgement as being duplicitous? Maybe he is frit. So much for the author of 'Courage'.

Squiffy.

What happened to A-Levels?

It's a while since I completed my A-Levels, but the one thing that has always stuck out in my mind was how tough the exams were. My A-level physics exams was the toughest of my life, even more so than degree exams. Getting an A grade in it was one of the happiest days of my life.

The year was 1991, and 18 long years have passed. Since that day, each year has shown an increase in the number of A-level A grades. Amongst the talk of increasing intelligence, do I believe that it is tenable that each year has got better? No, I do not. I don't doubt that students nowadays are working as hard as I did back then and deserve their success, but what use is having everyone achieving high grade pass rates? It certainly doesn't help Universities and Companies which are looking for a differentiating factor! That's why secondary assessment methods are needed.

I think, although I cannot be sure, that before the introduction of league tables the grades were awarded proportionally, so that the top 10% got A grades, next 20% B grades etc. Obviously this would not be easy to show improvements in education standards for a school but would show only relative changes between schools. I think league tables have skewed results and diminished the grades of GCSEs and A-Levels.

I think we should return to proportional rather than absolute grading schemes and return the A-Level as the Blue Riband of the educational establishment. We should shun any easing of the exams, and stop the 'everyone will get a grade/no one shall fail' mentality. It's such lily-livered attitudes which means that every child gets a prize when they rip off a wrapping in pass the parcel! Life is slightly tough, and should remain so.

Squiffy.

Ferrari are being sneaky

During Michael Schumacher's short return to F1, Ferrari were trying to get a dispensation from the other teams for Schumacher to be able to test this years car, even though there is a ban on testing.

They were told that, no, they would have to adhere to the rules. But, lo, what is this? Luca Badoer, the erstwhile test driver replacement for Massa is going to be doing some demonstration runs in the F60. Not a test session, just going around the Ferrari test track with a camera. Definitely not a test session then.

Squiffy.

Bob Ainsworth on Sunday AM

This morning I watched Bob Ainsworth on the Andrew Marr show and was struck by his relative honesty. Unfortunately his frankness shows some of the failings of Labour's treatment of the armed forces.

Firstly, he said that he'd personally been going around the MoD to make sure that everyone was committed to the Afghan war effort and to the forces. He said that was more that needed to be done. So there are members of the MoD not committed to our forces? Really that's quite shocking!

He then said two things which exposed the problem of lack of helicopters. He said that the Merlin helicopters had been in Iraq and we could not have two supply chains running at the same time - if that is true, how could we support two wars? Then he said that we needed the Merlins in Afghanistan otherwise there would be needless deaths. The extrapolation being that they are not there now and have been in Iraq, so there have been needless deaths.

There goes another Nokia.

Squiffy.

Let's stop talking guff about the NHS

I've just read that Andy Burnham, the Health secretary, has described Dan Hannan as unpatriotic to have a go at the NHS on American television. Whatever you say about Mr Hannan, it's not unpatriotic to have a different view on how a service should be funded. It's this kind of childish comment which is so belittling modern politics. It's the same tactic as used by Government ministers to describe anybody against unchecked immigration as racist.

Could we have a sensible debate about funding of Health? I doubt it. Since its inception in 1948, made in the aftermath of a devastating world war where everything was rationed, it has become a totem of a generous society - at least it has to us Brits. To question it in any form is to want to privatise it/abolish it/belittle the achievements of the NHS staff/introduce a two tier system. We've heard all these arguments over the last 30 years but learnt very little.

Whatever model you'd like for health provision, if you can't even discuss it without your patriotism being questioned then we really are in a sorry state (literally).

Nobody thinks that the NHS is perfect; waiting lists are too long, drugs and treatment are rationed and hospitals are getting farther away from their patients. But it is a reasonably fair system for access to health care and an easy way to pay for it.

Had we been deciding a model to use for a new health system, I doubt we would have decided upon the NHS now. As it is, it's unique in the world - no one else has copied it. As Daniel Hannan pointed out, it is the third biggest employer in the world after the Chinese army and Indian Railways. That is one helluva large employer! It also provides a large voting block (admittedly if everyone voted the same way) to whoever wants to protect it.

The sacred cow could do with some slimming (especially of administrators) and some services should be put out for private tender. We should look for ways in which the Government via the NHS can look for better ways to make the money we put in go further. If that means more private companies providing health services then so be it. I would feel perfectly relaxed if a new Tory Government made it known that it was very willing to look at new health providers who provided good value for money and good care standards.

It is probably for the best that the NHS is funded via the tax payer and provides services free at the point of use, but a period of enforced efficiency savings would not be a bad thing.

Now, let's have a grown up debate about it and stop the stupidity!

Squiffy.

Oh, Mandy!

Lord Mandelson has provided me with an opportunity to vent my spleen today, after commenting on George Osborne's claim that the Tories are now the progressive party. So never one to miss out on the chance.

Ok Mandy, let's look at the points you made regarding the Tories.

Firstly, you mention the Tories inaction over the recession. Hello, an opposition cannot act to do anything on the economy. You lot are in charge, and apart from opposing the VAT cut which has added £12Bn to the national debt and enabled two thirds of companies not to pass the VAT cut on they have largely supported Government measures. If consumer spending has not reduced by the expected amount it is due to drastically cheaper mortgages rather than a few quid off the weekly shopping. Their £50Bn loan guarantee scheme would have helped businesses but new Labour dawdled and came out with a paltry amount which has achieved very little. Your help for mortgages was not agreed with the banks when announced, and has helped very few.

On debt, you and your leader have your heads in the sand, when you pull them out you will see the largest debt this country has ever witnessed and painful cuts will be necessary. To deny it behind woolly talk of re-prioritisation merely shows how out of touch with reality you have become.

You mention that they are being 'coy' with their policies. Well, you tend to nick them or come up with completely inaccurate and false statements about them, it's no wonder is it? You have singly failed to explain how we'll cope with the countries debt after the election - glasshouses and the throwing of stones comes to mind. I seem to remember you only having 5 specific pledges before the 97 election, you must be proud.

Let's look at your 'successes'.

On Health, yes, there have been some improvements. That's what happens when you double the spending. Have we got value for money, not particularly. When you came in you abolished the internal market, then 4 years later brought it back. Is that original reform? No. Not progressive, just throwing money at it. You cocked up the GP contracts which paid them more to do less. Productivity has reduced. And we're still waiting for the expensive NHS IT system to be delivered, only 4 years late. Have you not heard of building Agile IT development into your contracts?

On Education, you've spent a lot more. You've also fiddled a lot more. No-one believes that our GCSE, A-Level and Degree standards are the same as when you arrived. You can say that more people achieve 5 grade C GCSEs now than before, but when the most difficult question is to identify the order of traffic lights it's not surprising is it? Admittedly, the schools building programme has given us some lovely new buildings in which to downgrade our standards. Did you pay for them all? No, we'll be paying for them for the next 30 years under PFI.

Better help for the unemployed? That would be why we're now at 2.5 million of them. It's a mish-mash of schemes which don't work, the new deal was an expensive flop. You helped them to disappear of the unemployed register and claim for sickness. If the figures weren't lying they'd be nearer 6.5 million.

Better workplace rights. Yes, some progress at the expense of business competitiveness. Still it's hard to completely lose your paymaster's - the unions - influence.

Greater devolution of Government. Yes, completely true. But you did try to put your placemen into the top positions. Let's not forget though, in place of a great democracy, we now have decisions devolved to quangos and committees. None accountable, but I'd guess you'd prefer it that way.

Let's not forget either...

Economy. Inheriting a golden legacy, and leaving a basket case. You have done it again. From the things above you know that when you have no ideas you throw money at it and leave us with debts. Now we are reaping your dividend, and remember no Labour Government has left office with unemployment lower.

Civil Liberties. Complete disaster, the most authoritarian British Government in history. You should hang your heads.

Europe. Back sliding and cowardice. When is a treaty not a treaty? When you pretend it isn't and deny the country their say - on which you got elected. Let's not ever believe your Manifesto again. Not worth the paper...

Foreign Policy & Defence. War, war and war. Admittedly, some war were right like Afghanistan. But the who WMD/45 minutes has destroyed any good will we had to be upholders of the world's good intentions. On top of that, your behaviour towards the armed forces is absolutely shameful. You cannot fight two wars on a shoestring. Give them the equipment they need to do the job properly or don't even go there.


So, in summary, Mr Mandelson your party is the most 'progressive' party, and have shown it by progressively destroying all the good in this country and taking us to the brink. That is why you will be out for a generation come next year, and we won't, hopefully, have to listen to your half-truths and misinformation again.

Squiffy.

Rail Privatisation. Good or Bad?

Yesterday the BBC Radio 4 show, The Long View, looked at the similarities between the financial plight that beset National Express when running the East Coast Mainline against the historical perspective of the troubles which blighted the Great Western Railway in late 19th Century.

It was an interesting programme with last section focusing on the general situation since rail privatisation occurred in the mid nineties. Which made me think was privatisation a good thing?

I think we can all categorically say that one thing that came out of privatisation was that the Government decided to spend more money on the railways. This wasn't anything to do with the public/private model of running a railway, but making a new organisation seem to work better than the old one. It's fair to say the railways had been severely neglected through the Eighties and early Nineties, and just the act of taking a fresh look at the system encouraged more spending.

If we take increased funding as a given then we can look at the model. Unfortunately, we will be comparing a British Rail starved of money against a privatised railway with greater money and so some comparisons are difficult to make and we will have to make an estimated guess.

Many people seem to have a rosy view of British Rail, with trains on time, no overcrowding and a great service. As someone who frequently travelled and does still on trains lets forget this bunkum. The trains were old, dirty, frequently late, the food was horrible, coffee disgusting and stations were crumbling. It did however continue to run many routes which were for the public good but not economical. It was also easy to remember many accidents, thankfully many without loss of life.

There were also several projects which we should look at. Electrification of the East Coast Main line was a success, but the story of the APT (Advanced Passenger Train) was much less so. The West Coast Main Line follows a more curved route than on the East and so to achieve greater speeds, it was deemed that a train which tilted around corners would be needed. I believe it cost £1Bn to develop the APT but with Government pressure to show a return on its investment, a demonstration run was held with journalists as guests. It was a PR disaster, many reported feeling sick. Later, the problems were solved, but the damage had been done and the project was canned. A waste of money due to political interference.

Privatisation of the system brought many problems, notably a maintenance nightmare which led to a large period of delays and speed restrictions. The private company Railtrack was found wanting in this regard and I'm glad it has gone. But after a much quieter period I think we can more accurately reflect on the upheaval.

This last year, the punctuality target of 90% has been reached - something which the old BR never achieved. Admittedly, a lot of this has been achieved by increased contingency in schedules.

The number of new trains on the network has been bewildering, and this is showing some real investment. We have bought in experience and trains from abroard where necessary. Ironically the new Virgin Pendolino trains which run on the West Coast Main Line, use the same technology as the old APT, that's no surprise as the Italian railways bought the technology off BR in the first place. I think this is a real success and not just down to Government investment, the TOC's have also contributed. As for food, coffee and stations there has definitely been a real improvement.

For some of the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) there have been problems, notably GNER and National Express, both holders of the East Coast Main Line franchise because they overestimated the revenue they would get. Like those people mis-sold endowment mortgages, they relied on 6% annual growth - which is a bit optimistic in current climates! But with only 2 failures in 15 years, it's a record which many business sectors would regard as a success.

There has been a large amount of growth in customer travel, taking us to close to World War II records. Obviously this has brought overcrowding issues which need tackling. I can see some efforts to alleviate this, on Thameslink they are adding an extra 4 carriages to each train and lengthening platforms.

For accidents, there were some severely bad accidents such as the Ladbroke Grove and Paddington disasters. The Paddington crash was particularly bad showing that the old carriages are not as safe as they should have been leaving 31 dead. A new Virgin train derailing in Cumbria showed the safety standards which should be in place. Without the two west London accidents the record would not be so bad, alas safety needs to be improved.

The recently improved customer experience has shown in a spirit to re-open some old lines cut by Dr Beeching in the sixties. There have even been two new companies running new services which did not run before, the Grand Central and Wrexham and Shropshire railway companies have demonstrated the original idea behind privatisation, finding a niche and filling it.

For these reasons, I think that we now have to look on privatisation as a qualified success. There needs to be further improvements to safety, but many experiences are better than in the past. So I think it is a good thing.

Squiffy.

Are we mad, or is she?

I think a bit of both. Yesterday's suggestion from Harriet Harman that Labour should always have a woman in one of the top two jobs makes you question her sanity, or maybe it makes you question your own. For one, this woman is driving me mad with the obsession on equality at all costs, she equalises good ideas with really bad ones.

It is unusual for me to agree with John Prescott, but when he says that the leaders of the Labour party should be chosen by ability you have to concur. Surely, this principle should be the same for absolutely every job going (within reason - you couldn't have a man chosen as a top female model! Or maybe you could!).

When she first entered Government in 1997 I quite liked her, I can't remember why now. But the constant nannying and lies that she is peddling (someone should tell her to stop going on about the Tory arrogance that they are going to win, in every utterance they say that the deal is not yet complete and there is no complacency) makes me want to scream whenever I see her.

Harriet Harman absolutely loves her job and would love to move up one grade. I think this is the real reason for her spouting off now. She is trying to make sure that she has a role when Gordon Brown leaves. It may play well to some of the more sanity challenged members of the Labour party but I can see her turning off a large part of her potential electorate. So why say it, she must be stark raving bonkers.

Squiffy.

Life begins at 40

Or at least it resumes for a Mr Schumacher from Germany, when he steps into a Ferrari in Valencia ready to take on the young guns.

When Felipe Massa had his accident on Saturday, I knew that there would be calls for Schumacher to pick up his helmet again. I didn't think he'd do it though, what has he got to prove? He's already the most successful driver of all time with a clutch of records which may never be broken.

For me it seemed likely that Fernando Alonso would step into the cockpit of Number 3 Ferrari in the next race as it has been widely predicted that he has a deal done for next year anyway. It made sense for him to move now when his second home race is coming up and Renault have been banned.

What I didn't gamble on was that Schumacher still loves driving F1 cars, he was pushed out of Ferrari by the incoming Raikonnen in 2006 before he had really made up his mind. He wants a chance to race the new machines fitted with slicks and KERS and see whether he is still the fastest out there. For these reasons, we'll see the Red Crash Helmet in a Red Car in three weeks time.

What do I expect to happen? I think he will be fast, maybe not as fast at first as he once was. When Mansell came back from the States in 1994 he was bested by Damon Hill in France in an identical Williams, and Mansell was a much better driver, but by years end Mansell was faster again.

So within a race or two Schumacher will be very fast again. Will he be faster than Raikonnen? I think so. In fact I think this could ruin Raikonnen's chances of retaining a Ferrari seat next year. Kimi is being paid vast amounts of money and hasn't shown the raw speed we expect from him, and I expect Schumi to be faster.

It will be fascinating to see a Schumi vs Hamilton battle on track, they have never faced each other and now both cars are heading towards the front of the grid it is a mouth watering prospect to see how they match up. We were deprived of the old vs new in the Senna vs Schumacher duel in 1994 when Senna was tragically killed, but we may see the next generation duel happen in a couple of races this year.

What of next year? I expect Raikonnen to be gone, maybe to World Rally. If Massa is fit again Schumacher will go back to being a put lane advisor. But what if Massa is unable to race next year too, would it be possible to see Schumi do one last full season alongside Alonso? Now that would be spectacular!

Squiffy.

This must be a joke

This posting must be a joke.

Oh, hang on, no it's reality.

Squiffy.

Cut the tax credits for the rich

Every morning I read blogs, and newspaper articles from across the political spectrum. I hope that it helps me to be politically informed. I tend to read broadsheets because they tend to have better thought out arguments against the reactionary ideas used in tabloids. So I very rarely read pages from the Daily Mail. I now know why.

This morning Dominic Sandbook makes the point that David Cameron is planning to make enemies of the middle classes by making them pay a lot more and take away their tax credits. How ridiculous. Anyone knows that the middle classes are the lifeblood of Tory sentiment.

Lets state firstly that Labour has through many many years of stealth piled tax upon tax on the middle classes. Some has been redistributed to the poor which is good thing, but a lot of it has gone on big Government schemes which tend to waste money and have very little to show for themselves. During that time the rich have got immesurably richer.

So when the Tories make it to number 10, the long term plan must and will be to bring the tax system to some kind of balance. It is the middle classes which generate the wealth in this country, and the over taxing of this section of society has led to a reduced tax take generally as many try to opt out of the Government's complicated regime. If there is only one lesson to learn from the 80's on tax, it is that the simpler and lower the taxes, the greater tax take.

David Cameron has, however, said that in Labour's debt crisis everyone will have to pay their fair share. Fair enough. I expect all taxes to rise, probably through increased VAT. I hate it, but I'll even accept a couple of pence on Income tax for a few years.

Taking away tax credits for those earning greater than £50,000 seems to be taxing Dominic's brain rather too much for he has forgotten the big question. Why on earth should anybody on £50K need tax credits. It is a sign that something has gone greatly wrong. It is symptomatic of the fact that the Government thinks that our money actually belongs to them so they can do with it what they will. We should not be taxed so highly that we have to be given handouts just so we can get by!

I expect David Cameron to start tackling these anomalies and to reduce the state's intervention in our bank accounts. I expect him to reduce taxes on jobs and reverse the planned NI raise, and later to reverse the 50% tax rate. The tax system needs to be simpler and through simplification I will then expect to see more money in the bank accounts of the middle classes and a widening of incentives to entrepreneurs.

When we have a balanced budget, lower and fairer taxes and good growth I will know that David Cameron has done the job that I will have asked of him. The years of Labour mismanagement will have rolled away and we can have bright future once again. Let's hear no more about David Cameron being a follower of Ted Heath!

Squiffy.

Get well Felipe

Yesterday I happened to be watching a rowing regata in Cambridgeshire and so I missed the Formula 1 qualifying live. It was only when I got home that my other half alerted me to Felipe Massa's injury at the Hungary GP. I then turned the PVR on to watch what happened.

The spring from the back of Barrichello's car hit Felipe's crash helmet when he encountered it four seconds after it fell off. In a freak accident which mirrored to some extent the Formula 2 tragedy of Henry Surtees the week before at Brands Hatch, who was hit by an errant wheel from a previous accident, it is to be expected to hear calls for more safety.

It's strange how these accidents seem to happen close to each other. Back in 1994 Ayrton Senna died two days after Roland Ratzenberger and Barrichello and had a big accident in between. Before then, there had been twelve years before the previous fatality in F1.

The key to Massa's survival was the introduction of carbon fibre helmets four years ago. Had they been around in 94 maybe Senna would also have been saved. As it is, those accidents 15 years ago encouraged greater safety for cars now meaning that Massa did not have leg injuries also.

It sounds like Felipe Massa is going to make a full recovery and is in good care. I really hope so. He has developed into a great driver, and was unbelievably magnanimous in losing the F1 championship last year. I hope that he can make it back into the car before the end of the year.

I think, however, that Alonso will be in the Ferrari for the next race in a month's time - especially now that Renault have been banned from Valencia. He may stay there for next year, but who will he replace - probably Raikonnen who seems to be more interested in rallying now.

Anyway, my thoughts go out to Felipe Massa, his family, and to Rob Smedley - his race engineer with whom he has formed a great bond.

Squiffy.