This morning The Times is speculating that there should be a push to oust the Prime Minister in the aftermath of the June 4th elections. Guido is reporting that Alan Johnson and David Miliband have campaign teams in place and Mike Smithson is reporting on 12 days remaining for the Premier.
This may all be speculation, but I tend to think that there's no smoke without fire and it looks like there have been some movements amongst the cabinet. If so, this is beginning to look terminal for Gordy.
What can he do? I'm sceptical that he'll be able to stop anything if the momentum starts, but I'm guessing that to stop the momentum before it starts he'll need big sackings after 4th June but before the European results come out on the 7th. Even then, it may not be enough and the likelihood is that there will be a cabinet rebellion.
If anything does happen, then I think there will be a Labour leadership campaign, and all candidates will have to promise an immediate general election - otherwise there would be a huge stink. Expect things to move very quickly and an election in September or October.
We're in for exciting times.
Squiffy.
Thursday 28 May 2009
Monday 25 May 2009
PR is not the solution
This morning's Times has an article by Alan Johnson on the need for Proportional Representation. Some are seeing this as an attempt by Johnson to line himself up for the leadership after the wipeout on 4th June, which it possibly is. As fascinating as that prospect is, the PR question is bigger in the long term.
The argument for 'fair votes' is a rallying cry for every small party in politics, and it's quite obvious why. The smaller parties would get a greater number of seats in parliament, for instance the Lib Dems would be looking at something like an extra 50 seats, parties like the Green Party and UKIP would probably get representation in parliament for the first time (I'm going to ignore Bob Spink - as most of us should). But this would also let the BNP get some MPs, not a prospect we should be welcoming!
There is an even bigger reason why the Lib Dems yearn for PR, which is why they make it a condition for an electoral pact, and that it because it would make them the permanent power brokers in this land. The Earl of Warwick in the Wars of the Roses was the most powerful of the political class in the 15th century, commanding a large army. Whomever he supported would be made King, hence it switched from King Henry VI to Edward IV, to Henry VI and finally back to Edward IV. The Lib Dems want that power now.
If you look at all the general elections of recent times, if elected by purely proportional means, no party would have formed a majority as no party would have over 50% of the votes. This would have meant that the Lib Dems would have been in Government for all that time, switching at their whim whichever larger party would be in Government. Probably, for most of the time, the Lib Dems would follow the prevailing wind and do what the people wanted, but there again maybe not. What if Nick Clegg had a close personal friendship with Gordon Brown, maybe he would not be able to breakaway from the coalition and we would be stuck with him for years.
It is such a scenario which means that I support First Past The Post (FPTP). Take those general election results again, I think that we got the decided verdict of the electorate in each case. In 1997, the Labour party thoroughly deserved their landslide, in a PR world they would have had to form a coalition! It would have been perverse.
Another reason against PR, is that the manifestos put forward at election time mean nothing once the the PR-based election bargaining starts when parties try to form coalitions. Policies are thrown out, watered down and neutered. Not what the public wanted at all. If there was real principle at all, they would form their pact first, thrash out a manifesto and put that to the public - and that could work in a FPTP world.
Of course, pure PR is not being considered by Alan Johnson, other forms such as the Single Transferable Vote and Alternative vote plus would maybe increase the number of possible majority Governments, but in many cases we won't. Although we're living with a ditherer now, we would have permanent dithering built into the electoral system.
Finally, now is not the time. Some people say it's the perfect time, but making major decisions on our democracy on the back of a crisis is wrong. We need time to consider, rushed legislation like the dangerous dogs act leads to bad legislation. And this Government has come up with some of worst legislation (not in intent, but unexpected consequences) of all time. So let's save this debate for a quieter time.
Squiffy.
The argument for 'fair votes' is a rallying cry for every small party in politics, and it's quite obvious why. The smaller parties would get a greater number of seats in parliament, for instance the Lib Dems would be looking at something like an extra 50 seats, parties like the Green Party and UKIP would probably get representation in parliament for the first time (I'm going to ignore Bob Spink - as most of us should). But this would also let the BNP get some MPs, not a prospect we should be welcoming!
There is an even bigger reason why the Lib Dems yearn for PR, which is why they make it a condition for an electoral pact, and that it because it would make them the permanent power brokers in this land. The Earl of Warwick in the Wars of the Roses was the most powerful of the political class in the 15th century, commanding a large army. Whomever he supported would be made King, hence it switched from King Henry VI to Edward IV, to Henry VI and finally back to Edward IV. The Lib Dems want that power now.
If you look at all the general elections of recent times, if elected by purely proportional means, no party would have formed a majority as no party would have over 50% of the votes. This would have meant that the Lib Dems would have been in Government for all that time, switching at their whim whichever larger party would be in Government. Probably, for most of the time, the Lib Dems would follow the prevailing wind and do what the people wanted, but there again maybe not. What if Nick Clegg had a close personal friendship with Gordon Brown, maybe he would not be able to breakaway from the coalition and we would be stuck with him for years.
It is such a scenario which means that I support First Past The Post (FPTP). Take those general election results again, I think that we got the decided verdict of the electorate in each case. In 1997, the Labour party thoroughly deserved their landslide, in a PR world they would have had to form a coalition! It would have been perverse.
Another reason against PR, is that the manifestos put forward at election time mean nothing once the the PR-based election bargaining starts when parties try to form coalitions. Policies are thrown out, watered down and neutered. Not what the public wanted at all. If there was real principle at all, they would form their pact first, thrash out a manifesto and put that to the public - and that could work in a FPTP world.
Of course, pure PR is not being considered by Alan Johnson, other forms such as the Single Transferable Vote and Alternative vote plus would maybe increase the number of possible majority Governments, but in many cases we won't. Although we're living with a ditherer now, we would have permanent dithering built into the electoral system.
Finally, now is not the time. Some people say it's the perfect time, but making major decisions on our democracy on the back of a crisis is wrong. We need time to consider, rushed legislation like the dangerous dogs act leads to bad legislation. And this Government has come up with some of worst legislation (not in intent, but unexpected consequences) of all time. So let's save this debate for a quieter time.
Squiffy.
The contrast between DC and GB
There are so many differences between David Cameron and Gordon Brown, but the left leaning journalist Jackie Ashley has written a fantastic piece about DC's handling of the expenses row, highlighting some more differences.
What made me think, was not that DC is fleet footed and is able to react quickly while GB has feet of clay and has a turning circle of a supertanker. I started thinking that Gordon Brown's famous dividing lines show that his primary motive for most of his decisions is to try to put the Tories on the wrong side of the argument. It's a negative trait.
Contrast that with the David Cameron's efforts, and you can see that he is trying to push the Tories forward by removing the dead wood, known as bed blockers. It's the continuing theme of his need to modernise the Tory party. It's a positive trait.
Whatever you think of David Cameron, he is playing a blinder. He is using the expenses row to modernise his party, and its been more beneficial to him than his own previous efforts. The contrast between the two "star chambers" is also telling, the Tories are submitting every MP to scrutiny, Labour are only doing it for those that are so obviously in the wrong. That's four so far. GB won't clear up the differences between Hazel Blears and Geoff Hoon's cases, but there again Geoff Hoon has not said "Youtube if you want to".
David Cameron looks more like a Prime Minister every day, where Gordon Brown looks like a politician from the last century.
Squiffy.
What made me think, was not that DC is fleet footed and is able to react quickly while GB has feet of clay and has a turning circle of a supertanker. I started thinking that Gordon Brown's famous dividing lines show that his primary motive for most of his decisions is to try to put the Tories on the wrong side of the argument. It's a negative trait.
Contrast that with the David Cameron's efforts, and you can see that he is trying to push the Tories forward by removing the dead wood, known as bed blockers. It's the continuing theme of his need to modernise the Tory party. It's a positive trait.
Whatever you think of David Cameron, he is playing a blinder. He is using the expenses row to modernise his party, and its been more beneficial to him than his own previous efforts. The contrast between the two "star chambers" is also telling, the Tories are submitting every MP to scrutiny, Labour are only doing it for those that are so obviously in the wrong. That's four so far. GB won't clear up the differences between Hazel Blears and Geoff Hoon's cases, but there again Geoff Hoon has not said "Youtube if you want to".
David Cameron looks more like a Prime Minister every day, where Gordon Brown looks like a politician from the last century.
Squiffy.
Saturday 23 May 2009
Bad tax
As an excuse for getting away from the expenses scandal I thought I'd report on a different Freedom of Information outcome.
The Professional Contractors Group made an FOI request on IR35 legislation. For those of you not in the know, IR35 was introduced in 2000, in order to retrieve more money off small companies - mainly single person companies - working is as contractors and consultants to other larger companies.
Operating as a consultant within your own company can have some tax benefits, as employees of the consulting company would take a reduced salary but larger dividends. The IR35 legislation was intended to change this tax status, so that the consultants would be deemed to be acting as employees of the larger company. In this case, the tax man would take an extra amount.
In many of the cases I've heard about, the actual tax paid by the small consulting company in corporation tax, income tax, national insurance and VAT was practically the same as permanent employees in the same industry.
Still the tax man has an army of investigators checking whether the consultants acted as employees so that they can take more money. The consultants have to employ accountants and lawyers to check through contracts, to make sure that they are worded correctly, and provide insurance against any tax claims. A whole industry has developed around the IR35 legislation, and thousands of people are used.
So after all this rigmarole, how much has the tax man taken in increased money? £9.2 million between 2002 and 2008 or roughly one million pounds a year. The Government had hoped to take £220 million in national insurance contributions alone. Out of 1468 investigations which the PGC were involved with, only 6 included extra money being paid to the Government.
What a waste of time and money, I would hazard a guess that the extra effort to pursue all these investigations has cost more than £1 million a year, so the whole exercise is counter-productive.
IR35 legislation, which has always open to obfuscation and confusion, should be withdrawn and I hope the Tories will do so when they get elected.
I can see the same effects happening if the 50% tax rate is applied. Tax laws need to be simpler and less open to avoidance. The tax take will actually go up, live long good tax, die a death bad tax.
Squiffy.
The Professional Contractors Group made an FOI request on IR35 legislation. For those of you not in the know, IR35 was introduced in 2000, in order to retrieve more money off small companies - mainly single person companies - working is as contractors and consultants to other larger companies.
Operating as a consultant within your own company can have some tax benefits, as employees of the consulting company would take a reduced salary but larger dividends. The IR35 legislation was intended to change this tax status, so that the consultants would be deemed to be acting as employees of the larger company. In this case, the tax man would take an extra amount.
In many of the cases I've heard about, the actual tax paid by the small consulting company in corporation tax, income tax, national insurance and VAT was practically the same as permanent employees in the same industry.
Still the tax man has an army of investigators checking whether the consultants acted as employees so that they can take more money. The consultants have to employ accountants and lawyers to check through contracts, to make sure that they are worded correctly, and provide insurance against any tax claims. A whole industry has developed around the IR35 legislation, and thousands of people are used.
So after all this rigmarole, how much has the tax man taken in increased money? £9.2 million between 2002 and 2008 or roughly one million pounds a year. The Government had hoped to take £220 million in national insurance contributions alone. Out of 1468 investigations which the PGC were involved with, only 6 included extra money being paid to the Government.
What a waste of time and money, I would hazard a guess that the extra effort to pursue all these investigations has cost more than £1 million a year, so the whole exercise is counter-productive.
IR35 legislation, which has always open to obfuscation and confusion, should be withdrawn and I hope the Tories will do so when they get elected.
I can see the same effects happening if the 50% tax rate is applied. Tax laws need to be simpler and less open to avoidance. The tax take will actually go up, live long good tax, die a death bad tax.
Squiffy.
Thursday 21 May 2009
Miss Speaker?
The news that Ann Widdecombe may be standing as the speaker is very interesting. She would command respect, and really knock heads together - which I think is what it needs. Unfortunately, she's already announced that she won't be standing in the next election, so it would be a temporary position, if only she won and then they found her another seat, maybe a safe Labour seat such as Glasgow North East. She'd be able to grab it, as the convention is that the seat becomes uncontested!
Unfortunately, it looks like she won't get it anyway. The contest is already becoming partisan but in a strange way. It looks like Labour are going to be voting for John Bercow, whom many Tories don't like, and the Tories will vote for Frank Field, whom the Labour party don't trust. Isn't that weird? It's like Gordon Brown's Christmas's have all come at once with dividing lines all over the place.
I think Frank Field would be a great speaker, but personally I want him to continue to have his say, as he's one of the only Labour politicians who gets so many issues. I also want him to cross the floor and take Kate Hoey with him.
Squiffy.
Unfortunately, it looks like she won't get it anyway. The contest is already becoming partisan but in a strange way. It looks like Labour are going to be voting for John Bercow, whom many Tories don't like, and the Tories will vote for Frank Field, whom the Labour party don't trust. Isn't that weird? It's like Gordon Brown's Christmas's have all come at once with dividing lines all over the place.
I think Frank Field would be a great speaker, but personally I want him to continue to have his say, as he's one of the only Labour politicians who gets so many issues. I also want him to cross the floor and take Kate Hoey with him.
Squiffy.
Tuesday 19 May 2009
Monday 18 May 2009
Abysmal. Speaker - stand down now.
That was the only word which could describe the performance of the speaker, Michael Martin today. Facing up to the biggest challenge of his political life, he failed completely.
After misreading the public mood, standing up for vested interests and being late to the apologizing party he has shown himself to be out of touch not only with the public but also with the members of the House.
Some say that this class warfare, it is not. Betty Boothroyd did not come from a privileged background and was highly respected. Others say that he did not write the expense forms with the MPs, but he did preside of the Fees office that paid out the money. It is about his competance, which has found to be severely lacking. The fact that he had to ask the clerk about what makes a substantive motion and how one gets placed, shows that he does not know his own brief.
He's out of his depth. He should resign.
Squiffy.
After misreading the public mood, standing up for vested interests and being late to the apologizing party he has shown himself to be out of touch not only with the public but also with the members of the House.
Some say that this class warfare, it is not. Betty Boothroyd did not come from a privileged background and was highly respected. Others say that he did not write the expense forms with the MPs, but he did preside of the Fees office that paid out the money. It is about his competance, which has found to be severely lacking. The fact that he had to ask the clerk about what makes a substantive motion and how one gets placed, shows that he does not know his own brief.
He's out of his depth. He should resign.
Squiffy.
Tuesday 12 May 2009
Wow. A politician who really gets it.
David Cameron has just announced his response to the expenses scandal. And I'm astounded, because he has gone further than I expected him to. It shows that he does get the anger we all feel. It's obvious that he feels it too.
Whilst the Labour front bench have uttered weasle words, DC has shown real leadership. Harriet Harman tried to get in on the act just before DC's announcement, but it was another half hearted attempt to be seen doing something.
I think David Cameron has played a blinder given how bad it was looking this morning. I tip my hat to him.
Squiffy.
Whilst the Labour front bench have uttered weasle words, DC has shown real leadership. Harriet Harman tried to get in on the act just before DC's announcement, but it was another half hearted attempt to be seen doing something.
I think David Cameron has played a blinder given how bad it was looking this morning. I tip my hat to him.
Squiffy.
Will David Cameron grab the bull by the horns?
After apologizing on Sunday, and reading the dreadful headlines in the Telegraph this morning, it looks like David Cameron is on the war path. And quite rightly.
It looks like there is a meeting of the Parliamentary Conservative Party at 2pm today, at which he will read the riot act. All MPs should pay back the excessive money they claimed, and if they cannot they should have the whip withdrawn. Dc should state that it is up to the constituency parties to decide whether to de-select their MPs.
If DC can show purpose this afternoon, I think it will reflect very well on him, against Gordon Brown's inaction. Again GB will be on the back foot, playing catch-up. Maybe a re-shuffle will come sooner than we think.
Squiffy.
It looks like there is a meeting of the Parliamentary Conservative Party at 2pm today, at which he will read the riot act. All MPs should pay back the excessive money they claimed, and if they cannot they should have the whip withdrawn. Dc should state that it is up to the constituency parties to decide whether to de-select their MPs.
If DC can show purpose this afternoon, I think it will reflect very well on him, against Gordon Brown's inaction. Again GB will be on the back foot, playing catch-up. Maybe a re-shuffle will come sooner than we think.
Squiffy.
Sunday 10 May 2009
What should David Cameron do about Tory expenses?
If the rumours are correct the spotlight will turn on the Tories tonight. So how should David Cameron handle it?
If I were him, I would be really tough with any discrepancies. For anyone who makes a small amount of money out of the system (such as Gordon Brown's cleaner cost) should be forced to pay the money back over the next few years. For any of the larger expenses claimed which cannot be justified, he should withdraw the whip.
From the Tory team, I don't want to hear "I adhered to the system". This line is making us all mad. I want the Tories to show that they understand the anger - even if it hurts them in the short term. This gets really difficult if DC himself has been found to have played the system.
I think that, after the purge, David Cameron should then take the role of Oliver Cromwell and demand the dissolution of this corrupt, self-serving parliament. He will have the vast majority of the public behind him on this. It will be a great line in next week's PMQs.
There will be some chewed fingernails in the Tory ranks tonight!
Squiffy.
If I were him, I would be really tough with any discrepancies. For anyone who makes a small amount of money out of the system (such as Gordon Brown's cleaner cost) should be forced to pay the money back over the next few years. For any of the larger expenses claimed which cannot be justified, he should withdraw the whip.
From the Tory team, I don't want to hear "I adhered to the system". This line is making us all mad. I want the Tories to show that they understand the anger - even if it hurts them in the short term. This gets really difficult if DC himself has been found to have played the system.
I think that, after the purge, David Cameron should then take the role of Oliver Cromwell and demand the dissolution of this corrupt, self-serving parliament. He will have the vast majority of the public behind him on this. It will be a great line in next week's PMQs.
There will be some chewed fingernails in the Tory ranks tonight!
Squiffy.
Margaret Moran: What a disgrace. Resign now!
I've just, this minute, watched Margaret Moran try to defend her usage of £22,500 to cure dry rot for her holiday home in Southampton, in neither her constituency or Westminster.
Her defence was that her partner lives there, and that she should have a family life. Yes, she should have a family life, but at our expense? If she is unable to have a family life in Luton then she is disrespecting her constituency. Why can't her partner, who works in the City, not live with her in Luton or London? He obviously doesn't want to be her that much. Thameslink has a quick direct link from Luton directly to the City. And, if he works in the City and she's an MP then surely they have enough income between them to pay for the dry rot treatment themselves.
An absolute disgrace. It's shoddy. She should hang her head. If she doesn't have the moral authority to resign now, then the members of Labour party in Luton South should de-select her now and she should be thrown out of the party.
Squiffy.
Her defence was that her partner lives there, and that she should have a family life. Yes, she should have a family life, but at our expense? If she is unable to have a family life in Luton then she is disrespecting her constituency. Why can't her partner, who works in the City, not live with her in Luton or London? He obviously doesn't want to be her that much. Thameslink has a quick direct link from Luton directly to the City. And, if he works in the City and she's an MP then surely they have enough income between them to pay for the dry rot treatment themselves.
An absolute disgrace. It's shoddy. She should hang her head. If she doesn't have the moral authority to resign now, then the members of Labour party in Luton South should de-select her now and she should be thrown out of the party.
Squiffy.
Friday 8 May 2009
Will election defeat mean another re-alignment of the left?
If the Tories win the next election, what will happen to the Labour party? After the last defeat in 1979, the Labour party marched leftwards and the right wing split off to form the SDP. Only when the Labour party ditched the left-wing ideology did it become electable again.
The Tories also had a similar problem in 1997, but the issue which split the party was Europe, not a whole left-right divide. This, they have largely patched up internally with the right winning out.
The newspapers are now beginning to outline a battle for Labour's soul, with an old
left-right divide emerging. The left in the form of Harriet Harman and Jon Cruddas and returning to old ways and seeing class war and equality as the way to fight. The right in form of Frank Field and Alan Milburn are looking at individual freedoms.
We'll only know which one will win after the next election. But will the other wing be content to be carried along? I don't think so. The left have been waiting for a resurgence for so long, and to go further to the right would not sit well. I don't think the right would go along with a left-wing bias either as they would know that it is electoral suicide.
Personally, I think that the party will head left with many members on the right heading towards the LibDems and some even crossing the floor directly to the Tories. In a short time, the LibDems could supplant Labour as the main opposition, and the country would head back to the Tory/Liberal battle lines drawn at the beginning of the last century. Maybe the 20th Century will be seen as an aberration from the norm.
Could be true?
Squiffy.
The Tories also had a similar problem in 1997, but the issue which split the party was Europe, not a whole left-right divide. This, they have largely patched up internally with the right winning out.
The newspapers are now beginning to outline a battle for Labour's soul, with an old
left-right divide emerging. The left in the form of Harriet Harman and Jon Cruddas and returning to old ways and seeing class war and equality as the way to fight. The right in form of Frank Field and Alan Milburn are looking at individual freedoms.
We'll only know which one will win after the next election. But will the other wing be content to be carried along? I don't think so. The left have been waiting for a resurgence for so long, and to go further to the right would not sit well. I don't think the right would go along with a left-wing bias either as they would know that it is electoral suicide.
Personally, I think that the party will head left with many members on the right heading towards the LibDems and some even crossing the floor directly to the Tories. In a short time, the LibDems could supplant Labour as the main opposition, and the country would head back to the Tory/Liberal battle lines drawn at the beginning of the last century. Maybe the 20th Century will be seen as an aberration from the norm.
Could be true?
Squiffy.
Is Blair to blame for the country's plight? And does he regret it?
It's very easy to blame Gordon Brown for the state the country in, and I do, nearly every day. But why is Gordon Brown Prime Minister in the first place? Tony Blair.
That may sound weird, given that they have been at loggerheads over the leadership of the Labour Party and country for the past 15 years. But look at it this way, after John Smith's death in 1994 the Labour Party needed a new leader. Gordon Brown presumed it should be him, but Tony Blair realized that he could get it and should go for it. After polls were taken of party members, it showed that Tony Blair would be extremely popular and would win. Gordon
Brown was way down, nearing the levels of Margaret Beckett.
It was at this time that the famous Granita dinner was held, and for Gordon Brown agreeing not run, he would be assured the Chancellorship with wide ranging powers, and (he thought) a deal was in place to step up to the premiership some time in the second term.
That dinner, in Islington, is the root of many things which have gone wrong. If GB had not been promised so much, TB would have had immense power. Freedom to deal with Gordon as and when he wanted to, without being gotten over a barrel. Many of the reforms he fought for would not have been watered down by GB. There would not have been a rival power base next door, as GB (without the promise of the premiership) would not have drawn as many people to his cause. GB could have been replaced as Chancellor with more ease. TB could have found other, more amenable, ministers to replace him at the appropriate time.
Unfortunately, the promises put GB in pole position and kept him there, running a rival operation which TB found hard to contend with. And now we find ourselves here, a bust economy and a PM who is a laughing stock, despised and misunderstood.
So why did Tony Blair promise Gordon Brown so much 15 years ago, we don't know. But probably because he was the younger, less experienced man who had also thought that GB would be the natural successor. Unfortunately, his lack of experience made him make a rash promise which I think will be his biggest ever regret. It could have all been so much different.
Squiffy.
That may sound weird, given that they have been at loggerheads over the leadership of the Labour Party and country for the past 15 years. But look at it this way, after John Smith's death in 1994 the Labour Party needed a new leader. Gordon Brown presumed it should be him, but Tony Blair realized that he could get it and should go for it. After polls were taken of party members, it showed that Tony Blair would be extremely popular and would win. Gordon
Brown was way down, nearing the levels of Margaret Beckett.
It was at this time that the famous Granita dinner was held, and for Gordon Brown agreeing not run, he would be assured the Chancellorship with wide ranging powers, and (he thought) a deal was in place to step up to the premiership some time in the second term.
That dinner, in Islington, is the root of many things which have gone wrong. If GB had not been promised so much, TB would have had immense power. Freedom to deal with Gordon as and when he wanted to, without being gotten over a barrel. Many of the reforms he fought for would not have been watered down by GB. There would not have been a rival power base next door, as GB (without the promise of the premiership) would not have drawn as many people to his cause. GB could have been replaced as Chancellor with more ease. TB could have found other, more amenable, ministers to replace him at the appropriate time.
Unfortunately, the promises put GB in pole position and kept him there, running a rival operation which TB found hard to contend with. And now we find ourselves here, a bust economy and a PM who is a laughing stock, despised and misunderstood.
So why did Tony Blair promise Gordon Brown so much 15 years ago, we don't know. But probably because he was the younger, less experienced man who had also thought that GB would be the natural successor. Unfortunately, his lack of experience made him make a rash promise which I think will be his biggest ever regret. It could have all been so much different.
Squiffy.
"I was sticking to the rules" is no defense
After the publication of MPs expenses in the Telegraph, I have heard members of the cabinet pop up in the media saying that they were sticking to the rules as they are now.
Do they really understand how this line of defense is angering the public? I don't think so.
If any of them had an inkling of the contempt in which they are held, they would hold their hands up and say:
"Sorry, it was wrong. Unfortunately, that was the culture endemic in the House of Commons, I should have been stronger to resist falling into trough, but I promise to work to pay back the public purse and will actively pursue better regulation of the system of expenses."
I don't believe in Harriet Harman's attack on Sir Fred Goodwin, when she said that he would be held to account in the court of public opinion, but if she does then she and her friends are in the dock and have been found guilty.
One of the more galling aspects of the controversy has been the notion of nominating which is the main residence and which is the second (publicly-funded) residence. And even worse, that this can be 'flipped' at any point during the year. This means that you furnish your second home in Fife, 'flip' your second home to be the one in London then furnish that with public money. When the TV blows up in Fife, 'flip' it again and buy a new TV on the public purse.
It's scandalous, and anyone should know that it's wrong. The PM, Chancellor and Geoff Hoon have been shown to pull this trick.
What is going on in the heads of these people? They have no shame.
Let's see what else crops up for the Tories and LibDems, but I'm expecting no better.
Squiffy.
Do they really understand how this line of defense is angering the public? I don't think so.
If any of them had an inkling of the contempt in which they are held, they would hold their hands up and say:
"Sorry, it was wrong. Unfortunately, that was the culture endemic in the House of Commons, I should have been stronger to resist falling into trough, but I promise to work to pay back the public purse and will actively pursue better regulation of the system of expenses."
I don't believe in Harriet Harman's attack on Sir Fred Goodwin, when she said that he would be held to account in the court of public opinion, but if she does then she and her friends are in the dock and have been found guilty.
One of the more galling aspects of the controversy has been the notion of nominating which is the main residence and which is the second (publicly-funded) residence. And even worse, that this can be 'flipped' at any point during the year. This means that you furnish your second home in Fife, 'flip' your second home to be the one in London then furnish that with public money. When the TV blows up in Fife, 'flip' it again and buy a new TV on the public purse.
It's scandalous, and anyone should know that it's wrong. The PM, Chancellor and Geoff Hoon have been shown to pull this trick.
What is going on in the heads of these people? They have no shame.
Let's see what else crops up for the Tories and LibDems, but I'm expecting no better.
Squiffy.
Sunday 3 May 2009
30 years ago today the people delivered us Mrs T
As we look upon an economic disaster, a Government close to collapse and an untried opposition leader it is easy to draw parallels between 1979 and 2009, and in many ways there are some obvious similarities. Of course, as always, the Labour Government has run out of money and it will fall to the Tories to bring order to the public finances.
30 years ago the country went to the polls, it wasn't absolutely clear the Tories would win but the indications were that Mrs T would make it through. For one, I am grateful to the electorate for delivering that Tory Government.
I was six years old in 1979 and so my memory of the time is not as clear as it could have been but I can see from my own experiences that living standards rose quite substantially. Being born to two parents employed in the public sector and the conventional wisdom that the Tories didn't believe in public services, you may expect that for me things would have got worse during the 80's. Far from it, out went the old 3rd hand car, in came the new one; out went the holidays in the caravan, in came the occasional holiday in Europe; out went the "steam powered TV", in came the Video and home computers. It wasn't all materialistic, but for a little boy things improved massively and I had a fantastic childhood.
When I read old political texts, and watch old documentaries, it's hard to equate the 70's language of an "Income's policy" and "In place of strife" with the current economic realities. Mrs T changed the economic landscape of Britain. No more beer and sandwiches at number 10, but a strategic plan to shift the economy from a command and control, union acquiesced model to an entrepreneurial, go getter system. Ridding us of trade union power and reforming the tax system were key to this.
Standing firm on the Falklands was a symbol that Great Britain would no longer roll over and allow us to be seen as a soft touch. We were put back on the map and allowed to be heard at the top table, as well as provide our obligation to the thousand or so people on those remote islands. Facing down the Soviet Union helped to lead Eastern Europe to freedom. Mrs T was instrumental in bringing about the Single European Act in 1986, the epitome of the original aims the EEC. Mrs T was a colossus on the world stage, no ridicule from a Polish PM for her.
Privatisation would not have passed through the spell checker without the Thatcher Government. British Telecom would be a basket case now, as would British Airways. Our rivers and beaches would still be sewage ridden without the investment provided by private money through Water privatisation. The country became richer, people were set free and failing institutions have stopped needing bail outs and provided vast tax sums to the exchequer. Only recently has nationalisation come back, through necessity, due to the lax regulation provided to the banking industry by the tripartite system.
I could go. She had the right ideas about Grant Maintained schools, and Trust hospitals, which having been abolished have been brought back again by this Government (what an expensive way to go full circle).
She did get many things wrong obviously. The Poll tax was one such failure, her aims were to get some proper democracy and ownership of local Government, but she forgot that many people who couldn't afford to pay were being asked to for the first time. Cabinet colleagues could not convince her that it was a bad idea and she ploughed on. By this stage of her premiership, she believed her own hype and showed the hubris that happens to all people who have been in power too long. Failing to listen to her colleagues was her downfall, any similarities to the present situation?
There were many sections of society left dispossessed by the 80s, and Mrs T did not provide enough focus on curing our social ills. She concentrated on the economy, it needed it, and some people fell by the wayside and so she will always be seen as divisive. It is something that David Cameron needs to consider when he forms the next Government.
For me, though, she did way more good than harm and I will always owe her my gratitude. Enjoy your anniversary Mrs T, we need you again!
Squiffy.
30 years ago the country went to the polls, it wasn't absolutely clear the Tories would win but the indications were that Mrs T would make it through. For one, I am grateful to the electorate for delivering that Tory Government.
I was six years old in 1979 and so my memory of the time is not as clear as it could have been but I can see from my own experiences that living standards rose quite substantially. Being born to two parents employed in the public sector and the conventional wisdom that the Tories didn't believe in public services, you may expect that for me things would have got worse during the 80's. Far from it, out went the old 3rd hand car, in came the new one; out went the holidays in the caravan, in came the occasional holiday in Europe; out went the "steam powered TV", in came the Video and home computers. It wasn't all materialistic, but for a little boy things improved massively and I had a fantastic childhood.
When I read old political texts, and watch old documentaries, it's hard to equate the 70's language of an "Income's policy" and "In place of strife" with the current economic realities. Mrs T changed the economic landscape of Britain. No more beer and sandwiches at number 10, but a strategic plan to shift the economy from a command and control, union acquiesced model to an entrepreneurial, go getter system. Ridding us of trade union power and reforming the tax system were key to this.
Standing firm on the Falklands was a symbol that Great Britain would no longer roll over and allow us to be seen as a soft touch. We were put back on the map and allowed to be heard at the top table, as well as provide our obligation to the thousand or so people on those remote islands. Facing down the Soviet Union helped to lead Eastern Europe to freedom. Mrs T was instrumental in bringing about the Single European Act in 1986, the epitome of the original aims the EEC. Mrs T was a colossus on the world stage, no ridicule from a Polish PM for her.
Privatisation would not have passed through the spell checker without the Thatcher Government. British Telecom would be a basket case now, as would British Airways. Our rivers and beaches would still be sewage ridden without the investment provided by private money through Water privatisation. The country became richer, people were set free and failing institutions have stopped needing bail outs and provided vast tax sums to the exchequer. Only recently has nationalisation come back, through necessity, due to the lax regulation provided to the banking industry by the tripartite system.
I could go. She had the right ideas about Grant Maintained schools, and Trust hospitals, which having been abolished have been brought back again by this Government (what an expensive way to go full circle).
She did get many things wrong obviously. The Poll tax was one such failure, her aims were to get some proper democracy and ownership of local Government, but she forgot that many people who couldn't afford to pay were being asked to for the first time. Cabinet colleagues could not convince her that it was a bad idea and she ploughed on. By this stage of her premiership, she believed her own hype and showed the hubris that happens to all people who have been in power too long. Failing to listen to her colleagues was her downfall, any similarities to the present situation?
There were many sections of society left dispossessed by the 80s, and Mrs T did not provide enough focus on curing our social ills. She concentrated on the economy, it needed it, and some people fell by the wayside and so she will always be seen as divisive. It is something that David Cameron needs to consider when he forms the next Government.
For me, though, she did way more good than harm and I will always owe her my gratitude. Enjoy your anniversary Mrs T, we need you again!
Squiffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
