Labour: A sorry excuse of a party

It's been several months since Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn and it looks like Labour has completely turned its back on being a sensible party of opposition, let alone Government.

Corbyn (& sidekick McDonnell) is a complete disaster zone. I give you:

• Failure to appoint a single woman to the top three jobs in the shadow cabinet
• Appointing John McDonnell as shadow chancellor
• Not singing the national anthem at the Battle of Britain service
• Not knowing whether to join the privy council
• The DJ phone-in at PMQs
• Appointing Seamus Milne as communications director
• Appointing Andrew Fisher who wanted people to vote for class war
• Lifting half his conference speech from a speechwriter who had sent the same speech to each leader since Keir Hardie (almost)
• Old footage of Corbyn saying the killing of Bin Laden was a tragedy
• Corbyn saying that British born IS fighters should be arrested rather than targeted in Syria
• Corbyn saying he would not use shoot-to-kill even after the Paris attacks
• Appointing Ken Livingstone as joint chair of the review into Trident
• Keeping Ken Livingstone as joint chair when Ken had insulted the mental faculties of a defence shadow spokesman who suffers from depression
• John McDonnell's citing Chairman Mao during the response to the Autumn statement
• Publishing a letter statement he would not agree to bombing Syria, whilst in a meeting with the PLP saying that they would take the weekend to consider the matter

I'm sure there's a few more...

I feel sorry for the moderates in Labour, they are watching their party being driven to the left, taken for a ride to obscurity, whilst being pummelled daily by the cyber-corbynites.

All the while the shadow cabinet cannot claim to have a policy. Any policy. Whatever. Would they have more or less borrowing? Are they in favour of Trident or not? Would they bomb Syria or not? These are really important issues and the party is a laughing stock with no particular position. 

It is embarrassing listening to their front bench spokesman trying to contort themselves through various positions. Even the shadow foreign spokesman says that he cannot speak for Corbyn! If he can't, then what is supposed to be collective responsibility?

It's a complete joke. A mess. A car-crash. 

From across the aisle of British politics, it's entertaining, but it means that the Government is not being held to account and that's bad for democracy.

Squiffy.  

Lewis Hamilton: Three times World Champion

Last weekend Lewis Hamilton got his dream come true: he matched Ayrton Senna's number of world championships. The race in Austin was the best of the year, and until the last few laps it looked like Lewis would have to wait another race to claim the championship.

Last year we watched Lewis mature, this year he is at the height of his powers. The only weakness he had last year was qualifying, and this year he has well and truly beaten Nico Rosberg, He is driving at his best and the results are showing it. Off track, he seems to be very happy too and a happy Lewis is a fast Lewis.

Nico Rosberg looks well and truly beaten. After Austin he had a face like a slapped arse. He was complaining about Lewis being aggressive into turn one. It was wet and Lewis got the better start to be alongside the pole sitter. When they came to brake they found it difficult to turn in and their wheels touched. It was fine and Nico needs to grow a pair.

In fact it is now apparent that Lewis is faster and a better racer. Nico will not be world champion in the same team as Lewis. Whether he comes to the same conclusion and settles into a number two role next year or, as I expect, make all the noises of coming back better and faster next year only to be blown away again is up to him.

What next for Lewis? It would be brilliant to have a real Lewis vs Seb Vettel battle next year but I wouldn't bet against a fourth world championship. He should be able to get close to Prost's win tally, and the Senna's pole tally. I think 5 world championships are in reach.

Well done Lewis.

Squiffy.

Viewing the F1 scene

We have 5 races to go until the end of the season, and it's time to look at how the season has been going and draw some conclusions.

The Mercedes team are still the class act with the fastest car. Lewis Hamilton is the master of all currently, with 11 pole positions and 8 wins. Nico Rosberg looks like a beaten man, whatever he throws at Lewis Hamilton the champ has an answer. They have dropped the ball three times. Monaco must have been awful for Lewis, to see his perfect weekend blown up by a bad call and the win gifted to his team-mate. In Hungary, Lewis had an off-day maybe triggered by the gathering before the race to celebrate the life of Jules Bianchi. Mercedes were off the pace in Singapore.

The Ferrari team have shown much improvement, with Vettel having three wins and a pole. It's good for F1 that the team are competitive and that they have a media friendly boss in Mauricio Arrivabene. I think it would have been better for Ferrari if they had let Kimi Raikkonen go, he's past his best and there needs to be some young blood.

Williams have disappointed this season. They're still good enough for third place but have not advanced since last year.

I've been impressed by Max Verstappen and Carlos Sainz. Both have been good racers and on certain weekends have shown good pace. Verstappen's pass on Nasr at Blanchimont, Spa, was amazing. He knows no fear - yet!

The Red Bull is a good chassis but the Renault engine has disappointed badly. How can the engine have got so worse since last year? It has been disappointing to see them bad-mouthing Renault after winning 4 championships with them. It's no surprise that Renault have decided to pull out from engine supply. It's also no surprise that Red Bull are finding it hard to get another supplier. If I was Christian Horner I would pay Ferrari for the design to their engine and get a third party involved to build engines and take it forward.

I really hope Renault buy out Lotus as the Enstone team deserve to be in F1 due to their heritage. I wish Renault would decide what they want to do with F1. They're in, they supply engines, they're out, then they're in and then back to supplying engines. Make your mind up.

And now to McLaren Honda. What a disaster. When the McLaren-Honda tie-up was announced everyone thought, wow the two powerhouses are getting back together, everyone hould look out. I wasn't convinced. This is Honda's fourth time in F1, and only their second venture as an engine supplier to Williams and McLaren was successful. At the end of that period they had been superceded by Renault. Their third coming was poor. McLaren isn't the power it used to be either. Their last constructor's championship would have been 2007 (apart from the spying scandal) and was 1998 before that.

The car is slow, the drivers de-motivated and cracks are appearing in the management structures. Honda has a policy of rotating technical staff into the F1 programme and then out into the road cars. They don't bring people in from outside. This time they have bitten more than they can chew and they need to eat some humble pie. It's such a shame.

The other teams have not really changed their positions or outlook.

As for F1 itself. The season has been more dull than last year with poor races, apart from Silverstone and Hungary. I quite like some of the suggestions to spice up the action. Wider cars, bigger tyres, more horsepower, bigger batteries, ground effects, reduce the number of planes on wings: all these things would improve the racing. A flatter payment system as described in earlier posts would also be a big help.

Now, only a few more weeks until we crown the 2015 champion.

Squiffy.

Just three weeks to go for Labour to regain sanity

September 12th is only just three weeks away. All the signs are that the Labour party is about to elect Jeremy Corbyn as its leader.

A few weeks ago I posted that the polls show Corbyn in the leader, but I didn't believe that the party would be stupid enough to go through with it. It now looks like I was wrong and Labour is in a kamikazi mood.

We now have to consider what would happen if he won. I previously pondered that he would step down immediately, now I don't think so and he will try to oppose. How that will be done though, I don't know. 

There are some challenges. Firstly, Corbyn has said that he will pick his own shadow cabinet after previously saying that he would bring back shadow cabinet elections. He actually gave his Labour opponents a good idea for ruining his leadership with his earlier plan. There may be movements to bring back shadow cabinet elections before the leader is announced on the 12th. If many moderates stand in this election and have to be appointed to the shadow cabinet they can make it pretty impossible for Corbyn to effectively oppose. There will be splits in the shadow cabinet on a daily basis.

Maybe Jeremy Corbyn will get to appoint his own people, but with so few supporters amongst his own MPs would he be able to fill enough posts? And will these people, who are a permanent awkward squad, be able to show loyalty to their leader? They've never been able to do it before!

Even if Corbyn gets a shadow cabinet, how on earth can he command a majority of his own MPs for the parliamentary votes. David Cameron and George Osborne will bring forward votes on lots of policies which moderate Labour MPs agree with. It will be like two cats playing with a mouse.

Let's say that the majority of moderates stay silent and go along with Corbyn's votes for the most part. What happens when the polls and elections show Corbyn to be a loser (as they surely will)? Will they still keep their counsel?

Meanwhile, and you can guarantee this, the Tories will bring up every past dubious association that Corbyn has shown in the past 30 years. We've had a taster the last few weeks with some stories of dubious appearances to some extremists, I'm pretty sure that it's the tip of the iceberg.

Also, there's been some fleeting shows of Corbyn's hot temper. Given some tough questioning by our more difficult interviewers it's clear that he will lose his rag. How will this come across?

There are also questions about what the other moderates will do? Will there be a split? Probably not. They will easily be able to get enough signatures to trigger a new election, but will they want to against a big democratic mandate for Corbyn? Will they stay to agitate while waiting for Corbyn to crash and burn?

This is definitely the most interesting period of politics for the last thirty years, and I haven't even starting talking about Corbyn's crackpot policies. Let's tackle them if and when he becomes leader.

It's so gripping.

Squiffy.

Labour pains

It's been an interesting few weeks for the Labour party.

The Chancellor, George Osborne, created a situation where Labour had to decide whether to vote for or against the Welfare Bill. Harriet Harman thought it a good idea to back certain aspects of the bill, including the controversial proposal to limit child tax credit to two children for new applicants. This had the leadership contenders in a tizzy, and a quick backtrack.

Both Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper called it a mess, and it was.

In hustings up and down the country Jeremy Corbyn has been doing well, and Liz Kendall has been received poorly. This bodes ill for the party.

Then there was the YouGov poll which showed that Corbyn could win the first round, and then the overall contest after second preferences are counted for. This really has set the cat amongst the pigeons.

When Corbyn gained enough MPs to enter the race it was so that a debate could happen, he wasn't meant to win!

Tony Blair made a speech telling Labour that it has re-learnt how to lose. It's funny how the Tories revere their most recent serial election winner, Mrs Thatcher, where Labour revile their most successful leader ever. And so his words will fall on deaf ears.

It seems crazy that Labour may elect Mr Corbyn, but it is under a new leadership election system with new members for only £3. Liz Kendall is the only realistic prospect for election victory but she is last at the moment. Labour really don't want to win.

If I was going to compare it with the Tories, this is the 2001 when Iain Duncan-Smith was elected, but Corbyn is even further from the mainstream.

The party is beginning to lose its mind. What will happen if Mr Corbyn does win? Maybe he will step aside. I can't imagine many of the current crop of shadow ministers serving under Mr Corbyn, and so we may get a shadow cabinet of lefties and misfits! Fascinating.

Maybe there will be split.

There is much more to come in this story.

Squiffy.

Greece: Crunch day

The whole Greek Euro crisis has felt like Groundhog day. How many times have we been told that it is crunch time and that there is a firm deadline only for there to be an extension? We were told there was a deadline two weeks ago when Alexis Tsipras announced a referendum for last Sunday, delaying a decision by a week. We then had the referendum which led to new talks. Today is supposed to be the new deadline...

Somehow, this time, it does feel like decision day but maybe it will be another false dawn. 20th July, is though, coming up fast and that is when £3Bn has to be paid back to the ECB. Maybe that will be the new deadline after today.

Anyway, it's been fascinating to watch. I was surprised that the Greek public voted quite so comprehensively against the last bail-out. I'm pretty sure they would be disappointed that the deal proposed by the Greek Government for this weekend is even tougher on Greece than the deal the public rejected last week. All the tactics deployed by the Greek Government over the last few weeks, with speeches denouncing the creditors as blackmailers wanting humiliation for Greece, have led then rest of the EU to be distrustful of the Greek Government, and that is coming across in talks today.

Will there be a deal? I hope not. I know that a Grexit will be incredibly painful for the Greek population, but I think will lead to a real improvement in a couple of years time whereas I think a deal will still be difficult and lead us back to here in three years time. Greece will be in pain in perpetuity until they exit.

I still think, though, that there will be some kind of dodgy deal knocked up. Let us remember that this deal would not be to prop up Greece, but to prop up the Euro.

The Euro has been an unmitigated disaster for many countries. I remember texting into Question Time at the turn of the century when the question of whether we should join the Euro cropped up. Some panellists were saying how the Euro was proving to be successful. My comment was let's see in 10 years, when we see it have to deal with a recession. We've now seen how it has coped. Abysmally. The Euro has been in crisis for half its lifetime.

The implicit contradictions built into the project have been exposed and at some point will have to be tackled. But EuroZone leaders want to bury their heads in the sand, which is why they're still pushing for a deal!

Meanwhile, the Greek banks are slowly becoming insolvent. I'm not sure they can survive another week dishing out 60 Euro notes each day to the population. When the first bank goes down, the others will quickly follow suit.

The End Game could come quickly.... or not!

Today may well be decisive.

Squiffy.

Labour: The debate....

I've heard countless Labour commentators and politicians talking about how they wish Labour could have a real debate about why they lost before embarking upon a leadership contest.

I'm interested to know how such a debate could take place. Would there be a meeting? Would it be through endless articles in the press? Would it be through focus groups? Who says when the debate ends? Who says what the results of the debate are? Is this the point at which a leadership election happens? What happens if the results of the leadership election is at odds with the results of the 'debate'.

I think it's all fatuous. These 'let's have a debate' ideas don't really add up to much.

The good idea of a leadership election is for the contenders to put their cases forward. If they cannot persuade their colleagues, then how are they expected to convince the voters? The party has to be able to believe in the leader and their position and direction. In essence the leadership vote is the debate. The MPs have to work out whether they want to keep to ideological positions or whether they want to win, and the result of the leadership vote indicates where the party is.

It was only when the Tories elected David Cameron that we knew they were serious about being a party of the centre and ready to win. His election was the manifestation of the debate within the Tory party.

Now where I do agree with the commentators is for the delay before embarking on the leadership vote. Harriet Harman should have put the leadership contenders in significant positions on the front bench to challenge the Tories. This is what Michael Howard did after he lost in 2005. It would be even useful to let them all have a go at PMQs. That's not what happened, and Liz Kendall is still Andy Burnham's number two at Shadow Health.

I think Labour are like the Tories circa 2003 rather than 2005 and I think they will need another attempt to get it right.

Squiffy.




 

Serial: Real Murder

This is an aside from my usual blogs about politics and F1, but about something that has gripped me over the last year.

Anybody who watches Inspector Morse, Lewis, Midsummer Murders et al but would like to get into the nitty gritty of a real life case should listen to the 'Serial' podcasts.

They are from America (but hopefully that won't put you off) about a murder case in Baltimore from 1999. The podcasts talk you through the case of the murder of college girl, Hae Min Lee, a girl who went missing after school and turned up 28 days later in Leakin Park in the city.

At that point the police arrested her ex-boyfriend, Adnan Syed for her murder on some pretty flimsy evidence and the say so of his friend Jay, who claims to have helped Adnan dispose of the body.

Why is it so gripping? This is real life. Adnan Syed is still in jail serving his life sentence for Hae's murder. During the podcasts you get to hear from Adnan himself, snippets from the court cases, and also from police interviews. You are able to draw a few conclusions but there are discrepancies on both the prosecution and defence cases. But there is something about the way the narrative is told by Sarah Koenig, the investigative journalist, that draws you in.

I was around 65% certain that there had been a miscarriage of justice by the end of the series.

Why am I talking abut this when Serial finished last year? Because there is a second set of podcasts called 'Undisclosed' based on the same case by 3 lawyers who forensically go through the evidence, timing and testimonies and tear the case apart. The podcasts are being released once every two weeks, with a follow-up in the interleaved weeks.

So far I'm even more convinced of Adnan's innocence.

You have to listen and really concentrate to take it all in but it is absolutely gripping and I can't recommend it highly enough.

Here's a link to the original Serial, and the lawyers views appear in Undisclosed.

Squiffy

Last thought on the election. The Losers: The Pollsters

The final losers I have to call out for the election are the pollsters. For month after month they were telling us that Labour and the Tories were neck and neck. We now know that this was baloney.

There have been plenty of reasons that pollsters have put forward for the discrepancy:

1. The shy Tory - those that refuse to admit they vote Tory
2. The lazy Labour - those Labour people who can't be bothered to vote
3. The late swing - a last minute change of heart
4. The non-representative sample - that pollsters tend to sample people who give them time (and there are more Tory professionals who don't have time to do polls)

The fact is that ever since 1992 the Tories have always been understated by roughly 3%, and Labour have been overstated in every general election by 2% apart from 2010. If you factor that into the poll figures then we get roughly near the final result. For that reason I think I'm more inclined to believe that the fourth explanation is closer to the truth and its a systemic problem.

Until the pollsters are proved to a general election spot on I'm going to be mentally adding 3% to the Tories and taking 2% off Labour in every poll. I suggest you do too.

Squiffy.

More thoughts on the election. The Losers: Labour

This election was the worst result for Labour from 1983. Against a Government that had to make the largest cuts for decades Labour actually lost seats to the SNP and Tories. They barely increased the vote from 2010.

Two major factors contributed to this loss. Labour were never able to gain respectability on the economy, during the Labour Leadership contest the Tories had framed Labour for the recession and throughout the last four years Labour have been blamed for the cuts more than the coalition. Additionally, Ed Miliband had major problems convincing the country that he was Prime Ministerial. Something never quite clicked for him and I think it may have been because he seemed lke he was playing student politics. Never has a party been elected when losing on the economy and leadership.

The Labour offer was to appeal to the worst off in society with some retail populist offers, but against this backdrop was a message which came through to the masses that the party was anti-aspiration, anti-business and anti-success. It was like looking back at the 1970s, and for anyone with an interest in economics it was clear that the policies were backward looking answers to modern problems.

Finally hitting Labour was the SNP rampage. Years and years of taking their back yard for granted came back to haunt them as they ended up with the same number of seats as the Tories - 1! This was a major problem in the arithmetic and everyone knew that the only way Labour would be in power would be by an accommodation with the SNP, even if it was only to not vote down a Queen's speech. The Tories were able to lodge this in the public's mind and it must have pulled back quite a few votes from UKIP and the Lib Dems.

The party now has launched into a leadership election, while the Tories make hay with the 'Northern Powerhouse' (trying to take even more votes from Labour). Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Chuka Ummuna, Liz Kendall and Mary Creagh have entered the race. My tip is on Liz Kendell so far, but it's early days.

The task ahead of the party is now momentous. A swing of 8% is going to be needed. They are going to make serious inroads back into Scotland, and the South of England while watching a rearguard action against UKIP in the North. To say that this is like 3D chess is to understate the probelm, do Labour tack, left, right or stay where they are. In fact they just need to be in the centre with an aspirational leader. Tony Blair was able to unite all these parts of the electorate.

I'm not sure whether it will happen in the next 5 years. The Tories seem to have a plan.

And just as a thought, maybe the first elected female Labour Leader will be great or maybe like Rebecca Front's character in The Thick of It.

One more thought, if both leader and deputy leader are elected at the same time and they have a new rule saying that they have to be of opposite sex, what happens if men are elected to both posts, or women? Which one has to step aside and would the elected person feel illegitimate?

Squiffy.

More thoughts on the election. The losers: Lib Dems

This was a massacre, from 57 seats to 8. I thought they would have at least 25 due to their amazing facility to bed down in a seat and then hold it. It appears that the tide was just too strong this time.

The factors affecting this are threefold:

• The Lib Dems were the protest vote against Government and Opposition. By being a part of the Government they lost this caché.
• The left leaning Lib Dems could not forgive them for going into Government and 'propping up' the Tories.
• The tuition fees pledge and then reversal in coalition.

I think the Lib Dems were brave to enter the coalition knowing that it would be bad for them in the long run, but they had made a naive mistake to be photographed with pledge cards saying they will kill tuition fees. When their only realistic hope for power was in a coalition with two parties pledging to keep or increase tuition fees this was always going to be a disaster.

It was also naive of Lib Dem voters to believe that the only option for the Lib Dems would be a coalition with Labour, in fact if all the people who voted Lib Dem and then got annoyed that they didn't go with Labour should have gone Labour in the first place! What were they actually hoping to achieve? The Lib Dems had always said they would go with the party that had the most votes or seats.

In Government the Lib Dems seemed to start well, but then became obsessed by announcing what they were stopping. It's not really a positive message is it? They then started to dis the government of which they were a part! Finally they started to disclose what had been discussed with their coalition parties - not entirely trustworthy.

For the future it could take a long time for the Lib Dems to become relevant again. They do have to decide what the future direction of the party is though? Are they going to be a true Liberal party or the traditional Social Democrat party? It's no good having no principles but just being equi-distant between the two main parties. Judging by the two main candidates for the leadership it looks like the Lib Dems will head left - but how far? Tim Farron could move it further than the new Labour leader, who knows?

For now though, I think we should just all look away.

Squiffy.

More thoughts about the election. The Losers: UKIP

UKIP needed to keep their two seats and maybe add another 3 to 4 to keep momentum. The fact that they lost one to only keep the Clacton seat, based on Douglas Carswell's personal appeal, is very disappointing for them.

They had a bad campaign and weren't able to appear as the insurgent when the SNP were rampant. Maybe, even at times, were slightly irrelevant. Against the threat of a Labour/SNP coalition the Tory message that a vote for UKIP was a vote for Labour was quite effective. I'm pretty sure that Nigel Farage's movement in the latter days of the campaign to support the Tory party in seats where UKIP could not win may have alienated some supported.

It is significant that UKIP made good strides up north to be second to Labour, more so than down south even.

Now that there will definitely be an EU referendum though, what is the purpose of UKIP?

IT has a confusing position of being right wing on EU and immigration and left wing on benefits  and NHS. You can see that this is positioned for the working class, but is it sustainable? Only targeting one section of society means that you have a ceiling to your support and cannot ever break out.

If it had a more consistent position then they would have a coherent set of beliefs and could cut across different sections - but probably would still hit a ceiling but would make a natural ally to one of the main parties in a coalition position.

Maybe a true libertarian party - the type that Douglas Carswell wants - would appeal?

The problem with UKIP is they have allowed themselves to be portrayed as racists. Stupid comments from too many people make them sound as bigots. Also from the leadership, when accusing traffic jams on the M4 on immigrants. It sounds like they have one xenophobic message. They need to stop that.

I think Nigel Farage has taken them so far, but he alienates as much as he attracts. Should he continue then they will stay where they are. If he is replaced it could go either way, someone who ditches the immigration rhetoric may take them somewhere better, otherwise they may just start to disappear.

I suspect that UKIP will start to dissipate as a force and people will trickle back to their traditional homes.

Squiffy.

More thoughts about the election. The Winners: SNP

There is no doubt that this election was a game changer in Scottish politics. Labour have been practically wiped out in their stronghold. Down to 1 seat only - the same as the Tories.

The SNP won 56 seats - practically all. Something strange has happened across the border since the referendum. The party which lost is riding the crest of a wave. I can't claim to understand why this is happening suffice to say that it is clear that Labour rested on its laurels and took their voters for granted.

This is the high point for the SNP, it cannot get better than this (except for independence). It is now going to be a question of how Nicola Sturgeon plays it. She's canny and will extract as many powers as possible, but David Cameron needs to move to full fiscal autonomy. Give them the noose to hand themselves.

The SNP needs to be responsible for raising funds and then how to spend it. The extra spending that they want should happen with a much reduced Barnett formula. When the SNP have run out of money, like all socialists do, it will be time for the Scottish Tories to strike - this is the only way for the Tories to come back in Scotland.

The SNP cannot play the independence referendum again too soon otherwise they will lose support, especially among their new voters.

Squiffy.

More thoughts about the election. The Winners: Tories

For the Tories, yesterday was beyond their wildest dreams. Although they all said that they were working for a majority I doubt that many really believed they could achieve it. They knew that the story on the ground was better than the polls suggested but still I'm pretty sure that they knew a coalition or minority government were the likelihood.

It was becoming a modern theory that the Tories were not able to get a majority any longer. The split on the right with UKIP was going to make it impossible. With UKIP not performing as well as thought against Tories that has shown not to be the case. It was also said that it would be impossible for a government to gain seats, again that is bunkum, though it is the first time that it has happened since 1983. Also the Tories increased their vote share by 1%.

Now, to look at the new Government.

The overriding priority is to get the deficit down without risking the economy. I think it can be done. It will be interesting to see which Welfare reductions they will make. They have closed off some avenues, so room is limited, but I think they should not touch disability benefit. They may need to make even more difficult for those on jobseekers allowance, as this will be a good narrative to get them back into work. They have to not look heartless, and stop the LibDems from saying that it was only them that cared in the last government. I would also keep Iain Duncan Smith in place to let him finish what he started.

The biggest issue dominating the start of this parliament will be the referendum. To keep his party on side David Cameron has to be better at listening to party, especially in this area. While the number of Europhiles is limited, the degree of Euroscepticism ranges from those who want out no matter what, to those who genuinely want a renegotiation. David Cameron needs to ask his party what they would settle for before starting the negotiation, for if he came back with some little changes there will definitely be a split. I think he will need to bring back quite a lot of the political unionism, just short of associate status. The British public want the common market not much more. I would ask David Davis to be used as a bridge to the backbenchers.

For other departments I would like to see Michael Gove back at Education. The reforms must not be diluted and he needs to push forward even more. Jeremy Hunt has done a good job at Health but I'd also bring in Sarah Wollaston as a minister. I'd like to see Priti Patel as Chief Sec to the Treasury.

What to do with Boris? Nothing until he ceases to be Mayor.

The one thing that David Cameron is weak at is party management. With a small majority this is going to be key in getting legislation through. He needs a great Chief Whip - maybe Andrew Mitchell can be brought back.

Other stars deserving a big break are Penny Mordaunt, Charlotte Leslie and Anna Soubry - all women!

There will at some point need to be a decision about David Cameron's future. He can stay as PM, but maybe nearer the end of the Parliament he will need to pass over leadership of the Tory Party to someone else for the next election!

It's going to be fascinating watching. I will give more thoughts over the next few days.

Squiffy.

Election aftermath. Carnage for Labour and Lib Dems. Good for Tories and SNP.

So that was a bit of a surprise wasn't it?

When the exit poll came out I thought, well that's wonderful but obviously wrong. As the first seats began to come in, and then Nuneaton I started to believe it, and also to believe that it may have understated the Tories position and maybe, just maybe, the Tories could be on for a majority.

And that is where we are. The exit poll was broadly correct. The Tories are in Government with a majority of 12.

Ed Miliband has gone, deservedly so. From the very beginning he did not have any economic credibility, and he didn't gain any. To refuse to accept that Labour had overspent was a mistake. To bring back 1970's devices such as rent controls and energy price freezes was a mistake. Although the loud people on question time find them popular, the majority of voters see them for the populist but bad measures they are.

I was quite glad to see Ed Balls go as it means Labour can move on from the Gordon Brown days now. It now needs to regain some kind of 'new Labour' South facing policies in order to win. If I were a member, I'd be voting for Chukka Ummuna for the next leader, but maybe he would be unacceptable to the Northern Labour set.

It was quite telling that the Tories made 3 gains in Wales. Another Labour heartland where they weren't able to make a big advance.

For Lib Dems it was even worse. They lost 86% of their seats! Good MPs such as Lynne Featherstone, Jo Swinson, Steve Webb and David Laws have gone. I will shed no tear for Vince Cable though as I found him to be duplicitous in the extreme and I lost all respect for him. Nick Clegg has resigned and the alternative is now down to Norman Lamb and Tim Farron. They're pretty much an irrelevance as of now. No women MPs at all.

For UKIP, they held on in Clacton and that's it. No real advance in seats, 2nd in some seats but with Nigel Farage resigning can they build on it. I expect them to gradually disappear. The referendum in 2017 will make them a complete irrelevance.

There was no advance for the Greens too.

David Cameron can now govern and show us his real self, but with a small majority I expect that party management can become a major issue over this parliament. David Cameron needs to get much better at this.

Scotland now has 1 Labour, 1 Tory and 1 Lib Dem MPs. I expect no Labour person to be throwing the jibe that there are more Pandas in Edinburgh zoo than Tory MPs. The Unionist representatives from Scotland can now travel to Westminster in a Robin Reliant. SNP have reached their high point. David Cameron needs to look to a full Federal system to keep Scotland in the Union. The existing solution and even English Votes are not good enough.

And Boris is back.

Squiffy.

Election Night Live Blog 2015

Here's my blog for tonight, it will start well, and then as the wine goes down it will get slurrrrryyyy....

Live Blog Election Night Live Blog 2015

 

I have a bad feeling about this

It's election day. I have always thought that the good people of Britain would do the right thing and re-elect either a Tory majority or Tory/Lib-Dem coalition. I thought that Miliband had shown just too much old socialism to keep the electorate from voting from him.

Now, I'm nervous.

The polls have been stubborn, and if anything the last day or so has shown an uptick for Labour, and given a sunny day maybe it's enough to propel Ed Miliband over the line (with SNP underwriting support). We may be just about to have the most left wing Government since 1974.

That makes me very nervous.

It's the polls versus the betting tonight. Most betting sites have the Tories ahead, but the polling is level pegging.

I wonder what the exit polls will say. Will it be accurate like it has been in every election since 1997, or will it be like 1992 when they got it quite wrong.

Anyway, it's going to be a long night. Join me in an hour and a half for a live blog.

Squiffy.

You can't buck the market: One week to go

Just over a week from now the polls will open in the closest election in decades. It's still not clear if any one party will come out on top. My hunch is that there will be a late swing to the Tories. Apparently 10% of all voters are still undecided and tend to split 2 to 1 in favour of the incumbent. I also think that some UKIPers will swing back to the Tories to deny a Labour/SNP tie up.

We shall see.

I do want to reiterate a point, which I think I've made before, but it's such an important point that it's worth reminding ourselves.

You can't buck the market! It's so old, but still so true! Now, I don't mean this in the way that markets should be let rip, no, there needs to be sensible controls. It's why we have the Monopolies and Merger Commission to make sure that no one company buys out all its competitors to form a monopoly, and why the privatised industries have regulators.

But the Labour Party under Ed Miliband, is falling into some bad 70's style policies. Price freezes, rent controls and compulsory land purchases are some examples of how the Labour leader wants to change our economy. We already know that if we had frozen the energy prices two years ago, when the policy was first raised, we would not have benefitted from recent wholesale oil price falls. It is fine for a company to voluntarily decide to offer price freezes, that is part of competition, and they will factor it into their plans.

For a Government to do it across the whole market means that prices will start to become perverse. Companies would inflate their prices ahead of the price freeze coming in, just to factor in wholesale oil price rises - just in case and the likelihood is that we'd all lose money. Think if you were thinking of selling your house in a rising housing market, knowing that in a week a price freeze will come in. You may know that the house is worth £300,000 today, but you'd put it on the market for £320,000 because in a few months time it will likely be that price.

The same is true for increases in rental values. I've rented, and I also own a property which I rent out. I've never increased the monthly rent, but if I knew I wouldn't be able to I'd probably set a slightly higher rent at the beginning of the tenancy - just in case. Again, this is not particularly want the tenants would want! Recently, I've had to have a legionnaire's disease report done on the property and some remedial action taken. The same is true for all buy to lets due to some new (probably EU) regulations. It's a pain, and with new regulations from a new Government I might just decide to pack it in. That would take the property off the rental market, reduce supply, increase demand, and push up prices. Again, not what the tenants would want.

Every economist knows that rental controls don't work and have precisely the opposite effects of desired results. If you don't believe me, just read Paul Krugman's (the left's most famous living economist) article here. Apparently it's text book economics on how supply and demand works - funny how the two Ed's have missed it.

This all adds up to a complete lack of understanding of how markets work and is profoundly disturbing from someone who used to work in the Treasury. It's college politics - popular but disastrous. Venezuela is an example of the perverse effects of price controls taken to extremes, shortages, queues and high prices. A little tale comes our way of Ed Miliband asking a FTSE-100 CEO why the company had to pay dividends! Again, very disturbing from someone who wants to be First Lord of the Treasury. I hope the CEO shouted at the prospective PM - "it's how we pay a share of our profits to our owners - you first class idiot".

We cannot let the two Eds run free over our economy and ruin it with schoolboy practices - we've matured beyond that.

Let's hope they don't get a chance.

Squiffy.

The puzzling polls

The opinion polls have been fixed on a tie for both main parties for a few months now. Both Labour and the Tories are stuck on a range of 31 to 35%. It's quite puzzling that nothing is moving the polls. Debates, manifestos, policies. Nothing has changed a thing.

As someone of the right, I also find it disturbing that anyone can think of voting for Ed Miliband and his naive policies which would wreck the economy in slow chunks.

But there have been a few chinks of light in the polls to give us some direction. The polling outliers, which we nearly always discount, show that when UKIP goes down, the Tories go up, and vice versa. I believe this is what the Tory election machine sees too. They are throwing everything at the Labour/SNP possible government in the hope that it will influence the UKIP waverers into going back to the Tories.

There's anecdotal evidence that this is beginning to cut through. No matter what Labour say, the SNP is their only way of getting back into Government and electorate knows it.

All the campaigns have been a bit weak so far, and I don't believe the electorate believes much of what they are told. They also know that the manifestos are only wish lists now, and not a promise. The surprise though is just how weak UKIP are performing. We expected Nigel Farage to steal the thunder of this election, but it's actually Nicola Sturgeon who is performing this role.


The questions I want answering now are:

- Are the Tories promising to build one house for every one they sell in rent-to-buy, or is it just a hope? What happened to the garden cities?

- What will be the level of Labour deficit at the end of 5 years?

- How does Labour know exactly how much the mansion tax will raise, but not what level they will set the tax at or any details?

- Which programmes are Labour going to ditch following their zero-based review?

- Do the Tories have any plans for Education at all?

- Where is Boris?

- If UKIP has the EU referendum and the electorate chooses to stay in, what happens to the rest of their manifesto? Is it just trash?

- What planet are the Greens on?

- When Labour says that they will do cuts, is there anything above piddling millions to contribute to the deficit reduction? And they say growth will help, do they expect higher or lower growth than current plans given their increased tax programme?

- Will the Tories make English Votes for English Laws a red line?


I know, just like Andrew Neil, that I wouldn't get any answers to these questions - but you can always hope for clarity!


Anyway, we are going to have another 2 weeks of this....

Squiffy.

Lewis Hamilton has the beating of Nico Rosberg

After four races it's now Hamilton 4 - Rosberg 0 in Qualifying and Hamilton 4 - Rosberg in races. I think it's fair to say that Hamilton now has whip hand at Mercedes. Rosberg is looking more and more like a good number 2. Maybe his best chance to be World Champion has already passed.

Now Lewis Hamilton can focus on being a triple World Champion.

Squiffy.

Anti-business, anti-aspiration, anti-Britain: Ed Miliband's your man

The opening weeks of the election campaign have confirmed one thing. Ed Miliband hates success.

If you want to be successful, don't try to do it in Britain.

The Labour party has announced in the last few months that they would introduce:

• the 50% upper band for anyone earning over £150,000 per annum
• a 'mansion' tax on any properties worth over £2 million
• reduction of tax allowances on pension pots
• 'abolition' of non-dom status for people non resident in the UK
• an increase of 1% in corporation tax

At each point, when the policies have been argued, the Labour party representative has argues that they wouldn't expect it to change any behaviour and so not have a detrimental effect on our economy. But taken together the above policies represent a comprehensive attack on any kind of aspiration, business or successful person. 

We know that tax changes behaviour. Otherwise why put tax on alcohol, cigarettes and fuel? The Labour party policies will deter many people from investing in Britain, living here or setting up successful businesses. The message is clear: Ed Miliband prefers the politics of student bar envy to a entrepreneurial economy creating jobs, employing thousands, paying wages and creating a wider tax base. He would prefer to take money from the well off rather than increase the tax take.

Ed Miliband laughs in the face of Arthur Laffer and his curve!

My worry is that people will fall for it. It all sounds so nice to put the 'burden on those with the widest shoulders'. In 2006 the top 1% paid 24% of the UK income tax take, last year that had increased to 27%. I want to know at what point have the rich paid their fair share? 30%, 35%, 40%? 

How much longer can we continue to soak the rich before they take their pots of money away and the burden then falls on the poor? How much longer will the golden goose lay its eggs? Not much longer if the leader of the Labour party has its way. 

Let's hope that the people of Britain see sense.

Squiffy.

P.S. on another note - I hear Ed Miliband is as decisive as Gordon Brown. Oh God, don't take me back to 2007-2009!

Blog of 7 way leader's debate

Here's my blog for tonight:

Live Blog Leaders Debate - 7 way

 

Leaders Debate: Cameron vs Miliband part 1

Here's a live blog:

Live Blog Leaders Debate 1

 

F1 testing roundup

The 2015 winter season has ended, it's now just two weeks until the first Grand Prix in Melbourne. So what have we learnt?

The cars are going to be quite a bit quicker than last year. They look better in 2015 and may even be a little bit louder. But what about the competitive order? Not much appears to have changed.

Mercedes appear to be out front again. They have completed the whole of testing on one engine, and have been quickest when they chose to show their hand. They completed the most number of laps and have some great reliability. Williams seem to be in a similar position to last year as best of the rest, half a second behind the Mercs.

Red Bull are a bit of a puzzle. They seem relatively quick, but may have dropped back from last year, but their testing is better than last year. It's possible that they have a very good car, but the Renault engine is down on power and they will have dropped back.

The Ferrari looks much improved. The engine appears to be much better, the aerodynamics look better and their times might show them as the third best team. The car looks like it will suit Raikkonen better so expect him to be closer to Vettel than Alonso last year.

The McLaren looks like a much improved chassis with reports that it is much more predictable, something that Button particularly needs. The installation with Honda has been problematic though, and they have had a multitude of reliability issues, meaning that they haven't been able to do enough laps and demonstrate their true pace.

Force India turned up for the last three days of testing after issues of 'build problems' delaying them. When they did turn up, though, the car was good and extremely reliable. With reports of money worries, let's hope they can build a great season.

Toro Rosso have also run a lot of laps, and the car looks reasonable, but the Renault engine may let them down. The young Verstappen looks impressive.

The Sauber looks much improved. On top of having a better Ferrari engine, the chassis looks more stable especially around braking. Tey have put in fast times, though I suspect they have been show-boating a little.

We hope to see Manor/Marussia on the grid, though I suspect its still touch and go. They will run with a 2014 engine so will be uncompetitive, but they have to make it to the end of the year to continue with the payments from FOM.


It looks like it will be Lewis Hamilton or Nico Rosberg again as champion, with Mercedes as constructors champions. I'm still looking forward to it though.

Squiffy.

A new chapter in Greek mythology

The final act in Greece's struggle with the Euro has started, in what will surely go down as a new story in Greek mythology.

Since the election of Syriza on a platform of ignoring debts, hoping people will lend money with no expected of being paid back and staying in the Eurozone whilst insulting the Germans, the new Government is demonstrating amazing hope over expectation.

The way the negotiations are going does not really bear out any likelihood that a deal will be done, though many commentators do expect a rabbit to be pulled from the hat. I don't think so. The Greek Government has got itself - quickly - into a position where by to pull back will be a humiliation. They have even asked the German Government to pay reparations for the second World War. Not bloody likely, and insulting to the people who have lent loads of money to the Greeks over the last few years.

The screws are being tightened on Greece whilst they raise the minimum wage, re-hire public sector staff that were laid off, re-open the public broadcaster, and scrap any privatizations. The European Central Bank has closed down a facility for providing liquidity to Greek banks, meaning that funding will have to come from the Greek central bank - that won't last long. In the mean time the stock market is plummeting and withdrawals from Greek banks is continuing at a steady rate.

It will not be too long, possibly the end of the month, by which Greece starts to feel some pain. It will need an emergency loan, and I don't think anyone, other than maybe Russia, will oblige. From there it will be a game of brinkmanship. Will the Greek Government give up, or will the German Government? I think the stakes are higher if the Germans give in. It then paves the way for Spain, Portugal and Irelend to start throwing debt repayments to the wind, and I don't think the EU will countenance Spain leaving.

I therefore think that Greece will be in a full blown crisis by the end of March, with runs on the banks and capital leaving the country. They will shortly have to leave the Eurozone, the return of a new Drachma and then major inflation and pain for the whole of Greece. It will then quickly turn itself around, and maybe Spain will be interested to go it's own way in the end anyway!

And it will be down to some short term choices, just when Greece had started to rebuild.

Let that be a lesson in not to fall for short term gimmicks, sometimes you need to just face the pain.

Squiffy.

F1 will eat itself

It's the end of the first week of testing in F1 2015 and we can draw a few conclusions.

Firstly, Mercedes are continuing where they left off. They have concentrated on reliability and so we cannot be sure of their performance, but rest assured that they will still be the team to beat.

The surprise is Ferrari, who seemed to be genuinely quick and reliable. Maybe they will be in a position to challenge this year, but possibly leading the second pack. Sauber seemed to have a much better car this year, and although I think their speed was deceptive (using low fuel loads) , in a much better position than last year.

The new McLaren looks like a better car, more refined and tightly packaged. But they were running well off the pace, with multiple issues surrounding sensors and the new Honda engine. It looks similar to the Renault problems from last year. If they can be resolved maybe they can challenge Red Bull, Ferrari and Williams for best of the rest.

The biggest disappointment has been from the meeting this week which refused the restarted Manor/Marussia from using last year's car. Apparently it was Force India that voted first and they refused. There is the little matter of Marussia's prize money of £30m being split equally amongst the other teams if they do not race. It could come down to greed.

F1's ruling structures are crazy. How can it be that teams get to vote on their competitor's rights to race?! Surely it should come under the FIA to determine. I guess it's because they are asking to race last year's car, and need the others to agree. But F1 has lost so many teams in the last few years and the competitors should put the sport before themselves. I understand Ron Dennis and Christian Horner were going to allow Marussia, so good on them!

Squiffy.