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

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

 

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 He knew he would not have to face the electorate after the referendum plan had been revoked.

 

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

 

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

 

Squiffy.

 

Europe, what to do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. He could propose complete withdrawal.

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

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

Squiffy.

Did the Labour party have a good week?

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Massa wants Lewis stripped of the 2008 title

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

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

How will he cope in general election campaign?



Squiffy.

And lo, the unravelling begins...

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

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

Half of the new apprenticeships have already been been offered.

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

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

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

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

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

Nuff said.

Squiffy.

Gordon Brown: the Verdict

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

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

7 out of 10.

Squiffy.

Hardworking majority?

What's that all about?

Squiffy.

Gordon Brown is going to woo middle England

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

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

Squiffy.

What happened to conference?

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

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

A travesty.

Squiffy.

The next month: a prediction

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

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

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

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

And hence, nothing will have changed.

Squiffy.

Brown knows only one thing, to spend.

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

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

Squiffy.

Button as champion?

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Deja vu?

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

Great minds think alike.

Squiffy.

Has Gordo found a way out?

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Clegg fails to inspire

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

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

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

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

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

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

5/10

Squiffy.

Let Obama be Obama

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Baroness Scotland: Resign now

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Will KERS stay for 2010?

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Where's the consistency? Renault were let off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Envy not fairness

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a mess.

Squiffy.

If they don't know now they never will.

Whilst staying in Bournemouth I saw this.




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

Squiffy.

Briatore: down and out

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Is Renault the new McLaren?

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Gordon makes Barack depressed

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

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

I wonder whether Vodafone do upgrades?

Squiffy.

Will there be televised leaders debate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Has he something to hide or is he just rubbish?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

What happened to A-Levels?

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Ferrari are being sneaky

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

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

Squiffy.

Bob Ainsworth on Sunday AM

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

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

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

There goes another Nokia.

Squiffy.

Let's stop talking guff about the NHS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Oh, Mandy!

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

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

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

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

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

Let's look at your 'successes'.

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

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

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

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

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

Let's not forget either...

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

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

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

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


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

Squiffy.

Rail Privatisation. Good or Bad?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Are we mad, or is she?

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Life begins at 40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

This must be a joke

This posting must be a joke.

Oh, hang on, no it's reality.

Squiffy.

Cut the tax credits for the rich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Get well Felipe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

BoE bad, FSA good? Me thinks not.

He was stating that the tripartite system is better and quoted that Barings and BCCI went under using the old regulations enforced by the Bank of England.

Well, excuse me, but those very small banks went under without threatening the integrity of the entire system. They didn't cause a recession. How is it that the FSA's lack of keeping an eye on Northern Rock, HBOS, RBS & Bradford & Bingley leading to massive bailouts is better than the failure of BCCI and Barings overseen by the BoE?

Delusional. Again.

Squiffy.

Yesterday's PMQs

Having just watched PMQs I couldn't help but agree with David Cameron that "the PMs display is feeble".

Dire. Risible. Shameful. Unwatchable.

Gordon Brown looks beaten. The Labour benches were very quiet. He's on a hiding to nothing, repeating the same old lines day after day with nobody believing him.

The line about a "0% increase" says it all really. He may have misspoke, but you can tell that he's in total denial. The line about the Tory policy being unemployment was absolute rubbish. The party of full employment (Labour) has always left office with unemployment higher than when it arrived. It may believe in full employment, but by it's usual terrible handling of the economy it always hurts most those that it claims to represent.

If I was in the Labour Government, which I'm glad I'm not as I wouldn't be able to get enough Prozac, I would be plotting again.

Squiffy.

Nadine Dorries should be quiet

Having heard Nadine Dorries MP on the radio this morning blasting the new speaker, John Bercow, I just wanted to shout be quiet.

Until recently I had the utmost respect for Nadine Dorries, but her outburst on the Today programme during the expenses scandal, showing that she didn't really get the public's anger, a woeful performance on Question Time and now this morning's diatribe against John Bercow has really dented my confidence in her.

It's true that many Tories do not support John Bercow, but now that he has been elected as Speaker he should be given some respect and some time to prove that he is up to the job. If he is shown to be as inept as Michael Martin then by all means have a go, but this is just looking like peevishness at a lost election. If there's anything that the public don't like it's a sore loser. So Button it.

Squiffy.

Formula 1 in turmoil

As a break from normal politics, I'll take a look at the other great love of mine - Formula 1. Which just happens to be mired in politics at the moment!

Formula 1 is caught between two bodies which think they have the best interests of the sport going forward. In the red corner sits the FIA, the governing body of international motorsport, intent on producing a reduced cost formula of £40 million per team. In the blue corner resides FOTA, the association of formula 1 teams, intent on reducing the cost of teams to enter formula 1.

The positions of the two bodies seem to be nearly identical, so why the fuss?

I believe that it is based on history.

Max Mosley has been president of the FIA for a long long time. In that time he has improved safety massively, especially since the death of Ayrton Senna. But he has also been very adamant in pushing through changes to the sport. One has to think of these changes; re-fuelling, banning active suspension, banning traction control, narrow-track cars, grooved tyres, un-banning traction control, standard engine control units, banning mass dampers, banning traction control again, slick tyres again, new aero-dynamics and KERS. The next changes include banning re-fuelling again. When he has not been able to get his changes through, because technical changes need unanimous support, he has pushed changes through as safety improvements which do not.

Also in that time, many independent teams have become backed by manufacturers, some independents have gone and new manufacturers have come in. They did so because it has been tremendously successful at advertising manufacturer's technical prowess, but they did bring large amounts of money.

With the benefit of hindsight, an autocratic leader who changes regulations regularly causing more to be spent in development whilst the changes themselves make the cars less technological, it looks obvious that we were going to get to this point.

In the current climate, with some teams turning their backs on F1 due to the cost and threatening the strength of the grid it does look like costs need to be reduced. Both organizations want reductions, the manufacturers in a step by step approach, the FIA in a dramatic single step. I can understand why Ferrari, for example, do not want to jump from £200M to £40M in one step, there will be many redundancies.

So, swords have been drawn. In the wrangling, Max Mosley has continued a trend from Gordon Brown. He creates dividing lines, and uses the divide and conquer technique to try to split the FOTA teams. This causes more animosity. Normally it works, but I don't think so this time.

FOTA have become intransigent, and wants to be listened to rather than brushed aside. After all, they are the ones spending money on this exercise. They are sick of being pushed around and being ignored. As an example, FOTA ran a survey of F1 fans and asked them what they thought of various aspects - I know because I took part. One conclusion that came out of it was that there should be a greater points difference between 1st and 2nd place. At the beginning of the season, the FIA tried to push through another system of medals. The World Champion is the one who won most races. The FIA ignored the fan's survey as well as the teams. At present, this crazy system is on the regulations for next year even though Jenson Button would win this year's championship earlier than he will at present. It set the tone for the year.

Multiple suggestions have been ignored, although on the basis of the cost cap there has been some compromise. Even then though there has not been agreement. Press briefing accuses the other side, highlighting the differences.

So, where do we go from here?

This is not about the cost cap any more. It is about Max Mosley. FOTA want him out and he is refusing to go. This is a billion pound game of chicken. Both sides are now so polarised that I don't believe compromise can now be achieved. The likelihood of a breakaway series is now 70% (in my mind), followed by Max Mosley being ousted as FIA president. Maybe there will then be a meeting of minds.

Otherwise we could have an F1 championship, run to £40M with small independent teams and a GP1 championship with the manufacturers including Ferrari, McLaren etc. with the existing drivers. I know which one I would watch. Actually, I love it so much I'd probably watch both.

I'll be in Silverstone this weekend to hopefully watch Jenson Button take a famous victory. The deadline for FOTA backing down is Friday, but don't hold your breath.

Squiffy.

Surprise surprise, the inquiry reports in July 2010

As predicted, Gordon Brown has just announced an inquiry into the Iraq war. It sounds like it maybe a wide inquiry, which is to be welcomed. But as I suggested earlier, the report will be published just after the latest date possible for a General Election.

He must think that we are idiots! We can see through it though, but we are getting used to the lies and the cynicism.

Squiffy.

He can't stop creating dividing lines

On Monday the Prime Minister said to the PLP that he would change his style. But it is so difficult for him, and two days later he's proved that he cannot.

His Democratic Reform Council, packed full of Labour members, has met once and for 90 minutes. In that time they've decided that Electoral Reform should be back on the agenda, funny how Labour is interested now it is in danger of being the third party in the UK.

They also decided that Government papers should be released after 20 years rather than 30 years, which funnily enough would enable all the papers for the Thatcher Government to be released in one go. They obviously want lots of embarrassing details to be in the open just in time for the GE.

So there's some more dividing lines, he just can't stop himself.

I'm also expecting there to be a full review of the Iraq war to be announced in the next few days, and I guess the results will be announced next June, so that the remit is set by this Government but they don't have to face the consequences. Maybe I'm just a cynic.

Squiffy.

Bob Crow makes me mad

As someone who lives in London and needs to use the tube to get to work, I get mad with the annual tube strikes. It's the last union that needs the Thatcher treatment.

For far too long they have held London to ransom with spurious strikes. I remember the strike because the station at the end of line did not have a wash basin, the strike when someone was fired because he was found to be playing squash when he was signed off sick, the strikes because of fears over safety which achieve nothing and the myriad of strikes over pay.

This strike is over a 5% pay claim. Are they in the real world? We're living in a world of deflation and pay freezes. I'd love to see an army of part timers trained up to provide a reduced service when the RMT goes on strike. I'd volunteer myself, I think it would satisfy my boyhood dreams of being a train driver. I'd also pay the volunteer force more money for the days when they have to taken over. Just watch the RMT go on strike then!

Also, why is it that strikes always seem to be held when England are playing?

Squiffy.

Lily livered nancies

That's the Labour party for you. They deserve the largest defeat possible for leaving us with this dysfunctional, half crazed, delusional, lying, economy wrecking idiot.

Squiffy,

Maybe I was just getting excited...

The feeling of gloom has descended on me. I now think that Gordon Brown will not resign and will trudge on for the next few months. Damaged, going slightly mad and angry. It's going to be horrible.

Squiffy.

Could we be approaching the endgame?

Sky News is reporting that cabinet ministers are meeting this afternoon at Number 10. Sounds reasonable to work out a strategy for tonight's PLP meeting.

But my spideysense tells me that it's not going to be like that, Sky say that Alan Johnson and Alistair Darling have been entering via the back entrance.

I think the meeting could be similar to the one-to-ones that Mrs T had when she realised it was over. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that Gordon Brown will announce his resignation to the PLP tonight, they will agree some basic timetable for a leadership election and will then hit the airwaves. Everyone will then say that they regret what happened but Gordon Brown has done the honourable thing, and now they can unite.

I may have got this so wrong, but sometimes who have to go with a hunch.

Squiffy.

Hazel Blears has been strangely silent

The little chipmunk is usually everywhere on our TV screens, but she has gone to ground since her resignation last week. It is traditional that a ministerial resignation leads to a statement in the House.

Could it be that La Blears is planning a Geoffrey Howe type statement? If nothing happens this week, after the PLP meeting and minister level resignations, I think she will. Hazel Blears is not one to pull her punches and she could try to go for the kill. It would be much more effective than Caroline Flint spouting off after giving GB support one day then knifing him the next.

Squiffy.

Now Tony, it's up to you.

It's time for Tony Blair to finish off Gordon Brown. He needs to phone Peter Mandelson to tell him to pull the plug on the PM.

Tony Blair should, for the sake of his own legacy, tell Peter Mandelson to start strategising on how to get the person he wants as PM before the next election. Revenge is a dish best served by the cold calculator of British Politics, the Prince of Darkness.

Squiffy.

Wow. Lord Falconer has asked for GB to go.

The Blairite plot is obviously still running. Tony Blair's ex-flatmate has come out and asked GB to go, now it is obvious that TB also thinks this way.

Nearly game over.

Squiffy.

Why is Suralan being made a Lord?

On the Andrew Marr show and Sky, Sir Alan Sugar has stated that he's not going to be a working peer, and that he doesn't know whether he will be voting with the Government. He clearly doesn't have a clue of what is being expected of him.

It was basically spin, and I thought Sir Alan would have been more astute. He keeps saying that people who know him would know that he wouldn't be used by anyone. That's exactly what's happened.

Out of his depth.

Squiffy.

Delusional.

Glenys Kinnock, that's progress. What next, Keir Hardy?

Squiffy.

Gordon Brown, oi shut it

I'm listening to the cracked record that is our PM. He says he's going to be candid, but then is candid about other peoples failures - such as expenses. Come on Labour MPs. Sharpen those knives, we need him gone.

Oh, Caroline Flint has just resigned. Please, can we have some more?

Squiffy.

Call this a re-shuffle?

The most pathetic "game changing" re-shuffle I've ever seen. If this was supposed to re-launch Brown it has failed before it has even been completed. There's hardly any changes at the top. The only changes made have been to fill in the gaps made by the four secretaries who've resigned.

The cabinet looks very similar to the old cabinet. The PM now has no power at all, he cannot move his ministers and is boxed in. He's a busted flush. Go now.

Squiffy.

The slow motion car-crash

Just in the middle of watching today's Daily Politics. Andrew Neil questioned whether we were watching a slow motion car crash. Completely correct. All of Mr Brown's plans are falling around his ears.

James Purnell's resignation makes it more difficult because as fast as he's re-arranging the deckchairs people are jumping overboard. It all depends on Alistair Darling. He wants to stay where he is and if GB tries to lever him out, Alistair will kill him using a Geoffrey Howe type speech/comment. If he allows him to stay he will show what a weak position he finds himself, all week he has been trying to smooth the path for Ed Balls, but now it looks impossible.

Tonight, it is looking desperate for team GB. I've never witnessed anything like it. I remember gathering in the TV room at college when someone alerted me that (the blessed) Margaret Thatcher had resigned. Such a depressing day. I remember visiting London on a lovely sunny day, when I'd finished my exams at University to find that John Major had resigned the leadership of the Tory party and put himself up for
re-election. I was in St Ives when the coup was enacted to rid us of Tony Blair.

Each time it was a surprise, but it happened incredibly quickly. This time it feels like it's happening slowly, but GB is not getting the message and so another little message is given to him. That's why it's feeling drawn out. The pace is fast, the reaction is slow.

It's an amazing time in politics. I've just been to the IMAX to watch the latest Star Trek, and it was a very exciting film - particularly on a big screen - but my mind kept wondering back to the unfolding events. I don't know what was most exciting, watching the new Kirk's handsome quivering face questioning Spock's possible romance with Uhura during a Romulan attack, over James Purnell's handsome sideburns attacking Gordon Brown whilst a quivering Hazel Blears watches with from the sidelines.

The next two/three days are going to be the most exciting time in politics.

Squiffy.

Could today mark the end of Labour as a political force?

Today it is likely that Labour will have a major drubbing in the local and European elections. They are likely to be third place in the local elections and third or even fourth in the European elections. It sounds bad, but don't Governments find themselves in these positions after a long while in power? Well, yes, they do - but is today likely to be different?

Possibly. I'm not sure what Labour stands for any more. What is their purpose? Even in the dark days of the Tories, when their message was pretty confused, it was still possible to discern that they stood for sound money, responsibility and free enterprise. What made it really difficult for the Tories was that Labour also appeared to stand for these values, they had moved onto the Tory position.

Now, it appears that the "New" Labour values died with Tony Blair, and were a sham anyway. Although they talked about sound money or "prudence", they acted like money was no object. The old adage that all Labour Governments run out of money in the end has been shown to be as true today as it was in the 70s.

When they mentioned responsibility they meant state responsibility. The state is now responsible for huge amounts of the employment whilst the welfare state is responsible for thousands living off taxpayers money without any inclination to earn a living.

Their commitment to the free market and enterprise died when they manufactured a situation in which Railtrack could be forced to go bust, followed by vast nationalisation of the banks.

So now the wallpaper has been stripped from the New Labour project, what's left? The Blairites seem to be floundering around. The old Labour party still exists as a rump within the existing Government, jumping around with glee that RBS is now 70% owned by the taxpayer.

The Labour coalition is threatening to break up under the strain, it is conceivable that the Blairites could split and forge an alliance with the Lib Dems and the Labour party reverts to its old values and becomes a party of Government no more.

It will take someone of great stature to hold Labour together after the meltdown, and someone will need to imprint some new values on the party for it to survive. I cannot see anyone in the current crop able to do that.

For today, vote any party except Labour, the Lib Dems and BNP. All those parties which promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and then reneged on their manifesto promise should be punished. And obviously the BNP is beyond the pale.

Squiffy.

It's started

The push for Mr Brown to resign has started, Hazel Blears has gone, citing how she was singled out for criticism by Gordon Brown. GB is now meeting colleagues, maybe he is trying to cobble together his re-shuffle. Or just maybe, the Cabinet his telling him to go. It could be a momentous day.

Squiffy.

Bad headlines

The headlines for tomorrow are really bad for Gordon Brown.

Ho Hum.

Squiffy.

The knifing begins

What a day. As we were waiting for the weekend for the night of the long knives, it appears to have started earlier with ministers doing a contortionists job of plunging the knives into their backs. If there was ever a sign of a Government in terminal decline, today was a significant portent.

In one day, we've had one cabinet minister, two other minsters, one ex-cabinet minister and a disgraced MP stand down from their jobs. It looks like two will attempt to fight for their seats, although in Jacqui Smith's case it's a facile attempt. She will be gone.

This is looking worse than the Major Government. I've never known anything like it, the Government is looking at death by a million cuts, Labour MPs are lemmings on the edge.

It's also looking like there will be a vote in the Commons next week on dissolution, which of course the Government will win. But can anybody remember a party with a 66 seat majority having to face such a vote? It shows how febrile the mood is.

Be gone with you.

Squiffy.

The reshuffle is on

Harriet Harman inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. She said on Newsnight that she would not "speculate on the reshuffle", indicating that there will indeed be a reshuffle.

So hold on to your hats this weekend, for a second night of the long knives, or re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

Squiffy.

How can Gordon get through this?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Speaker Martin to step down today

So the rumour goes.

Squiffy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.