Four hours to the title showdown: Hamilton vs Rosberg

You may be reading this after the race and know the result, or just before and in anticipation of the culmination of a fascinating season.

Yesterday, as so many times this season, Nico Rosberg grabbed pole after Lewis Hamilton was strangely off-colour on a Saturday. Usually, however, Hamilton has come back stronger and faster on Sunday, and I expect no different today. Hamilton is quick around Abu Dhabi, and without any other issues I'd expect him to prevail.

There's 17 points difference and Hamilton only needs to come second, but I don't expect him to tighten and win just by settling, like he did in 2008. Let's really hope that there are no mechanical issues, and I think the mechanics on both sides of the Mercedes garage will be desperate to avoid any issues.

Nico Rosberg has shown prodigious speed this year, and has surprised many, including me. He's also shown ruthlessness with the deliberate actions in Monaco and Spa, he definitely isn't the Mr Nice Guy we all presumed. There is an arrogance there which most F1 champs have. For another take, read Will Buxton's blog.

Lewis Hamilton has shown a lot more maturity this year, he's made more mistakes than I would expect, but he always bounces back, which he wouldn't have done a few years ago. I think he's more tense than he appears, but that is understandable. He has shown brilliant race-craft, which is such a stark contrast to his wayward 2011 season, where he would quite often collide with Felipe Massa! If his Saturday's have been more troubled than usual, his Sundays have been spectacular. I think by 10 wins to 5 and by coming back from a points deficit twice, he deserves this championship. For another take, check Will Buxton's Blog again.

Just a few hours to go.


Now to another issue. The demise of Marussia, possible death of Caterham and struggles for Force India, Sauber and Lotus has highlighted the terrible financial state of Formula 1. It's absolutely crazy that Ferrari and Red Bull get over £100m per year, and Marussia were getting £7m! I don't mind having a premium for success but that is just ridiculous. I would say increments of £3m for each place in the constructor's championship. Meaning that the gap between the top and bottom teams should be £30m at most. If I can see this, why can't F1?

Bernie Ecclestone has been name calling the three teams of Force India, Sauber, and Sauber and his behaviour is becoming increasingly bizarre. He recently said that F1 doesn't need young fans who can't buy Rolex watches! Hello? Where do older fans comes from, younger fans you idiot! I'm still watching and can afford a Rolex, but I started at the age of 14, when I couldn't. It's time for Bernie to toodle off.

Finally, how to tackle F1 in the absence of a change in money. Three car teams and customer cars have been raised. Christian Horner, as Ecclestone's mouthpiece, has complained about the new engines and wants to go back to the old V8s. That would be a disaster for the whole grid. The new formula is interesting and gives F1 a new purpose in developing hybrid car technology for the future of the human race.

But the new engines are expensive at £25m and the old engines were only £5m. I would suggest we did something similar to the late 80's where there was a choice of turbo or normally aspirated engines. We could allow slightly de-tuned or RPM limited old V8s to be fitted to cars. The cars would be unlikely to win but could make it to the midfield. In 2006 Toro Rosso was allowed to run de-tuned V10s, so it's not so bizarre an option!

Anyway, rant over.

Enjoy the race!

Squiffy

Rochester and Strood

Today has been the Rochester and Strood by-election following the defection of the Tory MP Mark Reckless to UKIP.

This is supposed to be a key by-election for the Tories, UKIP and Labour. Maybe a verdict on Ed Miliband, maybe whether the Prime Minister can keep his troops in line until the General Election, and maybe the end of the UKIP rise.

Exciting then? As a resident of Rochester I looked forward to discussing issues with the candidates as they came canvassing. Unfortunately none came, which disappointed me. We got plenty of leaflets, however, two from UKIP, around six from the Tories, two from Labour and one from the LibDems. But no people. The high street was busy with the shops converted into makeshift political offices.

Make of it what you will that UKIP took over a spiritualist ex-wiccan shop, the Tories an old games shop and Labour the old butchers (I still miss their fantastic sausage rolls).

I did go to one of the hustings in the corn exchange. The Labour candidate was the most impressive but was poorly supported. One of the other candidates was in the audience and asked whether the main candidates wanted disabled people and pensioners to have a sex life! A strange question, which was not answered!

This morning I voted early (at 7 am), there were four others in front of me - which is quite brisk in my view. I don't know what this means, which candidate out of the two possible victors it favours.

I'll be watching as much coverage as possible tonight, hoping for an early result as I have work to go to tomorrow morning and busy weekend of F1 championship deciders to watch.

Still exciting.

Squiffy.

Do the Tories want to lose?

I ask the question because last night's debacle over the European Arrest Warrant vote makes the party management look very amateur.

They had the vote in the bag and David Cameron had promised a vote before the Rochester by-election so why did they bottle the vote on some kind of technicality? It looks evasive and breaks a promise. What is the point? I despair sometime.

Was this David Cameron's mistake or maybe Michael Gove or even Theresa May. Whoever it was needs to have a serious talking to. It was a real gift to UKIP and right wing backbenchers.

I sometimes think that the whole world is wanting us to vote bloody UKIP.


On a second point, I attended the hustings for the Rochester by-election and the most impressive candidate was the Labour Party candidate, Naushabah Khan. I'm afraid that the Tory candidate was disappointing and very defensive and Mark Reckless was evasive.

Really, I'm not sure any of them deserve to win!


Squiffy.

Where is the Ferrari announcement?

It's been an interesting and also sobering time in F1.

The injury to Jules Bianchi overshadows everything. I read that he hit his head with a force of 92G, it is a wonder that he's still alive. I hope that he manages to make a recovery and can make it back into a car, as he has shown such promise.

The season has been fascinating. For a while it looked like the bad luck would completely destroy Hamilton's campaign, but since Rosberg's error in Spa the momentum has all been with the Brit. In fact the latter half of the season has shown Rosberg is prone to errors under pressure and so far he has yet to better Hamilton in a straight fight.

We're entering the end of the season and mileages on the engines are going to get critical. Is it a possibility that for the last double point race Mercedes decides to have penalties and replace the both engines? Maybe, just in case there is a danger than one of the cars might not finish.

The big news on driver moves is that Sebastien Vettel is leaving Red Bull. He's been out of sorts all year, and when he learnt that Alonso had exercised his get out of Ferrari clause, he leapt upon it. So Vettel to Ferrari. Or is it? The likelihood is yes, but it's weird that Ferrari haven't announced it. Why wouldn't they?

An off the wall thought. It looks like Alonso is heading to McLaren, but they're just trying to tie down the contract. Maybe McLaren have signed Vettel too! It would explain why Ferrari haven't announced Vettel.

Probably not, but you never know! Maybe Ferrari are looking at a way of getting rid of Raikkonen who has been a disappointment this year. Maybe Alonso will take a sabbatical with the aim of getting his backside into a Mercedes in 2016 (in which case I think he may be disappointed).

Looking forward to the last three races, but I don't want double points or reliability problems to settle this championship. If Rosberg wins at the last race with Hamilton out, the win tally could be 11-5 to Hamilton. It would be a travesty.

#ForzaJules

Squiffy

Could Douglas Carswell's election as UKIP MP be bad for them?

I quite like Douglas Carswell. He believes in democracy and better structures to support democracy. He is very independently minded. In fact, he could put the Independence into UKIP.

He's now a big fish in a small pond, rather than a small fish in a big pond. He will be on our TV screens a lot more as a spokesman for UKIP.

I think though that we'll be seeing some obvious differences of opinion with the leadership of Nigel Farage. He's already been highlighting a different opinion on immigration to the leadership, as he pointedly mentioned it in his victory speech in Clacton.

For now, though, he is the only UKIP MP and although not the leader he is now the most senior elected representative of the party. A full on general election campaign, this time round, will be looking for major differences of opinion between the leader and its first MP. Expect there to be more controversies.

I think it's likely Carswell will win re-election in 2015, but what happens if La Farage does not become MP? The differences could get more extreme.  I foresee fireworks! In fact I can imagine a leadership challenge which Carswell might win. Afterwards, though, if Farage is not leader he would be very grumbly and UKIP could lose it's best electoral asset, as Carswell doesn't have the common touch of the current leader.

We might just be in the phase of peak UKIP, it might be downhill from here. It's possible we've just witnessed a new Kilroy-Silk moment.

Squiffy.

Nick Clegg's Speech: Verdict

A bit dull as he was only talking to his own base.

He did the usual 'plague on both your houses' section which is now getting so old it needs a pension. Lambasting Labour for breaking the economy and Tories for being mean. Only the Lib Dems can save us! In which case Lord help us.

The big offer was some improvements on mental health. Whilst worthy, it doesn't exactly set the pulse racing.

He was trying to gee up his own base for the election next year rather than talking to the electorate. As I say, rather dull.

The Lib Dems, although in Government, increasingly seem like an irrelevance.

Squiffy.

UKIP want Labour to win

Most commentators think that UKIP would prefer there to be a Tory Prime Minister and a European referendum campaign rather than a Labour PM. Not true.

The nightmare scenario for UKIP is that the Tories win, David Cameron wins some marginal powers back and manages to sell it to the country in the referendum.

In much the same way that the Scottish referendum was David Cameron's gamble in that would take independence off the table for a generation, UKIP think the same is possibly true about the EU.

Any way in which Labour win and deny us another referendum will further the calls for us to be out.


It's possible, though, that they could get us out of the EU sooner rather than later. Though, it would be a pretty big gamble on their part. In this scenario, they'd need David Cameron to win and hold the referendum. After a period of stability, we may be about to see a bigger Euro problem than we had two years ago.

EU interest rates are at rock bottom and it looks like there may be a period of deflation. At the moment inflation is 0.3% and looking to go lower. Growth is anaemic. Germany is faltering. France and Italy are sick. The ECB would have no options, it would be up to EU Governments to save their economies - difficult given their levels of debt!

Given this back drop we may actually see more convulsions than we did in sovereign debt crisis. If Britain can keep growing while the EU, including Germany, starts to really have difficulties then maybe the whole Euro and even the EU could be on the table. Maybe then we'd want to be out.

As I say, a lot of things have to happen for this scenario to occur. But you never know.

Squiffy.

Cameron Speech: Verdict

What a difference a week makes! Last week we had Ed Miliband's forget-athon, a real lesson in why he should not be Prime Minister. This week David Cameron made the best conference speech of his premiership.

When the PM's back is against the wall he really can turn it on, and he did. He's shown that he can do the no notes speaking before - in fact it was he who started the trend - but he has eschewed this tactic to be more prime ministerial. And it works.

The speech was serious when it needed to be. He mentioned Patrick Churchill, a D-day veteran. In this year of remembrance it was a fitting tribute. He did not go on about all the people he met whilst walking around the leafy suburbs of Hampstead Heath who managed to speak Ed Miliband-ese.

The PM did not revert to the Tory comfort zone either. He was visibly moved to tears when mentioned the anger he feels when being accused of not caring about the NHS. He also said he would banish exclusive zero hour contracts and modern day slavery.

The PM obviously got into his stride when talking about raising the personal allowances at the 20% and 40% bands. I would have wished he'd raised the level at which National Insurance starts being paid, rather than the personal allowance. This would really help the lower paid being taken out of income taxes altogether. Its about time NI was rolled into income tax completely by the way!

He was good on Europe, but I want him to kill off a line of attack by saying that he would be prepared to recommend leaving if he cannot get what he wants. Maybe he can't make himself a hostage to fortune as then he'd need to outline his exact dividing lines.

He laid into the hypocracy of Labour's education policies, though it hasn't changed them in 40 years - it's not about to start doing so now. I wish he'd really go for them on the brass neck they have about English Votes for English Laws.

It was a great speech, whether it translates into a change in the polls is difficult to say. But it should. Anyone with an iota of common sense can see that there can only be one realistic candidate for PM after the next election. Ed Miliband is a walking disaster, and he'd turn this country into one.

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband Conference Speech: Verdict

What a long, turgid, affair. Oh dear me. By far his worst conference speech.

It was long on anecdotes with Gareth, Elizabeth and all, but it didn't add up to much. For policies, we had some extra money for the NHS, voting for 16 and 17 year olds, a mansion tax and extra taxes on tobacco companies.

You can tell when Labour are operating the core vote strategy, they focus on the NHS. I remember a tweet from Dan Hodges, commentator, and son of Glenda Jackson MP, who said when they start banging on about NHS you know that they know they'll lose. I'm not so sure but I'm not plugged into the party like Dan was. They'll reverse the NHS changes made by the coalition. Does that ring a bell? Yes, when Labour came into power in 1997 they reversed the previous Tory hospital organisation and then 5 years later started to bring it back. Will they ever learn?

The mansion 4 bedroom semi tax has been spent twice now, to bring the deficit down and fund the NHS. A new tax. There's also a new tax on tobacco companies, as if they don't pay a lot anyway with duties. There will no doubt be more bank taxes too.

Whatever the problem, the answer is always the same. A new or increased tax to provide increased Government spending. If not, use borrowing for increased spending.

What was striking was that there was no mention of the deficit. We now know that he meant to mention it, but forgot. It's so easy to forget the most pressing issue affecting the country today. Immigrations was forgotten too. Another doorstep high priority.

Talking of a current issue which Labour has no answer to, the impact of devolution and English votes for English laws, Mr Miliband said David Cameron was trying to divide the nation.

Since the referendum I have felt more and more incensed by repeated claims that we shouldn't rush the answer, and have some constitutional convention. Who rushed into lots of devolution as soon as they were elected last time? Labour. They created this monster of an issue and did not bother to seek out answers to the unbalanced state they created in 13 years of power. It's because it suited them to brush it under the carpet. It's extremely rich for them now to accuse the Tories of trying to solve this problem to their advantage!

Anyway, back to the speech. Oh must I? If this man is Prime Minister next May I may have to go on Prozac. He's the least impressive leader since Iain Duncan-Smith.

Squiffy.


By the way, funny that Rachel Reeves, shadow pension secretary didn't know what the standard state pension was - she thought it was just below £100. I fact it's £113. You'd think she'd know. Yesterday she seemed to not quite know the difference between capital and current spending. This lady is supposed to be in the next group to be leader. Give me strength.

Indyref: The time is nearly upon us

We don't have many referendums in the UK but usually they are for big questions. The referendum today is the biggest I've experienced.

I'm still convinced that it will be a No vote, but maybe closer than my prediction of 60/40, maybe even 55/45. We shall soon see.

The mammoth TV coverage will soon start, and I'm a sucker for it!

Bring it on Mr Dimbleby Edwards.

Squiffy.

Scottish Independence: One week to go.

We're into the last few days of the Scottish Independence referendum and I thought I'd write some of my thoughts down.

Firstly, about the question. I heard some people asking why 'Devo-Max' is not on the ballot paper. Imagine a not too unlikely scenario where Independence gets 45%, 'Devo-Max' gets 40% and no change gets 15%. What should happen then? It would be wrong to go to Independence as it would not have a majority (on something so crucial). 'Devo-Max' would have come second so it would be weird for it to be enacted, and so the most likely thing to happen would be no change, when it came third! That's why it had to be a straightforward yes/no question.

I personally don't want Scotland to leave the Union, I have many Scottish friends who would then be foreigners. It's difficult to imagine the end of Britain as we know it. I do believe that we are better together.

Looking at the arguments, it appears that the Yes camp have been a bit disingenuous with some of the figures regarding oil revenues, NHS spending etc. and tax figures. The No camp has been more negative, which I suppose was always likely given the nature of the question and risks involved. The better arguments for Yes are through self-determination which appeals to the heart.

The No camp has focused on the question of the currency, which is important - especially as the Yes campaign has stated they intend to use the Pound in a currency union with residual UK (rUK). The UK party leaders have said they won't allow it, but the SNP keep pushing that it will happen anyway. This is especially disingenuous as the rUK would not enter a currency union with a foreign nation, as we have shied away from joining the Euro area. The SNP should have had the nerve to go with a new currency as a backup option.

The implications on the military are immense and not thought through well enough.

Alec Salmond has also repeatedly talked about policies implemented by London by the Tories such as the 'Bedroom Tax' as reasons for independence but that is very short term. Some people think that Scotland would be a socialist haven if independence occurred, but I can see that Scottish politics would eventually move rightwards, as socialist policies increasingly failed and taxing and spending went out of fashion. For the rest of the UK, we may have more Tory Governments initially but the present equilibrium would eventually reassert itself.

Do I think there will be a Yes vote? No, I think the fear of the unknown is a major driver, also I believe that there are quite a lot of people who say they'll vote Yes but will actually vote No - due to the perceived disloyalty of voting 'against Scotland'.

That does not mean that the status quo will remain. If we do get 'Devo-Max' as promised by the UK party leaders there will have to be wider constitutional change for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Wales will certainly demand more powers, and how can England continue to be Governed by Scots and Welsh MPs in such circumstances? There's no way it could continue without the so-called West Lothian question being answered. There would have to be an English Parliament over English only issues.

The days of the existing Union is over, we need to fully think out the future of a more federal UK and this must be put to the people. It cannot be knocked up by the party leaders in a hasty fashion to scare off the Yes voters!

RIP GB 1707-2014.

Squiffy.

Rosberg vs Hamilton: It's war

It's been brewing for a while, but the race at Spa was the end of the cold war. We're now at Defcon 4 in the Formula 1 season.

The incidents that have brought us here are: Hamilton defending aggressively at Bahrain and using the extra-special powerful setting, Rosberg using the extra-special powerful setting in Spain, Rosberg having his 'off' at Monaco ruining Hamilton's lap and finally Hamilton refusing team-orders at Hungary.

You could say it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Indeed, my own interpretation was that it was all pretty fair and evened up - although the Monaco incident did look suspect but I gave Rosberg the benefit of the doubt.

The race at Spa looked like it was going to be a great ding-dong battle until Rosberg clipped Hamilton's rear left tyre on lap two going into Les Combes. It was a clumsy attempt at a pass by Rosberg but looked like a cack-handed misjudgement.

That was until Lewis Hamilton appeared after the debrief in front of the press, reportedly nearly tearful, and said that Rosberg had done it on 'purpose' to 'make a point'. Maybe fanciful, and Toto Wolff denied that it had been on purpose, but agreed that Rosberg had said he'd wanted to 'make a point'. To me this infers that Rosberg had not deliberately decided to crash into Hamilton at the beginning of the race, but would - if the moment arose - not back out of possible contact in wheel to wheel combat.

Looking at the video footage Rosberg decides he's not going to be able to pass Hamilton and turn's left to avoid contact - and then changes his mind and turns right again leaving Hamilton to drive into him while following the racing line. Given that Hamilton was well ahead and could not have seen exactly where Rosberg was at that time, he had no option and Rosberg cannot complain about not being given enough room.

Rosberg chose to collide with Hamilton in that split moment. He had the lead in the championship, so if both went out so be it. He made his point. Hamilton said that he did not know how to race Rosberg any more, now that Rosberg has shown an unpredictability, nearly worthy of Pastor Maldonado!

Where to go from here? Niki Lauda squarely blamed Rosberg and Toto Wolff was incandescent with rage. They said there would be consequences but it's difficult to see what. We don't know the mind of Paddy Lowe, but obviously he's been with Lewis Hamilton ever since McLaren so knows him well.

If they make some changes to team orders, it will probably favour Rosberg even if that is not the intention. In which case Rosberggets what he wants. They could fire Rosberg but that's inconceivable. They can't dock points from him, as that is up to the FIA.

I think the only way to punish Rosberg, lay down the law, and make sure this does not happen in the future is to bench Rosberg. Bring in Antony Davidson or Heikki Kovalainen for one race, someone who will still get points for Mercedes but leave Rosberg on the sidelines as he watches his 29 point lead get reduced.

It would obviously enrage Rosberg but would be payback and let him know that the team calls the shots.

Do I think they'll do it. No. I expect there will be some changes to team orders and I think F1 will be the poorer. Unfortunately.

Squiffy.

No return to tax and spend for Labour: Pull the other one

Today there was a Labour conference in Milton Keynes for their policy forum. Ed Miliband has announced that the next Labour Government would not return to 'Tax and Spend'.

I have a feeling of deja vu about this. Wasn't this the same mantra from New Labour in 1997? I remember National Insurance tax rises, fuel duty and alcohol escalators and and this was before the crash in 2008. In that time spending went from £352Bn to £527Bn - yes more tax and spend. And where taxes didn't go up, borowing took over. In 2007 after 10 years of growth, Labour were borrowing £30Bn (it has since been revised up by the treasury to £70Bn structural deficit).

So, it's pretty hard to believe Ed Miliband. It might be that it really is his intention, especially in straightened times - but after a while - when some policies fail to live up to expectations the inbuilt Labour DNA takes over and the spending tap is turned on again.

It's why the welfare system got so out of kilter. Initially Tony Blair asked Frand Field to think the unthinkable, and when Mr Field came back with radical proposals to tackle real welfare dependency he was sacked. The Government then spent lots of money on benefits, vastly widening the base for people taking the state's shilling. The Government reverted to type. As always.

Mr Miliband again re-iterated that they would run a surplus on current spending - with the caveat that they would continue to borrow to 'invest'. Hello, we've been here before. Again, the last Government. Gordon Brown just kept redefining what was investment, and changing the definition of the economic cycles to fulfil his own golden rules. Basically, there is so much wriggle room that the promise is not worth the airtime devoted to it.

Take the largest pinch of salt when considering these promises, or at least cross your fingers when putting your tick in their box.

Squiffy.

Reshuffle: Clarke/Gove

The reshuffle happened yesterday. It was quite big, bigger than recent reshuffles. Here's some thoughts.

Ken Clarke leaving is a conflict for me. He's knocking on a bit, at odds with me on Europe, but is a big beast, affable and is able to get on with most voters. I like him, he was a great Chancellor and really talks human. If he'd been Eurosceptic, he'd have been leader in 1997, or 2001 . It's possible he would have been Prime Minister in 2005, but his undying love for the EU is his undoing. But at least he stuck to his guns and will go down fighting. I admire him for that. And I saw him on the tube twice, very unassuming!

Michael Gove moving on is a great shame. I honestly don't care whether the teachers don't like him. His reforms have been the most significant aspect of this Government. The education of this country has needed the shake up that Michael Gove has brought. Since the abolition of the grammar schools, this country's education system has been an excuse for mediocrity in which you really have to shine to get on. I've seen my schoolmates, who had no encouragement, languish. There's no aspiration. Gove's mission was to change the whole direction of schooling, and he's done more than anyone else that than anyone else. In years to come, we will realise that he was the most inspiration Education Secretary since the war. I'd keep him in post for 10 years!

William Hague leaving is not much of a surprise, he as no ambition to lead the party or the country. He's been there done that. Unlike Iain Duncan-Smith who's also led the party, he doesn't have any great mission and so was there to provide a common touch and gravitas to the Government. He's done a reasonable job as Foreign Secretary, but it's the kind of job which will never let his natural talents shine. He would have been a great Home Secretary, not that Theresa May hasn't!

On other points, I don't mind Philip Hammond being Foreign Secretary - he's Eurosceptic and will not drop the ball - so that's fine. I'd liked to have seen Liz Truss as Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan as Defra Secretary, Anna Soubry as Defence Secretary as improvements on their new jobs. I'm glad the other guys are still in place, but Teresa Villiers could have done with the boot. I'd have liked to see Liam Fox taking her place.

And the new Welsh Secretary is a bit dishy - where did he come from?!

Anyway, not bad but could have been slightly better.

Squiffy.

Passport received

This is just a post as a testament (or otherwise) to the reported delays to the passport renewal process. My last post on 14 June said that I had sent my renewal passport application two days before and had received a text saying it was being processed that day.

Two days ago I received a text to say the new passport was being printed and would be sent shortly. Today it arrived. If we look at the number of days, it is 18 days in total, or 20 including the days between sending the application and receiving the initial text.

So, slightly less than 21 days or three weeks. In my mind that is great response from a Government bureaucracy, and from one supposedly in deep chaos - a marvel!

 Crisis? What crisis?

Squiffy.

Passport to chaos

There have been conflicting stories about the passport office. In the media this week we had many reported problems about delays. The Government has stated that they are taking action due to an unusually high demand.

I added to the demand this week. I sent the renewal application to the passport office on Monday, received a text to say they had received it on Wednesday and that it should take three weeks to process. Hopefully, as I have a foreign holiday booked in September!

Let's watch this space to see whether the media or Government are correct in their statements.

Squiffy.

David Cameron is wrong about the AfD

The Prime Minister has been trying to get the Conservatives group within the European Parliament to not admit the new German party, Alternative für Deutschland. Unfortunately, it's hypocritical to do this.

David Cameron on being elected as leader took the Conservatives out of its traditional centre-right home of the European People's Party, because the EPP was overwhelmingly federalist. When he did this, he angered Angela Merkel, but he was correct to set-up a new group of centre-right anti-federalists, the European Conservatives and Reformists.

He now cannot try to put pressure on the members of the ECR group to not admit the AfD because it would anger Angela Merkel and support a rival to the traditional sister party of CDU/CSU! Although the AfD is not completely centre-right, on the European issues they line up most closely with the Tories - so it makes sense to have them in the group.

Also, it looks like the Prime Minister has mishandled the proposal of Jean-Claude Juncker for head of the European Commission. By being so vocal he's managed to box Angela Merkel in support of Juncker. I'm afraid we're now going to get the arch-federalist and not learnt the lessons of the European elections. Mr Cameron was right to try, but he should have done so in private.

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband: Meet me in Venezuela

Today's announcement that a future Labour Government would introduce rent controls for private landlords by limiting rent increases is another reminder that Ed Miliband would be a dangerous man to be elected as Prime Minister. They say you could put 10 economists in room and get 15 opinions. 95% of economists think rent controls are a disaster, leading to worse housing stock and fewer rental properties.

On top of energy price freezes and bans on zero hour contracts we are beginning to see the patterns of a very interventionist Government putting its fingers into all sorts of pies. It all sounds a bit tame at the moment, but where does it end? Into how many further businesses and areas would the command economy mechanisms intrude? The 'Cost of living crisis', created by the Labour recession, is a great cover for old fashioned socialism.

It must be stopped. This is where we were in the 70's. It's where Venezuela is now, starting with control of oil it now has controlled shops with rationed buying and shortages of toilet paper.

We learnt via Mrs Thatcher that the 70's command economy could not be successful. Let us not fall into it again.

Squiffy.

Ayrton Senna: 20 years on

I'm writing this whilst watching the Portuguese Grand Prix of 1985, Ayrton Senna's first race victory. On Thursday it will be 20 years since that fateful day in May when Senna lost his life, so I thought I'd give you my thoughts.

I first started watching Formula 1 when I woke up early to find my Dad watching TV on a Sunday morning in 1986. It was unusual as my Dad used to enjoy his lie-in. He was watching F1; it happened to be the Australian Grand Prix. I'd never watched it before but a British man was about to win and then bang his tyre blew up. That scene has been replayed many times when Nigel Mansell lost the World Championship slithering down the slip road at 200 mph. I was hooked and gutted, it may have been patriotism or just the excitement of this high speed incident but I've been hooked ever since and not missed a race.

That race gave me my first hero. Mansell was just so exciting to watch. Wherever he was, something was about to happen or just had. I had to wait a few years for him to win the World Championship, and his big rivals each won their own Championships in between. Alain Prost in 1986 and 1989, Nelson Piquet in 1987 and Ayrton Senna in 1988, 1990 and 1991.

Piquet didn't seem that fast to me, Prost was too calculating to be exciting, but in my eyes as a partisan fan, Ayrton Senna was the enemy. To me, he was the only equal of my hero. Super fast, super committed and super ruthless. In truth I knew he had the edge.

Of course the rest of the F1 community was consumed with the rivalry of Senna and Prost. Maybe because Prost had reached his peak in 1985 and 86 and Senna was just reaching his, I thought that Senna was much faster and way better in rain. And just to prove it, on my TV screen Prost has just slithered off the race track into the wall. The only man to beat Senna, in my eyes, was Mansell-  if only he had reliable cars!

The races which stick out were the Hungarian GP of 1989 and Spanish GP of 1991. In both cases Mansell pulled off spectacular overtaking moves on Senna. It's a measure of my underlying respect for Senna that it was that beating him meant more than beating Piquet at Silverstone in 1987 and Prost in Magny Cours in 1991.

Even when Mansell had the best car in 1992, it was Senna who deprived him of sure race wins in Canada and Spa, and spectacularly so at Monaco when Mansell was 2 seconds per lap faster.

Looking on after all these years, I appreciate that Senna was by far the best at the time. So quick. So precise. Watching the Marlboro McLaren dance around the streets of Monaco in 1988 qualifying is sheer mesmeric. The fact that he won so many pole positions when the car had no right to be there is testament to his speed.

The man oozed charisma, interviews left you hanging on every word. The most interesting of all was after he won the World Championship in 1991. He opened up about the fact that he had deliberately taken Prost out the year before, which takes me to his ruthlessness. For all his brilliance, he did start the trend for none sporting behaviour which has been the hallmark of Schumacher and Vettel, which is not to be welcomed.

I remember the race in which he died in 1994. The weekend was awful. Rubens Barrichello's accident on Saturday, Roland Ratzenberger's horrible fatal accident on the Saturday and the start line horror for JJ Lehto were all signs that this weekend should not have happened. When the Williams shot off on lap 7 at Tamburello it didn't look too bad, but there was no sign of movement from Senna. Me and my F1 friends in Portsmouth sat on the sofa, fearing the worst. We watched as Schumacher won again, but we all felt that a light had gone out. Indeed it had. Senna had died. We all realised what we had lost. A great talent, and what what would have been a fantastic season between the best in the World and the Young Pretender. We were robbed that day.

But on that note, on my TV, Senna has just crossed the finish line in horrible wet conditions to take his first win. Let's remember that sublime talent and thank our lucky stars that this man found a way to demonstrate it so emphatically.

Squiffy.

Jeremy Browne: The curious case of the MP who doesn't know what party he is in

This week we've heard a lot from Jeremy Browne, the ex-Lib Dem Foreign and Home Office minister, who now has a new book out. I like Mr Browne, he's one of the more sensible Lib Dems in parliament but he's confusing me with some of the things he's saying.

His book and statements are a brilliant vision of a Liberal Britain, and if there was a party which represented this view I think I would be one to sign up. He seems to think he is in the Liberal Party, the continuity Whigs. Unfortunately, that party disappeared in name in 1988 and had disappeared in liberal ideas many years before that. I don't think Mr Browne has mentally adjusted to it.

The 70's Liberal party was a centrist party between old Labour and old Tories, wedded to the post-war consensus. When the radical Tories of the 80's came in  and Labour sped to the left, the Liberals seemed closer to the moderate Labourites and the newly formed SDP. That's why the Liberal-SDP alliance was such an easy match.

The true Liberals had no home but the Liberal party, but maybe had not recognized that the Liberal party was not truly a Liberal party any more. They went along with the merger forming the Lib Dems.

People like Jeremy Browne and the Orange booker's tried to bring back truly Liberal ideas to the party, but the vast majority of members are more centrist or lean to the left. The Dem part of the party is much larger than the Lib part. I've talked before of the identity crisis at the heart of the Lib Dems - which drives it to the centre. Mr Browne is not reconciled to that, and so will continue to smash his head into a brick wall.

If he really wants a Liberal future there is no alternative but to form a new party: the 'True Liberals'. I'd be tempted to join. Liberal economically and socially.

Squiffy.

The Laffer Curve: Proven twice this week

The Laffer curve is named after Arthur Laffer and is a curve describing tax rates versus tax take. Here is an example.

The principle is as follows: If you tax at 0% there will be no tax taken. If you tax at 100% nobody will bother to work, and so no tax will be taken here too. In between these two points there will be tax taken for certain tax rates, but the key is to find the rate which generates enough revenue without destroying the inspiration to work.

One of the underlying essences of this curve is that tax will change people's behaviour, so any calculations made when deciding to increase or decrease a rate of tax need to take changes of behaviour into account. The bigger the change in tax, the bigger the effect, and the greater likelihood of calculations being wrong.

The Labour Party has pledged to bring back the 50% tax rate, after the coalition reduced it to 45%. There were disagreements on the projected effect of the reduction in the tax rate. The Tories said it would likely have no effect or as maybe reduce revenue by as little as £100 million. The Labour Party said it would cost £9 Billion. We now have the figures. For 2012-13 £40Bn was taken from the top rate. For 2013-14, when the rate was reduced to 45%, the tax take was £49Bn. A whopping £9 Bn increase.

It's counter-intuitive, but remember the effects of behavioural change.

A similar change has happened to Capital Gains Tax. It was 18%, but the coalition has increased this to 28%. In 2011-12 the tax take was £4.3 Bn, it has now dropped to £3.9 Bn or a 10% fall. Again, it is shown that a higher rate of tax of tax doesn't necessarily bring in more money. For something like CGT it is very easy to change behaviour, you merely hold on to your assets for longer!

Looking at the economics, it's pretty clear that 45% is better than 50% for income tax, maybe 40% is even better. For CGT, it's clear that 18% is better than 28%. Sometimes lower rates bring in more money.

If the economics are clear, then we must look to the politics. Why would a party want higher rates if it brings in less money? Symbolism is the only answer, it's a statement of what is acceptable and what isn't. To me, that's the same old ideology of old socialism, I'm much more interested in what works!

So bring on the tax cuts (as long as they raise money).

Squiffy.

F1: Talking points

We've had two Grand Prix and are in the middle of the Bahrain G.P. Yesterday in one of the press conferences, Adrian Newey (Red Bull) laid into the new regulations. He said that fuel saving was for sports car racing, and that in F1 drivers should be flat out full time. Bernie Ecclestone and Luca Di Montezemolo (Ferrari) have also had a go, saying it's the wrong direction for F1.

I completely disagree. If F1 is anything it's a showcase for the latest in automotive technology as well as the best drivers. Engine development had become stagnant, frozen spec V8's providing roughly the same power each year. This put the emphasis on aero-dynamics, hence keeping Adrian Mewey happy. To be relevant in the modern age there needs to be ways to reduce fuel usage, but we had got to ridiculous state that extra fuel was being used during braking to send exhaust gases through the diffuser to generate extra downforce. How is that relevant?

Bernie Ecclestone is unhappy because it's not loud enough, apparently, though there are rumours that by driving down the price of F1 he could buy it back from CVC. It certainly isn't as loud, but I think it's great to be able to hear the tyres squeal. From Melbourne we could actually hear when Bottas hit the wall and the subsequent deflation of his tyre. Fascinating. Maybe a little louder, but we'll get used to it.

Luca Di Montezemolo is unhappy because....his cars still aren't winning, and their engines aren't particularly fuel efficient. Alonso's getting restless.

Let's just tackle the argument about fuel saving having too much effect on racing. I've not noticed it too much so far, maybe tomorrow it will have a bigger effect but we have had this for years anyway. Teams would always under-fuel the cars in order to save weight and the fuel save to make it to the end, so nothing new there. The Bahrain 2010 GP is on TV at the moment, Martin Brundle just mentioned that some teams will have to use lean settings for fuel usage while Renault is the most efficient. As I say, it hasn't changed!

It's quite apparent that the Mercedes team have stolen a march on the other teams and have done a great job, and it may be a walk over. That is pretty much always the way at the beginning of a new era, see 2009, 1998, 1989 for previous rule change seasons. That's the real reason that all these people are complaining, they've not done a good enough job, their advantages have been removed.

The new regulations should be shouted from the roof tops. The new cars are achieving pretty much the same speeds and lap times, but on a third less fuel, and with heavier cars. Pretty amazing. Let the F1 geniuses do their work and the cars will get lighter, the capacity of batteries will increase, the recovery systems will improve. In a few years we can reduce the fuel usage even further, imagine what this technology could do for everyday cars. I know that hybrid systems have been around for a while, but F1 really puts a turbo under it so to speak!

That's why it was completely the right decision to move to these regulations, and next year will be tighter than this, and we'll get used to the sound.

I'm loving it.

Squiffy.

Tony Benn: RIP

Today it was announced that Tony Benn had died at the age of 88. Sad, but he had a good long life even if the last year or so was a bit sickly. As someone who I would always disagree with politically, he was someone you could respect because he was articulate, thoughtful, unbending and not driven by the latest fads or opinions.

The two ends of political ideology start from two points of human outlook. Some people think that things could be done a lot better, have a vision of a kind of utopia and then try to fashion laws and movements to try to change people to create the new ideal. Other people also think that things could be done a lot better, but don't think that it's possible to change human nature. These people will try to use human nature to nudge society in the right direction.

If you can read between the lines, the utopians sit on the left of the political spectrum, while the human natur-ists (no, not the nudes) sit on the right. Which is why communists and socialists, like Tony Benn, believe in nationalisation, command economies, incomes and prices policies and believe it can be achieved. Even when the whole weight of the evidence shows that it does not work. As a current example, take a look at Venezuela, after years of socialism and a command economy, people living in a country with a quarter of the world's oil cannot buy toilet paper.

People on the right believe that competition and human instincts aren't wrong and can be used to drive society forward. Though there must be regulations, and safety nets for the poor.

The majority of the world has come to the capitalist view, even after the financial crash, but there's still a lot of people around who believe in the utopian view, like Tony Benn and the young Owen Jones. They're just plain wrong, the evidence shows it doesn't work. Just like with creationists, you'll have fun arguing until you have to bang your head against a brick wall. They'll say that it's not been tried in its pure forms, the media or outside factors destroyed the experiment - but that's just human nature!

That's also why people on the right respect the ones on the left - we understand what they want to achieve - we just don't believe it can ever work. I suppose it explains the visceral hatred of those on the left for those on the right, because they see us as trying to dismantle and destroy the utopian ideal.

Anyway, back to Tony Benn. A great orator, and a great democrat (he wasn't a communist). He renounced his peerage so that he could be elected to parliament. And being a great democrat he saw the EU for what it is, a huge anti-democratic bureaucracy run by an elite. That is the one thing I really agree with him on.

So, Rest In Piece Comrade,

Squiffy.

F1 2014: Nearly here

We've now had the first three tests and the first Grand Prix of the season will be starting in 5 days time. It's time to look at the prospective teams and drivers.

Red Bull
The Red Bull team have had a traumatic pre-season. The car looks great, but is very tightly packaged, as you'd imagine from Adrian Newey. The Renault engine has been very problematic. Initially unreliable, they had hardware and software issues. They fixed some of the hardware issues but the software still had bugs.

Even when the engine was more reliable, the tight packaging of the car led to fires and frequent stops on track. The first test was a disaster, the second and third showed brief spells of the old Red Bull but were more often punctuated by stops and red flags. It really was and is a crisis. Most people have written them off, I think the first few races will be difficult but they will probably turn it around mid season - but by that time I think it will be too late to fight for this year's championships.

I expect that Sebastian Vettel will be more troubled than usual regarding the reliability but will have the measure of Daniel Ricciardo. This season we will really see what the current champion is made of.

Mercedes
The new Mercedes is looking very good. The engine looks like the best of the three, and has shown reliability and speed. There have been a few issues for the team, but it looks like the problems occurred when they were really pushing the car. The Red Bull never really got that close. Both drivers managed to do several race distances and had good pace.

I think the most fascinating aspect to this season will be who comes out on top between Hamilton and Rosberg. Last year was close, and I think this year will be closer. I think Lewis will be the fastest over the year, but with Rosberg grabbing quite a few victories and pushing Hamilton hard. It will be difficult for the team to manage. I expect Mercedes and Hamilton to be champion by the end of the year, if not Hamilton then Rosberg.

Ferrari
I think the Ferrari looks ugly this year with its really squashed nose. The car has been very reliable in testing, and has shown reasonable pace, but it looks less drivable than the Merc and there are serious rumours that there are problems with fuel usage which could see the cars drop down the order.

It will be fascinating to see whether Alonso or Raikkonen comes out on top. I believe that Alonso will be more consistent and may win a few of the races, but will become annoyed by another year not being able to realistically fight for the championship.

Lotus
The Lotus is intriguing with the double tusk nose. Another Renault runner, it has had a difficult pre-season, missing the first test and sitting out lots of time with issues in the second and third tests. We don't really know the pace and I'm not sure we will until the season has set in a little.

It's Grosjean versus Maldonaldo at Lotus and I know which one my money will be on. Grosjean showed speed at the end of last year and Maldonaldo is too inconsistent. Whether either will get a chance to shine this year will be difficult to say.

McLaren
The McLaren is looking better than last year, although the front of it makes it look like someone who's taken a lot of cocaine! Running the reliable Mercedes engine helps, and they looked good in the first and second tests, but seemed to not move forward as much as the other teams by the third test. So it may get them podiums but maybe no wins.

The team has a new fast rookie in Kevin Magnussen and he was looking very confident and fast. I believe we may be about to witness a re-run of the 2007 Alonso/Hamilton scenario where the rookie is shown to be faster than the experienced World Champion. Although given Button's laid back attitude I don't think there will be the same fireworks. Which one comes out on top is difficult to say!

Force India
Another Mercedes runner which looked good in testing, albeit not as quick as the Mercedes and Williams, this should be a good year for the team. Nico Hulkenburg is back and I think the combination should be great with some giant killing performances. I expect Nico and Sergio Perez to be fighting with the Ferraris throughout the year. I expect Hulkenburg to have the measure of Perez.

Sauber
The Sauber was very twitchy in testing but proved to be reliable with the Ferrari engine. It did the largest amount of laps in one day, but went off on several occasions, due to the poor fly by brakes. I think they will struggle to show the same pace as late last year. I also think the driver line up is weak. Sutil should come out on top but it could be either.

Toro Rosso
The Toro Rosso seems to have chosen the wrong time to go from a Ferrari engine to Renault, and have said they are one month behind schedule. The car has been only slightly more reliable than the senior team's due to the greater cooling. It's another ugly car due to the sex toy like front nose.

I'm not sure whether we can see who will do better between Daniel Kvyat and Jean-Eric Verne, though this must be JEV's last year at a guess.

Williams
The Williams is looking fantastic, which I think is marvellous. Last year was dire by their standards, but this year they are fast and very reliable. In fact, they may just have an edge on the Mercedes which should be interesting fro Felipe Massa and Valteri Bottas. I really hope that they do have a good car, I would like to see the team battling at the front on a regular basis.

I expect it to be quite close between Massa and Bottas and am not sure which will come out the winner. I also hope the new surroundings give Massa a renewed vigour which he lost playing second fiddle to Alonso at Ferrari.

Marussia
The Marussia had a slow start to testing, turning up for the last day of the first test but have shown some reliability and with some consistency may be able to snatch their first points of the year. The car looks tidy and so I'm hopeing for some good things.

Caterham
The Caterham has to have some marks for the ugliest nose in F1. With their Renault engine I expect them fall behind Marussia, although they appear to have provided more cooling than the other Renault racers.

The returning Kobayashi is good value, but whether he can show any of the battling overtaking that he's known for will be another matter. I don't know enough of Marcus Ericsson to be able to say.


It should be a fascinating year, and I'm really looking forward to it.

Squiffy.

Much ado Ron Ron

Yesterday was interesting in F1. Ron Dennis is back. He's been quiet since leaving the role of team principal in 2009. But yesterday he was made the CEO of McLaren again, usurping Martin Whitmarsh.

It's been rumoured for a while that Ron and Martin have been at loggerheads. Apparently, Ron wanted to bring back the 2012 McLaren last year when the 2013 model was found to be a dud. He was sceptical of the hiring of Sergio Perez and pushed for his ousting at the ending of last year.

There's been no news on who the team principal will be, but Mr Dennis has made it known that there will be changes. At the meeting at McLaren, the whole staff were present to hear of Ron's comeback but Mr Whitmarsh was not present. If he was certain to remain they would both be there presenting a united front, so one has to wonder! It looks like Ron Dennis will not be on the pit wall, and so who are the candidates?

Possibly, Sam Michael on a temporary basis until a certain Ross Brawn finishes his gardening/fishing leave?

I'll be sorry to see Martin Whitmarsh go, he seems like a thoroughly nice guy but you get marked by your results and McLaren have underperformed for well over a decade.

Interesting times at Woking.

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband: The Economic Big Speech! Err, where was it?

At the beginning of this week we were told that little Ed Miliband was going to be making a big speech on the economy on Friday. Ooh, excitement! Was it going to be embracing the coalition spending plans? Was it going to be a change to business rates? Was it going to be a new prices and incomes policy? Was he going to go for a flat tax system? Was he going to go all out for reflation? Nope. Nothing like it.

Banker bashing. Again. I've lost count of the number of times that he's had a speech on banking. Monthly he seems to change where the tax on bankers bonus is going to focus, I can't remember this month whether it is for new homes, 'creating' jobs, or a new sheepdog for every second house. Never mind that in the next breath he wants to reduce bankers bonuses - which obviously means he'd get less for his latest pet project spending! But don't let economics get in the way of his economics speech!

This time, he wants to create new challenger banks. He thinks the banks are too big. Remind me, who was it who allowed the banks to get bigger? His gang. Who was it who forced the solvent Lloyds to ruin itself bailing out HBOS? His gang. Who was it who allowed Santander to buy up loads of banks such as Alliance & Leicester, Bradford & Bingley ? His gang.

A bit late to start saying the banks are too big now! Never mind bloody hypocritical! Mind you, should we be surprised. Anyway, why does Miliband think its up to the Government to create some new banks. We've already got one big one that we're desperately trying to get rid of. Andrew Neil made the valid point, too, that these banks won't have much capital and so are unlikely to provide large amounts of funding for SME's as required by Mr Miliband. So a load of rubbish really.

Going back to the charge of hypocrisy, earlier this week Mr Miliband found his old note about the squeezed middle down the back of the sofa and decided to read it out again. Everyone knows that if Labour get back in rather than spending cuts there will be tax rises. To get the most bang for your tax increase, it's the middle that gets hit. Labour's usual instrument of torture is via National Insurance. So be very wary of Red Ed's middle-speak, he's no Tony Blair.

So, move along. Nothing to see here.

Squiffy.

Hypotecation for the NHS? I Danny you're onto something

One of my favourite columnists is Danny Finkelstein, now a Lord. This week he came up with the idea of having a separate tax for the NHS. The reason for this is so that the public know how much we have to pay for the 'free' health service.

We'd also know how much the cost was going up each year. Let's just say that he doesn't support hypothecation for other areas, just the NHS. There's a lot to agree with here, transparency being the main reason. As costs increase and taxes went up, the unaffordable path of the NHS would have to b tackled.

Lord Finkelstein is a close friend of the Chancellor, and so who knows? It may be more than a fanciful idea!

Squiffy

Why does Government mess up IT?

There was an article on the Daily Politics today about Government IT projects. Francis Mause said that they are changing the way in which IT projects occur and that it's improving the situation. I believe him, it could hardly be worse.

The last Government wasted £12Bn on the NHS computer system. I'll say that again. £12Bn. That's mammoth. You have to stand back in disbelief when Labour shadow ministers complain about the £40m misspent on the Universal Benefits project.

For non-IT professionals, I'll give the low down on why IT projects go wrong. The old way of doing projects meant that there would be a desired aim for the project.Project Managers and Analysts would then spend months and months writing requirement specifications, trying to nail down every last item of functionality (what the project should do). When a specification was finally agreed it be outsourced to one of the large IT contractors who would start work on it. After several years, the project would be delivered back and the Government would find out that it didn't do what was necessary.

There would then need to be a re-design, possibly a large one. Maybe there were so many flaws that it had to be completely ditched. Many times the Analysts got some requirements wrong, or needed to add new ones. Political priorities change, new responsibilities get added on. As the end of the project nears it becomes frantic and previously essential features get dropped and scaled down.

This system is called the Waterfall approach, every stage feeds onto the next. The problems are that each stage takes for ever, and you only find out how badly the stage went at the end - several years later.

A new project methodology, called Agile, has changed the way big projects can be tackled. The project starts with little detail and gets broken down into 'stories' and tasks. The stories get fleshed out and implemented in an 'iteration' or 'sprint' which could be a few weeks or nothing more than one month. These sprints contain less than 10 people in the development team, and so there may be more than one team working on different functional areas. At the end of the month, all the implemented stories and collected into a demo and shown.

This way, the project managers and clients can see it develop and point out flaws, or extra requirements and things not liked. The development team can also have a say on what went wrong in the sprint and hopefully make improvements for next time. As time goes by the projects get closer to completion. "Must have" features have to be completed, and "nice to have" are just that. In theory, this means that there should be few surprises, including all the essential features and having been demo'ed to the client throughout.

This latter method is what Francis Maude's team are using. It's certainly better than the old Waterfall method, and its about time.

Although there will be some problems and some money will be misspent, its likely to be much less than before. Let's hope so!

Squiffy.

F1 2014: Carnage

F1 testing will be start in a little over two weeks for the new season. Last season was a bit dull, but the new one is promising to be a bit spicy, and the test sessions are going to be interesting.

This year there are changes to the aerodynamics. The new single raised exhaust will kill the coanda effect feeding the difuser. The front wing will be narrower and the nose cone will be lower, unfortunately this may bring back the stepped nose. The rear beam wing is gone, but the monkey wing will be back.

The biggest change though is to the engine, or power unit, as we will now have to call it. Out go the 2.4 litre V8s, in comes 1.6 Litre turbo V6s. Unlike the V6s turbos of the pre-1989 era, these will not be 1200 BHP monsters. They will develop around 550 BHP, and be limited to 100 litres of fuel, roughly a third less than now. Rather than KERS for 6.7 seconds, there will be two energy recovery systems; one the kinetic energy from braking and secondly the heat from the exhaust gases. These will be deployed for much longer in the lap (I think 33 seconds) but will take 2 laps to replenish.

This is going to be interesting, and that's why testing is going to be fascinating. No one knows which of the three engines, Mercedes, Ferrari or Renault is the most powerful. No one knows how their ERS systems will compare, what about their patterns of usage and fuel economy. It's all new. So, when testing starts we should see lots of problems and blow ups.

This could last into the first few races of the year. We've got used to reliable cars with most finishing the races. This could all change, and many are predicting pandemonium in the first few races. Most commentators think that it should then settle down. I don't think so! There is a reduced restriction of 5 engines per season. Down from 8.

What does that mean? With all the uncertainty and possible blow ups at the beginning of the year, drivers will be running out of engines - maybe by half way through the season. They then get grid penalties. I'm predicting that towards the end of the year most of the grid will have grid penalties and it will cause major controversy! It should be fascinating!

Squiffy.

2013 Marks and 2014 Predictions

It's that time of year again when I mark myself against last year's predictions and make some for the next year.

Firstly, last years predictions:

1. The economy will really start to recover, growing by 1% overall this year. 1 point
2. Along with the economy, the Government's fortunes will improve slightly. Polls at the end of the year will be around 38% Labour, 34% Tory, 12% LibDem, 8% UKIP. Pretty close. 1 point.
3. Chris Huhne will not go to prison, but he will not return to Government either. 0 points.
4. Fernando Alonso will win the World Championship, from Sebastien Vettel. 0 points.
5. Lewis Hamilton will win at least one race this year in his new Mercedes. Spot on, 1 point.
6. Andrew Mitchell will be exonerated of 'plebgate' and the officer who made the allegations will be found out. Mr Mitchell will return to Government in a mini reshuffle in the late summer. 1/2 point.
7. Kate Middleton's baby will be a girl and will carry the name of Elizabeth and Diana in some order. 0 points.
8. There will be a monetary scandal involving a cabinet minister forcing them to resign. 0 points.
9. David Miliband will agree to join the Labour front bench. 0 points.
10. The Eurozone will have a fresh crisis in September when everyone is convinced the problems have been solved. 0 points.

Overall, 3.5 points out of 10. Not very good. Oh well, maybe 2014 will be better!

And now for this year's predictions:

1. The economy will grow by 2.5% to 3% this year.
2. The opinion polls will end the year at 36% Tory, 35% Labour, 12% LibDem, 10% UKIP.
3. The European elections will give Labour the lead, UKIP 2nd (just behind), Tories 3rd and LibDems 4th.
4. Lewis Hamilton will win the F1 World Championship.
5. The Ferrari power plant will be bad, leading to Alonso ditching them and joining McLaren for 2015.
6. Tony Blair will speak out against Ed Miliband's leadership.
7. Vince Cable will resign or be sacked (hopefully).
8. Peter Mandelson will do Strictly.
9. Scotland will vote against independence.
10. Gordon Brown will announce he's leaving parliament in 2015.

Let's see how I do this year,

Squiffy

F1: Disappearing up its own DRS

Today there's the news that from next year there will be permanent number for each driver. Fine, no problem.

The more disturbing news is that the final round will be awarded double points. Err, why? Why that one, why not the first one? Surely every round should be worth the same. I believe it's to try to make the championship go to the last round, but we seem to be getting further and further away from what F1 is supposed to be.

Last week there was talk of forcing cars to have two pitstops, limiting lots of strategy options. I know that Bernie mentioned a few years ago of shortcuts which you could use 3 times in a race - I thought he'd been taking the funny pills and there was no chance. I'm not so sure that it won't happen now.

What is happening to the sport I love? The measures recently to try to spice up the action have made it artificial and detract from true talent. Lewis Hamilton is the best overtaker in the business and yet everyone can overtake with DRS. The tyres are so marginal that no-one can be on it for more than a lap.

As soon as you start making it artificial, the flood gates open to more artificial measures. DRS, as Sir Humphrey would say, was the thin end of the wedge.

Please stop before I turn off.

Squiffy

All change in F1

So Sebastien Vettel is F1 World Champion again. Well done to him, but I'm now getting board. The season started well, but once Red Bull got into their stride it became a bit samey.

I'm now looking forward to next year. There's a lot of change with regards to the regulations, but there's a lot of driver moves. Raikkonen to Ferrari, Massa to Williams, possibly Hulkenburg to Lotus (although refusing to go for the last two races may have spiked that), Kevin Magnussen to McLaren, Perez to where? And what about Di Resta?

It's looking interesting. Now lets just have someone build a car better than Red Bull.

Squiffy.

Help to headline

The last week has seen a multitude of discussion pieces on the BBC asking whether the Help to Buy scheme is leading to housing bubble.

Partly this is due to the Government's decision to bring phase two forward. This means that the potential mortgagee only has to pay a 5% deposit and the Government will underwrite the next 20% but even so the bank or building society has to provide the remaining  95%.

Before the financial crisis there had been 95% mortgages, I bought my flat on one such mortgage in 2001 - way before the housing market over-heated. It was a little later that 100% mortgages became available, and even later that 125% mortgages became available which seems to make no sense apart from relying on house price inflation. It did become bizarre. But we are nowhere near that.

Without help to buy you would probably need 20% deposit to buy a house - which puts most property beyond most. If most people can't buy property and are stuck where they are, there will be no reason for new houses to be built unless they're mansions affordable by only people with a stash of cash. House prices would jump higher given the housing shortage.

The purpose behind help to buy is to enable people to jump on the housing ladder, get the market moving, give impetus to build and make everyone feel better.

The basis of debate is whether a more healthy housing market will lead to unsustainable housing inflation and a bubble. We know that it might if we don't build more houses, so we need to get building, but the housing market needs to be moving first. At least the Government has tried to relax planning rules to make it easier.

But do people really believe we're on the verge of a boom only 6 months after talk was of a triple dip and after 5 years of dire horrible news. It's way too early! Get a grip! The IMF revised our growth rates up to 1.4% this year and 1.9% next year, that is no way like boom territory (which is more like 3% against our trend rate).

Even if this did start to cause a boom, the Government can very quickly withdraw support for new mortgages and even close the scheme at a few days notice!

Which makes me think why is this all over the BBC? What would make the impartial BBC devote so much time to a boom where there isn't one? Can't understand it.

Squiffy.

David Cameron Speech: Verdict

I was away on the day of David Cameron's speech, so didn't cover it on the day but I thought I'd say a few words about the speech for completeness.

The speech was ok. He didn't have any new policies, but was trying to form an argument. It was reasonably effective, but didn't blow your socks off.

I know David Cameron is a good speaker, but he has done the best speeches when his back is against the wall. His speech for the leadership, and again when Gordon Brown was thinking of an immediate General Election were his best. They both were when he did the speech without notes. I believe he thinks this makes him look less Prime Ministerial, but he needs to inspire. Especially now, when he has an upbeat message.

Next year, he either needs to do a speech without notes (but none of the cheesy geekiness of Ed Miliband) or find a Sam Seabourne/Toby Zeigler combo to give his oratory the lift it needs.

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband Speech: Verdict

Brilliantly delivered march to the left.

At the weekend Ed Miliband was asked if he was a socialist, and he said yes with enthusiasm. I thought it was just something to say in response. Today, we see that he really means it. When he was elected leader he said that New Labour was dead. It's not just dead, it has been hung, drawn and quartered. One Notion Labour is sucking spangles, wearing flares, and singing Slade whilst setting a course for the 1970's.

Ed Miliband grew up in the treasury, but obviously learnt nothing. Firstly, there is the £800m extra bank levy. Anyone knows that due to the necessity to hold enough capital to lend, say 10% at the most optimistic, this will mean £7.2Bn will be taken out of the economy. Really great way to stifle recovery.

Secondly, the energy freeze, whilst populist, is a recipe for disaster. We need so much investment in our energy supply to provide provision for the future and keep the lights on. Why would a company invest when under price controls? They won't. It all sounds like a mini Price and Incomes policy - I thought we'd moved so far away from that nonsense.

Ed, in a long hurrah for the NHS, gave a list of achievements under the last Labour Government then said that he would reverse the market based reforms which achieved them. A fully integrated 'NHS' was mentioned, but how? Just repeal a few laws. So more re-organisation. That'll please them.

Wrap-around childcare was a good policy, but how will it be paid for? There was loose talk of reorganising priorities. For quite an expensive policy, that's some ask!

Obviously, the 'bedroom tax' was ditched, and that was all the mention of welfare reform. Apart from 'we can do better than this'.

No real mention of economic policy. Apart from 'we can do better than this'.

No direct policy about immigration. Apart from 'we can do better than this'. Oh apart from the fact that companies had to come up with an apprenticeship for an under-trained Brit. I'm not sure many companies will do this, so may be that is their immigration policy!

A real march to the left. Michael Foot would be proud. Tony Blair is probably filling in his Tory membership papers right now. Can there be a new SDP?

Anyway, until next week.

Squiffy.

Nick Clegg Speech: Verdict

Today was Nick Clegg's speech to the Lib Dem conference.

The task at conference was to look ahead to the next election and prepare some policies for negotiation at a possible hung parliament. It was probably the best conference for Nick Clegg, the muttering about his leadership has gone and there doesn't look like there will be a challenge. Vince Cable made an arse of himself as usual, if I was Nick Clegg I would sack him as soon as possible.

The style of the speech was nothing extraordinary and you could tell where he wanted his applause by how loud his voice would go.

The speech itself was fine, again nothing extraordinary, the usual platitudes and plagues on both your houses. He delivered it well but there were no surprises. The much trailed free school meals for infants was applauded, but no explanation about the inconsistency with the removal of universal benefits for others.

It irked that he was saying that recovery wouldn't have happened without the Lib Dems, and that he set the purpose of Government to be social mobility. I think the Tories have a greater stand out claim for these. The Lib Dem's purpose has been to stop certain policies.

It was notable that many times he mentioned Liberal purposes and traditions, I don't think he mentioned the Social Democrat element once. It shows where he's coming from. Definitely from the Orange book wing. It's this that's making the Cable morose. Although he's saying that he's equi-distant, I do think there is going to be difficulties working with Ed Miliband.

So, the verdict was: ok, nothing special.

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband in a pickle

The last few weeks have been a bit difficult for the younger Miliband, but mainly of his own making!

Firstly the spat with the unions caused by Falkirk selection process promised Miliband his 'Clause 4' moment when he made his speech saying that things had to change. If Miliband can achieve significant change to Labour's relationship with the unions it would certainly go down as a brilliant coup, alongside Kinnock's 1985 conference ousting of militant.

Since the announcement, though, there appears to have been some backtracking. The members of Falkirk Labour party who were suspended have been reinstated, and the report into the affair has been kept under lock and key. The threats of reduced funding from GMB seems to have shaken the resolve. His speech to the TUC was underwhelming.

If the link was truly reformed, the funding would be cut from the unions as union members were opted in - just like Ed Miliband has suggested. Also, though, the block vote at conference would have to be ditched and the unions would lose their vote in the leadership elections. For this to happen though, these changes would have to be passed by a vote and I think this is unlikely. Each MP voting would be wondering about the funds to their local party and their election warchest. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. It's for this reason that I think the backtracking will continue. In such circumstances, Ed Miliband will be seen as weak.


Secondly, I was dismayed by Ed Miliband's choice on the Syria vote. In meetings with the PM he was shown intelligence and given access to military opinions. He asked for reassurances from the PM, and was given them. After leaving the meetings he asked for further reassurances and was given them too, he asked for a second vote and was given it. He was given all he wanted and yet when it came to the crunch he still voted against. It was cowardly and he put party unity above principle and I could not be more ashamed of a leader of one of our major parties.

Afterwards it looked like a bit of a victory for Ed Miliband, but I think in retrospect this will be when he seen at his weakest. Not able to muster his troops only able to follow them. Duplicitous and not to be trusted is about the politest thing I could say. I would have hoped for better.


It is against this background that the next few months will be seen. He has to make a stirring speech at the conference, but without any policies and against a recovering economy will he be able to show much vision? The polls have tightened and the Tories are looking more confident and united than they have for some time. It's looking bad, can Ed turn it around?

Squiffy.

It's Red Egg

Today Ed Miliband was hit by eggs. It's pretty symbolic of the Labour party in the last few weeks, as MP after commentator after MP has thrown eggy suggestions to the leader of the opposition.

It has been a turnaround in fortunes for the two parties, the first change since the Omnishambles budget. The polls have narrowed but not quite turned yet, but there is a new trend setting in and Mr Miliband needs to change the narrative quickly. The story at the moment is of drift, no clear message and wavering policies.

A shadow reshuffle is in the offing and shadow ministers have been silent over the summer and when they have spoken up, like Chris Bryant, they've made a hash of it. The rumour is that Ed Miliband has been focussing on his conference speech, but a speech rarely changes the national mood, and while he has been silent the Government has been making hay (which is usually the opposition's job in summer).

It appears that the uptick in the economy is obliterating the Labour message of 'cutting too fast and too soon' and the public are now swinging behind the cuts more firmly. It's funny that the biggest cuts were enacted this April and so if the cuts were going to have an effect on the economy, you'd expect a contraction - in fact there was further expansion. It seems confidence and Europe have been a bigger factor. Anyway, the new Labour message is about the cost of living. They won't tell you has been getting worse since 2005, never mind the biggest recession since the depression.

The next few weeks and months will be interesting...

Just as an aside, the BBC are referring to today's German growth figures of 0.7% as strong, but referred to the UK's of 0.6% as weak. Bias? I couldn't say.

Squiffy.

It is summer, so Felipe Massa's position is under threat

For the third year running Felipe Massa's seat is under threat. The rumour this year is that Ferrari may decide to lure Kimi Raikkonen away from Lotus to replace the Brazilian. This would be a strange turnaround, after all Ferrari paid Raikkonen off to get him out of his contract to bring Fernando Alonso in. They chose Massa over Raikkonen.

It has become transparently clear, though, that Massa is on borrowed time. Either his injury, or the latest selection of tyres has stopped him being ultimately competitive and there has only been one occasion when he has threatened for a win, when he was forced aside as Rob Smedley delivered the line 'Fernando is faster than you'.

The yearly discussion over whether Massa should retain the Ferrari seat is as predictable as snow messing up the railways. It's clear that Massa is not pushing Alonso, he won't be in a position to challenge for the championship and Ferrari's constructors championship points are being hampered by the Number 2's side of the garage. They need a stronger driver.

Whether that is Raikkonen I don't know. He likes it at Lotus where they let him live his life as he wants. Also, he is also wanted by Red Bull, and the Alonso to Red Bull, Raikkonen to Ferrari rumours may be just bargaining tools from both sides of the Red Bull/Raikkonen deal. In which case Ferrari should go for Di Resta, Hulkenburg or Bianchi.

It would be good to see Raikkonen at Red Bull to give Vettel a good challenge, but I think Lotus needs him more than he needs them so they may try hard to convince him to stay. Also there is the fact that what is the Red Bull young driver programme for if it doesn't deliver drivers into the senior team. Daniel Ricciardo is a good driver and we still have to see whether he has what it takes - so to encourage other young drivers maybe they should keep the faith.

Where does this leave Massa? He's still a good driver, and maybe he could end up at Lotus or a third stint at Sauber. But it's time to end the yearly Massa-hunt.

Squiffy.

Lies, Damned lies, and statistical revisions

As I predicted in an earlier post, the double dip recession has now vanished. The revisions have removed them from history. At the same time, and even worse for Labour, the first recession has been revised to be even worse. So the recovery is harder to take hold.

Earlier in the week we heard that the deficit had slightly increased for 2012/13, and Labour were all over it. But remember revisions! The 2011/12 deficit was revised down more than the 2012/13 deficit and so it appeared to increase, but just like 2011/12 was revised down this year so can 2012/13 next year keeping the downward trend. The good news is that the deficit is being revised down rather than up.

Things seem to be improving at the moment, and I think it will continue. I expect growth to be nearer 1.5% this year, and the deficit to reduce further than official expectations. I really hope so!


Squiffy.

We escaped triple dip, we could still escape double dip

Last year we entered a double dip recession. Or did we?

Like a bureaucratic tardis, the ONS may be about to revise the figures for Q4 2011, Q1 and Q2 2012 so that the double dip becomes a figment of our imagination. It looks like one quarter only has to be revised upwards from - 0.07 to break the double dip.

If it does happen I hope the news outlets, BBC specifically, will give the same prominence to the news as it did to the news of the imaginary double dip... Some hope!

Squiffy.

Let UKIP be the protest vote, and not the vote of the right

Tonight and tomorrow we'll find out how well UKIP did in the local elections. I think they'll get just over 20 percent.

People of the left, and right and centre are voting for UKIP as a protest, which is fine. There always needs to be a party to represent protest, it used to be the Lib Dems but not now they're in Government. But anyone who classifies themselves as someone of the right and seriously thoughtful, should consider the policies and implications.

A vote for UKIP is a vote for tax cuts and extra spending to the tune of £60 a year. Margaret Thatcher wanted to balance the books, and Nigel Farage is not her heir. They will accelerate this country's descent into a debt abys. If the only reason is for a vote for a UK exit from the EU, then the likely outcome is a Labour Government which will not give you a chance to have your say. If you are centre right vote Tory, not for the fantasists.

Squiffy

Is Labour about to make a big error?

This morning's Indy has a report saying that Labour are going to go into the next election promising higher spending than the Tories.

They may be able to make the case but it's a difficult one for most people to understand. The Tories claim that you can't borrow yourself out of a debt crisis and it is a simple message that most people understand (even though its not always true).

I think, given the economic climate, that it would be a bad mistake. Most people think Labour spent too much before the last election, and have lost some economic credibility. To not try to regain that credibility is an error.

It is looking like they might make the 1992 election mistake again, when they promised higher taxes against the backdrop of recession.

Could this be the moment the polls turn?

Squiffy.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

George Galloway: Is this the most odious man in Britain today?

George Galloway has been on our TV screens today decrying that PMQs have be cancelled for this week, as many politicians will be at Baroness Thatcher's funeral. It's the latest outpouring of bile from the MP since saying they should 'tramp the dirt down', and from the party laughingly calling itself Respect.


He even had the temerity to have a go saying that she was a friend of dictators. Er, hello? Is this the same George Galloway who told Saddam Hussein that "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability" and went on to justify the invasion of Kuwait.

The hypocracy and nastiness of the man knows no bounds. To now try to stop PMQs being cancelled, in order to stop MPs attending the funeral is beyond spiteful. He's a disgrace. I hope the people of Bradford can finally see what mistake they made when they elected this odious individual.

Squiffy.

The F1 season is under way, and the fun continues

We've now had three races and three winners. Similar pattern to last year: drivers complaining about tyres, no team showing outright consistent pace and Webber with bad luck.

The Ferrari is definitely looking like it will give the Red Bull a run this year. The Mercedes is fast over one lap but inconsistent over a race distance and the McLaren has some major problems.

It's funny how relaxed Lewis Hamilton is now looking, especially when he sees the problems McLaren are having. It will seem that he made the right decision, though I think it is probably too early to tell. It does seem, however, that McLaren only make good cars every other year, with one exception. The good cars for the last decade have been in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012, so maybe it was astute to jump ship for 2013!

I do hope that Lewis will win a few races this year, he's only 12 points behind and maybe they can make a championship challenge if they can make a couple of tenths for the race. He would certainly be surprised.

In Malaysia we had the Vettel/Webber falling out. It has been coming for a while. It is clear that the two have not got on for years and now it is all out war. I do now expect them to trip each other up, such is the animosity. It could be their undoing for this year, and maybe this is Alonso's chance.

It's a real shame that Williams haven't made the step forward I hoped, I really want them back in the big league consistently.

Anyway, just some idle thoughts.

Squiffy.

Mrs T: The best peace time PM we've had in the last century

It's a sad day, Lady Thatcher has died. In my opinion, she was the best PM we've had since World War 2.

Her achievements as the first female leader of a major political party and then the first PM are too numerous to mention, but I will give the headlines: Ending the cold war, winning the Falklands war, smashing the power of the unions, privatising loss making industries, lowering tax rates, bringing in an entrepreneur economy, beating inflation and lastly reforming the Labour party.

There will be many tributes and some people will be spiteful (which says more about them than the great Lady). For me, she was the other lady in my life aside from my mother while I was growing up. I saw the country go from a clapped out basket-case, the sick-man of Europe, to a European giant alongside German and France. She put the Great back into Britain.

Of course she made mistakes. The Poll tax shouldn't have happened, trying to be fair by making everyone have a share in making their local council work for them, she forgot about the ability to pay. She shouldn't have touched it. She should have tackled welfare, which is now being tackled 30 years later. Grant maintained schools should have been a first term priority and then they would have been bedded down much earlier, before Labour reversed them then brought them back as Academies.

She became too strident with colleagues and when she did one last time their patience broke, on top of the Poll tax unpopularity she was defeated by her own party.

The great that she did will far outweigh these mistakes for they were and can be overcome. The turning around of Britain will never be forgotten. Of this she can be proud.

Rest in peace Mrs T, I'm raising a glass to the life of a brilliant politician and true patriot.

Squiffy.

Morrissey says gays don't go to war

<p>I love the Smiths, and I also think that Morrissey is a genius with lyrics. As a Tory, I would no doubt get a load of crap my way for liking the Smiths from members of band, but how would I do as gay? I believe in self responsibility and great shoes! Buying your own shots and being fabulous while knocking them back. But I also thought the Smiths talked to me when I felt lonely, an odd one out, while I was coming out. </p>
<p>I'm still an odd one out, a gay Tory. Being both loved and hated by members of the band I revere.<br></p>
<p>Which brings me to Morrissey's latest pronouncement.

Maybe he thinks that the modern day gay man, out, proud and happy with himself will not go to war, and he might be on to something. But some of the most bloodthirsty people in history have been closeted gays who think showing masculinity by killing folk will show they're real men. The ultimate diversion tactic, has slain many people. Think Alexander the Great and you get the idea. In Britain we have Edward II and William II as examples as gay men not afraid to go to war.

The argument should not be that gays don't go to war, but gays comfortable with themselves don't go to war. There's not much worse than closeted gays, as history in politics and religion shows. Hypocrisy and bigotry abound.

Gays are as strong and angry as everyone else, until they find the thing that makes them angry. Mr Morrissey, please weave that into your next lyric.

Squiffy

Eastleigh: the aftermath

After the Eastleigh by-election, there will be a lot of guff spoken. It's the same after every election bar the general.

The Lib Dems did well to win, they are great local campaigners and once they get a foothold in an area they are hard to shift! UKIP did spectacularly well to come from nowhere to second. It was disappointing for the Tories and Labour.

That's the headlines. Underneath though it's quite interesting. UKIP have now become the party of protest, which should be worrying for Labour. If the public run for a party with only one recognisable politician and policy when the Government is so unpopular, and that person is not the leader of the opposition then the opposition is doing something wrong. The Labour party made no headway, and they should be in these circumstances.

It's a bit worrying for the Tories, but they are the prime governing party and so it would generally be unusual for them to win a seat when in midterm unpopularity. The Chris Huhne and Lord Rennard affairs didn't seem to have much effect and did not benefit the Tories. The Lib Dems may do worse in a general election though.

I would be surprised to see UKIP use this as a real springboard for national elections. They are still a party of protest with one known popular policy. The rest of the policies do not stand up to scrutiny, lots of tax cuts and more spending make the Labour party look economically sound. Voters thinking of going for UKIP who actually want a referendum would be better going for David Cameron's deal of a referendum after the next election.

The Tories should be worried that UKIP will pull enough votes to put Ed Miliband in number 10. And UKIPs should think again because Ed Miliband will never give a referendum (because he'll lose). Tory headbangers should beware a lurch to the right though, it will never win over the electorate.

Squiffy.

David Cameron has played a blinder

<p>The last few weeks David Cameron has been on top form, he made a fantastic speech on Europe with the promise of a referendum, he's said a big yes to gay marriage and he's secured an EU budget cut. These are big moments for the country's future economically and socially. </p>
<p>The referendum pledge is a slow burner that will be a big problem for Labour and Lib Dems whilst uniting the Tory benches. Ed Miliband has a big problem on his hands, and he has been very quiet recently. I think he'll have to agree to the referendum himself after some gnashing of teeth.

The PM also pushed through the gay marriage vote against vocal opposition and this will be remembered in years to come. He is a social liberal and that's exactly where the modern Tory party needs to be.

Finally, he delivered a budget cut when all were predicting a small rise for the EU. All those saying that Britain is isolated can now reevaluate. Ed Miliband wants to claim some credit, but we know his vote for a reduction was cynical and that he would have surrendered, just like Tony Blair!

Overall, and a great month for the PM.

Squiffy

2013 predictions: a bit late

It's been a very busy January for me and so I've not had any time to blog recently. I will try to resume now with more regular blog posts. And to start off, lets have a look at my predictions for the remaining 11 months.

1. The economy will really start to recover, growing by 1% overall this year.
2. Along with the economy, the Government's fortunes will improve slightly. Polls at the end of the year will be around 38% Labour, 34% Tory, 12% LibDem, 8% UKIP.
3. Chris Huhne will not go to prison, but he will not return to Government either.
4. Fernando Alonso will win the World Championship, from Sebastien Vettel.
5. Lewis Hamilton will win at least one race this year in his new Mercedes.
6. Andrew Mitchell will be exonerated of 'plebgate' and the officer who made the allegations will be found out. Mr Mitchell will return to Government in a mini reshuffle in the late summer.
7. Kate Middleton's baby will be a girl and will carry the name of Elizabeth and Diana in some order.
8. There will be a monetary scandal involving a cabinet minister forcing them to resign.
9. David Miliband will agree to join the Labour front bench.
10. The Eurozone will have a fresh crisis in September when everyone is convinced the problems have been solved.

Let's see what comes true.

Squiffy.

Last year's predictions

Every year I make some predictions and then see how well I do. Here's what I predicted for 2012 and how I mark it.

1. At least one country, probably Greece, will exit the Euro. The Euro will survive though. 0 points.
2. Ed Miliband will have another bad year, though the talk will be of being replaced by Yvette Cooper. 0 points
3. Britain will win around 24 golds at the Olympics. 1 point, quite close
4. The Diamond Jubilee will be a great success and provide a bounce to the coalition of around 5% in the opinion polls. 1/2 point.
5. Sebastien Vettel will win his third World Championship, closely from Lewis Hamilton. 1 point
6. Chris Huhne will resign from the Government when facing charges of speeding & perjury. 1 point
7. A reshuffle will see David Laws make a return to Government. 1 point
8. In the Euro 2012 championship, England will get knocked out in the quarter finals. 1 point
9. Mitt Romney will face Barrack Obama in the presidential election, and Obama will win. 1 point
10. The polls will remain similar to now, Tories 39%, Labour 42%, LibDem 12%. 1/2 point, Labour correct, Tories and LDs overestimated
11. Boris will win the London Mayoral election, defeating Ken by 6%. 1 point

8 points out of 11, not bad really.

Tomorrow, I'll do my 2013 predictions.

Squiffy.