(Y)EU give me one more push...

I find it unbelievable that the EU has wanted an increase in their budget of 5.9%. As it is they will likely get 2.9%. At a time when member countries are struggling to pay off their deficits, with some nearly broke, it is madness to pay more to a load of bureaucrats in Brussels.

I don't understand where the thinking comes from. Do these people socialise with the normal people they are supposed to represent? You'd think they would try, but it is clear that they are kept in a giant bubble away from the people that put them there. They obviously don't live in the real world. The EU project is rapidly becoming a joke. Unfortunately, it's not a very funny one.

At every opportunity the leaders of Europe show that they just don't get it. They are remote, they are unaccountable, they promise subsidiarity whilst taking more powers, they ignore the problems of growth for policies which actively bring about unemployment, if they don't like what you've said they ignore it, they treat the people of Europe as fools. And the worst of it is that the National Governments are complicit.

I understand the benefits of free trade and the single market, which was enacted in 1986. Since then, what? Nothing that has been announced has made me think that the EU project is moving in the right direction. Directives, treaties and initiatives have come and gone. Nothing has turned this supertanker around.

What's more the EU and its members are duplicitous. Do you remember Tony Blair giving away some of our rebate for CAP reforms? What happened? Was that tumbleweed blowing past? That's right - nothing. 40% percent of the budget is still being spent on inefficient farmers, while those starving in Africa are priced out of our markets. If the CAP was gone, we wouldn't have to spend so much on International aid. The whole thing stinks and is verging on the downright wicked.

If Europe was doing anything right, I'd be in full support. And there is still a flicker of hope that someone will come along and make them wake up. But I suspect the whole gravy train has gone on for too long, views are too entrenched and that nothing will change for the better.

It will only take one more push before I join the long list of people in the UK wanting out altogether.

Squiffy.

The best programme on TV. Ever.

I'm just watching the third series of The West Wing. Again. I love it, and still miss it. It captures everything that I love to see on TV. It incorporates politics into a great story with fine acting, comedic moments whilst educating us on the behind the scenes. It also teaches a lot about US politics.

There were some fantastic episodes such as 'Let Bartlet be Bartlet' and fantastic moments such as when CJ cannot say 'root canal', after having root canal, leading to a secret plan for inflation being announced by Josh.

I thought it did lose it slightly near the end of its run. Especially after John Spencer's sad death, and the reshuffling of the cast. Even so, I remember bawling my eyes out when the series ended and feeling a sense of loss. I even cry when I re-watch the last episode. Such a wuss.

There's not many TV programmes which can raise the hairs on the back of my neck, but this is one. This and the opening music for Formula 1 by Fleetwood Mac.

Squiffy.

The FBU: Playing with fire

It sounds like something out of one of the Carry On films. Do you remember the one where they make toilets, and the union is always dragging them out on strike for one thing or another?

In many ways, that's just like Bob Crow's RMT. We, in London, get used to the annual tube strikes. It's really annoying and makes you want to pull your hair out. In the last few years we've had tube strikes because a train driver was fired after being found to be playing Squash when he was signed off sick with a bad leg. We've also had lines taken out by a lack of hand basins and the terminus toilet facities. Sometimes you want to scream at the stupidity.

Now we come to the Fire Brigades Union. At the moment fireman work two shifts, one during the day for 9 Hours, and one during the night for 15 Hours. They've been requested to change this to two 12 hour shifts. The same number of hours, the same number of days. Because of this new contract they've decided to go out on strike.

The days they have chosen is the 5th of November. Bonfire night. The busiest night for firemen. To say this is callous doesn't do it justice. On the night when they will be needed most, they'll be manning the barricades wanting sympathy for a cause which no-one understands. There may be serious injuries and, heaven forbid, fatalities. It maybe bluff, but they are playing a dangerous games.

They are, literally, playing with fire and are doing Unions a great disservice.

Later: Corrected the reason for one of the strikes

Squiffy.

Now let's get out the scissors

It's been a busy week in politics. It's also been a busy week for me which means I've not been able to fully absorb the Comprehensive Spending Review.

From my initial impressions, though, it looks to me as if it hits all the right buttons. Not just me though, the markets also seem to have taken that viewpoint too, with the interest rate on Government debt falling to below that of Germany.

A good sign indeed. I'm not moved by all the complaints about fairness. The richest ten percent are hit the hardest in their taxes, and the poorest ten percent are hit hardest by the cuts. Because Government spending in Welfare is designed to help the poorest most, any cuts will hurt the most too. That has to be put in the context of big increases over the last 13 years, and so a little retrenchment is to be expected.

A lot of the welfare changes are 'nudges', designed to change people's behaviour rather than just punish. Such as limiting the amount of housing benefit to anyone below the age 35, to a room in a shared house. This is what people in the private sector have to do to get on, so why should others be protected?

Overall it's look good. That's not to say that times are not going to be difficult. It is a gamble, but I think a gamble that will work and will shoot the collective foxes of all those talking about a double dip recession. I expect growth to start picking up next year, and within five years we'll see a flexibly growing economy averaging at 3% GDP growth 3% per annum.

I could be wrong though!

Squiffy

Ed Miliband: First PMQs Verdict

Today was Ed Miliband's first PMQs. I thought that he would be underwhelming, and at the start his low key pitch made me feel I would be right.

In the end though, he got the better of David Cameron. I suppose for someone confidant it may be easier for the opposition leader to go on the attack, and the PM will have to tread carefully to find out how to treat the new opposition.

Ed Miliband did do very well though. He made his points well and pointed out when DC was not answering the questions. I think it is too easy for the PM of the day to deal in generalisations rather than specifics, and I was hoping that David Cameron would be able to tackle the questions directly. This may be difficult when the PM has to master all areas when he doesn't know what the question will be.

So my marks: EM 7, DC 5

The Breeder's charter

Jeremy Hunt is on our TV screens rather a lot. Although he runs the culture department, one of the lowest rungs of cabinet Government, he is used more often as the public face of the Government. It's obviously because he's attractive, reasonable and eloquent. The kid will go far!

The other night, though, he caused a stir on Newsnight, in response to the proposal to cap overall benefits, by saying that it is not the Government's role to support the choices of parents. In this he was referring to the choices that parents make when they have children.

I was really happy that someone had finally said that and I couldn't agree more. The edge cases of the benefits system show families, either single parent or with both, who don't work and have too many children. You may say, "what is too many?". I think most normal thinking people will have an idea. And it's probably somewhere below four.

It used to be the culture that you would have children when you could afford to support them. Somehow, amongst the new client state, this has passed by the wayside. It is now seen as a 'right' to be able to have children rather than a privilege, and the way the state doles out the money for each child supports this view. For some, there is no incentive to try to limit the number of children to their means.

This has to change. There has to be responsibility. The fact is that a minority of these families live on close to £100,000 per year with upwards of 8 children need to have a reality check. It is not healthy for the country, either, for children to witness their unemployed parents doing fine on benefits, popping another child out when they feel like it. What kind of moral example is that? One generation on, the problem is multiplied.

The proposed system is harsh for those families, but absolutely necessary. The message has to be sent out. Life on benefits is not an option. Supporting children is going to cost. Responsibility is paramount.

Only then will this problem diminish.

Squiffy.

Could the child benefit cut be a clever piece of political management?

Is it possible that David Cameron and George Osborne are quite happy with the way the child benefit cut has been received?

It sounds quite mad because a lot of people have been squealing about unfairness and the coverage has been quite negative.

Look at it this way though. In 12 days time the comprehensive spending review will set the spending for the next three years, it is going to be harsh and the news is going to be bad for the people dependent on the state. By deliberately releasing the child benefit cut now and letting the bad news run and run, it will show that higher earners are being hit as well as those less well off.

It may be clever in the long run although unpopular now.

Squiffy.

David Cameron Speech: The Verdict

I guess most people, who wanted to, watched the speech on television. I listened to it through Sky Audio. I think you can get a different impression on the success of a speech if you only have the words.

From watching some of the coverage, it seemed that the speech was workmanlike but nothing special. Whilst I was listening, though, I found the speech to be fantastic - and not just because I'm a bit of a fan.

It had the right structure, firstly a bit of joviality, then Labour bashing and covering what had happened in the first few months. All this was useful to get the conference on side and make evryone sympathetic to the more difficult messages in the second half. Not everyone gets the 'Big Society' and it is a slightly nebulous concept but it is the underpinning for the Cameron credo and everything done in his name is attached to the concept.

He has been explaining the same thing through his time as party leader, but only gave it a title in the election campaign. At the time, people seemed to be unaware of where this idea had come from but you only had to listen to earlier speeches to knit the idea together into the principles behind it.

Yesterday, he did some public knitting trying to explain the concept again. From this moment onwards, real projects must be shown to take up the ideas of the Big Society and sythesize the idea into concrete examples. It is only when real projects start to touch our lives will everyone be in a position to understand the credo. And, incidentally, that will be the time where there is no going back to the statism of the last 13 years.

If the 80's and 90's were about economic restructuring and confidence then this period is when Britain changes from within the very nature of our society and the relationship between Government and its citizens.

Margaret Thatcher is rightly praised (in some quarters at least) for revolutionizing our economy, and it is going through the usual turmoil of having a Labour Government running it, but the new Government is embarking on something much bolder. If they succeed we shall all benefit, if not then we are doomed to statism for a much longer period.

This was the point of the speech, and he said it impressively. He is challenging his party in the same way that Tony Blair did. That's why I thought the speech was much better than last year's and should have had great coverage.

Squiffy.

David Cameron has to make the case for cuts

This afternoon David Cameron will make his first conference speech as Prime Minister. It goes without saying that every speech is important, and each one gets billed as make or break.

I won't make that assertion, but it is important that DC makes a good case for the situation we are in right now. He should say it in a way which most people will understand. I know that they have been trying but they must find the correct language.

DC also needs make the case for optimism after this period of austerity. We all know it is going to be tough, but we need to see light at the end of the tunnel.

I've said this before that those better off get more money taken off them by Labour Governments in good times and bad, but Tories try to give some back in good times. They need to make this case for middle England now after the child benefit cut for higher earners.

I do think that the child benefit issue had been badly handled. When Ian Duncan-Smith's proposal to taper off benefits whilst a low earner's pay packet rises is seen as the right thing to do (and it absolutely is) it seems like madness to introduce a cut-off without tapering for those rising above the forty percent threshold. What incentive would there be to step over the limit? Not forgetting the issue of two people just below the threshold getting more benefits than one person earning the equivalent.

The principle is right though. People on middle incomes should not be receiving any benefits, but you cannot throw a switch like this and expect happy people - it should be phased in.

I think DC should recognize this and say something along these lines in the speech today. I'll be waiting for such a moment.

Squiffy.

Ed Milibore: The Verdict

Yesterday was the day when Ed Miliband had to give us his vision for a future Britain under his leadership. It is the starting point for the next four and a half years.

Unfortunately, I found the speech boring and largely forgettable. It didn't inspire me at all, and although I'm not a party supporter, I know that a good speech delivered by Tony Blair would have me gripped.

It was delivered with the gusto of a dead parrot. There was no overiding theme. In a sense it was stiched together like one of Gordon Brown's, but with the content of a detached Nick Clegg (pre-Coalition era).

The one moment that sticks in the mind is his distance from the 'mistake of Iraq' but even that was overshadowed by the stony face of his brother asking Harriet Harman why she was clapping when she had voted for it.

A good speech must inspire, it must use the language that we understand but get away from clichés. As Jim Hacker once said, 'You can talk in clichés, till the cows come home'. There must be an overiding theme and a rhythm which catches you on its hook. Some people have it; Winston Churchill, Barack Obama, Tony Blair and to a large extent David Cameron. Ed Miliband didn't have it yesterday.

The message seemed to be directed at the Labour party and not the country and, while I think the party needs to have a deep think about what it stands for, yesterday was not the time to do it!

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband has to make the right impression

As I thought, the Labour party, has gone for Ed Miliband.

He is already being branded as Red Ed. Tomorrow he will make his first major conference speech. He must make a better fist of it than last year, when it was completely uninspiring.

He will set the tone for his leadership. He tacked to the left to win the leadership, now he must grab the publics attention. He needs to be centrist and send out signals to the south east that he will stand up for middle classes too.

I don't think he will but he may surprise!

Squiffy.

A great afternoon for me. Vettel and Ed

Singapore G.P. qualifying and the results of the labour leadership election.

My prediction is that Vettel will take pole and as I said some time ago, when all the money was on MiliD, I think that Labour will be foolish and elect MiliE.

Fascinating.

Squiffy.

Why are LibDem voters angry?

I really don't understand why LibDems are unhappy with the coalition. It was on display, again, last night on Question Time. Maybe it is because I'm not a LibDem voter, or maybe because I'm a bit of a realist.

The LibDems were never going to win the election outright, so the only chance for the LibDems to have any power whatsoever was in a power share with one of the big two. In which case, the electoral arithmetic would drive the likely coalition.

If the LibDems had said before the election that they would only do a deal with one of the parties, they would lose a significant portion of their voters and seats and be even less likely to be able to put any of their policies in operation. The party could also split.

The situation now is an inevitable consequence of voting for the LibDems.

For the long term, if the LibDems are going to become one of the bigger parties it will have to supplant one of the others. Their best hope is to try and be the main opposition to the Government of the day as a stepping stone to being in power alone. In which case they should have tacked to the right in the Labour years and to the left now. They tend to go in the opposite direction - along with the prevailing popularity.

Otherwise, if they believe what they say and they really want the "new politics" of coalitions then their followers must be prepared to support, from time to time, a party which are not their natural allies.

So stop bleating.

Squiffy.

The case for cuts

Most of my friends are left wingers who don't seem to understand the basics of economics that require us to deal with the deficit. I thought I'd try to explain it in the easiest way that I can.

Imagine you and your wife have been married for 7 years. You both have jobs on £24000 and £30000 respectively. You have lived in your house for years and are just keeping on top of your bills so that have enough for a couple of holidays every year. You have one child who is now at the age where he needs to go to school.

You want to give your son the best of education so you agree with your bank that you can have a yearly loan of £5000 to pay for a full time place in an independent school. You think that a pay rise is on the way for both of you which means that in a couple of years time you'll be able to cover the costs of the education. You can keep up the costs of the interest on the loan of £500 for this year - but you know the interest payments will keep going up without the raise.

Suddenly your wife falls ill and has to work part-time. Her annual salary goes down to £20000. Your bank agrees to fund some healthcare treatment which should make your wife better in the next 3 or 4 years. The bank is getting worried though, it's looking less likely that you will be able pay the money back. But you just about reassure them that your wife will get better and the pay rises are around the corner - you hope.

This is the stage we are at the moment in the UK economy.

You have several choices now:

1) You can ask the bank for a few more pounds and continue living as you are. They may give you some more money, or more likely they will get worried that you are not dealing with the situation properly. Shortly it looks like you will be paying more interest on your school loan than the amount you actually borrowed. They may put the interest rates on your loan up, or if they are really unsure about you they may start to ask for you pay off your loans immediately and send the bailiffs in when you can't.

2) You can cancel your twice yearly holidays and move your son to a day boarding school which only costs £2500 a year. Ok, you have a bit of extra money to handle the interest payments on your loans, but the amount of interest you have to pay is still going up and you just have to hope that your wife gets better soon so that you can get on top of the interest payments. If not the bank will get jittery...

3) You can cut back and send your son to the local comprehensive. The holidays need to go too for the time being. You have to cancel your health insurance and stop visits to restaurants. You still have loans to pay on the healthcare, but you can overpay to pay the loan off quickly. The bank is happy that you are handling the situation and agrees not to send in the bailiffs.

If you can't see why this is like the country, then:

For your combined salary read Government Income.
For your bills read Government expenditure.
For the annual school fees read structural deficit.
For the loans for healthcare read recessionary deficit (part of the automatic stabilizers)
For the holidays read Government schemes.
For the bank read International Credit Agencies and Money Markets.
For Bailiffs read the IMF.

In a nutshell, before the financial markets imploded we were already borrowing money to finance our yearly spending. The impact of recession meant that our income (i.e. tax) reduced while our outgoings (e.g. benefits) went up. Leaving us with a yearly deficit of around £155Bn.

Even when the recession has been dealt with we still have our additional spending in the structural deficit to contend with, but by that point our total loan will be £1400Bn up from £700Bn now - our interest payments will be nearly the same as our yearly benefits payments.

The unions don't want us to do anything, option 1, in which case the international money markets would surely stop lending money to us and call in the IMF.

Ed Balls and his ilk want option 2, in which case the international money markets will get jittery and we just hope the recovery is strong enough to pull us out of our tailspin.

The Government has chosen option 3, they want to stop some of the extra spending and get rid of the structural deficit within 5 years. It will still mean that the total deficit will go up to £1300Bn but you have to make a start.

I know which I favour.

Squiffy.

The Question Time Verdict

After last night's performance, the Labour party would be extremely foolish to elect anyone other than David Miliband. He was sensible and looked like a possible Prime Minister. Ed Balls was quite good too.

I still think that Ed Miliband will win it and that is good for me as a Tory. He will lead them to election disaster and David Miliband will probably leave politics.

It's very close to call but I think there are enough lefties in the Labour party who cannot see what a disaster anyone other than MiliD will be.

Squiffy

Tony Blair: The Tory Labour Pm

I've just received my copy of the ex-pm's memoirs and have not read them yet. But it is possible to comment using the press speculation as a guide.

It is clear that TB was an a MP who turned his back on the old Labour policies that he supported when he went into parliament, in order to create a pseudo-Thatcherite Labour party. His instincts these days are very much Tory, he wants to rebalance spending, wants choice to reform public services, and thinks the state has got too big. In essence Tory values, however much he protests.

The overwhelming feeling is of disappointment though. For all the large majorities, and copious amounts of good will, his time in power was largely squandered. Can anyone remember what was achieved in their third parliament?

He was too timid, too pleasing, in the first term. When, quite frankly, he could do no wrong. He could have proposed the Euro, a republic and devil worship and got away with it. It was only in the second term that he decided that he needed to make big reforms, by which time the Government was beset by the personal bickering between the neighbours at No 10 and 11, and also the Iraq war. By the third term he was spent.

It's no good now saying that the economy started getting unbalanced in 2005, he was still the PM. The cowardice in dealing with Gordon Brown meant that the Chancellor could run amuck and wreck the nations finances. For Gordon Brown, New Labour was a way to get elected then put into practice old Labour policies by stealth.

For Tony Blair, he genuinely believed. But his timidity in dealing with Gordon Brown means that his premiership was largely wasted amongst personality politics and feuding.

He says two contradictory things. That he set the direction of economic policy - the same policy that went wrong in 2005. And that Gordon was too brilliant to sack. Why was he so brilliant if TB set the rails on which the chancellor would travel? If the policy went wrong in 2005, who does he blame, himself or the man next door.

Basically, he kept Gordon where he was to keep his own PMship on track. He could not face him down, move him or sack him. So he danced with his rival while the country watched and went down an economic blind alley. The reforms were watered down so much the Government ended up tinkering at edges.

He then says that he knew Gordon would be a disaster as PM, but did nothing to stop him. He disappeared and left the country dealing with the misfit.

What can one say? 1997-2007. What a waste. 2007-2010. What a disaster.

Squiffy.

Hague's advisor resigns

William Hague's special advisor has resigned his post after rumours that they shared a hotel room have been spread on the Internet. Christopher Myers says that the rumours are "malicious and untrue".

Why resign then? It makes them look guilty of something even if it's not the case.

Added Later: Thankfully, the resignation is just because Christopher Myers believes that the stress of coping with the media will be too great. I can believe that. It's a shame the rumours have surfaced over something so petty as a shared room, and it has led William Hague to release a very personal statement stating that he and Ffion have been trying, unsuccessfully, for a baby. It's bad that they have had to take this step.

Squiffy.

Blum, Blum, Blum. I'm now going to annoy you

Blum, blum, blum. I'm sat on a train to Kent on the new Hitachi trains from St. Pancras. The train is really nice, clean and fast.

But. Blum, blum, blum. Every 30 seconds there is an announcement of some kind starting with Blum, Blum, Blum. Between 2 stops, there were no less than 5 announcements telling us which stations we would be stopping at!

Blum, Blum, Blum. It is too annoying for words. You cannot read a book easily or hold a conversation without the bloody Blum, Blum, Blum ringing in your ears.

Blum, Blum, Blum. Have some announcements but not so many. Thick people will just have to suffer some times!

Blum Blum Blum. I'm now arriving at my destination.

Now go and Blum Blum Blum yourself.

Squiffy.

Eric Pickles: My hero

The communities secretary has done it again. After starting his job in such a fantastic style, he's gone and endorsed another idea that I love.

He wants to get rid of street clutter; all those signs, railings, bollards and whatnot. Brilliant, I've been saying this for a few years. I want traffic lights to go, too, in most places.

Experiments in the Netherlands have shown that with little street clutter, drivers and pedestrians can concentrate on the people around them on foot and in their cars. They give their fellow road users respect and speeds fall as everyone is more alert. You don't even need pelican crossings, pedestrians can cross wherever.

If drivers don't have traffic lights to contend with they drive at a more constant speed without having to rush from one red light to the next. Also cutting down on carbon emissions.

It's genius and to be welcomed.

Squiffy.

Gordon Brown: Choose your role

The news that Gordon Brown has signed up for a speaking tour to support his new book on his (mis)handling of the economy and financial crisis, should make us think about his role.

He is still an MP, but has yet to vote, speak or make more than a fleeting appearance in Parliament since the election. He is being paid an MPs salary whilst not representing his constituents in Westminster. It is quite a disgrace, and like Margaret Moran who "was too ill" to attend but could be seen on video in the Lobbygate scandal, he should hang his head.

Whilst he's been taking the Queen's shilling he has been putting pen to paper to tell us his immense wisdom on taking the British Economy to the brink whilst blaming the whole problem on America. A man who hasn't apologised for his bad handling of the nations finances is trying to further his own, at £60K per event for unfortunate people to listen to a pack of half truths and dodgy statistics.

There should be a rule for Westminster that in order to be paid an MPs salary you should turn up for at least 40% of the votes and spend two days in the Palace of Westminster a week, unless you can provide a doctor's note. It's what the rest of us have to do!

Squiffy.