Time to get rid of Cable

I used to like the man, the non politician politician, spoke some sense and was a little humorous.

Since entering the coalition, he's looked like a bulldog chewing a wasp. On several occasions he has shown scant regard for collective responsibility, has shown a chronic lack of judgement and exaggerated his own importance.

Today, he says that we should vote for AV on the basis that it keeps the Tories out. So much for the fairness that pro-AV activists claim. He says that the Tories have won elections without a majority mandate. Hello, have the Labour party done differently? Even the 1997 landslide was won by 43% just as the Tory victories of the 80s.

If he really wants to make sure governments have over 50%, maybe he should suggest winding up the Liberal Democrats and throwing his lot in with Labour.

After all what are the LibDems for? Are they on the left or right? What is their unique selling point? I can't think of one. Their only purpose seems to be denying other parties a majority by espousing popular policies to voters then ditching them as soon as is expedient.

The man has become a joke, he doesn't seem to have any principles otherwise he'd resign. So if he isn't going to go on his own then give him a push.

Squiffy.

F1 2011: I'm liking it

This morning's race in China was one of the best dry weather races I have ever seen. There were many passes, action up and down the order, and stints where certain cars were faster than others only for the position to be reversed later.

The new rules seem to be working, but Pirelli has to be congratulated on making tyres which degrade quickly.

Lewis Hamilton drove superbly, and I think this was his best race and shows a new maturity. Unfortunately, Jenson Button made a silly mistake, pitting in the Red Bull box! Mark Webber drove very well, as did Felipe Massa.

So, 2011 is looking to be an excellent year.

Squiffy.

F1 2011: Part 2

Here's part two of my round-up of the teams.

Williams - It looks like this team is finally on the up. And not before time. Last year they seemed to find some aerodynamic stability which had been sorely lacking for several years. They now have a pretty radical car with a vastly undercut tail fin, and it is looking good. I think Rubens Barrichello will perform well as he is experienced and is really driving the car forward. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Pastor Maldonaldo to make a judgement but he did very well in GP2 so should shine, but I think that Nico Hulkenberg was harshly treated (even if it was for understandable reasons).

Force India - A great car two years ago, became a marginally good car a year ago. I'm hoping the car is better this year, as this small team has a good aerodynamic team and a great engine in the Mercedes. I'd like to see Brit Paul di Resta do well in the new car, and show talented but patchy Adrian Sutil a clean pair of heels. For Sutil, it's this year or never for him to prove he has what it takes to move forward.

Toro Rosso - It is the second year of Toro Rosso's own car, and I hope they can come up with a good design. For the two drivers it is make or break for both, Sebastien Buemi has a lot to prove - he's been generally faster than his team mate but at the end of last year Alguersuari was faster. If this turns into a trend it will be the end of Buemi. If Alguersuari fails to beat Buemi then it is probably game over.

Sauber - Last years car wasn't great, and it looks like Sauber have reverted to pre-BMW years of showing well in pre-season testing but then failing to develop and back it up. Hopefully for them it will be better this year, and for Kamui Kobayashi he needs a good car to allow him to pull off the great overtaking moves which he has become known. He really is looking like the best Japanese driver so far, very exciting. Again, I'm not sure of Sergio Perez, good in GP2 he has a lot to prove.

Lotus - I like this plucky team, it has Mike Gascoyne as technical director whom I respect greatly. I'm really hoping this team can get close to the midfield, as they deserve it and give the Lotus name a good name - whilst they still have it. I'd like to see Heikki Kovalainen do well as I think he is underrated, but maybe it's time for Trulli to hang up his helmet as he's not really going anywhere.

Virgin - After last years embarrassing problem of a car with a too small fuel tank, the team need to really show something this year. I'm not convinced that the all CFD route is proving to be brilliant successful though. Maybe it helps make a slow car, but not much better. I think Timo Glock's talent is wasted here, and I'm not too sure about Jerome D'Ambrosio.

HRT - Another year and another dodgy start to the season. No wheels have turned, will they ever?

Squiffy.

F1 2011: It's nearly here

It should have been two weeks ago but the start of the season will be this weekend instead. It's been an incredibly long winter but it only adds to the excitement.

The season holds several technical changes which could add to the spice. Firstly, KERS is back. It was a shame that it went away, green technology is future and it is only a good thing. Although most teams will have it and so there won't be too much advantage to gain unless they malfunction. It should favour McLaren and Mercedes who had the best systems in 2009.

Secondly, there are movable rear wings which mean that at certain points on the track a car which is following closely (1 second) behind another will be able open a slot between two planes on the rear wing. This will reduce drag and add to the speed of the following car. Some have said that this means overtaking will be easy, I don't think so. Mainly because it is very difficult to get to a gap of 1 second.

Finally, and most significantly there is a new tyre supplier. Out go Bridgestone, in come Pirelli. Although tyres may seem a bit boring, they are absolutely key as they are the only point where the car touches the car - everything the driver and car does is through this rubber. All cars will have Pirellis with the choice between two compounds, like last year.

The guys at Pirelli signed the deal just after last year's Canadian GP. For those with flaky memories, tyre usage was key as the tyres were getting worn very quickly. It was a very exciting race and Pirelli took it as the blueprint for this year's tyres. So, expect drivers complaining about tyres going off, but with added tyres changes there may be more excitement. It looks like the tyres wear down in a physical way more than a chemical way, i.e. by using more rubber than by losing stickiness - which may not help Jenson Button as much as thought. There are also issues with the tyres giving off too many 'marbles', little bits of rubber which fly off the tyres and stay off line. This may not help the overall aim of increasing overtaking as it gets very slippery off-line.

Here's a quick round of how the teams stand.

Red Bull - Looking very good after testing. The car has been built upon last year's RB6, it is evolution rather than revolution. The main advantage seems to be that it has kept its speed but gained reliability - which hampered it in the early parts of last year. I expect Sebastien Vettel to retain his speed but lose a bit of his impetuousity, it may be tougher for Mark Webber. Seb and Red Bull are my tips for champions this year.

Ferrari - Again, they look fast and reliable and may be at the speed of Red Bull. I expect Fernando Alonso to be really challenging the Red Bull duo this year, and with a few less mistakes will be well placed if the RB duo take points off each other. Felipe Massa doesn't seem to have regained the speed to put him on a par with Alonso, and so it is make or break for him.

McLaren - The car is revolutionary, and so far quite unreliable. It has also not been as fast as hoped for. Both drivers have complained of a lack of grip, and it would be understandable if they had long faces. It looks like problems with the blown exhaust, and they are turning up to Australia with a simpler system. They want to surprise us, for their sakes lets hope they can because it took them a while last year to get new parts working. I expect Lewis Hamilton to make the best of it again with Jenson Button being creative in unusual circumstances.

Mercedes - Similarly to McLaren, it was looking bad for Mercedes a little while ago. The car seemed slow, but Ross Brawn said that some new parts would largely improve matters. Entering the final test, the new parts transformed the car to being fastest - whether that is accurate we shall see. If it works, expect to see Michael Schumacher back at the sharp end, otherwise I think he will walk away. It will be fascinating to see the rivalry between him and Nico Rosberg.

Renault - It looks like Renault are back in the game, they have a radical new exhaust which blows forward from the sidepods and channels extra air below the car to the diffuser. In testing the car looked fast and in Robert Kubica's hand's it could have won a few races. Now that Kubica is sadly in hospital, the burden falls on Nick Heidfeld and Vitaly Petrov. Nick can be occasionally quick and this is his last chance to prove himself. Petrov was a bit accident prone at the start of last year but got better, if he can sustain that level of improvement then it may be good for him. Otherwise it could be Nelson Piquet...

Other teams to follow.

Squiffy.

The Budget 2011 Verdict

Mildly positive. There wasn't much change in this budget, after all most of the work had been done last year. The fuel cut was a nice touch, especially seeing as the Government does not have to fund it.

I particularly like the move to merge Income Tax and NI, after all NI is just Income Tax by another name and people forget about it when they make their calculations. It will also make it more transparent.

The increase in the personal tax threshold was also to be welcomed along with the signal that the 50% income tax rate is definitely temporary.

So, a warm welcome to the budget but nothing to blow your socks off!

Squiffy.

Well done Mr Cameron

Last night the UN voted for action against Gadaffi. After several weeks of fannying about, the international community got its act together.

This is mainly due to the Prime Minister's tenacity. Where others were saying that he was out of his depth three weeks ago, when he proposed a no fly zone, it is now obvious that he was right. A lot of credit is deserved.

President Obama has been found wanting. Nervous, cautious and wushu washy are words I could use. Maybe after Iraq that is understandable, but surely everyone can see that Libya is no Iraq.

He finally came on board last night. The BBC was still able to show some Obama love - or should I say bias - when they reported that Obama's cautiousness actually enabled other countries to vote for the no fly zone. That's quite some spin!

Anyway, good work PM. Now let's hope Gadaffi is ousted quickly.

Squiffy.

Don't listen to a lot of the arguments on AV: They're bogus

Anyone who reads or listens to our politicians will probably get a whole load of bogus arguments by both pro and anti lobbies shoved down their throats. Let's debunk some of the arguments.

From the Pro-AV camp, here's some of the arguments:

1. It will lead to a more proportional electoral result. Not necessarily, it will lead to different results in some constituencies, but not necessarily more proportional. Some voting models have shown that AV can lead to a less proportional House of Commons.
2. It will clean up politics. Not at all. If anybody can tell me why it will clean up politics then let me know how. I can't see why AV would change an MPs behaviour, if they have to have over 50% of the vote, why would they be any less arrogant?
3. All votes have the same weight. No, if you're not in a marginal constituency then the situation is the same as now. With AV, some people's second choices are counted where other's aren't.

From the Anti-AV lobby, here's the opposing arguments:

1. It will lead to more coalition politics. Not necessarily, if it is unproven that AV leads to more proportional results then it is unlikely to lead to more coalition Governments.
2. AV is complex. Not really, rather than putting an X in a box it's as simple as rating your preferences. You'd have to be a bit of a dunce not to be able to do it.

So what are the facts. Yes, M.P.s will have to have at least 50% of their electorate to vote in some way for them. Yes, AV will be slightly more costly and will delay election results a bit. Yes, First-Past-The-Post is used more widely than AV around the world. No, AV will not get rid of wasted votes.

So what are the arguments which sway me? Under AV, you basically elect the person who is least unliked, whereas under FPTP you elect the person most liked. That's reasonably simple to me, one is a positive vote and one is a negative vote.

As a second reason to not like AV, if it was a tight race between Labour and the Tories to reach the magic 50% and the first person to be knocked out was the BNP candidate, it could be the BNP voter's second preferences which push the top candidate over the finishing line. That makes me decidedly queasy, and I'd rather those voters didn't have a second say over who wins.

Squiffy.

Labour have a new idea

Today the Labour party had a new idea, raise some money from taxing bankers. An easy target, but popular one I'm sure. It will help with the deficit.

No hang on, they don't want to reduce the deficit with the new tax, no they want to spend it on homes and schemes which will probably achieve nothing. So, it's the same plan as before.

Will they ever learn. No. They only want to spend.

Squiffy.

The latest growth figures are disappointing

But I think a blip rather than a trend. Snow and negative sentiment about Vat rises probably have more effect than we realise.

I haven't noticed that huge a jump in prices this year, maybe prices were already higher at the end of last year - which would mean that the increase in VAT would have less impact on this quarter.

I know that I am predisposed towards believing that the coalition has got the economy right, but I think that growth will rebound in the next quarter figures. I also, by the way, believe that these figures will be revised upwards.

So cheer up, it will get better.

Squiffy.

Resignation, resignation everywhere

What a couple of days. Yesterday it was Alan Johnson, today it's Andy Coulson. It seems to me that both were pre-emptive before news leaked. Maybe there is some new information coming out which would have forced Andy Coulson's hand? I guess we'll find out shortly. It is true to say that his position had become a distraction, similar to Lord Ashcroft's.

If the papers are to be believed Alan Johnson's departure was triggered by his wife having an affair with a protection officer. Gives a new meaning to "better hope she used protection", but enough smut. It sounds like Mr Johnson has been going through a tough time lately, and with the added focus on his position of Shadow Chancellor, it would have been extremely difficult to keep his mind on the job.

When he was appointed, I, like many people, was surprised. With Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper both having had jobs in the Treasury they seemed like the more obvious choices as Shadow Chancellor. Maybe Ed Balls' outspoken criticism of Alistair Darling's deficit reduction plan or maybe the rivalry with Ed Miliband from their time together as Gordon Brown underlings, counted against him. Maybe Yvette Cooper's popularity in the Shadow Cabinet elections counted against her. Hence why Ed Miliband chose to put Ed Balls at the Home Office as an attack dog so that he could have his own economic policy, and Yvette Cooper in the invisible role of Shadow Foreign Secretary so that she doesn't steal the limelight.

Now that has been undone. Yvette moves to the Home Office to hound Teresa May, that should be fun. More fun will be the exchanges between George Osborne and Ed Balls. As in Hart to Hart, "when those two get together, it could be murder".

Maybe Labour is the winner, but it looks like Ed Miliband is the loser. His plan has come unstuck. The two people at the Treasury when the banks and spending let rip, are at the head of the Labour party as 'deficit deniers', and the Tories will stick that label on them ad nauseam. Maybe George Osborne is a little more worried now, but he's faced Gordon Brown before, and now he has his mini-me.

Should be fun.

Squiffy.

PMQs A New Year Comeback

It was the first PMQs of 2011 and can be decisively given to David Cameron. He was truly on top of his game, and batted Ed Miliband around the House.

Although Ed Miliband did have a point about their one-off bank bonus tax bringing in more money than a signle year of the coalition's bank levy he was completely outshone by the overall figures which David Cameron was able to announce. The killer line was "The Shadow Chancellor can't count and the Labour Leader doesn't count."

He also had a great line when asked about U-turns by the SNP's Angus Robertson. The PM came back with the point that the SNP had U-turned on their Scottish Independence bill.

Cameron: 9, Miliband 4

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband's Myth about a Myth

This morning I read in The Times that Ed Miliband is angry that the coalition is perpetuating the 'myth' that the deficit is the fault of the previous Labour Government, whereas, he says, it was the fault of the recession.

It's pure and simple really.

The effects of the previous Government's spending is what can be seen in the structural deficit (this is the amount that the Governments spend minus its income if there were not a recession). Normally the structural deficit would not be entirely down to the Government, but the last Government had a good spell early on and actually ran a surplus for some years, it then went on a spending splurge and the deficit got wider and wider, even during a period of growth.

There is of course an amount of the deficit because of the recession, this is the non-structural part, but this can be reduced when the country returns to growth due to the 'automatic stabilisers'. In recession, tax receipts are down and unemployment benefits go up, in growth these trends reverse.

So, to judge Ed Miliband's 'myth' let's look at the total numbers. The total budget deficit for this year was due to be £155 Bn, the structural deficit is predicted (by the IFS) to be around £90 Bn of that, i.e. 58%. I believe that the structural deficit reduction plan is nearer £100 Bn or 65%.

Either way, the majority of the deficit is structural and therefore a fault of the previous Government. So, Ed Miliband's 'myth' is a myth itself.

He also said, in the article, that he is not opposing every cut. Which cuts does he support then? No answer.

He opposes the VAT rise, which brings in £13 Bn per year, but what is his alternative? The employer NI rise, that the new Government stopped, only brings in £3 Bn, and there's some loose talk about bank bonuses but nothing tangible. Also, given that Labour want to put the deficit reduction burden further onto taxes (from 80:20 cuts to taxes to 60:40) where are all the extra taxes coming from? There came no answer.

Verdict. Ed Miliband must do better.

Squiffy.

2011 Predictions

Having made a fool of myself with the 2010 predictions, it could be tempting to get out of the prediction business altogether but it's a little bit of fun so why not.

Here's my predictions for the year ahead:

1. David Laws will make an early return to Government, in a reshuffle sometime in January or February.
2. The AV referendum will be narrowly lost, but on a low turnout.
3. Vince Cable will walk out of the Government.
4. Ed Miliband will have a poor year despite the polls and there will be a whispering campaign around to bring his brother back.
5. Diane Abbott will walk out of her shadow portfolio.
6. The coordinated strikes threatened for Easter will be a damp squib compared to the jollity of the Royal Wedding.
7. Sebastien Vettel will be F1 World Champion again, just beating Lewis Hamilton.
8. Michael Schumacher will walk away from F1 mid-way through the year.
9. CPI Inflation will hit 4.0%, but we will have annual growth of 1.8%.
10. The parties will end the year on: 39% Tories, 42% Labour, 12% LibDem.

Squiffy.

The 2010 predictions verdict: Rubbish

Every year I make some predictions for the year ahead, and then I have to face the consequences. Well it's clear that I was absolutely rubbish this year. Let's mark them:

1. The Tories will win the election with a majority of around 80. Many people think it will be tighter than that, but I think the polls overstate the Labour position. 0 points
2. The election shares will be Tories 43%, Labour 27%, Lib Dems 24%. 0 points
3. Gordon Brown will be succeeded by Harriet Harman. (They should chose Andy Burnham) 0 points
4. Lewis Hamilton will win the F1 World Championship. 0 points
5. Michael Schumacher will win 3 races this year. 0 points
6. David Davis and Malcolm Rifkind will be in the Cabinet. 0 points
7. The country will have recovered last quarter but will enter it again this quarter. It will re-emerge in the 3rd quarter. 0 points
8. CPI Inflation will hit 3.5% by years end. Close, 1/2 point
9. Lord Mandelson will renounce his peerage in an attempt to rejoin the commons. 0 points
10. The first Cabinet Minister to resign will be Alan Duncan. 0 points

So, basically, an absolute shower. Half a point out of 10, a very bad showing. In politics, it was much closer than I thought and the coalition has really changed the political landscape. In Formula 1 we had a great year, one of the best and I hope 2011 will be even better.

Squiffy.

Time for Clegg to read the riot act

Yesterday's events surrounding Vince Cable and comments to journalists posing as constituents should make Nick Clegg confront his party.

Throughout the last 65 years the Liberals and Lib Dems have been seen as a party of protest and not worthy of Government. Their only hope of power lay in coalition, or "new politics" as Nick Clegg might say. They have finally got what they wanted, maybe not with the party they expected and maybe not in the circumstances of their choosing. But they finally have their hands on the levers of power.

They now have their chance, maybe their only chance, to prove that they are fit to govern. They have to show that they can take difficult decisions, look the electorate in the eye and explain that the medicine tastes bad, but is good for them. In the past, Lib Dems have sat on the fence and looked both ways, they can no longer do that. And by being members of the Government they have to face up to collective responsibility in the same way that cabinet ministers have through the ages.

Against this backdrop, Cable's comments yesterday were stupid, naive and hopelessly ill-judged. Having faced up to the backlash of tuition fees why rock the boat now? Mr Cable has shown that he may be out of his depth in Government, and if I was David Cameron I would have thrown the book at him yesterday.

I know that the Prime Minister is desperate to keep the Lib Dems on side, but he shouldn't need to be so craven. The Lib Dems have wedded themselves to the Tory mast and now need to see the parliament through. It is their only salvation; run away and it's game over. Some Lib Dems, such as Nick Clegg, get it. I'm not sure that the others do yet. They have to be fully paid-up members of this club and cannot get cold feet at the first sign of problems.

So it is time to read the riot act Nick, and say next time the person involved will go.

Now, is that enough clichés? You can talk in clichés till the cows come home.

Squiffy.

It's Crunch Time. They are at the gates, keep the barricades up!

I'm sat in the office with students marching past, towards Westminster, making their point about tuition fees. I understand their concerns, I would rather not start my career with up to £40,000 of debt. It sounds immense, horrible and off-putting.

For a while I've thought that a graduate tax was the way to go. I made a post about it here not so long ago. I knew there were difficulties with a graduate tax, but hoped they could be overcome. I read today that a graduate tax would only provide enough income for the numbers of students we have in 2041. This has lead me to think again.

Although the debt sounds large, I quite like the fact that you will only pay when you earn over £21,000, at 9% per month for a maximum of 30 years. If your income drops then your payments stop. I also like the fact that Universities will be free to charge varying amounts - create more of a market, and giving conscientious students real bang for their buck.

Of course, this would not have been necessary if only 20% of young people went onto University - similar to when I went. The ridiculous target of 50%, arbitrarily set (why not 75%? or 100%?), set the current train in motion. We now have thousands of students graduating every year without the chance of getting their dream job, and unemployed because they are over-qualified for opportunities at the job centre. In the new system, they will have to pay back nothing! What a ludicrous situation.

If I was having a go a changing the system, I'd keep the tuition fees at an increased amount. Turn most of the new Universities back into Modern Technical Colleges (rather than call them Polytechnics), make them provide vocational and on the job training at a reduced rate of tuition fees. I'd scrap the 50% target, and reduce University places to roughly half their current number.

It's time students learn that there is no such thing as a free education. We all pay through taxes. Is it fair for a dustmen to pay for a Lawyer's tuition? A little maybe, but not the lot. When the lawyer is on £250,000 a year, it makes sense to make her pay some of that back.

Tonight Nick Clegg faces the vote. I've been pleasantly surprised that he has grasped that the Lib Dems were idiots for making such a stupid pledge in the first place, and now have a duty to the coalition and good Government. This whole process has taught the subsection of serious minded people in the LDs a few facts in life, and they have grown up fast.

Right, must go outside and make my point directly. Although, I quite like my new teeth.

Squiffy.

REd takes them back to the 70s

It appears that Ed Miliband has learnt nothing from history.

I was wondering when he said he backed the student protesters whether he was making the same mistake that Neil Kinnock made when he refused to condemn the violence of the Miners in 1984 and 85. He also said that he was a confirmed socialist - ok fair enough.

Then I read in the Independent that he plans to give more policy making powers to the Labour party members and that the 'profound' change to the Labour party that he promised would not overhaul the relationship with the unions.

Apparently the Unions can have more clout if they are more 'responsible'. This is the exact same relationship that Labour and the Unions had in the seventies. They had more clout, but didn't act responsibly, and there's no reason to believe they will now. Remember 'In place of strife', Barbara Castle's plan to make the Unions 'responsible' - it was dropped after cabinet disagreements. We then had the Winter of Discontent.

Some Unions act responsibly, many don't. We have another tube strike on Monday - and for what reason? It passed me by.

Ed Miliband needs to have a bigger think about his speech this weekend before he embraces this plan. A return, even only a partial return, to the failed policies of the seventies will ruin his leadership and keep Labour out of power for the next decade.

Back to the history books for REd me thinks.

Squiffy.

The Eurobind

This morning there was news of the bailout for Ireland, and just now the Greens have decided to pull out of the ruling coalition in January and try to force a new election. There's a lot of comment in the newspapers about whether the Euro was to blame or not for Ireland's predicament.

It's my belief that the single currency is partly to blame for Ireland's position. The other reason being that similarly to the UK, Ireland also had too lax bank regulation which led their banks to allow lending to get out of hand. Both the UK and Ireland had too low interest rates during the boom period, for the UK only slightly too low, in Ireland they were far too low.

The Euro, one size fits all interest rate fed the Celtic Tiger its raw meat. The low rates allowed the Irish property boom to take hold and gather pace. Paid for by increased bank lending. The boom in Ireland was far too great but there was nothing the Irish Government could do about it, other than raise tax rates sky high - which would have caused a great amount of unemployment.

There are three main levers for macro-economics; Interest rates, currencies and fiscal management (tax and spend). The Euro takes away interest rates and currency management which meantfor Ireland that the interest rate was too low during the boom, too high now and there is no chance to independently devalue. In the UK we have nearly zero interest rates and an ability to devalue and print money!

The Euro was launched with a fanfare in 1999, and seemed to function well in the boom years. Especially for those countries which are now suffering. For Germany growth was a bit lacklustre and has meant they are in a better position now. They are getting resentful now that they are being asked to bail out for countries which are on the brink. The Euro has not worked out well for the strong economies or the weak.

Several things can happen now.

• Struggle on, propping up Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain.
• Allow the PIGS to withdraw from the Euro.
• Reform the Euro taking more powers to the centre.
• Fold the Euro and try to keep the EU afloat.

My feeling is that the ruling elite of the EU have too much at stake in the project to let it fall apart. They will try to take powers away from National Governments to set budgets and tax artes. Will the people of Europe allow it though? I think some, including Germany, will have major problems with it. Civil unrest and more Governments could fall.

Interesting times ahead!

Squiffy.

The Missing Leader

Ed Miliband has been missing from the political scene due to paternity leave. Although that is obviously his right it couldn't have come at a worse time for him.

When you become the leader of a party you only have a certain amount of time to make an imprint on the party. Perceptions can be made incredibly quickly. Unfortunately for Mr Miliband, there are now the beginnings of rumblings about his leadership. His absence has obviously been understandable, but he needed to set the direction of travel before he went away.

Is he going to follow a Blairite path, and try to entice back the middle classes? Or is he going for a core vote strategy and say screw the middle classes. We don't know yet! Are they going to be more realistic about the deficit or try to ignore the problem?

Ed Miliband needs to make a splash on his return this week. I understand that he is going to announce some internal party reforms. Maybe this will be a pointer to the direction. I think he needs to be bold.

Squiffy.

Republicanism: Not for us.

I've just watched Janet Street-Porter on This Week. I couldn't believe how bitter she was towards Kate Middleton on her engagement to Prince William. Maybe she's a Republican, but why did she show so much malice towards Ms Middleton? Talking about her dieting as if it's a crime! If it is, you'd better lock me up.

I understand Republicanism, surely it doesn't make sense to have a hereditary head of state? Well, if you were to create a State from scratch you definitely would choose a different system. We do, however, have a thousand years of history entwined with our Monarchy and it's the most prominent constitutional Monarchy in the world due to the British Empire.

Consider the benefits. There's obviously tourism, the amount of money brought in by tourists more than pays for the price of Monarchy. They are good for morale, for instance the Queen Mother's resolve in World War II. For me, though, the biggest benefit is that the present Queen has been on the throne for nearly 50 years. She has had weekly audiences with 12 Prime Ministers. Imagine the amount of support and advice the Queen has been able to provide to the various PM's in that time. The Monarchy provides 'institutional memory'.

Then consider the alternatives. We would need a new Head of State. You could go for a ceremonial Head of State - like in Ireland. You'll get a failed or retired politician or a washed up celebrity. How about President Brown or President Jordan? No thanks. Instead you could go for a President with power, like in America where you often get deadlock with Congress.

On balance, I think our constitutionally Monarchy is much better than a possible Presidential system.

Congratulations to Prince William and Kate Middleton. It's nice to see a member of the Royal Family marry for love and that they have had a 'pretty normal' courtship. I wish them all the best.

Squiffy.

Pass the bucket

This morning I nearly threw up. It wasn't because I had drunk a little too much last night, or that the kebab was dodgy.

No, it was a couple who came and sat down next to me on the rush hour tube this morning and then snogged for around 6 stops. I can just about cope with this at night when you know that they've had a few shandies and are a bit amorous. But 9 a.m.? It's far too early to cope with the slurps and squelches. I was still trying to digest my smoothie.

Either get a room or learn to keep your tongue in your own mouth.

Squiffy.

Phil Woolas Guilty, not an MP

Phil Woolas is no longer an MP. A high court judge has declared the General Election result as null and void. This comes after leaflets made false claims about his LibDem opponent in the Oldham East & Saddleworth constituency.

A by-election is in prospect, pending a probably appeal. This will pose an interesting problem & opportunity for the Coalition. In the result Woolas beat the Lib Dem by only 103 votes. It would seem sensible that the Tories give their support to the Lib Dem. It will be fascinating to see whether it happens.

Squiffy.

Stealth Brown surfaces

After 6 months underwater, grounded in Scotland, the old stealth sub PMS Brown has made an appearance.

Finally, the man who wrote a book on courage appeared. Not showing up for the Budget, Comprehensive Spending Review, Strategic Defence Spending Review or any other significant session whilst writing a book on how to screw save the economy, shows a degree of contempt for his constituents. Those who pay his wages.

Squiffy.

(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.

Who's lying?

The talk from last night's programme about the foundation of the coalition is of who was lying when David Cameron told his backbenchers that Labour had offered AV without a referendum.

In an Agatha Christie Whodunitt style, we have David Cameron in the committee room stating that Labour was ready to do the deal and bouncing his party into accepting an AV referendum in his impatience to get the coalition running. We have Nick Clegg in Admiralty House, telling DC that Labour had offered the deal, knowing that wasn't the case. In the bunker we have Gordon Brown on the phone to Nick Clegg offering the deal without anyone else knowing about, and then saying he didn't (although no one has seen GB since to check on this - maybe he'll come back as his own twin brother!).

It's not clear any one was lying, there were so many private conversations that it would not be inconceivable that senior Lib Dem spoke to senior Labour man, Labour man said it might be an idea, it becomes possible to Lib Dem, to probably to the Lib Dem negotiating team, and a certainty to the Tory negotiating team. It's how rumours start!

So, I'm not sure about whether anyone lied deliberately or by mistake. From last night's programme, though, you'd have to think though that DC was adamant and so was Ed Balls/Peter Mandelson, which leaves the person in the middle using words like "perception" to explain himself. I'll let you make your own mind up.

Squiffy.

Is this the most radical Government since Attlee?

Possibly. Everyone who thought that coalition Governments would mean a managerial administration must be astounded by the reforming change that has been born out of the first ten weeks of this Government.

Look at this list of major reforms:

- Office for Budget Responsibility
- Free Schools
- NHS GP fund-holding
- Welfare reform
- Voting reform

These are big areas where the previous Government tinkered but didn't bite the bullet until it was too late. I'm feeling very enthusiastic this morning to Iain Duncan Smith's ideas about welfare reform. Here's a man who was roundly made to look a fool by his party when he was leader, but came back with radical ideas for reform.

I really like the idea of a simple benefit which tapers as the recipient earns more. If the taper occurs at such a rate so that as the recipient earns more they still take greater money home after tax then it will be a fantastic result.

At the moment our benefits system makes it seem more worthwhile to stay on benefits than go out to work. How often do you hear "If I went to work I'd lose most of my benefits and would be worse off"? Many times, and although you'd hope that self-respect would make people want to work - the extra cash is a much bigger incentive!

It does need radical change, and IDS is the man to do it. Let's hope that the bean counters don't get in his way too much on this set of changes.

Squiffy.

Ferrari look a bit silly

I thought that Ferrari's management of team orders was rubbish. So, apparently, did the FIA, who gave them a small fine and referred them to the World Motorsports Council. After, obviously, using team orders to then deny it was foolish.

In my opinion, the team orders rule is practically unworkable. But given that the rule exists, the FIA should enforce it. Either ban them for a race, strip them of the points gained or take away Alonso's points.

At the end of the season, they should sort out the rule to something like "team orders can be used as long as they don't bring the sport into disrepute, as deemed by the stewards."

You had to feel for Massa and Rob Smedley, yesterday. Alonso is being very prima-donna-ish these days and is doing himself no favours. Afterwards he had the cheek to suggest that the circuit made it difficult to overtake. Nonsense, Hockenheim is one of the easiest, he just wasn't as fast as he wanted to believe.

Squiffy.

Question Time, no bias - not

I've just started watching last night's Question Time. Usually, there's a Tory, a Labour person, a Lib Dem, one other politician from another party and then some celeb/commentator.

Tonight, we have two Labour people (Andy Burnham & Sally Bercow) and one ex-Labour MP (George Galloway), one Tory (Francis Maude) and one commentator (Nick Ferrari). Is Question Time being run by the Labour party these days?

Squiffy.

F1 - mid-season 2010 - Bulls in a china shop

It's mid-season, and I though I'd do a little look at how the season is panning out.

So far, we've had an outstanding car, an outstanding team, some outstanding drives and an outstanding season. After Bahrain, it looked like the season was going to be boring, far from it. Five drivers have led the championship, but it shouldn't be as close as it is.

Red Bull has the outstanding car. It's super fast and it's getting more reliable. No-one can really come close in qualifying trim, and barring a few reliability problems at the beginning of the season this car should be leading the championship by some way. It isn't. The drivers are at war, and the team are joining in.

In Turkey, the collision between Vettel and Webber was a disaster and lead to bad blood. That could have been handled, but the Red Bull side of the garage pointed the finger at Mark Webber when most thought it was probably 60% Vettel's fault. It surely, made Webber feel unloved. This weekend's decision to take the front wing off Webber's car and give to Vettel, to replace his broken wing, just before qualifying was a bad decision. It did show favouritism, and Christian Horner's explanation of it going to the person with most points in the championship didn't hold true, when a new part was fitted to Vettel's car before Webber's when Webber was leading the championship.

The team is in danger of losing this championship because of bad driver management, and that would be a tragedy.

The outstanding team has been McLaren. Without the fastest car, they are leading both championships, and with a driver harmony unparalleled for a team with two champions. They are playing catch up and if they can make the blown diffuser work for Hockenheim they may be able to compete on pace and tear apart the Red Bull team. Both drivers are driving beautifully. Lewis Hamilton has got a new maturity, learnt from Button no doubt, that will make him the most formidable opponent on the grid. Button has won two brilliant wet/dry races and is performing much better against Lewis than I dared hope!

Each of the four drivers at the top have driven brilliantly, but Alonso and Massa have been a disappointment. They've both made bug mistakes, and the team seems to be falling back into it's pre-Todt mould of making bad decisions and blaming everyone else. After Alonso's outburst at Valencia, I couldn't help but laugh when he got a penalty at Silverstone, but when the safety car came out, the outcome was disastrous for him. But he should have handed the place back to Kubica. Lewis Hamilton was stripped of a win in Spa 2008, even when he did hand back a place, so talk of an unfair penalty does not hold up.

Schumacher is a disappointment, he doesn't seem to have the same race craft - but can we ever remember him being good in the mid-field? No, because he was never there! Maybe the fact that he was always in a good car let him get rusty, way before his three year absence.

I'm liking that Williams are having a resurgence and that Lotus are doing best of the new teams.

It's been a great season so far, and I think it will get even better!

Squiffy.

Blogging has been light of late: an explanation

Apologies to anyone who reads my blog. Go on, there has to be at least two of you! I've not posted that much since the election, mainly due to my life being a lot busier (for no real reason) and a certain amount of contentment.

I usually blog when I've heard an interview or read an article which makes me so mad that I have to get things off my chest. Recently, though, with the new Government in charge and Labour having the dullest election campaign ever (even the LibDem one was more fun) I've not had enough ooomph to make me want to write.

I think things are changing, and not because I'm getting angry with the Government - to be honest - I couldn't be happier with the future direction. No, I'm just getting really annoyed with the Labour leader hopefuls who seem to be denying they would have/would ever propose any cuts. And those that do say they would, a tiny tiny bit, would not say in any way where the axe would fall.

Anyway, on the positive, let's consider:

- Abolition of HIPS
- The brilliant budget
- Free schools
- No bin taxes
- Stop and search review, getting rid of section 44
- The OBR being set up
- Constitutional reform
- Cancelling a lot of unnecessary funding for random projects
- NHS rethink

The last item was a pleasant surprise, I thought that the Tories had been scared off changing the NHS, but they've decided to be bold and early. That's why I'll give my Minister of the month award to Andrew Lansley.

Not everything is to my liking but it's about 85% right.

Now, to Ed Balls. Yesterday he said that it was wrong to promise to cut the deficit in half. He wanted us to continue borrowing, and keep topping it up with taxes. If he likes Greece so much, why doesn't he bloody move there? For God's sake, this man was supposed to be an economic powerhouse and he has no understanding of debt markets! I really hope he becomes Labour Leader, it would be a disaster for them.

I was wondering whether to buy Peter Mandelson's book, on the strength of the Times articles so far I won't bother. There's nothing really new. One thing I did like, was an article in today's Daily Bile by David Blunkett on the subject where he says:

This was reflected most tragically in his avoidable resignations. In both cases, Peter failed to see the trouble for himself that he would easily have spotted in others.

Hello, avoidable resignations? This from the only other man to have two resignations from Tony Blair's cabinet for silly reasons.

Squiffy.

Just for my Dad...Diane Abbott's bad This Week Last Week

My Dad missed this. Show's why she cannot be leader, never mind PM.



Squiffy.

I'm sick of the moaning...

The Budget last week was a brilliant attempt at getting on top of our deficit crisis and also to kickstart the British Economy with a more competitive environment.

If, however, you were to watch any of the discussion programmes you'd hear lots of people saying "I know we've got a terrible deficit problem, but...". You can fill the end part in with many phrases, "VAT is totally regressive", "reducing housing benefit will cause many problems", "freezing child benefit will hit mother hard"....etc

It's the same as saying, "I know we need to make cuts, but don't hurt me, hurt everyone else please." I'm sorry, but it's unrealistic. Whilst a lot of the people complaining did well through the boom years, they don't think that they should contribute to the consolidation which needs to take place now.

I know that the Budget will hit me, through larger VAT and NI, on top of the large amount in taxes I already pay. I was taxed more during the boom years too, but I accept my responsibility as someone who can pay more. I do hope that when the economy is fixed, there may be a better balance to make up for the amount of extra taxes that I will be putting in to make up for the economic incompetence of the last few years.

I would hope that others would accept their responsibility too, rather than complain that we should tackle the problem but not in a way that hurts them in their pockets.

It makes me a bit mad, so shut it!

Squiffy.

Strewth, that was a tough one. Osborne makes the pips squeak.

The budget has just finished, and as expected it is very tough. VAT going up will make the biggest noise in the days ahead, but it was to be expected.

It's depressing, but entirely necessary, such is the mess we're in. The papers tomorrow will be bloody and this should end the honeymoon. Especially as the Lib Dems will be complaining this evening. Expect some Lib Dem outrage and maybe some resignations.

I'll have more thoughts later.

Squiffy.

Thoughts on tuition fees

It surprised me when the Labour Government introduced tuition fees in the way they did. Firstly, the obvious, that they said that they had legislated to stop in and then brought them in for the next parliament.

Secondly, and mainly, why they didn't abolish the loans and introduce a graduate tax. It would have saved a lot of bother, students would not have left Uni with huge debts, but could have paid much more into the system than they took out. Each Uni could have levied differing amounts of percentage top up on income tax, up to a maximum of 3%.

The problem now is that the dye has been cast. Students have loads of debt, and to change the system could be seen as unfair. To change the system now would bring lots of up front cost for much later gain, and we cannot afford it now. If it had been changed earlier, the upfront costs could have been mitigated.

I'm afraid that we are left with this bad system, which appears to be unfair and looks like getting worse. Ironically, if the Tories had introducded tuition fees and the same time as student grants maybe a graduation tax could have been implemented then, but I guess that the Tories don't like the graduation tax principle. I think it is fair and sound.

Squiffy.

The best race of the season

The Canadian GP was the best so far this year. It was impossible to tell who would win until the last lap, the tyres being so marginal that a puncture was a real possibility.

We now have a 5 way championship fight with the McLarens, Red Bulls and one Ferrari up for the fight. Who will win will depend on the ongoing development of each car, so far McLaren has shown to be brilliant in this respect. Last year they gained 2.5s over the season, this year it looks like they have gained 1s without reducing reliability - something that Red Bull desperately need.

I think I'd tip the McLarens, and with a new level of maturity, Lewis Hamilton to be champion. There's still plenty of races to go, but it looks like it is going to go down to the wire and be a great year.

Squiffy.

Eric Pickles is a star...no bin taxes

I think I've mentioned twice in blog posts my distain for bin taxes and how the focus should shift to promoting recycling. In one of the first acts of the ConLib Government it is happening.

A trial in Windsor and Maidenhead is rewarding people with vouchers for shops such as M&S if they weigh their recycling and it is above a certain value. Early results show a rise of 35% in recycling. It can only be of benefit,

I want it to be introduced in my area, can you imagine people actively taking recyclable rubbish from the streets to take home to boost their income rather than flytipping rubbish due to bin taxes. Sounds far-fetched but maybe it isn't. You have to understand human nature to get these decisions right.

Eric Pickles has got off to a flyer. No bin taxes and no HIPS. He receives Squiffy's cabinet minister of the month award. And he's from Yorkshire, I remember him as the plain speaking Leader of Bradford city council.

Squiffy.

I tip Ed Miliband as Labour Leader.

Looking at the nominations it looks like being a battle between both Milibands and both Eds, even though that's only 3 people. David Miliband is the favourite but I think that Labour election rules makes it more likely that his brother becomes leader.

Labour uses the Alternative vote system, which as I've said before rewards the least hated person. As David M and Ed B represent the two wings of the moderate Labourites the following scenario is likely.

Those liking David M will likely put brother Ed as second preference, with Balls last. Those liking Ed Balls, will probably put namesake Miliband as second preference and David last. With Ed Miliband's second preferences likely split between the two opponents, adding first preferences to second makes Ed Miliband the victor.

The rivals have a few months to stop this scenario becoming true.

Squiffy.

The European Debt Crisis

Very funny.



Squiffy.

Cameron shows confidence at PMQs

It was the first PMQs for David Cameron and he did very well. Harriet Harman was better than expected, although I think she will be tempted to ask questions which mainly interest her rather than the country as a whole.

DC was assured and answered HH's last question with a good put down. He even managed to answer some questions, which is a novelty for PMQ's!

Squiffy.

Alternative vote referendum is on

So, we learn that the alternative vote referendum is going ahead, along with a reduction in the size of constituencies.

It was disappointing that the language was no better than under Labour. Ken Clarke, noticably, did not walk backwards after giving the speech to the Queen.

Squiffy.

The state opening of Parliament

I'm on holiday but still managing to watch the state opening of Parliament. The day when new meets old; new proposed laws meets the tradition of centuries.

I believe there will be 21 bills, including the most important aspects to control the deficit and set up free schools.

Squiffy.

Ed Balls does the usual - dividing lines

Blinky Balls has come out against the Iraq war. Bit late I know, and for someone with loads of influence over his then master - Gordon Brown - it is possible that he could hadve stopped Britain's involvement by getting Brown to oppose the invasion.

Call me a silly old sceptic but am I sensing one more of the famous Brown/Balls dividing lines. Possibly, he probably hadn't factored in that the other Ed would join the party!

Squiffy.

Why take on the 1922 committee?

I don't think I understand why DC had to take on the Tory 1922 Backbench committee. Maybe he suspects that it will cause him massive problems in the coalition or that Graham Brady, the likely new chairman, will make waves. By trying to make the 1922 a meeting of the whole Parliamentary Conservative Party he's made the awkward squad more stubborn and more likely to vote him down on a significant issue.

I don't understand why he is taking on his own party in which sections are still smarting from having their red meat removed from the manifesto menu. The 1922 committee will re-form under a new name and maybe go underground and cause more problems. He may have a much grander plan which he is playing out like chess, but he is playing with Tory fire. It won't be long before they turn...

Squiffy.

Early morning weirdness - Abbott to stand

Sometimes a moment in the morning makes you think you've woken up in a parallel universe.

One such moment came when Diane Abbott announced that she would stand for Labour Leader. It was unexpected and James Naughty was lost for words. Me too, it looks like this race might be more fun than first thought.

Squiffy.

David Miliband says the era of New Labour is over

The nerdy half of the 0.2 centibands told us that new Labour is over. It's not a good start though as he was re-announcing his candidature. Re-heating announcements is so last decade.

Squiffy.

Alistair Darling lives in another world

The new Government has been busy telling the press that there are new spending commitments made in the last days of the old Government and blaming the old Government for the country's economic mess. Fair enough you may say.

Up pops Alistair Darling saying that it's the oldest trick in the book to blame the previous Government. Really! You surprise me. I can't remember the last Government blaming the previous Tory Government. No wait a minute, they did exactly that again and again, right until they were booted out.

The country's finances are a mess. Labour was in charge. It is Labour's fault. Get used to it, learn from you mistakes and promise not to do it again. And this time mean it. Next time you're in Government don't leave your successor an almighty mess to clear up - it would be a novelty.

Squiffy.

Some time for reflection

I've taken some time away blogging, so that the picture can settle and we can begin to get a clear view of the new politics.

Now that the new Government has started its serious work, I feel it is now time to give some thoughts and observations.

Firstly, it seems that the public are broadly supportive of the new coalition Government and wish it to succeed. I think the public just want the Government to get on with it now, announce the pain that we are going to have, let us feel it for a few years and then begin to get us out of this trough.

It appears that the vast majority of Tory and LibDem MPs are also supportive but there are rumblings on the Tory right and LibDem left. I can sympathise with the Tory right as it appears that a few too many policies were ditched to enable to coalition. I can sympathise with the LibDem left who always envisaged a relignment of the left, but the maths made it impossible.

I think we need a period to see how the new coalition performs before complaining. I'm heartened by David Cameron's reach out to Frank Field, as I think he has the right ideas about poverty and welfare. He will have to throw the right some red meat soon though to placate them and firm up his position.

I believe that David Cameron has been extremely bold in not choosing the easy option and going for the coalition. He is seeing a larger picture than the rest of us. He wants a realignment of the centre-right, for he knows that the Orange-book LibDems are closer to One-Nation Tories than Labour.

Maybe the end goal for the Tories and Labour (and one in which Nick Clegg must have foreseen) is to split the LibDems down the middle, back to their roots. The Libs, back in their Whig days, are close to the Tories. The Dems are social democrats closer to New Labour. The coalition may highlight the contradictions that are built into the LibDem party which have been papered over for too many years.

Let's look at some of the new policies. I agree with fixed term parliaments, but the 55% majority required for a dissolution is arbitrary and should be dropped. There needs to be a cross party consensus on a way forward for fixed term parliaments.

It's good to see that George Osborne is going to include all the PFI projects and off-book pension liabilities in the overall deficit. It is frankly ludicrous to omit certain items. He does run the risk that the overall deficit which could be heading towards £3Tr, could scare the bejesus out of the markets but I would expect them to know better. It looks like he's going to make a very early start to cuts, next Monday, indeed and not a moment too soon.

I don't like the increase to Capital Gains Tax and NI contributions for employees. The Tories should have stuck to their guns, and said that they wanted to increase the personal allowance to £10K (which I support) at some point in the future, but we cannot afford it now.

I think the referendum for AV is fine, but I'm glad it did not go as far as PR. I'd like to see a quick move to elect members of the House of Lords by PR though. We do need to keep some elements of party independence in the House though, via some form of appointments.

Anyway, I wish them well so far. We'll be watching closely.

Squiffy.

Going to bed with a smile on my face

It's been 13 long years, of hope, disappointment and then anger.

As a natural Tory, even I believed that some things would get better in 1997. It wasn't so bad, those first four years; the Labour party hadn't unleashed, at that point, the usual spending splurge.

Then after 2001, it did. It was necessary to some extent, to fix some of the funding issues in the NHS and Education, but then it became the only answer to every problem. As the spending went out of control, each year we were told it was spending for investment and not for current spending, I felt this would end in tears. Eventually, it did go wrong and as the economy tanked the Labour party only knew one way to get out of it. Spend more.

On other fronts the Labour Party was good for me. I was eternally grateful for social policy. I had the happiest day of my life when I had my civil partnership with the love of my life in 2008, and that was unthinkable under the Tories of old. Time has moved on, and gay issues are largely neutered - I feel like a full member of society.

But as time went on, earning a middle income wage, it felt like whenever anything went wrong the Government felt they could put its hands in my pockets whenever it felt like it. I know I need to pay my fair share, but it started to feel like an unfair share as you could turn on ITV in the morning and watch someone of a similar age who had never done a day's work, living off state benefits, spending their days watching TV, getting people pregnant and drinking their lives away. I quite frankly resent that.

The outright lying by allowing the Lisbon treaty was the worst politicking I can remember, absolutely shameful. Gordon Brown took the spin to new depths, even after saying that he wouldn't spin. The PM could spin for himself, but would have negative results. The twisting and turning over the "boom and bust" quote, and redefining the economic cycle whenever he felt like it were terrible.

So, tonight, I look towards a new Prime Minister, a new Government and a new Tory/LD Britain. I expect less spin and more efficient but quiet Government. I expect more respect from Government, I want them to treat people as adults, and I would - eventually, when we've sorted out the economic mess - like to see less taxes and more enterprise.

I believe that Labour MPs have the right hearts but don't know how to enact their policies to achieve the right results. I believe Tories also have the same hearts, but have a different but seemingly uncompassionate method of achieving the same aim. It's unfortunately unpopular, but I feel that the Tory methods are more likely to achieve the aims that both Labour and Tories wish to achieve.

Tonight I go to bed in hope again, as in 1997. But I'm a realist and this time I hope the disappointment will be much less.

Squiffy.

Will the parties sit as clique's on the green benches?

When Parliament starts next week, will the Tories and Lib Dems be mixed up on the same benches or will they sit in their party cliques....

Just a question.

Squiffy.

Prime Minister David Cameron's (+ Nick Clegg's appointments)

It is looking like the following is happening:

George Osborne as Chancellor
William Hague as Foreign Secretary
Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister
Vince Cable as Chief Secretary of the Treasury
David Laws as Education Secretary
Andrew Lansley as Health Secretary

I think I would put David Davis as the Home Secretary, Chris Huhne as Environment Secretary, Ken Clarke as Business Sec, Frank Field as Work & Pensions (as a cross-party move). I would keep Liam fox as Defence Secretary and not Lord Ashdown, because Paddy was being very sniffy this morning and was reportedly pushing for the Labour deal.

It's amazing that Lib Dems will have a minister in each department - that might cover half the Lib Dem party - surely that doesn't mean that the best person for the job gets it.

More news as we get it....

Squiffy.

David Cameron as PM

He first started with some good words about the previous regime: "Old government was open at home and compassionate abroad."

The aim is for a coalition with the Lib Democrats. He mentioned responsibility and some of the tough decisions ahead.

A good statesman like speech, highlighting how difficult it will be.

We now await the details of the coalition.

Squiffy.

David Cameron arrives at the Palace

We have a new Prime Minister, David Cameron. Well done David. I wish you the best of luck in making this country a better country.

Squiffy.

Gordon Brown resigns

Gordon Brown has resigned as Prime Minister. You always feel a little sad for the individual involved even if you completely disagree with them. He was obviously emotional and you could feel it when he said how much he loved Sarah and the sons.

We don't know when David Cameron will be called for and at the moment we have an absolute monarchy.

God save the Queen!

Squiffy.

Things are moving quickly now

It appears the Lab/LD talks are over. There is talk of bags being packed in Downing Street. If this is the case, I may have to open a bottle of wine.

Squiffy.

Moving back to a Con-LD coalition

The words coming out of the Lab-LD talks are that there are difficulties with bringing the deficit down - which is more serious than the difficulty with PR. It also looks like Ed Balls has been rude in the meeting which is why Lord Mandelson had a face of thunder.

Iain Dale is saying that Nick Clegg and Vince Cable want to do a deal with the Tories, Ming Campbell and Paddy Ashdown are stopping them. Oh dear.

Squiffy.

Get ready for the Lib Dems to do no deal

Nick Clegg needs to row back from his current position. He knows now that he is damaged goods. He may have personally wanted to do the Tory deal, but was browbeaten into opening talks with Labour. But if he is sensible, he needs to draw a line. If I was David Cameron I would put a time limit of 11am for a decision to force Nick Clegg's hand.

Nick Clegg has to say there will be no deal, but Lib Dems would abstain on a Queen's Speech and Budget. This would enable a Tory minority Government to do enough to start sorting out the financial mess and guarentee an election later in the year.

Anything else now would be very bad. The Lib Dems cannot be trusted, and any coalition needs to have some element of trust at its heart.

Squiffy.

Adam Boulton vs Alastair Campbell

Fight fight fight...



Squiffy.

David Cameron speaks to Nick Clegg; Lib Dems to meet at 10pm

Apparently DC has spoken to NC, and the Lib Dem MPs are going to meet at 10pm. I'm guessing that DC has put down an ultimatum to Nick Clegg and said that he has to make a decision tonight.

He has probably made it clear that Nick Clegg can not play Labour and the Tories against each other in some cheap bartering. Tonight has still some way to play out.

Squiffy.

The pound is crashing right now...

It's already lost a cent.

Squiffy.