F1 2012 is here

It's the start of the 2012 season. I normally give a bit of info on the teams, and this year is no different.

Rule changes
There's two major technical changes and two sporting changes for this year. The blown diffusers at the rear of the car have been banned, this is where the exhausts exited into the underfloor diffuser and help to suck air through the underfloor giving extra downforce. This has been outlawed by new regulations positioning the exhausts at the back of the sidepods facing upwards, but the clever teams are still trying to use the gases to mix with the air over the sidepods and down into the diffuser. The less ambitious teams are merely blowing onto the rear wing.

The other major change is a very visible one. To stop the front nose from puncturing a cockpit at a dangerous height in an accident, the nose has been lowered. Some teams have kept a higher cockpit to channel more air under the chassis, which has lead to a step at the front of the car. I think they look ugly, and F1 cars should not be ugly! Thankfully, McLaren have a different design philosophy and have a normal swooping nose, so on looks alone they deserve to win! The really ugly duckling is the Ferrari, no Ferrari should be that ugly and it reminds me of the 1996 F310.

On the sporting side, during a safety car period the lapped cars will be able to unlap themselves before the restart. This should enable us to see the front cars battling it out at the restart. The one reg change which will catch the drivers out is a change to overtaking. After going off-line to overtake, the overtaker must allow room for the trailing car to make the next corner on-line. This would have stopped Hamilton pulling back on-line when passing Kamui Kobayashiat Spa next year. I'm expecting it catch out quite a few drivers, so watch out Lewis!

Red Bull
The new Red Bull RB8 doesn't look like it has any trick devices, but does look like an evolution of last year's RB7. I expect it to be fast, and formidable in Sebastian Vettel's hands. He is probably going to be the one to beat, yet again, and I still don't see his team mate providing a significant challenge. Mark Webber has to provide some faster performances this year, otherwise, if Lewis is back in form, Red Bull will find tough opposition from McLaren for the constructor's championship.

McLaren
One of two cars to not feature the ugly platypus nose. The team has had a much easier winter testing than last year, when the octopus exhaust lead to the team not being able to complete a race distance. The car looks fast in faster corners, reliable and predictable. I expect McLaren to be providing the biggest challenge to Red Bull again but even more so this year. If Lewis is back in form and on top of the new sporting regulations then he could provide a great challenge this year, but I also expect Jensen Button to have some great races and challenge as well. If not Vettel as champion then Button looks good to make his second championship.

Ferrari
Ferrari look to be on the back foot. The car is ugly and looks like it has a very narrow performance window, which is a big problem in these no re-fueling days. This could be gruelling for the Red Team, after clearing out some of the old guard last year and being more adventurous this year. Luca di-Montezemolo is expecting a championship, and we could be witnessing a resurgence of the chaotic Ferrari politics of the 80s and early 90s.

Fernando Alonso will get the best out of the car, but I can't see this car mounting the top step any time soon. For Felipe Massa it is a make or break year, another year like last year and he will be out. A top team cannot afford to be basing its points on only one driver. If he can get a grip on the tyres then maybe he can recapture old form, otherwise he'll be looking for a new job - maybe mid-season.

Mercedes
The car is looking much better than previous years, and maybe about to challenge the top two. It looks like the car has a new 'f-duct' like device, which scoops air from the rear wing when DRS is enabled, down through the end plates and onto the lower rear wing. Perfectly legal to do this, as the driver has not directly moved to enable the 'f-duct'. It does still look like the Mercedes is slightly heavier on its tyres than Red Bull or McLaren, but will still be fast.

If the car is fast then expect to see Michael Schumacher re-discover his previous form and be more at the sharp end. It will be fascinating to watch the intra-team battle in such circumstances, as both Schumacher and Nico Rosberg are desperate to win a race.

Lotus
There is now only one Lotus team, the old Renault, in JPS style livery. It looks fast in the hands of returnee Kimi Raikonnen, and I expect it to be on the podium occassionally. Possibly even an outside chance of a race win! The team did have a bump in winter testing when a suspension rod failed at the beginning of the second 4 day test in Barcelona meaning that Lotus packed up and went home. We'll have to see whether Romain Grosjean can account himself better than his earlier Renault half season, after Nelson Piquet Jr was booted out.

Force India
The Force India is looking good, with a Mercedes engine, McLaren power train and two great young drivers, I expect this team to be regularly in the points. The car looks more refined than previous years and I'm expecting great things from Paul di Resta and Nico Hulkenburg. It will be an interesting intra-team battle, and both will be desperate to get the upper hand.

Sauber
The car looks decent, if nothing special. This small team generally punches above its weight, but they weren't as impressive last year as the year before and there's nothing to convince me that they have discovered anything to push them forward this year. The two drivers Kamui Kobayashi and Sergio Perez are both good, and Kamui can do some great overtaking manouevres. I expect them to make it into Q3 regularly and gain points. We'll have to see if the traditional Sauber drop off in performance occurs again this year.

Toro Rosso
The junior Red Bull team surprised many in the off-season by discarding both Sebastien Buemi and Jaime Alguersuari. Maybe not wise to discard both, but the junior team is looking to bring on new talent and they couldn't see world champions in either driver. In comes Daniel Ricciardo and Jean-Eric Verne. Again, the intra-team battle will be interesting to witness as both drivers try to shine enough to be promoted to the senior team in case Mark Webber retires next year.

The car is again looking like a competent mid-fielder, but will need an epic performance to show Sebastien Vettel, circa 2008, race winning pace.

Williams
One of my favourite teams, it was really disappointing to see them drop back to ninth. Gone are the heydays of the 80s and 90s, but with a renewed relationship with Renault maybe the team can drag itself back up the front of the midfield. Unfortunately, without an experienced driver it may prove difficult. The incoming Bruno Senna has impressed from time to time and I would hope to see some consistent performances from Ayrton's nephew. I'm not convinced by Pastor Maldonado, here more due to money than talent. I hope to be proved wrong.

Caterham
The old Lotus team, now rebranded as Caterham, will be looking to join the midfield. With KERS added, maybe they'll reach the tail end of the midfield but I still expect there to be no opportunities for points. Jarno Trulli was replaced as a driver by ex-Renault Vitaly Petrov after the first winter test, and that is probably a good idea. Trulli has not been impressive in the last few years and has been beaten comprehensively by Heikki Kovalainen.

HRT
No running in the winter, this team is again on the back foot. Bringing Pedro de la Rosa back into racing, means this season has more older drivers than usual. With Narain Karthekayan, I'm not expecting anything other than tail enders again.

Marussia
A better line up than HRT, Timo Glock and newcomer Charles Pic should pull the car ahead. The car looks better than most due to the non-ugly nose, but I don't expect to be surprised by the old Virgin team. Expect it to be fighting it out with HRT for best of the last.


That's it, I expect it to be Sebastian vs Lewis vs Jenson vs Schumacher.

Squiffy.

this season have some of the oldest drivers looking for a new job - maybe mid-season.



hampion then Button looks good to make his second championship.

find tough opposition from McLaren for the constructor's championship.



back on-line when passing Kamui Kobayashiat Spa next year. I'm expecting it catch
hjhjk

How to reform the Lords?

In the Times the other day was a brilliant idea by former Blair speechwriter, Phil Collins, about how to reform the Lords.

The basis of the idea was following on from Billy Bragg's idea of a proportional seat count related to percentage of the vote at the last General election.    The parties would nominate people onto a priority list and those at the top would be elected. The twist that Phil added was that the percentage of election turnout would determine how many seats the parties got, the percentage who did not vote will form the crossbenchers.

To see how this works in practice, with a new chamber of 300 seats. The last election on a turnout of 65%, would give the Tories 70 seats, Labour 57, Lib Dems 45 and the Crossbenchers would be on 105. There would be no majorities, and it would have the option to keep some religious representation and keep the possibilities of having talented people who are not related to parties.

Brilliant.

Squiffy.

Andrew Neil is the country's best national interviewer

At the moment, it may seem that politicos cannot get away from Andrew Neil. He seems to be taking over BBC's coverage of politics. I don't mind that.

I know that some of my friends can't stand him, but that's probably due to their left leaning adherance to anything related to Rupert Murdoch being inherently bad. Mr Neil's old editorship of The Sunday Times explains their dislike. I completely disagree, he has been quite critical of Mr Murdoch recently.

As political interviewers go, though, he is thorough, well researched, knowledgeable, and tries to cut through to the crux of an issue. I like Jeremy Paxman and John Humphries, but they do tend to get hung up on catching interviewee's out rather than getting anything useful out from them. It's entertaining,  but generates more heat than light.

As an aside, I'd love to see a return to terrestial TV of the kind of interviews that Brian Walden used to do, a weekly 1 hour in-depth interview with a prominent politician. I used to love the yearly one between Mr Walden, another great interviewer, and Mrs Thatcher. Who could forget the repeated line, 'He was unassailable' when describing Nigel Lawson's resignation.

Squiffy

They want Greece to leave

But they daren't say so. They now ask for things which they dont expect to be fulfilled only fot Greece to surprise them, so thry add an extra condition. Been done many times before, we can spot it!

Good luck with that.

Squiffy

Ken vs Boris

Ken Livingston pulled slightly ahead in the polls for London Mayor last year. This has primarily been due to his promise to cut tube fares by 7% and bus fares by 11%. I can't think where is going to get the money from, as I said here.

Channel 4 News regularly does fact checks on claims by politicians and they've had a crack at Ken's claims. In summary, they don't think he'll be able to finance his fare cuts without cuts in investment. For details see here.

After this news was reported, Ken's supporters were tweeting loudly, so Channel 4 had another go at a claim:

"Fares might be soaring, but the service is plummeting! Delays and line closures have become a daily part of Londoners’ lives."

The details are here, but suffice to say that Boris comes out much better, see the diagram on the right.

Squiffy.

The lynch mob strikes again

Sometimes you have to marvel at the short-termism and idiocy that infects our politics. Since the announcement of Stephen Hester's bonus there has been an outcry, the media, MPs and opposition whipped up a storm and last night Mr Hester felt he had to refuse the bonus.

The stupidity behind the decision stems from what we are asking Mr Hester to do. He came in to run RBS after Fred Goodwin left in disgrace in 2008. His task is to rid the RBS books of the bad debt, bring back profitability and put the bank into a position to be sold off to re-coup the taxpayers money.

He's doing the first of those two items during a terrible economic climate. The share price is bouncing along, similarly to other banks. How are we going to re-coup the taxpayers money? The share price has to rise, valuing the company higher, and enabling the shares to be sold off for a higher price.

Which brings me back to the bonus. The bonus was often quoted as £963,000, but the bonus wasn't cash but shares to the value of £963,000. The shares were not exercisable until 2014, meaning he can't sell the shares now. We need the share price to rise, Mr Hester's bonus would have increased at the same time. The personal monetary incentive for Mr Hester was therefore tied to the future performance of the bank. We benefit if he benefits.

Now he's been stripped of the bonus, what's his incentive? Only his reputation is now staked, but who would blame him from walking away from the job when his compensation package is the subject of the lynch mob. And if he did, who would want to step in - when you could get a banking job in the private sector without the hassle.

We've just shot ourselves in the foot.

As an aside Chuka Umunna, the Labour shadow Business Secretary, has been saying that RBS employees should be treated as public sector employees. No, completely disagree. If RBS is going to become profitable and get the taxpayer its money back it is going to need to compete against the private banks. Mr Umunna's plan would lead to a demoralised staff, leaving in droves and the ultimate failure of RBS.

Squiffy.

The proposed Scottish referendum

Today Alex Salmond announced what he wants the referendum question to be: "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?".

I say 'what he wants' rather than saying that the question is a fait accompli. I cannot see David Cameron agreeing to such a question as I'm sure he will think it should mention the UK in some way. I expect the final question to be something like: "Do you agree that Scotland should become independent from the United Kingdom?".

Without mentioning the UK the question is slightly biased as it does not even try to infer what the implications would be. The Electoral Commission would, no doubt, not allow the question to stand.

Squiffy.

No growth, and don't hold your breath

The GDP figures showed a disappointing fall by 0.2%. Of course there will be the usual calls for stimulus measures such as tax cuts, more public jobs, temporary job creation schemes.

It will all be for nought. There will be no recovery until the Eurozone crisis is sorted out. Companies have cash to invest, but no confidence. All measures to try to give a boost will be throwing money away until confidence returns. Confidence will not return until the Eurozone crisis is resolved.

Our growth completely and utterly depends upon Angela Merkel and the other Eurozone leaders coming up with a plan that the market believes. When the market believes it, confidence will return and hey presto, our growth will start to spurt.

Squiffy.

1 trillion and counting

Today marks the day when we have £1 trillion debt. It probably won't stop growing until it reaches £1.4 trillion and will probably never fall below £1 trillion again.

The national debt has grown hugely in recent years. To think that it was only £413 billion in 1997 after all those years beforehand and it's more then doubled in 15 years.

The early years of the Labour government made good and reduced the debt to £385 billion before reverting to type, letting rip and allowing it to expand to £618 by the end of 2007 - the growth years. That's an extra £200 billion borrowed while we were making hay!

The structural debt had become built in as many more people became dependent or assisted by the welfare state and the public sector bloated. Add in the bank bailout and recession and bang, £1 trillion debt.

A somber day for the economy, growth figures tomorrow and Greece and the EU on a knife edge. Welcome to 2012!

Squiffy.

Gripe of the day: Toilet guys

By toilet guy, I mean those blokes who lurk in toilets with a saucer, a hand towel, and cheap cologne - not something less wholesome.

Why has this happened to our loos? Who thought it would be a good idea to have a guy hanging around the loos expecting to get a pound for turning a tap on for you and handing you some paper towel? It really isn't a chore for me to do it myself! I've lived for nearly 40 years on this planet knowing how to wash and dry my hands and I don't need help when in some dingy pub toilet.

In fact I really hate it. Sometimes you feel under pressure to tip them, and are tempted to forego the handwashing so as not to have to face the man with his hand out. My friends and I actively avoid going to pubs who host toilet guys, so let that be a tip to any publicans tempted to employ such a man.

Squiffy.

The Iron Lady

Have just watched the Iron Lady. To say that Meryl Streep made a great performance would be to understate the brilliance of it.

As a diary of a frail woman dealing with dementia it was also a great film, but as the biopic of one of the most important women of the 20th Century it is lacking.

As an unbelievably supportive husband, it is hard to imagine Dennis asking Mrs T to put family before running for Tory leadership.

There are also several inaccuracies, such as rubbish piling up whilst the Tory party was in Government during 70-74, it was the winter of 78-79. Apart from a small summary of her time as PM, apart from the Falklands, it whizzes through the years.

I'm not sure the incident which caused Geoffrey Howe to resign is accurately reflected, there is no mention of the previous EU summit which so annoyed her.

It's a good film with a great performance about an old woman with dementia dealing with the loss of her beloved husband. As a story about Mrs T and her years in power, it could be much better.

Squiffy.

The London Mayoral Campaign has truly started

This morning on the way to the tube, a couple of people were trying to thrust some leaflets at me. The leaflets were from the Ken Livingstone Mayoral campaign.

It was a good choice by Ken's team to run the leaflets today, on a day when tube fares are going up by 6%, as the leaflets re-iterated Ken's promise to reduce fares by 7%.

The question is where is Ken going to get the money from? It's an old political question, but all the more potent now that we have less money to play with. I don't believe the Livingstone campaign has really answered this yet, the money they have mentioned has already been spent by Transport for London, according to Mayor Boris.

The current Mayor has restricted some programmes so that the council tax precept for the Greater London Authority has remained flat for the last three years - a great help at the present time. I think that if Ken is elected, fares will go down for one year only, then shoot-up to pay for a deficit in the GLA's finances, along with a hike in the council tax precept.

I don't believe politicians promising something for nothing, so Ken has much more to do.

Squiffy.

2012 Predictions

Last year was poor, let's see how well I can do this year. So here's the 2012 predictions...

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

Everyone have a great year.

Squiffy.

2011 Predictions revisited

2011 is over, let's see how badly I did...

David Laws will make an early return to Government, in a reshuffle sometime in January or February. 0 points.

The AV referendum will be narrowly lost, but on a low turnout. 1/2 point - it wasn't so narrow

Vince Cable will walk out of the Government. 0 points

Ed Miliband will have a poor year despite the polls and there will be a whispering campaign around to bring his brother back. 1 point

Diane Abbott will walk out of her shadow portfolio. 0 points

The coordinated strikes threatened for Easter will be a damp squib compared to the jollity of the Royal Wedding. 1/2 point.

Sebastien Vettel will be F1 World Champion again, just beating Lewis Hamilton. 1/2 point - Vettel won, but by a healthy margin over Button

Michael Schumacher will walk away from F1 mid-way through the year. 0 points

CPI Inflation will hit 4.0%, but we will have annual growth of 1.8%. 1/2 point, CPI did hit 4%, growth was worse than 1.8%

The parties will end the year on: 39% Tories, 42% Labour, 12% LibDem. 1 point.

Overall 4 points, which is pretty bad. Let's see what next year brings...

Squiffy.

My message to the EU

Get over it. It doesn't work, it won't work, accept it, move on.

Squiffy.

Dan Wheldon, RIP

It is such a shame that Dan Wheldon has died in the horrific accident at Las Vegas. He was a fantastic racer, winning the Indy 500 twice and IndyCar championship in 2005. It was a shame that he was dropped from a permanent seat this year due to lack of sponsorship.

It seems like it was too small a venue for 34 cars and was probably an accident waiting to happen.

Dan Wheldon, rest in peace.

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband: life in cloud cookoo land

A bad speech, from a bad orator. Absolutely hopeless.

Squiffy.

Crunch time

As George Osborne says, we have 6 weeks to save the world economy. It's amazing how badly the world leaders are performing. David Cameron and the Chancellor are doing their best to gee the major economic powers up to do something, but to no avail.

Greece cannot be saved within the Euro. Fact. It will default. Accept it, let it happen in as orderly way as possible and shore up the other Eurozone economies. It will be awful, but the delaying tactics are making the day of reckoning look worse and worse.

Day by day, rating agencies are downgrading banks and countries. The Eurozone banks are in danger, they desperately need to be recapitalized, like the UK banks were in 2008. It is a fact that there has been no Eurozone bank to bank lending in the last 10 weeks. That is very unusual and shows that we are already in another credit crunch.

There needs to be some grasping of nettles, grabbing bulls by horns, and some leadership.

Angela Merkel needs to grow a pair, and stop worrying about her election prospects. If she can help turn the Eurozone around then she'll deserve re-election. As of now, she doesn't. The writing's on the wall for Greece and she needs to recognise that.

There needs to be another round of quantative easing in the US and UK. We need to move some money around to kick start capital projects without adding to the deficit.

Italy needs to have a firm plan for deficit reduction. Spain needs a new Government with a similar plan. France needs to desperately recapitalize their banks. A reduced Eurozone (without Greece and a few others) needs to issue Eurobonds. There needs to be closer fiscal consolidation in the Eurozone.

We can thank Gordon Brown for recapitalizing our banks, and for keeping us out of the Euro. But we can also curse him for flouting his own "golden rule", throwing lots of money down the drain and giving us a large structural deficit. we now have little room for manoeuvre.

Hopefully the G20, maybe inspired by David Cameron, will come to the worlds's aid. We can only hope.

Squiffy

Erm, Nigel Lawson?

Funny how Nigel Lawson has been on the radio talking about how the whole Euro project was a disaster from the get go.

I seem to remember that he was very keen on the ERM, the pre-cursor to full monetary union. It was partly the reason for his resignation, along with disagreeing with Margaret Thatcher's economics advisor, Alan Walters.

He had also run a policy of shadowing the Deutschmark, one reason for the "Lawson blip" or early Nineties recession. Bit rich to now be banging the anti-Euro drum now isn't it?

Squiffy

Postscript to last Thursday's Question Time

Last week the latest series of Question Time started. It was a 'special' about 9/11.

What struck me most was the good points and reasonableness of David Miliband. It really struck me how much Labour messed up by electing his younger brother.

David Miliband has the stature to be statesman rather than an opportunist like his brother.

When will Labour realise, or have they already?

Squiffy.

Memories of 9/11

It will be 10 years tomorrow that the twin towers came down. I, like most people, have vivid memories of that day.

The day started normally, I had my lunch and was quietly working when my boss received a phone call from his American wife. She told him that a plane had hit the world trade centre. We all looked on the BBC news website, which was creaking under the strain.

We then heard of the second plane going into the South tower. We headed down to the main office. Our company was Venture capitalist funded, and one of the other companies they funded had really large TV screens.

We started watching in disbelief at the unfolding atrocity. I remember watching in horror that some people were leaping from the top, and I'm sire I saw one clinging to the side before falling. I thought how hellish it must have been for them to think throwing themselves to their death was a better fate.

And then it got worse. The South tower came down. Terribly weakened by the fire half way up, it collapsed. Apart from the death of thousands of people in there, including those trying to rescue such as brave firemen, that must have been absolutely terrifying for those in the North tower.

They may have been under the impression that the towers would survive and they could calmly descend to the bottom. The realisation that they were in a race against time must have been truly horrendous.

When the second tower came down, we continued to watch, hoping there would be no more atrocities but we heard of other hijacked planes. Thankfully there were no more images of the other crashes that day apart from a grainy picture if the Pentagon.

I left the office at 6 and watched more news at home, struck by the tragedy of it all. The enormity of it hit my emotions, and I remember crying for around 15 minutes.

I turned in early but didn't really sleep.

The world changed that day, and the stories we hear today reminds us of what we faced. It was the modern apocalypse. A vision of hell on earth.

Squiffy.

A bridge too far

Apologies for not posting as often as I once did. Especially for the one reader...

The last six months have been really busy. I'm in a new job in a new industry, which is a lot more stressful than before. I've also started playing Bridge, two or three times a week. It's a great game of partnerships and cooperation, maybe something the coalition could learn from.

Which brings me to the wondrous prophet, Vince cable. There's a saying that if you put 100 economists in a room you'll get 200 opinions (or something like that). The business secretary show this admirably.

Today, in the same interview, he says that the banks need to be broken up now but also that his great worry is about growth! Does he not get that a complicated overhaul of banking regulation now will damage prospects for recovery. Better to leave it until the recovery haz bedded in for a couple of years.

He also days that he's not worried about anew financial crisis. In April he said that he was most worried about a new financial crisis. The man is no sage after all.

In fact he's a bit of an embarrassment now. What once seemed refreshing now seems like muddled headed ness.

Squiffy.

Lewis Hamilton, too many mistakes

I'm a big fan of Lewis Hamilton. He's fast, audacious and exciting. Unfortunately, he is making too many mistakes. Today, in Spa, he had a good chance of winning and yet again a collision took him out. Others thought that it was Kamui Kobayashi's fault, but it is clear that Hamilton took a line which was unnecessary and he wasn't looking to find where Kamui's car was.

It is a trait which is becoming a bit too frequent. His wins are fantastic, and I'm still a fan but please, Lewis, stop making the silly mistakes - just take a bit more care. Especially when overtaking fiery characters such as Kamui Kobayashi!

Squiffy

Livingstone shame

I'm usually one for accepting that occasionally politicians mis-speak and we should let it pass, but I think Ken Livingstone has gone a bit too far this time.

On the back of calling someone a Nazi concentration camp guard a few years ago, he has now said that his London opponent, Boris Johnson, is like Hitler. He also says that the poll will be a contest between good and evil.

Finally, he goes on to say that anyone not voting for him will burn in hell.

He was probably joking and meant it all light-heartedly, but many a true word spoken in jest. I think the jokey comment belies his true inner feelings. So maybe not a joke at all.

Quite a few people on the left think that people on the right are evil. Only today I was reading an article by John Redwood responding to John Harris in a newspaper. Mr Harris thought Redwood seemed to like inequality and poverty. Mr Redwood had to respond that he believes in getting rid of inequality and liberties as much as the next man, but through different means.

We don't believe in paying people to keep them in the ghetto, whilst taxing people so hard that they think working isn't important. We think responsibility, self-respect and saving more of the money you earn will encourage people to make a life for themselves.

Ken believes that these views are wrong, possibly evil. I may disagree with him, but I believe he wants to do good even if he is mistaken in the means. But he has proved that he is not fit to be Mayor again.

Squiffy.

UK Riots: Day 4

It's been a scary few days in our major cities. Thankfully, my neck of the woods has been ok so far.

The thugs and scum responsible for these mindless acts of violence should be locked up. They have no legitimate excuse for what they have done.

It is such a shame that so many of our young can get involved in this level of disorder. It goes to show how deficient some modern day parenting is. Why were these kids out on the street so late? The parents should have a short sharp shock too.

It makes me feel so sad that modern day Britain can have descended so low in the moral morass. Like some of our politicians, their morals for finding an excuse in poverty, jobs, drop of EMA shows how far some have sunk. Ken Livingston and Harriet Harman are two such people.

It's also a shame that I'm not all that surprised by it all.

Squiffy.

Fascinating TV: Vote 2011

Just watching TV. Chris Huhne lashing out at the Tories, and then Labour. The Yes campaign are now in-fighting.

Facinating.

Squiffy.

Vote 2011: Sleep deprived

I hadn't realised how tired I was when I sat down to blog last night, shortly after 2 I fell asleep. I woke up this morning to see the results.

It looks like the SNP have been the most successful so far, possibly winning a majority in Scotland. If that is the case it will be the first time since devolution that the Scottish Parliament has had a majority Government. What a woeful performance by Labour in their back yard. Alec Salmond is a canny campaigner and it looks like they will finally have to put forward the independence referendum - which they will lose.

In Wales, Labour have done well. If they hadn't done well there, I think the knives would have been out for Ed Miliband, so it's a bit of a save but the English local elections haven't looked quite so good for Labour. OK, they have made advances but it is looking around the 1000 level which, in my mind, is making up for losses for their disastrous 2007. They haven't been taking seats off the Tories, which they would need to look to form a Government. They have benefitted from the LibDem collapse.

The Tories have kept their seats and gained a few councils making a very good night for them as opposed to the predicted 1000 seat loss. For the LibDems it has been disastrous. They have lost roughly half their councillors and councils. It makes Nick Clegg's position questionable, and there have been calls for his head. It would be a shame if that is how his courage to go into the coalition was rewarded. It looks like a lot of the LibDems prefer opposition to power.

Squiffy.

Election Live 2011

I wasn't going to do this, but a bit of bridge, a bit of alcohol and no work tomorrow makes me think I'll give it a go until I get knackered.

Here's the blog...

Squiffy.

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.