Labour pains

It's been an interesting few weeks for the Labour party.

The Chancellor, George Osborne, created a situation where Labour had to decide whether to vote for or against the Welfare Bill. Harriet Harman thought it a good idea to back certain aspects of the bill, including the controversial proposal to limit child tax credit to two children for new applicants. This had the leadership contenders in a tizzy, and a quick backtrack.

Both Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper called it a mess, and it was.

In hustings up and down the country Jeremy Corbyn has been doing well, and Liz Kendall has been received poorly. This bodes ill for the party.

Then there was the YouGov poll which showed that Corbyn could win the first round, and then the overall contest after second preferences are counted for. This really has set the cat amongst the pigeons.

When Corbyn gained enough MPs to enter the race it was so that a debate could happen, he wasn't meant to win!

Tony Blair made a speech telling Labour that it has re-learnt how to lose. It's funny how the Tories revere their most recent serial election winner, Mrs Thatcher, where Labour revile their most successful leader ever. And so his words will fall on deaf ears.

It seems crazy that Labour may elect Mr Corbyn, but it is under a new leadership election system with new members for only £3. Liz Kendall is the only realistic prospect for election victory but she is last at the moment. Labour really don't want to win.

If I was going to compare it with the Tories, this is the 2001 when Iain Duncan-Smith was elected, but Corbyn is even further from the mainstream.

The party is beginning to lose its mind. What will happen if Mr Corbyn does win? Maybe he will step aside. I can't imagine many of the current crop of shadow ministers serving under Mr Corbyn, and so we may get a shadow cabinet of lefties and misfits! Fascinating.

Maybe there will be split.

There is much more to come in this story.

Squiffy.

Greece: Crunch day

The whole Greek Euro crisis has felt like Groundhog day. How many times have we been told that it is crunch time and that there is a firm deadline only for there to be an extension? We were told there was a deadline two weeks ago when Alexis Tsipras announced a referendum for last Sunday, delaying a decision by a week. We then had the referendum which led to new talks. Today is supposed to be the new deadline...

Somehow, this time, it does feel like decision day but maybe it will be another false dawn. 20th July, is though, coming up fast and that is when £3Bn has to be paid back to the ECB. Maybe that will be the new deadline after today.

Anyway, it's been fascinating to watch. I was surprised that the Greek public voted quite so comprehensively against the last bail-out. I'm pretty sure they would be disappointed that the deal proposed by the Greek Government for this weekend is even tougher on Greece than the deal the public rejected last week. All the tactics deployed by the Greek Government over the last few weeks, with speeches denouncing the creditors as blackmailers wanting humiliation for Greece, have led then rest of the EU to be distrustful of the Greek Government, and that is coming across in talks today.

Will there be a deal? I hope not. I know that a Grexit will be incredibly painful for the Greek population, but I think will lead to a real improvement in a couple of years time whereas I think a deal will still be difficult and lead us back to here in three years time. Greece will be in pain in perpetuity until they exit.

I still think, though, that there will be some kind of dodgy deal knocked up. Let us remember that this deal would not be to prop up Greece, but to prop up the Euro.

The Euro has been an unmitigated disaster for many countries. I remember texting into Question Time at the turn of the century when the question of whether we should join the Euro cropped up. Some panellists were saying how the Euro was proving to be successful. My comment was let's see in 10 years, when we see it have to deal with a recession. We've now seen how it has coped. Abysmally. The Euro has been in crisis for half its lifetime.

The implicit contradictions built into the project have been exposed and at some point will have to be tackled. But EuroZone leaders want to bury their heads in the sand, which is why they're still pushing for a deal!

Meanwhile, the Greek banks are slowly becoming insolvent. I'm not sure they can survive another week dishing out 60 Euro notes each day to the population. When the first bank goes down, the others will quickly follow suit.

The End Game could come quickly.... or not!

Today may well be decisive.

Squiffy.

Labour: The debate....

I've heard countless Labour commentators and politicians talking about how they wish Labour could have a real debate about why they lost before embarking upon a leadership contest.

I'm interested to know how such a debate could take place. Would there be a meeting? Would it be through endless articles in the press? Would it be through focus groups? Who says when the debate ends? Who says what the results of the debate are? Is this the point at which a leadership election happens? What happens if the results of the leadership election is at odds with the results of the 'debate'.

I think it's all fatuous. These 'let's have a debate' ideas don't really add up to much.

The good idea of a leadership election is for the contenders to put their cases forward. If they cannot persuade their colleagues, then how are they expected to convince the voters? The party has to be able to believe in the leader and their position and direction. In essence the leadership vote is the debate. The MPs have to work out whether they want to keep to ideological positions or whether they want to win, and the result of the leadership vote indicates where the party is.

It was only when the Tories elected David Cameron that we knew they were serious about being a party of the centre and ready to win. His election was the manifestation of the debate within the Tory party.

Now where I do agree with the commentators is for the delay before embarking on the leadership vote. Harriet Harman should have put the leadership contenders in significant positions on the front bench to challenge the Tories. This is what Michael Howard did after he lost in 2005. It would be even useful to let them all have a go at PMQs. That's not what happened, and Liz Kendall is still Andy Burnham's number two at Shadow Health.

I think Labour are like the Tories circa 2003 rather than 2005 and I think they will need another attempt to get it right.

Squiffy.




 

Serial: Real Murder

This is an aside from my usual blogs about politics and F1, but about something that has gripped me over the last year.

Anybody who watches Inspector Morse, Lewis, Midsummer Murders et al but would like to get into the nitty gritty of a real life case should listen to the 'Serial' podcasts.

They are from America (but hopefully that won't put you off) about a murder case in Baltimore from 1999. The podcasts talk you through the case of the murder of college girl, Hae Min Lee, a girl who went missing after school and turned up 28 days later in Leakin Park in the city.

At that point the police arrested her ex-boyfriend, Adnan Syed for her murder on some pretty flimsy evidence and the say so of his friend Jay, who claims to have helped Adnan dispose of the body.

Why is it so gripping? This is real life. Adnan Syed is still in jail serving his life sentence for Hae's murder. During the podcasts you get to hear from Adnan himself, snippets from the court cases, and also from police interviews. You are able to draw a few conclusions but there are discrepancies on both the prosecution and defence cases. But there is something about the way the narrative is told by Sarah Koenig, the investigative journalist, that draws you in.

I was around 65% certain that there had been a miscarriage of justice by the end of the series.

Why am I talking abut this when Serial finished last year? Because there is a second set of podcasts called 'Undisclosed' based on the same case by 3 lawyers who forensically go through the evidence, timing and testimonies and tear the case apart. The podcasts are being released once every two weeks, with a follow-up in the interleaved weeks.

So far I'm even more convinced of Adnan's innocence.

You have to listen and really concentrate to take it all in but it is absolutely gripping and I can't recommend it highly enough.

Here's a link to the original Serial, and the lawyers views appear in Undisclosed.

Squiffy

Last thought on the election. The Losers: The Pollsters

The final losers I have to call out for the election are the pollsters. For month after month they were telling us that Labour and the Tories were neck and neck. We now know that this was baloney.

There have been plenty of reasons that pollsters have put forward for the discrepancy:

1. The shy Tory - those that refuse to admit they vote Tory
2. The lazy Labour - those Labour people who can't be bothered to vote
3. The late swing - a last minute change of heart
4. The non-representative sample - that pollsters tend to sample people who give them time (and there are more Tory professionals who don't have time to do polls)

The fact is that ever since 1992 the Tories have always been understated by roughly 3%, and Labour have been overstated in every general election by 2% apart from 2010. If you factor that into the poll figures then we get roughly near the final result. For that reason I think I'm more inclined to believe that the fourth explanation is closer to the truth and its a systemic problem.

Until the pollsters are proved to a general election spot on I'm going to be mentally adding 3% to the Tories and taking 2% off Labour in every poll. I suggest you do too.

Squiffy.

More thoughts on the election. The Losers: Labour

This election was the worst result for Labour from 1983. Against a Government that had to make the largest cuts for decades Labour actually lost seats to the SNP and Tories. They barely increased the vote from 2010.

Two major factors contributed to this loss. Labour were never able to gain respectability on the economy, during the Labour Leadership contest the Tories had framed Labour for the recession and throughout the last four years Labour have been blamed for the cuts more than the coalition. Additionally, Ed Miliband had major problems convincing the country that he was Prime Ministerial. Something never quite clicked for him and I think it may have been because he seemed lke he was playing student politics. Never has a party been elected when losing on the economy and leadership.

The Labour offer was to appeal to the worst off in society with some retail populist offers, but against this backdrop was a message which came through to the masses that the party was anti-aspiration, anti-business and anti-success. It was like looking back at the 1970s, and for anyone with an interest in economics it was clear that the policies were backward looking answers to modern problems.

Finally hitting Labour was the SNP rampage. Years and years of taking their back yard for granted came back to haunt them as they ended up with the same number of seats as the Tories - 1! This was a major problem in the arithmetic and everyone knew that the only way Labour would be in power would be by an accommodation with the SNP, even if it was only to not vote down a Queen's speech. The Tories were able to lodge this in the public's mind and it must have pulled back quite a few votes from UKIP and the Lib Dems.

The party now has launched into a leadership election, while the Tories make hay with the 'Northern Powerhouse' (trying to take even more votes from Labour). Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Chuka Ummuna, Liz Kendall and Mary Creagh have entered the race. My tip is on Liz Kendell so far, but it's early days.

The task ahead of the party is now momentous. A swing of 8% is going to be needed. They are going to make serious inroads back into Scotland, and the South of England while watching a rearguard action against UKIP in the North. To say that this is like 3D chess is to understate the probelm, do Labour tack, left, right or stay where they are. In fact they just need to be in the centre with an aspirational leader. Tony Blair was able to unite all these parts of the electorate.

I'm not sure whether it will happen in the next 5 years. The Tories seem to have a plan.

And just as a thought, maybe the first elected female Labour Leader will be great or maybe like Rebecca Front's character in The Thick of It.

One more thought, if both leader and deputy leader are elected at the same time and they have a new rule saying that they have to be of opposite sex, what happens if men are elected to both posts, or women? Which one has to step aside and would the elected person feel illegitimate?

Squiffy.

More thoughts on the election. The losers: Lib Dems

This was a massacre, from 57 seats to 8. I thought they would have at least 25 due to their amazing facility to bed down in a seat and then hold it. It appears that the tide was just too strong this time.

The factors affecting this are threefold:

• The Lib Dems were the protest vote against Government and Opposition. By being a part of the Government they lost this caché.
• The left leaning Lib Dems could not forgive them for going into Government and 'propping up' the Tories.
• The tuition fees pledge and then reversal in coalition.

I think the Lib Dems were brave to enter the coalition knowing that it would be bad for them in the long run, but they had made a naive mistake to be photographed with pledge cards saying they will kill tuition fees. When their only realistic hope for power was in a coalition with two parties pledging to keep or increase tuition fees this was always going to be a disaster.

It was also naive of Lib Dem voters to believe that the only option for the Lib Dems would be a coalition with Labour, in fact if all the people who voted Lib Dem and then got annoyed that they didn't go with Labour should have gone Labour in the first place! What were they actually hoping to achieve? The Lib Dems had always said they would go with the party that had the most votes or seats.

In Government the Lib Dems seemed to start well, but then became obsessed by announcing what they were stopping. It's not really a positive message is it? They then started to dis the government of which they were a part! Finally they started to disclose what had been discussed with their coalition parties - not entirely trustworthy.

For the future it could take a long time for the Lib Dems to become relevant again. They do have to decide what the future direction of the party is though? Are they going to be a true Liberal party or the traditional Social Democrat party? It's no good having no principles but just being equi-distant between the two main parties. Judging by the two main candidates for the leadership it looks like the Lib Dems will head left - but how far? Tim Farron could move it further than the new Labour leader, who knows?

For now though, I think we should just all look away.

Squiffy.

More thoughts about the election. The Losers: UKIP

UKIP needed to keep their two seats and maybe add another 3 to 4 to keep momentum. The fact that they lost one to only keep the Clacton seat, based on Douglas Carswell's personal appeal, is very disappointing for them.

They had a bad campaign and weren't able to appear as the insurgent when the SNP were rampant. Maybe, even at times, were slightly irrelevant. Against the threat of a Labour/SNP coalition the Tory message that a vote for UKIP was a vote for Labour was quite effective. I'm pretty sure that Nigel Farage's movement in the latter days of the campaign to support the Tory party in seats where UKIP could not win may have alienated some supported.

It is significant that UKIP made good strides up north to be second to Labour, more so than down south even.

Now that there will definitely be an EU referendum though, what is the purpose of UKIP?

IT has a confusing position of being right wing on EU and immigration and left wing on benefits  and NHS. You can see that this is positioned for the working class, but is it sustainable? Only targeting one section of society means that you have a ceiling to your support and cannot ever break out.

If it had a more consistent position then they would have a coherent set of beliefs and could cut across different sections - but probably would still hit a ceiling but would make a natural ally to one of the main parties in a coalition position.

Maybe a true libertarian party - the type that Douglas Carswell wants - would appeal?

The problem with UKIP is they have allowed themselves to be portrayed as racists. Stupid comments from too many people make them sound as bigots. Also from the leadership, when accusing traffic jams on the M4 on immigrants. It sounds like they have one xenophobic message. They need to stop that.

I think Nigel Farage has taken them so far, but he alienates as much as he attracts. Should he continue then they will stay where they are. If he is replaced it could go either way, someone who ditches the immigration rhetoric may take them somewhere better, otherwise they may just start to disappear.

I suspect that UKIP will start to dissipate as a force and people will trickle back to their traditional homes.

Squiffy.

More thoughts about the election. The Winners: SNP

There is no doubt that this election was a game changer in Scottish politics. Labour have been practically wiped out in their stronghold. Down to 1 seat only - the same as the Tories.

The SNP won 56 seats - practically all. Something strange has happened across the border since the referendum. The party which lost is riding the crest of a wave. I can't claim to understand why this is happening suffice to say that it is clear that Labour rested on its laurels and took their voters for granted.

This is the high point for the SNP, it cannot get better than this (except for independence). It is now going to be a question of how Nicola Sturgeon plays it. She's canny and will extract as many powers as possible, but David Cameron needs to move to full fiscal autonomy. Give them the noose to hand themselves.

The SNP needs to be responsible for raising funds and then how to spend it. The extra spending that they want should happen with a much reduced Barnett formula. When the SNP have run out of money, like all socialists do, it will be time for the Scottish Tories to strike - this is the only way for the Tories to come back in Scotland.

The SNP cannot play the independence referendum again too soon otherwise they will lose support, especially among their new voters.

Squiffy.

More thoughts about the election. The Winners: Tories

For the Tories, yesterday was beyond their wildest dreams. Although they all said that they were working for a majority I doubt that many really believed they could achieve it. They knew that the story on the ground was better than the polls suggested but still I'm pretty sure that they knew a coalition or minority government were the likelihood.

It was becoming a modern theory that the Tories were not able to get a majority any longer. The split on the right with UKIP was going to make it impossible. With UKIP not performing as well as thought against Tories that has shown not to be the case. It was also said that it would be impossible for a government to gain seats, again that is bunkum, though it is the first time that it has happened since 1983. Also the Tories increased their vote share by 1%.

Now, to look at the new Government.

The overriding priority is to get the deficit down without risking the economy. I think it can be done. It will be interesting to see which Welfare reductions they will make. They have closed off some avenues, so room is limited, but I think they should not touch disability benefit. They may need to make even more difficult for those on jobseekers allowance, as this will be a good narrative to get them back into work. They have to not look heartless, and stop the LibDems from saying that it was only them that cared in the last government. I would also keep Iain Duncan Smith in place to let him finish what he started.

The biggest issue dominating the start of this parliament will be the referendum. To keep his party on side David Cameron has to be better at listening to party, especially in this area. While the number of Europhiles is limited, the degree of Euroscepticism ranges from those who want out no matter what, to those who genuinely want a renegotiation. David Cameron needs to ask his party what they would settle for before starting the negotiation, for if he came back with some little changes there will definitely be a split. I think he will need to bring back quite a lot of the political unionism, just short of associate status. The British public want the common market not much more. I would ask David Davis to be used as a bridge to the backbenchers.

For other departments I would like to see Michael Gove back at Education. The reforms must not be diluted and he needs to push forward even more. Jeremy Hunt has done a good job at Health but I'd also bring in Sarah Wollaston as a minister. I'd like to see Priti Patel as Chief Sec to the Treasury.

What to do with Boris? Nothing until he ceases to be Mayor.

The one thing that David Cameron is weak at is party management. With a small majority this is going to be key in getting legislation through. He needs a great Chief Whip - maybe Andrew Mitchell can be brought back.

Other stars deserving a big break are Penny Mordaunt, Charlotte Leslie and Anna Soubry - all women!

There will at some point need to be a decision about David Cameron's future. He can stay as PM, but maybe nearer the end of the Parliament he will need to pass over leadership of the Tory Party to someone else for the next election!

It's going to be fascinating watching. I will give more thoughts over the next few days.

Squiffy.

Election aftermath. Carnage for Labour and Lib Dems. Good for Tories and SNP.

So that was a bit of a surprise wasn't it?

When the exit poll came out I thought, well that's wonderful but obviously wrong. As the first seats began to come in, and then Nuneaton I started to believe it, and also to believe that it may have understated the Tories position and maybe, just maybe, the Tories could be on for a majority.

And that is where we are. The exit poll was broadly correct. The Tories are in Government with a majority of 12.

Ed Miliband has gone, deservedly so. From the very beginning he did not have any economic credibility, and he didn't gain any. To refuse to accept that Labour had overspent was a mistake. To bring back 1970's devices such as rent controls and energy price freezes was a mistake. Although the loud people on question time find them popular, the majority of voters see them for the populist but bad measures they are.

I was quite glad to see Ed Balls go as it means Labour can move on from the Gordon Brown days now. It now needs to regain some kind of 'new Labour' South facing policies in order to win. If I were a member, I'd be voting for Chukka Ummuna for the next leader, but maybe he would be unacceptable to the Northern Labour set.

It was quite telling that the Tories made 3 gains in Wales. Another Labour heartland where they weren't able to make a big advance.

For Lib Dems it was even worse. They lost 86% of their seats! Good MPs such as Lynne Featherstone, Jo Swinson, Steve Webb and David Laws have gone. I will shed no tear for Vince Cable though as I found him to be duplicitous in the extreme and I lost all respect for him. Nick Clegg has resigned and the alternative is now down to Norman Lamb and Tim Farron. They're pretty much an irrelevance as of now. No women MPs at all.

For UKIP, they held on in Clacton and that's it. No real advance in seats, 2nd in some seats but with Nigel Farage resigning can they build on it. I expect them to gradually disappear. The referendum in 2017 will make them a complete irrelevance.

There was no advance for the Greens too.

David Cameron can now govern and show us his real self, but with a small majority I expect that party management can become a major issue over this parliament. David Cameron needs to get much better at this.

Scotland now has 1 Labour, 1 Tory and 1 Lib Dem MPs. I expect no Labour person to be throwing the jibe that there are more Pandas in Edinburgh zoo than Tory MPs. The Unionist representatives from Scotland can now travel to Westminster in a Robin Reliant. SNP have reached their high point. David Cameron needs to look to a full Federal system to keep Scotland in the Union. The existing solution and even English Votes are not good enough.

And Boris is back.

Squiffy.

Election Night Live Blog 2015

Here's my blog for tonight, it will start well, and then as the wine goes down it will get slurrrrryyyy....

Live Blog Election Night Live Blog 2015

 

I have a bad feeling about this

It's election day. I have always thought that the good people of Britain would do the right thing and re-elect either a Tory majority or Tory/Lib-Dem coalition. I thought that Miliband had shown just too much old socialism to keep the electorate from voting from him.

Now, I'm nervous.

The polls have been stubborn, and if anything the last day or so has shown an uptick for Labour, and given a sunny day maybe it's enough to propel Ed Miliband over the line (with SNP underwriting support). We may be just about to have the most left wing Government since 1974.

That makes me very nervous.

It's the polls versus the betting tonight. Most betting sites have the Tories ahead, but the polling is level pegging.

I wonder what the exit polls will say. Will it be accurate like it has been in every election since 1997, or will it be like 1992 when they got it quite wrong.

Anyway, it's going to be a long night. Join me in an hour and a half for a live blog.

Squiffy.

You can't buck the market: One week to go

Just over a week from now the polls will open in the closest election in decades. It's still not clear if any one party will come out on top. My hunch is that there will be a late swing to the Tories. Apparently 10% of all voters are still undecided and tend to split 2 to 1 in favour of the incumbent. I also think that some UKIPers will swing back to the Tories to deny a Labour/SNP tie up.

We shall see.

I do want to reiterate a point, which I think I've made before, but it's such an important point that it's worth reminding ourselves.

You can't buck the market! It's so old, but still so true! Now, I don't mean this in the way that markets should be let rip, no, there needs to be sensible controls. It's why we have the Monopolies and Merger Commission to make sure that no one company buys out all its competitors to form a monopoly, and why the privatised industries have regulators.

But the Labour Party under Ed Miliband, is falling into some bad 70's style policies. Price freezes, rent controls and compulsory land purchases are some examples of how the Labour leader wants to change our economy. We already know that if we had frozen the energy prices two years ago, when the policy was first raised, we would not have benefitted from recent wholesale oil price falls. It is fine for a company to voluntarily decide to offer price freezes, that is part of competition, and they will factor it into their plans.

For a Government to do it across the whole market means that prices will start to become perverse. Companies would inflate their prices ahead of the price freeze coming in, just to factor in wholesale oil price rises - just in case and the likelihood is that we'd all lose money. Think if you were thinking of selling your house in a rising housing market, knowing that in a week a price freeze will come in. You may know that the house is worth £300,000 today, but you'd put it on the market for £320,000 because in a few months time it will likely be that price.

The same is true for increases in rental values. I've rented, and I also own a property which I rent out. I've never increased the monthly rent, but if I knew I wouldn't be able to I'd probably set a slightly higher rent at the beginning of the tenancy - just in case. Again, this is not particularly want the tenants would want! Recently, I've had to have a legionnaire's disease report done on the property and some remedial action taken. The same is true for all buy to lets due to some new (probably EU) regulations. It's a pain, and with new regulations from a new Government I might just decide to pack it in. That would take the property off the rental market, reduce supply, increase demand, and push up prices. Again, not what the tenants would want.

Every economist knows that rental controls don't work and have precisely the opposite effects of desired results. If you don't believe me, just read Paul Krugman's (the left's most famous living economist) article here. Apparently it's text book economics on how supply and demand works - funny how the two Ed's have missed it.

This all adds up to a complete lack of understanding of how markets work and is profoundly disturbing from someone who used to work in the Treasury. It's college politics - popular but disastrous. Venezuela is an example of the perverse effects of price controls taken to extremes, shortages, queues and high prices. A little tale comes our way of Ed Miliband asking a FTSE-100 CEO why the company had to pay dividends! Again, very disturbing from someone who wants to be First Lord of the Treasury. I hope the CEO shouted at the prospective PM - "it's how we pay a share of our profits to our owners - you first class idiot".

We cannot let the two Eds run free over our economy and ruin it with schoolboy practices - we've matured beyond that.

Let's hope they don't get a chance.

Squiffy.

The puzzling polls

The opinion polls have been fixed on a tie for both main parties for a few months now. Both Labour and the Tories are stuck on a range of 31 to 35%. It's quite puzzling that nothing is moving the polls. Debates, manifestos, policies. Nothing has changed a thing.

As someone of the right, I also find it disturbing that anyone can think of voting for Ed Miliband and his naive policies which would wreck the economy in slow chunks.

But there have been a few chinks of light in the polls to give us some direction. The polling outliers, which we nearly always discount, show that when UKIP goes down, the Tories go up, and vice versa. I believe this is what the Tory election machine sees too. They are throwing everything at the Labour/SNP possible government in the hope that it will influence the UKIP waverers into going back to the Tories.

There's anecdotal evidence that this is beginning to cut through. No matter what Labour say, the SNP is their only way of getting back into Government and electorate knows it.

All the campaigns have been a bit weak so far, and I don't believe the electorate believes much of what they are told. They also know that the manifestos are only wish lists now, and not a promise. The surprise though is just how weak UKIP are performing. We expected Nigel Farage to steal the thunder of this election, but it's actually Nicola Sturgeon who is performing this role.


The questions I want answering now are:

- Are the Tories promising to build one house for every one they sell in rent-to-buy, or is it just a hope? What happened to the garden cities?

- What will be the level of Labour deficit at the end of 5 years?

- How does Labour know exactly how much the mansion tax will raise, but not what level they will set the tax at or any details?

- Which programmes are Labour going to ditch following their zero-based review?

- Do the Tories have any plans for Education at all?

- Where is Boris?

- If UKIP has the EU referendum and the electorate chooses to stay in, what happens to the rest of their manifesto? Is it just trash?

- What planet are the Greens on?

- When Labour says that they will do cuts, is there anything above piddling millions to contribute to the deficit reduction? And they say growth will help, do they expect higher or lower growth than current plans given their increased tax programme?

- Will the Tories make English Votes for English Laws a red line?


I know, just like Andrew Neil, that I wouldn't get any answers to these questions - but you can always hope for clarity!


Anyway, we are going to have another 2 weeks of this....

Squiffy.

Lewis Hamilton has the beating of Nico Rosberg

After four races it's now Hamilton 4 - Rosberg 0 in Qualifying and Hamilton 4 - Rosberg in races. I think it's fair to say that Hamilton now has whip hand at Mercedes. Rosberg is looking more and more like a good number 2. Maybe his best chance to be World Champion has already passed.

Now Lewis Hamilton can focus on being a triple World Champion.

Squiffy.

Anti-business, anti-aspiration, anti-Britain: Ed Miliband's your man

The opening weeks of the election campaign have confirmed one thing. Ed Miliband hates success.

If you want to be successful, don't try to do it in Britain.

The Labour party has announced in the last few months that they would introduce:

• the 50% upper band for anyone earning over £150,000 per annum
• a 'mansion' tax on any properties worth over £2 million
• reduction of tax allowances on pension pots
• 'abolition' of non-dom status for people non resident in the UK
• an increase of 1% in corporation tax

At each point, when the policies have been argued, the Labour party representative has argues that they wouldn't expect it to change any behaviour and so not have a detrimental effect on our economy. But taken together the above policies represent a comprehensive attack on any kind of aspiration, business or successful person. 

We know that tax changes behaviour. Otherwise why put tax on alcohol, cigarettes and fuel? The Labour party policies will deter many people from investing in Britain, living here or setting up successful businesses. The message is clear: Ed Miliband prefers the politics of student bar envy to a entrepreneurial economy creating jobs, employing thousands, paying wages and creating a wider tax base. He would prefer to take money from the well off rather than increase the tax take.

Ed Miliband laughs in the face of Arthur Laffer and his curve!

My worry is that people will fall for it. It all sounds so nice to put the 'burden on those with the widest shoulders'. In 2006 the top 1% paid 24% of the UK income tax take, last year that had increased to 27%. I want to know at what point have the rich paid their fair share? 30%, 35%, 40%? 

How much longer can we continue to soak the rich before they take their pots of money away and the burden then falls on the poor? How much longer will the golden goose lay its eggs? Not much longer if the leader of the Labour party has its way. 

Let's hope that the people of Britain see sense.

Squiffy.

P.S. on another note - I hear Ed Miliband is as decisive as Gordon Brown. Oh God, don't take me back to 2007-2009!

Blog of 7 way leader's debate

Here's my blog for tonight:

Live Blog Leaders Debate - 7 way

 

Leaders Debate: Cameron vs Miliband part 1

Here's a live blog:

Live Blog Leaders Debate 1

 

F1 testing roundup

The 2015 winter season has ended, it's now just two weeks until the first Grand Prix in Melbourne. So what have we learnt?

The cars are going to be quite a bit quicker than last year. They look better in 2015 and may even be a little bit louder. But what about the competitive order? Not much appears to have changed.

Mercedes appear to be out front again. They have completed the whole of testing on one engine, and have been quickest when they chose to show their hand. They completed the most number of laps and have some great reliability. Williams seem to be in a similar position to last year as best of the rest, half a second behind the Mercs.

Red Bull are a bit of a puzzle. They seem relatively quick, but may have dropped back from last year, but their testing is better than last year. It's possible that they have a very good car, but the Renault engine is down on power and they will have dropped back.

The Ferrari looks much improved. The engine appears to be much better, the aerodynamics look better and their times might show them as the third best team. The car looks like it will suit Raikkonen better so expect him to be closer to Vettel than Alonso last year.

The McLaren looks like a much improved chassis with reports that it is much more predictable, something that Button particularly needs. The installation with Honda has been problematic though, and they have had a multitude of reliability issues, meaning that they haven't been able to do enough laps and demonstrate their true pace.

Force India turned up for the last three days of testing after issues of 'build problems' delaying them. When they did turn up, though, the car was good and extremely reliable. With reports of money worries, let's hope they can build a great season.

Toro Rosso have also run a lot of laps, and the car looks reasonable, but the Renault engine may let them down. The young Verstappen looks impressive.

The Sauber looks much improved. On top of having a better Ferrari engine, the chassis looks more stable especially around braking. Tey have put in fast times, though I suspect they have been show-boating a little.

We hope to see Manor/Marussia on the grid, though I suspect its still touch and go. They will run with a 2014 engine so will be uncompetitive, but they have to make it to the end of the year to continue with the payments from FOM.


It looks like it will be Lewis Hamilton or Nico Rosberg again as champion, with Mercedes as constructors champions. I'm still looking forward to it though.

Squiffy.

A new chapter in Greek mythology

The final act in Greece's struggle with the Euro has started, in what will surely go down as a new story in Greek mythology.

Since the election of Syriza on a platform of ignoring debts, hoping people will lend money with no expected of being paid back and staying in the Eurozone whilst insulting the Germans, the new Government is demonstrating amazing hope over expectation.

The way the negotiations are going does not really bear out any likelihood that a deal will be done, though many commentators do expect a rabbit to be pulled from the hat. I don't think so. The Greek Government has got itself - quickly - into a position where by to pull back will be a humiliation. They have even asked the German Government to pay reparations for the second World War. Not bloody likely, and insulting to the people who have lent loads of money to the Greeks over the last few years.

The screws are being tightened on Greece whilst they raise the minimum wage, re-hire public sector staff that were laid off, re-open the public broadcaster, and scrap any privatizations. The European Central Bank has closed down a facility for providing liquidity to Greek banks, meaning that funding will have to come from the Greek central bank - that won't last long. In the mean time the stock market is plummeting and withdrawals from Greek banks is continuing at a steady rate.

It will not be too long, possibly the end of the month, by which Greece starts to feel some pain. It will need an emergency loan, and I don't think anyone, other than maybe Russia, will oblige. From there it will be a game of brinkmanship. Will the Greek Government give up, or will the German Government? I think the stakes are higher if the Germans give in. It then paves the way for Spain, Portugal and Irelend to start throwing debt repayments to the wind, and I don't think the EU will countenance Spain leaving.

I therefore think that Greece will be in a full blown crisis by the end of March, with runs on the banks and capital leaving the country. They will shortly have to leave the Eurozone, the return of a new Drachma and then major inflation and pain for the whole of Greece. It will then quickly turn itself around, and maybe Spain will be interested to go it's own way in the end anyway!

And it will be down to some short term choices, just when Greece had started to rebuild.

Let that be a lesson in not to fall for short term gimmicks, sometimes you need to just face the pain.

Squiffy.

F1 will eat itself

It's the end of the first week of testing in F1 2015 and we can draw a few conclusions.

Firstly, Mercedes are continuing where they left off. They have concentrated on reliability and so we cannot be sure of their performance, but rest assured that they will still be the team to beat.

The surprise is Ferrari, who seemed to be genuinely quick and reliable. Maybe they will be in a position to challenge this year, but possibly leading the second pack. Sauber seemed to have a much better car this year, and although I think their speed was deceptive (using low fuel loads) , in a much better position than last year.

The new McLaren looks like a better car, more refined and tightly packaged. But they were running well off the pace, with multiple issues surrounding sensors and the new Honda engine. It looks similar to the Renault problems from last year. If they can be resolved maybe they can challenge Red Bull, Ferrari and Williams for best of the rest.

The biggest disappointment has been from the meeting this week which refused the restarted Manor/Marussia from using last year's car. Apparently it was Force India that voted first and they refused. There is the little matter of Marussia's prize money of £30m being split equally amongst the other teams if they do not race. It could come down to greed.

F1's ruling structures are crazy. How can it be that teams get to vote on their competitor's rights to race?! Surely it should come under the FIA to determine. I guess it's because they are asking to race last year's car, and need the others to agree. But F1 has lost so many teams in the last few years and the competitors should put the sport before themselves. I understand Ron Dennis and Christian Horner were going to allow Marussia, so good on them!

Squiffy.

2014 ends, 2015 begins

As is customary at this time I mark last year's predictions and create some new ones for the coming year.

Firstly, last years:

1. The economy will grow by 2.5% to 3% this year. 1 point
2. The opinion polls will end the year at 36% Tory, 35% Labour, 12% LibDem, 10% UKIP. 1/2 point (Tories and Labour are level pegging)
3. The European elections will give Labour the lead, UKIP 2nd (just behind), Tories 3rd and LibDems 4th. 0 points, UKIP led and the LibDems did worse
4. Lewis Hamilton will win the F1 World Championship. 1 point
5. The Ferrari power plant will be bad, leading to Alonso ditching them and joining McLaren for 2015. 1 point
6. Tony Blair will speak out against Ed Miliband's leadership. 1/2 point (he sort of did yesterday and backtracked today)
7. Vince Cable will resign or be sacked (hopefully). 0 points, still hanging in there 
8. Peter Mandelson will do Strictly. 0 points
9. Scotland will vote against independence. 1 point
10. Gordon Brown will announce he's leaving parliament in 2015. 1 point

Overall 6 out of 10. Not bad this year, certainly better than last year!

Now for 2015 predictions.

1. The economy will continue to recover, and will grow by 2.5% this year. Wages growth will really begin to outstrip inflation/
2. The General Election will be close, final tally Tories 36%, Labour 31%, Lib Dems 10%, UKIP 12%.
3. Tories and Lib Dems will form a second coalition.
4. Lewis Hamilton will win the F1 World Championship again.
5. Sebastien Vettel will not perform as well as Alonso at Ferrari, and Ferrari will end the year in greater turmoil with Raikkonen being sacked.
6. Labour will have a leadership election with Chukka Umuna winning.
7. Vince Cable will lose his seat in the election (hopefully)
8. UKIP will gain 2 seats at the General Election, but Rochester & Strood will not be one of them. Douglas Carswell will be re-elected.
9. Hilary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Rand Paul will all run for the US Presidential primaries.
10. Nick Clegg will resign the leadership of the Lib Dems.

Ok, let's see what happens. The General Election is going to be the most unpredictable in generations, so most of the above could  be wrong.

Squiffy.

Well done Lewis

Fantastic result. Well deserved.

Now to 2015.

Squiffy

Four hours to the title showdown: Hamilton vs Rosberg

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

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

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

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

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

Just a few hours to go.


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

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

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

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

Anyway, rant over.

Enjoy the race!

Squiffy

Rochester and Strood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still exciting.

Squiffy.

Do the Tories want to lose?

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

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

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

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


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

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


Squiffy.

Where is the Ferrari announcement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#ForzaJules

Squiffy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Nick Clegg's Speech: Verdict

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

UKIP want Labour to win

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Cameron Speech: Verdict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband Conference Speech: Verdict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.


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

Indyref: The time is nearly upon us

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

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

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

Bring it on Mr Dimbleby Edwards.

Squiffy.

Scottish Independence: One week to go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RIP GB 1707-2014.

Squiffy.

Rosberg vs Hamilton: It's war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Reshuffle: Clarke/Gove

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, not bad but could have been slightly better.

Squiffy.

Passport received

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

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

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

 Crisis? What crisis?

Squiffy.

Passport to chaos

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

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

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

Squiffy.

David Cameron is wrong about the AfD

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband: Meet me in Venezuela

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Ayrton Senna: 20 years on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

The Laffer Curve: Proven twice this week

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

F1: Talking points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm loving it.

Squiffy.