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.