The latest opinion polls have shown the Tories with double digit leads. It seems that something seismic has occurred in the political world. It all started with the election that never was, that burst the Brown bubble, but now it seems that political good will has now evaporated.
Last week, the Budget did what was expected of it. It was the most boring budget in years, not much happened. I think, though, that it showed that in the present crisis this Government has no ideas on how to move forward and that it had boxed itself in. It has finally dawned on the public that this Government has mismanaged the economy, and has nowhere to go.
I think last Wednesday will in future be seen as this Government's Black Wednesday. The day the Government's competence was seen to be lost.
From now on, this Government is on borrowed time.
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
What a race!
The Australian GP was fantastic. Not only did Lewis Hamilton win in great style, withstanding 3 safety car periods similarly to his maiden win in Canada, but the Ferrari drivers were made look pretty ordinary. Apart from Raikkonen's middle stint, he was out of sorts for most of the weekend. He made several unforced errors and nearly joined Felipe Massa in the wall.
There were several surprises. The McLaren seemed to be as fast, if not faster, than the Ferrari. The Honda was better than expected, as was the BMW. I think the biggest surprise, though, was that the cars looked twitchy without traction control - and quite a handful.
F1 is back, and better.
Squiffy.
There were several surprises. The McLaren seemed to be as fast, if not faster, than the Ferrari. The Honda was better than expected, as was the BMW. I think the biggest surprise, though, was that the cars looked twitchy without traction control - and quite a handful.
F1 is back, and better.
Squiffy.
Saturday, 15 March 2008
Hamilton on Pole, nearly Pole on Pole
It was great to see Hamilton start the season on pole, but what a surprise to see Robert Kubica on the 2nd spot. He just missed out, and if he hadn't had a small excursion on the grass he may have made it to pole.
Looking forward to the race now.
Squiffy.
Looking forward to the race now.
Squiffy.
F1 2008 is here (part 2)
Completing the round up of F1.
Williams
I am a big fan of the Williams team, ever since they had Nigel Mansell driving for them. They are true racers; Frank Williams and Patrick Head are honest down to earth petrol heads and have not been persuaded, thus far, to allow a corporation to buy into their team. Maybe that was a mistake, as the team have not been close to the front for a few year, but I respect them for it.
Unfortunately, Williams suffered greatly when Adrian Newey left during 1996, and have only added one more driver's title since (and that car would have had Newey's imprint). They have won races, but apart from 2003 and not come close to their heyday. Last year they recovered from their appalling 2006 season, when they finished 8th, to rise to 4th.
Sam Michael, the technical director, seems to have settled into his role and now that the wind tunnel is calibrated correctly, has produced a promising car for this year. So far, the car looks fast and may be in the running for 3rd spot.
Nico Rosberg is a driver with a large amount of talent and hopefully should thrive with a good car underneath him. He seems to enjoy the atmosphere at the team, and personifies the 'Williams' racer. Kazuki Nakajima also shows a turn of speed if somewhat erratic. He will need to calm down and not try too hard, as once labelled as accident prone - the tag will not leave.
Renault
The Renault team should be advancing this year, after a lacklustre 2007. They will have Fernando Alonso back in the fold and that should be a boost, even if he is only around for a year. Renault lost their way last year; after having designed cars around the Michelin tyres they did not effectively change their design for the Bridgestones and suffered badly.
With a great engine and aero team behind them, Alonso and Nelson Piquet Jr should be able to run up front, although a third championship for Alonso looks unlikely. Fernando has to undo some of the damage that he did to his reputation last year and buckle down to some stellar performances. Piquet Jr was narrowly beaten to the GP2 championship in 2006 by Lewis Hamilton and so should be competitive, although I doubt whether he will be able to provide Alonso with the headaches from last year.
Toro Rosso
The Red Bull 'B' team will be starting the year with last year's car. This may give them an advantage at the start of the season as they will know the car inside out, and with the reliability problems sorted out they may outgun the 'A' team. The team will move up to the RB4 for the Turkish GP, by which time niggles with the new car should have been laid to rest. I would expect them to drop back at this point before coming back after a few races.
Sebastian Vettel will be at Toro Rosso for a full season. He's a great talent and will no doubt be plucked by one of the bigger teams at the end of the year, maybe alongside Webber at the 'A' team? After watching him at the Race of Champions it's clear that he's a future race winner.
His namesake, Sebastian Bourdais is a 4 times Champ car champion and finally gets his F1 chance. It's a shame that it has taken him so long to achieve his ambition, and I feel that he may struggle after being out of European single seaters for a while. He will have tough competition from Vettel and may find himself eclipsed.
Force India
It's been sad to see the old Jordan team going from championship contenders in 2000 to tail enders via some changes in ownership. It would be great to have EJ back in the frame, maybe as the successor to Max Mosley.
After Midland and Spyker, the team has now become Force India. It should be on the up, Mike Gasgoyne is back as technical director with Mark Smith as chief designer. Vijay Mallya is the millionaire behind Kingfisher lager and a petrol head, since buying the team he's injected money and renewed optimism. Hopefully this will lead the team back up the grid.
Giancarlo Fisichella is back at the team, for a third spell, and will provide some experience alongside the accident prone but fast Adrian Sutil. I expect Fisichella to be a star, bringing the car home higher than it should. How is it that Fisichella excels in middling teams and disappoints in front running teams? I think this will be his last team though. Sutil needs to calm down and show his speed without the excursions on the grass, if he proves to be close to Fisichella he will deserve his place in F1.
Honda
The Honda team had a diabolical 2007. The car was awful, it gave the drivers conflicting feedback and left them not knowing whether the next corner would demonstrate understeer or oversteer. Honda have suffered from Geoff Willis's departure (what a mistake to make) and upheaval in the engineering department. It looked like Honda may go the same way as Toyota with management by committee, but fortunately they wrestled Ross Brawn from Ferrari. This should be the key to Honda's resurgence. Mr Brawn is extremely talented and should help the team to thrive by setting a good direction for development.
After last year's recalcitrant RA107, the RA108 looks marginally better. Honda have gone back to first principles and developed a plain looking chassis. This is a good step, they need to get to understand their car again before making complicated aero upgrades. Last year, they were throwing parts at the car in the hope that it would help. Hopefully, they will be able to make leaps this year.
It's been terrible to see Jenson Button get so close to having a car which can show his talents (in 2006) and then stumble back. He's super smooth and deserves better, Honda have to deliver soon otherwise it will be a talent wasted. This will probably be Rubens Barrichello's last year, and I don't think he'll be quite as fast as Jenson, but it's great to see that enthusiasm is still there when it would have been so easy to lose heart.
Super Aguri
A few weeks ago it looked like the team would not make it to Melbourne, but thankfully some investment has enabled them to make the flight. They will be using last year's Honda, so I wouldn't expect any fireworks from the team.
Takuma Sato is looking better these days, but was shaded by Anthony Davidson towards the end of last year. In fact Davidson looked the better of the pair overall, but was unlucky to earn less points. Let's hope for better this year, but the RA107 is less than likely to deliver.
Squiffy.
Williams
I am a big fan of the Williams team, ever since they had Nigel Mansell driving for them. They are true racers; Frank Williams and Patrick Head are honest down to earth petrol heads and have not been persuaded, thus far, to allow a corporation to buy into their team. Maybe that was a mistake, as the team have not been close to the front for a few year, but I respect them for it.
Unfortunately, Williams suffered greatly when Adrian Newey left during 1996, and have only added one more driver's title since (and that car would have had Newey's imprint). They have won races, but apart from 2003 and not come close to their heyday. Last year they recovered from their appalling 2006 season, when they finished 8th, to rise to 4th.
Sam Michael, the technical director, seems to have settled into his role and now that the wind tunnel is calibrated correctly, has produced a promising car for this year. So far, the car looks fast and may be in the running for 3rd spot.
Nico Rosberg is a driver with a large amount of talent and hopefully should thrive with a good car underneath him. He seems to enjoy the atmosphere at the team, and personifies the 'Williams' racer. Kazuki Nakajima also shows a turn of speed if somewhat erratic. He will need to calm down and not try too hard, as once labelled as accident prone - the tag will not leave.
Renault
The Renault team should be advancing this year, after a lacklustre 2007. They will have Fernando Alonso back in the fold and that should be a boost, even if he is only around for a year. Renault lost their way last year; after having designed cars around the Michelin tyres they did not effectively change their design for the Bridgestones and suffered badly.
With a great engine and aero team behind them, Alonso and Nelson Piquet Jr should be able to run up front, although a third championship for Alonso looks unlikely. Fernando has to undo some of the damage that he did to his reputation last year and buckle down to some stellar performances. Piquet Jr was narrowly beaten to the GP2 championship in 2006 by Lewis Hamilton and so should be competitive, although I doubt whether he will be able to provide Alonso with the headaches from last year.
Toro Rosso
The Red Bull 'B' team will be starting the year with last year's car. This may give them an advantage at the start of the season as they will know the car inside out, and with the reliability problems sorted out they may outgun the 'A' team. The team will move up to the RB4 for the Turkish GP, by which time niggles with the new car should have been laid to rest. I would expect them to drop back at this point before coming back after a few races.
Sebastian Vettel will be at Toro Rosso for a full season. He's a great talent and will no doubt be plucked by one of the bigger teams at the end of the year, maybe alongside Webber at the 'A' team? After watching him at the Race of Champions it's clear that he's a future race winner.
His namesake, Sebastian Bourdais is a 4 times Champ car champion and finally gets his F1 chance. It's a shame that it has taken him so long to achieve his ambition, and I feel that he may struggle after being out of European single seaters for a while. He will have tough competition from Vettel and may find himself eclipsed.
Force India
It's been sad to see the old Jordan team going from championship contenders in 2000 to tail enders via some changes in ownership. It would be great to have EJ back in the frame, maybe as the successor to Max Mosley.
After Midland and Spyker, the team has now become Force India. It should be on the up, Mike Gasgoyne is back as technical director with Mark Smith as chief designer. Vijay Mallya is the millionaire behind Kingfisher lager and a petrol head, since buying the team he's injected money and renewed optimism. Hopefully this will lead the team back up the grid.
Giancarlo Fisichella is back at the team, for a third spell, and will provide some experience alongside the accident prone but fast Adrian Sutil. I expect Fisichella to be a star, bringing the car home higher than it should. How is it that Fisichella excels in middling teams and disappoints in front running teams? I think this will be his last team though. Sutil needs to calm down and show his speed without the excursions on the grass, if he proves to be close to Fisichella he will deserve his place in F1.
Honda
The Honda team had a diabolical 2007. The car was awful, it gave the drivers conflicting feedback and left them not knowing whether the next corner would demonstrate understeer or oversteer. Honda have suffered from Geoff Willis's departure (what a mistake to make) and upheaval in the engineering department. It looked like Honda may go the same way as Toyota with management by committee, but fortunately they wrestled Ross Brawn from Ferrari. This should be the key to Honda's resurgence. Mr Brawn is extremely talented and should help the team to thrive by setting a good direction for development.
After last year's recalcitrant RA107, the RA108 looks marginally better. Honda have gone back to first principles and developed a plain looking chassis. This is a good step, they need to get to understand their car again before making complicated aero upgrades. Last year, they were throwing parts at the car in the hope that it would help. Hopefully, they will be able to make leaps this year.
It's been terrible to see Jenson Button get so close to having a car which can show his talents (in 2006) and then stumble back. He's super smooth and deserves better, Honda have to deliver soon otherwise it will be a talent wasted. This will probably be Rubens Barrichello's last year, and I don't think he'll be quite as fast as Jenson, but it's great to see that enthusiasm is still there when it would have been so easy to lose heart.
Super Aguri
A few weeks ago it looked like the team would not make it to Melbourne, but thankfully some investment has enabled them to make the flight. They will be using last year's Honda, so I wouldn't expect any fireworks from the team.
Takuma Sato is looking better these days, but was shaded by Anthony Davidson towards the end of last year. In fact Davidson looked the better of the pair overall, but was unlucky to earn less points. Let's hope for better this year, but the RA107 is less than likely to deliver.
Squiffy.
Wednesday, 13 February 2008
Pity the poor children
The news that the Government are going to try to give every child in the land 5 hours a week of cultural activities, should be a good thing. Unfortunately it isn't, they just don't get it - do they? To give up smoking you have to want to give up. It's no good being told that it's bad for you, and it's really expensive because you know all that already. You have to want to. Similarly, with cultural activities, you must have to want to go and see a play, see an art exhibition or go to a museum.
The point of teaching is to provide the foundations of learning for the rest of your life. To encourage pupils to see a play, they need to do be encouraged to read eye-opening literature and be encouraged to do drama classes. To get an interest in art, they need to be doing some drawing, painting or sculpture themselves. For a museum, the kids need to be taught the basics of history and encouraged to find out more.
All these things should be taught in school anyway. If they are not, why aren't they? They were when I was a kid. They've probably been pushed out by more trendy things like Parenting and Citizenship classes. At school we only had one nonsense lesson a week, Personal Skills Development - it was such a joke. None of the kids took it seriously. Similarly, forcing kids into 5 hours of cultural activities a week will be seen as a joke, time to mess about.
Give the £200 million to schools directly (it's £15 per pupil - maybe one decent play a year) to be used by teachers to supplement an English Literature, Drama, Art or History course when a topic is of interest to the kids. If the Government gets involve it'll be a disaster, think Millenium Dome as opposed to Tate Modern.
Squiffy.
The point of teaching is to provide the foundations of learning for the rest of your life. To encourage pupils to see a play, they need to do be encouraged to read eye-opening literature and be encouraged to do drama classes. To get an interest in art, they need to be doing some drawing, painting or sculpture themselves. For a museum, the kids need to be taught the basics of history and encouraged to find out more.
All these things should be taught in school anyway. If they are not, why aren't they? They were when I was a kid. They've probably been pushed out by more trendy things like Parenting and Citizenship classes. At school we only had one nonsense lesson a week, Personal Skills Development - it was such a joke. None of the kids took it seriously. Similarly, forcing kids into 5 hours of cultural activities a week will be seen as a joke, time to mess about.
Give the £200 million to schools directly (it's £15 per pupil - maybe one decent play a year) to be used by teachers to supplement an English Literature, Drama, Art or History course when a topic is of interest to the kids. If the Government gets involve it'll be a disaster, think Millenium Dome as opposed to Tate Modern.
Squiffy.
Be afraid, very afraid
With the news that Jack Straw is going to attempt to start the processing of writing a Constitution for Britain, I have become more than a little agitated.
This Government has presided over a mass of ill thought out legislation which has needed to be revisited many times. How many Criminal Justice Bills have there been? How many times have organisations been re-organised and the re-reorganised back into something similar to original plan, NHS anyone?
The thought of this lot, no matter how good their intentions are, framing the basis for the relationship between the individual and the state is laughable. Almost as much as Tony Blair being announced as the peace envoy to the Middle East. They cannot seriously think that we trust them with individual liberties, this the most authoritarian of Governments in modern history.
A written constitution would have to provide a flowing prose describing British values. I don't believe this Government can provide anything in a flowing manner, more of a dithered sentence of PR speak. My English isn't fantastic, but the oratory required of the Queen when opening the yearly session of Parliament leads me to believe that a reasonably good G.C.S.E. student could do better. The country that gave the world Shakespeare, Dickens, Keats, Tennyson and Winston Churchill deserves so much better.
I only hope that they realise the futility of it all, before they spend a vast amount of money on pointless consultation exercises and focus groups. With any luck this will be dropped along with any proposed 'motto', before the Government commits any more un-British acts.
Long live the unwritten Constitution.
Squiffy.
This Government has presided over a mass of ill thought out legislation which has needed to be revisited many times. How many Criminal Justice Bills have there been? How many times have organisations been re-organised and the re-reorganised back into something similar to original plan, NHS anyone?
The thought of this lot, no matter how good their intentions are, framing the basis for the relationship between the individual and the state is laughable. Almost as much as Tony Blair being announced as the peace envoy to the Middle East. They cannot seriously think that we trust them with individual liberties, this the most authoritarian of Governments in modern history.
A written constitution would have to provide a flowing prose describing British values. I don't believe this Government can provide anything in a flowing manner, more of a dithered sentence of PR speak. My English isn't fantastic, but the oratory required of the Queen when opening the yearly session of Parliament leads me to believe that a reasonably good G.C.S.E. student could do better. The country that gave the world Shakespeare, Dickens, Keats, Tennyson and Winston Churchill deserves so much better.
I only hope that they realise the futility of it all, before they spend a vast amount of money on pointless consultation exercises and focus groups. With any luck this will be dropped along with any proposed 'motto', before the Government commits any more un-British acts.
Long live the unwritten Constitution.
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Time to get rid of Ken
The latest controversy to hit the Mayor of London is his plan to increase the congestion charge to £25 for gas-guzzlers. I have no particular sympathy for people who drive big cars in London, for the most part it's not needed when the public transport can adequately (not always on time and with comfort) transfer you to your destination, but this is a tax that is going too far.
Cuddly Ken has been mired recently in a series of controversies regarding his relationship with some of his staff and the financial dealings of the London Development Agency (LDA). He accepts that he uses the public purse to launch attacks on his opponents and accepts that public money is channeled through the LDA to some organizations which have nothing to show for it. To most people this would be the trigger for resignation, but not Ken. He wears it as a badge of pride. For some reason the public seem to let him off with it too.
When Mr Livingstone launched the congestion charge in 2003, only 5 years ago, the price was £5 to drive into central London. The majority of the profits were due to go into public transport. Ken announced that there were no plans to increase the charge, but soon increased it to £6. A proposed extension of the charge zone into West London was put out to consultation, but when the results indicated that the majority did not want the extension Ken trampled all over the exercise and imposed it anyway.
A second increase in the fare to £8 has since occurred, with the prospect of £10 not far away. And now £25 for bigger cars, for anyone short on Maths that's £125 in a week and £500 per month. It's nearly extortion! The original proposal was to reduce congestion, but recent evidence shows that congestion is now back to pre-charge levels. The scheme's profits have been minimal, the money has mainly gone into the administration of the scheme. Improvements to public transport have been marginal.
This is what happens when the public allow Socialists to get their hand on a new tax. It may seem reasonable at first but soon becomes an albatross around the public's neck. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. It is now time to set Ken free.
Squiffy.
Cuddly Ken has been mired recently in a series of controversies regarding his relationship with some of his staff and the financial dealings of the London Development Agency (LDA). He accepts that he uses the public purse to launch attacks on his opponents and accepts that public money is channeled through the LDA to some organizations which have nothing to show for it. To most people this would be the trigger for resignation, but not Ken. He wears it as a badge of pride. For some reason the public seem to let him off with it too.
When Mr Livingstone launched the congestion charge in 2003, only 5 years ago, the price was £5 to drive into central London. The majority of the profits were due to go into public transport. Ken announced that there were no plans to increase the charge, but soon increased it to £6. A proposed extension of the charge zone into West London was put out to consultation, but when the results indicated that the majority did not want the extension Ken trampled all over the exercise and imposed it anyway.
A second increase in the fare to £8 has since occurred, with the prospect of £10 not far away. And now £25 for bigger cars, for anyone short on Maths that's £125 in a week and £500 per month. It's nearly extortion! The original proposal was to reduce congestion, but recent evidence shows that congestion is now back to pre-charge levels. The scheme's profits have been minimal, the money has mainly gone into the administration of the scheme. Improvements to public transport have been marginal.
This is what happens when the public allow Socialists to get their hand on a new tax. It may seem reasonable at first but soon becomes an albatross around the public's neck. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. It is now time to set Ken free.
Squiffy.
Sunday, 10 February 2008
Charles Clark enters the fray
An extraordinary interview by Charles Clark appeared in the Daily Mail yesterday.
It's not surprising that CC has made comments about Gordon Brown, in fact I thought he would (see my 2008 predictions). But to do so this early in the year and with the ferocity shown is quite astonishing.
I suppose a re-entry into the Cabinet is now out of the question.
Squiffy.
It's not surprising that CC has made comments about Gordon Brown, in fact I thought he would (see my 2008 predictions). But to do so this early in the year and with the ferocity shown is quite astonishing.
I suppose a re-entry into the Cabinet is now out of the question.
Squiffy.
Friday, 8 February 2008
What's a manifesto worth?
Stuart Bower, a former police officer, and a former constituency secretary for Hove Labour Party has brought a court case against the Government for breach of contract with regards to the ditching of the referendum on the European Constitution Treaty.
It would be amazing if he won the court case, but very unlikely. It is fascinating though to hear that the defence for the Government stated "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation". Blimey! I know that we are all sceptical about manifesto commitments but to hear such a statement from a representative of the Government shows how in little regard they hold the public.
A manifesto is a commitment to what a party would do if elected. As such, any mention in the published manifesto for an elected party is given an easy ride through Parliament. By convention, opposition parties do not vote down measures on which the public have directly had their say. Of course opposition is made to the proposals, but it will eventually end up on the statue book.
When the next election comes around, I hope that the opposition parties remember this betrayal and mention many times that a manifesto commitment from Labour is not worth the glossy paper it is written on. If we're unfortunate to have another 5 years of Labour (heaven help us), then I would not expect the opposition to give the Government such an easy time on manifesto commitments. After all "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".
Squiffy.
It would be amazing if he won the court case, but very unlikely. It is fascinating though to hear that the defence for the Government stated "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation". Blimey! I know that we are all sceptical about manifesto commitments but to hear such a statement from a representative of the Government shows how in little regard they hold the public.
A manifesto is a commitment to what a party would do if elected. As such, any mention in the published manifesto for an elected party is given an easy ride through Parliament. By convention, opposition parties do not vote down measures on which the public have directly had their say. Of course opposition is made to the proposals, but it will eventually end up on the statue book.
When the next election comes around, I hope that the opposition parties remember this betrayal and mention many times that a manifesto commitment from Labour is not worth the glossy paper it is written on. If we're unfortunate to have another 5 years of Labour (heaven help us), then I would not expect the opposition to give the Government such an easy time on manifesto commitments. After all "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Come on over Frank, Kate & Gisela
Apparently there are threats to expel Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Gisela Stuart from the Parliamentary Labour Party for their stance in standing up for the Labour party's manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the EU constitution treaty.
I hope that the threats are the the final nail in the coffin for their Labour party membership. Cross the floor, each of you, and find a place on the other benches where your views will be respected.
Squiffy.
I hope that the threats are the the final nail in the coffin for their Labour party membership. Cross the floor, each of you, and find a place on the other benches where your views will be respected.
Squiffy.
Zero Tolerance
The Zero Tolerance rhetoric is bandied about quite regularly in relation to policing. I also believe in Zero Tolerance for MPs. They are the only body who set their own wages and allowances, they are exempt from libel laws, they set-up committees iof MPs to investigate themselves (the latest being 3 MPs chosen to investigate the implications of the Conway affair).
There should be Zero Tolerance of MPs' financial affairs. An external body should set the rules for MPs, it should monitor that the rules are upheld and also have the power to fire an MP, triggering a by-election. The MP could stand again and face the public. There should only be one register of member's interest to clarify the current rules.
While I'm at it, how about one secretary on a full-time wage hired by the Commons and also one researcher part-time? They would be in the employ of Parliament. Family members can apply but would be scrutinised by the House authorities. Also, why not scrap allowances. Give a bigger salary, with a weighting for distance from London, so that MPs get more money for living away and having to travel.
Squiffy.
There should be Zero Tolerance of MPs' financial affairs. An external body should set the rules for MPs, it should monitor that the rules are upheld and also have the power to fire an MP, triggering a by-election. The MP could stand again and face the public. There should only be one register of member's interest to clarify the current rules.
While I'm at it, how about one secretary on a full-time wage hired by the Commons and also one researcher part-time? They would be in the employ of Parliament. Family members can apply but would be scrutinised by the House authorities. Also, why not scrap allowances. Give a bigger salary, with a weighting for distance from London, so that MPs get more money for living away and having to travel.
Squiffy.
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
Well done Cameron
No sooner had I posted that David Cameron should withdraw the whip from Derek Conway, he did just that. Well done Mr Cameron. What a contrast to the dithering by Gordon Brown.
Squiffy.
Squiffy.
Derek Conway, another fool
It appears Derek Conway has been very foolish, maybe even fraudulent, in paying at least one son a wage totalling £44,000 to work as an aide in his office when the son was actually studying at Newcastle University. The parliamentary standards committee have ordered Mr Conway to give £13,000 pounds back, and be suspended from the House of Commons for 10 days. There maybe a police investigation too.
For David Cameron this is the moment when he must display the decisiveness that he claims Gordon Brown lacks. He must make sure that Derek Conway loses the Conservative whip. The likelihood is that he will be de-selected by the local party at the next election.
Tony Blair claimed, when coming into office, that his party would be "whiter than white, purer than pure", a foolish claim but one which looked utterly stupid and disingenuous when he let minister after minister cling on while investigations were carried out. He stood by several ministers even when misdeeds were proven.
Mr Cameron has not been so silly to make the same claim, but he should achieve a more robust reputation by acting decisively now. The voters will praise him for his actions. Come on Mr Cameron, throw him out.
Squiffy.
For David Cameron this is the moment when he must display the decisiveness that he claims Gordon Brown lacks. He must make sure that Derek Conway loses the Conservative whip. The likelihood is that he will be de-selected by the local party at the next election.
Tony Blair claimed, when coming into office, that his party would be "whiter than white, purer than pure", a foolish claim but one which looked utterly stupid and disingenuous when he let minister after minister cling on while investigations were carried out. He stood by several ministers even when misdeeds were proven.
Mr Cameron has not been so silly to make the same claim, but he should achieve a more robust reputation by acting decisively now. The voters will praise him for his actions. Come on Mr Cameron, throw him out.
Squiffy.
Saturday, 26 January 2008
Gordon Brown, economic genius?
The Prime Minister's record on the economy has come under scrutiny recently due to turmoil in the stock markets and the impending downturn. Many commentators have been drawing on the successes of Mr Brown's chancellorship to provide a contrast to the latest difficulties, let's take a closer look at the 10 years.
Mr Brown declared in PMQ's this week that he inherited difficult economic conditions from the Tories in 1997. This is not true, the economy had been growing healthily for 4 years. Although there was a budget deficit, this was diminishing and due to go into surplus by 1998 - which it did. Mr Brown's policy was to keep to the Tory spending plans for the first 2 years of Labour in power. Surely this was to make sure that the thought of Labour in power would not frighten the horses! So rather than follow his own beliefs, he followed his opponent's plans which led to some reasonable surpluses.
His first decision, which has been rightly applauded, was to make the Bank of England independent. Although according to Mr Blair, in The Blair Years, he claims that it was his idea.
Mr Brown then started to reform the benefits system, bringing in the tax credit system. Tax credits are a reasonable system to get money to those in need, but the implementation has lead to major problems with overpayments, underpayments and attempts to reclaim money from people who need it most. Several billion pounds have been wasted.
Between 1999 and 2002 Mr Brown sold off half of Britain's gold reserves at a price of $215 per ounce, it now stands at around $800 per ounce. Not a great deal.
In the 2001 election campaign Mr Blair announced that NHS funding would increase to the EU average. His bounced Gordon Brown into it, who then allegedly stormed into number 10 saying, 'You stole my f***ing budget'. It just so happens that this was around the time that the dotcom bubble burst. So with a budget surplus and an election commitment, billions of pounds were pumped into the economy - effectively fighting off the prospect of recession.
After economic growth was secured, GB continues pumping money into the economy - leading to a large budget deficit. Now that we're facing the prospect of another downturn, the cupboard is bare.
So after 10 years, I think the verdict is that the early decision to make the BoE independent was a good idea - whether it was GB's we don't know. When GB went against his own instincts, staying to Tory spending plans then being bounced into spending by TB he has managed to keep the economy growing.
I think the best that can be said is that he didn't mess it up, but in the end all Labour chancellors run out of money. Which he has now. He has left a very complicated tax system which haemorrhages money through the tax credit system, he has run down our gold reserves, he's increased our taxes. Finally, his reform to the tripartite financial monitoring system, using the Treasury, Bank of England and Financial Services Authority has been found wanting with respect to monitoring of Northern Rock.
So I don't think the record is as good as people say, and we now have a problem. The chickens have come home to roost.
Squiffy.
Mr Brown declared in PMQ's this week that he inherited difficult economic conditions from the Tories in 1997. This is not true, the economy had been growing healthily for 4 years. Although there was a budget deficit, this was diminishing and due to go into surplus by 1998 - which it did. Mr Brown's policy was to keep to the Tory spending plans for the first 2 years of Labour in power. Surely this was to make sure that the thought of Labour in power would not frighten the horses! So rather than follow his own beliefs, he followed his opponent's plans which led to some reasonable surpluses.
His first decision, which has been rightly applauded, was to make the Bank of England independent. Although according to Mr Blair, in The Blair Years, he claims that it was his idea.
Mr Brown then started to reform the benefits system, bringing in the tax credit system. Tax credits are a reasonable system to get money to those in need, but the implementation has lead to major problems with overpayments, underpayments and attempts to reclaim money from people who need it most. Several billion pounds have been wasted.
Between 1999 and 2002 Mr Brown sold off half of Britain's gold reserves at a price of $215 per ounce, it now stands at around $800 per ounce. Not a great deal.
In the 2001 election campaign Mr Blair announced that NHS funding would increase to the EU average. His bounced Gordon Brown into it, who then allegedly stormed into number 10 saying, 'You stole my f***ing budget'. It just so happens that this was around the time that the dotcom bubble burst. So with a budget surplus and an election commitment, billions of pounds were pumped into the economy - effectively fighting off the prospect of recession.
After economic growth was secured, GB continues pumping money into the economy - leading to a large budget deficit. Now that we're facing the prospect of another downturn, the cupboard is bare.
So after 10 years, I think the verdict is that the early decision to make the BoE independent was a good idea - whether it was GB's we don't know. When GB went against his own instincts, staying to Tory spending plans then being bounced into spending by TB he has managed to keep the economy growing.
I think the best that can be said is that he didn't mess it up, but in the end all Labour chancellors run out of money. Which he has now. He has left a very complicated tax system which haemorrhages money through the tax credit system, he has run down our gold reserves, he's increased our taxes. Finally, his reform to the tripartite financial monitoring system, using the Treasury, Bank of England and Financial Services Authority has been found wanting with respect to monitoring of Northern Rock.
So I don't think the record is as good as people say, and we now have a problem. The chickens have come home to roost.
Squiffy.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Prodi has also resigned
Romano Prodi, the Prime Minster of Italy has been forced to resign after a junior coalition party pulled out of the Government leading to a vote of confidence.
If there were to be another election, Silvio Berlusconi is well placed to lead a new centre-right coalition back to power. It does look like Italy has fallen back into its habit of having short term Governments paralysed by electoral mathematics. Although a parliamentary term runs for 5 years, no Government has achieved such a long time (!) in office.
The most recent long term Government was Berlusconi's from 2001 to 2006, elected under a first past the post system. Unfortunately, Berlusconi changed the system to PR and, hey presto, we're back to instability. The PR system in Italy (pre-1993) led to a proliferation of small parties which formed centre-left and centre-right coalitions. FPTP usually leads to a smaller set of parties but Italian politics was too fragmented for too long for FPTP to have an effect. It now looks like the smaller parties will continue.
If there was ever an argument against PR, Italy is it.
Squiffy.
If there were to be another election, Silvio Berlusconi is well placed to lead a new centre-right coalition back to power. It does look like Italy has fallen back into its habit of having short term Governments paralysed by electoral mathematics. Although a parliamentary term runs for 5 years, no Government has achieved such a long time (!) in office.
The most recent long term Government was Berlusconi's from 2001 to 2006, elected under a first past the post system. Unfortunately, Berlusconi changed the system to PR and, hey presto, we're back to instability. The PR system in Italy (pre-1993) led to a proliferation of small parties which formed centre-left and centre-right coalitions. FPTP usually leads to a smaller set of parties but Italian politics was too fragmented for too long for FPTP to have an effect. It now looks like the smaller parties will continue.
If there was ever an argument against PR, Italy is it.
Squiffy.
So Hain has gone
It was only a matter of time for him to do the decent thing. It's such a shame that Gordon Brown saw fit to keep him in position for so long after the many revelations. So the cabinet has lost another big hitter, there's not many left.
As some commentators have pointed out, we are now be ruled by political pigmies. The Tory party front bench is now looking a lot more qualified to do the job, even the Lib Dems don't look too bad. Just look at the big jobs:
Brown vs Cameron
Darling vs Osborne
Miliband vs Hague
Smith vs Davis
Browne vs Fox
Will this resignation now lead to other scalps, Harriet Harman for instance? Will the next resignation follow quickly. It certainly seems as though the Brown Government is looking more doomed than ever.
Squiffy.
As some commentators have pointed out, we are now be ruled by political pigmies. The Tory party front bench is now looking a lot more qualified to do the job, even the Lib Dems don't look too bad. Just look at the big jobs:
Brown vs Cameron
Darling vs Osborne
Miliband vs Hague
Smith vs Davis
Browne vs Fox
Will this resignation now lead to other scalps, Harriet Harman for instance? Will the next resignation follow quickly. It certainly seems as though the Brown Government is looking more doomed than ever.
Squiffy.
Max Mosley says that the next cheating team wil be thrown out
Max Mosley, the head of the FIA, has pronounced that the next team to be caught cheating will most definitely be thrown out of the F1 championship.
It didn't happen with Renault, but McLaren faced a similar punishment. I'm guessing if the next team to be caught were Williams, they would be thrown out, but if it happened to be Ferrari they'd get a small slap.
Consistency eh? Don't you just love it.
Squiffy.
It didn't happen with Renault, but McLaren faced a similar punishment. I'm guessing if the next team to be caught were Williams, they would be thrown out, but if it happened to be Ferrari they'd get a small slap.
Consistency eh? Don't you just love it.
Squiffy.
John Prescott lives on
And he's changed sex, from the Today programme this morning.
"It won’t be hypothetical if and when it occurs. We are not legislating now on the basis that we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future; we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future; we are bringing in a position for if it becomes unhypothetical. If, unfortunately I and many other experts are right and we do need it in the future it is in place."
Step forward Ms Jackie Smith. I nearly swallowed my toothbrush when she said she was an expert!
Squiffy.
P.S. Well done on inventing the word unhypothetical.
"It won’t be hypothetical if and when it occurs. We are not legislating now on the basis that we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future; we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future; we are bringing in a position for if it becomes unhypothetical. If, unfortunately I and many other experts are right and we do need it in the future it is in place."
Step forward Ms Jackie Smith. I nearly swallowed my toothbrush when she said she was an expert!
Squiffy.
P.S. Well done on inventing the word unhypothetical.
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
The Lib Dems and Europe
I've just watched Nick Clegg on the Daily Politics discussing the Lib Dem position on the EU referendum. Apparently, the Lib Dem manifesto commitment at the last election to hold a referendum was not about the details of the provisions in the EU constitution, but because it encompassed all the other treaties; it was a de-facto in or out.
That's not how the public sees it. We want a chance to say no to never ending integration but keep the trading block and global measures to combat climate change.
Nick Clegg knows that he won't for a referendum, but may abstain or vote against. He'll vote against if he doesn't get a promise to hold an in/out referendum from the Government. Erm, hello, there is no chance. The Government are terrified of any referendum on Europe - so it won't happen.
Again, the Lib Dem leader is missing the point of the referendum. Some people want to keep integrating, some people want out. The vast majority want to stop where we are and this was the opportunity to have our say.
Fortunately, there may be dissent in the Lib Dem ranks. Some of them can see sense!
Squiffy.
That's not how the public sees it. We want a chance to say no to never ending integration but keep the trading block and global measures to combat climate change.
Nick Clegg knows that he won't for a referendum, but may abstain or vote against. He'll vote against if he doesn't get a promise to hold an in/out referendum from the Government. Erm, hello, there is no chance. The Government are terrified of any referendum on Europe - so it won't happen.
Again, the Lib Dem leader is missing the point of the referendum. Some people want to keep integrating, some people want out. The vast majority want to stop where we are and this was the opportunity to have our say.
Fortunately, there may be dissent in the Lib Dem ranks. Some of them can see sense!
Squiffy.
Monday, 21 January 2008
The EU conveyor belt
I've not made my feelings known about the EU yet, but the time has come to muse about this never ending process. The Lisbon treaty is just about to go through the House of Commons for its second reading.
The EU issue has been burning through Britain's psyche for years. The British public have been lied to, misled and treated with contempt year after year.
For a start, when Britain went into the EEC back in 1973, the general consensus was that this was to be a trading block more powerful and close nit than Efta. Maybe, if we'd studied the treaty of Rome more closely we would have known what to expect. Unfortunately, our politicians did not make it clear. Probably because they didn't know how far the integration would go and what they were letting themselves in for.
The referendum, the only referendum we've had on this important issue, did not state in the question that it would be for "ever closer union". It was "in" or "out", and so the public voted for it.
Since that referendum, every few years there is a new inter-governmental conference where further powers are ceded from national governments to Brussels. Although our Governments have been reluctant to whole heartedly support further integration, for they know that the British public are sceptical, they have been dragged further in. They also know that to put each treaty to the British public would effectively kill it, and harm the relationship with the other European countries.
At each IGC, the EU partners compromise a little bit to bring the British Government in on the act. The Government then jumps through hoops to get it ratified in Parliament, and the British Government becomes complicit in the stitch up.
When any country actually does have a referendum and decides to reject the treaty, the EU decides to do one of two things. Either it thinks that the public of that country have got it wrong and then they have the same referendum later. Alternatively, it re-words the treaty and removes some aspects of the treaty - just enough to get it passed. The referendum is then either put to the people again, or jettisoned and passed by the country's parliament. No matter, the controversial aspects will come back in the next treaty, only there will be even more controversial measures to be argued over.
The political class rules over us and ignores us, again and again. When we protest, we are told that we are wrong. When we ask for the facts, we are told lies. When we are promised something, the promise is reneged (the current treaty for instance).
I am nearly 35, and I have never had the chance to have a say on the never ending conveyor belt. Nobody under the age of 50 has had a say. It is wrong, plain wrong. I want the EU to return to a trading block, with a focus on fighting global poverty and climate change. Unfortunately the politicians at the centre want more power and to move the public as far away as possible, so that we can't get in the way of their plans.
So please, can someone allow us a say? A referendum with a question such as a) Never ending integration, b) Return to Economic trading and global issues and c) Out altogether.
Squiffy.
The EU issue has been burning through Britain's psyche for years. The British public have been lied to, misled and treated with contempt year after year.
For a start, when Britain went into the EEC back in 1973, the general consensus was that this was to be a trading block more powerful and close nit than Efta. Maybe, if we'd studied the treaty of Rome more closely we would have known what to expect. Unfortunately, our politicians did not make it clear. Probably because they didn't know how far the integration would go and what they were letting themselves in for.
The referendum, the only referendum we've had on this important issue, did not state in the question that it would be for "ever closer union". It was "in" or "out", and so the public voted for it.
Since that referendum, every few years there is a new inter-governmental conference where further powers are ceded from national governments to Brussels. Although our Governments have been reluctant to whole heartedly support further integration, for they know that the British public are sceptical, they have been dragged further in. They also know that to put each treaty to the British public would effectively kill it, and harm the relationship with the other European countries.
At each IGC, the EU partners compromise a little bit to bring the British Government in on the act. The Government then jumps through hoops to get it ratified in Parliament, and the British Government becomes complicit in the stitch up.
When any country actually does have a referendum and decides to reject the treaty, the EU decides to do one of two things. Either it thinks that the public of that country have got it wrong and then they have the same referendum later. Alternatively, it re-words the treaty and removes some aspects of the treaty - just enough to get it passed. The referendum is then either put to the people again, or jettisoned and passed by the country's parliament. No matter, the controversial aspects will come back in the next treaty, only there will be even more controversial measures to be argued over.
The political class rules over us and ignores us, again and again. When we protest, we are told that we are wrong. When we ask for the facts, we are told lies. When we are promised something, the promise is reneged (the current treaty for instance).
I am nearly 35, and I have never had the chance to have a say on the never ending conveyor belt. Nobody under the age of 50 has had a say. It is wrong, plain wrong. I want the EU to return to a trading block, with a focus on fighting global poverty and climate change. Unfortunately the politicians at the centre want more power and to move the public as far away as possible, so that we can't get in the way of their plans.
So please, can someone allow us a say? A referendum with a question such as a) Never ending integration, b) Return to Economic trading and global issues and c) Out altogether.
Squiffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
