Time for Clegg to read the riot act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

REd takes them back to the 70s

It appears that Ed Miliband has learnt nothing from history.

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the history books for REd me thinks.

Squiffy.

The Eurobind

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

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

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

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

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

Several things can happen now.

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

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

Interesting times ahead!

Squiffy.

The Missing Leader

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Republicanism: Not for us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Pass the bucket

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

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

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

Squiffy.

Phil Woolas Guilty, not an MP

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

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

Squiffy.

Stealth Brown surfaces

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

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

Squiffy.

(Y)EU give me one more push...

I find it unbelievable that the EU has wanted an increase in their budget of 5.9%. As it is they will likely get 2.9%. At a time when member countries are struggling to pay off their deficits, with some nearly broke, it is madness to pay more to a load of bureaucrats in Brussels.

I don't understand where the thinking comes from. Do these people socialise with the normal people they are supposed to represent? You'd think they would try, but it is clear that they are kept in a giant bubble away from the people that put them there. They obviously don't live in the real world. The EU project is rapidly becoming a joke. Unfortunately, it's not a very funny one.

At every opportunity the leaders of Europe show that they just don't get it. They are remote, they are unaccountable, they promise subsidiarity whilst taking more powers, they ignore the problems of growth for policies which actively bring about unemployment, if they don't like what you've said they ignore it, they treat the people of Europe as fools. And the worst of it is that the National Governments are complicit.

I understand the benefits of free trade and the single market, which was enacted in 1986. Since then, what? Nothing that has been announced has made me think that the EU project is moving in the right direction. Directives, treaties and initiatives have come and gone. Nothing has turned this supertanker around.

What's more the EU and its members are duplicitous. Do you remember Tony Blair giving away some of our rebate for CAP reforms? What happened? Was that tumbleweed blowing past? That's right - nothing. 40% percent of the budget is still being spent on inefficient farmers, while those starving in Africa are priced out of our markets. If the CAP was gone, we wouldn't have to spend so much on International aid. The whole thing stinks and is verging on the downright wicked.

If Europe was doing anything right, I'd be in full support. And there is still a flicker of hope that someone will come along and make them wake up. But I suspect the whole gravy train has gone on for too long, views are too entrenched and that nothing will change for the better.

It will only take one more push before I join the long list of people in the UK wanting out altogether.

Squiffy.

The best programme on TV. Ever.

I'm just watching the third series of The West Wing. Again. I love it, and still miss it. It captures everything that I love to see on TV. It incorporates politics into a great story with fine acting, comedic moments whilst educating us on the behind the scenes. It also teaches a lot about US politics.

There were some fantastic episodes such as 'Let Bartlet be Bartlet' and fantastic moments such as when CJ cannot say 'root canal', after having root canal, leading to a secret plan for inflation being announced by Josh.

I thought it did lose it slightly near the end of its run. Especially after John Spencer's sad death, and the reshuffling of the cast. Even so, I remember bawling my eyes out when the series ended and feeling a sense of loss. I even cry when I re-watch the last episode. Such a wuss.

There's not many TV programmes which can raise the hairs on the back of my neck, but this is one. This and the opening music for Formula 1 by Fleetwood Mac.

Squiffy.

The FBU: Playing with fire

It sounds like something out of one of the Carry On films. Do you remember the one where they make toilets, and the union is always dragging them out on strike for one thing or another?

In many ways, that's just like Bob Crow's RMT. We, in London, get used to the annual tube strikes. It's really annoying and makes you want to pull your hair out. In the last few years we've had tube strikes because a train driver was fired after being found to be playing Squash when he was signed off sick with a bad leg. We've also had lines taken out by a lack of hand basins and the terminus toilet facities. Sometimes you want to scream at the stupidity.

Now we come to the Fire Brigades Union. At the moment fireman work two shifts, one during the day for 9 Hours, and one during the night for 15 Hours. They've been requested to change this to two 12 hour shifts. The same number of hours, the same number of days. Because of this new contract they've decided to go out on strike.

The days they have chosen is the 5th of November. Bonfire night. The busiest night for firemen. To say this is callous doesn't do it justice. On the night when they will be needed most, they'll be manning the barricades wanting sympathy for a cause which no-one understands. There may be serious injuries and, heaven forbid, fatalities. It maybe bluff, but they are playing a dangerous games.

They are, literally, playing with fire and are doing Unions a great disservice.

Later: Corrected the reason for one of the strikes

Squiffy.

Now let's get out the scissors

It's been a busy week in politics. It's also been a busy week for me which means I've not been able to fully absorb the Comprehensive Spending Review.

From my initial impressions, though, it looks to me as if it hits all the right buttons. Not just me though, the markets also seem to have taken that viewpoint too, with the interest rate on Government debt falling to below that of Germany.

A good sign indeed. I'm not moved by all the complaints about fairness. The richest ten percent are hit the hardest in their taxes, and the poorest ten percent are hit hardest by the cuts. Because Government spending in Welfare is designed to help the poorest most, any cuts will hurt the most too. That has to be put in the context of big increases over the last 13 years, and so a little retrenchment is to be expected.

A lot of the welfare changes are 'nudges', designed to change people's behaviour rather than just punish. Such as limiting the amount of housing benefit to anyone below the age 35, to a room in a shared house. This is what people in the private sector have to do to get on, so why should others be protected?

Overall it's look good. That's not to say that times are not going to be difficult. It is a gamble, but I think a gamble that will work and will shoot the collective foxes of all those talking about a double dip recession. I expect growth to start picking up next year, and within five years we'll see a flexibly growing economy averaging at 3% GDP growth 3% per annum.

I could be wrong though!

Squiffy

Ed Miliband: First PMQs Verdict

Today was Ed Miliband's first PMQs. I thought that he would be underwhelming, and at the start his low key pitch made me feel I would be right.

In the end though, he got the better of David Cameron. I suppose for someone confidant it may be easier for the opposition leader to go on the attack, and the PM will have to tread carefully to find out how to treat the new opposition.

Ed Miliband did do very well though. He made his points well and pointed out when DC was not answering the questions. I think it is too easy for the PM of the day to deal in generalisations rather than specifics, and I was hoping that David Cameron would be able to tackle the questions directly. This may be difficult when the PM has to master all areas when he doesn't know what the question will be.

So my marks: EM 7, DC 5

The Breeder's charter

Jeremy Hunt is on our TV screens rather a lot. Although he runs the culture department, one of the lowest rungs of cabinet Government, he is used more often as the public face of the Government. It's obviously because he's attractive, reasonable and eloquent. The kid will go far!

The other night, though, he caused a stir on Newsnight, in response to the proposal to cap overall benefits, by saying that it is not the Government's role to support the choices of parents. In this he was referring to the choices that parents make when they have children.

I was really happy that someone had finally said that and I couldn't agree more. The edge cases of the benefits system show families, either single parent or with both, who don't work and have too many children. You may say, "what is too many?". I think most normal thinking people will have an idea. And it's probably somewhere below four.

It used to be the culture that you would have children when you could afford to support them. Somehow, amongst the new client state, this has passed by the wayside. It is now seen as a 'right' to be able to have children rather than a privilege, and the way the state doles out the money for each child supports this view. For some, there is no incentive to try to limit the number of children to their means.

This has to change. There has to be responsibility. The fact is that a minority of these families live on close to £100,000 per year with upwards of 8 children need to have a reality check. It is not healthy for the country, either, for children to witness their unemployed parents doing fine on benefits, popping another child out when they feel like it. What kind of moral example is that? One generation on, the problem is multiplied.

The proposed system is harsh for those families, but absolutely necessary. The message has to be sent out. Life on benefits is not an option. Supporting children is going to cost. Responsibility is paramount.

Only then will this problem diminish.

Squiffy.

Could the child benefit cut be a clever piece of political management?

Is it possible that David Cameron and George Osborne are quite happy with the way the child benefit cut has been received?

It sounds quite mad because a lot of people have been squealing about unfairness and the coverage has been quite negative.

Look at it this way though. In 12 days time the comprehensive spending review will set the spending for the next three years, it is going to be harsh and the news is going to be bad for the people dependent on the state. By deliberately releasing the child benefit cut now and letting the bad news run and run, it will show that higher earners are being hit as well as those less well off.

It may be clever in the long run although unpopular now.

Squiffy.

David Cameron Speech: The Verdict

I guess most people, who wanted to, watched the speech on television. I listened to it through Sky Audio. I think you can get a different impression on the success of a speech if you only have the words.

From watching some of the coverage, it seemed that the speech was workmanlike but nothing special. Whilst I was listening, though, I found the speech to be fantastic - and not just because I'm a bit of a fan.

It had the right structure, firstly a bit of joviality, then Labour bashing and covering what had happened in the first few months. All this was useful to get the conference on side and make evryone sympathetic to the more difficult messages in the second half. Not everyone gets the 'Big Society' and it is a slightly nebulous concept but it is the underpinning for the Cameron credo and everything done in his name is attached to the concept.

He has been explaining the same thing through his time as party leader, but only gave it a title in the election campaign. At the time, people seemed to be unaware of where this idea had come from but you only had to listen to earlier speeches to knit the idea together into the principles behind it.

Yesterday, he did some public knitting trying to explain the concept again. From this moment onwards, real projects must be shown to take up the ideas of the Big Society and sythesize the idea into concrete examples. It is only when real projects start to touch our lives will everyone be in a position to understand the credo. And, incidentally, that will be the time where there is no going back to the statism of the last 13 years.

If the 80's and 90's were about economic restructuring and confidence then this period is when Britain changes from within the very nature of our society and the relationship between Government and its citizens.

Margaret Thatcher is rightly praised (in some quarters at least) for revolutionizing our economy, and it is going through the usual turmoil of having a Labour Government running it, but the new Government is embarking on something much bolder. If they succeed we shall all benefit, if not then we are doomed to statism for a much longer period.

This was the point of the speech, and he said it impressively. He is challenging his party in the same way that Tony Blair did. That's why I thought the speech was much better than last year's and should have had great coverage.

Squiffy.

David Cameron has to make the case for cuts

This afternoon David Cameron will make his first conference speech as Prime Minister. It goes without saying that every speech is important, and each one gets billed as make or break.

I won't make that assertion, but it is important that DC makes a good case for the situation we are in right now. He should say it in a way which most people will understand. I know that they have been trying but they must find the correct language.

DC also needs make the case for optimism after this period of austerity. We all know it is going to be tough, but we need to see light at the end of the tunnel.

I've said this before that those better off get more money taken off them by Labour Governments in good times and bad, but Tories try to give some back in good times. They need to make this case for middle England now after the child benefit cut for higher earners.

I do think that the child benefit issue had been badly handled. When Ian Duncan-Smith's proposal to taper off benefits whilst a low earner's pay packet rises is seen as the right thing to do (and it absolutely is) it seems like madness to introduce a cut-off without tapering for those rising above the forty percent threshold. What incentive would there be to step over the limit? Not forgetting the issue of two people just below the threshold getting more benefits than one person earning the equivalent.

The principle is right though. People on middle incomes should not be receiving any benefits, but you cannot throw a switch like this and expect happy people - it should be phased in.

I think DC should recognize this and say something along these lines in the speech today. I'll be waiting for such a moment.

Squiffy.

Ed Milibore: The Verdict

Yesterday was the day when Ed Miliband had to give us his vision for a future Britain under his leadership. It is the starting point for the next four and a half years.

Unfortunately, I found the speech boring and largely forgettable. It didn't inspire me at all, and although I'm not a party supporter, I know that a good speech delivered by Tony Blair would have me gripped.

It was delivered with the gusto of a dead parrot. There was no overiding theme. In a sense it was stiched together like one of Gordon Brown's, but with the content of a detached Nick Clegg (pre-Coalition era).

The one moment that sticks in the mind is his distance from the 'mistake of Iraq' but even that was overshadowed by the stony face of his brother asking Harriet Harman why she was clapping when she had voted for it.

A good speech must inspire, it must use the language that we understand but get away from clichés. As Jim Hacker once said, 'You can talk in clichés, till the cows come home'. There must be an overiding theme and a rhythm which catches you on its hook. Some people have it; Winston Churchill, Barack Obama, Tony Blair and to a large extent David Cameron. Ed Miliband didn't have it yesterday.

The message seemed to be directed at the Labour party and not the country and, while I think the party needs to have a deep think about what it stands for, yesterday was not the time to do it!

Squiffy.

Ed Miliband has to make the right impression

As I thought, the Labour party, has gone for Ed Miliband.

He is already being branded as Red Ed. Tomorrow he will make his first major conference speech. He must make a better fist of it than last year, when it was completely uninspiring.

He will set the tone for his leadership. He tacked to the left to win the leadership, now he must grab the publics attention. He needs to be centrist and send out signals to the south east that he will stand up for middle classes too.

I don't think he will but he may surprise!

Squiffy.