The question the Remain camp has to answer: What does IN look like?

Ever since the EU referendum campaign started, the INners have been shouting out 'What does Out look like?'. Today Dan Hodges sent the same in a tweet:

"Some people say there's a shark in the water. They're just trying to scare you. There almost certainly isn't". That Project Fear rebutle.

— Dan Hodges (@DPJHodges) February 29, 2016

I don't know the fine details, but I'm pretty sure that Out will look like the UK having control over all its legislation again, but having to adhere to EU constraints on products and services we supply to the EU. It may be that we have some requirement to adhere to a portion of free movement of peoples, but we are a big country and will have clout when the negotiations happen. I also think we will have free trade with the EU as it is in nobody's interest to put up trade barriers.

And that's where I would expect to be 2 years after we vote to leave. I expect we'll be in the same position 5 years after that, and 10 years and 15...

The OUTters need to be throwing the question back at the INners. What does IN look like? I know what it will look like in one year. It will have a Euro & migrant crisis. I think it will be the same state in two years.

But what about 5 years after? Will the Euro still be in crisis, will the problem be solved and how? What about the migrant crisis? Will Shengen be restored or will it have completely dissolved? Will Greece still be a member or will it have been thrown out. Will the banking union be complete? Will there be Euro-bonds? What about 5 years after that? Will there be a Euro-army? Will there be two Euro-zones? Will the EU have taken our place on the UN security council? Will Turkey be a member? Will Ukraine? Will the migrants let in by Angela Merkel have German citizenship and be making their way en mass to the UK? What about a further 5 years after that? Will there be a country called Europe?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions and I doubt the remain camp do too. In my mind the bigger unknowns are with IN rather than OUT.

Squiffy.

Why it's time to leave the sinking ship

After the outcome of the EU draft text was released this weekend, I made a quick post to say that I had decided that we should now leave the EU. I've now found the time to give my reasons.

It has been a journey for me. I thought for a long time that our destiny was better served by being a member of a large trading block, with shared regulation to tackle problems such as climate change. Over time my enthusiasm has lessened as the EU has pushed ever further into grabbing more powers whilst being completely inept at handling the responsibilities it already has. The EU has been pushing my buttons for a while and the renegotiation was the last chance to keep me wanting to stay in.

Initial negotiations

Let's first look at the Bloomberg speech David Cameron in January 2013. In this great oratory the Prime Minister spoke eloquently about how as Britain we had a different outlook but shared many aims of the EU for prosperity and peace. He set out a series of issues on which he wanted fundamental reform.

• Fix the issues regarding the Euro and our place outside the Eurozone should not diminish our influence. We should not have Eurozone policies foisted on us.
• Increase EU competitiveness by restricting regulation.
• The EU is seen as remote from the people

In answer to these issues he made some suggestions. He wanted to limit the size of the EU commission, control its spending, simplify its controlling structures and complete the single market. He wanted flexibility without the same level of integration, and to abandon the principle of 'ever closer union'. He wanted power to be placed back with member states and a more significant role for national parliaments. He mentioned legal judgements of the European Court of Human Rights should be subservient to the EU. 

When I heard this speech I thought "some good ideas, maybe not far enough in some cases but enough to convince me."

When this was filtered into negotiating points by November 2015, it became:

• Protection of the single market for Britain and other non-euro countries
• Boosting competitiveness by setting a target for the reduction of the "burden" of red tape
• Exempting Britain from "ever-closer union" and bolstering national parliaments
• Restricting EU migrants' access to in-work benefits such as tax credits ad child benefit for 4 years. 

At this stage, completion of the single market had become protection, there was still mention of boosting competitiveness and exempting Britain from ever-closer union. But there is no mention of the size of the commission, its spending, the controlling structures, or the position of the ECHR. At this stage about half his proposals had disappeared. 

Outcome

Finally, this week the draft was published which had:

• Removing Britain from the compulsion of 'ever closer union' and red card system for national parliaments to block legislation from the commision (if 55% of parliaments agreed)
• Some words about strengthening the internal market.
• Some words about there being more than one currency in the EU.
• A gradual increase in in-work benefits and child benefit to be paid at the rate of country from where the migrate came

As can be seen, the migrants access to benefits has been watered down, boosting competitiveness has been reduced to the same loose words as previous treaties, and that there being more than one currency in the EU is self evident. We will be removed from ever closer union but the red card system will never fly, not enough national parliaments would ever organise to block a regulation.

A disappointment.

A big disappointment.

I have no reason to believe that the EU would be any better if the draft is enacted. There would be very little change. Rules and regulations would come from on high as now, our parliament would be as subservient as it is now. The EU will be just as un-democratic. They would continue to ride roughshod, in fact I believe more so as I will explain later,

Overall position

We now know that the renegotiation is pretty insignificant so let's look at the overall position of the arguments in favour of the EU or Brexit.

The main reason for being in the EU is access to the single market. But do we need to be a member for access? Norway, Iceland, Switzerland all have access, but still have to adhere to regulations without much influence. Canada has access with not quite so onerous terms. If we were to leave I'm pretty sure that during the negotiations to leave we would quickly have an arrangement for access to the free market. The other countries would not want to put up barriers to the fifth largest economy in the world. 

And how much influence do we have anyway? We've objected to regulations 55 times since David Cameron came to power, and 55 times we've been outvoted. So no influence.

Erm, is there any other reason we would want to be a member of the EU? I can't think of any.

So, what problems would we be rid of or alleviate by not being a member?

• The British parliament would regain full sovereignty
• We would be able to get rid of the hated Common Agriculture and Fisheries policy and stop the crazy incentives for growing stuff we don't need
• We would regain full control of our borders and be able handle immigration in the way we wanted
• We would not have regulations foisted upon us arbitrarily, we would only need to abide by regulations to trade with the single market when trading with the single market
• We would be free of the EU attempts to try to get a common foreign policy
• We would be able to set our own VAT rates in the way we wished
• We would be free of threats to take away our seat as a permanent member of the UN security council and to set up an EU army.
• We would be able to sign free trade agreements with other major trading partners such as the US, China and India (we have been waiting for 40 years for the EU to do such things)
• We would be able to save money being spent by the EU bureaucracy
• Our EU contributions could be spent at home in better ways and we could be forever rid of our EU partners trying to reduce our EU rebate
• We would be able to provide aid to some badly hit industries such as steel
• The democratic deficit would be vastly reduced

There are so many political reasons to leave, but the arguments will inevitable come down to economic arguments. Will we be better off?

The arguments are often made that three million jobs are dependent upon our membership of the EU, which may be true. But they don't mean to say that we would lose 3m jobs they just mean to sound like that. There is no reason to believe that we would lose jobs, many investors in Britain have gone out of their way to say that it wouldn't matter to them.

We are also told that half of our trade is with Europe, which is true, but it is declining. It used to be more than half, it is now less than half. The continent's economy has been in poor shape for far too long and there doesn't appear to be much appetite for change. Do we need to be continually shackled to this aging behemoth?

We need to raise our sights on the rest of the world where new opportunities lie. So I have come to the conclusion being in or out of the EU will not have much of a difference on how wealthy we are as a country or individually in the short term. 

In the longer term though, with increasing globalisation, I think a large organisation such as the EU is doomed to gradually fail while smaller, faster acting countries will sweep all before them. We should be a part of the fast thinking free world, able to exploit new opportunities and not be tethered to the ideas of the last fifty years. I think we will be better off in the longer term being outside the EU.

We have also seen how undemocratic the EU is. Greece and Italy had Prime Ministers foisted upon them. Portugal elected left leaning anti-austerity parties in their election but has been told not to allow them to form a Government by the EU.

When the public has a say, and the EU elite does not like what it hears it either asks the public to think again or finds a way to ignore them completely.

As for Britain, we are seen as trouble makers sniping from the sidelines and are brushed aside as much as possible.

We finally have our chance to have a say. What does it imply that even if we have the chance to leave, we choose to stay? They will then completely ignore us and be deaf to our whinging, even more than now. We will be locked in forever. We will not be able to threaten to leave again and be taken seriously.

I fear staying far more than leaving.

It is time to go.

Squiffy.

EU Turn if you want to. I want to: Tatty Bye

Today David Cameron unveiled his plans for a renegotiation of our arrangement with the EU.

When he announced in his Bloomberg speech that he was planning for a comprehensive renegotiation of Britain's place in the EU I was ecstatic. Finally a Prime Minister who would have the guts to take us back to a trading relationship with our EU partners. We could lay the EU matter to rest at last knowing there would be no more power grabs from the bureaucrats.

By the time of the election I was disappointed, three platitudinous aims worthy of an EdStone and one small tactic to try to nudge immigrants into not coming here. Nothing about the ruinous Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies, nothing about the primacy of the British parliament, nothing about protecting our service industries such as finance away from the loony schemes on the continent. Still, I thought, maybe he was trying to give us low expectations so that we could be amazed by the sheer scale of his renegotiation when it was revealed.

It's become clear, and today's reveal makes it crystal clear, that we haven't even got the crappy aims of the manifesto.

It's with a heavy heart that I will have to refuse the appeal of the Prime Minister and vote Leave at the referendum. I will give my fuller reasons this weekend, but it has come time to get off the fence, and say that I don't think we can ever get a good deal from Europe and so it would be better for us to be out.

Squiffy.

The Report of Reports

This week there have been two reports published into the failures of the 2015 General Election, one by the Labour party and one by the pollsters.

The Labour Party's report shows how far the party has to travel in order to be electable. Not by the eloquent way in which it describes how Labour had piecemeal populist policies, but no overriding economic plan. Or by the way in which it aptly suggests that they chose the wrong leader in 2010 and couldn't ever recover from that. Or even that Labour became a complete joke with the EdStone.

No, the report didn't tackle these issues. It said that Labour had let them be blamed for the economic crisis but it wasn't their fault. Ed Miliband was a great leader, but those nasty media types had it in for him. Or that their policies were great but most people didn't know about them.

Ostriches and sand come to mind.

Labour lost due to the horrible Tories, the nasty media, and I guess, the public's stupidity. Not a problem with Labour at all.

It should be remembered that only three Labour leaders have ever commanded a majority in parliament in their 100 year odd history. In my lifetime there has only been one, in which there have been three Tory PMs. The only Labour leader in recent times to be successful has been the one nearest the centre of the electorate and not on the left. This is where the public is. And if there is no viable centre, the public likes to dress to the right rather than the less.

Since the election Labour has moved even further left under Jeremy Corbyn. I guess Labour will have to wait for the next electoral disaster report.

The second report went into the reasons why the pollsters got it all wrong in the lead up to the election. This report was more reasoned and explained that the methodologies weren't really to blame. It also said that there wasn't much bunching of polls, although that is slightly hard to believe. Their main finding was that they hadn't sampled enough Tories.

Which when you think about it - is obvious, after all that was the outcome. But what they mean is that the voters they contacted - and had responses from - were more likely to be Labour voters and so were more represented. The theory is that Tories are less likely to answer the phone to pollsters and have less time to fill in online polls. That's probably a reasonable theory, but it's difficult to make adjustments, maybe they have to add more weight to the Tory voters. They already have to do this since the 1992 election fiasco. But it makes you wonder if the bias is so great smaller fluctuations will be exaggerated.

There's two ways joe public can handle these polls until any new polling techniques have been proven to tally accurately with election results. On normal voting intention polls, add three percent to the Tory percentage and subtract three from the Labour percentage.

Alternatively, if you just want to know who will win the general election for sure forget voting intention polls and look at the leader ratings, and who the voters trust with the economy. If both these are favouring one party (and they invariably do) then that party will win. This has been proven in each election since 1979 even in 1992 and 2015.

Maybe this is the last time to discuss the 2015 GE, but it's making me want to watch the election programmes again!

Squiffy.

The Labour re-shuffle has finally come to an end

Starting at Monday lunchtime, the Labour party has been having a re-shuffle, and it has finally come to an end. Four days later. The longest re-shuffle in history. So it must be a real night of the long knives with lots of changes then? Not at all. Two sackings from the front bench, and one move.

After briefing in December that Hilary Benn was going to be sacked, that Diane Abbott was going to be the new Foreign Secretary there was no change in this respect.

Michael Dugher was sacked, as was Pat McFadden. Maria Eagle was moved from defence to make way for Emily Thornberry, Corbyn's fellow unilateralist.

Dugher and McFadden were dismissed as being disloyal and incompetent - which when compared against Corbyn's record is pretty laughable.

The supposedly even handed review of Trident looks like a joke now, with both Thornberry and Ken Livingstone both being unilateralists. Livingstone even went so far to say we should pull out of NATO today.

Following the front bench re-shuffle, three shadow ministers went onto resign, one live on TV. There were bitter tweets from MPs. Some MPs have blocked other MPs on twitter. There was a spat between Diane Abbott and Jonathan Reynolds.

This is a party at war with itself. 

To think that 8 months ago this party could have formed the Government. We had a lucky escape.

To Corbyn's credit, the re-shuffle has slightly moved the front bench his way, but Labour is heading for oblivion whilst the moderates do nothing but snipe. They need to act and soon, otherwise Labour will pass into history.

Squiffy.

2015 rolls into 2016

It's that time of year again when I have to review my predictions from the last year and make some new ones. So let's review the last year:

1. The economy will continue to recover, and will grow by 2.5% this year. Wages growth will really begin to outstrip inflation. 1 point
2. The General Election will be close, final tally Tories 36%, Labour 31%, Lib Dems 10%, UKIP 12%. 1 point (very close)
3. Tories and Lib Dems will form a second coalition. 0 points
4. Lewis Hamilton will win the F1 World Championship again. 1 point
5. Sebastien Vettel will not perform as well as Alonso at Ferrari, and Ferrari will end the year in greater turmoil with Raikkonen being sacked. 0 points
6. Labour will have a leadership election with Chukka Umuna winning. 1/4 points
7. Vince Cable will lose his seat in the election (hopefully) 1 point
8. UKIP will gain 2 seats at the General Election, but Rochester & Strood will not be one of them. Douglas Carswell will be re-elected. 1/2 point
9. Hilary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Rand Paul will all run for the US Presidential primaries. 1 point
10. Nick Clegg will resign the leadership of the Lib Dems. 1 point

Overall 6.75 points is not bad. I was caught out by Ferrari being a lot stronger than planned, and who could have predicted Jeremy Corbyn being elected as Labour leader?

Now for 2016.

1. Lewis Hamilton will win the F1 World Championship again.
2. Sebastien Vettel will be second in the F1 World Championship and will win more races.
3. Nico Rosberg will leave Mercedes at the end of the year, and Raikkonen will retire.
4. It will be Hilary Clinton vs Marco Rubio for the US presidency.
5. Marco Rubio will win the presidency.
6. The EU referendum will happen this year with Remain winning by roughly 58% to 42%
7. The Tories will beat Labour in the local elections by a small margin, with the Lib Dems coming back quite strongly in third.
8. There will be a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership
9. Douglas Carswell will leave UKIP and stay independent
10. At least 2 MPs will defect from Labour

Let's see how well we go this year.

Squiffy.

Labour: A sorry excuse of a party

It's been several months since Labour elected Jeremy Corbyn and it looks like Labour has completely turned its back on being a sensible party of opposition, let alone Government.

Corbyn (& sidekick McDonnell) is a complete disaster zone. I give you:

• Failure to appoint a single woman to the top three jobs in the shadow cabinet
• Appointing John McDonnell as shadow chancellor
• Not singing the national anthem at the Battle of Britain service
• Not knowing whether to join the privy council
• The DJ phone-in at PMQs
• Appointing Seamus Milne as communications director
• Appointing Andrew Fisher who wanted people to vote for class war
• Lifting half his conference speech from a speechwriter who had sent the same speech to each leader since Keir Hardie (almost)
• Old footage of Corbyn saying the killing of Bin Laden was a tragedy
• Corbyn saying that British born IS fighters should be arrested rather than targeted in Syria
• Corbyn saying he would not use shoot-to-kill even after the Paris attacks
• Appointing Ken Livingstone as joint chair of the review into Trident
• Keeping Ken Livingstone as joint chair when Ken had insulted the mental faculties of a defence shadow spokesman who suffers from depression
• John McDonnell's citing Chairman Mao during the response to the Autumn statement
• Publishing a letter statement he would not agree to bombing Syria, whilst in a meeting with the PLP saying that they would take the weekend to consider the matter

I'm sure there's a few more...

I feel sorry for the moderates in Labour, they are watching their party being driven to the left, taken for a ride to obscurity, whilst being pummelled daily by the cyber-corbynites.

All the while the shadow cabinet cannot claim to have a policy. Any policy. Whatever. Would they have more or less borrowing? Are they in favour of Trident or not? Would they bomb Syria or not? These are really important issues and the party is a laughing stock with no particular position. 

It is embarrassing listening to their front bench spokesman trying to contort themselves through various positions. Even the shadow foreign spokesman says that he cannot speak for Corbyn! If he can't, then what is supposed to be collective responsibility?

It's a complete joke. A mess. A car-crash. 

From across the aisle of British politics, it's entertaining, but it means that the Government is not being held to account and that's bad for democracy.

Squiffy.  

Lewis Hamilton: Three times World Champion

Last weekend Lewis Hamilton got his dream come true: he matched Ayrton Senna's number of world championships. The race in Austin was the best of the year, and until the last few laps it looked like Lewis would have to wait another race to claim the championship.

Last year we watched Lewis mature, this year he is at the height of his powers. The only weakness he had last year was qualifying, and this year he has well and truly beaten Nico Rosberg, He is driving at his best and the results are showing it. Off track, he seems to be very happy too and a happy Lewis is a fast Lewis.

Nico Rosberg looks well and truly beaten. After Austin he had a face like a slapped arse. He was complaining about Lewis being aggressive into turn one. It was wet and Lewis got the better start to be alongside the pole sitter. When they came to brake they found it difficult to turn in and their wheels touched. It was fine and Nico needs to grow a pair.

In fact it is now apparent that Lewis is faster and a better racer. Nico will not be world champion in the same team as Lewis. Whether he comes to the same conclusion and settles into a number two role next year or, as I expect, make all the noises of coming back better and faster next year only to be blown away again is up to him.

What next for Lewis? It would be brilliant to have a real Lewis vs Seb Vettel battle next year but I wouldn't bet against a fourth world championship. He should be able to get close to Prost's win tally, and the Senna's pole tally. I think 5 world championships are in reach.

Well done Lewis.

Squiffy.

Viewing the F1 scene

We have 5 races to go until the end of the season, and it's time to look at how the season has been going and draw some conclusions.

The Mercedes team are still the class act with the fastest car. Lewis Hamilton is the master of all currently, with 11 pole positions and 8 wins. Nico Rosberg looks like a beaten man, whatever he throws at Lewis Hamilton the champ has an answer. They have dropped the ball three times. Monaco must have been awful for Lewis, to see his perfect weekend blown up by a bad call and the win gifted to his team-mate. In Hungary, Lewis had an off-day maybe triggered by the gathering before the race to celebrate the life of Jules Bianchi. Mercedes were off the pace in Singapore.

The Ferrari team have shown much improvement, with Vettel having three wins and a pole. It's good for F1 that the team are competitive and that they have a media friendly boss in Mauricio Arrivabene. I think it would have been better for Ferrari if they had let Kimi Raikkonen go, he's past his best and there needs to be some young blood.

Williams have disappointed this season. They're still good enough for third place but have not advanced since last year.

I've been impressed by Max Verstappen and Carlos Sainz. Both have been good racers and on certain weekends have shown good pace. Verstappen's pass on Nasr at Blanchimont, Spa, was amazing. He knows no fear - yet!

The Red Bull is a good chassis but the Renault engine has disappointed badly. How can the engine have got so worse since last year? It has been disappointing to see them bad-mouthing Renault after winning 4 championships with them. It's no surprise that Renault have decided to pull out from engine supply. It's also no surprise that Red Bull are finding it hard to get another supplier. If I was Christian Horner I would pay Ferrari for the design to their engine and get a third party involved to build engines and take it forward.

I really hope Renault buy out Lotus as the Enstone team deserve to be in F1 due to their heritage. I wish Renault would decide what they want to do with F1. They're in, they supply engines, they're out, then they're in and then back to supplying engines. Make your mind up.

And now to McLaren Honda. What a disaster. When the McLaren-Honda tie-up was announced everyone thought, wow the two powerhouses are getting back together, everyone hould look out. I wasn't convinced. This is Honda's fourth time in F1, and only their second venture as an engine supplier to Williams and McLaren was successful. At the end of that period they had been superceded by Renault. Their third coming was poor. McLaren isn't the power it used to be either. Their last constructor's championship would have been 2007 (apart from the spying scandal) and was 1998 before that.

The car is slow, the drivers de-motivated and cracks are appearing in the management structures. Honda has a policy of rotating technical staff into the F1 programme and then out into the road cars. They don't bring people in from outside. This time they have bitten more than they can chew and they need to eat some humble pie. It's such a shame.

The other teams have not really changed their positions or outlook.

As for F1 itself. The season has been more dull than last year with poor races, apart from Silverstone and Hungary. I quite like some of the suggestions to spice up the action. Wider cars, bigger tyres, more horsepower, bigger batteries, ground effects, reduce the number of planes on wings: all these things would improve the racing. A flatter payment system as described in earlier posts would also be a big help.

Now, only a few more weeks until we crown the 2015 champion.

Squiffy.

Just three weeks to go for Labour to regain sanity

September 12th is only just three weeks away. All the signs are that the Labour party is about to elect Jeremy Corbyn as its leader.

A few weeks ago I posted that the polls show Corbyn in the leader, but I didn't believe that the party would be stupid enough to go through with it. It now looks like I was wrong and Labour is in a kamikazi mood.

We now have to consider what would happen if he won. I previously pondered that he would step down immediately, now I don't think so and he will try to oppose. How that will be done though, I don't know. 

There are some challenges. Firstly, Corbyn has said that he will pick his own shadow cabinet after previously saying that he would bring back shadow cabinet elections. He actually gave his Labour opponents a good idea for ruining his leadership with his earlier plan. There may be movements to bring back shadow cabinet elections before the leader is announced on the 12th. If many moderates stand in this election and have to be appointed to the shadow cabinet they can make it pretty impossible for Corbyn to effectively oppose. There will be splits in the shadow cabinet on a daily basis.

Maybe Jeremy Corbyn will get to appoint his own people, but with so few supporters amongst his own MPs would he be able to fill enough posts? And will these people, who are a permanent awkward squad, be able to show loyalty to their leader? They've never been able to do it before!

Even if Corbyn gets a shadow cabinet, how on earth can he command a majority of his own MPs for the parliamentary votes. David Cameron and George Osborne will bring forward votes on lots of policies which moderate Labour MPs agree with. It will be like two cats playing with a mouse.

Let's say that the majority of moderates stay silent and go along with Corbyn's votes for the most part. What happens when the polls and elections show Corbyn to be a loser (as they surely will)? Will they still keep their counsel?

Meanwhile, and you can guarantee this, the Tories will bring up every past dubious association that Corbyn has shown in the past 30 years. We've had a taster the last few weeks with some stories of dubious appearances to some extremists, I'm pretty sure that it's the tip of the iceberg.

Also, there's been some fleeting shows of Corbyn's hot temper. Given some tough questioning by our more difficult interviewers it's clear that he will lose his rag. How will this come across?

There are also questions about what the other moderates will do? Will there be a split? Probably not. They will easily be able to get enough signatures to trigger a new election, but will they want to against a big democratic mandate for Corbyn? Will they stay to agitate while waiting for Corbyn to crash and burn?

This is definitely the most interesting period of politics for the last thirty years, and I haven't even starting talking about Corbyn's crackpot policies. Let's tackle them if and when he becomes leader.

It's so gripping.

Squiffy.

Labour pains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe there will be split.

There is much more to come in this story.

Squiffy.

Greece: Crunch day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today may well be decisive.

Squiffy.

Labour: The debate....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.




 

Serial: Real Murder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy

Last thought on the election. The Losers: The Pollsters

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

More thoughts on the election. The Losers: Labour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

More thoughts on the election. The losers: Lib Dems

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

The factors affecting this are threefold:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

More thoughts about the election. The Losers: UKIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

More thoughts about the election. The Winners: SNP

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.

More thoughts about the election. The Winners: Tories

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

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

Now, to look at the new Government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squiffy.