Skipper

Obama Must Be Loving prospect of Newt as Opponent

2012-01-27T11:56:00.003Z

Being a political junkie/anorak, I love election contests and the Republican candidates for the presidency are putting on a great show. That most unlikely candidate, Newt Gingrich, won South Carolina, thus upsetting the assumed lordly progression of Mitt Romney towards the big fight with Obama in November.

I say unlikely because a) he looks much odder than Ed Miliband- yet, like Robin Cook, has attracted three wives and at least a couple of extra-marital affairs. b) his personality has not exactly impressed his colleagues. He rose to be a formidable Republican politician in the 1990s as speaker of the House of Representatives. In 1994 he helped write the Contract with America which detailed then ten policies the party would introduce during its first 100 days if successful; this included lowering taxes and shrinking the state as well as reforming welfare. But Gingrich can be argumentative and irascible and fell out with colleagues. He lost the Speakership in 1998. He has married three times and his first wife accused him of divorcing her when she was in hospital with cancer.

In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair(hypocritically by Newt, who played the morality card against Clinton) during the Lewinsky scandal. In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce from second wife Ginther.

Having trounced Romney in the last round, Newt is riding high in the Florida polls. It seemed his fortunes changed when he exploded in the last primary's televised debate and attacked the 'liberal' media for focusing on his unorthodox emotional history. Apart from being the most monstrous example of the pot calling the kettle black- what about Fox News and the shameless lies about Obama's birth and religion?-Newt cannot think he has laid this to rest- in the real thing he can expect an infinitely more merciless examination.

Moreover, the Tea Party, so effective in winning more seats in the Mid Terms, will surely serve Newt ill in the big contest, should he make the final. Newt is so far to the right his views will be exposed as out of step with mainstream voters. Obama, who has certainly underachieved in his first term, will, I suspect, have another four years to make amends. But, a small voice whispers, we never thought Obama would make it back in 2008 and just as he caught the imagination of voters back then, who is to say Gingrich might not succeed this time? But the odds must be against this, as they must be against Romney exhuming himself from his present position.

Ed Has Better Days to Come

2012-01-23T19:40:00.002Z

It seems like nothing is going right for Ed Miliband. In the national polla. the ST showed Tories on 41 and Labour on 36. Even the poor old Nick Clegg's party on 9% could not distract the media from focusing on poor old Ed. Asked whether he was doing 'well or badly', a heart sinking 86% answered the latter with 65% saying he is not the best leader for Labour. Moreover, one BBC interviewer recently asked him if he was too ugly to be a party leader. Now this used to be said about Herbert Hoover, had he been standing in modern elections and, famously, Robin Cook was deemed to look too much like a garden gnome to become Labour leader (not that it seemed to reduce his attractiveness to women, but that's another story).

His former 'guru, Maurice Glasman has criticised Ed recently for having "no strategy, no narrative and no energy" Given that politics is now so presidential and
so dependent on charismatic leaders, these indicators are not just disappointing, they are dire indeed. Yet Ed was right on phone hacking, made a valid distinction between 'predatory' and 'producer' capitalism at his party conference which Cameron, Cable and Clegg have sidled up to and quietly appropriated. The problem is the public either don't notice or don't care. Should Labour begin to look for another leader?

It's a long and often bloody process, selecting for another leader in the Labour Party, or any party for that matter. And the public are turned off even more by the inevitable sniping and feuding such contests produce. But even after only 16 months I still think it is too early to jettison this calm, courageous, bright young man.

Even Tory Mathew Parris says in last Saturday's Times that:

'attacks on (Ed) are cruelly overdone. Mr Milband may not set the Thames on fire, but he isn't crazy and he isn't wicked and the public may yet warm to his quiet intelligence and essential moderation.'

Parris goes on to suggest that the union attacks precipitated by Ed's acceptance of the government's cuts programme, offers a golden opportunity for Miliband, a Clause Four' moment whereby he can illustrate his fighting spirit and independence by en ding the link between his party and the unions. Sounds good Mathew, but only two tiny flaws in your argument. Firstly, Labour was born out of the trade union movement and ending the link would be much more controversial and fratricidal than rewriting Clause Four. Secondly it would remove the party's chief source of funding, which would surely cause the whole party to founder. Disingenuous Mathew? Seems a bit like it. But on Ed's looks... well, I'm no kind of expert, but I would have said he's quite a good looking guy, certainly more so than smoothichops Etonian Cameron.

Hint of Daylight on Clocks Going Back?

2012-01-20T11:40:00.003Z

Readers of this blog will know of my passion to change the practice of losing the hour in winter which we have mistakenly followed ever since the trial period back in 1968-71. An article today updates the situation regarding the bill proposed by Conservative MP Rebecca Harris and backed up staunchly by the Lighter Latercampaign.

The devolved assemblies are being consulted about the possibility of a three year trial to test the alternative. Various arguments are adduced:

These include the creation of up to 80,000 leisure and tourism jobs, lower electricity bills, fewer accidents, lower carbon emissions, reduced fear of crime and more sports participation in the evenings. Supporters also argue Britons will be happier, with fewer people suffering seasonal affective disorder

Moving forward an hour would remove us of Greenwich Mean Time but bring us into line with most of the rest of Europe. So many bodies, connected with Tourism, health, motoring, sport and, significantly the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, have now come on board to support the move.

Over 100 MPs debated and voted in favour of the Bill at the second reading. At the forthcoming third reading on 20 January a majority vote is required and at least 100 MPs must be present for the Bill to pass.

It's so much like commonsense, one's cynical side doubts it will be adopted simply for this reason. But the signs, for once, seem auspicious. My main fear is that with the Coalition desperate to spike SNP guns on independence, that this potentially emotive issue for northern Scots, will lead the government to squash the idea.

I think Dave is Right On This Happiness Thing

2012-01-17T09:26:00.004Z

God knows, it's hard to say it, but I agree with David Cameron. Not on everything of course, but specifically that a General Wellbeing Index is of more significance than a GDP one. A recent report by right-wing think-tank, the IEA, suggests that the only thing that will make people more happy is more money, so attempts to compile a happiness index are a waste of time. Dominic Lawson, as one might expect, chips in to agree. The whole idea was to debunk what the right derisively label the 'touchy feely' brigade's notion that there is more to life than making money. Even though Cameron's study to gauge national happiness will cost only £2m, this is thought to be a complete waste of time and money by such critics.

I'm not so sure. Richard Layard's study of Happiness several years ago now, suggested that above a minimum amount required to live like most other people- he suggested £25K a year- increases in happiness do not correlate positively with increasing levels of prosperity. Our living experience surely tells us that while our wealth has trebled or more since the 1950s, we are nowhere near three times happier. Moreover, the media provides us with abundant evidence, in the form of celebrity depression, drug addiction and suicides, that plentiful supplies of moolah are no guarantee of a life lived happily. Most studies of well being reveal the country where people are happiest is Denmark, a country characterised for many by socio-econmic equality and rejection of crude materialism.

The IEA purports to show that the richer a country is, the happier it becomes.I can see that data might be assembled to prove this argument but there is another consideration. This is that finite resources dictate that continuing our pell-mell pursuit of wealth creates an immovable imperative: it will eventually leave a husk of a planet, of no use to anyone, whether a brilliant entrepreneur or a humble 'hewer of wood and carrier of water'. The IEA purports to show that the richer a country is, the happier it becomes. I seriously doubt such findings as they conflict with the evidence of good old commonsense.

Salmond Better Political Hand to Play than Cameron

2012-01-13T10:28:00.002Z

The stand off over Scottish Independence is intriguing and compelling. The initiative of David Cameron in suggesting his government might intervene to ensure clarity is achieved on the subject of an independence referendum, seems to me to be wholly political. Salmond, who won a huge majority in the 2007 elections for his SNP nationalist party, knows majority public opinion is currently against independence, but thinks it will swing that way by the second half of his four year parliamentary term. He hopes to hold it on the anniversary year of the famous Scots victory over the English at Banockburn (24th June 1314). Is this a sensible political strategy? Well, opinion has swung markedly since 2011 from something like one quarter of Scots’ polled to a figure closer to 40%. Salmond is one of the cleverest politicians in the United Kingdom and, given his immense popularity, one cannot rule out the chance that he will succeed.

It seems logical that the UK should have a say in the issue and all kinds of problems need to be clarified if the issue is to be resolved in an effective fsshion: what share of North sea Oil would go to Scotland? What would happen to the Nuclear sub base in Scotland? and what share of the national debt would Scotland have responsibility for? These are mega questions on which the future of both countries to some extent depend.

One might interpret Cameron’s intervention as a sign that he is nervous, his stated aim not to preside over the break up of the Union is going to be frustrated. If the referendum is held earlier, according to the polls, it is more likely a negative judgement will be returned. Professor Robert Hazell, one of the leading experts on the constitution, says Cameron holds most of the legal cards. The Scotland Act of 2008, which established Holyrood, also makes clear that constitutional powers remain with London. The SNP cannot stage a binding referendum on independence without Westminster’s imprimatur.

Interesting that on this question all the big parties in Westminster are united and key roles seem to be offered to Darling, ass well as Charles Kennedy. So Cameron has full legal authority to ‘stage manage’ a Scottish referendum, but where does the power advantage lie? My view is that it lies with Salmond and the SNP. Firstly, he has made clear from the start that he aims to pitch the poll in the second half of the parliament. Secondly, he may not be able to hold a ‘binding’ poll, but if he gets a majority for independence, using, crucially, his own wording, it will be very hard for London to deny its legitimacy.

Speaking with the authority of ‘the Scottish nation’ Salmond would have an immensely compelling argument to knock down Cameron’s legal defences. Thirdly, by intervening, as he has, Cameron has both confessed his nervousness and given Salmond a potential stick with which to beat the Coalition government: that of resisting an attempt to ‘interfere’ in legitimately Scottish affairs. Cameron might win in court but lose in the ballot box. At the moment Salmond appears to hold all the key political cards.

The Iron Lady Hugely Enjoyable Film

2012-01-09T10:01:00.004Z

It's hard for dyed- in -the- wool Thatcher haters like me to offer an objective view of Phyllida Lloyd's Abi Morgan scripted film. The eighties was a harsh decade, full of class conflict and loathing which I felt keenly; like so many of those of us left of centre folk, I have tended to blame Thatcher for it. The Iron Lady did not remove that belief but it did put my feelings towards her in a wider and more sympathetic context.

Much criticism has been directed at the depiction of her as an old lady with dementia, talking to an imaginary Dennis and so forth, but I thought this perfectly justifiable as it put the focus on Margaret Thatcher as a vulnerable human being, like the rest of us, and an apt, Ozymandian reminder that pride is a very temporary satisfaction. The film covers her life in a series of flashbacks, from helping Alderman Roberts in his Grantham grocery shop to her ramming through the Poll Tax in the teeth of opposition from her own party.

We saw how her father insisted life was a struggle in which one had to labour hard to make a difference and in which one had an obligation to help other people. Inevitably, his concept of 'help' cleaved to the Conservative belief that that the best help is self-help rather than a recognition that many lack such resources. She had to fight the appalling, derisive sexism so rife in the party she went on to lead and I think this helped compound her conviction that life is a struggle you have to fight with all your might. More than that, she was also one of those born controversialists who love to argue and to wipe the floor with opponents, their feelings notwithstanding. We saw her treat Geoffrey Howe with icy and humiliating contempt in Cabinet [one wonders how he reacted to seeing such galling scenes brought back to life]. But Oh Boy, did her wreak a sweet revenge- an event the film rather downplayed I thought.

We also saw that she was essentially someone who regularly eschewed feminine persuasion and charm for the alpha-male methods of winning: aggression, humiliation, no remorse. She 'joined' the male world of her father, preferring her feckless, uncaring son to her daughter Carol and only appointing one woman to her Cabinet in all her time in Downing St. She also preferred the company of men, basking in their flattery, making favourites out of the better looking colleagues.

The film has been criticised for being narrowly biographical and neglecting the political context. I disagree. The film pays substantial attention to the big issues- the miners' strike, widespread social conflict, the Falklands- and surely a film-maker has a right to focus on the central character of the time. In a male dominated world of politics, she disproved the notion that our political system is so bureaucratic and averse to change that achieving it is impossible. I'd say such an achievement justifies two hours of sensitive interpretation of this remarkable life.

The film left me thinking that it was her greatest triumph, the Falklands War which ultimately led to her downfall. She was so filled with hubris after this spectacular victory that she began to believe both in her own infallibility and the terminal fallacies of her opponents and detractors. Like Blair after Kosovo and Sierra Leone, she acquired the idea that the same trick could be played indefinitely and for even higher stakes. So she became imperious, colonised the royal 'we' for herself and managed to convince, correctly, all those acolytes she had elevated on high that she was now beyond her sell-by date.

The film, rightly allows Dennis to share the focus; like everyone of us, Margaret Thatcher needed someone's unconditional love and support and Dennis, despite his head-banging rightwing views, provided this in abundance. Jim Broadbent, excellent old trouper that he is, managed to recapture much of Dennis's charm but not his voice, which he offered up with a touch of cockney I never detected. Meryl Streep was almost as majestic in her role as Maggie was within the Conservative Party- she must surely win the best actress Oscar for it. But her faultless impression of the central character of the drama set the bar too high for others who aimed to evoke supporting roles like those of Heath, Howe and Heseltine. Yet this is a magnificent film which brings to life a politician who dominated a decade many of her opponents would still prefer to forget.

Republican Dilemma: Rearm or Rethink

2012-01-06T13:36:00.004Z

Already two of the faces on the left have disappeared: Herman Cain, caught out by sexual misconduct accusations; Michelle Bachman, once leading in the polls, then coming last in the Iowa Caucuses, deciding she's had enough; and Texas governor Rick Perry probably going to do the same. The Republicans are in a bind. Martin Kettle, offers an unusual take on the contest today. He compares the Republicans with British Labour, suggesting parties in opposition either have to 'rearm' or 'rethink'. Rethink is clear enough but 'rearm' is to increase conviction or, to simplify, 'get more angry'. Together both approaches can achieve success but alone an opposition party will founder.

He suggests Labour have always been ready to rethink- hence Revisionist Labour in the 1950s and New Labour in the 1990s. Despite Maurice Glasman's attack on Ed Miliband in the New Statesman recently, Kettle sees some merit and originality in the piece: parties will always cast around for a while and 'thinkers' will often prove loose canons.

However, he sees only an angry attempt to 'rearm' in the US Republicans, a route doomed to failure if it continues. Also useful is the recent Economist piece which lists the positions from which currently, it seems, all candidates must not waver:

Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases; that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it; that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.

Within the closed world of Republican supporters, these beliefs merely seem bankable 'commonsense' but to independent and mainstream voters they are looney tunes. John McCain did some corkscrew turns to fit in back in 2008 but since then his party has 'rearmed' like mad and shifted hugely to the right under the imperatives of the Tea Party movement; poor old Romney has been recanting his moderation like a Catholic adulterer in confession. All this bodes ill for success in November. The Economist, however, suggests that if the stalemate persists then some credible moderate candidates, who have till now stood back, might enter the fray even at this late stage; in mind are the likes of Jeb Bush, John Christie or Mitch Daniels. So Obama scores well against most current candidates and, with the economy beginning to show signs of vigour, must now have a good chance of winning, for which three cheers!

Emphasis on Ideas and Morality Preferable to 'Modernisation'

2012-01-03T20:31:00.006Z

This piece by Peter Oborne I thought provocative and
perceptive.Noting that for the past 20 years British politics has been dominated by the 'modernisation project', he tries to unpack what the concept really means in practice. He notes Blair was the first exponent and Cameron his attentive pupil. Oborne argues, however, that 'modernisation'

.....is not a political philosophy. It is really about a set of techniques for securing and then keeping power. Modernisers are actively hostile to political ideas. Indeed, the antiheroes of the modernisation handbook – Foot, Benn, Livingstone, Thatcher – are all figures of powerful conviction.

1. He sees leading modernisers-Blair, Mandelson, Brown, Cameron as 'evasive' about diffult issues; they have 'preferred to insinuate ideas furtively or indirectly into political discourse rather than make their meaning open and clear.'

2. 'Winning' was the key objective, never mind the means- this proving disastrous to public life in that it bred cynicism and lack of trust.

3. Modernisation has proved useless in solving underlying national problems like:

i) the single currency
ii) spending cuts being seen constantly as bad.
iii) talk about immigration being constantly seen as racist.

4. Modernisers' obsession with focus groups and the manipulation of public opinion have proved a hindrance in troubled times to the decisive government required to deal with such problems.

5. Oborne has some good words to offer on Milband:

One of the reasons why Ed Miliband has been consistently underrated as Labour leader is that he is trying to reintroduce values into British politics, and to move away from the manipulation and cynicism of the modernising era. He has done this on a number of fronts. Miliband has consistently and with admirable courage stood up for trade unions as a legitimate voice for working people, launched attacks on the greedy and irresponsible rich, and was the first party leader to take the bold step of condemning press criminality when the phone-hacking scandal broke last summer. All of this maddens Labour modernisers, whose numerous allies in the London-based press have as a result been hard at work trashing Miliband’s reputation. New Labour’s strategy, from the start, was to isolate or ignore the unions, while awarding tax breaks to the super-rich, and special privileges to the Murdoch empire, now so deeply compromised by evidence of widespread criminal conduct stretching into the higher reaches of the organisation. It comes as no surprise that Labour modernisers should regard Ed Miliband’s leadership with antipathy: he is against everything they stood for.

6. Oborne sees Cameron as more complex. He was accepting of the basic modernising agenda: the preference for presentation over substance, the need for the Murdoch press as a strategic ally, a fondness for advertising slogans and rebranding the Tories as 'nice'. However in Brussels recently he tore up the modernising rule-book by apparently choosing isolation in Europe. He is also beginning to re-emphasise morality and ideas.

Oborne concludes his insightful article with:

It is greatly to be welcomed that the leaders of our two greatest political parties seem to have chosen such a moment to abandon the facile discourse of modernisation in favour of tentatively addressing the great, defining moral issues of our age.

Skipper away for a few days in Madeira!

2011-12-28T18:28:00.006Z

Taking a short break away from the toil of a Blighty embroiled in recession and depression and am currently enjoying Madeira quite a lot. Temperatures around 20-22 C and quite a bit of sun but main thing is freedom and novelty of an alternative culture. Sorry no pic but hotel facilities here pretty basic.

PS New Years Eve Note: Off to Funchal this evening to see what is promised as ´the best fireworks dispay in world´. Madeirans keen to rank themselves in world terms I´ve noted so will be keen to see if their fireworks are indeed that good.

End of year Party Poll Standings

2011-12-23T19:14:00.004Z

Nottingham University's distillation of polls provides a fillip for Dave as he munches his mince pies over Yuletide. Their 'definitive assessment of party standings' put Conservatives on 37.4%, up 2.5 points on the first day of the month and Labour on 38.6%. Labour lead.

So there is a kind of even - stevens about current standings. Cameron's veto seems to have delivered a useful bounce which might well carry over into the New Year. Labour still lead but my feeling about these figures is that, given the awful state of the economy, the near inevitability of a double dip recession and Osborne's virtual admission of defeat in his Autumn Statement, the Opposition should be at least five points in the lead.

As for the Lib Dems, they are crawling along in single figures. This is additional good news for Dave as it means however incandescent his coalition partners might be at what he has done to them over the AV Referendum back in May and now the veto in Brussels, he is immune from political revenge. The Lib Dems know that if they withdraw and trigger and election it will mean their flickering political flame will be brutally extinguished.

Mind Control of Modern Dictators is Scary

2011-12-20T17:53:00.003Z

Like most people in the west I daresay, I'm still astonished at the intensity, the vehemence of the mourning for Kim Jong Il in North Korea. One asks if they are only doing it to avoid persecution by the secret police and are reminded of the Solzhenitsyn tale of a workforce meeting at a factory when someone proposed a vote of thanks to the Great Leader Stalin. The applause ensued for so long in the end the factory manager took a decision and sat down. Later on that day he was arrested on suspicion of disloyalty to that same great leader.

I'm sure coercion and fear play a big role but North Korean waitresses in Beijing apparently broke down in floods of tears on hearing the news. A defecting North Korean, now in South Korea on Sky News testified that 'we all hated him' and I'm sure that is true as well. Maybe the conclusion is that totalitarian dictators have a unique way of messing inside their subjects' heads. From birth north Koreans are immersed in a pressure cooker world of nationally drilled adulation which must leave some residue of genuine affection. Yet the day to day life of little food, monotonous hard work and no outlet for real emotions must make the whole population of the maverick state candidates for in depth counselling.

It was not so different with Stalin: queues of people in Moscow waiting to file past his coffin many in helpless tears. Such adulation is not the sole preserve of communist tyrants. Gadaffi's final act displayed crowds prepared to prostrate themselves in support of the 'Great Man' right up to the end. Not so different either with Bashar al Assad. My brother, who visited Syria just before the trouble started told me his highly intelligent guide talked admiringly of 'Our Leader' as if he was a colossus of integrity and benign benificence.

It's beyond belief that a man responsible for impoverishing his country and appalling hypocrisy regarding his own luxurious lifestyle(five hair stylists always on hand and a £5000 a year bill for the best cognac) could be mourned in a way which made the Dina aftermath seem hugely restrained and dignified. At such times one is grateful for our deeply cynical attitudes towards politicians not to mention our awful rottweiler press.

Could Cameron be a secret 'Phile' rather than a 'Phobe'?

2011-12-18T09:22:00.002Z

One of my Current Affairs class suggested class yesterday came up with an intriguing analysis of Cameron's veto. He reckoned it was to pre-empt a referendum, triggered by the treaty revision the draft Brussels treaty threatened. He did this to avoid a national vote which might have led UK out of the EU, an outcome Cameron devoutly wishes to avoid.

An interesting idea, likely to be dismissed by sceptics, but if the euro-rescue measures which caused all the fuss go down the tubes then this crisis will go on for months and the veto could well appear in retrospect to be a mere detail. Certainly the markets have not reacted positively to the plan- far from it. Greece still seems heading for an early bath from the euro and even France 's economic health has been challenged by the ratings agency S and P's suggestion that its triple A rating should be downgraded.

Thatcher's Biographer on Cameron

2011-12-14T22:02:00.002Z

Quite a bit of reaction to the veto but my eye was caught by a very interesting review of the The Iron Lady, the Thatcher biopic opening 6th January, by John Campbell, the author a distinguished two volume biography of Thatcher. Towards the end of his review, he turns his attention to the present incumbent with the following less than ecstatic assessment:

'But what of Cameron's real self? So far we have little idea. The impression is beginning to take hold that he is not as nice as he seemed.- which may be what the situation demands- but maybe not so competent as he initially appeared. Like Blair he wants to be liked; he also has the problem which neither Blair not Thatcher had of having to lead a coalition. But he gives out no clear sense of purpose beyond the immediate priority of cutting the deficit and seems to have no ideological roots or political compass: just am embarrassingly privileged background which he has to try to deny. Perhaps this is not his fault."

Is Cameron just a Bad Prime Minister....?

2011-12-12T16:21:00.002Z

Justin Fisher from Brunel University has posted on the British Politics Group a quite provocative analysis of David Cameron suggesting that he's just not very good at being prime Minister. Given that he always said he was sure he'd be an excellent PM, this is worth considering.

He argues that Cameron fails to recognise the seriousness of issues until too late or mishandles them once he addresses them.

i) he was slow to react to the summer riots in our cities.
ii) ditto with phone hacking allowing E£d Miliband to grab some good publicity by condemning Murdoch.
iii) Liam Fox was allowed to twist in the wind too long before he was sacked- rather as brown dithered over Peter Hain when he should have acted. Blair, by comparison acted promptly and relatively ruthlessly, even sacking his best friend Mandelson
iv)Over the euro crisis he needlessly angered EU partners by lecturing them on how they should act. And when he needed support, it wasn't there.

Interesting thesis I reckon, which has much to commend it, unfortunately for the country perhaps.

Cameron Messes up Bigtime

2011-12-09T19:46:00.003Z

Dave has tried hard to cloak his trip to Brussells in Churchillian rhetoric, but the chilling fact is that his veto of measures to save the euro has left the UK virtually alone on the northwest of the EU. He miscalculated monumentally, asking for too much and getting punished for being the perennial whinger on the sidelines.

He sought to extract guarantees that the City of London would not be adversely affected by the deal. But was roundly and comprehensively rejected. It seems the City is just as unpopular in EU capitals as it seems to be with the general public. Now he has to face a future as a pariah, ignored and even a little bit despised. Sceptics, like Bernard Jenkin are cock- a hoop, thinking Dave has delivered them. But with at least 23 nations in another camp it seems certain UK will be progressively marginalised and ignored, with decisions taken eventually in open disregard of British interests. From now on it'll be EU, 26- UK, 1 a ratio even Osborne's mathematics won't make advantageous.

Did he think he'd attract support? If so he miscalculated badly. Apparently Nick Clegg did quite a bit of groundwork in EU capitals and agreed totally with Cameron's line. But will he feel so much solidarity now? Paddy Ashdown has excoriated the deal and rank and file Lib Dems will most likely do the same. In one mad night Cameron has negotiated away Britain's influence in Europe and the world. Who will Obama ring now if he wants to speak to 'Europe'? Cameron ,his 'special relationship' ally? Or Merkel? Or even possibly Sarkozy? Oh dear, history will judge what a foolish, silly bugger has has been.

Obama's Key Card Could be the Young

2011-12-05T19:34:00.002Z

Everyone seems to agree that Obama's chances of success in 2012 hinge on the state of the economy. This could well be true but two crucial factors might also play important roles: the choice of Republican candidate and the generational divide. This last was analysed by Andrew Sullivan in the ST yesterday and interesting reading it made.

A recent Pew survey of American voters reveals an astonishing difference between the attitudes of those under 30 compared with those over 65. Before Jimmy Carter differences of voting choice between the young and old were in single figures; now the gap is closer to 20 points.

On a whole range of issues youth does not agree with the senior cohort. Why is this so? Sullivan blames the previous Republican White House.

'.... it turns out that the real legacy of that great Republican strategist, Karl Rove, was an entire generation of liberal Democrats.'

Whilst the under 30s tend to agree with their parents on abortion, they disagree mightily on:

i) the degree to which government should intervene in society- 56% of under 30sw want bigger government compared to 25% of over 65s.
ii) same-sex marriages- two thirds of the young in favour- only a third of the elderly.
iii) 75% of the young are happy with inter-racial marriage- only 37% of the old.
iv) 64% of the elderly believe USA is 'the greatest country on earth'- only 32% of the younger generation do.
v) over 65s back unilateral foreign policy 44%-40%- the under 30s support multilateral foreign policy 63% -29%
vi) older voters are suspicious of China- two thirds of the young want closer ties.

The problem is that while the old tend to be less liberal on so many things, they do support their guaranteed benefits while the young would like them weakened. Sullivan picks pout one issue as a central explanation: the tendency for the young to be less racially homogenous and indifferent to racial and cultural change- the old are not. 79% of the elderly are white and grew up in a segregated country. Only 59% of the young are white and voting for a mixed race president was not a problem. That 20% gap might well prove vital to determining the election contest next November. What is more, the future generation of older voters, is likely to retain Democrat rather than Republican sympathies.

Clarkson Should be Ignored not Vilified

2011-12-03T11:27:00.003Z

I've never seen Top Gear and have only occasionally read his pieces in the ST but have always thought Jeremy Clarkson to be, quite simply, an arse. I saw his performance when he said strikers should be shot in front of their families and it was obvious he was speaking in jest.

Bad taste humour, maybe, but all the furious indignation generated is surely wasted. If these remarks had come from a serious politician it really would have been an outrage but you'll hear far worse comments about right-wingers on the News Quiz or HIGNFY. Unlike his driving activities, this is someone who starts to speak before his brain is placed into gear; he deals in controversy and shocking his audience for a laugh is his stock in trade.

So the best response to Clarkson is to ignore Top Gear, Clarkson's journalism, and.... him.

Didn't he do Badly?

2011-11-30T17:01:00.005Z

I can't pretend I envied the Coalition government's task back in May 2010. I was kind of relieved that Labour were no longer there under Brown to disappoint, mess up and make me feel bad about being a supporter of his party. It was always going to be a big ask to fulfill his stated aims- and through a mixture of obstinacy, ambition and ignorance, he hasn't disappointed those who said he'd fail. It was so obvious that with an economy as fragile as ours George's cold bath treatment was going to cause the patient to weaken further. And, successive lowering of predicted growth forecasts has proved beyond doubt that his famous Plan A has flushed down the toilet.

We now see economic indicators going south at a tragic rate of knots. Inflation is running at 5.2% so all the tiny increases ordinary folk have managed to gather- as opposed to the 49% the FTSE directors have tucked into their offshore accounts over the last year- have been instantly eroded away. And the resultant lack of growth has produced an additional £158bn borrowing requirement on top of the mountain he faced 18 months ago.

He refused to contemplate a Plan B to stimulate growth and ridiculed the ideas brought forward like investment in infrastructure projects, help for small businesses and so forth. But now, with the economy gurgling down the plug hole, he suddenly discovers these ideas are exactly what wee need. And who will pay for these economic stimulations? The money required will be cut from other parts of the public sector, causing a total of 700,000 job losses by 2015. Cutting of such big slice from the public sector was supposed to stimulate the private sector to grow and produce a slew of new jobs. What happened? Nothing whatsoever- proof of the poverty of Osborne's approach. If he had palns to take over from Dave as PM, he should seriously consider another line of work.

Moreover, instead of removing the deficit by 2015 in time to win the next election, he's had, humiliatingly, to delay his schedule until 2016-7. An age of austerity truly awaits us and George has proved no magician, just a journeyman politico basing his ideas on long forgotten economic thinker- in this case Friedrich Hayek. Had he reduced the size of his cuts, as Darling proposed, the economy would not be in such a parlous state and might even be showing signs of life instead of needing intensive care.

Certainly his focus on reducing the deficit has kept lending rates down to 2.5% instead of Italy and Spain's 7-8% but experts doubt our own rates, based on long term borrowing rather than the short-term Italian variety, would have gone up unacceptably, had Osborne moderated his surgery of the public sector.

All this is bad enough- total humiliating failure- but it is predicated on the assumption that the Euro crisis will clear up and carry on as before. This is by no means likely to be the case. My reading of the euro currency crisis is that Italy might well be left to default and then the brown substance will really hit the fan dragging down UK's economy into a deep recession and an age of austerity stretching into the foreseeable future. What will the voters think in 2015? Not, I suspect what Dave and George and their well heeled mates confidently expected. Cameron will rue the day he put all his trust- and his party's not to mention the nation's future- in Osborne's economic judgement.

It's Beginning to Feel like the seventies and Eighties Again

2011-11-28T17:34:00.003Z

I'm old enough to remember vividly the endless brinkmanship clashes between the employers-government and the unions forty years ago. We see a battle of strength building up with Prentis suggesting Wednesday might exceed the numbers involved in the 1926 General Strike. On the other side, pixie like Michael Gove suggests a group of militants are leading the rank and file astray.

Well, the BBC Poll today suggests 61 % support the strike, 67% disapprove of the way ministers are handling the economy. If the strike is well supported we could be entering a new era of conflict of the mind the government has been dreading.

The fact is, things are going badly. Despite all his protestations about the efficacy of his austerity strategy, the economy is not automatically responding to cuts in the public sector. The reduction in demand caused by the cuts is leeching life out of the economy and growth projections are constantly being downgraded.

Osborne will announce £30bn worth of infrastructure projects, a final admission that his critics have been right, but too late to revive the economy for 2012. George still has time to turn things around but once his efforts have registered with the public ass ineffectual, his hopes of replacing Dave in 2018 might be over. Apparently his big fear is the Boris will seek election to the Commons in that year and set himself up as Dave's successor. Oh Dear, it's all going pear shaped for him, as some of us predicted it would.

They're Still At It

2011-11-26T18:02:00.002Z

In my last post I banged on a bit about the republican tendency to lie and think it's OK to do so. The border between truth and falsehood has become so porous for the US right that they slip to and fro without any twinge of conscience. Chris McGreal's recent report reveals how blatant doctoring of Obama's filmed speeches are being used in TV ads to make it seem like he is saying outrageously self damaging things.

Romney's campaign ad is airing on TV stations in New Hampshire, which holds its primary in January. It shows the president saying: "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."

The ad appears to have the president admitting he is vulnerable on the economy. But Obama's words were from his 2008 campaign, and he was quoting a statement by a strategist for his Republican opponent, John McCain, who was the one on the back foot over the economy.

Perry's ad shows a short soundbite of Obama saying: "We've been a little bit lazy I think over the last couple of decades."

The ad switches to Perry saying: "Can you believe that? That's what our president thinks is wrong with America – that Americans are lazy. That's pathetic."

But a viewing of Obama's full statement shows that he was saying the US government had been lazy in attracting foreign investment.

When challenged on Fox news, itself not above distorting the facts, Perry defended his ad saying : "I think he's talking about Americans … I think that's exactly what he's talking about,"

Darrell West, Director of the respected Brookings Institution gave his explanation why rightwing politicians are apparently ignoring the difference between truth and falsehood:

politicians are less concerned about being exposed by reporters. "Politicians think that the news media have completely collapsed, based on the financial crisis, and so they are acting as if there's no accountability and they can say whatever they want," he said.

"They know the news media don't have the same credibility as they had in the past. They think they can say whatever they want and get away with it."

Republican Candidates Do Not Impress

2011-11-21T17:05:00.002Z

Back in May Gary Younge observed that to be a credible presidential candidate within the Republican Party meant you had to be too off the wall to hack it with the rest of the voters. His current piece argues that this is still fundamentally the case. He looks at the recent performances of some of the candidates and notes how accuracy and knowledge has been devalued, just as they have in the form of scurrilous ideas about Obama were believed as gospel truth by so many on the US right:

Polls last year showed a majority of Republicans believed Obama was a Muslim and a socialist who "wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one-world government"; two-thirds either believed or were not sure if the president is "a racist who hates white people", and over half believed or were not sure if "he was not born in the US" and "wants the terrorists to win".

Never mind that the Ground Zero mosque was neither a mosque nor situated at Ground Zero, or that the foreign-born Muslim Obama is actually an American-born Christian. Facts didn't matter, So nor did lies.M

He thinks Herman Cain's disregard for not knowing things is symptomatic of his party as a whole. It doesn't matter if, like most of your voters, you don't know; getting the message, whether right or wrong, practicable or impossible, it doesn't matter. As Romney and Gingrich shed their moderate, sensible views to woo the Tea Partiers, Younge thinks the good, sensible, able candidates are sitting this one out while the GOP undergoes its convulsions. He concludes:

None of this means Republicans cannot win. Incompetence, ignorance and disingenuity are no barriers to elected office. In the only televised debate for the 2010 gubernatorial elections in Arizona, a swing state, the Republican incumbent, Jan Brewer, stopped halfway through her opening statement, stared blankly into the camera, and started giggling. She won by 12 clear points and enjoyed a 19% increase in her vote. Obama sold the nation on hope and has presided over despair. It's because the Republicans have been so dysfunctional that he still has a shot. It's because he has delivered so little that their dysfunctionality may not matter. The stakes are high, the standards are low, and the choice is paltry.

Cameron's Attitude to Integrated Eurozone has Changed

2011-11-18T19:32:00.006Z

The Euro-sceptic fault-line in the Conservative Party is again causing the Coalition government no end of grief. Cameron is being urged by his gung ho right-wing to repatriate powers from the EU back to London but Merkel and Sarkozy do not want to see a major EU power fragment existing arrangements and maybe encourage others to regard EU powers on a 'pick and mix basis.

Merkel, Sarkozy and the inner eurozone nations are hell bent on forming a much more disciplined inner core. Now not so long ago Cameron and Osborne agreed with such a development in a comment to the Liaison Cmmittee, 6th September. On the same day, Osborne, agreed, saying, “In the eurozone, member countries must follow the remorseless logic of monetary union and make more progress on institutional reform and fiscal integration. This is the only way to convince financial markets that the euro has a stable future,”

However, Cameron seems to have changed his mind and is now intent on avoiding a smaller more integrated euro-zone immune from UK influence. According to the London Evening Standard, the government's position has changed. It now:

"fears the formal "two-tier" EU Britain and is trying to avoid it is trying to avoid, for fear of being left outside key decision making in the non-eurozone margins British ministers are convinced a two-tier system, splitting the 17 eurozone member from the other 10, is unworkable, particularly the setting up of a separate treaty, European court and even a European parliament "second chamber" with legislative powers, as suggested by Paris.

"The pattern of relationships in the EU is much more complex than the model of two tiers suggests," said one government source. Neither the 17 in the eurozone nor the other 10 are monolithic or cohesive blocks - there are different constellations of relationships."

Britain is also dead set against the Tobin tax, unlike Gordon Brown who favoured it. Certainly it would raise millions but when 30% of financial transactions take place in London this might cause business to divert to other centres, to the UK's disadvantage.

In the event, the outcome of the meeting has proved a stalemate which will please nobody, especially Cameron's rabid right-wing who will gnash their teeth over his failure to extract concessions from what they view as a weakened EU leadership.

A Bleak Prognosis for Post Crisis World

2011-11-15T18:49:00.003Z

The philosopher, John Gray wrote an influential book on the decline of capitalism (False Dawn: the Delusions of Global Capitalism) which assesses the destruction wrought on capitalism by the recent economic storms. His article in today's Guardian rehearses some of its not too reassuring themes.

Based on economic theories that left out human beings, the global free market was supposed to be self-regulating. Now a process of disintegration is under way, in which the structures set up in the post-cold-war period are visibly breaking up

Rather like Marx, he suggests free market capitalism was always going to produce excesses which the world's vestigial controls could not accommodate. In USA the gross inequalities are exposed of of the super-rich and immiserating social strata propped up by a growing underclass. In Europe the awkward looping together of heterogenous economies into a false unity has resulted in near collapse and growing austerity measures are making things even worse.

Gray does not see any revival of totalitarian systems of government but fears that the scapegoating of minorities which so often happens in hard economic times, might well create destructive conflict. He also warns that:

With the rise of trigger-happy politicians like Mitt Romney and the need for Obama to act tough, it would be unwise to rule out the prospect of another major war.

The worry is t hat there is no institution with sufficient authority to frame the necessary reforms. Even the relative unity of Europe cannot, it would appear, save its unraveling. Gray's diagnosis is not optimistic, but he thinks the critique of the Occupy protesters is more profound than is widely perceived:

The demands of the Occupy movement may be inchoate, or else conflicting. But it is not the protesters who threaten the world economy. The danger comes from denying the fact of systemic crisis. By trying to prop up a system that is chronically dysfunctional, our rulers are making a cataclysmic collapse more likely. So far in Britain only Ed Miliband has acknowledged the importance of the Occupy movement. It should be a warning to the entire political class. The people camped outside St Paul's may have no clear solutions. But it is they – not ruling elites in thrall to a defunct market utopia – who are engaging with reality.

Theresa Faces Difficult Week

2011-11-10T18:02:00.002Z

Since my post yesterday it seems Silvio has had to accept the early bath; condign punishment for his absurd, shameful buffoonish behaviour and clear economic incompetence. As for Theresa may, she faces un uncertain future. Peter Oborne, a heavy hitting right-wing columnist in the Telegraph today lays into her with gusto. Recalling how Lord Carrington honourably resigned over something not his fault Oborne comments:

Compare and contrast the exemplary conduct of Lord Carrington with the wretched, self-serving and disreputable behaviour of Theresa May. For the past week, Mrs May has had only one objective: survival. In her desperate and apparently unscrupulous concern to save her own skin, she has tried to pass the blame on to more vulnerable people.

He goes on to condemn her blaming of a civil servant as 'despicable' and a violation of the contract between ministers and civil servants which is the foundation of day to day British government. He concludes:
A number of old-fashioned types will take the view that Mrs May should have followed the honourable example set by Lord Carrington 30 years ago, and shouldered responsibility for her own department. Reluctantly, however, I would concede that the high standards of those days are not going to return.
But that does not mean that Mrs May is safe in her job. Next Tuesday, Brodie Clark, who is now liberated to speak in public without fear or favour, having resigned from the Civil Service, will give his own account of events. Meanwhile, the Home Secretary can be forced to release the essential documents that will reveal the truth about this sad business. If it emerges that she acted unfairly towards Mr Clark, then the Prime Minister must be prepared to sack Mrs May.

Cameron has spoken up for her and it would be a huge blow for him to lose her, but for a Telegrph op-ed piece to flay her like this, is a bad sign. I'm beginning to think the odds are shifting on her future quite rapidly. Brodie Clark will have his day in front of a select committee next week and won't hold back after the drubbing Theresa has meted out to0 save her own skin.

Two Politicians Under Threat

2011-11-08T20:02:00.003Z

Another scandal, another Tory Politician in the headlights. May's ompetence has been questioned in the past and this time it's squarely in her area of responsibility. She claims the relaxation of procedures to filter into the country only those people deemed acceptable was part of a pilot plan which her head of Border Force Brodie Clark relaxed further without ministerial approval. Clark's union, the elitist First Division Association protests he has been wrongly treated.

Stand-off for the time being. Cameron has expressed his full confidence, but it's only recently he did the same regarding Liam Fox, so we have to recognise Mrs May is under the cosh for the present. I always cite Alastair Campbell's dictum that if no new revelations have come out regarding a scandal within 12 days, the minister is safe.

The real problem with these situations are the memos which are mysteriously leaked. If Theresa has signed a minute approving extension of the so-called pilot scheme and it's leaked she can clear her desk at once. But I get the feeling she'll survive on this challenge to probably the most accident prone senior job in government.

As for Silvio, I've always had a soft spot for him. He is so much the macho Italian alpha male, he is almost endearing. Italian voters have loved him in the past but now the bond markets say he must go if Italy is to keep on borrowing to survive, I think he'll have to stand down. News from Rome, suggests he will do this. 17 years in power is not bad for a man who started off in life as a crooner on a cruise ship.

How the Mighty have Fallen

2011-11-03T18:15:00.003Z

I remember when wikileaks first hit the headlines, apparently on the side of truth and transparency and against the malign and shady activities of governments keen to keep us all in the dark. It was a popular cause on the left, and in parts of the right too. He was greeted in lefty, liberal Sweden like a hero. Aftonbladet published an interview which marvelled:

"To meet Julian Assange is a bit like meeting James Bond. The man behind WikiLeaks has no public background. His name is spelled in different ways. His age is uncertain. He has no fixed address. No one has seen him in the hotel where he is staying, and when we finally meet he suddenly appears half a metre in front of me."

But then came the rape allegations and Julian's response to them. I have to say I thought they were a bit dodgy at first and blogged, I seem to recall, about him being persecuted merely for having the habit of promiscuity. Well, that might have been a tiny bit true, even in liberal Sweden and it is the case that Sweden's laws are not like our own, (though who knows, they might become so one day). Julian was terrified the Swedes were in the pocket of the CIA and muttered darkly for anyone to hear that maybe these two women were secret agents of that unwholesome institution. His fear was that the Swedes would extradite him to USA where he might face awfully punitive consequences for placing US agents and soldiers in danger This did not go down well in Sweden, which is very proud of being free and independent of any power block, especially the one led by the USA.

Then came the inexplicable spat with the Guardian, the paper who had supported him hitherto. The argument between this new hero of the left and the staff of the left's most distinguished media mouthpiece, was not edifying. We began to wonder if Jules might just be a bit too full of himself, a bit too arrogant, not to say paranoid to boot.

Then came the drama of his autobiography, for which he had received a thumping great advance which he had promptly spent, not on women but more likely on legal expenses. This ghost written book he decided was not worthy of him and disowned it but the publisher, keen to pull in some income from the lost advance, went ahead and published it. So far few copies have sold.

Reviews were not all bad, I was surprised to discover but Rod Liddle in the ST articulated a view which was gaining currency. He wrote:

"most entertaining section of the book … comes with his uncomfortable alliances with the mainstream media, most notably the Guardian and the New York Times. In both cases the relationship broke down, the Guardian making the crucial error, in Assange's view, of bothering to consider the possible outcomes of publishing secret, stolen material (such as people being shot, stuff like that)."

Kevin Donion in Scotland on Sunday was more outspoken::

"Gone is the reflective and well-crafted reminiscence, as the narrative adopts a manner which is raw, condemnatory and, perhaps inescapably, self-pitying … The final few pages consist of short-sentence rants. And then it stops … Infuriatingly then, this inside account fails to capture the significance of WikiLeaks, even if it gives a troubling insight into the current mindset of Julian Assange."

Within a very short time, as observed byKarin Olsson today, this darling of the leftwing broadsheets and student politicians had moved 'from hero to zero'. Or to quote Olsson:

He has changed in a year from the James Bond of the internet to a paranoid chauvinist pig.

It remains to be seen, now his appeal against extradition has failed, how he will fare in the country he has so badmouthed and insulted.

St Pauls Protestors Putting Left to Shame

2011-10-31T19:47:00.004Z

This fabulous poster is the one used by Adbusters, the group which initiated the Occupy Wall St demonstrations against the inequalities generated by our economic system. Their slogan 'we are the 99% refers to the huge gap which now exists between the richest 1% and the rest of us poor bastards; though I have no doubt who the real bastards are. That's why I was so pleased to read Andrew Rawnsley's recent piece on the St paul's tent people which acted a sharp report to the dismissive article written by Simon Jenkins in which he dismissed the protestors as mere 'scenery'.

Rawnsley applauds the work of the polite young people who are making their point rather effectively and in the process causing the ruling elite into a near hysterical reaction. So far two senior figures have resigned, the religious establishment is as unsure as the government as to how to respond to a protest which reflects so much public anger at the appalling ease with which the rich classes have caused us so much suffering yet escaped scot free of any punishment apart from mild censures from the likes of Cameron and Osborne though they were careful not to offend their mates in the City too much. Rawnsley skewers this inept and complacent bunch of trade unionists for the fat cats with this section in his article:

"The occupation movement is succeeding where conventional politics of both left and right have badly failed. It articulates a profound public resentment with over-mighty finance and the failure of government to do anything about it. The protesters strike a resounding chord when they complain that financial elites are getting rewarded with special treatment while the punishment for their mistakes is meted out on the rest of society. On top of the billions of taxpayers' money already committed to rescuing the banks, the eurozone leaders have just signed up to providing billions more. Yet from the nabobs of finance there is still not a whisper of a hint of a scintilla of humility or penance."

Hear hear

Why oh Why do we Keep Putting the Clocks Back?

2011-10-28T17:45:00.004Z

[Last year, about this time, and all the years before that since 2005, I expressed my indignation at the absurd putting back of clocks every year by that precious hour. I have not heard one single person in favour of this measure which continues to shroud in gloom a period of the year which does not need any more more gloom than it already has. So I'm republishing my post of last October and intend to do so until this ridiculous outdated practice is done away with(I know, I know).]

No doubt most people in this country have felt the first chill of autumn as recent unseasonably warm temperatures begin to give way. This reminder that winter is at hand is bad enough but what astonishes me is our government's insistence on putting the clocks back by an hour; this year it's on 29th October.

The case against this joyless annual donning of a temporal hair shirt is as follows:

i) studies show that while there might be more accidents in the mornings these would be more than compensated for by fewer in the evenings; The Guardian some time ago, quoted studies predicting a net saving of 140 lives.

ii) 80 per cent of the population want to keep summer time throughout the year.

iii) Many influential pressure groups favour it, including the CBI, the Police and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

iv) the experiment of maintaining BST through the winter 1968-71 was, as far as I recall, a substantial success.

v) It would extend the tourist season, the sporting season and..., perhaps most important of all it would make us all feel a damn sight better about the miserable imminence of winter.

The case against reversing the measure is summed up in the two words: Scottish farmers. They would face much darker mornings as the sun would not rise until 10.0am. However, against this it can be adduced:

i) The rate of decline in accidents would actually be greater in Central Scotland(5.5%) than in the south of England(2.5%).

ii)When I used to visit Northern Sweden regularly, farmers up there did not see daylight until much later than 10.0am and accepted it as part of their cost for living in that latitude.

iii) Now Scotland has its own parliament, why doesn't it set its own regional time and do us all a big favour?

iv) is it fair that a nation of 60 million should suffer merely because a few hundred farmers should be able to see their cows more clearly on a winter's morning?

In the war we had a clocks turned forward two hours- Double Summer Time!- why not return to those good old days? Brown might even find his recently flagging popularity recovering immensely if he introduced this simple yet highly popular measure.

Postscript: Well, I was kind of hoping this year the clocks would not go back as articles had appeared in the spring suggesting the Coalition government would change the practice. Well, they haven't but it could just be this is the last year we'll do it. The Policy Studies Institute has produced a report recommending a permanent shift of our clocks forward. Moreover there is now a campaign to achieve this reform and I wish it all good speed. Finally, check out this But the Scots have already said they won't support it which is a good enough reason, maybe, to allow them to drift away into a North Atlantic independence....? See also this broadside against the practice bySimon Jenkins.

EU Debacle For Tories But Anti EU Sentiment Worrying

2011-10-25T17:57:00.002Z

It's so heart warming to see the Tories back in the EU toilet again with party split virtually down the middle. So ironic too to see William Hague, as sheepdog for a motion to deny a referendum on membership of the EU. All those familiar arguments which sound so reasonable but really boil down to glorified Little Englanderism. I once heard a discussion among Conservative women on the EU on a telly programme and they spoke of Brussells as if it were the Moscow or Berlin, the centre of an oppressive dictatorship. It's so irrational it really is quite amusing.

But what worries me is that now the Tories are clearly now working with the grain of public opinion. We Brits have always been a bit xenophobic- the legacy, perhaps of an empire which made us feel so superior to the rest of the world. But now the figures are on a different level. According to the ICM poll for the Guardian, 70% think a referendum should be held on membership of the EU. And if there were one tomorrow an astonishing 49% would vote to leave the organisation.

I'm very aware of the shortcomings of the EU, its bureaucracy, its corruption in parts and its woefully weak leadership. But I am an unashamed internationalist. It seems to me the world is faced by a huge agenda of unsolvable problems which would be immensely alleviated by closer international cooperation. I include, the appalling poverty in the Third World when there is relative plenty in the first; the problem of climate change which could make the planet impossible for our descendants to live in; international terrorism which constantly threatens to break out yet again; and international crime which now ranks as one of the world's premier economic activities, on a par with trading in the major commodities.

If the EU has managed to be so successful economically and to a degree, politically, it would seem mad for us to take a step back into history and snuff it out when it represents so much hope. I see it as a guarantee that the part of the planet which cost the world countless millions of lives in two world wars, will never again host such a conflict. Our public opinion might well be lurching to wards xenophobia because of anger at all the things that have gone wrong and the EU seems a convenient external whipping boy. Whatever the reason, I regret it deeply and wish the old ideal of cooperation and peaceful economic activity could be revived rather than swamped by reactionary sentiments.

Climate Change Case Conceded by Skeptics' Study

2011-10-23T17:20:00.003Z

The debate over climate change has attracted all kinds of conflict and bad temper. 9 out of 10 climate scientists claim the case that human activity is filling up the atmosphere with carbon dioxide which absorbs heat and therefore causing an eventual catastrophe for the planet. Skeptics have claimed this is not true and is the work of: Europeans trying to impede the expansion of the US economy; the conspiracy of a group of scientists who have created a 'climate change' industry for their own benefit; or the deluded ramblings professional Cassandras. My view has tended to be that if 9 out of ten consultants say I have serious heart disease, I am likely to have heart disease.

However, a group of skeptics, have done the sums themselves and come up with the answer that, indeed, we do, after all, have something to worry about. Not that anyone much seems to want to worry, or even care if the planet microwaves its surface into something resembling that of the Moon.

The Berkeley Earth project compiled more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world and found that the average global land temperature has risen by around 1C since the mid-1950s.

This figure agrees with the estimate arrived at by major groups that maintain official records on the world's climate, including Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), and the Met Office's Hadley Centre, with the University of East Anglia, in the UK.

So all that railing and shouting by the skeptics against these respected bodies, now looks a little otiose and terribly ill informed.

The team, which includes Saul Perlmutter, joint winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, has submitted four papers to the journal Geophysical Research Letters that describe their work to date.

So it seems the scientists have not yet received the imprimatur of peer review by other experts in the field, but, I would have thought, Nobel Prize winners tend not to publish duff research. Richard Mulller, head of the study says:

"We have looked at these issues in a straightforward, transparent way, and based on that, I would expect legitimate sceptics to feel their issues have been addressed,"

Has that calmed the naysayers and skeptics? You thought right: take a lookhere and take a look take a look at our esteemed(but clearly factually incorrect-see linked article) former Chancellor's views here.

Vital Ways in Which Democracy is Being Weakened and Lobbyists let in.

2011-10-21T18:40:00.005Z

Some columnists are able to do that thing which Orwell said is the most difficult of all: to see what is happening in front of your nose. Simon Jenkins is possibly one of these rare people, or at least seems to be in his piece today.

He is not too impressed by the street protests against capitalism in London and New York, seeing them as unfocused and without the 'menace' which protests need to get any change started. This is as maybe but he goes on to adduce a rather chilling argument that, important respects, democracy has withered away. This applies especially to those bodies which 'mediate' between government and the governed between elections. The "customary associations and little platoons" have dwindled. Power over policy has been removed from parties in parliament and at the grassroots, from trade unions, from the professions, from local government, from intellectuals, even from the formal civil service. These conduits have been replaced by thinktanks and lobbyists working in private collusion with ministerial staffs. When David Cameron in opposition said that lobbyists were "the next big scandal waiting to happen," he was right. But that was before he came to power.

This observation I fear is true to a fair degree. I'm not sure lobbyists have yet claimed a hegemony over policy making; yet we see in the case of Liam Fox, that his best friend, who followed him around endlessly, was effectively a creature of the lobbyists. Furthermore the recent changes in the planning laws seem to represent a surrender to building lobbyists, always close to the Conservative Party. His analysis is an acute and well informed one and merits close attention.

World Getting less Violent Says Stephen Pinker

2011-10-19T18:48:00.004Z

I find it oddly reassuring that Stephen Pinker the Havard polymath, tells us we are possibly living in the mot peaceful era ever. Given the two world wars, the Holocaust, civil wars and terrorism, this seems counter intuitive but his 700 page tome, The Better Angels: the Decline of Violence in History brings a formidable amount to research to back up his claim:

"The medieval rate of homicide was 35 times the rate of today, and the rate of death in tribal warfare 15 times higher than that. Collapsed empires, horse-tribe invasions, the Crusades, the slave trade, the wars of religion, and the colonisation of the Americas had death tolls which, adjusted for population, rival or exceed those of the world wars. In earlier centuries the wife of an adulterer could have her nose cut off, a seven-year-old could be hanged for stealing a petticoat, a witch could be sawn in half, and a sailor could be flogged to a pulp. Deadly riots were common enough in 18th-century England to have given us the expression “to read the riot act,” and in 19th-century Russia to have given us the word pogrom. Deaths in warfare have come lurchingly but dramatically downward since their postwar peak in 1950. Deaths from terrorism are less common in today’s “age of terror” than they were in the 1960s and 1970s, with their regular bombings, hijackings, and shootings by various armies, leagues, coalitions, brigades, factions and fronts."

Feel just a tad more optimistic? I did. The world is pretty bad right now but it is sort of reassuring to discover it was so much worse in earlier centuries.

Cameron Compared with Blair

2011-10-17T18:43:00.003Z

Jackie Ashley today makes a telling comparison between Cameron and Blair.

i) they were both masters of the art of public relations
ii) they both had early problems regarding lobbying ministers; Blair with Bernie Ecclestone and Cameron with Fox.
iii) both employed tough tabloid hacks- Campbell and Coulson- to help them sculpt their desired images.
iv) Blair faced criticism from the left as Cameron does now from the right.
v) both had experience early on of 'winning' wars: Blair in Kosovo and Cameron in Libya.
vi) both entered power in 'austerity'- Blair and Brown applied strict limits to spending in their first two years in power and Cameron has even more acute problems.
vii) both ignored what they thought an impotent opposition.
viii) both offered themselves as sunny optimistic leaders, talking of good times ahead.

She sees Cameron as currently 'untouchably strong', able to shrug off Coulson and the phone hacking with a 'semi-apologetic shrug' and emerging, cleverly, from the Fox affair even stronger than before. This he did by waiting long enough to allow Fox's position to become untenable and then not even having to sack the man. On the Tuesday Cameron might have feared Fox could retreat to the back benches and make trouble with his volatile right-wing but by Friday he was too weakened to cause anyone any trouble. Ashley makes the point though, that Cameron faces a far harder future than Blair ever did. Blair really did enjoy the 'good times', even if it it was founded on debt and a greed driven financial sector but it did deliver for a decade.

Cameron however, faces an indeterminate future of hard times:

Yet the complacency that afflicted New Labour is now being repeated by a new government that will face a far angrier public. The spectacle of private lobbying deals and inner circles within circles, clear in the Fox story, is even more dangerous than scandals in the early Blair years, because of the surrounding economics. Cameron has to act very fast when Gus O'Donnell's report comes out this week.

Ashley argues the Tory right will eventually really go for Cameron as he has no chance of 'going with the grain of good times' as did Blair. She sees new leaders emerging from the 2010 intake of right-wing Tory firebrands and causing him grief, concluding:

Cameron remains an enigma, just as Blair was for a while, and it may be that he can make this transition. My guess is that he cannot. He should enjoy this time, when he seems able to drift above the fray, untouched by errors of judgment, cronyism and scandal.

How Tall is Liam Fox?

2011-10-16T17:44:00.002Z

Apologies if this post reads as too gossipy-the blogosphere has enough of that with Guido and others- but listening to the News Quiz yesterday, Jeremy Hardy claimed Adam Werrity was only 5ft 8inches, meaning that Liam Fox must be a mere 5ft based on the picture shown above.

If anyone knows the answer to this I'd be grateful if they could let me know.

He Must Eventually Be Toast

2011-10-12T19:43:00.005Z

Seems like only yesterday that we had crises like that facing Dr Fox: Mandelson, Blunkett etc and each time I've kind of thought they would survive. Fox(cop the fixed smiles in the picture...) did a good job of defending himself in the Commons though Cameron's absence was ominous as were the conclusions of the 'interim report' which had identified 'mistakes'. But the solid support of his party seemed to suggest Fox might just squeeze through the net.

Severe problems for Fox remain however:

i) Alastair Campbell reckoned. in such cases, that if the story had not died within ten days the minister would have to go.
ii) New revelations are seeping out every day so far and I don't see them stopping anytime soon.
iii) 40 meetings in all, 18 of them abroad, many of which were apparently coincidental, sounds far too dodgy to me. Some coordination with Fox must have taken place.
iv) Rumours have surfaced about Fox's sexuality and, whilst this is not supposed to matter these days, if you have half an eye on the leadership, which Fox does, or used to have, it could still be a disadvantage worth concealing.
v) I don't think national security has been jeopardised By Adam Werrity but I seriously wonder whether his friendship with Fox was not used to his material advantage.
vi) How on earth did Werrity pay for his flights and hotel bills?

On balance I think there is sufficient dodgy dealing here for enough to come out to force his eventual resignation. Maybe it shouldn't be the case, but Fox has acted naively for an experienced and ambitious politician. I suspect he'll have to go within the next week or so.

Ed Miliband' Has a Huge Mountain Range to Climb

2011-10-10T13:25:00.004Z

I was interested to read the following excellent paragraph in the Economist, 27th September, which sums up som much of politics and the constant noise which surrounds it. The key things are quite simple, as is explained below.

“Elections are decided by a few fundamentals, such as the political cycle (the longer the government has been in power, the more hostile the public will feel towards it), the economic cycle (the more prosperous the country is feeling, the more likely they are to vote for the government) and, above all, the party leaders. Perhaps the only meaningful thing a political party can ever do to help its fortunes is elect a leader who has that "prime ministerial" quality that is hard to define but easy to recognise when one sees it.”

In connection with Ed Miliband's conference speech the columnist notes that most successful leaders of the Opposition-Blair, Cameron, for example have shown their leadership qualities almost immediately. It's true Thatcher had a difficult two years but she had to overcome immense prejudice against her gender. Ed's truly awful poll ratings to date suggest he's not yet passed the acceptability test and that, like Foot, Kinnock, Hague, IDS and Howard, before him, he will struggle to make an impact and fail the electoral test into the bargain.

I hope this is not the case of course, and Ed has overturned a number of negative judgments about him already, but will he succeed in his ambitious objective of pulling the nation to the left? So far the economic crisis has not strengthened the left but rather the right. No 'left wing' movement has been spawned by the mismanagement of banks and national economies, apart from the single exception of Denmark. I think Ed's critique and proffered solutions would greatly assist the nation, but I fear Ed, to date has not shown the sort of persuasive skills required for such a renaissance in our political culture.

A second set of lapidary words was provided by Jonathan Freedland,28th Septembeer, who quoted an old teacher of his who used to say:

‘People don’t believe in ideas, they believe in people who believe in ideas.’

I fear this is true and I fear Ed has not yet shown, unlike Blair at a comparative stage in his career, definite signs he can get people to believe in him.

'Catgate' Reveals Shortcomings of Coalition Government

2011-10-06T17:48:00.004Z

I'm not sure which is the correct image of Maya the Cat but it doesn't really matter if the feline is Larry or even the late Humphrey, the argument is more importantly about the Human Rights Act. Ken Clarke, the Justice Minister, is a staunch defender of the HRA while Theresa May, his superior in the pecking order, thinks the act should be replaced by a British Bill of Rights (to which one is tempted to reply 'we already have one, vintage 1689).

As an academic it's embarrassing to be caught out making a foolish factual error, but for a Home Secretary, in front of an audience of millions, it is pretty unforgivable. Whoever told her it was absolutely the case that a Bolivian man had not been deported because he owned a cat. I wouldn't like to be that aide who fed in that one. May must be furious. Mind you, shouldn't she have checked it out properly herself...? Most of us lowly plebs would have done I'm sure.

No less, moreover as Ken chose to use his gift for rough language(and don't our tribe love him for it...) to her distinct disadvantage:

"We have a policy and in my old-fashioned way when you serve in a government you express a collective policy of the government, you don't go round telling everyone your personal opinion is different. I sat and listened to Theresa's speech and I'll have to be very polite to Theresa when I meet her, but in my opinion she should really address her researchers and advisers very severely for assuring her that a complete nonsense example in her speech was true."

We learn Ken has now apologised for what he said, but 'Catgate' it does suggest: government ministers are no more competent than their in many cases woeful predecessors; and there is a substantial Cabinet rift over the future of the HRA. The Lib Dems, of course venerate the act, drafted, as it was on the best jurisprudence and practice of British lawyers in the wake of the war.

For an excellent comment on the 'catflap' see Jonathan Freedland and this article from the Independent citing Attorney General Dominic Grieve's defence of the HR.

Tories Are Alienating Women Voters

2011-10-04T19:27:00.003Z

Jackie Ashley's piece recently on Cameron, his party and women was quite perceptive I thought and maybe offered pointers as to the way the Coalition is going with voters. Cameron is riding high in the ratings but he has a problem with woman which his apology for appearing condescending to Angela Eagle will not resolve. The fact that he did apologize is evidence of a political concern that must be growing as the months pass by. Whilst Tories have a slight lead among male voters, they trail 21 to 27 per cent with the gap widening with ascending age cohorts.

This must worry them as recently as last Christmas the Tories enjoyed a lead among women voters- by June this year they had lost it. At this rate of loss how big is the gap going to become? A book by Sarah Childs and Paul Webb, Sex, Gender and the Conservative Party, argues that Cameron, despite his women friendly rhetoric and photo- ops, has soft pedaled on female candidates. They p[oint out that the Conservative Party contains two very distinctive type of female: the traditional, blue rinse, envelop stuffing old matrons and the ambitious career woman like Louise Mensch and Justine Greening. Labour, as Yvette Cooper demonstrated at the recent conference, currently has a number of able women in the public eye and Miliband is likely to promote more in his expected reshufffle.

David Cameron tries to tell us he's a 'new man' but, as with his social provenance, his tendency to make condescending remarks to women is something he cannot really disguise. As the cuts bite more deeply and affect even more hundreds of thousands of women, I suspect the voting gender gap will continue to widen.

Increase Motrorway Speed Limit? Don't Think So.

2011-10-01T14:22:00.002Z

Transport secretary Philip Hammond said the existing 70mph limit was "out of date", and that Britain needed to be "back in the fast lane of global economies". If this is an attempt by the government to open its conference with a vote-catching measure, it must be advised by Jeremy Clarkson, whose petrol-head effusions are emitted on Top Gear and in an inexplicable ST weekly column.

The Transport Ministry's 'initial analysis' indicated that such a measure would result in a 1% increase in road accident fatalities: maybe 19-25 more deaths. So that's alright then? The absurd idea that increasing our speed limit would put us back into the 'fast lane of global economies' justifies the deaths of two dozen more unnecessary deaths on the roads? Road deaths have gradually reduced since 1965 by 75%; this measure would halt the improvement.

Carbon emissions? The DfT says it would cause only a 1% increase but another bit of government- the Climate Change Committee- says it would be 3%. The World Health Organisation identifies speed as the key causal reason for road accidents- it would seem criminally counter-intuitive to reverse the reduction in casualties just to give the Conservative conference some opening va-va-voom.

Moreover, I think users regard the existing 70mph limit as flexible; I regularly am overtaken at 70 by vehicles doing what must be close to a 100 mph with apparent impunity. If we increase the limit to 80mph 100 mph will become the norm with all the damage to road safety that implies. Crap idea.

UK Life Might Be a Bit Crap, But I Wouldn't Swap it

2011-09-29T19:10:00.005Z

I was struck today by an article claiming that the uSwitch quality of life index, shows us 'bottom of the pile'.

The UK emerged as having the second lowest hours of sunshine a year, the fourth highest retirement age, and the third lowest spend on health as a percentage of GDP.
Despite above average household income – the fourth highest in Europe – Britons have 5.5 fewer days holiday a year than the European average and endure a below average government spend on education. UK households also struggle with a high cost of living, with food and diesel prices the highest in Europe, and unleaded petrol, alcohol and cigarettes all costing more than the European average.

The upshot? 12% say they would like to emigrate and only 5% said t hey were happy in the UK. Pretty serious one might think. Yet, on a rare late September day of glorious sunshine, with everyone I passed on the road to the shops remarking with huge smiles on the beauty of the day, I couldn't really see why I should be depressed about this. Rain? Sure I hate it but complaining about it is like sailors railing against the sea. We can't do anything about it so why not just be cool about it? The previous weekend I visited the Yorkshire Dales and enjoyed the kind of beauty my picture represents.

I'd be the last to deny our quality of life could be a lot better and I do get depressed with our climate. But when the sun shines? I forget about the rain and the fog and think that if only we had 5-6 weeks guaranteed sunshine a year, I'd not b other to go abroad so much. We have a beautiful island here, and should value it as highly as it deserves. And the standard of living? Well, it may not be Europe's highest, but I can remember what life was like in the fifties when life was drab, austere and boring. We have so much more to enjoy in the present day. I'm sorry but I really can't be bothered to worry about our poor quality of life on one of the most lovely days of the year.

Skipper off to London for two days

2011-09-26T13:05:00.003Z

I'm off to London to interview Lord Heseltine for my ongoing research topic on ministerial promotion. Couldn't resist uploading a pic of the Mace..

And, if you read this, this is NOT a holiday Bob Piper!

Tory Party Attacked by its Own

2011-09-23T09:24:00.004Z

I always welcome a bit of Tory bashing, from whatever source, so I was amused to read this piece from a Daily Mail and Express journalist: [I add the picture of Eric Pickles as I feel any dissemination of it is grist to the critical mill.]

“…if the Tory party were a consumer good or a commercial service, it would long ago have ceased production. Nobody, however, dedicated, would be fool enough to carry on buying it. If it were your fridge, all your food would go bad. If it were your accountant, you would go bankrupt.

The Tory party claims to be patriotic. But all the major steps into deeper EU integration have been taken by Tory governments. It claims to stand for strong defence. Yet it has repeatedly run down the armed forces. It claims to be tough on crime, yet it shackled the police with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984, closed deown dozens of police stations between 1979-1997, and now proposes to cut police numbers by 20 per cent. The Tory party claims to stand for rigorous educational standards, yet it introduced the devalued GCSE and closed more grammar schools than Labour did. It claims to be pro-family, yet it never reformed the ultra-=liberal divorce laws of the 1960s and it passed the 1989 Children Act, hugely increasing the power of the state over family life.”

Yes, I know it's written by Peter Hitchens, nothing if not a maverick, but it's still making some valid points think I....

Lib Dems Can Veto but not Initiate

2011-09-21T17:28:00.003Z

We learn from journalists at the Lib Dem conference that they are in a form which belies their awful poll position and the terrible year they have just suffered. Jackie Ashley described how they seem to love being in power, smugly congratulating themselves on their 18 ministers, four of them in the Cabinet. Clegg closed the conference with a well received speech today and most delegates will have returned home with a warm kind of feeling that, despite the euro-crisis and the faltering economy, things are not too bad at all really.

Simon Jenkins' piece today might even have convinced some of them that the corner has been turned. Jenkins, who back in May 2010 was sure Clegg had destroyed his party, now is full of praise:

There is no argument. The Liberal Democrats and their leader, Nick Clegg, have played a political blinder this past 18 months. They have kept a British coalition government in being against all odds, with no sign of it collapsing in the near future. Nor have the Lib Dems just sustained a regime, as they did some governments, Tory and Labour, in the 1920s and 1970s. They have palpably had a restraining influence on it. They deserve recognition at least for this.

But I wonder if that inner warmth is justified and whether it might not shade very quickly into ashes should that double dip recession roll along out of the future sometime in the new year? If that happens the government will be in a parlous position and, as Lib Dem grandee Lord Oakeshott commented, both parties will get 'slaughtered'. But besides that I didn't see any rabbits pulled out of the hat to please delegates by their ever so powerful Cabinet galacticos.

The brutal truth is that the lib Dems seem to forget at times is that they are junior partners in a coalition. The Conservatives occupy Downing St and the Treasury and have the vast majority of MPs. Lib Dems can be a 'restraining influence' as Jenkins observes but that's about it. Theirs is a moderating negative role; they cannot initiate policy on important matters but are forced to acquiesce in Tory policies. Meanwhile, Clegg's spouting contumely at Labour, especially the 'back room boy' figures of the two Eds will not assist them if they ever need to build new coalition bridges with the party of which they were once to the left.

Coalition Splits Underlie Lib Dem Conference

2011-09-19T17:40:00.003Z

Interesting fault lines are opening up in the Coalition after 18 months in power. Danny Alexander, No 2 to Chancellor George Osborne, characterised it as:

" Saving Britain from Labour's irresponsibility while saving it from reactionary Tory policies."

Hmmm. I daresay a fair bit of horse trading has gone on behind the scenes regarding what both sides can say about each pother. For the Lib Dems times are more than hard. With an ST poll rating of 9% and 47% of people who voted for it in 2010 saying they would not repeat their vote, it is not too wide of the mark to foresee total extinction as a more than remote possibility for the party. The party's president Tim Farron, tipped as the person most likely to if Clegg stands down, suggests a "divorce is inevitable in three to four years", presumably as the parties gear up for an election they will fight separately.

Others stepped in to rubbish this prediction- David laws, on PM, said Farron had made the remark with the election in mind. Jackie Ashley suggest that the government will survive as the Lib Dems have learned very quickly to love power, after being for so long on the periphery of it. Maybe, some of them think that, like the German Free Democrats- which has also shifted to the centre-right over the years, they can occupy a regular role as holder of the balance of power at election times.

But, hung parliaments have been highly unlikely in British elections and either Labour or the Tories are likely to win the 2015 election. Furthermore the Tories on the right are hell-bent on using the euro-crisis to lever Britain out of the EU altogether, a policy which will severely strain the alliance. If a double dip recession hits as well, my prediction in May 2010 that the government would fall before the end of this year, might well come true. And in those circumstances how would the Lib Dem future look? Dire indeed is the answer.

Sovereign Debt Crisis will Change Nature of EU

2011-09-17T07:47:00.003Z

Simon Jenkins seems to be rediscovering some Euroscepticism from what I can gather. Not without a splash of schadenfreude, he declares:

Europe is clearly at a turning point, turning against the single statism of the European movement, with its straitjacketed currency, its flows of economic migrants and counterflows of subsidies, its everlasting crises and its humiliation of democratic governments. It is turning back to national identity, and there is nothing the EU can do to about it.

Certainly the EU is in a crisis from which it is likely to emerge substantially altered. The three scenarios I foresee are as follows:

i) A return to independent sovereign states with their own currencies.

ii) A survival of the customs union aspect but an end to the political union objective.

iii) an increasing intensity towards economic unity within the eurozone, led by Germany, leaving a residual group of nations remaining out of the euro and completely outside any political union aspirations.

It could be that i) and ii) come about at a later stage but the one which seems most likely in the near future is iii).

As a non reconstructed liberal internationalist, I have always supported the EU- to solve the world's problems we need more unity not less- and thought it would be good to be in the euro. But when I thought it through I could never see how, when some regions in the UK would prefer a different interest rate to other regions how a single rate for the whole of Europe- which basically suited its biggest member, Germany- could ever survive any really serious crisis. Now we have that crisis and the lines of fracture are so very clear to see.

Any single currency like the euro implies a supra-national degree of discipline and direction. Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland proved not so biddable or adaptable and have precipitated a point of departure. Those who are happy to accept German direction and economic dominance, will, I guess, stay in a probably smaller euro-zone, and accept an even tighter regime of control from Brussells. The rest of the EU membership, including us, will have to make our future in the 'slower' tier of the EU, able to adjust our currency but outside the possible powerhouse of economic expansion.

Some right-wing Tories are urging Cameron to exploit the crisis as Bagehot discusses in his Economist column this week. His conclusions seem sensible, even if this gang of Tories is not:

Still, Eurosceptics are right about one big thing. Europe’s tectonic plates are moving, and Britain’s vital interests are in play. The government should plan defensively in case a moment for horse-trading arises. But it should seek a narrow, valuable and—if timed right—achievable concession. Try a protocol giving a veto over EU financial regulation to Britain (where the lion’s share of European financial business is transacted, after all). Forget blanket opt-outs that will not be granted. Europe is on fire. The moment is not golden; this is no time for glee.

Dorries to Lose Out Through Redrawn Boundaries but we'll all lose out as well

2011-09-13T17:12:00.008Z

Redrawing constuency boundaries is causing MPs no little anguish. We know the Tories will gain around 20 seats from the Boundary Commission's redrawn constiuency limits. Labour will lose around a dozen seats, redressing the inbuilt bias towards Labour within our fairly rubbish voting system (recall I was an AV man).

Labour is always going to benefit to some extent from FPTP as it takes fewer votes in Labour constituencies to elect their MPs. Tories would need a swing of maybe 5 percentage points in addition to drawing level in votes to win enough seats to manage a decent overall majority. The reason for this is that Labour areas tend to be low voting inner city areas while Conservative seats tend to be in the high voting properous suburbs where huge 'wasteful' majorities are piled up beyond what is needed just to win. The Tories will have to do a fair bit more gerrymanmdering to remove this natural advantage and I wouldn't put it past them to try. As it is this exercise will not allow thesame kind of appeal process that existed in ealier reviews.

But what worries me is that taking 50 MPs out of the Commons will save us 12m quid but will reduce still further the talent pool of MPs available to serve as ministers. When a new government comes in it usually has around 350- 400 MPs available but of this number: around a third are too old, of feeble health or mind or are just not suitable for office. In addition not all MPs want to be ministers- maybe only 60% want to bear this burden. Moreover, as time goes by and ministers are found wanting and discarded, the pool of rejects gets larger and the pool of 'availables' gets smaller.

Robbing this 'talent pool' of another 50 MPs doesn't seem like sense tome. of course the sensible thing would be to remove the convention that ministers have to sit either in the Commons or the Lords. Visitors to UK are always astounded when I explain this to them. It's not needed but we cling on to it. I fear NO government will be sensible enough to take this necessary measure.

Skipper in Paris for Weekend

2011-09-09T06:18:00.002Z

Why are the British Super-rich so Bloody Mean?

2011-09-07T09:35:00.004Z

I see Osborne has reaffirmed he won't cut taxes or reduce rate of cuts, despite the near inevitability of a double dip recession. But there is one exception: he is considering dispensing with the 50 pence in pound taxrate for those on 150K a year. 20 economists have obligingly urged him to do this, this very morning too.

I feel so impotently angry about the arguments regarding the fat cats. We are told by economists and politicians on the right that we must keep the top rate low otherwise rich folk won't live here, spend all their dosh and benefit our economy. So therefore don't whinge but celebrate the fact that Sir Philip Green has signed over nhis company to wifey whose lives in low tax Monaco so that his hugely profitable retail empire avoids the kinds of taxes the rest of us mugs have to pay.

And in addition to all this we learn that, while other super-rich people like Warren Buffet and a number of French billionaires, are asking to be taxed MORE! The excellent Bagehot in The Economist made some telling points to make on this:

THE Royal Mail is not what it was, so perhaps that joint letter from British billionaires, volunteering to pay more tax, is stuck in the post. The absence of such a letter has certainly been noted. British politicians and commentators have pointed to America, where the investor Warren Buffett has fretted about being “coddled” with low tax rates; and to France, where plutocrats last month wrote an open letter offering to pay more to the state. In a challenge to Anglo-Saxon sniffiness about tax-shy southerners, the British press even carried news of civic sacrifice from Italy, where the chairman of Ferrari, a carmaker, said those earning several million euros a year should pay a supertax. It was almost a relief when British newspapers reported that Italy’s star footballers were threatening to strike rather than pay a wealth tax

If rich people are going to leave the country should they be forced to contribute a widow's mite or two from fortunes which they have not the time to spend, should we worry overmuch? I find it hard to.

Take it as Confirmed: Gordon WasNot Fit to be Prime Minister

2011-09-05T13:46:00.003Z

When Andrew Rawnsley in early 2010 reported Gordon Brown had bullied, shouted and thrown things when angry, some added the pinch of salt appropriate for a journalist. When Mandelson said Brown was impossible we added the (slightly more) salt appropriate for him was added. Ditto for Blair himself and for Jonathan Powell, who owed natural loyalty to the object of so much Brown ire. Seldon and Lodge's superb analysis said the same things but toned them down, in keeping with a measured academic study.

Needless to say when Gordon denied all these things, backed up by his acolytes Balls and company, we either disbelieved them or were reassured our government had not been run for the past three years, and the economy for ten, by someone who might have made Adolf Hitler seem a model of pschological stability. So Alistair Darling's evidence has been awaited with great interest. He, after all, was a lifelong friend of Brown, a fellow Scot and a 'Brownite' in most senses of the term. In addition the former Chancellor is famous for understatement, for being boring even; certainly not for hyped up interpretation let alone accusations. Put it this way: I believe the man and always have; he just does not seem the kind of guy to tell lies.

So when he relates how Gordon ran a chaotic, last minute, advice of the last person administration, I tend to think he was dead right. My favourite story was the one about Gordon's speech about 'endogenous growth theory' when a hand appeared from behind a curtain and gave himthe second half of the speech which had not been finished before he started. But his furious controntations, his endless meetings when he contradicted his line in the one before, his tendency even, to throw things around when really angry- all these things bespeak a man totally unsuited to run anything substantial, let alone the fifth largest economy in the world.

Why did they not get rid of him? Well, Darling says: he was not a plotter; owed loyalty to an old friend, even if such friendship was not really reciprocated; and would never have left without a huge fight which would have ruined the party's chances of a wipe-out at the 2010 election. What I'm now dying to hear is what Gordon himself, whose ears must be scorching right now, will eventually say about this version of events, so universally confirmed by enemies,colleagues, civil servants alike. Brown is a proud man and will not be able to accpet, for instance, that it was Darling who was responsible for saving the banks in 2009, not himself.

Come off it Ed!

2011-09-02T09:25:00.003Z

So much has been written about the Blair and Brown years we almost need a special shelf in our bookcases to accommodate them. The current one up is by Alistair Darling,perhaps the only Cabinet member to acquit himself with honour during the second half of the Brown premiership. At issue, or at least one of the debates arising is the alleged decision of Brown tomove Darling in 2009 and replace him with his close confidant Ed Balls.

According to memoirs and the received wisdom at the time, Gordon was furious with Darling for describing the economic crisis as the 'worst for 60 years' when his line was to say the economy was well able to withstand any likely buffeting. He wanted to shift him to another job but Darling refused to budge, judging, rightly, that Brown lacked the political strength to sack him during such fraught times and when his own
personal stock was so low. He courageously stoodhis ground and his fellow Scot decided not to take him on.

Ed now denies he ever knew of such a plan and that he in any case opposed it. This is a problem of credibility: who would you believe first? A sober, hardworking, unrufflable Scot or a clearly ambitious master of the political black arts like Ed Balls? Nuff said.

Hypocrisy of Coalition Government

2011-08-31T11:18:00.003Z

Private Eye frequently nails topics so effectively and it's often months until the mainstream press catchup: as on PFI (see page 3 of current issue) and the hacking scandal. The satiricaljournal often descends to the sort of petty character assassination of which it accuses others but usually it's on the side of truth and decency in its news reports. The itemI'd like to quote though relates to goverment attitudes towards the bankers and rioters and the contradictory approaches taken in relation totheir misdeeds.

'Those who make the wrong decision, engage in criminality, must be identified, arrested and punished, and we will make sure of that.'

11 August. Home secretary Theresa May outlines her no nonsense approach to criminal justice.

'The United Kingdom further states that the criminal prosecution of bank employees due to participationin tax offences is highly unlikely.'

23 August. Clause in UK-Swiss tax deal agreed with CVhancellor George Osborne, proving there's one set of laws for Britain's teenage miscreants and another for bankers.

What on earth is Sally Bercow Up To?

2011-08-29T15:12:00.002Z

I really wonder what Sally Bercow is up to. This article by Carol Sarler gets to the root of the problem she poses. Doing that near naked shot in a sheet and giving the interview about how she used to binge drink and then sleep with men she picked up in bars is one thing, but appearing on a down market reality show was taking it more than a bit too far. Two reasons stand out why she should not have done all this.

Firstly she has no real accomplishment to trade in exchange for celebrity- no skill like a sportsperson or an actor-merely the fact, as Sarler points out, that she is married to someone important. Other women take this route- footballers wives, or those, like poor Jade Goody, who only notable skill was to be totally devoid of any. Surely this is not somethjing any self respecting or intelligent woman should do?

Secondly, I know she is a bit of a rebel, but does she not owe her husband some loyalty for being his partber and for being the beneficiary of the goodlife he has bestowed upon her? It is patently clear John Bercow is mortified by his wife's antics and yet she is now apparently angling to do the jungle based celebrity equivalent.

Why does he put up with it? Call me an old pub bore chauvinist but I think it's because she is very, very sexy and has given him the best sex he's ever had or, is ever likely to get. Well, what other explanation fits the facts?

Is ian Hislop to Blame for Cynicism Towards Politicians?

2011-08-27T13:59:00.003Z

Martin Kettle in today's paper, suggests cheeky chappie Ian Hislop is themost influential journalist in the country. He asks what:

is Hislop's principal message? Week in and week out, it is that most pretty much all politicians are corrupt, deluded, incompetent, second-rate and hypocritical. Hislop's message is delivered with enviable deftness and wit, and very often it is irresistible. But it is also good-naturedly merciless. And extremely repetitive. There is never any sign that Hislop allows of exceptions; or that he has a political hero; or even, with the occasional honourable mention for Vince Cable, that there are politicians whom he respects. The impression he always gives is that today's politicians are uniformly unworthy of their inheritance, not to be compared with some previous golden age of statesmanlike effectivenes.

I tend to agree with this though reject the suggestion Hislop is most to blame for this widespread attitude. Cynicism towards politicians is healthy up to a point as the alternative, naivety, can be fatal. Democracy is an imperfect system but it is a prize worth rubies compared with someof the alternatives. British politicians have shown themselves to be venal, selfish and dissembling onmany occasions but we have also produced scrupulously honest MPs and ministers who have done their best for their country.

It's all a little reminiscent of the debate provoked by John Lloyd's book, Whatthe Media are Doing to our Politics (2004) which discussed the tendency of the media as a whole, not just Ian Hislop, to demonise politicians ands propogate the idea that ll politicians are lying cheating bastards. My own experience is that most politicians enter politics with a genuine desire to make a difference and most of them maintain that desire for most of their careers. I'm thinking people like Tony Wright and Chris Mullin, (whose wonderful third volume of diariesis just out). It's the awful legacy of th likes of David Chaytor and Elliot Morley that has done so much recent damage.

The fact is politicians are not so very different from any of us-trying to do their best but vulnerable to mistakes and occasionally, to temptation too. And if wwe have no faith in them, we are voting no confidence in our society as a whole and discouraging future generations from shouldering the crucial burden of making our democracy work.

Toppling Gaddafi has- so far- been Worth the Effort

2011-08-25T08:52:00.004Z

[This post a day late as I've encountered technical problems getting access to Blogger.] I was struck yesterday by the piece by Simon Jenkins who argues the apparent 'victory' in Libya was not justified by the cost. Jenkins is a superb columnist whom I greatly respect but I fear he writes some odd columns from time to time. I recall the astonishing piece last September when he urged the abandonment of the complete defence budget.

It seems to me however that the Libyan action was fully justified. Intervening when you can, as Blair argued in his Chicago speech in 1999, must surely be justified to get rid of a murderous dictator; just as it was with Milosevic. And did we not 'intervene', too late of course, in the wholly justifiable cause of Poland in 1939?

So far it really does seem as if NATO, at Cameron and Sarkozy's prompting, has succeeded in getting rid of Gaddafi but the crucial period in the operation is now, according to Allegra Stratton in today's Guardian. She makes clear how central to the Libyan episode Ed Llewellyn, Cameron's chief of staff has been. He used to work for Paddy Ashdown in Bosnia and is well aware of the danger of allowing lawlessness to take hold once the fighting is over. As long as the post conflict phase is managed properly, I think Libya will go down as a good example of assisting an oppressed people to be free. It was a gamble for Cameron but, with good political management from now on, it should now come off and buttress his claim to re-election when he faces accountability in 2015.

Blair-Cameron Argument Not Really an Argument

2011-08-22T09:55:00.005Z

Seems to me the debate between Cameron and his role model, Blair, is a bit silly as both analyses are correct. Cameron says in The Sunday Express:

"The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere, there are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else."

Of course it's easy to take the 'moral crusade' line when you don't want to spend any more money. One is reminded of the old saw, 'Fine words butter no parsnips'. Blair on the other hand argues that this 'trashes our reputation abroad':

ritain, as a whole, is not in the grip of some general 'moral decline'," Blair wrote. Young people now were generally more respectable, more responsible and more hard-working than they were when he was young, he said.

"Instead, the rioting was mainly caused by "the group of young, alienated, disaffected youth who are outside the social mainstream and who live in a culture at odds with any canons of proper behaviour". Blair said that his government developed specific policies to deal with these people and that they required intervention "literally family by family and at an early stage, even before any criminality had occurred".

Well, it seems obvious to me that both approaches are correct and necessary, but the most sensible one, likely to deliver results, is the Blair analysis. I heard a columnist, Jo Phillips, rubbish Blair's intervention as 'all about me, me, me.' which I think is unfair. Blair was very concerned about about anti-social behaviour and it's natural he should want to say something about it after the riots. In any case Cameron had already pledged to use intervention to 'improve the lives of 120,000 problem families by 2015.

Another shrewd analysis is offered by Jackie Ashley today when she wonders if the riots have not pushed a natural middle roader, like Cameron, into a more Thatcherite direction? She cites a 'triple whammy' attack upon social stability:

"There is a squeeze and a crack-down on the poorest – many, I admit, now culturally hostile to work and social order. Meanwhile, we are cutting government spending radically, and at the same time we face economic stagnation. This is an awesome triple whammy. It has an ugly potential to further divide us, and it is going to dominate the rest of the life of the coalition."

Real Cause of Social Unrest To Be Found In Early Stage Development

2011-08-20T10:01:00.004Z

Rightwing columnists have had a field day during the riots. Melanie Phillips opines, that 'most of the' rioters were products of single mother parents. Max Hastings that 'they are essentially wild beasts' while the tender hearted Richard Littlejohn wanted to know why the police were not 'clubbing these looters like baby seals.' I agree the looters shamed the nation but I think these columnists shamed it just as much. Closer to the truth and the key area of concern was Anushka Asthana in The Times yesterday.

Her view is that we are likely to suffer riots every decade or so as the children of former rioters hit the streets; its a 'cycle of deprivation and dysfunction.' And so much of it begins when the mind is not fully sentient but when the human state is just a mass of feelings and impressions. Even after 22 months the life chances of deprived children begin to decline compared with middle class ones whose toddlers are exposed to four times the number of words as their poorer counterparts. Professor Melhuish of Birkbeck College reports that whether or not parents spend time with their babies or not- reading stories, singing songs- has a 'huge impact on their adult lives'.

Ashtana reports on programmes piloted in Washington involving early stage intervention which have saved huge expenditure in likely costs later on. The return on such programmes as Sure Start and Family Nurse Partnerships in Nottingham (providing one on one intensive support for single mothers from the moment they become pregnant) is startlingly cost-effective. Local MP Graham Allen claims the latter city spent £700,000 on FNP services to 250 mothers, the same cost as placing three 16 year olds in a secure unit for a year.

Treating the symptoms when outbreaks of disorder occur is not substitute for aiming at the causes. That has always been the difference between right and left approaches to social policy and, despite the Lib Dems presence in government, I have no confidence this basically right-wing outfit will do anything different.

At Last, the Smoking Gun Does for the Murdochs

2011-08-17T09:31:00.003Z

Well, we all knew the truth but we couldn't prove it, until now. The 2007 letter from Clive Goodman to News of the World executives appealing against his dismissal makes it clear: he hacked phones with the approval of senior executives; the person who p[aid Glen Mulcaire is named- though redacted for the time being; he was promised his job back after serving his time as long as he kept his mouth shut. No more incrimninating piece of evidence could have been unearthed as a result of the select committee's digging, for which this investigation is a triumph.

Brian Cathcart, professor of journalism at Kingston University picks out the bones of the latest revelation, predicting James Murdoch cannot survive it and pointing out:

As for James Murdoch, he is haunted now by 10 words he uttered to MPs, which he will now have to defend: "No, I was not aware of that at the time. He was telling Watson he was unaware of the famous "for Neville" email at the time he authorised a half-million-plus payment to Gordon Taylor in 2008 to withdraw his legal case about hacking and remain silent. That email offered – on any normal reading – firm evidence that Goodman had not been the only News of the World reporter involved in illegal hacking.

Almost certainly, some of these once limo transported executives will be contemplating terms in the slammer, both for their law-breaking, and, as is so often the case, for their subsequent incompetent cover- ups.

Inequality at Root of Rioting Tendency

2011-08-14T16:56:00.003Z

There is much discussion about the cause of the riots. Rightwing analyses focus on the 'criminality' and dismiss there might be any mitigating context in which such terrible crimes could be committed. Gaby Hinsliff points out that Britain is far from 'broken':

It's a country where people are living longer and feeling healthier, where household wealth doubled between 1987 and 2009; crime is at a historic low, divorce rates falling, abortion rates, too.

Yet we cannot explain what has happened in our inner cities and Tory MPs are slavering for a tough response to exact revenge on a collection of 'feral rats' as the rioters were characterised; round them up in Wembley Stadium was one, chuck them out of their council flats was another or stop their benefits. Yet none of these public spirited rightwingers care to mention the widespread looting of the economy which was conducted by the bankers causing the recession after 2008 or the expenses fiddling by MPs either. Peter Oborne provides a timely reminder of this fact for his rightwing audience when he points out that the moral decay is just as bad at the top of society as at the botton At least some of the latter have been banged up; not one banker has paid any price as yet, and Sir Fred Goodwin, emerged more or less unscathed.

Now if you are an ill educsted unemployed youth from a broken home-i.e. classic underclass- and you daily see images broadcast to you of such felonies occurring with no penalties paid together with a flood of images of all the things which are deemed essential by young people- designer clothes and trainers, mobile phones-then I think I can almost begin to understand the mindset of some of them. It doesn't justify violent rioting and pillaging, but it does enable us to get closer to the context in which these events took place.

The Observer editorial called for 'a new ethic of responsibility', a kind of moral renaissance to recover from the depths to which we recently sunk. I'm sure this is necessary but who knows how to achieve this? Exhortation won't do it and our political elite is too complicit in the system to effect the wholesale restructuring of society that the newspaper reckons is required:

Blaming a "mindless minority" of thugs for scenes that shocked the world and confounded our idea of what England is and how it works is not good enough. The looters and arsonists must be charged and convicted. But we must resist any attempt to create an enemy within dealt with by a more politicised police force. Instead the rest of us must attempt to make sure that never again will people feel such contempt for the communities they live in. In the battle to restore England's tattered social fabric, we really are all in it together.

Why Our Young People Riot

2011-08-11T15:48:00.005Z

'There exists in Britain an underclass which does not exist anywhere in Europe. White, little educated, without any means of social evolution, they are a perfect example of the results of Anglo-Saxon capitalism and its dehumanizing programme. The English perversion is to make this population proud of their misery and their ignorance.' [ confession: didn't translate- was quoted in Guardian yesterday].

I reread it and realised I more or less agree with it. You can't say our economic system has a 'programme' per se, but it has a series of virtually predictable consequences. You can't say our underclass is proud of its 'misery' but my brief experiences in secondary school teaching suggest to me a fair proportion of kids at least affect to despise study; e.g sabotaging attempts by the rest of the class to study and comments like: 'I don't want to end up as a geek'.

But it's true that Germany, France, Italy and Spain, not to mention Scandinavian countries, appear not to have any comparable almost immovable mass of a working class seemingly indifferent to education and training containing a substantial sliver unafraid to transgress the law or wider rules of social behaviour.

Having watched the debate today I think Cameron did well, as he usually does on these set piece occasions. The worst of the rioting appears to be over now that London has been calmed and Dave is well placed to claim he has been the b ringer of peace, law and order. The real problems will soon be forgotten, mores the pity, until the next outbreak of rioting.

I Fear This Could Be Just the Start of It

2011-08-08T16:07:00.002Z

'The riot was a symptom of there being something really wrong with our society. We smashed our own community up, we destroyed our own homes. There had to be something wrong.'

Comment from one Leroy Cooper. A Tottenham rioter? No, he was involved in the 1981 Toxteth riots which moved Michael Heseltine to submit that paper to the Cabinet suggesting special funds to develop inner city Liverpool.

Writing today's Guardian Dave Hill reckons similar explosions could easily happen in a dozen other London boroughs. High youth unemployment, particularly within ethnic minorities, declining youth services and a dearth of new vacancies characterise many areas of the capital, and for that matter, other big cities like Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.

Given this 'tinderbox' quality it does not need much, as we saw back in the early 1980s for it all to kick off. It seems groups of disaffected youth are just a twitter message away from filling up their milk bottles with petrol, grabbing a baseball bat and a supermarket trolley and heading off to the latest trouble spot to harass the police and loot a few shops. And the recent cuts by the Coalition government are only just beginning to bite; when they do I fear we can expect nights like those over the weekend to become commonplace.

Why Do We Respect the Ratings Agencies?

2011-08-07T10:36:00.004Z

Will the world economy be likely to assist recovery of the UK economy? Well, there is quite a bit of slack to make up. Our economy shrank by 6.4% from January 2008 and December 2009. Since then it has managed just 2.2%. Whilst Germany's economy and even the faltering US one have recovered to 2008 levels, we are still languishing at 4% behind that benchmark.

And ONS figures show we are now flat-lining, teetering on the brink of the dreaded double dip. Unfortunately, while sterling has fallen by 25% in value, the markets we usually serve, rich developed ones, are struggling, making our plight even worse. And on top of that we see the euro-zone crisis, locked in indecision at government level, and the loss by the USA of its triple A credit rating. So I was struck by the piece by Mehdi Hasan who questions why we should be in such thrall to these self appointed, non accountable credit agencies.

In recent weeks, we have witnessed elected leaders in the world's most powerful nation dancing to the tune of David Beers. He's the moustachioed, chain-smoking head of sovereign credit ratings for S&P, the largest and arguably most influential member of the big three. "You may have never heard of David Beers but every finance minister in the world knows of him," noted Reuters in a recent – and rare – profile of the analyst, who doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. It is Beers who recently downgraded Greece's credit rating to near-junk status, thereby making the EU's proposed rescue plan much more difficult. And it is Beers who now demands the US reduce its long-term budget deficit by $4tn – rather than the congressionally approved $2.4tn – and threatens to impose the first-ever US government downgrade, from AAA to AA. It isn't just the Tea Party holding the US to ransom.

He argues that national economies should ignore these bodies, who, after all, did much to cause the 2008 crisis by giving their coveted triple A rating to all those derivatives which proved so worthless and highly toxic. Hear, hear.

Where is Gordon When We Need Him?

2011-08-05T11:57:00.003Z

Anyone who has read this blog in the past two or three years will know I'm no fan of Gordon Broon. The book of his time in power by Lodge and Seldon- Brown at Number 10- did a little to ameliorate my view though the current one by Jonathan Powell -The New Machiavelli- is brutally critical of the former Chancellor and PM. Yet maybe such criticism ignores his greatest contribution to British and world politics?

Every economist and columnist seems to be saying in respect of the current crisis that the banks are in much better shape for this one but we are still teetering on the edge of the precipice because of the total lack of political leadership offered by EU leaders and by Obama who is seen as having mishandled his own debt problem.
Maybe this is all fair comment but it cannot be denied that in autumn 2008, it was Brown, who, suddenly shedding his characteristic caution, boldly provided the lead which other countries followed.

And finally, I am very sympathetic to politicians who often work 18 hour days, who choose to take proper holidays in the summer- its good for them, their families, and ultimately the county itself. But for Cameron and Osborne both to be away at this time of peril is not good politics at all.

Why Can't Governments do IT?

2011-08-03T18:21:00.002Z

The NHS IT scandal is one which never fails tom take away one's breath. The idea was to create a nationwide system of computerised records for the 55 million NHS patients. According to the Public Accounts Committee, the project, despite costing nearly £12bn and already nine years in, is 'unable to demonstrate' any benefit to the taxpayer.

It seems shed-loads of cash were spent on consultants. Apart from straightforward incompetence BT, one of the contractors involved was selling systems to NHS sites for £9m while hospitals were receiving the same kit for only £2m.

It's so strange as when I visit my GP he is able to check my records- formerly contained in a fat buff envelope- on his computer screen; so why can't all these GP systems be linked up? Moreover, when a huge store like Tesco can track tins how many tins of salmon are held in stores in Edinburgh or Manchester, why on earth can't a hugely funded national system of patient records be constructed? One of the reasons i never supported an identity cards system was because I feared a similar humungous cock-up would be made of the related IT systems.

Oh Boy! Rightwinger's Damascene Conversion?

2011-08-01T14:18:00.004Z

I was so gobsmackingly delighted to read this quotation today by super dry Tory Charles Moore in a Guardian piece entitled, astonishingly, 'I am beginning to think the left might be right':

"The rich run a global system that allows them to accumulate capital and pay the lowest possible price for labour. The freedom that results applies only to them. The many simply have to work harder, in conditions that grow ever more insecure, to enrich the few."

Well, it's what always has seemed the case to me Charles and I can only applaud the fact you've at last seen the light. I would also hope that Moore opposes the suggestion by George Osborne that the 50p tax rate on those earning over £150K a year should be abolished as the ST leader demanded yesterday. Danny Alexander has rightly called this idea 'cuckoo':

The idea that we're going to somehow shift our focus to the wealthiest in the country at a time when everyone's under pressure is just in cloud cuckoo land," the chief secretary to the Treasury told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1.

Vince cable, weighed in reinforcingly:

Cable told the Independent on Sunday: "It would be politically inconceivable for government to take some of the tax pressure off high earners at a time when people on low pay are suffering public sector pay restraint and cuts in real incomes because of high commodity prices."

Media Barons' Infuence is Much Exaggerated

2011-07-29T17:41:00.004Z

Journalist and pollster, Peter Kellner, in the August edition of Prospect Magazine, argues something I have long debated with students and colleagues: that the power of media barons is usually exaggerated. He suggests we see them as scary monsters, the influence of which can actually be just shrugged away. He homes in on the definitive example always quoted: 'It's the Sun Wot Won it', the tabloid's headline in the wake of the 1992 election victory which many thought Kinnock would win but which it is believed was denied him by the impact of The Sun. Many thought this clear evidence that you needed Murdoch's support to win a modern election in the UK.

He quotes the study by Heath, Jowell, and Curtice, Labour's |Last Chance? This study re-interviewed in 1992 a survey panel first interviewed after the 1987 election.

'The date showed that the shift of attitudes between 1987 and 1992 among readers of The Sun and other pro Tory tabloids was much the same as among the rest of of the electorate. In both groups Labour's support rose by four percentage points. The study compiled a composite approval index for each leader, on a scale of 0 to 4. Among the electorate as a whole, Kinnock's rating slipped from 2.4 to 2.3 in 1992. It was lower among readers of the Tory tabloids, 1'9 in both elections- but no sign of decline between the two elections. The authors concluded:

'Neither The Sun nor any other Conservative tabloid newspapers were responsible for the John Major's unexpected victory.'

Cricket Still the Gentleman's Game

2011-07-27T16:42:00.002Z

As a fanatical fan of our summer game, despite the frequent dearth of summer weather, I have to insert a little encomium for its superior virtues in the wake of a worthy victory. Superior to what? Well, to soccer for a start. Having been finding sports pages filled with transfer news and gossip about managers all through the close season and now with the football season spilling even more voraciously into cricket's shrinking space in the national focus, I have to confess to a profound sense of depression. Who cares about these overpaid, and in England's case, second rate 'superstars'? I feel sick to my stomach when seeing these immature young narcissists cavort when scoring or mime fatal injury when pushed over just a tiny bit roughly.

OK cricket can be a bit boring at times and its major stars can irritate too, even in some cases, be capable of cheating or match fixing, though not in England's case to our knowledge. But the wonderful victory of our side over the super strong Indian team was something to relish and be proud of. It was a magnificent display of perseverance and perfect application of sporting skill. If only our soccer team could have shown some of this composure and quality in South Africa.

And there's another thing, hugely important: the spirit in which the game is played. As a young trainee sportsman in school I was taught that you should always show politeness and respect to one's opponents, however much one might fulminate against them off the field. This doesn't always hold good in cricket but the game is still a universe away from the squalid pettiness of soccer. I recall when Shane Warne, someone we England fans had cause to hate for his brilliance and Aussie chutzpah, took his 600t wicket in Test cricket. Without hesitation, everyone at Old Trafford rose to their feet and cheered the great player that he is.

And this is from the article by Vic Marks in last Sunday's Observer:

'They(the crowd) stood and applauded as one... to greet Sachin Tendulkar. Does Ryan Giggs get this sort of welcome at Eastlands or Wayne Rooney at Anfield'?

I rest my case.

Why Are Tabloids So Popular?

2011-07-24T11:44:00.003Z

Nick Cohen writes an interesting piece today about popular newspapers.

'It's hard to think the British are intrinsically decent people when you go through the back issues of the newspaper the British enjoyed reading most....Instead of exposing the abuse of power, it routinely humiliated and taunted its targets because of their sex lives. Far from throwing the paper aside in disgust, the News of the World's audience wanted more of the same.

How do we explain this phenomenon? Cohen goes on to glean arguments in favour of the 'decency' argument: Gordon and Sarah Brown 'hated having to deal with the likes of Murdoch'; Samantha Cameron would not have Coulson in her home 'on the sensible grounds he was a worthless man'. He seems to conclude that the basic decency of the British public has ultimately brought shown that 'appeasing the vicious popular culture conglomerates leads to disgrace and possible imprisonment'.

Hmmm. I wonder. Is it not part of human nature to take a mordant interest in someone else's misfortune? Don't we all indulge in gossip to some extent? What is happening to those friends we met last week who are getting divorced? or Have you Heard Jenny and Joe's son has just come out? Surely we are a protean mixture of good and bad impulses and prey to the attractions of things which often make us feel more than a little guilty? I freely admit to having read the News of the Screws from time to time and even the Daily Mail too, out of an interest which I'd find difficulty in defending.

Even if Murdoch, deservedly, goes down in flames, new purveyors to the public appetite for smut and brutal schadenfreude will step forward to take his place and, indeed, they may prove to be even worse. Murdoch, at least, can arguably be said to have saved the Times and the ST from closing and, through outfacing the print unions, breathed years more life into print journalism. What is required, I reckon, is a tightening up of the law as to what scandal sheets can legitimately publish. Nick is right that fear of 'disgrace and possible imprisonment' is a better safeguard than all that spurious guff about the 'public interest' and censorship.

Osborne Green Lights Two Tier Europe

2011-07-22T11:18:00.006Z

We have been so entranced by the phone hacking affair that we have so some extent lost sight of the crisis over the euro. Not so Simon Jenkins whose striking piece today suggests a great turning point in Europe's history may have occurred. It always seemed to me a huge gamble that all EU members could be well served by a common currency. Given the great regional variety of European economies, both in terms of development and productivity a 'one size fits all interest rate' always seemed a dubious concept. For example, it could surely not help an economy with incipient inflation, nor those in need of reflation?

Some discussion has suggested that the euro-zone either has to relax controls to recreate something like pre-euro conditions, or to tighten controls to advance monetary, and by implication, political union. A compromise suggestion is to allow the 17 strong euro-zone to proceed at its own speed, enabling a 'slower' EU tier to remain outside. In the past Britain has spurned such an idea but, surprisingly, Osborne has apparently embraced it, as 'Bagehot' on The Economist's website reports his interview in the FT^:

Thanks to a great scoop by George Parker of the FT, it is clear the government now believes the following: (a) a big leap towards fiscal union is the only way of saving the single currency, (b) Britain has a strong interest in the survival of the single currency, (c) Britain must play no part in bailing out the single currency and will stand aloof from fiscal integration, thus (d) our national interest now lies in allowing Europe to divide into markedly different zones of integration, with us on the outside.

Here's the key passage from the interview:

"George Osborne says the “remorseless logic” of monetary union takes the single currency members in the direction of greater fiscal union, even if that did not necessarily mean having a single European budget or a single EU finance minister.

I think we have to accept that greater eurozone integration is necessary to make the single currency work and that is very much in our national interest,” he says. “We should be prepared to let that happen.”

Mr Osborne admits this flies in the face of traditional British policy, which has always suspected such a union as being the precursor of an elite group of EU members, which would ultimately dictate policy to those on the outside.

The chancellor seems more relaxed about that possibility, but insists that key decisions must still be taken at the level of all 27 member states, not least on matters affecting the single market.

If this happens, Jenkins thinks the end of the EU project might not be too far away. I can see that it would create a bloc dominated by the German economy and its related policies. This might presage the emergence of a 21st century Zollverein which itself opened the door to a united Germany. Or it could see nationalist resistance to such an outcome splinter what has been achieved since 1945. Either way, it's a huge gamble, but one Osborne now thinks less risky than allowing the weaker economies to default on their dents and possibly, in consequence, lay waste to the constituent economies of Europe.

Two Angles on Phone Hacking Scandal

2011-07-20T15:58:00.002Z

My first angle is to do with the vexed question of Dave's judgement. He said today that with the benefit of hindsight he would not have appointed Andy Coulson as his Press Secretary. Debate over? Not really, as Ed Miliband insisted. It is clear he was offered advice by a legion of people from Paddy Ashdown and Gordon Brown to Nick Clegg and John Yates
; in each case the advice was ignored. Judgement in such cases is crucial. If several reports suggest your house foundations are dodgy and you ignore them then you are culpable if your house falls down. And metaphorically at least, part of his has fallen down.

David Mellor, who should know a thing or two about poor judgement, said this morning on BBC news that Cameron should have heeded the warnings and not have stood aside as if the very act of being informed would 'compromise' him. He was being warned about something which could badly damage his government, not to mention the media and the standing of public servants including MPs and the police. Cameron's judgement is under attack here and his standing has been damaged, despite his robust display in the Commons today.

My second angle concerns Rupert Murdoch's wife, Wendi Deng. Her action woman response to the threat to her aged spouse has thrust her into the news and we have been served up with aspects of her biography which, in other circumstances would make any tabloid hack's writing fingers itch to scribble down the dirt. This
article explains how she was perceived by friends and enemies alike as extremely ambitious for self advancement. An American couple, the Cherrys helped her leave her humble background in China to settle in the USA and for a while gave her accommodation until Mrs Cherry discovered hubby was having an affair with the pneumatic former volleyball star. She was chucked out but soon married Cherry in February 199o; however, four months later she left because Cherry discovered she was seeing a guy called David Wolf. The linked article claims Rupert was unaware of Wendi's back story and was shocked when he discovered it.

Later on still, Deng met Murdoch at a function in Hongkong and soon was working for Star Television and being seen at Murdoch's side. Most Murdoch watchers agree she has acted like an elixir to him, rejuvenating the aging mogul's attitude to life and, if evidence were needed, bearing him two children. Her so-called 'Charlie's Angel' moment in attacking her husband's attacker yesterday reveals the unusual qualities of a highly unusual but extremely determined young woman.

Picture Saying a Thousand Words

2011-07-18T06:10:00.005Z

I thought this cartoon wonderful. Not surprisingly as I think Riddell by far the cleverest cartoonist, both for his comment and artistry.

By way of preparing us for tomorrow's Select Committee hearing for Murdoch pere est fils plus Rebbekah, see this. And even better, see this by Nick Davies who must surely at this moment be the UK answer to Bob Woodward.

After 12 hours of questioning last night before being bailed, Brooks will be well fed up of questions by Tuesday evening.

Over Hyped or a 'Revolution'?

2011-07-16T07:59:00.002Z

Returning from the intense humidity of Hongkong on Thursday, I felt a similar but different intensity in our political life. In a good article today Jonathan Freedland suggests we are in the middle of a 'very British revolution'. This contrasts with Mathew Parris, last Saturday in The Times, that it's all been overdone: newspapers have always paid money to acquire stories and used any number of devious tricks, including spying, to do the same thing. He concluded the fuss was 'hugely overblown'.

Well, I'm not so sure about either analysis. If it is a 'revolution', it's nothing like the Romanian one with which Freedland seeks to compare it. The power structure of UK remains intact and, as Freedland himself fears, despite the present furore, no real change might ensue, as in the case of MP's expenses and the shaming of the banker's. What seems to have been overthrown, rather, is a two decade near hegemony of press influence by one organisation, extending to incestuous social links between the topmost tiers of News International personnel and the British political system.

During the 1980s The Sun became a potent force and in 1992 dared to claim it was The Sun 'wot won' the 1992 election. Its huge readership and desperate, underhand methods made it almost immune from criticism as even MPs feared being 'monstered' by the 'Currant Bun'. Murdoch wielded so much power over Labour, after drawing it into its embrace in 1997, that one of Blair's aides reckoned Rupert was a 'shadow' member of the Cabinet, exercising direct influence over policies relating, especially to the EU and media ownership and control. Thank heaven this last might, just, be on the way to being swept away and even his interests in the US might come under severe attack. But is this a 'revolution'? Not really, it's more like a minor earthquake, an adjustment of tectonic plates.

Has it been 'hugely overblown'? Well, maybe, but there is a huge difference between suspected wrongdoing and being caught in the act. We all knew Murdoch's papers were ruthless in pursuit of a story and suspected laws might be being broken. But the hall mark of power is its ability to deflect, obfuscate and emerge unscathed. Nick Davies in The Guardian had been banging on about NI phone hacking for ages before anyone listened and they only did so once it was revealed the hackers have overstepped the mark by illegally hacking into the phones of ordinary people as opposed to celebrities. For once a shadowy but potent behind the scenes operation has been found out. Coulson will probably do time, just as Aitken and Archer did.

I agree with Freedland that, while everyone is furious now and calling for more heads to roll but we might well be close to the end of it. Murdoch has been humbled, forced to apologise and appear before a select committee against his will (and doesn't he look so vulnerable with his bald pate and black hole of a mouth?). Now that so many senior figures have gone, it could be the scandal will die down. It will all depend, I suspect, on what will happen at the committee hearings next week. Murdoch will be desperate to calm the atmosphere and get back tom making money as well as repairing his channels of influence. But having arrived back in UK in the middle of the scandal, I just hope the entertainment can continue for another few days at least...

Oh Boy! A Day to Remember

2011-07-10T04:31:00.002Z

When I was in a pub quiz,here in Hongkongacouple of days ago, the news came through that the News of the World had been closed down. There was instantly riotous celebration in the bar, peopled by Aussies, Yanks, Kiwis as well as Brits and a few baffled Hongkoners. We had a few more drinks on that one, you may be sure.

I don't get regular news from HK down here but one or two summaries have got through,including reactions of UK press. I note the Daily Mail has criticised Cameron's intention to investigate more widely media practices. Its editorial says:

"it's a 'dark day for the Conservative party, when its leader, in a bid to save his own skin,advocates the muzzling of a free press'.

It goes on to point out that it was a newspaper, The Guardian, which persisted with its investigation, [amid widespread press complacency,including from the Mail it neglects to point out]. I'm glad even the Mail, has now decided to back the premier UK newspaper's principled stand.

I was able, via my friend Roy, to access Steve Coogan's spiffing demolition of a N o W jobsworth on Newsnight recently. Do take a peek. It is so sweet to see those goitre eyed, knee-jerk Tories who dismissed this a 'reheated' story as irrelevant and transient when it has gone on to shake the government to its foundations. No doubt the awful News International will do something similar with the Sunday Sun but for the time being, it's still celebration time that an 'evil empire' has received a direct hit. Let's hope it continues to unravel.

Skipper in Hongkong for Couple Weeks

2011-06-30T11:24:00.002Z

Yes, off to stay with my old friend Paul in his place of employment: Hongkong. Also will be visiting University Politics Department to see if we can establish a good connection.

Before the taxi whisks me off to the ordeal of long haul flying (not a good flyer), I do have two points to make about politics:

1. Seems clear to me Ed Miliband has thought long and hard about whether to support the unions' strike action and has judged public opinion will not support their action. He's also laying down a Blair-like marker that he won't pander to the unions; a risky strategy as they provide funding form his bankrupt party.

2. Interesting piece by Allegra Stratton today in which she suggests Tory backwoodsmen are muttering darkly about Cameron having effectively abandoned his reform programme, opting instead for safety first and survival.

Martin Bell's Killer Facts on Postwar Suicides

2011-06-28T17:03:00.003Z

Went to see Martin Bell give a lecture at the Imperial War Museum North last night. His lecture, Death of the News, was a bit of a rambling, self indulgent affair but, given Bell's qualities as a communicator, it was well worth listening to. Two facts from it I'll never forget, they were like a slap in the face. Speaking of the cost of war, Bell pointed out that while the Falklands war coast only 256 service-men's lives, since then 569 former soldiers have taken their own lives. Bell also cited suicide rates among US Vietnam veterans; while half a million died, he claimed, unless I heard him wrongly, that twice that number have committed suicide.

I have done a limited web search on the topic and while it's still clear there is an acute problem, I'm not sure I can believe the horrific figure I thought I heard. Bell pointed out that in a few years time psychologists predict a bitter harvest from the Iraq and Afghan wars. A sobering and grim point about war which so many overlook. I wonder if the close involvement of civilian and children's deaths in modern, post imperial wars warfare, is a connection with this appalling wastage rate of ruined young lives.

On a slightly less sombre note, though an equal slap in the face, was supplied by the two guys to my left in the audience. I only mention their absurdity as I have never encountered it anywhere else in the whole of my life. I went to the lecture along with a journalist colleague who wanted to write an online article on Bell's lecture. She found a piece of paper on her chair and used it to record some notes, True, her paper did emit a certain crackle but not to any excessive degree I would maintain.

Suddenly the guy to the left of my colleague snatched up her paper and dramatically threw it on the floor. When she tried to retrieve it, he placed his foot on it so she could not. When I remonstrated with him after the lecture they both claimed the rustling paper was so loud they 'could not hear the lecture!' Such a claim, absurd in itself as Bell was using a microphone, was deemed justification for what in law, I guess, amounted to an assault and theft. As a teacher I want every audience member to take notes- some undergraduates don't bother, so I was a bit outraged by this inexplicable act. I advised them both to take course in anger management but my companion was furious at the sheer hooligan behaviour of apparently respectable people.

How Much Longer Can George Ignore the Signs?

2011-06-27T14:03:00.004Z

Larry Elliott today rehearses a by now familiar refrain regarding the inevitability of the Coalition's U turn over deficit reduction. He points out we have seen them over: the sale of forests; reform of the NHS; and reduced sentences for guilty pleas. But it's not just a Guardian columnist saying this.

Paul Johnson, Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) is saying something very similar in the current issue of Prospect. Elliott flags up the recent shocks to the economy: bursting of the private sector bubble; seizing up of the financial sector making it paranoid about lending; and the rapid rise in commodity prices which has fuelled a very unhealthy inflation. With banks and companies seeking to clear up their debts and individuals paying off their mortgages, there is no money left to invest and grow the economy.

So we see a bank rate of 0.5% having little or no effect on house sales- such a rate in theory is tailor made for one- and with consumers saving there is precious little being bought on the High St. Back in May 2010 the economy was still growing as a result off Labour's final bits of stimulation. Next came growth of 0.7 in the third quarter but then growth has been zero ever since with no sign of it recovering.

How much longer can Osborne manage to ignore signs which anyone who had read page one of 'How to Learn Economics' would recognise? The problem is that this is the U turn which dare not speak its name. It would not be called a U turn but would be instantly called one and Cameron's credibility, Osborne's and the Coalition's would be perhaps fatally wounded, leading possibly to the end of the government by this time next year.

We Can't All Own a House at These Prices

2011-06-23T17:59:00.003Z

I make n o excuses for reaching back for a topic to earlier this month when Andrew Rawnsley addressed the subject of housing. He referred to Thatcher as the champion of the so-called 'property-owning democracy' with her astonishingly successful 'right to buy' policy of selling council houses to tenants. Rawnsley notes the policy was designed to convert anyone who gained possession of property into a likely Conservative in spirit and deed. At the time Labour sought to rubbish the idea- what's wrong with renting a council house? they asked. But this didn't work and very soon they were on board too, selling council houses and urging the acquisition of property as a good thing.

I don't know a Labour supporter who did not want to own they own home, to avoid paying rent to parasitic landlords and to acquire an asset to be traded up, maybe cashed in though downsizing, when the kids leave home and, finally, passed on to them in the will. And for a while it worked well. I was able to buy houses in the seventies, initially for £4K, then £9K(about twice my then academic salary) and finally £28.5K in the 1980s; this was a stretch but just about doable. It was even tougher when the mortgage rate swung up to 15% and we had to take in student lodgers for a while. Left of centre folk saw property as the big dividing line in society:

The haves do; the have-nots don't. Once the mortgage is paid off, the haves possess a store of wealth and an inheritance for their offspring. The have-nots have nothing to show for a lifetime of paying rent and zip to leave to their children. By the end of New Labour's time in office, it had not only embraced the property-owning democracy, it had even set a target for it. Property was not theft – it was aspiration.

The consolation for paying high interest rates was that a nest-egg was accumulating, and faster than any pension fund. But at least high interest rates kept prices reasonably low for first tie buyers. Given supply and demand, falling rates at first boosted sales to young buyers but easy capital pushed up prices into a boom on more than one occasion. Rawnsley notes that:

A ghastly feature of each boom was the sound of middle-class home-owners smugly congratulating themselves on how much their houses were soaring in value as if this was testimony to their brilliant judgment rather than the simple good luck of surfing an asset bubble.

The backlash, of course, was that once prices rose high enough, 125% mortgages at six times salary were required to buy even an average priced house. Not such a problem when the banks were awash with credit but after the crunch, banks swung to the other extreme and home loans dried up. First time buyers now need a deposit of (usually) a quarter of the asking price and few youngsters can afford that. The average age of first time buyers has risen from 25 in the 1980s to 37 in 2011. It is still climbing.

The heart of the problem is that while 250 000 new households come on stream every year, only 100,000 houses are being built. Increase the number of new-builds, whether council or private sale, and prices will come down. In 1953 Harold Macmillan, as Housing minister established his reputation for rapid promotion by building 300,000 houses in one year. The present incumbent, Grant Schapps, seems an especially plausibly smooth young Tory but, I wonder, why doesn't some ambitious young tyro set about achieving a similar target and do everyone a favour?

Most Recent Poll Gloomy for all Parties

2011-06-21T17:21:00.003Z

The Guardian's latest poll is pretty bad news for all three major parties. On the face of it Labour might disagree- two points up they now lead the Tories by the same margin. But as the paper's editorial points out Ed Miliband's personal ratings are deeply depressing for him and his party:

Only 28% of all voters, and just 45% of Labour supporters, think Miliband is doing a good job. His net negative is -21, down eight points since March. His rating is one point worse than Clegg's and 16 points worse than Cameron's. The Labour leader seems notably unpopular among older voters and men. His popularity ratings now resemble those of Iain Duncan Smith when he was leader of the opposition, and Miliband's rating is notably worse than those of William Hague or Michael Howard as opposition leaders.

Moreover, while 40% support the Coalition's economic policies are best, only 28% think the same of Labour's. This poll defines the huge mountain Miliband has to climb to raise himself from the miserable comparisons being made with the younger Hague's period as Leader of the Opposition not to mention that of IDS.

But that does not mean the Coalition can hug itself with glee at the results. 42% say Cameron is doing a 'good' job but now 47% say he is not, plunging him into 'negative' territory for the first time. His close friend George Osborne fares even worse; his -2 rating for m arch has shot up- sorry I mean down- to-12. As for poor Nick Clegg?

The deputy prime minister has fallen less fast, but only because he was already at rock bottom. His score is -20%, down two on March, with 54% saying he is doing a bad job, including 55% of people who voted Lib Dem in the general election.

While the government might breathe a sigh of relief that it bests Labour on the economy, 53% say they are 'not confident' about their financial situation, only 46% say they are, with Tory voters twice as confident as Labour ones. Labour, however, can take comfort in their leads of 7% and 5% respectively on their 'banker' issue of health and education.

Should the Lords be Elected?

2011-06-19T10:57:00.005Z

Plans to reform the Lords are still a little vague. Clagg, still smarting from his AV debacle, hopes to garner some credit from this next constitutional foray, but it is by no means certain. The essence of the proposals is to maintain the same functions- debate, revision amendment- but to elect a 300 strong house for 15 year terms by PR. A variation of that, which now seems to be government policy is that 80% should be elected with the remainder appointed. Apart from the anomaly re PR- if one chamber why not the other?- these proposals have been severely criticised.

Lord Strathclyde, who appeared with Andrew Marr this morning, once opposed an elected House but is now in favour, arguing it will strengthen both democracy and the House itself. He hopes the first new members will be elected in 2015- Marr was sceptical. The opposition is indeed fierce. Root and branch reformers, claims new-boy Peter Hennessy:

believe that, if everyone engaged in legislating in the public’s name should be accountable to and removable by the electorate, a fully elected chamber is the only answer. The 'physicians'(moderate reformers), who have a feel for the consequences for Parliament as a whole, sense that the Coalition’s range of proposals are dripping with unintended consequences. Echoing Sir John Major’s point that the answer to the Lords’ problems is not more politicians, they stress the indispensability of having, somewhere in the parliamentary cycle, a group who are there primarily because they know things, rather than believe things

Thew fear is that an elected Lords will clash with the elected Commons and gridlock will result. The beauty of British government, compared with, say, US government, is the ability of the executive to take firm action. A clash of 'legitimacy', especially for a PR elected chamber, might subvert this quality. Moreover, the Commons itself might well veto such a reform. Hennessy's further point is that the glory of the Lords is its protean blend of experience and brilliance. This is the result of appointment; having to suffer a bruising election campaign would probably scare off most of these people from standing and democracy would be the poorer for it. People like Lord Norton, also oppose the plans whilst 'radicals' like Chris Mullin, oppose it on the grounds that it would undermine the authority of the Commons:

I can’t say that I'm overjoyed at the prospect of the Lords being filled with C list candidates who have failed to get into our end of the building – or rejects from the Scottish, Welsh or European parliaments. The idea that a wholly elected house will be any more democratic than the present arrangements is likely to prove fanciful since the odds are that it will involve some sort of list system and inclusion on that list is likely to require the imprimatur of the party leader in any case.

Simon Jenkins, who seems to gravitate to the right by the day, argues that an elected house will be a 'whippable' house and so reduce the dose of genuine democracy the present Lords provides. On balance I'm against an elected house too, for the above reasons.

It's Early Days Still for Ed but he Must Raise his Game Soon or Risk Being Replaced

2011-06-14T16:13:00.004Z

Well, it's been quite a week for Ed Miliband. Those revelations in the Telegraph suggested Ed had co-authored the coup against Blair in September 2006.

To be fair, Ed Balls came in for most of the apparent blame, but Ed cannot escape his past as a member of that tribal clique around the former prime minister. This would not have been so bad if Ed had not completely flunked PMQs on Wednesday, when Labour MPs, licking their lips at the expectation of the roasting Cameron would receive for his recent U turns over NHS and sentencing, had to watch, horrified, as Ed meandered feebly ion front of an open goal.

Then came the leaked speech his brother would have given had he won the leadership contest. Of historical interest only? Not really as David would have accepted some culpability for the economy's weakness and offered a reasonably clear way forward. Then came the4 Sundays with sniping articles and magisterial editorials telling him he wasn't performing to a high enough standard. The Observer cleverly led with a paean of praise to a vigorous act of opposition- that of Rowan Williams, and compared it to what Ed has so far managed.

The challenge for the Labour leader is much stiffer. In an age of presidential politics, he must turn himself into a person who inspires both trust and hope. In an era of deep scepticism about politicians, he must fashion his party into one that voters will want to return to power. On all those counts, he has a mountain to climb and is still only at base camp.

It has to be said that to date Ed has not really seemed presidential, prime ministerial or even like a leader of the Opposition. One of the key problems he faces is that the real opposition seems to be part of it: the Lib Dem bit. It's Nick Clegg's battle against Lansley's plans and the obdurate rightwing Tories who wish to see his forever seen off. Ed Miliband's voice has been lost in all that activity and diminished whatever attempts he has made.

This is not to say he needs to create a detailed paln so far ahead of the next election but he needs to indicate some themes, values and objectives designed to win back some of thoswe millions who deserted Labour during the past decade. Ed's job may be one of the toughest and most thankless in politics, but to win the next election he must appear to be a more effective leader or he will soon feel the hot breath of his would be usurpers on the back of his neck. One is clearly Ed Balls and the second, who knows, might even be his brother David.

Dangers of Making NHS a hoistage to Shameless Face of Capitalism

2011-06-12T13:28:00.004Z

Interesting piece in Oberver regarding NHS plans. An advisory report by Sir Stephen Bubb is due out this week and the indications are that the coalition will accept its recommendations wholesale. However senior Lib Dems have flagged up their great concern overe Bubb's conflict of interest:

Lib Dem spokesman John Pugh told the Observer he believed there was considerable doubt over whether Sir Stephen Bubb, the expert responsible for the body's conclusions on competition, was sufficiently neutral over the issue. Bubb leads the Adventure Capital Fund, which provides finance for "third-sector" organisations for a return on its investments. Its highest-paid director receives £140,000 a year, according to Companies House, and its clients would stand to benefit from further competition between health care providers.

I can sense a full scale row over this breaking out with rightwing Tories gnashing their teeth in frustration at their 'yellow bastard' partners. Personally, I was very concerned after reading Peter Wilby on the Southern Cross debacle. Wilby explains how private equity buyouts, a feature of the noughties, took advantage of the unregulated 'private' status of companies compared with public ones. He explains how a US private equity firm bought up Southern Cross and then 'did the business':

Care homes were attractive because they seemed to offer a guaranteed cashflow and an expanding market. Blackstone, a US private equity firm, bought Southern Cross for £162m in 2004, offered shares on the stock market at a total valuation of £423m in 2006, and sold its last stake in 2007, when the value was £770m. Now Southern Cross is worth barely £10m. Blackstone's trick was to sell some of the homes to property firms, raising oodles of money, and lease them back. Now Southern Cross can't afford the rent, while councils can't pay higher fees and would prefer to keep more old people in their homes. This week, Southern Cross announced 3,000 job losses, arguing implausibly that care standards.

Other countries- France, Germany, Ireland- involve private sector provision in their health systems but I suspect their involvement is carefully regulated. This is very necessary as Southern Cross, letters writ hugely large- illustrates the awful vulnerability of a health service to the shameful get mega-rich quick financiers when they see an opportunity. Thousands of old people are now thrown into limbo as a result and I who do you think will end up paying the bill run up to make odious people very rich? The state, the taxpayer of course.

Brown's Team to Eject Blair Led by Balls Say Telegraph leaked Documents

2011-06-10T16:55:00.004Z

This latest revelation by The Telegraphabout the role of Ed Balls in 2005-6 in allegedly 'leading the coup' against Tony Blair. Balls denies any involvement but the evidence s pretty clear and plentiful too in the form of the documents leaked to the Telegraph.

It seems that Balls was the organiser of a team of six, including Ed Miliband, Douglas Alexander, Spencer Livermore, Ian Austin and the ever faithful Sue (now Baroness)Nye.Each was given an areas of responsibility in effecting the transition of Blair to Brown as soon as it could be managed. The September 'coup' has been chronicled by Mandelson in his Third Man; Blair in The Journey; Seldon in Blair Unbound; and Rawnsley in The End of the Party.

All except Mandelson have been on the airwaves to confirm that the leaked papers merely confirm all the details already gleaned from interviews with the more objective participants. Balls sounds disingenuous in his denials: they were merely working to facilitate the transition; everything he did was open and above board. Rather like the Conservative Party under early Cameron he is working hard to detoxify his brand as a 'Machiavellian' plotter and schemer. While he may do so to a degree acceptable to his party, I doubt he'll change the view of future historians.

Does it matter? is it merely exhumed recent history? Yes and No. Labour still suffers from a very poor image in the wake of its 13 years in power. Osborne has succeeded in hanging the deficit around Labour's neck and we may be sure that as well as Balls, Ed Miliband's complicity in turfing out Blair will surface in the 2015 election. The Tories will congratulate themselves on this knowledge and availability of the Opposition's dirty washing. But the election is four years away and much can be forgotten by then as well as the likely surfacing of likely differences within the Coalition. But today has not been a good day for Labour.

Is Anglo-US Culture an Augury of Decline and Fall?

2011-06-08T11:04:00.005Z

I was intrigued by Larry Elliott's Monday piece on the Decline of the American Empire. He ran through the depressing economic statistics- nearly 10% unemployed, one in six supported by food satmps, a huge government deficit- and flagged up the traditional American optimism that the biggest economy in the world with the best universities, will be able to ride these troubles and emerge on top as ever before. But Elliott deploys the analogy of the decline and fall of Rome, as chronicled by the master historian Edward Gibbon. He enumerates the similarities between the fall of Rome and indeed, the decline and fall of the British empire:

The experience of both Rome and Britain suggests that it is hard to stop the rot once it has set in, so here are the a few of the warning signs of trouble ahead: military overstretch, a widening gulf between rich and poor, a hollowed-out economy, citizens using debt to live beyond their means, and once-effective policies no longer working. The high levels of violent crime, epidemic of obesity, addiction to pornography and excessive use of energy may be telling us something: the US is in an advanced state of cultural decadence.

He points out that such decline is late to be recognised: in the case of Spain it was Britain who challenged; in the current case of the USA, it is China which challenges. We all know power has been shifting to the east for well over a decade but I was fascinated to see the parallel drawn between the augury of Rome's bread and circuses together with its imperial self indulgence with our own culture of fast food, reality shows, infantilised sexuality, celebrity vacuity and the rest. So are we all unwittingly living in the twilight period before the walls of our civilisation come crashing down? I do hope not.

Trouble Swirls Around Key Coalition Issue oif Health Reform

2011-06-04T17:50:00.003Z

The Economist's Bagehot diagnoses 'blood' flowing within the Coalition and prescribes the need to staunch it. Liberal Democrats are feeling awfully depressed following their loss of council seats and any prospect of voting reform this side of the next half century. This explains why they are giving the NHS reform legislation such a mauling. They hope giving the Tories a bloody nose on such a visceral core issue, will remind people of their existence and write large their vital influence as a check on the nasty party with whom fate has decreed they must in other ways support. Bagehot argues:

Modernisers around David Cameron have spent the past year arguing that, when times are hard and tough policies are needed, a coalition government is a better vehicle for promoting radical reform than a purely Tory government would have been, especially one hobbled by a narrow parliamentary majority. As modernisers tell it, because voters can see two parties from different political traditions thrashing out policies together, they are more willing to accept that the coalition’s bolder plans are in the national interest, and are not just a plot by “nasty” Tories.

Well maybe their analysis is correct but the present situation does not make it quite so clear. As the columnist points out later on in his article:

Were Conservative modernisers right to argue that two-party government makes difficult reforms easier to pull off? Or has the NHS row confirmed a deeper Tory hunch: that just as leopards have spots, Lib Dems are perfidious and sneaky, making the coalition an obstacle to bold policymaking? There is something to the first argument and, alas, the second too.

Maybe solidarity around the deficit, education and a new welfare benefits shake-up balance out the Lib Dem awkwardness over the NHS, but health is a 'sacred issue' and might even bring about the end of the coalition experiment. The worrying case of Southern Cross doesn't help one little bit. A major aspect of the Lansley NHS plan is a closer involvement of the private sector. However we see that in the care home area, where the private sector has been heavily involved form many years, this company has mismanaged its affairs spectacularly with the result that the welfare of thousands of old and vulnerable people have been put at risk. My feeling is that even more 'blood' will flow over this issue in the very near future.

How Not to Get Promoted

2011-06-02T13:06:00.003Z

I don't often read the Daily Mail but my eye caught an article useful for my research on 'ministerial promotion'. It's about Crispin Blunt (pictured) the prisons minister, who, it seems has allowed a prisoner to father a child with his partner via artificial insemination. According to the piece, Blunt is known as 'dead man walking' already as a result of his numerous gaffes since in office.

This latest is interesting as it was a gaffe politically, yet seems quite reasonable to those who think Article 8 of the Human Rights Act entitling prisoners to a 'family life' is perfectly defensible. Maybe morally and legally it was a decent thing to do but politically it was certainly something of a gaffe. Why? Because it violated the thinking of the splendidly bigoted readers of the Daily Mail to whom Tony Blair and his successor made such frequent obeisances. As the only newspaper in the last decade to continue expanding sales, politicians look to it as the mouthpiece of election winning voters. Blunt should have spotted this one coming and failed. This will almost certainly end his chance of promotion.

In a recent Radio 4 broadcast Michael Heseltine, talking about promotion, said:

You have to have a nose. You have to be able to spot, to smell the bomb to keep you away in these files. So there is no escape from hard work, if you try to skate over the surface something will blow up and it would be your fault and you can’t afford many of those. So, the nose for trouble!

Mr Blunt, it would seem would fail the Heseltine 'nose' test and I confidently expect him to be reshuffled out o office in the expected summer reshuffle.

George Osborne and the Economy

2011-05-31T15:55:00.003Z

Yesterday's forecast from the British Chambers of Commerce must have given Osborne some little pause for thought.

In its quarterly report out today, the BCC became the latest body to lower its expectations for the economy, forecasting growth of 1.3% in 2011 and 2.2% in 2012. That compares with its previous predictions of 1.4% and 2.3%, and is below forecasts from the UK government's financial watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, which expects growth of 1.7% this year and 2.5% for 2012.

This after a number of other experts and agencies have said rather the same sort of thing.

1. Barack Obama carefully avoided endorsing a cuts only approach, preferring 'a mix of cuts' plus focused thought about 'how do we generate revenue.'

2. Chief economist at the OECD who said there was 'scope for slowing the pace' of the cuts.

3. The OECD also predicted UK 's economy would grow not by 2.5% as forecast last May but only 1.4%.

4. Osborne's own Office of Budget Responsibility has also reduced growth forecasts several times.

5. The CBI reports a 'shrp' decline in consumer trade in the first quarter of 2011.

6. Household spending is suffering a slump greater than anything since 2009.

7. Business investment is down by 7.1& during the first quarter.

8. Inflation is up to nearly 5%.

9. There is no sign that cutting the public sector is automatically kick starting the private sector.

There will come a time and maybe it has already arrived when laying all the blame for our parlous economic state on Gordon Brown's tenure in office will not cut any ice with voters. On present performance, Osborne might have to discover a way of slowing down his cuts and listening to advice from sources other than his blind Tory prejudices.

Dave Reassuring on Overseas Aid to his great Credit

2011-05-29T12:40:00.004Z

I've Always been suspicious of Cameron's authenticity. From an ordinary Thatcherite, via aide to Norman Lamont to that born again Compassionate Conservative who charmed his note-free way into the Tory leadership chair and from there, courtesy Nick of Clegg, Number 10 itself. As PM he has not really swept away one's doubts though; Under the coalition agreement one feels the traditional Tory agenda lurks in default mode.

So it is quite reassuring to declare more than one cheer for his stance on overseas aid. He has received quite a bot of sniping from his backwoodsmen over this waste of resources on children in Africa who are not our national responsibility, not to mention a (surely deliberately) leaked letter from Liam Fox at defence suggesting his sagging budget might be topped up from this hitherto ring fenced pot of gold.

At the G8 press conference, Dave made an impassioned defence of his pledge to give 0.7% of GDP in such assistance. He argued it was 'self' interest for G8 countries as 'broken' states can eventually pose a threat to the developed world. He concluded his plea to fellow G8 nations with this peroration:

I remember as a young politician watching the 2005 Gleneagles summit, and that Live 8 concert [events at 10 G8 locations and broadcast worldwide], and thinking it was right those world leaders made their pledges so publicly. I think when you make a promise to the poorest people in the world, you should keep it. And I am proud that Britain is doing that."

Hear hear! Well said that man!

27-7 Media Has Not Helped US Move Towards More Mature Democracy

2011-05-27T12:00:00.004Z

I thought Rachel Cooke in the Observer made some good points about the current state of the media. Our high pressure, constantly alert media has not really brought democracy any real benefits so far. Rather, it seems to have induced an oddly volatile tendency to over-react. So someone floats a worthy idea but on a controversial subject and a huge roar goes up, with the media seeking out protest from every conceivable quarter. Ken Clarke's comments on rape are a good example. What he said, admittedly a little clumsily, was not really controversial, I think he was genuinely trying to start a conversation leading to the overhaul of a penal system which expensively fuels its own problems.

The result was a huge tsunami of condemnation from feminists, liberal pressure groups and, with The Sun to the fore, the hang em and flog em right-wing law and order brigade, Sir Herbert Gusset et.al. as Private Eye would characterise it. As Cooke asks:

Where did this new taste for taking offence come from? How is it that we have grown to like it so much that we're willing deliberately to misunderstand the Ken Clarkes of this world the better to give ourselves the opportunity to huff and to puff and to ring Nicky Campbell? I'm damned if I know.

The result, of course, is that new ideas tend to be dropped and new ones not even raised by thoughtful politicians, for fear of the collateral damage. It's precisely the wrong atmosphere in which to float new ideas. Maybe it's because the print media are in decline and seek out controversy to boost flagging sales? Almost certainly that's a factor but such spikes in sales I suspect will only prove a temporary blip in the downward trajectory. The new media however, just seem to be obsessed with anything which has a sniff of sensation about it, the better to fill up cyberspace with protesting posts and tweets. One is led, inescapably, to the conclusion that bloggers and twitterers just need to get a proper life.

Obama's Europe Trip is About More Than Drinking Guinness

2011-05-24T15:11:00.003Z

What a marketing man's dream this picture is. I'm sure the Guinness guy who does this, regrets Her Maj declined the offer when visiting the brewery, as did, reluctantly, the no doubt more bibulous Prince Phillip. The Oirish bit of Obama's journey has been a bit of fun but it was more than that. Over 36 million Americans claim Irish lineage and in an election year, tickling their political taste buds with visions of him enjoying the black stuff will have firmed up their votes nicely. The same goes for the Poles, a neglected demographic by US politicos- hence his final destination for this current tour of Europe.

Why Europe and not Asia to where the focus of his foreign policy has shifted? Easy, Obama, despite his efforts to fulfill his election promises, has not done too well, especially regarding the economy. His satisfaction rating at home hovers around 50%- not high enough to inspire too much confidence in his re-election team. But in Europe, we love him; his popularity ratings soar to 70%, ensuring huge crowds will flock to see him and provide wonderful news footage back home.

His visit with Cameron won't be all bonding and syrupy speeches though; he has tough topics to discuss. Will he, as some predict, give the green light to UK and France equipping Libyan rebels to have a chance of toppling the stubborn Gadaffi? We'll see. No doubt he'll try to encourage European nations to step up and contribute a bit more to the Afghanistan war; few of them, apart from us, seem inclined to do so.

And I daresay he'll also give the nod to Christine Lagarde's candidacy to replace the woman chasing Dominique Strauss-Kahn at the IMF. That Cameron should do his best to veto Gordon Brown's chances of getting the job- when he is enormously experienced and respected within such circles, exposes the fact that under that smooth exterior there is much calculation and precious little magnanimity.

Ken Clarke: the 'Good Tory'

2011-05-22T10:08:00.002Z

Michael Foot used to refer to Disraeli and the 'Good Tory' and I've tended to view Ken Clarke as his modern day equivalent. I know he incensed teachers and health professionals when he administered their respective domains but he has always been one of the few Conservative heavyweights who have subscribed to the liberal values with which I identify. And so to his remarks on rape. They have to be viewed within the context of his broad rehabilitative approach to penal policy. He believes that the prison population should be reduced as many inmates are behind bars in an environment which helps neither them or the wider community. As the Observer leader today comments:

Jails are overcrowded because they have become hostels of last resort of drug addicts, the homeless and people suffering from chronic mental illness. Once inside, the only change they undergo is a fast-track education in hardened criminality.

His suggestion that rapists have their sentences halved if they plead guilty, thus saving time and resources has caused outrage because he distinguished between 'serious' and less serious kinds of the crime. This set all kinds of sections squawking their indignation. To me it seemed an uncontroversial comment for a non politician to make. For example, murder is a very serious crime but someone who kills a loved one with a terminal illness surely commits a less serious crime than the killer of Milly Dowler committed? By the same token a stranger who abducts and rapes a young girl commits a much more serious and damaging crime than an 18 year-old having (consensual) sex with an under-age girl?

The problem is twofold however. First, Clarke is the Justice Secretary and must tread the line of legal orthodoxy with much greater care than you or I leaning on the bar of our local. Secondly Clarke has never been one to respect topics as sacred cows to be carefully tip-toed around. He always speaks his mind-often spontaneously and without calculation- and for that, within the stifling orthodoxy of his party, many of us on the left of centre, have admired him.

I thought it churlish of Ed Miliband to opportunistically leap on the passing bandwagon and urge his dismissal at PMQs this week. His choice of words should certainly have been improved, but both the overall policy-reduce the prison population, improve rehabilitation- and the specific example cited were basically sound.

Why we Don't Have Revolutions

2011-05-20T09:40:00.002Z

A good discussion question with students I find is, 'why, given such huge inequalities, there is no call for revolution in most capitalist countries'? This encourages students to consider both the unequal structure of society and the huge risks revolution brings along with its highly speculative benefits. We usually conclude that, while the poor often have a very rough deal, many of them have at least the rudiments of living- a place to live and enough money to put food on the table. Engaging in a revolution might obtain for them a more equal society but history suggests it might just as easily make things a lot worse. Fearful of losing what little they have the poor usually opt to cling on to what they have and accept, albeit resentfully, the deal they currently have.

Makes sense? fits the facts? Yes, just about I've always thought. But Peter Wilby offers a nuanced alternative analysis. He wonders why 'we aren't more angry' at how the rich have benefited during the recession?

* The IFS have recently shown that last year the incomes of the richest 1% grew at the fastest rate for a decade.
* the Sunday Times Rich List shows the richest 1000 are £60.2bn better off this year compared with last.
* FTSE chief executives are paid £4.2m on average annually.
*Barclays most senior executive will receive £14m this year, over a thousand times more than their lowest paid employee.
*while most people's income has stagnated or barely increased over the last decade, the top 0.1% have enjoyed a bonanza of a 67% increase over 11 years. And now inflation will negate and exceed those modest increases meted out to the majority of us.

Wilby alights on the last point to argue why the middle classes are not as angry as perhaps they should be at this state of affairs.

"the very rich[in US and the UK] are soaring ahead, leaving behind not only manual workers – now a diminishing minority – but also the middle-class masses, including doctors, teachers, academics, solicitors, architects, Whitehall civil servants and, indeed, many CEOs who don't run FTSE 100 companies, to say nothing of the marketing, purchasing, personnel, sales and production executives below them. That is why, over the past decade, some of the most anguished cries about high incomes and inequality have appeared in the Telegraph and Mail."

Wilby notes that most polls show we strongly disapprove of excessive top salaries, yet this overwhelming sentiment never translates into 'a political programme that can command mass support.' His explanation, based on US research is that people are more frightened of loss than they are encouraged by the prospect of gain. They are angered by fat cats but worried redistribution might benefit those unworthy people 'below' below them in the social hierarchy:

Americans accepted tax cuts for the rich with equanimity. Better to let the rich keep their money, they calculated, than to have it benefit economic and social inferiors.

Wilby quotes the social theorist David Runciman>

"most people's lives are governed more by the resentment of narrow inequalities, the cultivation of modest ambitions and the preservation of small differentials"

So, it would seem that if we can worry less about slipping down the social hierarchy. we'll be more likely to feel enthusiasm for clipping the wings of the super-rich who are so flagrantly soaring above everyone.

Struss -Kahn's Bonfire of the Vanities

2011-05-17T08:41:00.007Z

Curious how political cultures differ. Of course they reflect the overall underlying culture of a country and we've always had a problem with understanding our closest neighbours, the French. We know they have a more sophisticated attitude towards the whole business of sex and indeed, fidelity. It has long been taken for granted that people in high places will have lovers and so such revelations are scarcely news. The rate of transgression is probably the same over here, but tolerance is much less our side of the Channel. And our the tabloids sell millions of newspapers exploiting our outrage and our rather puerile fascination with what other people do under the sheets.

So the current outbreak of outrage in La Belle France is quite fascinating. It seems IMF boss and putative presidential candidate, Dominique Strauss-Kahn(or DSK), has been the means whereby France has become a little bit more like us. Is that a bad thing? In this case I think not. We have to appreciate that French people love gossip just as we do. The problem is that France has privacy laws which prevent such peccadilloes reaching the light of day. So everyone knows it's going on and are left to guess the details. The result is a thriving gossip mill in which
DSK has long featured. His propensity for pursuing women was well known and in 2009 the French satirist Stephane Guillon spoke of:

Strauss-Kahn's "obsession with females" on the equivalent of Radio 4's Today programme. Strauss-Kahn accused him on air of "nastiness" and Guillon – already under fire for lampooning several political figures – was sacked shortly afterwards.

The reason why France is so aghast at the probable destruction of DSK's chance of becoming a socialist president, is that in this instance it's not just extra-marital seduction involved, it's violence as well. His friends say such behaviour is alien to the man but novelist Tristane Banon claims he attacked her in 2002 and she had great difficulty in escaping. She was persuaded not to report the matter by her mother at the time but is now again considering whether to do so.

Its all so reminiscent of Tom Wolfe's novel saga, The Bonfire of the Vanities, when Financial wizard and 'Master of the Universe', Sherman McCoy hits a black boy with his car in the Bronx and ends up in court. Humiliated,he is brought as low as other accused criminals and suffers time in jail. So far so 'Bonfire' for Stauss -Kahn, much to the horror of the viscerally anti-US French left. Another thought flits across the mind though. Think Rainbow Warrior and the French secret service, think Jacques Chirac and his portfolio of dirty tricks and could this be a put up job by Sarkozy- languishing with rubbish ratings- to take out his major opponent for next year's presidential elections? Just a thought.

Stop Press! Take a look at this just to give the conspiracy theory legs.

Labour Have a Tough and Steep Mountain to Climb

2011-05-15T18:06:00.003Z

In the wake of last Thursday and the anniversary of the Coalition 'marriage', the focus has shifted to Labour and the state of the party I still insist on supporting. Why? Because I always have and lay some store by consistency and loyalty and because I still believe it is the best chance the poorer sections of society have of ameliorating their quality of life. I know they made lots of mistakes after 1997 and they have been rubbished by both the coalition partners, in some cases quite unfairly, but that's politics and there is precious little fair about that as we all know.

Andrew Rawnsley advises Labour' to follow a number of rules over the near future. Firstly ignore the polls. It is true they have been amazingly volatile of late with Scotland swinging from a predicted sure victory for Labour to a crushing one for the SNP. Rawnsley points out that Neil Kinnock lad Thatcher by somew huge poll leads but come the election in 1987 he was overwhelmed.

Secondly it would be fatal for Labour to imagine they can sit tight and let victory drop into their lap in consequence of the government's follies. As he points out voters acquire a pretty clear idea of a party after a couple of years into a parliament and tend not to lose it.

The time frame to think about is the mid-term of this parliament. By then, Labour ought to have demonstrated that it has learned from its mistakes in office, developed a persuasive critique of the coalition's record, and started to look like a convincing replacement. Even if this parliament goes the full five-year stretch, the midterm is now only 18 months away. That is not long at all. In fact, for the Labour party, I'd say it is frighteningly little time to establish themselves as a credible alternative government.

I might add that it is by no means impossible that the coalition will actually achieve its objectives of balancing the budget, winning voters confidence and sweeping to another period in office.

Eawnsley also warns that arguments between Lib Dems and Tories are not necessarily good for Labour as they appear to take on the role of 'significant debate' about the major issues, thus marginalising and usurping Labour's opposition role. He adds that Miliband's 27 policy review exercises have happened way beneath the public's radar. He suggests such things are too early in the cycle to have much relevance or impact.

Finally he points out that politics is now essentially 'presidential', they swing on someone having a major impact, like Salmond in Scotland, or Cameron in the AV referendum. Ed has been doing much better in PMQs but he is still not having the sort of impact Tony Blair had in the mid 1990s. This is the mountain Miliband has to climb:

An operation on his adenoids isn't going to be enough. He needs to demonstrate much more verve and daring, and articulate a much clearer sense of direction, if he is to show the stuff of successful leadership. Given a more dynamic lead by its chief, his party might then start to follow and look interesting again.

Coalition Anniversary: Cameron's Year

2011-05-13T18:16:00.003Z

So it's been a year. Some denied it would last this long but one has to say that the government looks well set on Friday 13th May. The Economist's angle is that it all went pretty well until the AV referendum campaign soured the atmosphere very badly. It reckons in three of its four main areas of priority it has done pretty well, From 203 academies in May last year, we now have 629 though growth of the 'free' schools initiative -new schools with academy style freedoms- has not been so prolific. [The economist thinks the ban on running 'free' schools for profit should be lifted]. On welfare Iain Duncan Smith is seeking to bring order to the byzantine complexity of a benefits system which succeeds in dissuading those on benefit to return to work.

The journal also mentions the imminent introduction of elected police commissioners, presumably written before the House of Lords scuppered the plan. Finally it admits health has been a 'debacle' with Andrew Lansley's highly personal plan having to be 'paused' for a rethink which may see its main provisions abandoned. Not only the Lib Dems and Labour but a fair number of Tories also opposed this measure.

The Economist also applauds the Big Society theme as a 'vision of the state: more locally accountable, more plural in its provisio0n of services.' I find this bit a tad hard to accept as surely it remains merely a vision, a rhetorical flourish which served its purpose yet embarrassingly survived the election. On Cameron's governing style I was intrigued by the analysis. At first Cameron sought to be a 'chairman' in Cabinet, disdaining the hyperactivity of both his predecessors.

The result was stalled reforms and NHS crisis o Cameron assumed a more energetic mode, taking on staff and tracking the many and various aspects of policy. He has struggled, it seems with the civil service which, as Blair found, has proved hostile to change; he used a coded reference to attack them: 'enemies of enterprise' much to their annoyance. But overall Cameron has proved a 'natural' at the job of PM. he said he'd be good at it and so far he has, especially politically. No surprise that while Lib Dems lost 748 council seats last Thursday the Tories actually gained 86 unexpected ones.

Simon Jenkins' piece today says something similar:

The British have never minded the ruling class doing what it says on the packet, provided some deference is shown to the bourgeoisie. Cameron has been adept at that. Public school charm, even with a touch of caddishness, as deployed by Cameron and Tony Blair, may be scorned by the Westminster club, with its distaste for charisma and celebrity. But when combined with humour and a self-deprecating confidence, it can carry a leader over the bumps and potholes of politics, where such men as John Major and Gordon Brown stumble and fall.

His concluding paragraph I quote in full as it sums up what I have to admit, relectantly as a Labour supporter, as fair comment:

The past year has seen Cameron emerge as a political leader of real ability. He won last week's voting referendum with panache, releasing his attack dogs on the enemy while shrugging off Lib Dem cries of foul. He has sustained the "emergency coalition" aura of his government with greater finesse than did Lloyd George in 1916 or Ramsay MacDonald in 1931. He has yet to experience a serious political crisis or, with the exception of Libya, risk a possibly fatal trap. The cartoons are right. The head of school has a right to be cocky.

Dave Will Not waste his Political Capital to Assuage Clegg

2011-05-11T10:37:00.003Z

Interesting piece by Partrick Wintour in Guardian today. It now seems Cleggy wants to play hard ball, presumably to assuage his devastated party members; they may have lost to AV referendum plus hundreds of counci8l seats but they are going to get their own back by being really snippy with Dave from now on. Got that Dave? Well, according to Wintour, Dave's response to such a scenario was:

"I don't accept the whole idea that the role of one party is somehow to moderate the other. The Conservative party, under my leadership, has changed. It is a new and different Conservative party."

Wintour adds that: "he also refused to give Clegg credit for imposing a rethink on the government's NHS reforms."

Oh Dear! Fact is Cameron feels no obligation to compromise with his coalition partners. Last Thursday has delivered a whole new access of political capital; Dave feels more powerful; he IS more powerful. His party is pleased to have won two such resounding victories last week and certainly are in no mood to have their wings clipped by the diminished and disrespected Clegg.

Can Clegg threaten to withdraw from the deal? Not really; he's really opted for the whole trip and without a parachute. If Dave calls an election, Lib Dems will be massacred and the Tories might even get their overall majority. So why doesn't he? Well, Labour are in a slight lead so it's risky and he wants to push through his legislation making constituency sizes more equal. So he'll probably hold back on that- though don't write off a public threat if Clegg gets rally shrill and petulant.

In the Guardian piece linked above, policy areas are assessed from the viewpoint of party influence in the coalition. Unsurprisingly all areas from economy to localism are judged to be Tory dominated with only health indicating Lib Dems as dominant. I would question even that judgement. Dark days for we left of centre folk.

In This State of Political Flux Anything Could Happen

2011-05-08T18:01:00.002Z

In the wake of the local elections and the horrifying drubbing the Lib Dems and the progressive left generally took over AV, there is a strange febrile atmosphere pervading. The Lib Dems aree seething according to Andrew Rawnsley. In a film he recently made for Channel 4 Vince Cable refused several invitations to allow Cameron and Osborne are 'decent men'. Rawnsley quotes one of Clegg's closest friends as follows:

"Nick has been reminded that the Conservatives are a ruthless political operation that in the end serves the interests of the Conservative party. This is also a salutary example of Cameron's ruthlessness – it reveals his true colours as a classic, ruthless Tory." There will be no forgetting and no forgiving the personal attacks on Mr Clegg for "broken promises".

Another 'very senior Lib Dem' declared:

"It was a really bloody stupid thing for Cameron and Osborne to do, especially when they were going to win anyway because the Yes campaign was so useless, For the Conservatives, having asked us to make these compromises, then to attack us for making compromises, is breathtakingly hypocritical. There's bound to be payback. Some of it in unpredictable ways."

Before Clegg is dismissed as a hopelessly naive politician who sold his soul for his deputy prime-ministerial car, I'd like to sort of agree with Mathew Parris in yesterday's Times who argued the man was a 'hero'. Whilst still not sure I accept it I can see the argument. A year ago the nation needed a government to deal with the economic crisis. The only person who could deliver it, given the hung parliament, was Nick Cleggg. He braved the contumely of his enemies and, more difficult, many of his friends, to step up to the plate. He could have turned down the offer of being in government, but if he had, surely Lib Dem claims to be a party genuinely seeking to govern would have been rendered unbelievable for the foreseeable future.

So he compromised to govern and was accused of betrayal by one and all. It's been an awful time for him and last Thursday it hit a new low. Anyone who follows British politics closely would have to have a heart of stone not to feel sorry for the guy.

Clegg set to be Biggest Loser in Coaltion

2011-05-05T09:50:00.003Z

I have just voted for my Labour council candidate and 'yes' in the referendum. I fully expect Dean Fitzpatrick to be elected to the town hall but fear my 'yes' vote will be overwhelmed in the 2-1 rout predicted by The Guardian. Patrick Wintour's article on the topic reveals that 40% of 18-24 year olds favour reform; 32% 25-34 yr olds; 27% of 35-64 yr olds; and only 20% of over 65 yr olds. And, of course, likelihood to vote is in inverse proportion to the age gradient.

Why precisely the 'no' campaign made such rapid progress is hard to say. Because British voters are essentially small 'c' conservatives? Clearly. Because Nick Clegg is so unpopular he put the hex on the 'yes' campaign? To a degree, possibly. Because the 'no' campaign was well funded and relentlessly negative? Very probably.

Allegra Stratton's analysis today suggests the probable result of the referendum has shortened the odds on the coalition not going the full distance, hence Miliband's concern to be on an election footing. Certainly Lib Dem MPs will be dismayed their possible prize will be dashed from their grip but quite possibly Cameron, urged by his rightwing, will pull the plug himself to rid himself of his meddlesome and whingeing partners.

If this does happen, or even if it doesn't until 2015 at least the referendum campaign will have succeeded in putting lots of distance between the two parties so that Lib Dems can campaign as a separate party and not as a mere adjunct to the Conservatives. Small comfort for them after they have also counted the hundreds of lost council seats.

Fin ally, let me add a quotation from the piece by Timothy Garton-Ash in today's Guardian with which I fully concur:

It is amazing how the anger at the dysfunctional, corrupt old politics of Westminster, which exploded in 2009 over the issue of MPs' expenses, seems to have evaporated. "Our political system is broken," said the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition programme for government, published less than a year ago, and signed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Our system is broken – so don't fix it, says Cameron now, campaigning vigorously against electoral reform, stuffing an unreformed House of Lords with party placelings, and insisting only on a redrawing of constituency boundaries that benefits his party. Joining him to defend the first-past-the-post electoral system, many Labour veterans show themselves to be conservatives under the skin.

Republican rightwingers Live in World of their own Make-believe

2011-05-01T15:01:00.005Z

We tend to be a bit snootily unfair towards Americans this side of the Atlantic, suggesting that they are ill-informed and irrational.It might be the fact that 20% of them believe that aliens walk among us, disguised as humans, or that 55% believe a 'guardian angel' has helped protect them when in danger. But in my academic discipline, on the contrary, the USA boasts its most distinguished practitioners. As well as political science you'll find Americans dominating many other disciplines and scooping up a fair number of Nobel prizes every year. No, Americans are a clever nation; I now realise it's probably just the Republican right who are responsible for the stereotype we like to entertain.

The Guardian journalist Gary Younge, a few weeks back explored this phenomenon:

Polls suggest there are between one in three and one in four Americans who would believe anything. More than a third thought President George Bush did a good job during Hurricane Katrina; half of those thought he was excellent. Throughout most of 2008, as the economy careered into depression, just over one in four believed Bush was handling the economy well. As Bush prepared to leave office in January 2009, bequeathing bank bailouts, rampant unemployment, and Iraq and Afghanistan in tatters, a quarter of the country approved of his presidency.

Given this level of irrationality and misinformation, it's hardly surprising that they give respectful credence to Donald Trump, the absurd property developer and TV celebrity who makes Alan Sugar seem like Ludwig Wittgenstein. The basic plank of his apparent run for the presidency was that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and hence not a US citizen, despite much evidence that he had acquired the presidency on false pretences. It is rather shameful to Americans that Obama had to issue a copy of his full passport to finally scotch this malicious rumour. Like Ed Pilkington in the Guardian last week, one is put in mind of Jonathan Swift's observation that: 'You can't reason somebody out of something they were never reasoned into'.

Younge shrewdly observes, 'what you need to say and do to be credible within the Republican party essentially deprives you of credibility outside it.' It seems natural, that given this reality distorting lens Republicans have not been able to unearth an credible candidate to stand against Obama next year. The best they can come up with is Mitt Romney, and other losers from the last contest. Trump's candidacy, if that is what it is, has certainly added colour and energy to the party's deliberations, but should you ever just ever so slightly think Donald might be the boy for the White House, just consider his views on Libya, as reported by the Observer's US correspondent:

On Libya, Trump bluntly said the US should just take the country's oil, rather than assist rebels fighting Muammar Gaddafi. "We don't know who the rebels are, we hear they come from Iran, we hear they're influenced by Iran or al-Qaida, and, frankly I would go in, I would take the oil — and stop this baby stuff," he told Fox News. It is a sentiment he has gone on to repeat several other times.

Meet the Original Duke of Cambridge

2011-04-29T13:28:00.003Z

I've often used a quotation by 'The Duke of Cambridge without really knowing who he was. Quotation? ‘The time for change is when it can be no longer resisted’ Useful quote for someone teaching/writing history or politics as you might imagine. So I was led to look the guy up when I discovered Prince William is to known henceforward by the same name. And I came up with the well upholstered gent you see on your left.

Apart from being bald and in the military, William seems to have little in common with his German forebear. This little extract from the Wikipedia profile gives a taste of the man plus a version of his famous quotation:

The Duke of Cambridge served as commander-in-chief for 39 years.[3] Although he was deeply concerned about the welfare of soldiers, he earned a reputation for being resistant to doctrinal change and for making promotions based upon an officer's social standing, rather than his merit. Under his command, the British Army became a moribund and stagnant institution, lagging far behind its continental counterparts. In the late 19th century, whereas 50 per cent of all military literature was written in Germany and 25 per cent in France, just one per cent came from Britain. It is said that he rebuked one of his more intelligent subordinates with the words: "Brains? I don't believe in brains! You haven't any, I know, Sir!" He was equally forthright on his reluctance to adopt change: "There is a time for everything, and the time for change is when you can no longer help it."

One sincerely hopes the present prince does not emulate his ancestor but there is one aspect which might worry Kate and interest the tabs: the portly duke fathered more than one illegitimate child and had a penchant for mistresses. I wonder if confering this particular title was such a good precedent to follow...?

Economist Flirts with 'Republicanism'

2011-04-27T15:15:00.003Z

Sorry to have neglected blogging for last few days but have been in Cork on a short holiday visiting an old university friend, Noel. I think it would be fair to say that, unlike USA, Ireland is not on tenterhooks of anticipation regarding the royal wedding. Our newspapers and other media seem to have done their usual lose control thing and become totally obsessed with even the smallest item- who has been invited, who snubbed, what Dave will wear and should he, as well as acres of newsprint on the gorgeous commoner and the hugely handsome and all round gorgeous William.

Evidence of dissenting views have been limited to the letters pages for the most psrt, with carping criticism about extravagance during these straightened times. Yet, as I understand it from one point of view, the gilded spectacle is supposed to be functional. It is supposed to uplift our feelings, raise our jaded morale, and make us proud to be British. So very odd then to find The Economist's heavyweight columnist, Bagehot, sounding a critical note, pointing out that:

opinion polls [are] saying that barely a half of the British are interested in the wedding, and only a third are certain to watch it on television. Councils report a north-south divide in applications to hold street parties—and far fewer overall than when Prince William’s parents wed in 1981.

Bagehot suggests we are all wiser about royal weddings, their suspect compatibility and limited longevities. Bagehot suggests the royal couple will thrive if they manage to be the kind of 'unicorn or mythical beast' who is to some extent, like the Queen removed from the real world. If they appear to join their own real world they will be seen to be among:

what remains of the landed upper classes: a life of moors and deer-stalking, of summers under Scottish rain, dogs and horses, the church, the armed forces, the same few boarding schools and the right sort of nightclubs. That is more perilous territory: the British, in the main, dislike such people.

At present Bagehot thinks William is closer to 'royal unicorn' mode and suggests he should avoid any contact with the toxic British class system or any of that 'nonsense':

Give the British a reason to resent each other, and they will seize it with gusto. Prince William’s mother used the royal family’s fustiness as a weapon in her war against them; that marital fight ruined lives. By the time of its tragic ending, the British public were left queasy, cynical and divided. Miss Middleton may well be a fine person, but if her life’s journey pinpoints Prince William’s place in society too closely, she could end up harming him. Class shows up Britain at its worst. For the sake of the country, but also as an act of kindness, pension the royals off. Time for compassionate republicanism: it might be the best wedding present the young couple could have.

Referendum of 'Immense Importance' to Cameron and Clegg Argues Spectator

2011-04-22T11:42:00.006Z

James Forsyth in The Spectator writes an interesting piece in the current issue. He points out that the party best placed in the referendum is Labour with the message: 'if you don't like the coalition, vote for us'. He thinks a 600 seat gain in local elections would be a good result though argues that local elections are of scant concern to the other two parties; itr is the referendum which has taken on 'immense importance'. Forsyth insists that if the 'yes' vote wins:

'Cameron's relationship with the Conservative partry would be damaged beyond repair He could be the man who failed to beat Gordon Brown, conceded a referendum on electoral reform to the liberal Democrats and then lost it. The party would soon start casting around for an alternative champion.'

Last year, says Forsyth, the plan was to remain above the fray- Dave was relaxed about the result. but Tories are panicking, thinking AV would consign them to the margins of political life and Cameron, reacting to the pressure has made winning the 'no' vote his top priority: Central Office says 'it is all about AV'.

As for Clegg, if he loses, as seems likely at time of writing, his plans are to head back to Brussels as a commissioner in 2014.