Following Orders

Left is a picture of Priviledge Thulambo and her two daughters, Valerie and Lorriane. They fled Zimbabwe, via Malawi in 2000 shortly after Priviledge's husband, Macca was arrested and murdered, most likely by Mugabe's Central Intelligence Organisation.

The UK Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) have recently ruled they have no case for seeking asylum and after 7 years here they will be deported to Malawi on 29 December. As they are Zimbabwean citizens they will sent back to Harare, no doubt with a welcome from the local constabulary.

It is outrageously unjust for this family to be deported for three reasons. First, Macca Thulambo's murder is not a matter of dispute; his family having escaped would be sure to be targets of the Government police. Alex Duval Smith's report in the Observer gives a good flavour to the current level of danger for activists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/zimbabwe-mugabe-activist-missing-crimes

Secondly, the level of oppression and degradation in Zimbabwe has inspired several world leaders, including Gordon Brown, to call for Mugabe's removal. Deportation cannot continue along side such condemnation.

Third, the Government already announced in July a moratorium on deportations to Zimbabwe. The BIA are applying a technicality of the Thulambos's use of Malawian documentation. The application of some degree of humanity would be more apt.

The cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe should be sufficient reason not to even contemplate deportation. Although Mugabe has tried to deny its existence, a spokeswoman for the South African Health Department described the outbreak as being, "on a massive, unprecedented scale." This crisis should be the end-game for Mugabe but probably won't be. If he can ride out 500m percent inflation, 85% unemployment, mass emigration, rigged elections, a collapsed economy and health service, then cholera is just another annoyance.

As the former colonial power, it is harder for us rather than neigbouring African countries to take the neccessary direct action to bring new leadership. They would be justified under international law, as Mugabe's regime threatens the stability of the region. When it happens, just watch a massive programme of investment follow. In the meantime, we watch the slow-burning tragedy unfold.

Some UK immigration officials think it is acceptable to return families to that bloody chaos. Shame on them.

Caught Soliciting

Coal has been a political issue in Britain for over 200 years. Now the mines are largely closed, billions of tonnes of the nation’s energy needs remains underground. But there are still tens of thousands of ex-miners suffering the effects of their industry. Two conditions in particular, respiratory disease and industrial white finger, were the result of the old British Coal's negligence in preventing long-lasting damage to its workforce.

In 1999, the DTI, under Stephen Byers, approved a compensation scheme for the miners which would obviously run into billions of quids. The Government contracted out the payment scheme and the solicitors in the old mining towns in South Yorks, Notts and South Wales realised a massive pay day was coming their way.

It is the ultimate concern of the Government who designed the scheme that about 40% of the £5.8 Bn paid out has gone on administrative and legal costs. But it does not prevent us also condemning the individual solicitors who hoovered up millions of pounds for precious little work.

One such grubby legal professional is the Doncaster solicitor James Beresford who has just been found guilty in a tribunal of 8 counts of misconduct. It was found Beresford failed to inform claimants they could get their masive legal fees re-imbursed by the Government. The Solicitors' Regulation Authority said Beresford also collected the costs from the DTI. He is appealing against being struck off as he claims he would be no longer able to making his living.

Beresford does not dispute his firm earned an eye-watering £115m in fees. In one year alone he himself coined nearly £17m, so no pressing livelihood claim there. In fact he could live off the interest earned by the interest. The 97,000 ex-miners who chose the 'reputable' firm Beresfords received on average £2,000. Beresford said in his defence, such as it was, there was, "absolutely nothing wrong" with earning such sums. Skinning sick miners, some terminal ill, puts Beresford down on the same moral level as serial fraudsters like Robert Maxwell.

But he, along with dozens of other firms have realised an absolute bonanza from the taxpayer too. The public ask rightly how the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) could allow this injustice to continue.

The Department, many years ago, had teams of inspectors and regional teams who would have a close feel for industries and individual companies who were exploiting loopholes or ripping off the customers or the Government. They were all pushed out years ago in favour of 'light-touch' enforcement regime which amounted to sending round circulars and relied heavily on the good will of businessmen.

The scale of these payments to solicitors like Beresford show how impotent Whitehall is in reeling in malpractise. There are more firms to be investigated but even now no-one is even suggesting they should give any of the money back.

Stop Making Sense

Believe it or not, it is a rare occurrence for both sides of the House of Commons to be shouting ‘shame’ and ‘disgrace’ at each other simultaneously. But Jacqui Smith’s statement yesterday on her part in the Damian Green débacle drew such an extreme division. She managed to increase partisanship on an issue, which all members agree, raises fundamental questions on the roles and powers of Parliament, Ministers, officials and police.

For the majority of the Government side, she had correctly stood back and allowed a vital criminal inquiry to proceed against a wannabee Tory mole. To the rest of the House, she had allowed the police to suppress legitimate democratic enquiry and at the same time absolved herself of any oversight responsibility.

Where she could have enlightened, she obfuscated. Where she could have explained, she was evasive. When she did not like the question she plain ignored it, sometimes repeatedly.
Shadow Home Secretary, Dominic Grieve gave his usual lawlerly list; she treated him with sweeping contempt.

Judging her by the answers she avoided most studiously, there appear to be two main unresolved issues to be examined prior to Monday’s wider debate. Firstly, how the police managed to gain consent to search Mr Green’s Parliamentary office and why "it was believed" by AC Bob Quick, no warrant was required. Speaker Martin and Ms Smith must know more than they are willing to share. The legality and mode of the police operation hinges on this.

Second, whether any document which was to be leaked had any bearing on national security. If not, then the case for arresting an MP as a ‘proportionate’ action falls apart. I retain severe doubts. If these documents contain such sensitive material then it makes no sense to use a very broad (and archaic) common law offence instead of the Official Secrets Act.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/ukpga_19890006_en_1

The Home Secretary’s oft cited use of “potential” threat as a justification for turning an internal disciplinary matter into a criminal inquiry will not do. Almost any major policy document across a number of Departments could be viewed in that way. That line cannot be sustained.

It also seems incredible Jacqui Smith is determined to make a virtue out of her ignorance of events. Ministers being divorced from the operational decision-making of the police is just a truism. It is not the same to say all should defer to the police to the extent they can act without any reference to a higher authority. Boris Johnson, as Chair of the Met Police Authority, was given notice and expressed angrily how ill-advised the arrest would be.

Any previous Home Secretary like Blunkett, Clarke or Reid would be somewhere between livid and incandescent to have not been informed in advance of such a high profile arrest. Her predecessor, John Reid in a restrained tone, said to the House, "I am surprised, to say the least [she] was not informed." He added, as Home Secretary he would have wanted to, "express a view on the matter." He then alluded to her error of judgement, “she has said that even if she had been informed, she would not have acted differently, I do not think that we should take that as a ruling that someone in her position should never be informed.”

The police have often shown they lack the necessary political sensitivity and media awareness to be allowed to pursue such exceptional cases without any level of ‘supervision’.

It is nonsense to say these lines of authority do not cross at all. Reid knows it, even Boris Johnson knows it and if Jacqui Smith does not, then after 18 months still hasn't got a grip on what a Home Secretary does.

Flatfoots and Flatheads

If you have ever heard MPs debate their own expenses, house sitting times or committee selection then you will know how self-obsessed they can be. The Speaker's permission to allow Mr Plod to empty Damian Green's Parliamentary offices last Thursday, purely for his political activities, will stir nearly all MPs (apart from Ministers) to rebel and kick back. As Tony Benn said yesterday, "Once the police can interfere with Parliament, we are into the police state."

Speaker Martin may have sealed his own fate if it proves correct he failed to advise or inform any Minister, at the very least Leader of the House Harriet Harman, about the police operation. MPs return on Wednesday for the Queen's Speech. Unless a majority see a reasonable case by then for such overkill (in the words of David Blunkett) then one can expect an unprecedented constitutional crisis of serial points of order being raised and no speech from Her Maj. Mick Martin has never been very forthcoming about the detail of the Speaker's deliberation and has shown to be very sensitive to criticism. It has all the makings of a bloody conflict.

************************************************************************
It has been revealed the Home Office 'mole' was an APS (Assistant Private Secretary in the Special Advisers office). That office is copied into every significant policy document and letter. He was arrested but not charged and no doubt has been given an empty threat of a jail term. There have been other similarly ludicrous cases of late but I would resist calling this a pattern - the rozzers are not that organised.

Yesterday Judge Southwell dismissed a case brought by Thames Valley Police against a local hack in Milton Keynes for talking with officers about current criminal cases. That's not conspiracy - it is just bread and butter journalism.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5254372.ece
The case wasn't so much as thrown out of court as catapulted. I suspect the basis of the problem is police officers with rather limited brain power taking it upon themselves to make quite far-reaching legal judgements. Why do they think they should? Their role is to uphold the law and not interpret it. Coming out of Hendon with a woodentop and a Merit badge in crowd control does not make you Director of Public Prosecutions.
Apparently the coppers described Green's Parliamentary office as 'crime scene' and fixed his personal e-mail so it returned messages with the Dalek-like reply of "Your message was not delivered because of security policies."

Their actions show these officers to be both legalistically incapable and politically dense.

****************************************************************
Jacqui Smith on the Andrew Marr show failed to take the hint the political heat was higher than she realised. She justified the police action in response to, "systematic breaches of security," when she really meant confidentiality. When asked by AM whether she could apologise to Green about the violation of his Parliamentary privilege she said to do so would compromise the operational independence of the police. It was quite early on a Sunday for such a jaw-dropping experience.

Lost Control Again

Here is the image of Sir David Normington, Permanent Secretary at the Home Office and it would seem Accusor-in Chief of shadow immigration Minister Damian Green. Sir David (for it is he) was getting pretty damn vexed about the leaks coming from his Department some of them landing in Green's in-tray. 'Sir Humphrey' Normington claimed, laughably, the leaks had "risked undermining the effective operation of my department". The Civil Servant whose actions threaten the entire department is of the lowest managerial grade.

Sir D has every necessary connection at the very top of all the parties and could have had a quiet word but instead called in the Met. Old Plod can usually be relied on to overreact, so they did not disappoint by sending several anti-terrorist officers to raid Mr Green's offices and homes in Westminster and Ashford. Then they convinced themslves there was sufficient reason to arrest the largely blameless Tory and held him for about 7 hours before getting round to questioning him.

The issues leaked were quite varied and certainly not restricted to immigration. The only official with access to all those documents would have to work in the Press Office or more likely in a Private Office, directly to Ministers. In other words, it could only be a handful of people and the leaker would have known that. The leaks say more about how Normington runs his department where staff seemingly cannot wait to disseminate embarrrassing material than it can ever say about Damien Green's threat to national security.

Leaks to opposition members is a decades old practice. Civil Servants Clive Ponting and Sarah Tisdall were both jailed for their leaking (under Official Secrets Act) and both were acquitted on appeal. There is no prospect of the junior official, currently suspended, being prosecuted.

Mr Green was arrested under the common law 'offences' of "conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office" and "aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office". Again no hope of prosecution -this is pretty much the legal equivalent of 'looking like you're up to something.'

Ministers claim to have not known about the arrest or the complaint but the job of any Perm Sec like Normington, if it could be distilled into a few words, is 'to inform and advise Home Secretary on everything'. If proven, then a resignation could not be resisted. Perhaps Normington thinks this is a 'shot across the bows' of officials and Opposition members alike. The British character usual rebels against such edicts so it could all be counter-productive for Normington. Certainly if the Conservatives form the next Government Normington will be, "so fired".

I can confess when I was an official, I leaked. It was usually the odd message left on a Guardian journalists voicemail. I rang Nick Clegg's office once when John Reid was due to announce some idiotic policy. Clegg used it in Parliament and Reid fumed at him. I felt like it was in the public's interest to know. I knew I risked the sack but would not have expected any 'standard issue' size 10s kicking my door in like they did for Damian Green.

This story will keep rolling yet.

Behold the Master of Cod Psychology

Ian Duncan Smith (pictured), keen to have a party role after his dismal attempt at party leadership, established for the Conservatives the curiously named 'Social Justice Policy Group'.

"Why is a right-wing Tory proclaiming the need to give social justice to the poor and working classes," said many...er... Tories. Well, they need not have feared. The title is a complete misnomer; it could be more accurately termed, the Clinging-to-the-Notion-of -an-Ideal-Society-which-only-existed-in-John-Mills-films-in-the-1950s Group.

The SJPG published their report on the 'Broken Society' seemingly for the third time today. IDS saw the publication as "timely" given the current case of the highly distressing death of Baby P in Haringey. But he chose the timing and so is putting party politics where it does not belong. Cameron's shameful bellowing of incorrect 'facts' about the case at PMQs last week did not underline his reasonable concern but brought shame on the Commons. Even Speaker Mick Martin's dignified appeals were ignored,"it is not good, at a time when we have heard this news about a little child who has gone before us, that we should be shouting across the Chamber."

IDS's report champions marriage as the great panacea to the nation's ills. Conservative policy at the next election is likely to include tax breaks for married people regardless of their level of income and none for the non-marrieds or for those with new unmarried partners termed disturbingly, "non-biological adults". Duncan Smith does not show any evidence how this discriminatory tax system would restore the marriage ideal. The report reads like a series of moral prejudices and mother's knee philosophy, employing some pretty disasteful terms such as, "black families" and "breeding."

It is an almost endless stream of generalist discrimination and suburban despair. For example, how's this for a sweeping statement, "it is no longer seen as a moral duty to look after ageing parents or blood relatives". Millions of carers up and down the country must be wondering to themselves why they spend so much effort looking after their mother, husband or child, if IDS is so sure their selfless committment is not derived from a sense of "moral duty".

IDS has always been somewhat removed from reality; his report paints a picture of English life disinfected from modern culture. The evangelical proposal to offer heroin addicts abstinence, rather than treatment, shows a total ignorance of the nature of drug dependence.

But IDS's unfamiliarity, if not disconnection, with human experience has been the hallmark of his political career. As leader, he behaved as if his considerable military experience would allow him to control his MPs like a battallion of compliant sappers. It did not - his 'loyal' troops de-frocked him with an unusual degree of alacrity, even for Tories. To put the failure of his 2001-3 leadership into context, he was only the second Conservative leader (after Neville Chamberlain) to be dumped without even contesting a General Election.

Iain's new role allows him to throw himself into 'people' issues and mix with minorities with a certain gauche enthusiasm - a bit like a Latin prep master 'getting down' to a Calypso at school assembly.

He's the kind of person who is the last to get the joke, if he gets it at all. His final billetting in the army was as bag-carrier to Lord (Christopher) Soames, last Governor of Rhodesia. Soames detested IDS's relentless sobriety and took to calling him, "Iain Drunken Smith," to which Captain Smith would reply meekly, "But, Sir, I've told you, I don't drink."

The only memorable quotation IDS contributed to political life was, "never underestimate the determination of a quiet man". For now, I wish he'd just shut up.

Did you stay up for Virginia?

It's just not possible to continue this blog without considering the election of Barack Obama on Tuesday night. I had 'done the numbers' as they say over there and could see Obama was going to win five or six red states and end up with about 350 electoral college votes. My confidence in Obama's victory was unwavering; other commentators talked of the 'McCain bounce' and 'Bradley effect'. Although I had been certain of his victory, when Obama finally spoke as President elect in Chicago's Grant Park, the prospect of his Presidency suddenly came as a shock.

Most candidates with progressive, liberal credentials are invariably eliminated before they even get a whiff of any Presidential election. Let alone one with black skin. When you think of Bush (either one), Reagan or Carter you don't think of them in any way as intellectual. Americans may not be generally very class conscious but they do hate to feel threatened by intelligentsia. This guy's a professor. He's more like a European ideal of what a US President should be. Or a Hollywood version.

Let's not forget his story. Obama's stint as a volunteer community organiser in the tough end of Chicago in the '80s was much derided by that parochial patsy, Governor Sarah Palin. Except these simple 'people' skills translated to the national stage, meant he organised about 8 million more votes than the dismal Republicans. Obama's campaign was as disciplined and professional as McCain's was disreputable and chaotic. Eventually, the ever erratic McCain was reduced to parading a bald-headed Walter Mitty from the plumber's guild as a symbol of his supposed connection with the working man.

The zeitgeist for the Republicans is very similar to the Conservatives in 1997, so they haven't even reached bottom yet. Sidney Blumenthal, adviser to Clinton, put it succintly, follow this link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/04/uselections2008-johnmccain

Obama's stated intention to return the country to the 1999 tax rates (before Bush gave $1.2Tn to the top 1% earners) was deemed 'socialist' or at times 'Marxist'. These pitifully transparent accusations belonged only at a Palin redneck rally but one interviewer even put them as serious points to Joe Biden. He treated them with the contempt they deserved.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=m3EkhDru23U&feature=related

Obama mixed-race heritage turned out to be a talisman rather than an albatross. The black vote was very motivated and allowed Obama to win in Virginia, Florida and North Carolina where vicious racism persists today. It is nothing short of a monumental political achievement.

*********************************

The coverage on the night was very mixed - CNN was the best with amazing vote analysis. The BBC 'roundtable' discussion, with Dimbleby in the chair, was the essence of restrained excitement - it was the equivalent of a kindly uncle turning up to cheer his nephew's debut for the first XV.
MSNBC intermittently switched to commentary on the latest swings in the Tokyo markets: it seemed incredible, at such a pivotal moment, anyone could be distracted by such tiresome trivia. It's like in a betting shop when they interupt the Derby coverage to give the result of some dog race at Walthamstow.
Fox News were predictably muted and begrudging - while desperate to avoid praising Obama, they spent an inordinate amount of time discussing Michelle Obama's dress. ITV's technology wouldn't work and the pompous Alistair Stewart kept referring to McCain and Obama as 'Mr' instead of 'Senator'. Sky were inexplicably based in New York; one can only assume all the hotels in DC were booked up.

One great moment was on CNN when they were trying to establish one defining reason for Obama's win from the serried ranks of experts.

"Not taking public funding gave him overwhelming advertising resources".

"Democrats always benefit in tough economic times."

In the middle sat the rotund, genial figure of William Bennett, former education Secretary under Reagan. He looked stupified by their observations and impatiently shouted over them, "It's the candidate! The candidate! This is one incredible candidate with a phenomenal ability to communicate with today's America. It's all about Obama." At least one Republican gets it.

Anything you can't do

Jacqui Smith still has a long way to becoming the worst Home Secretary in British history. But she's definitely making progress. Out on his own is still Reginald Maudling (left) whose deft handling of Northern Ireland included internment and Bloody Sunday (which he defended stoutly). He was eventually booted out by Ted Heath in 1972 when he was found to be 'eyebrows deep' in a corruption scandal over multi-million pound building contracts.

Jacqui has, of late, shown she has picked up some of the pure bluster and bold dogmatic idiocy of our Reg. Her Achilles heel appears to be her small-minded, self-certainty. A perfect example was her veto-ing of new Immigration Minister, the barely half-witted, Phil Woolas, from appearing on BBC's Question Time. After two weeks in the job, Woolas had shown little, if any, command of his brief and could only supply journos with tough-sounding but illogical statements on immigration.

Officially, she wanted a Minister with more experience of economic matters to be espousing the Government line and demanded Tony McNulty be Woolas's sub. Firstly, McNulty's expertise is police and security matters. Second, any Minister, indeed any guest, on Question Time is expected to be able to pontificate on any area of domestic policy or world affairs. Third, it is not for Home Secretaries to set the panel on political discussion programmes. The Beeb quite rightly told Jacqs they had editorial integrity to preserve and if she wanted an empty chair then so be it. As it was, Roy Hattersley stood in and showed them all how it's done: with patience and good humour.

It was only the next day, it was revealed the Home Office figures on violent crime had been fiddled to project a much more reassuring view of the risk of violence. Crime has certainly fallen significantly in ten years although the public's perception is the opposite. Any suspicion of creative counting by the Government on crime figures was bound to provoke a big press reaction. But even Jacqus was not quite ready for the Sun's banner headline in 160 point letters, "GBH: Grievous Bloody Hypocrisy."

Ms Smith's has put in a consistently amateurish display in recent weeks. Her response to the Lords' thrashing of the 42-days detention clause by almost 200 votes was poor by her own very low standards. But to shout from the dispatch box, "I, for one, take the issue of security seriously," when many of those who opposed it were former senior officers in the security services, was pretty shameful stuff.

On Tuesday, Jacqui was up in front of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights to answer for her speech. Senior Tory MP, Richard Shepherd, could not easily hide his contempt for Ms Smith, particularly as the 'softies' on terrorist included his pal Lord (Peter) Carrington, ex-Foreign Sec and veteran of the D-Day landings. "Why are you as Home Secretary making assertions like this in an important speech?" bellowed Shepherd. "It is an incredible position for a very new home secretary to launch into an attack on people who have been protecting our liberties for a very long time". Her own side called her views merely, "trenchant" while others plumped for the more apt, "offensive."

She made a feeble attempt at defence but had only the refuge of party politics to protect herself with. "My comments specifically were aimed at opposition parties who despite having numerous attempts to engage in a process of bringing us to a consensus has failed to move one jot throughout the whole of the process," she opined. Lord Onslow said she was confusing consensus with people not agreeing with her. Certainly true, but Jacqui Smith also mistakes robust defence with obnoxious arrogance. Just like old Reg.

Don't you forget about me

It's been an amazing year for Cameron. The only major activity his party has engaged in, is publishing six very general policy discussion documents from which one could derive almost any manifesto. And yet the Conservatives have moved from a 10-point deficit last September to a long-established 20-point lead. How do those polls make the smug egotists of his inner Cabinet (Osbourne, Maude, Hague and Gove) feel? Their ears must glow hot in anticipation of their Ministerial briefs and travelling the world as team Cameron.

The problem with Cameron, as Alistair Campbell says in every public utterance, is he's done nothing to earn such a 'winning lead'. Brown's woeful display as PM has been the entire reason for Dave's illusory popularity. Now Brown is enjoying a very good war in the City there has been a minor panic in Tory ranks as their lead rapidly comes under threat.

So it was pure ego and selfism which inspired Cameron to stand up at the crack on Friday morning at Bloomberg's to ditch the days old agreement to support Govt action through the market crisis. (I watched Cameron decrying Brown's disastrous economic management while FTSE flashed above him showing a rise of 400 points that morning.)

Politics is like comedy - timing is everything. Early Friday morning is a really poor time to chose for hitting the news and the weekend papers so it was a bad tactic. But it's a poor strategy too to be shouting, "listen to what I think," when the economic storm is still raging. It's certainly too early to start taking lots of long-term decisions on the resolution. And Cameron will have to eat platefuls more humble pie than even John McCain when it comes to his previous utterances on de-regulation. Haven't seen much of free-marketeer John Redwood lately. It was only two weeks ago, he told Tory conference in Government, they would, "repeal 54 different pieces of regulation in our first de-regulation bill".

Cameron's argument, Britain should have followed the example of responsible conservatism like ex-Australian PM John Howard, is specious. Australia's relatively stable position is almost entirely derived from selling collossal amounts of raw materials to China. We'll see how they fare as global recession bites this year and next. First Secretary to the Treasury, Yvette Cooper put it well when she said, Cameron has been engaging in "juvenile political games".

Cameron's speech was obviously rushed, it must have been to contain excrutiating lines such as, "we need to do far better in bringing into everyday use technologies that are still in laboratories and developing in the laboratory technologies that haven’t even been thought of yet." Wise words, eh Dave.

New opinion polls are expected in a day or two and Brown is bound to benefit from his 'bank managerial' calm through the crisis. Cameron doesn't like to include many 'grey beards' in his team. It shows more political immaturity and flashes of real arrogance that he cannot take criticism from those who have the experience he obviously lacks. At last, it is starting to show.

Yeah, Whatever

No-one could seriously suggest political speeches are as eloquent as they once were, even in recent history. In US politics, there has been an intense purge of the articulate; John McCain has even made a point of attacking Obama's eloquence. In Britain there is also an embarrassment about using expressive and literate phraseology. There has been an intellectual retreat into using business-like soundbites.

There is no better example than the abysmal over use of the words, 'whatever it takes.' It will have not escaped your notice Brown and Darling have been doing just that in an attempt, in economic terms, to plug the gaping hole in the dam. I've rather lost track of how many tens of Billions have been doled to whom and for what reason.

The use of "whatever it takes" is now pervasive; yesterday Harriet Harman standing in for Gord at PMQs said the Government would, "do whatever it takes to back up our small business sector". The implication of the phrase is a kind of emotional bluntness. HH was trying to say, 'I get how important this is and I want to demonstrate my absolute commitment to its resolution.' But she might as well have said, 'we'll be trying 200 percent'. Or add the ultimate in pathetic verbal gestures, "and I feel very strongly about it."

The words "whatever it takes" are also empty of purpose; they imply, there is no plan, no well-considered strategy, just a pledge to chuck resourses at a problem in the vain hope it goes away.

John F. Kennedy's eloquence easily eclipsed Obama's and its worth reminding yourself of a time when leaders were not scared to be expressive. Here's the link to his inaugural speech in 1961.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html

If you read carefully you will notice within the speech JFK still says the equivalent of 'whatever it takes'. But in those days you would say something like," we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty". Present day speech writers would attack such lucidity with a red-pen demanding several re-writes. Nowadays if it can't be summarised in a three word headline, it's not considered worth saying.

Gordon's Best Speech that Day

The biggest cheer Brown got mid-speech in Manchester last week was when he said "My family are not props but people". The impromptu roar and over-the-head clapping from Ministers like Tony McNulty had me really puzzled. It was obviously a dig at Dave 'the Toff' Cameron. And how relieved were the troops to hear Gordon dare to have a pop. Except his point was totally fatuous. Cameron has allowed one or two shots of the normal 'Dave and the kids' in the market, on the beach. Certainly that staged shot with his wife Sam in Cornwall was pretty nauseous. But these pictures are not so commonplace so anyone could accuse him of exploiting his children's image - rather they show he has some appreciation of ordinary life. It's just with oodles of dosh in the bank he doesn't know anything of the stresses of a tight budget. And then I remembered this shot of Gord with his 'received smile' with wife and wee bairns. So the moral high ground was really no more than Gordon standing on tip-toe.

********************************************************************

What was the big message of the speech they were discussing in the pubs and clubs up and down this great land? Why the New Settlement of course. It has taken Brown and his coterie months to come up with a big idea and the result is instantly forgettable New Settlement. It's a kind of muddled and compromised version of the New Deal I suppose. Except it is only about the vague notion of 'fairness', long gone are those trotskyist principles of social justice and equality. Even a good policy announced on free nursery care for two year olds will take a yawning ten years to deliver. Atlee, Morrison and Bevan gave us the whole welfare state in five.

Overall it was a successful speech, well presented but ultimately lacking and vision for the voters. It was a bit like a good Premiership team who have had a rotten start to the season but then get a good win in the League Cup against Crewe Alexandra. "This could be the kick start to our season," opines the manager, when we all know relegation beckons. That looks certain even with a new manager.

And lead us not into an Election..

No, the picture, left, is not David Miliband estimating Labour's chances of re-election. In fact, his theme was, if anything, defying the fatalism of defeat. If he really believes that, he is not New Labour, he is Evangelical Labour.

'Brains's conference speech today was, as usual, totally bereft of any decent gags. You've got to pity the delegates; the poor buggers have been hard-arsing it in that conference hangar since Saturday morning with barely a good pun to cheer their spirits. The place looks strangely empty with banks of unused seating - there would probably be a better turnout if they put Mama Mia on instead.

Fortunately for everyone, Ministers have been instructed to limit their speeches to a mere six minutes. The downside is there no other option for them but to regale a list of bite-size soundbites.

Dave began by setting out his family's journey, as if it were the opening two minutes of "Who do you think you are?" The story of his Jewish grandfather being refused re-entry to the country in 1945 (he selfishly went to Belgium in search of his wife and child) reminded us immigration authorities have always employed plenty of officious pencil-necks.

But after the personal bit, everyone was looking for a sign, just a subtle hint of disloyalty or independence of spirit which would indicate his intention to move boldly against the PM. But no dice.

What did come was a personal commendation, " to you Gordon" thanking him for his great efforts in improving the world's aid budget. After so much recent in-fighting, Gordon found it impossible to take the compliment with any grace. Brown's tired and quietly resentful smile of 'appreciation' was like that of the amputee whose surprise present turns out to be a new pair of trainers.

Arse, Elbow?

This entry is something of a post-script to the previous one on Brown's miniscule 'gas giveaway'on Thursday. Gordy was quite clear about who would benefit (albeit marginally) when he said, "all lower income and all pensioner households will be eligible." The DEFRA press release was equally crystal when it said the new energy efficiency scheme would apply to, "those most at risk of fuel poverty, including all pensioners." No journalist checked that fact, they didn't need to, did they? It was only when a 60-year old woman contacted the Conservatives to say she had been refused free insulation, this much heralded policy began to unravel. DEFRA press office have now conceded only those over 70 may apply. Compared to the loss of data discs, failing to call an election, dropping the 10p rate, this may appear to be quite a small drama. But it shows the Government at its most disfunctional.

Whenever there is any well-planned Government press announcement, officials sit down, a couple of weeks before, with press officers. Invariably the first question discussed is, 'who benefits from this'? Naturally all Governments wish to push their new policies to the appropriate constituency. The draft release plus background briefing and detailed Q and A would be seen by more senior officials, press officers, special advisers and very often two Ministers before being given clearance. In this case there was an additonal, supposedly more rigorous stage, of going through No.10 as well. The process, like so many in the Civil Service is lengthy but eradicates risk of saying the wrong thing or at the wrong time.

And yet, here, the first principle point of the statement was wrong. There appears to be immense sloppiness at every level of Government. Ultimately it is Hilary Benn's (pictured above) fault as Secretary of State for Environment, it his Department's policy. But the mere fact that Downing Street allowed this farrago to occur at all, shows the well-oiled machine once ran by Alistair Campbell is now grinding its gears and is nearly out of juice.

I Offer you Peace, Bread, Loft Insulation

To the left is the CEO of an unnamed energy company when told he would have to justify price rises to the regulator OFGEM. The Government is just totally impotent in the face of these huge rises - even the latest wheeze of getting the companies to fund £900m for better insulation can easily be passed onto the consumer. The domestic energy market alone is worth about £30bn so Brown's big boast of "a sea-change" in energy consumption looks empty if not insulting. I would be very surprised if the full amount is even spent as the Government's "Warm Front" scheme has been offering almost exactly the same deal since 2000. This big idea also fails to address those legions of families in fuel poverty who rent and whose landlords are not inclined to pay their share.

Millions of Labour voters are desperate to see the Government flexing its muscles, showing it can match words with deeds and address some of the glaringly obvious social injustices. But Brown always tries to strike a perfect balance between all interested parties and in the end nothing is achieved.

Labour's raison d'etre, its rallying cry, used to be equality. Without it there would have been no equal pay act, race relations act or minimum wage.

Now even the word 'equality' sounds too left-wing. It has been expunged and replaced by the altogther more woolly 'fairness'. A good example (below) is an excerpt from Gordon Brown's message to party members at conference on two week's time.

"I know there are people who feel that modern Britain has been unfair to them. Some of them are right. But there is nothing that is bad about Britain that cannot be overcome by what is good about Britain, as long as we keep faith with our belief in fairness. Throughout our history, this nation has repeatedly demonstrated a proud spirit of cautious and practical optimism and we call on that spirit once again. Fair rules, fair chances, and a fair say for everyone: that is the new deal for this new world." Click on the link below for the full text (if you can bear it).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/08/labour.gordonbrown

Reading the words I was reminded of Robert Donat in the 39 Steps (there's one for the teenagers) when he is compelled to address a public meeting and reels off a series of crowd-pleasing but meaningless platitudes. Brown's vision is similarly opaque. If you forced to summarise his philosophy it would be, "we believe in things in general!"

The Fruits of a Tough Immigration Policy

There have been several references in previous entries of this blog to the patently unjust and inhuman manner Britain now treats asylum seekers. It is as if the words have lost their meaning and the term is now simply a euphemism for 'foreign scrouger'. A hidden aspect and probably the most shocking is how our 'robust' enforcement regimes deal with the children of asylum seekers. About 2,000 kids are locked up in immigration detention centres each year in conditions barely discernible from actual prison. At Yarl's Wood children must pass through eight locked doors before reaching their rooms, they are searched each time, with very little freedom to mix with other families. They have lost nearly all possessions, they have no access to pediatric care and for those traumatised, there is no mental health provision. The catalogue of brutal treatment meted out to these minors is utterly indefensible. Check the link below to the article in this week's New Statesman by Sir Al Aynsley-Green, the Children's Commisioner. I met Sir Al a few times and he is very earnest, polite, serious. He always tries to find the best of any situation but his assessment of the treatment by the British Immigration Agency is scathing. The case studies read like something from Turkey in the 1970s.

http://www.newstatesman.com/law-and-reform/2008/09/children-detention-immigration

How did we reach this intolerable place? It must be a few Home Secretaries ago, Straw or Blunkett when the Labour Government was being baited by the Conservatives and the Mail for being a 'soft touch'. Well we've certainly dispelled that accusation.
This summer, I met up with an old friend who has lived in Spain for some years. It seemed very apt to be discussing the state of the nation while watching some cricket at the Oval. When I told him the stories of asylum seekers from being treated with chemo being deported he was dumbfounded. Turning back to game he said wistfully, " I thought this was England....and I thought it was a Labour Government."

It was Twenty (Five) Years Ago Today...

...since Neil Kinnock, then new Labour leader, made his rallying cry for party unity after Labour's worst post-war electoral performance. "Remember how you felt on that dreadful morning of the 10th of June," opined Neil. "Just remember how you felt then, and think to yourselves: 'June the 9th, 1983, never ever again will we experience that.'

Clarke was reciting those lines ad nauseum in every TV news studio this morning. It's not so surprising Clarkey should recall that speech so clearly, as he wrote it. Its message should be considered just as relevant today, Clarke has argued, for Labour face "utter destruction" at the next General Election and the party are sleepwalking into disaster.

The irony is our local boy (Norwich South) Charlie's outburst in the middle of Gordon's fightback week, aims to cause just the kind of disunity and instability he was warning against in the early eighties. However, there was a certain frankness and stating the bleeding obvious about his interviews and the original Newstatesman article. The piece was really putting to bed any thoughts of a Blairist faction rising up against Gord, "there is no coherent Blairite ideaology...no Blairite plot." However, amongst Clarke's few supportive voices were, predictably, Stephen Byers and Alan Milburn who probably wish there were such a plot.

Charlie's intervention follows close behind Alistair Darling 'moment of clarity' when he conceded economic times were as bad as they had been for 60 years. "People are pissed off, " he added laconically. People actually started to warm to AD for the first time since the opinion polls went south last year. I particularly enjoyed his opinion of ex-Scottish leader Wendy Alexander, "not at all likeable." (Wendy is notoriously out of touch, in 1997 campaign she saw a constituent's mobile phone and asked where you put the money in).

But at last some senior figures in the party are make a stab at being honest with the public. Straight-talking would look more attractive than Cameron and Osbourne's fatuous faux-shock at every Government report. It won't last of course, No.10 machine will soon grind Darling's honest approach down and Clarke has already been painted as, "bitter and twisted." Clarke, even giving time to local news prog, Look East, responded in a suitably curt manner, "Bitter and twisted, I may be. But I'm also right."

For the Many not the Few, Remember?

How very fitting for John Hutton, business minister and free-market disciple (left) to select the Daily Telegraph to announce a big 'No' to any thoughts of a windfall tax on gas and oil companies' huge profits. Very few Telegraph readers would be personally intimate with 'fuel poverty'. However most would still be aware of the inexorable rise in fuel and electricity costs. (Fuel poverty is defined as any family who spend in excess of 10% of their income on fuel and that's about 3m families at present.) Hutton was clear despite overwhelming evidence of hardship, families had "benefitted very considerably in the past from low prices." It is true we have had comparable prices to other European countries in recent years. But then again these countries have not had the massive resources of oil, gas and coal we have in Britain. There was barely any acknowledgement from the Labour Minister of the misery and want millions have in store this winter.

The profits enjoyed by firms such as BP (£13Bn last year and £4bn last quarter) are by any standard extra-ordinary and all of their increases have been derived from market conditions and not from harder work or shrewder investment. British Gas has a more modest enterprise than BP and only posted a £2bn profit at the same time as announcing an overnight increase in bills of 35%. If you didn't realise it, gas has doubled in price in the last two years.

Hutton argues it would be unreasonable to tax the utilities like 1997 when £4.5bn was raised because that was a manifesto committment. However the market economy grows in unpredictable ways and Government should not wait for an election before making any adjustment. Traditionally American Democrats have been well right of Labour in terms of being business friendly. But Obama is committed to impose a windfall tax on oil firms and give a tax break to middle and lower income families.

Hutton has unashamedly swallowed the CBI argument about disincentives to investment - the same arguments that have been made by Tories about minimum wage, equal pay and going back 100 years national insurance. Much of the Labour administration is just too cautious to make any bold policy gesture toward social justice. I suspect for Hutton re-distribution is not an embarrassing reminder of naive ideals, he really believes in the unrestrained business ethos. To Hutton, addressing these profits would be a 'tax and spend' socialist agenda. His constiutency is no longer the poor and elderly struggling to keep their houses warm -now he serves the profiteers.

Pontificating on Racism

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI has stepped into the increasingly frantic race row in Italy mainly concerning the prejudicial treatment of the 150,000 Roma population. Being the Pope he only referred in an oblique way to "new and worrisome signs of racism in the world" but his words are certainly a calculated intervention responding to the sinister creep to open bigotry from Italy's establishment. Burlosconi's announcement that all Roma should be fingerprinted was effectively blessed in a High Court Ruling last month where the presiding judge said, "all the Gypsies are thieves." Now that's what I call institutionalised racism.

Here in Britain we can look at these events with a sense of superior calm, can't we? Except we can't. The Government still intends to press ahead with denying GP treatment to failed asylum seekers. In their joint DH/ Home Office consultation paper 'Proposals to Exclude Overseas Visitors to Free NHS Primary Care' they assert 'genuine' asylum seekers will continue to get GP treatment but failed asylum seekers will not. It would be easier to understand, although still discriminatory, if all failed asylum seekers were workshy economic migrants and 'genuine' ones were brave, oppressed and without hope. But many (thousands) in the failed category are from countries like Zimbabwe, Iraq and Congo where basic freedoms and individual rights are routinely denied.

It is already Government policy to disallow work or benefits to failed asylum seekers but to prevent access to healthcare would be to confirm them as entirely 'second-class.' GPs were invited to comment but the Government have refused (even under FOI) to release their responses and seem content to supress the professionals' opinions. Some responses have leaked out anyway. Naturally there were severe concerns about the spread of certain diseases which would go unchecked, TB, diptheria and measles (the proposals would also outlaw vaccinations).

Then there is that pesky General Medical Council guiding principle that GPs should "make the care of your patient your first concern." There seems no way around that one and it would be pretty hard for the Government to carry this through Parliamnet with almost unviversal objection. Alan Johnson as Sec of State for Health can clearly see the iniquity - the ghastly, humourless Liam Byrne has all the necessary sangue froid to implement this dispicable policy.

Gord Help Us

I was sitting with cold beer looking up at at Mont Blanc, not thinking about Gordon on holiday in Suffolk, when I got the text from my brother. Labour had lost the by-election in Glasgow to the SNP. Just ten days before, I saw two polls which showed a 12-14% point Labour lead which would translate into a much reduced majority of 4-5,000 but a safe win. So I had put the prospect of Government defeat out of my mind.
The loss easily ranks with other by-election disasters for a sitting Government, Orpington, Bermondsey, Govan, Newbury for those political anoraks.
It was a colosall political error for Brown to call the election in July. His idea was to get it out of the way ready for a re-launch in October. But what he failed to realise was how far the mo' (that's American for momentum) was against him. It was also extra-ordinarily foolish to reveal, a week before polling. a new Tory style strategy on benefit scroungers instituting a US welfare to work scheme and forcing the disabled into work. Glasgow East is one of the poorest seats in UK with very high levels of state dependence, how did they expect it to play?
It is as well for Gordon everyone is still on the beach but they'll be back by 1 September and then he can expect huge speculation about his future. He may be about as popular as rabies but his Prime Ministerialship is not immediately threatened. He is clearly not one of those resigning types, particularly as he doesn't feel he's got anything wrong.

Party rules on unseating a leader are really tough, about half the delegates at the Manchester Conference in October would have to vote against him in a no-confidence motion. I can't see that happening especially as there is no very obvious successor although David Milliband and Alan Johnson would probably make a better fist of it than Gordon.
Labour MPs are also aware a new leader would bring a General Election and for many joining the queue of scroungers in the search for work. It may be the case constitutionally there is no requirement to hold an election simply because the ruling party have elected a new leader. But the public would not accept three Labour PMs in 18 months without a re-newing its mandate.
Gordon was of course chillin' with his homies in Southwold in the August drizzle. He looked even stiffer than John Major which I didn't think was possible. Who wears a jacket and patent leather shoes on the beach? Cameron as Boden man in bordies and a polo shirt made Gord look like he was from another era. There's a reason for that. He is.

More conviction needed. Less convictions

Jacqui Smith made Home Secretary without first running a large Department which is unlike pretty much any Home Sec in history. In fact her previous post of Chief Whip usually excludes the holder from taking a large portfolio. Her inexperience certainly shows. Her first blunder was to suck up to the Treasury over a paltry £40m police wage increase. As Gerald Kaufman said in his well-regarded book 'How to be a Minister' - Lesson number one - defend your Department.

Of course, Jacqui lost a huge amount of responsibility (prisons, probation, ) to the new Justice Ministry and immigration is now an arms-length style agency. But she still holds the youth offending file and although all measures of crime are showing significant falls there has been a recent hysterical response to young people.

In the east police are being advised to openly follow, film and harrass young people. Check out the copper in this film.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7518506.stm.

Jacqui said this," I want police to focus on them by giving them a taste of their own medicine: daily visits, repeated warnings and relentless filming of offenders to create an environment where there is nowhere to hide." This policy, if you can call it that, may satisfy some inner neurotic desire to shackle young wide boys but doesn't say a lot about her knowledge of human behaviour. The young thug is hardly going to be persuaded to lead a more constructive life by being bullied by a few half-witted woodentops.

This weekend she was at it again advising the general public to have-a-go when they see a crime taking place. Boris Johnson took a different view when he said, "don't get involved, move away." It is another compelling sympton of Labour's terminal decline that 'Bonkers' Johnson has got a better grip of issues such as street crime than the Home Secretary.

Norfolk's Tony Martin was held up as a hero defending his property. But when the detail of his case emerged he didn't come out as noble or valiant but somewhat deluded. Apparently he would lie in bed fully clothed with a shotgun beside him. When Martin murdered that 16 year old burglar he was running away terrified and was shot in the back. That is not the proportionate action of a brave man. But Jacqui would not agree.

The Rewards of Loyalty: Deportation

The redoubtable Bob Russell (Colchester) yesterday continued, along with his Party Leader Nick Clegg, to apply pressure on the Government over their shameful treatment of the Gurkhas. The MOD finally backed down last year over equal pension rights after a protracted legal battle. But another High Court battle is beginning over retired Gurkha soldiers' right to remain in UK as they have just been granted a Judicial Review.

Any Gurkha who joined the British army post-1997 and has served four years will be granted British citizenship and it would be reasonable to assume that was well deserved after sorties in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. For those who joined before that arbitrary debate, there is no similar dispensation. The 2,000 or so mainly retired soldiers face deportation to Nepal. When they marched on Parliament just before Easter, Gordon Brown even refused a meeting with representatives (who is advising the man?) Even the image of these war heroes handing back their medals by the dozen apparently leaves Ministers unmoved.

These extra-ordinary stern, if not pernicious immigration rules are far from the exception. Gord last week tried to appear magnanimous by announcing a moratorium on returning failed asylum seekers back to Zimbabwe. Leaving the substantial moral issues to one side, deportations would be practically rather difficult as Gord has proposed sanctions to cease all Zimbabwean Airways flights in the EU and no British airline flies to Harare anymore.

These 11,000 Zimbabweans, now in limbo, are not entitled to benefits nor are they legally allowed to work. There is no advice from the Home Office on how they should stay alive in the meantime but clearly working illegally is their only option. Britain has a long (and once proud) tradition of accepting oppressed and terrorised groups from the European Jews of the 1930s to the Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. Their acceptance was combined with an expectation they would "stand on their own two feet." Immigration policy now outlaws that. And in the case of the Gurkhas long service to the country is rewarded with a couple of ribbons and a kick up the arse out of the country.

Labour Determined to Lose the Middle Ground

To Treasury questions in the Commons. There are two kinds of tax the public particularly detest. The first are flat-rate taxes where the burden is equal regardless of ability to pay. The other, which has the potential to turn this otherwise mild nation into a seething mob, are retrospective taxes. Here, only the gift of clairvoyancy could provide the public with enough information to avoid paying the tax.
The new ‘green’ increases to Vehicle Excise Duty certainly fall into that second category. If the Daily Telegraph is to be believed there will be increases for over 9 million drivers.
Senior Treasury officials should have advised Ministers the increases, following huge rises in petrol prices, would not be perceived as ‘green’ and acceptable but simply unfair and revenue-raising. This policy would be hard enough to push through in good times (see Labour Govts 1997-2005) but with current polls almost below sea-level, it looks like electoral suicide.
Angela Eagle was first Treasury Minister to make a stab at the defence. Treasury Questions sound a lot like Environment Questions these days; all the talk was of "global emissions", "oil dependency" and "eco-innovation". Ange, who was so completely and utterly sacked by Tony Blair, has regained some composure since she was allowed to be a Minister again. (She was totally ineffective at the Home Office where she tried to give the impression of impervious self-certainty by playing ‘Mini-me’ to the arrogant Blunkett.)
Next up to the Dispatch Box was the slinky Yvette Cooper who is a highly confident performer. If it rankles that others less able have been promoted to Cabinet ahead of her, it doesn’t show. She is certainly eons more entertaining than ‘Badger’ Darling whose turgid delivery almost bored the Opposition into submission. The Chancellor was helped along by a host of pliant and supine Labour backbenchers who each painted a picture of the last 11 years as nothing short of an economic Shangri-la. It was left to wealthy Conservative members to raise concerns about the impact of various tax policies on low-income families. Ministers couldn't even guess which income groups would be most effected by VED changes.
The session certainly came alive, just briefly, when Dennis Skinner jumped up to champion the successful job creation programmes in his constituency (Bolsover). The Treasury team all smiled nervously as Dennis’s Derbyshire tones boomed around the chamber, but eventually their static grins slowly began to fall. His contribution was received like an impromptu wedding speech by a well-meaning but thoroughly pissed uncle.
Finally we got to the real business of VED increases. George Osbourne, with a delivery which can be described as sneering conceit actually summarised the Government’s position most accurately when he said they were “sleepwalking into another 10p tax fiasco.”
There appears to be no shift in the offing, no indication of a more flexible approach. Labour MPs took it all glumly and with abject resignation - it was like they were listening to the forecast of another washed-out Bank Holiday.

Amess Still Needs the Buzz

This week David Amess MP (Southend West) put down no less than eight Parliamentary Questions about bees, beekeeping and the general health and well-being of the nation's bees. No, seriously, he did. I thought at first, Mr Amess was trying to smash all records for asking the most PQs but he has already asked over 4,000 since 1987 and I suspect he already is Parliament's no.1 questioner. One can only assume a worried constituent came recently to his Friday surgery with compelling evidence of impending honey shortages and the associated depletion of the Britain's treasured hives.

The poor Minister replying, Jonathan Shaw, Parly Under Sec at DEFRA, tried to maintain a serious front and poured forth about the Government' s comprehensive Bee Health Strategy and paid fitting tribute to the tireless efforts of the Bee Inspectorate from the National Bee Unit. (This sounds just like the start of a Monty Python sketch, doesn't it? It is not very hard to picture Graham Chapman in the office of the National Bee Unit, wearing a huge bee costume, getting jolly batey about pollen. And still smoking a pipe.)

Mr Shaw referred constantly to the guiding legislation, which we all know is the Bees Act 1980. It turns out the relevant provisions include some pretty protectionist measures taken in the early days of Queen Bee herself, Margaret Thatcher. At the time, there were, presumably, plenty of Conservative backbenchers calling for an altogether more free-market solution to the bee conundrum - 'deregulate the keepers, privatise the hives' the call.

More reassuring for law and order hardliners, the Bees Act does provide (I'm not joking) the police with sweeping powers of entry to any abode or vehicle which may contain even a single outlawed foreign bee. You may ask how the ordinary copper would be able to recognise the alien bee - one assumes every police force in those days had its own Insect Squad.

It is somewhat worrying, the Bees Act itself was passed almost immediately after the release of several killer bee films most notably 'The Swarm'. Michael Caine as the rogue-doesn't-play-by-the-rules entomologist perfectly captured the tension between man and bee when he said, "We've been fighting a losing battle against the insects for fifteen years, but I never thought I'd see the final face-off in my lifetime. And I never dreamed that it would turn out to be the bees - they've always been our friends!"

Odds On for Ratification

The spread-betting magnate Stuart Wheeler (pictured) has just lost his case in the High Court which aimed to compel the Government to hold to its manifesto commitment and have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The EU (Amendment) Act got Royal Assent on 19 June but has the case held up its commencement until now. There is also the small matter of the Irish voting pretty solidly (53.4% to 46.6%) against the Treaty. In theory the 'Dublin says no' vote should mean the Treaty has been holed below the water line. However the Government remain pretty tight-lipped not wanting to be the first country to admit the 'bleeding obvious' that the rest of the EU will gang up on the Taiseoch, Brian Cowen and mak them vote again until they get it right. Our local MP Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) made this exact same point after Foreign Sec's statement last week. None of this sits terribly well with Yurp lecturing Zimbabwe, China and Burma about our superior democratic principles.

In any case people prefer to vote no on these matters. Even Euro stalwarts Holland and France gave the last Treaty the finger. The electorate will find any tangential issue as an excuse, apparently in Ireland up to 10% of the 'no vote' were motivated by scare stories of Brussels forcing a change of law to allow abortions. Utter twaddle of course. A referendum in UK would be bring out every headbanger sceptic in some vast unholy alliance of loons and conspiracy theorists. Nevertheless the back rooming dealing by the euro leaders seemingly overriding the will of the people simply re-enforces the view it is a self-serving organisation for the political elite.

The Art of Resigning

Our local man, Bob Spink (Castlepoint) resigned from the Conservative Party during the Budget but still only made only a ripple of news. He elected to join UKIP but what else could he do? Resign his seat as well? David Davis (above) has made the curious and almost unprecedented decision to resign his seat in response to the opposition's defeat over 42 day's detention. He wants to stimulate a national debate about authoritarianism over libertarianism. Or so he says. The resignation speech was delivered outside Westminster's St. Stephen's entrance as Mr Speaker had ruled (perversely) it would 'revisit controversial issues' - so what if it did?

The speech included a long litany of Labour Government's "relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms (sic)". It read like a fairly convincing string of rationalisations, cleverly obscuring the underlying motivation. One suspects the spark was Davis's stated commitment to repeal the 42-day detention legislation. It would appear Cameron, as ever, was not willing to be explicit about his Party's future legislative programme. Davis, frustrated by his impotence, took the only action he was able by petulantly resigning his seat. It's like the child at teatime who in a fit of temper declares he is not going to eat his tea. In other words Davis is the only likely loser in this. The early predictions were for him to win very easily or even have a walkover. History suggests he will lose, the public in Humberside may like his 'no nonsense-speak-as-I-find' approach but the electorate don't like voting unless there's a good reason. At present only Kelvin 'Page 3' MacKenzie is considering running but any high profile Independent could slay Davis.

Caravans for All

Pat and Stan Cable from Eye in Norfolk won nearly £4M on the lottery the other day. Like many lottery winning couples in their latter years they don't see the money changing their life routine much. They will remain in their two-bedroom council flat - they only have plans to go on holiday and buy a caravan. They readily admit they will struggle to spend the £10,000 a month interest their fortune will earn them, let alone the lump sum.

Most of us have had a go on the lottery although few remark on the extra-ordinary system of prize-winning. If you pick four out of six numbers correctly you may win up to £100, pick five and it may be as much as £2,000. But six can win you several million. Then watch as feckless relatives and shameless con-men move in for the kill.

It must be about time for a restructuring of these 'Premiership' style payouts. If the object was to spread a bit of joy and good fortune then the system of prizes would have a lot more equanimity about it. For the £4m won by the possibly-soon-to-be-unhappy Cables could mean 200 couples getting a payout of £20,000. That would be enough to pay off a bit of debt, treat the close family, buy that caravan and still have plenty left over for a fortnight in the sun. The Irish lottery is run on these lines and everyone knows someone who has won a few quid. At present the British lottery is closer to a Dickensian structure of misery for all and millions for a handful of people. The additional perversity is that most of the winners haven't the first idea how to spend the money.

Catholic Tastes

I have to confess to be being a bit disappointed the weekend's Royal wedding attracted only a modicum of controversy. First, the bride herself. She is not blue-blood; has the temerity to work for a living and worst of all has a new-age name of Autumn (Kelly). Secondly, the 'heppy' couple had flogged the rights to the pictures to Hello! magazine for half a million quid. And thirdly Princess Beatrice's choice of hat (left) was the sort of fashion disaster only batty old Great Aunt Margaret used to perpetrate. At least the headgear distracted us loyal royal watchers from Beartrice's increasingly 'Osmond Family' looks.
But there was barely a mention of Autumn's (for it is she) decision to renounce her Catholicism to preserve Peter Philips 11th-in-line-to-the-throneness. For all the Windsor's overbearing arrogance this, almost medieval, discrimination is not strictly their fault.
The majority of England's anti-Catholic legislation was brought in personally by Elizabeth I - but much was repealed in the 19th Century. Yet the prejudicial Act of Settlement 1701 remains firmly on the statute book, ensuring no-one may remain in the Royal family if they wish to lower themselves by marrying a Catholic. It would look utterly shameful if there were similar bigoted legislation against Jews or Moslems. But despite this constitutional overhaul being overdue for about 300 years the Government fails to act. The argument put by successive Governments is it would require equivalent legislation across the Commonwealth. The same answers are given when the issue of male succession is raised. However the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles 1971 stresses the "liberty of the individual and equal rights for all." Putting it on the 'too difficult' pile just doesn't wash.
The new Constitutional Reform Bill announced by Gordy last week contains a few sensible measures to clarify the political roles of the Attorney General and Lord Chancellor. But it does not seek to pontificate on this point. Any Members of Parliament could lay an amendment to this Bill to seek to finally overturn this historical embarrassment. It just so happens my MP, John Gummer is a member of the Catholic church. I feel some lobbying coming on - will keep you posted.

Laing Time Coming

This is the face of Eleanor Laing, Shadow Justice Minister. You are totally forgiven for not recognising her. I have been monitoring contributions by the region's MPs since the turn of the year and this appears to be Ms Laing's first contribution to Parliament in that time. As a shadow Minister her absence from debates seems inexplicable but when you read her interjections to last week's debate on fixed-term Parliaments you may begin to understand why.

The Private Member's Bill presented by David Howarth (Cambridge) seeks to set Parliamentary terms to four years. On the face of it seems eminently sensible proposal which no sitting Government would consider implementing. So much for another PMB. The main case for the proposal would be to put an end to the long and tedious speculation about calling elections. The arbitrary nature of prorogation also fuels the suspicion amongst the general public that all MPs are devious and self-serving when most are not.

As the genial Mr Howarth put it, all countries do it differently put none look as capricious as us. Replying for the Conservatives, Eleanor Laing took the 'ad hominen' line that Mr Howarth's true motive for presenting the Bill was simply to offer protection to Gordon Brown. As Howarth is a front-bencher for the Lib-Dems that assertion looks a bit off the mark. Howarth had made it clear the Bill, if enacted could only subsequently be amended by a further Act. She thought she had spotted a fatal flaw. "In effect," shrieked La Laing,"he is arguing that the Prime Minister of the day could throw out the provisions of this Bill and have a general election whenever he or she wanted within the four or five-year period." Almost with embarrassment, Howarth had to point out that any such Bill was not the gift of any PM, would need cross-party support and agreement from the House of Lords. Most of the time we call this Parliamentary Democracy.

She would have been advised to stop digging but no, on she went. She referred to the one month delay to the 2001 General Election because of the foot and mouth outbreak. And said she was glad of it because she was at the time in the latter stages of pregnancy. If anything, her point strengthened the case for pre-ordained election dates. She continued on the theme assuring the house breezily that her "son is of course the most wonderful person in the world" and then remembering where she was, said "I appreciate that point is out of order and nothing to do with the Bill." It may be a while before Ellie speaks on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition again, certainly if the Tory whips have anything to say about it.

The Stamp of Authority

The fallout from the local elections continues. Labour members who are willing to put their heads up still cannot agree on which policy the Governmnent has got most wrong. People are mostly complaining about tax and which sounds to many MPs as the abolition of the 10p rate. It was certainly a shot-in-the-foot decision affecting about 5m people but only marginally in terms of actual quids in pockets. What people really mean is where the cost of living has gone sky high such as petrol, gas and electricity where (short of a windfall tax on the companies) Government can do very little.

But one area where the Ministers certainly have their fingers on the levers of power are the Post Offices. Charles Clarke (Norwich South) was crystal clear on the impact the intention to shut 3,500 P.Os had on local voting intentions. On 6 May, Tony Wright (Gt.Yarmouth) secured an adjournment debate on the Government consultation process aka closure programme. The Minister responding, the lesser known Pat McFadden from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), set out many of the reasons for the network's lack of competiveness. They were predominantly because the post offices are no longer providing many services they used to. Mr McFadden failed to mention the decisions to take away products like car tax were Government ones. It's a bit like the chairman of a football club citing the reason for relegation being down to selling all their best players. To which the fans would reply "Yeah it's you who bloody sold 'em."

The atmosphere in most post offices is something like the 1970s which underlines the chronic lack of investment so no wonder they can't compete. Another threat hangs over about a further 3,000 post offices if they lose the contract for Card Account which millions use to cash their pensions, benefits etc. If it happens it will mean the network will effectively have been halved since 1997. The result would be an immense amount of self-congratulation amongst the free-market zealots in the Department but would leave many thousands of people without an essential community service. If Ministers think that is the right balance for the needs of the electorate then they deserve to lose power.

Plenty of Local Difficulty

The London Mayoral race had nothing much to do with the region but was symptomatic of the national visceral shift from Labour. (I also like this picture of Boris scowling at Ken). Clare Short describes the current Government as 'Blairism without the charm'. Gordon Brown has a serious problem with the country's perception of him and a seemingly innate inability to adapt to circumstances. His performance on Andrew Marr's show on Sunday underlined the malaise of his leadership. He was like some political monolith. He had very little to say about how Labour policies were to benefit people on lower incomes referring several times to assistance in setting up small businesses. So what's Labour for? He follows his brief so closely it is easy for skiled interviewers like Marr to wrong foot him. Andy gave Gord the David Frost easy chat before landing a couple of belters, "people think you're strange" was a new approach. Several times Brown finished his reply expecting Marr to say, that's all we have time for. But he kept coming at him with depressing alacrity.

Brown cannot grasp the immensity of the Tory surge and it is certainly substantial, making crucial ground in Lancs and Yorks. A note sent round after the debacle to Labour party members talked mainly of the pitifully few triumphs on an otherwise disastrous night. Ipswich for reasons yet to be discerned had a swing to Labour and picked up three seats.

The loss of 330 seats was way beyond the worst possible scenario set out in most papers. So phrases such as political meltdown and landslide were for once apt.

Third Term Fatigue

Governments are like football managers after a successful period they get a bit complacent start cutting the odd corner. They listen less, become more conscious of headlines, and start believing their own propaganda. Brown is deeply in the third-term blues and with little idea how to get out of it. He is not helped by some abject performances by certain Ministers, Alistair Darling and Ed Balls in particular. Ed Balls short-tempered description of the teachers' perfectly legitimate strike last week could have been lifted from any Tory Minister from the 80s.
The PM also seems to have given up any pretence of courtesy towards Parliament too - like the the Premiership Manager who suffers mild criticism and petulantly refuses talk to the media. It was certainly unusual that he gave no statement to Parliament after the recent NATO summit in Romania. However PMs do have to answer Parliamentary Questions but they can be less than helpful inthe process.
David Amess (Southend) asked Gordy about his trip to US, who he met, who provided the briefings etc. Brown mentioned his well publicised meetings with the Presidential candidates but in essence gave this terse and artless response."During my recent visit to the United States I had meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals on a range of subjects.... briefing was provided by the relevant Government Departments." It may be there is a history between these two for Amess asked another about Prime Ministerial visits in Essex. Certainly quite a reasonable question notwithstanding there are just as many Labour as Conservative members for Essex. Gord's thoroughly rude reply was as follows," A list of my UK visits will be published in the usual way following the end of the financial year." Say what you like about Tony Blair, he always saw the value in showing respect to his opponents. And it makes you look the part, which Gordon is struggling with. At present he is much more Sam Allardyce than Arsene Wenger.