Wednesday 28 May 2008

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.

Tuesday 20 May 2008

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.

Monday 12 May 2008

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.

Friday 9 May 2008

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.