Across the Line

When interviewing a public figure, anything said "off the record" should be dealt with the utmost care by the journalist. Whatever follows can inform future articles, give another better context or corrrect false impressions. What is clear at the time is there is a contract of understanding between the politician and the writer.

Not so at the Daily Telegraph who sent undercover reporters to entrap various Lib-Dem ministers to complain about their end of the Coalition deal. Vince Cable disclosed most and rather rashly, to what he thought were young mums from his constituency. Even so he asked them not to repeat his words "outside."

Revealing his zeal to declare a "war on Murdoch" necessitated removing media regulation from his portfolio and would in any other case have deservedly earned a thorough sacking.

However it was not the Telegraph who broke the story but Robert Peston of the Beeb who had been gifted the scoop by someone at the paper who thought the corporate media group was determining editorial decisions. It is easy to see how that impression was made. It looks more like the Torygraph did not lead with this explosive quote about BSkyB takeover because it did not suit their wider interests for Vince to hand the decision to a more lassez faire Tory like Jeremy Hunt.

Perhaps the paper will learn its lesson about undercover reporting. It is totally proportionate when exposing criminal behaviour or corruption. But if it amounts to bugging in person to embarrass then it is shabby, disreputable and threatens future frank disclosure which until now made the worlds of politics and journalism go round.

Also when you deceive you can't manage what information comes out and it may not, like this case, be in your own interests.

Anyhow, without lifting a finger, Murdoch, as ever, is the winner.

You Know that I Know that You Know

It fell to Home Office Minister, Julia Goldsworthy (left) to do the press on the Government's Equality Bill. You would have thought under a female Home Secretary in Theresa May, it was a good opportunity for the Coalition Government to show their committment to equal pay in the workplace.

Unfortunately, the resultant media release was a new low in transparent nonsense from a Lib-Dem Minister where she appeared to convince herself of the entire opposite of her lifelong views. The policy measure actually belonged to Labour. It was a power in the old Equality Bill which forced companies to publish their emloyees pay rates if it had been shown they had perpetuated gaps in salary between the sexes.

During the Bill's passage Ms Goldsworthy lobbied Labour to expose those negligent companies, arguing, quite rightly, a "voluntary audit is hardly worth the paper it is printed on." Now in Government and following intense lobbying from City businesses, Julia has decided to not commence section 78 of the Act although it had already received Royal Assent.

She said in a rather supine press release it was now "arrogant" to think "Government knows best" and it was "absolutely the right time to make voluntary pay reporting work." In defence she claimed, contrary to all evidence, "we live in a differnt world from two years ago." Yes, a fantasy world in your case. She knew before what a farce such a voluntary scheme is and how business will flick two fingers at such futile gestures to equality.

It actually is a different world in the public sector. The vertitable Eric Pickles, SoS for Local Government, is forcing all Councils to reveal senior officers pay, setting a limit, tied for arbitrary reasons, to the PM's salary. Pickles lambasted CEOs for their pay rates describing it as a "football transfer market."

Not only does this policy expose the Tories traditional hypocrisy over public and private earning, it will only encourage the best public administrators to join the private sector where their higher earnings can remain a secret.

And I Don't Commend it to the House

Vince 'Vinny' Cable has had to perform some extra-ordinary political backflips in order to maintain his status as Secretary of State for Business. But the latest volte face, U-turn, flip-flop call it what you will, could be something of a first in British political history.

Vince's department has a policy to ramp up student tuition fees and the Tories have graciously allowed them to abstain given that every Lib-Dem MP signed a pledge to do so over their dead body. Conservatives could see an interesting dilemma occuring where whatever way Lib-Dem Ministers voted make them appear mad, bad or sad.

Clegg must have taken the political gamble that the students would swallow their medicine just like before as British young people are apolitical and apathetic. And yet they are not. The eruption of anger from the campuses has taken everyone by surprise not least the hapless NUS president, Aaron Porter who tied himself in knots and didn't even attend the last protest.

The control freakery of the police is fuelling the anger as is the cutting of the £30 a week allowance for poor sixth formers, a needless and pernicious 'saving'.

The Scottish and Welsh Parliaments are ensuring their countries' students are not exposed to such huge liabilities which just underlines how avoidable the policy is.

Vince may end up not supporting his own bill, but in any event Lib-Dem support among students is below sea level.

You're an Embarrassment

FIFA President, Sepp Blatter (left), did not feel moved to open any level of inquiry when the BBC Panorama team made allegations of corruption by senior board members.

Blatter answers to no-one. To be FIFA President is to be annointed into business royalty where usual business standards do not apply.

FIFA Vice-President, Jack Warner had already been caught flogging $1m worth of tickets to agencies and touts in 2006. His punishment was to be asked to repay the money. It would appear being caught did not deter him from doing it again this year.

Putting to one side these grave allegations, Andy Anson head of 'our' bid committtee called Panorama "an embarrassment to the BBC."

The wrath of many media organisations, particularly owned by Rupert Murdoch has been to lay into the Beeb accusing them of "sabotage" just before the decision on whether Britain should host 2018 World Cup. Was it not the Sunday Times who first revelead delegates taking 'sweeteners'?. Anyway, it would hardly be in the BBC's interests as they would get to broadcast the World Cup where Sky would not. In any case it was good to see old-fashioned investigative journalism infuriating these remote sporting despots.

The conditions set by FIFA on any World Cup bid are sickenly restrictive. The host country must agree to allow FIFA to protect its Amazonian like revenue stream by making temporary changes to tax and commercial law. We saw this in South Africa where all street sellers were cleared out within a mile of the stadia. During wet matches fans were only allowed to use FIFA umbrellas and not their own.

Suddenly our bid looks less favourable then the Russians. FIFA may yet regret getting into bed with Putin et al who are not so pliant as we would have been. To Sepp it is a mere detail.

Too Much Too Young

David (Lord) Young's indiscreet restaurant burbling about the "so-called" recession sounded rather like some Harry Enfield character or at least a scene from 'Yes, Minister.'

Amid the reassuring sound of fish knives on fine porcelain and claret glasses nudging together, Young poured out classic Tory indifference to the hard-pressed and unemployed.

As an adviser to the PM on business, he felt he did not have to accede to the Coalition's transparently false mantra of "we're all in this together." He scoffed at rising unemployment and cuts in public services as a lot of "fuss."

His best line was probably when he compared the level of public spending for 2010 being broadly similar to 2007, omitting to mention the tens of billions sucked out to support irresponsible banks. "Now I don't remember being short of money in 2007". Young wasn't short of money even in 1957, he was born into wealth and was able to thrive unlike "most people".

Once exposed, by the Telegraph of all papers, he immediately began distancing himself from his own remarks, like a footballer who has just been sent off, decrying needless fouling. Cameron had shown ruthless qualities previously and should have sacked him on the spot but instead showed he was really jolly angry at the old fool. Young did better by resigning a few hours later.

Labour frontbenchers could hardly contain their delight in having so many lines gifted to them which they can quote back to Cameron ad nauseam. The old image of Tory complacent aloofness is starting to return because the old detachment from the common man's plight had never really gone away.

Breeding Contempt

I am not sure I would agree with David Cameron the announcement of a Royal wedding in a few months amounted to, "a great day for Britain."

But Republican tendencies to one side, the new focus on the Royal family was a great day for tabloid editors and semi-redundant society watchers.

Prince William comes across as an amiable chap and Katherine Middleton seems a canny lass herself but their obvious difference in class will be exploited by the media with relish. There are few articles more nauseating than the adopted superiority of society commentators making terse remarks about perceived lapses in protocol.

Ms Middleton, unlike William, struggles to trace her family back to Edward II. Like practically all of Britons she only has to go back a maximum of four generations to find working class roots. To some of us, it is a source of reassurance of our equality and shared national heritage. To the snobby hacks, it will be a rich vein of bile and viciousness which will be mined to exhaustion.

It is beyond doubt her family will have pure lies told about them. Every relative looking a bit blurry-eyed in the back of a taxi will be presented as a huge story with a 'screamer' headline. Some will sue for damages and win. They will be compelled to take on heightened security and will wonder whether it was all worth it.

The first to be attacked looks to be Katherine's mother, Carole, who according to the gossip columns, works for a living, chews gum and uses the word 'toilet.'

It would be appropriate to offer the young couple every happiness yet the misery has hardly begun.

Just Read the Book

George Bush Jnr, or good ol 'W', once bet his political strategist, Karl Rove he could read more books in a year.

This detail emerged from Bush's autobio published last week. I think Rove won the bet but W still consumed almost 100 himself. That would not really matter if he hadn't been President at the time and not a first year undergraduate.

Surprisingly some were rather intellectual, which reminded me of that line from the film 'A Fish Called Wanda,'

"Monkeys don't read philosophy."

"Yes they do. They just don't understand what it means."

As expected, in Bush's memoirs we have the justification of Iraq war as well as torture through water-boarding. He rather glibly said it was perfectly alright as he had checked with lawyers and delivered the line as if we all knew the high levels of virtue advocates work under. These lawyers would also have had some encouragement from Veep Cheney to provide 'suitable' advice.

On the rounds of interviews for his book, one brave journo dared press him on the issue by asking the simple question (in so many words), "Ok, Bud, if this is not torture, are we OK about foreign police or army doing this to American personnel?" Bush shifted in his seat and gave his universal answer: "Just read the book."

But since then, some poor commentators have ploughed through this simplistic, Texan drivel they have found lots of false and proxy memories. I guess the editors did not dare to cross check if Bush was always there to witness all the conversations he had detailed. But it seems he has probably inadvertantly lifted sections frm other books (like Bob Woodward's). So he comes across as a rather dim, confused, self-conscious, adolescent who just used to be President.

Instant Karma

The British may be somewhat bemused to see a slightly known former Minister effectively kicked out of politics for telling lies about his opponent.

On closer view we see exactly while Phil Woolas's political career has come to a dramatic halt. Phil approved of his campaign literature asking questions of his Lib-Dem opponent, Elwyn Watkins,"Why are the extremists urging for a vote for Watkins?" Woolas also insinuated there was some murky foreign funding going on and that he was probably gay.

Such campaigning may be fairly commonplace in US. But not only are there limits to their acceptability over here and there is also a law which punishes candidates who dish out deliberate mistruths. Woolas was supported during the case by Labour and it cost them £400k in fees. Harriet Harman made clear there is no more funding for pointless appeals. When she said the party was accepting the judgement and would not put up candiates who had been found to be "telling lies" Woolas should have known he was toast.

He is attempting a judicial review which seems the wrong legal avenue - if any appeal is heard it will just lose him his house.

After his grubby and distasteful performances defending the deportation of ghurkas and locking up children at Yarl's Wood, it is hard not to feel a little shadenfreude at his rapid descent into oblivion.

Dishonest Toil

When the Archbishop of Canterbury is informed he has incurred the wrath of the Murdoch press this morning (Sun called him a "chump") he may be reassured he is on the right track.

Rowan Williams's fairly gently critique of IDS's plans to coerce the long-term unemployed into £1 an hour 'jobs' deserved to be much more robust. He only said those on benefits were not necessarily "wicked, stupid or lazy." The plan is a kind of 'pub wisdom' or crackpot suggestion from the Young Conservatives usually dismissed by more experienced members of the cabinet. This looks destined to be instituted, meaning it has approval from the very top.

It is far from clear what economic benefits it will serve. If there were huge amounts of vacancies unfilled then a more convincing justification could be made. But there are at least 5 jobless to every post. IDS says it will instill a work ethic an so furthers his impression of a rather batey and remote Latin prep master devising fiendish punishments for the lower fourth.

But at least the Coalition concede it is punishment for being unemployed. Danny 'Beaker' Alexander, admitted the policy was a "sanction" perhaps he did not realise it means the same as a penalty. We'll see if there is as much enthusiasm for making unemployed managerial staff pick litter for £30 a week.

Under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, work can only be compulsory if in prison, as part of military service or in a case of national emergency. I would have thought a legal challenge could defeat this odious plot to chain gang the unemployed.

Time to Man Up

Minister for Universities, David Willetts (left), could be more honest with the British people. But he showed he was determined to portray the Coalition Government's radial marketisation of Higher Education as equitable and designed to help poor families.

The bare facts are that undergraduate teacher funding is to be cut by 80 percent and the gap to be funded entirely by the students themselves, paying between £18,000 to £27,000 for a three year course. Giving graduates an easier way of paying hugely inflated fees does not amount to being "progressive" as Willetts claimed in a rather nauseating manner.

The sub-plot was revealed just after the election when he suggested young people should "set their sights a bit lower." Know their place, I guess is another way of putting it.

This privatisation will only save HM Treasury about £1bn so is economically idiotic. But what is shown to be hard-headed economic decision making is more ideological in reality.

Willetts could easily find warm words for sending boys up chimneys for fourteen hours a day. He would say, "We accept for some there will be a slightly longer average working day and but I feel sure many will thrive in this challenging work environment. It is not the role of Government to hold back young enthusiastic workers who chose to provide for their families in this exciting new enterprise. We already know many of the more ambitious 'sweeps' gain a valuable insight into the world of business and in that sense it could not be a more liberal policy..."

Tory families will feel the impact soon and it may yet shake them from their reverie. Lib-Dems have all woken with a start as the photo-ops of their MPs signing a pledge to oppose lifting the cap are repeated on their local TV news.

But if Ministers like Willetts really dared speak the truth it would start, "The Lib-Dems are taking most of the hits. So that's alright then."

Clinging to the Raft

Despite a poor night in the mid-term elections, President Obama can count himself lucky he did not yield both Houses like Bill Clinton in 1994.

The situations have strong parallels; a young, inspiring Democrat President takes the top job just as the economy starts 'tanking'. Naturally he gets a disproportionate degree of blame. It makes Obama's task as progressive a whole lot more difficult having the Democrat majority in the lower House overturned. Nancy Pelosi's tenure as Speaker is certainly over and she has handed to Republican John 'Perma-tan' Boehner (above).

But the Senate was not lost. The surging tide of the Tea Party stopped at Nevada where the rather grey but totally solid Harry Reid fended off the extraordinary challenge of the eccentric Sharron Angle. Reid's narrow win was pivotal in keeping a Democratic majority and also symbolic in defeating the shrill disaffected voices of extreme politics.

Angle ran, by any standards, a disreputable campaign. She showed a poor grasp of the subject matter which was exposed by the simplest of media questioning. Her response was to no longer engage with the media except at arms length photo-ops. Perhaps that lost her the final momentum. In an ideal world her loss would have been caused by a backlash from her endorsement of somewhat racist camapign ads where Latinos were pictured busting through border fences to terrorise white communities. Nevada has no border with Mexico.

But some other Tea Party favourites are to be elevated and their mysterious view of modern America will have a greater voice. It is odd from this side of the Atlantic to see middle and lower income voters rush to support candidates like Rand Paul (Kentucky) and Joe Miller (Alaska) who argue about withdrawing the provision of medicare and even the minimum wage.

Paul in his victory speech said, "We've come to take our Government back," which implies a presumption to govern and a certain contempt for democracy. Many millions of dollars poured in anonymously from a small group of corporate heads to fund the Tea Party campaigns eventhough one of their few uniting principles is fighting against these powerful and hidden elites.

We are now at the phase where both sides make futile gestures toward bi-partisanship then retreat to plot bloody murder. The test will be whether the strengthened Republicans still wish to make good their commitment to continue with Bush's colossal tax cut for the top two percent of earners. To do so would mean abandoning from the outset any ambition to significantly reduce the deficit let alone balance the budget.

There is a battle going for the soul of the Republican Party and the old guard will have to ensure Sarah Palin does not make it as their candidate in 2012. Esteemed journalist and speechwriter to Bush Jnr, David Frum, warned fellow Republicans there was no future in simply portraying President Obama as "some kind of Kenyan interloper," if they wanted to see a more substantial support for conservatism.

But Boehner has already said he wants to "reverse" Obama's healthcare reforms. The system of voting in the Senate may be obscure but if they try and dismantale his achievements at least the Constitution gives Obama the biggest of all trump cards: the veto.

Cut Along Now

They say Cameron and Johnson don't get on these days. Part of the reason may be the public recognise the Mayor with a little affection as 'Boris' but the PM as Cameron not Dave.

The PM will not ever gain that level of popularity as the masses will suffer plenty of hardship in his 'reign' and although some may pull on the forlock and admire their 'betters' the majority have a bit more dignity and self-respect.

'Bonkers' Johnson has plenty of political courage and is not phased by defying the part line. So he did not hold back when unleashing his views on DWP's intention to take a machete to housing benefit. It is not being a deficit denier to question why someone who has been looking for work for 12 months should qualify for a cut in housing benefit too.

Johnson knows politically his chances of re-election would be very limited if the capping of benefits engineered a series of homogonised wealthy communities purged of the working classes.

But he gives the impression he really beleives in it and has, in his time as Mayor, got a genuine feel for the people and wants to protect a London "where rich and poor can live together. " That's the politics of community and it is welcome to hear a Conservative say it. He went further, "On my watch you are not going to see thousands of families evicted from the place where they have put down roots."

Cameron will have none of it and predicatably his press has talked of Johnson being "slapped down" (yawn). The emphasis has shifted to the over the top language he used about "ethnic cleansing". In fact it was Labour's frontbencher Chris Bryant who coined the phrase earlier in the week prompting Dave's ridiculous claims of housing benefit claimants getting £50,000 a year. If such payments even exist they are very exceptional and should not be portrayed as typical.

But Cameron gave the game away when he said these people didn't deserve to live in houses "they couldn't possible dream" of owning. Simon Hoggart of the Guardian said it showed, like many of the upper classes, the PM expects "the poor to lead disagreeable lives".

At least one the 'hoity-toity' is prepared to stand up for them and Cameron will find, given Johnson's greater political ambition, he will be hard to quell.

The Narrowest Shoulders

Politics is not economics. George 'Gideon' Osborne has always conflated the two.

It used to be make him appear simply gauche, underlying his very shallow experience of economic matters. Now he is wielding power, it is far from a joke just for the columnists. His tenure at No. 11 will bring misery to millions and threatens to pull the whole economy into a nose dive.

During yesterday's Spending Review statement, Osborne (and Cameron too in PMQs) declared tritely, the UK was "out of the danger zone". Saying it, doesn't make it so.

Taking £81Bn out of the economy at the precise moment it is emerging groggily from the recession is a huge gamble with the highest of stakes. For all the yarns about huge benefit pay outs and massive capital projects, this amount is still much less than we, the taxpayer, paid out to prop up the banks.

In any event it was, as Alan Johnson pointed out, at least distasteful to see the Government benches cheer with delight at impending hardship for the least advantaged. Housing will no longer be built by Government and council tax rents will rocket. Housing benefit will be slashed. Osborne portays the recipients of this benefit as dole-ites who are making a pretty penny from the sweat of our brows. They don't actually get to keep the money which goes to the landlord, they just get to stay in their home.

Buried in the headlines was the announcement of a US style 12-month limit to those on sickness benefit. This pernicious policy will punish about a million people for living with the misfortune of having mental or physical problems which prevent them from seeking work.

Quite what happens when their time is up is not clear, short of destitution. But even if a few made an extraordinary recovery, they may not find jobs that easy when competing with four million others.

We knew the exact forecast of 490,000 public sector job losses from the couldn't-be-more-independent Office for Budget Responsibility because Danny 'Beaker' Alexander let the press read his briefing notes (above). The Lib-Dems complicity in this is pretty sickening - they are like the annoying ticks who pick on even smaller boys to please the school bullies but still gain no credibility.

Of course, throughout the catalogue of punishments came the soapy word 'fairness' to which Cameron nodded sagely like a benign Lord of the Manor. But I heard none of it, the child benefit cut for higher earners appears to be the only truely progressive measure and has already been shown to be uneven and unfair.

We've been here before, of course. This is 1980-1 all over again but even harsher. The social division from that era is still evident in many areas particularly the industrial ghost towns of Yorkshire, Tyneside and Lancashire. We also had civil unrest and riots then.

To think, the last Tory Prime Minister, John Major, sought "a nation at peace with itself."

Una Sola Familia

The story of the 33 miners trapped half a mile under the Atacama desert since early August may not have much of a political edge. But it was a fully global media event, the first other than sport, since 9/11.

Thankfully the themes here were not chaos, terrorism and retribution but courage, defiance and triumph. It was only the same old human story of men who work underground; now and again we are reminded how dangerous and intensely stressful this work is. Often the miners are struggling with company officials on applying minimum safety standards which really are a matter of life and death.

The emotional peak was reached when the second miner to emerge, Mario Sepulveda, celebrated with his colleagues and rescuers. They chanted 'Viva Chile' singing loud and from the gut. Amid all the misery and turmoil we have for once a great story of inspiration and pride. Viva.

The Impossible Dream

During the General Election campaign, Nick Clegg, did a Vlog for students in an honest bid for their votes. He could say with hand-on-heart only the Liberal Democrats had the policies on tuition fees which students would vote for. He looked down the camera and said raising the cap was "wrong."

Five months later and the Lib-Dems are doing another political pirouette where the old sage Vince Cable (above) is compelled to adopt a laissez-faire approach to higher education. He has accepted wholesale the report from John Browne, former BP Chief Executive whose adherence to pure free-market solutions is hardly a surprise.

If it passes it will allow the BIS to cut University tuition funding by 80 percent so effectively privatising higher education. That's a pretty shameful legacy for anyone seeking to proclaim the achievements of the Liberal cause.

There are rumours of 30 (that's half) of the Lib-Dem MPs are willing to vote against it which with Labour support could actually defeat the Government. Such is the political turmoil at the heart of every Lib-Dem, they will be distraught whatever the result.

George...Don't Do That

'Brilliant' Chancellor George Obsorne, got his first feel of a British political backlash yesterday, after he announced child benefit would no longer paid to the top 15 percent of earners.

For the public, it was quite an unpalatable measure, particularly as exactly a year ago Osborne had promised unequivocally, "we will preserve child benefit."

These cuts would raise a measly £1Bn but they hold a greater symbolic significance by making the first blow against universal benefits. No-one could now accuse them of being 'liberal' again. But instead of introducing a means test, George simply attached identical tax disbenefits to those in 40 percent tax bracket because of the "need to reflect the British sense of fair play. "

Admittedly a means test would have been a worse option, as it puts off many people claiming who are in genuine need. But the outcome of George's little weeze is an obviously unbalanced policy, unfairly punishing families with only one good earner. Families with a dual income of up to £87K will keep child benefit: families with single income of £44K will lose it. Dave said he would try and find other ways of helping, "stay-at-home mothers". So much for the new men of the Tory party.

George and Dave obviously weighed up this 'anomaly' to those little middle class folk and judged it were preferable to a messy system of assessment. Not so, say Middle England (short hand for the Daily Mail) who are thoroughly put out at the unfairness and suggestion that £44K amounts to a wealthy household after mortgage, utilities, council tax, food and clothes are paid for.

Already, Dave has begun to wobble and promised there could be tax reilef for married couples but that does not fill the hole felt by all the 'Mr-and-Mrs-plus-2.4-kids' who voted Tory. The PM may yet learn constantly repeating he is driven by a sense of "fairness" is not enough to convince people who are struggling to pay the bills.

"In the end, politics comes down to guts," said Dame Shirley Williams. This Government's first flirtations with unpopular cuts may be too much for the Tory backbenches who are calling for "compensating measures". The policy could yet be slowly killed through the 1922 Committee.

Unfortunately next time, I fear, George will be determined to make us meet our pain. It won't be long.

Police? I Would Like to Report A Breach of Trust

Putting to one side my inaccurate predictions over David Miliband, attention is turned to the real divsion in the cabinet over the scale and scope of the proposed defence cuts.

Dr Liam Fox, for it is he, made a robust and mostly persuasive case for maintaining levels of funding for troops and their support functions, especially as we are still engaged in our longest war since Napolean.

The media image of handing redundancy notices to heroes from Helmand is at least unedifying. Fox pointed to the "grave consequences" and "political damage" to the PM in a private and throughly leaked letter.

Fox's decision to call in the police to investigate the matter perhaps underlines his Department's guilt in wishing to publicise Treasury dominance on the country's strategic defence capability. But the police?

The Conservatives were suitably outraged when Home Office neurosis over a few leaks, led to an invasion of anti-terrorist police into Parliament and also the arrest of one of their frontbenchers, Damian Green. But now they are in power they can't resist but press the plod button at the first opportunity.

Sky News reported thirty (!) flatfoots pounding around MOD's Main Building pulling out hard-drives and drawing up mobile phone records. I am sure the leaker knows it only takes someone to photocopy a letter and post it to a newspaper to make it completely untraceable.

Let's just say they find it was young Toby from Liam's Private Office. What are the police actually going to do with him other than wag a finger? There is no criminal offence here unless they chose to proceed with the Official Secrets Act. The letter was about budgets not nuclear codes so that would be a dead end.

But what a dramtic loss of dignity. One day Fox looks a solid chap, standing up for his Department (unlike Hunt and Spellman) and the next he looks as mealy-mouthed and reactionary as Old New Labour.

And in the end, we all know the Treasury will win.

Political Wilderness, Civil War then Death

One of the most encouraging signs for Labour, following Ed Miliband's narrow win in the leadership election on Saturday, has been the rabid over reaction from the Tory press.

Red Ed, indeed.

The Sunday Times, perhaps getting a steer from its prodigious owner, put out a preposterous editorial about how Labour's 'lurch to the left' would leave them in the political wilderness. Turn the page and columnist, Martin Ivens, was talking up the actual death of the Labour Party.

I remember the early 80s when Labour did arrive at a state of unelectability. They had a weak, eccentric leader in Michael Foot. Ranks were sorely divided, in fact a significant number had defected to the bright and hopeful SDP. The miltant tendency was actually running cities like Liverpool. And the party's policies included huge liabilities like withdrawal from EEC, unilateral nuclear disarmament and the wholesale nationalisation of entire industries. To draw close comparisons to that episode of severe political turmoil in the party is frankly laughable.

Of course, our old chums at the Mail are happy to exorcise those ghosts again by trying to conjure up some great division, this time between the two Milibands. This is not spin; it's pure invention.

This morning's effort by Tim Shipman contained all the familiar phrases of an article where an editor has instructed the reporter to make mischief out of thin air, such as "insiders say" and "sources close to. " Contrary to all we know about the genial and genuinely affectionate brothers, Shipman was compelled to construct the basis of a potential civil war with factions ready to tear the party asunder.

"Some of Milibands closest friends, " he speculated, unconvincingly, "want him [David] to walk away because they fear his every public utterance will be viewed as a plot to oust his brother as Labour Leader." Be assured David will stand in next week's Shadow Cabinet elections and emerge with a very senior post.

I guess those editors who simply detest Labour are getting their revenge in early and are just thorougly piqued about how united HM's Opposition is. But they not building on a reality which people recognise; papers can exploit and exaggerate the public's perceptions; they cannot simply create them.

David Milband may have made a better leader in the long run but even this "vanquished sibling" knows the next election will be a straight fight between the two main parties. Labour, even suffering a "disastrous" defeat under Brown, is still only fifty seats behind. The right wing commentators are snapping but it's not fierceness but fear which is driving their anger.

Enough Already

No-one could accuse Labour of not being thorough on consulting the membership and wider public on the election of a new leader.

Since May, they have held dozens of meetings, many of them must have been almost identical. The BBC allowed them one last re-run of old slogans for Question Time on Thursday.

Of course, many who are voting have their old allegiances and new prejudices against former Ministers. But any neutral could see David Miliband stands head and shoulders above all candidates in stature, record, debating ability and even personal charm.

It seems frankly amazing his brother Ed has managed to make this a two-horse race. Besides sounding like (according to Rory Bremner) Tony Blar with a cold, he struggles to demonstrate any kind of heavyweight support. His boast of having endorsements as far and wide as "Frank Dobson and Frank Field" would have impressed no-one outside the Labour party and very few in it.

Diane Abott has carved a place in Parliament, is a good speaker (gave a a belter on 90 day detention) but her campaign has been lacklustre not helped by her pinning the cliched "heir to Blair" badge on Miliband (D) constantly.

Ed Balls has had a good summer. He gave Gove a good kicking on free schools and has got some meaty aphorisms into the media reminding what he's good at swinging. But that will earn him shadow chancellorship this time. His soft-spoken, nice guy act cuts no ice with people who really know what he's like behind closed doors.

Poor little Burnham could hardly get a word in on Thursday and Dimbleby, forgetful at the best of times, kept passing over him. When he did get a chance to speak he barked how he was the only candidate equi-distant politically from Blair and Brown. Hardly the most inspirational of qualifications.

By Saturday afternoon David will take up his post and soon cleave to mould of leader. The party needs one badly. The country could do with an Opposition too.

Fair is Foul, Foul is Fair

The Lib-Dems have not changed their party's name for several years now.

After the failure of the old 'Alliance' to make the big breakthrough in 1983, they adopted many nomenclature but retained essentially the same political identity. Even when they were briefly the LSDs, they can't have been in greater confusion in their political creed than they are now.

Just a few days before conference, Nick Clegg has refined his definition of liberal. It has shifted markedly since those TV debates in the Spring and is now does not resemble anything the Great Grandad of the party William Beveridge (above) would have recognised. Clegg takes it to mean, less sympathetic more self-reliant, less egalitarian in outcomes more materially ambitious.

In his Times article today, the DPM said of the forthcoming benefit cuts including for the disabled and elderly were "profoundly liberal". He went on, "welfare needs to become an engine of mobility...rather than to compensate the poor for their predicament." That could have been Keith Joseph speaking.

And what of the poor and their 'predicament' and those who are too old and infirm to acheive social mobility? If the Liberal side of the philosophy can be transformed what of social democracy?

Much of the Parliamentary Party don't believe this and there is very deep unease among the grey beards of Steele, Ashdown, Kennedy and Campbell. So far only the solid principled Bob Russell (Colchester) has had the courage to speak his mind. On Monday, he challenged Osborne's casual remarks about how so many benefit claimaints were just following their 'lifestyle choice' known more commonly as being idle bastards.

There are many more from the old 'Sandle Brigade' who will re-state the reason they joined the party all those years ago. I would expect their voices to be heard next week, for all their recent Government experience even the Liberals could not suppress all dissent like the last Government.

Demolition Man

Political nerds love conference season. This autumn's round of composites and resolutions will be different not least having Tory and Liberals unable to attack each other. And to top it all the climax of the Labour leadership contest.

But traditionally we start with the TUC and the familiar barking of rotund unions lads and lasses. The tone this year is nothing short of seething anger. Even the mild-mannered Chair, Brendan Barber, described Tory Britain as a "dark, brutish more frightening place" and adding the coalition was more like "a demolition."

Of course RMT chief, Bob Crow, is well experienced in unleashing bilious anger at Conservatives. But Bob is a bit underrated intellectually, he seems to have softened his style a little and his words are beginning to resonate as quite sensible. Can it be true? When the cuts in public services are felt personally to millions in the ensuing months he may find himself almost liked. Even Boris Johnson agreed with Bob ("he's got a point") that the crisis was borne of reckless behaviour at the top of most of our banks.

The most striking theme about the speeches today was the lack of comment by the media about the role of banks and how the public had been mugged into thinking the annihilation of many vital services was in some way necessary pain. Perhaps there is something masochistic in the British nature. But at last we heard the genuine voices of the ordinary men and women who have had a stomach full of Coulson fed stories about "benefit scroungers" and "gold-plated public pensions."

The gap between the media misrepresentation and the rights of workers to protect their jobs was caught perfectly when Andrew Marr was asking Bob Crow about NOTW calling unions threat of strikes as "industrial suicide".

"That newspaper would say that as it doesn't recognise Trade Unions," a sticky pause ensued.

However even co-ordinated action from all parts of the membership will not reverse the disaster to come as one leader said, Thatcher started the attack on public services, "this lot mean to finish the job."

Shouting Fire in a Theatre

Unfortunately, the Terry Jones who has planned on burning a stack of the Koran on Saturday is not the one attached to Monty Pythons. Even if Python were at times equally controversial, they were never so artless and crude.

The Rev Terry Jones. a Pentecostal preacher from Florida is currently defying all denominations of the American churches, the whole of Congress and the Government, General Petreus, the Vatican and Nato by his desire to contront "extreme Islam." As the General in charge of the 100,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan put it, this act of idiocy and extremism would "incite violence and put our troops in danger."

It is pretty poor the Republicans have sought to make some political capital out of this highly tense situation. Rather than condemn it outright for the outrage it is, Boehner and Palin have equated it as equally "unwise" as building a Muslim Centre in Manhattan.

At any rate Jones is unmoved. He does not appear to be the usual kind of media whore. It's possible he really means it. Certainly the only way he will alter his memorial to 9/11 by burning holy books is by "praying" and seeking divine intervention. Give me strength.

In America everyone respects Jones's right to freedom of speech, even if the cost is tearing up all the mediation built between Islam and Christianity in recent years. At least in this country we draw a line on what is unacceptable as a protest.

Of course the British police can go too far and use powers to quell legitimate protest. But if Jones were in London he would stopped as it was considered anti-social behaviour, unconducive to the public good, a breach of the beach or a simple public order offence. Or they just go down and put the frighteners on him.

Rights should be balanced against responsibilities but in this situation the world can only wait for God to locate enough of Jones's few brain cells to get him to chuck it in.

Or with any luck strike him down.

Use Your Illusion

This is the image of the most senior drugs official in the United Nations, Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

He was persuaded to write a response to the slew of Observer articles in favour of reforming the UN's ancient and obsolete drug control laws. His opening line underlined his mastery of obfuscation, deflection and deceit.

"The debate between those who dream of a world without drugs and those who hope for a world of free drugs has been raging for years. " The simple truth is, no such debate exists between these two utopian positions.

A world without drugs is an impossible goal because mankind has always sought some degree of intoxication and always will. It is not a dream but an illusion. It should not be the starting point of discussion when it has no place in reality.

Equally misleading his Costa's characterisation of reformers as people who would like a free-for-all on drugs where anyone is able to get as blitzed as they wish anytime. The drug reform lobby may hold differing opinions on the appropriate levels of controls but the shared objective is to reduce the harm from drugs. No serious organisation advocates abandoning all control and regulation.

So Costa's initial premise is wrong and what follows is a path through tortuous logic, with highly partial use of statistics and general points about human nature which defy all sense. Costa argues reforms would "unleash an epidemic of addiction". He asserts cocaine production over the last 10 years has stabilised omitting to mention 28,000 murders in the cocaine trade in Mexico in the last four years.

Recently in UK, there have been some encouraging signs from establishment figures like Sir Ian Gilmore and media outlets (Independent) who have declared an end to the fallacy of 'controlling' drugs as anything other than a disaster. Unfortunately the Government's latest thinking on a Drugs Strategy is as idealogical as the UN with great emphasis on abstinence not treatment. They even suggest "whole family intervention" where all the relatives of a drug user arrive at a pre-arranged place and surround him. No doubt it will be God's love that doth save his soul.

One big problem with Costa's and IDS's perspective is the assumption taking drugs is all about addiction. Most drug use does not involve dependence. Ten million people in Britain have tried cannabis but levels of addiction are present in only a few thousand. Ecstasy is not addictive, even most cocaine users can take it or leave it.

There seems to have most anxiety, in recent years, about cannabis in the country prompting cross party support for increasing penalties on a drug Gordon Brown called "lethal." It is perverse that cannabis use has plummetted since 1998 falling by 45%. It seems astonishing the long line of drug Ministers have not sought to trumpet this success. But this war on drugs is more like the perpetual war in Oceania in Orwell's 1984. For the war to continue Governments must continue to fight and fail.

Staying Power

Last July, I wrote about the curious news cycle surrounding the story of NOTW phone tapping.

It was no surprise News International papers did not touch it but then neither did the Telegraph or the Mail. The BBC ran a sensational story about Rebekah Wade being bugged which immediately disappeared.

Now the issue has been rejuvenated following an interview in the New York Times of former Screws hack, Sean Hoare. And we see the pattern repeating itself with certain titles scrupulously not reporting this major story.

The papers probably have different motives; editors in the Murdoch stable are more anxious about accusations of illegality and denials of journalistic malfeasance by their sister paper NOTW. Others simply don't wish to expose the PM's Comms supremo Andy Coulson and formr editor of NOTW, to any more damaging allegations.

We already know hundreds of prominent people had their mobile phones tapped illegally. Some like Max Clifford and PFA chair Gordon Taylor were paid off handsomely. John Prescott was a highly likely candidate for being bugged but finds the Met Police won't tell him whether he was or not.

If they think for a minute JP's loss of Ministerial status in May has diminished his ability to get to the airwaves and embarass them, then the Plod are very much mistaken. The entire behaviour of senior Met officers in the context of this inquiry has been bizarre.

They appear to be covering for the unsatisfactory level of scrutiny they applied to general journalistic practise at NOTW following the conviction and imprisonment of former hack Glenn Mulcaire. It must be at least doubtful he was the only one carrying out all the phone taps so others higher up still have questions to answer about how much was authorised, by whom and to what level. The unfortunate impression the Met are giving is protecting the Tory's press secretary.

The police and No 10 all point incessantly to "no new evidence". Tory Minister, Alan Duncan, listed all parties who agreed there was nothing more to investigate including the less than impartial "News International lawyers."

The words of Sean Hoare to the NYT were dismissed out of hand because of his previous problems with drink and drugs as if he were still drunk and stoned now. I heard him interviewed and he sounded quite lucid and I don't think he was hallucinating when he said he was expected to access celebrities' voicemail.

Labour have not gained much political capital from some of the Cons policy slip ups but here is a golden chance to get at Cameron's cabal. Prescott means it when he says he will initiate a judicial review if the matter is not progressed. That's what this scandal needs, a proper court case when Coulson can be put on the stand under oath.

Everybody Out

It would take a quite an extra-ordinary circumstance for me to volunteer to share a (twin) hotel room with a male work colleague. And I would never chose to do so if the company was going to pick up the tab and I had several million in the bank anyway.

So to do so "occassionally" could be described as somewhat eccentric behaviour during the election campaign by the shadow Foreign Sec. Now he is First Secretary of State, he should be a little more circumspect about his associations as a married man.

The blogger, Guido Fawkes, has made a series of perfectly legitimate observations based on an FOI request and journalistic inquiry about Hague and his close friend, adviser and colleague, 25 year-old graduate Christopher Myers.

Fawkes described Hague's statement detailing his wife, Ffion's difficulty in conceiving as "nuclear". Certainly a well-chosen word, for very rarely, if ever, is BBC's Nick Robinson lost for words like he was last night.

The Evening Standard suggested today he drafted this personal statement, stressing his heterosexuality, after taking advice from the machiavellian George Osborne. A tangled web indeed. At least George did not, seemingly, advise a photo op of little Hague playing rugger and relaxing after with a plate of rare roast beef and pint of frothy Yorkshire bitter.

The commentators, who have been around related stories for nearly twenty years, have failed to attack Guido and have instead considered Hague's other friendship with Sebastian Coe.

Hague has clearly pinned his entire political career on that statement; it was more of an instruction to media organisations to cease speculating but seven front pages ensued. As Max Clifford said, "it turned a small story into a big one."

Ever the one to support the "normal" MP, Norman Tebbit described Hague as "naive at best, foolish at worst." It wasn't quite clear whether he meant sharing a room with another man or denying its significance.

A Bit Rich

Many of Labour's most equitable achievements were hardly publicised. The massive home improvement overseen by John (now Lord) Prescott passed without barely any acknowledgement. The same could be said for the Supporting People Budget administered by the National Housing Federation.

The million or so people the fund helped to be housed are pretty close to the most vulnerable in society - the homeless, those recovering from mental illness, those who have escaped from trafficking gangs and severe domestic violence. Ths is the kind of work a compassionate Government carries out quietly and its returns are only measured in knowing they did the right thing in protecting the weak and oppressed.

Coalition plans to lump 40 percent off the NHF budget are no surprise. These Ministers have quickly got out the habit of making any judgement on the human worth of current spending projects - their determination is to continue reducing the deficit without regard to the social and economic catastrophe which will ensue.

When it comes to identifying these areas of wasteful spending, who better then Billionaire retailer Philip Green to tell Ministers where to wield the axe? Green certainly can be relied on to dispense with sentimental affectation.

Cameron's decision to use Green as a kind of Whitehall troubleshooter is just the worst idea for achieving what they laughably call "fair and equitable savings". Green cannot have the first idea of the value of social services to the poor and elderly. He would hardly be likely to casually pick up that knowledge in between massive takeovers of retail firms.

One hopes it is a gimmick but I am sure he will be allowed at some point to express his judgement on the undeserving poor. The only hope is the counter culture to commercial success aka the Civil Service, frustrates him at his every turn.

Resistance is Low

I suppose you can't exactly blame David Cameron for pressing on with such boldness on his plans to slash frontline public services. He has faced such little vocal opposition, he may yet have convinced himself there is something of a consensus for the imminent steep rise on the country's levels of poverty and joblessness.

By his recent suggestion, Council houses should be leased, implies he views social housing as one stage of a family's property needs before they go onto own more substantial dwellings; here he confuses the safety net for the trampoline.

The Tory Government has fallen into the ideological trap of considering the economy of the nation as no diferent in principle from that of a household. Cameron said just yesterday, "We cannot live beyond our means," as if the lower income groups had been recklessly extravagant in recent years. But when he spills out this drivel, there is barely a murmur from the opposition and media in reminding us the huge debt derives from the six elephants in the room: the bailed out banks which cost us the taxpayer about £100Bn to support their profligacy.

Of the five Labour leadership candidates, it pains me to say, only Ed Balls has barked back at any discernable volume. On the considerable risk this sixth-form economics experiment will tip the country back into recession, Balls said, "Cameron is ...wrong to say the most urgent priority for Britain is to slash the deficit..[it] should be to secure Britain's economic recovery by boosting jobs and growth."

And yet it falls to the oldest radical of all, Tony Benn (above) to organise the "resistance". His article in the guardian today (www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/Aug/04/time-to-organise-resistance-now) sets out in cold anger what those who oppose the Tories should be doing. His new group already has substantial intellectual support, now its aims need to be considered by the wider public as mainstream view. After all it's only our future.

Opposites Attract

In 1812, Governor Gerry of Massachusetts (left) carved up the constituencies of the State in a shameless attempt to rig his re-election. The term 'Gerrymander' derives from the fact one seat was drawn so unwieldy, it somewhat resembled a salamander.


History lesson complete, the final row of this Parliament on the final day before recess concerned the proposed referendum on moving to the AV system for elections or a "pathetic excuse for a voting system" as Clegg used to call it.

Although Labour was the only party to include a committment for AV in its manifesto, it has no option but to oppose the bill as it has all sorts of Tory electoral fixes bolted on to it. The drive to equalise the constituencies, although worthy in principle, will have to defy existing county boundaries and make some rural one bigger than whole counties, making life effectively impossible for the sitting MP.

As Comrade Straw alluded to at DPMQs, it will mean making a hybrid constituency, half made of some of the Isle of Wight and the remainder a chunk of Hampshire. The Cabinet Office drone, Mark Harper, answered that point rather dimly, "we are not proposing to move anybody who currently lives on the IoW". Neither are they proposing to allow them to have their say as that pesky local consultation thing would inevitably delay the process.

Clegg has still not explained why it is neccessary to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 although one suspects it is part of the math in stitching up the constituncies. The saving of £12m is not remotely proportionate to the loss of democratic representation. MPs are already overwhelmed by constituency inquiries and now they will volunteer to add ten percent to that workload.

The Cons also are living under a strange dichotomy, they will fight to the death to allow the Lib-Dems their little referendum to take place then at the actual vote, oppose it.

The Bill should still pass, the referendum will probably be delayed past the proposed 5 May but will be almost certainly lost. It's a classic three card trick from the Tories. The defeat of electoral reform will be a sad indictment of how politically inept the Lib-Dems are proving in Government.

Vandals at the Gate

Thatcherism, as a brand of economic and political philosophy. was borne out of a fundamental re-appraisal of policy by senior Tories following their two electoral defeats in 1974.

The main architects were Keith Joseph and Enoch Powell who fundamentally rejected Keynes in favour of a Monetarist approach. It proved to be a highly divisive and transformative force for change in UK. But at least, you could say it was intellectually coherent.

The current Coalition Government appear to be acting with no such higher strategy other than tearing down any constructive organisation established under Labour by labelling them "wasteful" or "bureaucratic". Each day seems to bring another crass decision of incredible ineptitude. In many cases the organisations to be abolished are, by any measure, revenue-raising for HM Treasury and not remotely a burden on public finances.

The decision by that gormless, grinning buffoon Jeremy Hunt to scrap the National Film Council defies any sense whatever. Established in 2000, the Council has invested lottery money in about 900 films and has repaid its original money at about a ratio of 5:1. The Chief Executive, John Woodward, was not even consulted to present his case for defence to these Ministers.

The Sustainable Development Commission is a smaller operation with a budget of only £3m but has shown to be highly effective in identifying huge areas of savings in fuel, water and waste particularly by Government. Again scrapped, without evaluation, by the stroke of a pen. By these standards, the intended investment in sporting prowess for the London 2012 Olympics looks extremely vulnerable. Presumably the message which needs to be sent out to athletes is that Gold medals are only truely earned if by an entirely free-market approach.

Certainly this Government is acting swifter and more ruthlessly than Thatcher's first Government of 1979-83. But its manner is haphazard, capricious and at times just plain self-defeating.

History and politics can always surprise us but by their unneccesary perniciousness this Government now makes the Iron Lady, Thatcher's look quite amenable and sympathetic.

War on Safety

If you believed every word of our cynical press, you would never consider Britain to be top of any world league at all. But the almost total uncelebrated fact is Britain's roads are the safest in the world, beating notoriously cautious and sensible nations like Germany, Sweden and Japan.

The remarkable achievement is owing to the successful introduction of technology, enforcement and advertising over a sustained period. Although every new measure, like the breathalyser has been fought fiercely by a small vocal army of reactionaries, successive Governments have resisted their unscientific claims and spurious appeals to a personal right to liberty.

Until now. Step forward the Coalition Government's prize fool, 'Road Safety' Minister, Mike Penning. His mindless boasting of the new Government's intention to be rid of most of the country's speed cameras will start to reverse 45 years of steady reduction in road deaths, from about 8,000 in 1967 to less than 3,000 last year.

Said Penning, "This is another example of this Government delivering on its pledge to end the war on the motorist." Or, to put it another way, this is another policy entirely based on plainly disprovable nonsense derived from Daily Mail editorials.

A third of road deaths are caused by excessive speed and speed cameras save lives by the most efficient means. There is no study which can disprove that. Leaving aside the human cost of a road death, each one costs the country's emergency services and NHS about £1m, so cutting £50m from road safety budgets will prove to be actually more expensive if the numbers of dead motorists, cyclists and pedestrians grow by just a four or five dozen.

As previous Home Secretary Alan Johnson put it, the Tories have adopted "a saloon bar view." I wonder what hope there remains for plans to lower the drink-drive level in line with the EU average. Looking pretty bleak, I fear.

Other comparably developed countries look jealously at the huge savings Britain makes through road safety where Italy has double the proportion of road deaths and the US treble. Only the most short-sighted, small minded Government would contemplate conceding effortlessly to the road hog lobby. These Ministers do not appear to be fully in control of the vehicle.

Got him.

Shadow Justice Secretary, Jack Straw did pretty as a stand-in for the opposition at PMQs on Wednesday. He focussed much of his questions on the idiotic decision by school bully Osbourne to pull a vital loan for Sheffield Forgemasters, one of only two companies in the world to produce specialist equipment for nuclear power stations.

Besides being a symptomatic example of 80s style false economy from the Tories, the company is located in Clegg's constituency so was also exposing him to acute political embarrassment. The South Yorkshire press are really after him and with good reason.

But Clegg as DPM did quite well too. I mean 'well' in the sense he dodged every question and batted back the same old guff about Liam Byrne's joke note about no money being left. At the final exchange, little Nicky forgot where he was for a moment and felt emboldened to kick out at Straw's role as Foreign Sec in the Iraq invasion. "Perhaps one day he will account for his role in the most disastrous decision of all: the illegal invasion of Iraq."

Illegal, you say. Neither the current Foreign Secretary nor Defence Secretary has suggested as such, let alone Dave. No.10 press office found this quite a tough one to square with spin and suggested when the DPM speaks on such matters it is his "long-held" and "personal" view. Sir George Young, Speaker of the House continued this drivel when told the House, "It is not unprecedented for Ministers speaking at this dispatch box...to make their personal views known."

Claptrap, said the increasingly busy Speaker Bercow. It seems astonishing senior Parliamentary figures need to be reminded of the basics of House convention. At the Dispatch box, you speak as a Minister of the Government and represent Government views alone.

Now it would seem the wooliness of the Coalition on Parliament is the least of their problems. One of Forgemasters main rivals, businessman Andrew Cook, had lobbied for the loan to be withdrawn. It would seem it would have prevented Cook from "investing" in Forgemasters which sounds rather like a takeover bid. His other role as one of the Tory party's main donors introduces this bunch of amateurs to a new yet familiar charge: sleaze.

Rules of Engagement

Every new Government has the right to challenge the accepted procedures and institute new rules to help maintain a fairly efficient Parliamentary democracy. So long as Ministers are even-handed in their decision-making and chairs of Select Committees like, Tim Yeo (left) keep their independence.

But the new Coalition Government, in their haste, seem able to rid themselves of even these tiresome burdens of accountability.

This week Yeo published a dismal pamphlet 'Green Gold' on climate change. His suggestion all motorways should be privatised and all road users compelled to pay for their use was on the radical side. But his 'report' is the kind of material his committee is supposed to assess, he appears to be lobbying himself on this one.

Any body with evidence presented to counter his free-market ideas already knows how this previously unbiased committee will now respond. (It was also staggering to see the matter-of-fact way the Mail reported Yeo's brainchild -when the most modest regulations were brought in under Labour, mostly for the sake of road safety were deemed a 'war on the motorist'.)

IDS, as Sec of State for DWP, is delighting in his ability to judge and condemn whole strata of society which displease him for their apparent fecklessness. At the same time his Centre for Social Justice keeps churning out reports on social issues including, this week, on the management of drug dependence.

Drunken Smith (teetotal) did not pass comment when the CSJ advocated abolition of the pragmatic National Treatment Agency to be replaced by a more ideological Addiction Recovery Board. A few days later the NTA had performed a Damascene-like conversion to setting time limits for allocating methadone to heroin addicts. His meddling in DH and HO business would usually prompt a call from Chief Whip to keep to the brief but IDS seems free to pour his evangelical scorn on the drug user with impunity.

This blurring of roles may not be very good for Government but if he gets his way it may prove, perversely, quite lucrative for dealers in heroin.

In Whom We Trust

It seemed like Andrew Lansley had been shadow Health Secretary throughout Labour's three terms in office. Certainly he's had a huge amount of time to devise the rationale behind the massive health care changes he wanted to see under a Tory Government.

So it is something of a surprise to hear his plans for 'reform' now he is in office; they sound ill-considered and entirely reactionary. First, he said Jamie Oliver's programme for healthy school dinners was "lecturing" and "nannying" and was largely "a failure". Although there is nothing to support those arguments, such as they are.

"Ministry insiders" hinted heavily on Monday, the Food Standards Agency and would be abolished and in its stead would be an inert Ministerial sub-Committee chaired by Andy himself. The food giants must have wept with joy over that one. Let us not forget the FSA was established following the BSE outbreak where big business's lack of moral scruples led to the extermination of the entire national beef cattle herd. Over 1,500 people in the UK have died of CJD.

But these issues are piffling compared to Lansley's plan for transferring four-fifths of NHS budgets to 5-600 consortia of GPs, as "doctors know best how to manage treatment for patients."

This facile philosophy is applied by Tories to schools too, "where parents know best how their child should be educated." This is patently idiotic. We are not the experts and GPs can't be expected join up all the right decisions and gain the full economy of scale for the health service.

But when pressed on the point by Martha Karney on Newsnight, Lansley opted for an ad hominem argument, "Don't you trust your Doctor to make these decisions?"

It takes seven or more years to train to be a GP and yet there are still no modules for financial management nor strategic planning. Trust is not the point: it is simply about competence and managerial capacity. These plans rather treat GPs as some sort of homegenous group with consistent outlook and skills. It would have been advisable to canvass their views first but these vast changes appear ready to be implemented without consultation nor piloting.

The purpose of this dramatic structural change is to rid the NHS of "bureacracy". The term is used in place of many inefficiencies and red tape. But huge organisations rely on a level of bureacracy to function at all; they provide the levers to pull. LAnsley beleives there are 68,000 managers carrying out superfluous duties.

Lansley and Cameron sound like those Leninists who attacked the agrarian "management" of kulaks. The ensuing chaos may not be quite so tortuous as Soviet Union in 1920s but the judgement is almost as dubious and prejudicial. It is a huge gamble and Lansley has not even started to explain why it is necessary.

But Are You Experienced?

It may be a bit previous to call for Michael Gove's resignation over the school building programme list fiasco.

But Gove would be as well to locate the slim vestige of humility he may still possess, if he is to learn anything from this unneccessarily embarrassing episode.

The original route of this idiotic cock-up was Gove's determination to proceed wth his purely ideologically 'free' school initiative. In order to release the necessary funds, he had to first cancel large parts of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme this side of recess, in order to have some flagship free schools in place for September term. A lawyer might call such huge shifting of resources in a period of a few weeks as "precipitative haste."

But that had no influence over Gove's amateurish and shambolic release of information cancelling hundreds of vital school building projects. His entirely inept performance would have shamed a sixth-form debater let alone a Secretary of State.

Speaker Bercow allowed Gove to run way beyond his usual time allowance of ten minutes. His statement was delivered with the usual Aberdonian briskness but was all outlandish rhetoric where measured tones would have been more apt. But on the list of schools affected, he omitted to deploy the vital phrase, "and copies are available from the Vote Office." Because they weren't.

First Speaker slapped Gove across the chops for not answering questions, "he's not supposed to be reading out a previously written script." He underlined the seriousness of Gove's misdemenour calling it, "unprecedented."

Mikey said, yeah thanks, but took no heed and carried on banging on about "scandalous" Labour waste, yadda, yadda. Mr Speaker then metaphorically held him against the wall saying, "Let me say to the Secretary of State, the assurance of his gratitude is of no interest to me; adhering to my ruling is."

Members then naturally probed him for news of their own constituencies. Gove had plenty of detail at his fingertips and wasted considerable Parliamentary time effectively reading them out one-by one. He then conceded he would write to every local authority and each Member. His Private Office must have exploded at the prospect of drafting 750 odd letters.

The dusky Caroline Flint was able to scoff at Gove's hapless handling when she said simply, "it would have been better to have provided that information, before the debate rather than during it." The effect was Gove casually divulging dramatic and devastating news to one community after another, like he was flicking peas off a table.

When it was finally over, which Mr Speaker described as, "an unwieldy process, to put it mildly," it emerged, via Ed Balls, that the elusive list had been circulated to the media prior to the debate. Members were now beside themsleves and even Speaker called it, "rank discourtesy." The car crash continued; Gove failed to take responsibility and said he didn't know if Balls was right even though precise timings were provided.

Speaker had to throttle Gove again reminding him he had Ministerial responsibility and ignorance could be no defence, "the Secretary of State should be aware". It was getting toe-curling now and could not possibly get worse could it?

But once MPs began verifying details of the cuts, they found a huge number of inconsistencies - in Sandwell in the West Midlands, nine school building projects which appeared to have been saved were actually for the chop after all.

But despite this comedy of errors, Gove was the very picture of arrogance on Newsnight and showed not an ounce of chagrin about his school boy handling of the cancellation of £55Bn worth of school building.

Even after he was compelled to apologise in the most abject terms on Wednesday, what was still missing, as Glenda Jackson said in the House, was, "any concern at all for the future of our children."

C'est La Guerre

Mark Serwotka (left), the eloquent head of Public and Commercial Services Union, is already a hardened campaigner against public sector cuts.

For all the Tories' talk of finally bringing discipline to public accounts, it ignores the several assaults Labour made on reducing welfare and the benefits to the civil service.

As soon as Ministers start using isolated examples of big payouts to mandarins you know the service as a whole is in for a battering. The reality is rather different. Most civil servants retire on a fairly pitiful small pension, the terms may be better than some areas of the private sector but the pay rates have been poor for so long, they could not really be described in any way as "generous".

Pensions and staff levels are being targetted for colossal reductions. Just at the point the economy is starting draw breath again the Coalition overnment is aiming a blow at its solar plexus. Serwotka rightfully described the forthcoming job losses as, "economically illiterate." The public sector, according to the more conservative Treasury figures is facing at least 600,000 job losses which rises to 1.3m when adding private sector. Add these numbers to the existing 2.57m unemployed and a total in excess of 4m is, to borrow a term from Osborne, "unavoidable."

It rather makes a nonsense of pulling 10,000s off disability benefits to give them a bigger incentive to find work. Each graduate position now receives 70 applications. Quite how students are expecting to pay off huge debts may be a mere detail to Ministers like Gove but a source of huge stress to countless families.

The Government is preparing for a huge rise in poverty, IDS's Work and Pensions Department are developing plans for issuing of food stamps. This is the undignified future for many, unemployment, no job prospects, reduced benefits, living off handouts.

What did we actually do to deserve this? Did millions of civil servants, low paid and benefit claimants spend extravagantly in the last few years? Or did the vast national debt pile up on bailing out TSB/Lloyds, Bradford and Bingley, RBS and Northern Rock?

The banks' share of pain is a derisory £2bn transaction tax which even the IMF has suggested should be at least four times higher. Soon they'll be back earning their super profits while the bottom sixth of society sinks to a new level of 'underclass'.

This is what you voted for.