Monday 31 December 2012

Return to Strife

When people ask what good the last Labour Government (1997-2010) actually did, the list is embarassingly short. But at the very least one can reach for those unimpeachable few first term measures including the minimum wage and family tax credits.

These policies meant, for the first time, the key constituency of "hard-working families" could guarantee a full week's work would be worth £200. The effect was two-fold; to give people the mimimum standard of living and also to eradicate the "benefit trap" where it was only marginally better to work on low pay than be unemployed.

Not so says the Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith who claims tax credits themselves created, "a sorry story of dependency, wasted taxpayers' money and fraud." Smith paints a highly misleading picture of the purpose of the policy as if it were all the money was spent on dossers and couch potatoes. Anyone receiving the benefit will not recognise themsleves as part of the shirkers but the hard workers. And won't be voting Tory neither.

Smith's tirade to the Daily Telegraph appears driven by some bitter Victorian ideal that any financial help creates sloth in the working classes. His rhethoric also chimes with Chancellor Osborne's attempts at social division by implying anyone receiving any benefit is languising in bed with the curtains drawn while the rest of us are out there striving. The Conservatives have also sought to use the same means to justify slashing housing benefit when 90 percent of the recipients are in work simply struggling with exhorbitant rents.

When Tory Chairman, the aggravating Grant Shapps, was asked on Five Live yesterday what we could look forward to from the Coalition in 2013 he actually referred, with all bravery, to IDS's Universal Credit. It is Whitehall's worst kept secret that this rollout is an utter disaster in the making. The briefing by HM Treasury officials has already started. The policy doesn't add up, people can only apply online and the IT doesn't work. As one indicator of the chaos insider IDS's department, the relatively straightforward benefit cap of £26,000 per family has been delayed again, again, Sneaking the news out by written Parliamentary statement four days before Christmas is a sure sign of disharmony and diconnect between Ministers and officials.

So for all IDS's pernicious bluster, he make be due a great fall. He finishes his hateful article by claiming "Labour used spending on tax credits as an attempt to gain short-term popularity. They knew what they were doing – it was a calculated attempt to win votes."

If he is right on that point and is detemined to continue his philosophical opposition to help supporting milllions of already squeezed families then he will have single-handedly cost his party the next election.

Friday 21 December 2012

Enough Already

You know when you are having a row with your partner or relative and you allow yourself to take the heat of the argument way beyond its origins? All you can then achieve is causing infinitely more aggravation and antipathy out of all proportion to the rights and wrongs of the dispute.

So it is with Andrew Mitchell's bitter confrontation with the Met Police about what was and wasn't said when he lost his temper with Protection Officers outside No.10 gates several weeks ago. It has escalated to the point where the former Secretary of State and short-lived Chief Whip has declared unilaterally and rather pompously, given his status as an ordinary MP, that he has "no confidence" in the head of the Met, Bernard Hogan-Howe.

If he wanted to get himself re-instated to frontbench politics then I would suggest picking a losing battle with the nation's top copper is not the way to go about it. Of course, the latest reports would suggest the 'evidence' around this case has been constructed to put Mitchell in a worse light than was originally merited. The PC who posed as a member of the public and appeared to corroborate the other officers' testimony was mischievous and perhaps motivated by swingeing cuts in police numbers and pension entitlements.

But Mitchell admits he f-worded these officers and so the public are never going to percieve a great injustice has been done. We are like neighbours witnessing a terrible row through a thin separating wall. We do not consider the merits, we just want the cacophony to stop.

Wednesday 21 November 2012

Running to Stand Still

David Cameron's deeply embarrassing speech to CBI on Monday showed him to be more of a fawning amateur than a dignified PM.

He constantly brown-nosed the yawning audience of tailor made business suits and put on a pitiful display of frustrated urgency. He is no actor. He lacked confidence in his words and himself as he pretended he was just as ruddy sick as they were about all this blinking bureauracy.

He was so self-conscious of the impression he wanted to give (fast-moving, fast-talking) he looked more like a nervous new junior Minister out of his depth than an international statesman. His role was essentially to suck up to big business and to announce all the usual procedures to be followed when setting up new enterprises can go to hell, as long as new jobs are created.

He kept talking about finding a "spirit" (buccaneering, deal-making, hungry) when such a spirit, is a collective human creation which evolves spontaneously and cannot be expected to appear on demand. Even from such a powerful PM.

He also listed, with faux anger, the numerous barriers to progress which amounted to the minimum safeguards to prevent unfettered business from building roads through national parks and flattening communities to build even more supermarkets.

Dave derided consultations (asking the people affected), impact assessments (measuring what would happen to other businesses) and even audits (ensuring the money is spent correctly). "We don't need all this tick box stuff, " he fulminated. In other words, business interests should supercede the public interest.

He saved a special word for Judicial Reviews - that pesky process, administered by independent judges, which checks whether illegal decisions have been taken. It was Virgin's JR which revealed DoT's severe staff cuts had knobbled their ability to run a fair bidding process for West Coast Mainline.

"These are not how we became one of the most powerful, prosperous nations on earth." Well, no and I would suggest Victorian managerial style is not something we would all want to return to. In those good old days, corporate takeovers typically required sending platoons of troops on gunboats and availing ourselves of poorer nations' natural resources. That ship has sailed.

Cameron had already turned his urgency counter up to 11 but then went even higher by declaring Britain at war (economically) so it was completely justified to rip up the rule book just like we did when the Luftwaffe's planes were raging overhead.

All speechwriters should realise when they have to invoke Adolf Hitler then they have gone too far. PMs should also be more assured than raising panic when simply stronger leadership is required.


Thursday 15 November 2012

Knife at a Gunfight

When you are called to appear before a Congressional hearing or Parliamentary Committee what is the worst accusation you can face? That you were obstructive, wilfully ignorant? No, worse, by far, is to be deemed, “not serious”.


And so it was with Andrew Cecil, Public Policy Director for Amazon Europe when he was summoned before the Public Accounts Committee in Westminster to explain why his company pays next to no corporation tax in the UK.

His brief from his Amazonian masters was quite clear: maintain the line that the UK is simply one element of a European wide business based in Luxembourg. But his preparation clearly did not include identifying the ‘elephant traps’ which the committee, chaired by the formidable Margaret Hodge, may have sought to lure him into. Cecil clambered out of one and immediately fell into another in quite simply the most embarrassing, shambling performance I have ever seen in committee.

Business leaders often come ill-prepared to select committees and the assumption is that private industry only engages with Parliamentary scrutiny begrudgingly. It is as if the mere act of questioning their actions affords them a sense of superiority by dint of their role as “wealth creators” over these grubby public servants. The transparency of that business operation and its responsibility to pay its due to its ‘host’ nation were the points under examination here. How annoying then, for these pesky democratic representatives to be asking such damn impertinent questions.

In fact, the questions which were, on the face of it, the most straightforward seemed to the hardest for the hapless, bewildered Cecil to answer. Of the 9Bn Euro turnover in the European operations what was the sales volume for the UK? First, Cecil said he didn’t know then that it was not usual to disclose those confidential figures. He would have to check back. So who exactly was the holding company for Amazon Europe? No, didn’t know that. What, really? What’s your job title again? This incredible assertion was understandably followed by much spluttering and exclamations, “ridiculous...pathetic.”

Ms Hodge, was clearly losing her cool and when he asked to “check back” on the next six or seven questions she just flipped, “You come to us with absolutely no information…pretend ignorance…I don’t know what you take us for.” After that kind of lambasting, you don’t seek solace in strong drink: you find the closest bridge and throw yourself off.

What is so deeply dispiriting is that these tax arrangements similar to Google, Starbucks and most recently some UK water utilities were exposed by newspaper reports. The Government is always crowing about how it is cracking down on tax avoidance despite laying off thousands of tax inspectors. These are just weasel words: the truth is that officials inside Her Majesty’s Treasury know full well what level of tax these huge companies are paying yet there appears no urgency to seek to upset the status quo.

As if we needed reminding, the nation’s lower and middle classes are groaning under wage freezes, wholesale slashing of public services and support benefits. To see millionaires and multi-nationals blithely refuse to face the same rule book and neither are they compelled to do so, is a rank injustice.

Successive Governments in the UK and many other countries have allowed the creation of an effective “accountocracy” where the creation of favourable jurisdictions mean multinationals can rely on the benefits of a nation’s infrastructure and skills of its workforce and then suck up all the profits for its owners.

Besides calling the more “credible” senior executives from the tax haven of Luxembourg, the Public Accounts Committee must next call in the finance ministers and ask what they intend to do about it.

I fear the answer will be the familiar lament: all bluster and do bugger all.



Friday 9 November 2012

Failure to Comunicate

Mitt Romney, for all his serial gaucheness, did not forget to be gracious in defeat.

But that may be one of the last moments of dignity for a while for the GOP who are a wasted party with high ambition but low prospect of gaining executive power.

The previous victory for President Obama prompted a tsunami of hysterical drivel from the right merely entrenching themselves in their own bitterness and winning over no independents.

For example, there was Glenn Beck calling Obama a racist and organising a huge march on Washington on the anniversary of Dr King's great speech. This time around there was Donald Trump calling for "revolution" against the "tyrany" when he couldn't do the math and thought Obama had lost the popular vote like Bush did in 2000.

But aside from the blind anger there was an explicit strategy. Minority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (pictured), was honest enough to admit his sole aim was not to pass laws for the good of the country but to make Obama a "one term President." Guess that didn't go so well Mitch, eh.

The Republicans have a severe dependency on white, male, Christian, middle and upper income voters and it is a dwindling constituency. President Obama won hands down with women and latinos as well black, Asian, Jewish and gay voters. The latino caucus incapsulates the GOP's dilemma perfectly: a group who would be natural Republicans but who are turned away by demonising immigration policy such as the series of semi racist measures carried out by Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona and Congress's stonewall blocking of a pathway to citizenship for millions.

There is also a matter of party discipline which feels very laissez faire. Certainly any major party in Britain who had a candidate who would put the words "rape" and "legitimate" together would be sacked in minutes. But in Missouri Todd Akin actually stood as did Indiana's Richard Mourdock who thinks sexual violence is part of some divine plan. A bit of centralisation and muscle to control the party's image from these whack jobs would be one positive step forward for the Republicans.

But fundamantal reforms do not seem likely yet. The party has been rushing headlong to the right for over ten years and don't appear to have a rear view mirror on history. They are like the crash victims still stumbling silently from the car wreck.

Wednesday 10 October 2012

Dispassionate Conservatism

If your doctor's response to your medical complaint was tell you to just "pull yourself together" you would be likely to lose trust in their prowess as a physician.
And so it is also with Prime Minister David Cameron whose message to Britain at this year's Conservative Party conference was, "sink or swim".
It conjours up an unedifying image of us all up to our necks in icy water, watching the good ship Great Britain slip beneath the waves. Note to Cameron's speech writers - remember a PM should show leadership.
This lack of a credible plan, to rescue prosperity from austerity, was a theme which ran through the week. The mantra was simply cut, cut, cut and lower the budget deficit. The Chancellor, George Osborne's dreadfully bleak and tedious speech did not actually include the key word 'growth'.
The British Conservative Party has essentially the same presentational problem as the Republican's: they favour a laissez faire economic approach with tax cuts restricted to the wealthy. The image of self-interest and privilege has solidified around their respective shoulders.
Cameron in opposition had followed President George W. Bush's example of promoting a 'Compassionate Conservatism'. It is the kind of balanced political ticket which appeals strongly to the electorate - promoting competitive business while ensuring no-one gets left behind.
But Dave's old liberal policies, such as environment protection and extending gay rights, are now a distant memory. In office, Cameron has been forced to throw plenty of red meat at the rabid end of is party to quell the voices of rebellion. Hence lower tax rates for the top earners, a second round of huge welfare cuts, a possible vote on leaving the EU and mass deportation of foreign students.
His drift to the right will not help him electorally: his party is already about 10-15 points behind Labour who are determined to move into the recently vacated centre ground.
Cameron is an affable fellow, no doubt, as he showed on his Letterman performance. But unlike Margaret Thatcher he appears less of a Prime Minuster over time.
His economic plan, such as it is, has proved so severe that tax revenues have plummeted and the deficit has actually risen. It all looks ultimately self-defeating. Cameron's Government is in danger of saving the disease and killing the patient.

Saturday 29 September 2012

Hoping for the Best, Time and Time Again

I can't be the only one to notice the strong parallels between the posts of Deputy Prime Minister of Britain and Vice President of the US.
For most of the time, they are both considered a political joke whose daily attempt to restore some credibility ends in inevitable futility. When it is convenient to the boss, they perform their dutiful role as the leader's human shield. They are also expected to be the one who greets the Presidents of Botswana and Fiji when they come to visit.
Nick Clegg, as leader of the Liberal Democrat party and DPM, will always be, at best, the head of the third force of British politics. Given his catastrophic leadership since the 2010 election, he actually risks making his party less popular than the minor one issue party for UK Independence.
Clegg's speech this week to the party's annual yawnathon/conference was a pitiful display of a politician trying to carve out his relevance to the voting public. He continually shouted "be in no doubt!" referring to several dubious assertions on education and the environment where his party have been utterly dominated by their Tory overlords. He tried to portray himself as the linch-pin of the Coalition Government when his party just make up the numbers in Parliament, constantly voting against their longstanding Liberal principles and simultaneously embracing electoral oblivion.
The Liberal Democrats' unholy political pact with Cameron's Conservatives hardly helped him on the day and in two and a half years, has decimated his standing in the country. He has to simultaneously appear independent from and supportive of an administration which has made deeply painful cuts for the poorest while dropping tax for the top earners by 5p in the pound.
The policy decision he made which has damaged him most severely was to make a swift 180 on hiking tuition fees for students immediately after getting three quarters of them to vote for him on that singular promise. Clegg's acute and apparently growing political naivety was exposed cruelly when he decided to make a Youtube apology which was immediately lampooned in song.
It is a very long time since I heard such 'brass neck' statements in a speech - it was simply the most sensational nonsense. Apparently, only his party, "could be trusted on the economy and to deliver a fairer society." On the economy, UK is in its third quarter of a double-dip recession and the last two years have seem the most regressive policies on the poor since 1920s. To gauge how hard-hearted the Government is, it was only last week they showed their soft side by not removing benefits for those under going radio and chemotherapy for cancer.
Clegg's crowd were thoroughly polite in the face of this relentless barage of empty rhetoric, even making laughing sounds at Clegg's dismal attempts at humour. Clegg knows, we all know, that his party faces political wipeout at the 2015 election. His own leadership is utterly doomed - the speech sounded like he was reading his own obituary. Even one of his colleagues, Lord Smith, described Clegg as, "a cork bobbing in the waves."
Overall it must be better to be Veep than DPM. At least Joe Biden will get to keep his moniker of 'Mr Vice President' to allow him the semblance of respect after his days in office. Clegg will be no more than a footnote in one chapter of political handbook of how the desire for power destroys the weak.

Saturday 22 September 2012

Plebs...Morons... a Government Minister Said

When your job entails travelling all around Westminster or DC for that matter, then as a matter of necessity, you soon work out how to best handle the police and the security guards at every entrance and gate.

The one obvious lesson for lowly officials and Secretaries of State alike is, never try to hurry the police or challenge their authority. It is quite simple: let them do their job, be polite and respectful and everyone gets on fine.

So step forward, brand new Chief Whip to Her Majesty's Government, Andrew Mitchell who, given his lofty position, felt entitled to spit out various expletives and general abuse at the officers guarding the gates to Downing Street on Wednesday evening. The calls for his head are legion and has prompted his sudden disappearance from media scrutiny.

The circumstances of the case are depressingly ordinary. Mitchell sails around Whitehall on what appears to be his mum's bike. It was the police officers' refusal to let hm cycle merrily through the security gates which prompted Mitchell to bellow about them being, "f**king plebs" and "morons" who should "know their place". He also reportedly said, “Open this gate, I’m the Chief Whip. I’m telling you - I’m the Chief Whip and I’m coming through these gates.”
Mitchell's crude bullying tactics may work on his timid colleagues, MPs caught between satisfying their consciences or furthering their Parliamentary careers, but clearly should not be deployed so bluntly against public servants. His outburst also betrayed the snooty attitude of the higher echelons of the Conservative Party toward the 'lower classes', a politically toxic image which David Cameron has tried so hard to smother since he became leader in 2005. It gets considerably worse. Dave himself was forced to take a break from paying tribute to two WPCs in Manchester who had been killed in a gun and grenade attack this week, to publicly admonish his Chief Whip for disrespecting police officers. By any standard that's very bad politics.
Mitchell then compounded his guilt by denying the words reported in the Sun newspaper and so implied the officers were so unprofessional as to invent outright lies about a senior Government figure. His "half-hearted" apology implied he still expected subservience from the police and felt they should bow meekly to his version of the truth.
To their credit, both officers made written records of the incident at the time and are sticking to them. They may have been inspired to be so resolute following the savage cuts in policing introduced by the Coalition Government, resulting in considerably depleted pensions and contracting out of frontline work to questionable private companies such as G4S. John Tully, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said, “I know what the officers have told me, and what was reported … is absolutely what happened. I think Mr Mitchell needs to address his position and resign as soon as possible. "


The London Mayor, Boris Johnson, easily the most popular Conservative in the country, called last year for anyone caught swearing at a police officer to be arrested. That could still happen which would mean Cameron trawling for another Chief Whip next week. The Met police usually do not need much encouragment to make an arrest, for example they once banged up a student who inquired whether a policeman's horse was 'gay'.

If this wanton display of arrogance is sufficient to cost Mitchell his job then it will be one of the most careless ways ever to lose a senior Government position but given his boorish and reprehensible behaviour, it will be thoroughly deserved.

Wednesday 12 September 2012

Margins of Error

“Opinion polls don’t tell the whole story…the only poll that counts is on election day….these polls certainly don’t reflect what the people have been saying to me up and down the land.”

These are all familiar lines used by losing candidates in the run up to their impending electoral defeat. I am not aware of Governor Romney using any of these phrases yet as his national numbers have stood up pretty well until recently. But the party conventions saw a slight widening of the President’s lead so confirming Romney’s lacklustre performance in Tampa and his inability to convince the American public he is worthy of their affection and trust.

But there are some abysmal poll numbers which cannot be explained away with a string of rationalisations. Obama leads Romney on women by about 15 points and Latinos by about 40. The lead among African Americans for the Democratic candidate has strengthened from 2008 when Senator McCain took a measly four points. Obama’s lead is total: 94-0.

Now in Europe there has been some polling about how we would receive a Romney Presidency. First, we in Europe understand 99 percent of the US population ‘could not give a rat’s a**e’ what France, Germany and Britain think and no country would be significantly swayed by an outsider’s view of their own domestic election. Nevertheless, the poll does illustrate how poorly Romney’s public image is playing to a wider audience. The average number in those countries who thought the former Governor would make the US be received more favourably was just four percent.

Romney’s rather dismal effort at diplomacy in his summer tour of UK, Poland and Israel culminated in denigrating the Olympic organisation in London just prior to its huge success. His effort to portray himself as Master of the Olympics showed flaky advice and even worse judgement. His tactless condemnation of Obama following death of the US Ambassador in Libya, without emphasising condolence, may linger disastrously for him.

As the numbers slowly run away from him, he is getting plenty of advice from fellow Republicans. Fox News analyst, Sarah Palin’s suggestion that he get “severely aggressive” with the President seems tactically idiotic. Romney, for all his faults, has got those upper middle class and blue collar white votes solidly in his base. Shouting louder at an audience he has already won over will not win him any more states on 6 November.

Even stirring greater antipathy to the incumbent by another slew of negative campaigning does not mean support transferring to the challenger. Certainly not at this late stage. These would be desperate options for a candidate feeling the pressure. And he hasn’t even had to face the silky debating skills of President Obama in the debates yet.

That will be time to roll out the platitudes of the ‘soon to be defeated’.

Tuesday 28 August 2012

Drugs: A Unique Perspective

Having a totally novel view of an age old issue, like drugs policy, must make you a fool or a genius.

Peter Hitchens's blast at the last 40 years of successive Governments' inability to eradicate the problems, which all western and many eastern counties have suffered, certainly begs the reader to make that choice.

Hitchins takes a very facile view of politicians, police and the drug users' motivations and concludes they all fail to attain the Hitchensian mark of morality. If he could turn the clock back, he would not spare his ire from alcohol and would, "drive it from our society."

His diatribe now fills an entire book:The War We Never Fought. However, his title is essentially correct:: we have never fought a war on drugs in Britain. It would contravene our longstanding tradition of tolerance for one thing.

Certainly we have drug problems. There are roughly 300,000 problematic drug users of a population of 63 million. But the UK's social and economic problems are piffling compared to frontline areas where the drugs war has actually been fought such as Columbia in 80s and 90s and Mexico today.

But enforcement is his answer. To Hitchens the mere threat of arrest and imprisonment is sufficient deterrent to stop drug use in its tracks. It isn't. But why does he think that? Perhaps when he were a lad he felt the stern word from a rather batey local sergeant was the absolute end. It is possible he has built his entire world view on these tiny convictions.

The text of his 'taster' article to the greater opus amounts to long tracts of personal assertion uninterupted by any supporting quotes from experts. It is just a litany of assumptions based on how the world doesn't work. At times he finds himself tweaking the truth. For example, he declares the drugs listed in Britain's Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 are there because there is "no safe dose." I have never read those words in any article or speech before. About specifc drugs, yes, but not all of them. The Act actually refers to drugs, "capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem."

But with that one bound Hitchens is able to describe cannabis as, "one of the most dangerous drugs in the world." Over two million people in Briatin have some cannabis each year but as common drug users he asserts this mass of people "often take to ruthless thieving."

As a journalist with the Daily Mail, he turns his own testimony full circle by presenting cannabis as a drug of violence because of numerous "newspaper accounts." His unilateralism is now complete.

Hitchens is right that it is possible to create a society where there is barely any trace of drug use. Unfortunately in these societies they also cut limbs from petty criminals and stone rape victims to death. Now that's what I call enforcement.

Friday 24 August 2012

A Battle Royal

The British establishment has been through the wringer in recent years.

First, MPs and peers found their personal standings plummet as the expenses scandal revealed a great many had been bending, and in some cases serially breaking, the rules on their allowances. Huge settlement checks were written, careers fell and some were even imprisoned.

Next came the phone-hacking scandal which saw the voluntary closing by the Murdochs of the 150 year old News of the World and many senior police at the Met swept out of their offices. Almost every week gangs of journalists appear in court for plea hearings before their trials. Some will being go down.

The MPs have had an election since and have put their calamity behind them. The media are still in the midst of the Leveson Inquiry so cannot display any relaxed mood. There have recently been some isolated protesting voices suggesting the Inquiry has had a “chilling effect” on news reporting.

Of course this is all a lot of nonsense. The tabloid editors who are moaning have simply found there is a lot more criticism of their salacious stories and the publics appetite for lurid tales, celebrity intimidation and entrapment appears to have waned somewhat.

The editors have been waiting for an issue where they can fight back. The good old days of humiliation, harassment and blatant false reporting may be gone for now but they cannot let go just yet.

This week they found their opportunity. It was not a tale of a vast environmental cover-up by a multinational. It was not exposing criminal gangs preying on vulnerable people. It concrned a dispute over the publication of a nude picture of Prince Harry.

It would seem this “story” encapsulates the cause the editors want to hold up as emblematic of their “rights” of papers to publish. Former News of the World executive editor, Neil Wallis, took to the TV studios to declare, laughably, “Leveson is… killing investigative journalism in this country.” I would argue paying £10k then printing pictures taken at a drunken party in Vegas does not make you Woodward, nor Bernstein.

Wallis went on. Some might say, too long. “"Newspaper editors, newspaper executives are terrified of controversy now. If they get a controversial story that causes a furore an editor could lose his job, advertisers could be panicked into not advertising in their newspapers, because the mood in the newspaper industry is now so febrile. Some people might say that the Prince Harry story is a classic example of where the newspaper should basically wave two fingers at Leveson … and just stick it in the paper.”

The Sun did that anyway.

Mr Wallis, besides trying to resurrect his PR career, has tried to fix our attention on the wrong target. The embargo on publication was sought by St. James’s Palace (aka Prince Charles) who argued, unconvincingly, it was an invasion of privacy. Those sort of pointless restrictions from the Royal family have been going on for decades and has nothing whatever to do with Leveson.

And to elevate the battle over publishing a pixilated naked Royal to the denying the basic freedoms of the press, shows the tabloid editors for what they are – compulsive recyclers of trivia, nonsense and nudity.

Monday 6 August 2012

Still Beating Down

In US election vernacular 'beating down' means being on the defensive and as Republican candidate Mitt Romney's team said themselves, "if you are on the defensive you are losing."

But the polls show he is not losing by much at the moment. But these elections go at different paces. Unemployment rates are suppressing any bounce for Obama in the immediate term. But in the 'now to November' term, Romney is getting thrashed.

It began last month with a rare agressive move from the Democrats to raise the issue of his departure from Bain Capital and refusal to disclose any more than the minimum of tax returns. It means the issue is alive between now and election day. It fits in with the narrative of him being massive wealthy and with offshore trusts. It will become relevant all over again when he picks his VP choice and what returns they are willing show.

His selective tour of Europe and Middle East was in diplomatic terms "a car wreck." He failed to demonstrate elementary political insight and acted like a large-checked know all yank tourist. His first mistake was to upset the US's greatest ally, the UK and unite a divided nation against him, culminating in a scoffing public putdown from the PM. His panderng in Israel to the Florida Jewish vote was embarrassing and grossly insulting to the Palestinians whose poverty was attributed to a different "culture" without mentioning the economic blockade. His reference to the "hand of providence" to economic development also added to Romney's image as a religious nut.

The Republicans have been playing a long game too. In many swing states such as Ohio, Florida and Virginia they have changed voter registration rules to make it much harder to vote. For example discontinuing early voting which would mostly apply to working classes who will certainly favour Obama.

The critical episode will be the debates, where they meet one-on-one. Here the President will more easily expose, through his superior debating skills, Romney's "voodoo" economic plan which will coincidentally benefit millionaires like him.

Americans will want to re-elect Obama but whether they still can when they get to the voting booth is another matter.

Thursday 19 July 2012

Home is Where the Hurt is

I realised, yesterday, it was exactly five years since I resigned from the Home Office.

It was an elementary decision in the end. Having had six line managers in ten months, I was compelled to accept a demotion from a grade I had held for four years. Annual reports of my performance were not deemed relevant by HR.

From what I hear the working atmosphere has continued to deteriorate and with the almost indiscriminate cuts in staffing since 2010 has reached 'poisonous' levels. The last measure across Whitehall of morale in Departments put the HO at the bottom of the heap concluding: "Home Office civil servants have less faith in their department's readiness to do its job than employees in any other government office."

Although most of the turmol is kept within the confines of HQ in Marsham Street (above) we have all witnessed the suicidal cutting of UKBA staff and the inevitable huge queues at our airports. It does not seem to occur to Home SecTheresa May that you shouldn't cut staff when there is clearly a job for them to do. She acts like some penny pinching spinster running her life by austerity for its own sake, ready to watch her family be half-starved. To the Conservatives, civil servants are amateurish beauracrats first, effective dedicated public servants last.

The G4S "debacle" was a failure of monitoring a contract by the HO. My guess would be there were just not enough boots on the ground to the job, not after 8,500 redundancies. The relationshiip with staff generally could be compared to a dysfunctional family suffering sustained psychological abuse from a despised, aggressive figurehead.

So it was little surprise to see its maligned and ignored workforce seek to demonstrate its anger at the only time it would be noticed: during the Olympics. Ministers are gambling the public will continiue to relate any strike with the 1978/9 winter of discontent and condemn any exertion of union power. That antipathy won't last forever: unions are people too, my friend.

Friday 13 July 2012

One More Heave

This was the scarcely believable slogan used by the old Liberal Party led by Jeremy Thorpe (left) in the October 1974 General Election*.

Suggestions of nausea, notwithstanding, I was reminded of its comic pretensions when it was announced that Nick Clegg's Bill on law reforms would be permitted "one final push."

It doesn't need any degree of political fortune telling to see what was ineviable defeat from the outset for Clegg. MPs have a firm view on Lords reform and no end of pleading and tinkering will overcome either sides' points of principle. For the Lib Dems and some senior Labour figures like Peter Hain it is a simple question of democratic legitimacy. For the right wing Tories led by Jesse Norman it is about the primacy of the Commons. The huge divide between them is quite unbridgable.

But some of Clegg's main arguments were a bit sixth form anyway. He suggested there did not need to be a referendum because all three main parties had pledged for HoL reform. Eh? That doesn't mean the electorate necessarily agree, in fact if you couldn't vote against it then it makes the case for a referndum more compelling not less.

Besides the ponts of principle there is plenty of residual resentment among the Tories about these grand constitutional plans and it must give them immense satisfaction to see Clegg outmanoevured and his Bill in ashes. After the lost referendum on electoral reform Clegg has yet to score a Parliamentary win to restore his relevance. By the election it may be reasonable to ask simply "What is the point of Nick Clegg?"

* Thorpe won 16 seats.

Thursday 5 July 2012

Interest Free

Perhaps the electorate has not noticed but Ed Miliband has shown coniderably more political maturity of late.

His 'two stage' inquiry suggestion into corrupt practises at Barclays at setting the LIBOR and beyond, was a neat political solution. It would have preserved the 'quick fix' element of a Parliamentary inquiry while actually exposing many other banks' nefarious ways over the next 12 months.

Cameron has too much political arrogance to accept a good thing when it is offered and continues to play his 'doublethink' strategy which is to blame Labour but not allow a level of inquiry which show exactly want went on in 2006-9. Pointing incessantly, all wide-eyed, at Ed Balls will not convince a cynical electorate.

Miliband also looked more the statesman when he cited the national interest to Cameron who responded like a rabid political beast. Cameron was found to be, "slow to act and supporting the wrong people" over phone-hacking and eventually appointed Leveson. It was partly because of Rebecca Brooks' warning that there was "more to come."

It would be fairly astonishng if the banks' misdemeanours stopped with the Barclays and their top dog, Bob  Diamond (pictured). 'Red's' relentless stonewalling before the Treasury Committee yesterday was a good indicator of what will ensue. In a judge led inquiry such blatant obfuscation would have been met with the irresistable force of a barrister such as Leveson's Robert Jay QC.

Cameron's political immaturity was succicntly captured by Steve Richards' excellent piece in the Independent this week. He may not yet realise but he is exactly where he said he didn't want to be when he became PM: shouting loudly to MPs much to the annoyance to the general public of the pure partisanship.

Transport Secretary Justine Greeming was howled down at last week's QT whenever she tried to blame, "the last Labour Government." To the public it as boring as someone who joins a company and bangs incessantly about what used to happen "at my last job."

After a succession of budget U-turns, if he is forced to back down again, Cameron's stature will be certainly diminished. He may not have noticed the public are watching.

Friday 15 June 2012

My Name Escapes Me

To the Leveson Inquiry to witness the PM's testimony about his manifold contact with the generals of the Murdoch Empire.

Perhaps it was unfortunate lighting in Court 73 but throughout Cameron resembled an apoplectic beetroot as he feigned a casual air in the face of the relentlessly inquisitorial Mr Jay QC.

Cameron's extensive legal preparation was very apparent just by his vocabulary unless he often uses words such as 'recused', 'provenance' and 'elision'. What also came across was his much trumpeted crusade when first he became Tory leader for "a new politics" was never genuine. His seduction of media companies and individual journalists was not just extensive but serial in its scale - 1,400 meetings, meals and interviews in four years.

But in the great swathe of communication there were some individual details of bowel emptying embarrasment.The text from Rebecca Brooks prior to his 2009 conference speech captured an intimacy even complicity which could not be diminished whatever Dave said. ("I am so rooting for you tomorrow not just as a proud friend but because professionally we’re definitely in this together! Speech of your life? Yes he Cam!"). And Mr Jay's prolonged focus on the Brooks' was all the more poignant as they had appeared in court the previous day charged with the emminently imprisonable offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

So naturally he played down his contact with them, couldn't recall how often these weekend pub chums met in wellies splattered with the Oxfordshire mud. His memory was extra-ordinary partial; at times it seemed he couldn't remember if he could remember. His lawyers, no doubt, had advised him not to admit to that which he did not need to. But lawyers are only expert in the narrow confines of legal argument. It may not occur to them how damaging it is to a PM's integrity to present such a selectively fallible memory.

He also suggested before handing Jeremy Hunt the role of arbiter on the BSkyB bid they had never even discussed it. This £8Bn deal was easily the biggest in media history, and Hunt was Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport - that part of Cameron's testimony was barely credible.

But this lack of frankness was still not the most glaring ommission. Cameron had established this inquiry himself yet found no time to show any statesmanlike qualities, to rise above the hurly burly and share his strategic overview of the media's future with His Honour, Lord Leveson. When Cameron could not resist having a pointless swipe at Gordon Brown it showed him for what he is: strong on political instinct, weak on political judgement.

Friday 8 June 2012

The Reckoning

William Hague is proving to be a fairly competent Foreign Secretary. He has done some pretty good quiet work on Syria of late and had taken a public stand on issues where no doubt his officials have suggested a bland communique instead.

The Ministerial boycott of the Euro 2012 to protest at the imprisonment and ill-treatment of former PM Yulia Tymoshenko (pictured) is a good principled stand. It is also yet another of the countless reasons why the 2012 tournment will be a PR disaster for the game and for English FA in particular.

It comes as no surprise at all to learn of Netherlands team being subjected to racist chants although before the tournament starts shows this is merely a taster.Teams like France and England have several black players but even Sweden and German have enough to spark the racists into action.

Of course any subsequent protests by the FA can be countered by pointing a finger at our one reminang centre-back John Terry awaiting trial on racism charges and the obvious 'political' exclusion of the blameless and highly experienced Rio Ferdinand.

UEFA and FIFA have never really got to grips with actual racism, celebrity players wearing anti racist T-shirts does not change social attitudes. Poland and Ukraine should never have been given this tournment to host. Their officials, politicians and police are in denial there is any kind of problem. Such complacency and corruption will yield its inevitable outcome of violence, hatred and victimisation. This is not the beautiful game.

Thursday 31 May 2012

While Rome Burns

Michael Gove's set may have been quite pleased with the way he pompously 'explained' the libertarian view on press freedom at Leveson on Tuesday. But that is not to say things are going terribly well for Conservatve Party inc.

While Govey argued for the virtue of the status quo, former key allies were being arrested and charged with serious offences. Rebecca Brooks faces three charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice and Andy Coulson was charged perjury by Stratchclyde police yesterday. In both cases convictions would routinely result in imprisonment.

Gove thought he should bring the Inquiry to its senses and elucidate on what would be lost in pursuit of media regulating. He appeared to be advocating the abolition of the PCC and having no regs at all. He also spoke about the behaviour of journalists as if they were all economics editors at the Times when Leveson has been addressing the most salacious and aggressive variety which dominated the business.

Brian Leveson was pretty astonished at Govey's ethos and arrogance,"Mr Gove, I do not need to be told about the importance of freedom of speech, I really don't." before reminding him of the type of cases they had heard involving the Dowler family, Cheryl Gascoigne, Charlotte Church, Sienna Miller...Not to mention e-mail hacking at the Times and then obfuscating about it to the court.

He may be feeling pretty puffed up after his terribly hammy performance but next under oath is the wide-eyed Jeremy Hunt. After we know there were interventions when he said there none, and a confirmed view on BskyB takeover when he said there wasn't, Hunt's career will not see next week. And all the dreadful developments for Tory High Command all point directly at the judgement at the PM.

Maybe Gove was finding solace in Dave's discomfort too.

Tuesday 29 May 2012

Perfect Storm

Football is not like other sports. Rugby and cricket, demonstrate how the adherence to the rules and fair play give players a sense of honour and integrity. Football players and administrators alike seem to regard the rules of the game as an occupational hazard to be avoided whenever possible.

And into that moral vacuum has stepped racism and bigotry where it has no traction in other parts of social life. This week's BBC Panorama 'Stadiums of Hate' was a horrifying prelude to the Euro 2012 tournament where racist violence appears guaranteed.

The presenter, Chris Rogers, was pretty staggered to witness a couple of thousand fans in Ukraine giving the Nazi salute with acommpanying Sieg Heils. The spineless response from officialdom was simple denial and claiming the supporters were simply "pointing." The police and stewards were hopeless and were clearly subordinate to the Ultras.

The hate groups in both Poland and Ukraine are deeply anti-semitic and racist and have adopted as their symbol the Celtic Cross (above). It will be ironic and pretty sickening for the Irish fans who have been abused by fascist unionists in the past to see a national symbol used to propagate such bigotry.

In the programme, former England defender, Sol Campbell was quite right to suggest black British fans should not consider travelling to the tournament as they would be walking targets. The families of Theo Walcott, and Oxlade-Chamberlain have already said they won't be going. Why exactly are we playing in a tournament where such poison pervades that black players will not be able to feel the pride in having their families there? What is the point of any of it?

At a recent Europa Cup game Man City were fined 10K euros more for being a minute late resuming the field than Porto were for allowing their supporters to racially abuse City players Toure and Balotelli. So there is EUFA's moral lead and as for FIFA, Blatter has already failed to condemn racism out right, saying effectively it's all in the game. Our FA are hardly any better for allowing John Terry to play just prior to his day in court on racism charges. And Roy Hodgson should not have picked him for the same reason.

The stage is set for a huge conflict between several national firms of hooligans. It will be a fitting tribute to the administrators' amoral view where only commercial rather than human interests are to be protected.

Monday 14 May 2012

Stand on Your Own Two Feet

The Daily Mail Reader's poll today is, "Should amputees be forced to work?" Quite a question.

The debate follows the introduction of the Work Capability Assessment, a simplistic model of ensuring many disabled people are deemed by DWP to be seeking benefits when they should be doing the nine to five slog.

Darren Gilligan (pictured) is one example. Despite losing a leg in an industrial accident and injuring the other as well as his back, the DWP's crude point system has assessed him as "fit". He captured the essence of the attitude to the mentally sick and disabled perfectly when he told the Mail, "If you can breathe and blink they want you back to work." The Department wishes to cut payments from 500,000 of the poorest to save, £2.25Bn.

Mr Duncan Smith said: ‘It’s not like incapacity benefit, it’s not a statement of sickness. It is a gauge of your capability. In other words, do you need care? Do you need support to get around? Those are the two things that are measured. Not “You have lost a limb”. Well, now we know.

If such heartlessness, roundly condemned by Mail readers does not leave you slack-jawed, then the Express's campaign supporting the disabled workers at Re-employ just might. "Asked why the disabled were being robbed of a choice between a segregated or mainstream workplace, Mr Duncan Smith snapped: “How far do you want to go with the idea that you can choose to do exactly what you want?" Adding to one of the soon to be sacked workers, "You don't make much."

IDS clearly lives in a world of theories and charts chewed over with officials and advisers divorced from the extremes of life. He never seems to recognise the harshness of his measures nor does he accept the disabled are being told to find jobs which in most areas don't exist. After tax cuts for the top rate tax earners this Victorian punishment is pretty obscene politics.

Thursday 10 May 2012

Mr Coulson...he say yes!

The only point Andy Coulson looked a little uneasy during his cross examination at the Leveson Inquiry yesterday was when he was asked about his shares in News Corp.

He held £40k worth during his entire time as Cameron's media supremo and at no point considered the potential conflict of interest.  "In retrospect I wish I had paid more attention to it," he added.

Mr Jay's next question was even more revealing. No-one had even asked him about the shares. Such was the paucity of clearance procedure for someone at the heart of No.10. He admitted yesterday he wasn't even aware himself of what level of clearance he had. And tied to this was Coulson's jaw-dropping admission he regularly had access to Top Secret material and attended the National Security Council. The obvious inference of not having him properly cleared was that it would have been a test he would have clearly failed. So Cameron's 'solution' was consistent breaches of security.

Coulson generally managed to limit the damage to his former employers by his stonewalling and refusal to agree even the most inconsequential detail. Asked whether he himself wrote a kind editorial about George Osborne hit with accusations of cocaine use, he said he didn't always write the editorial, he spoke to someone, they did a draft, he edited it, then agreed it or just wrote it. Much simpler to just say, yes.

But there were enough hand grenades in there which had to explode as he was under oath. It is beginning to look rather foolish of Cameron to order this Inquiry as it is inflicting more and more political damage on him. The again, Nixon thought it a good idea to reveal the Oval Office tapes.

Sunday 6 May 2012

A Fool Such As I

If you're ever lost, don't ask Danny Alexander (left) the way.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury's analysis of the Scottish elections was breathtaking and laughable. It couldn't have been just arrogance and a dash of wishful thinking to suggest the SNP, the winning and most dominant party in Scotland must have been "bitterly disappointed" by the vote on Thursday. But even a crude view of the numbers would indicate something more delusional.

The Liberal Democrats in Scotland are a spent force. Their previously poor total of 151 councillors was reduced to a rump of just 71, some way short of the dismal Conservatives on 115. Meanwhile the good ship Salmond has 424 seats and Labour 394. Alexander bemoaned the mid-term blues of the Coalition's cumalitive loss of 800 seats to Labour across Britain. But the SNP were in their mid-term too yet they picked up 57 seats.

Danny's pompous sniping at the Nationalists reminded me of a prefect poised to fail all his A-Levels. We know, and he knows, all his authority will soon me taken from him yet in the meantime he throws his weight around at his familiar enemies.

The Liberal Democrats now have less than 3,000 councillors nationwide so have returned to where they were in 1988 under David Steel before Ashdown and Kennedy carved them a niche as a proper third party. Yet, Danny Boy seems fine about pontificating about SNP's "failure" to convince the electorate on the case for Independence. He is tallking about people's convictions based on the way he wishes the world to be and not by what people actually think.

In Edinburgh ward of Pentland Hills, the Lib-Dem candidate lost to a man dressed as a penguin. As a Minister Alexander can make any observation he likes, however obtuse. But very soon he will have no right to even say it.

Saturday 28 April 2012

Don't Push It

Since the Leveson Inquiry started there has been a wholesale change in approach to it by the newspapers and police. Although there are a few gripes, both institutions have ceased attacking the basis of the Inquiry and have settled on a mediation strategy.

Not so the politicians. They are, if anything, incrasingly intransigent in the face of the New World Order and act as if political traps and deceit can still win the day. The Coalition's insistence that Hunt's disreputable behaviour on the BskyB bid should not be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny but deferred until Leveson has taken a view was a desperate attempt to shield him from the inevitable beheading which awaits him. This shows poor judgement by the PM. Again.

To do so would make Brian Leveson the political arbiter in the case and that is a role he will certainly refuse. When Clegg boasted without any basis about bringing forward Hunt's evidence for his political convenience the Inqury said, "Halt."

When Mr Jay, the Leveson Inquiry's QC (pictured) has his opportunity in three weeks time to cross examine Hunt he will no doubt be mindful of the attempt by ministers to push the Inquiry in a particular direction to save Hunt. And the Secretary of State will find political answers will not remotely suffice when posed tough legal questions.

Wednesday 25 April 2012

Time to Make Knee Jerk Reactions

When Jeremy Hunt dared to give his statement on his contact with News Corp during the bid process he looked like a man caught 'in flagrante' trying to calm down an irate husband.

He had already spoken at length with Cameron and they had decided between them they should hold the line of denying any wrong doing.

It won't wash. Cameron knows a quick resignation means accepting liability and consolidating the perception of collusion between Ministers and big business. The line Hunt will try to use is that he referred to Ofcom, sought independent advice, PR men will say anything and it was all the fault of my special adviser. It's pretty shakey but could be sustained for a day or two. His suggestion of clearing the air by an early appearance at Leveson is a dreadful strategy. It would mean Cameron suffering three weeks of damaging headlines before Hunt's cross examination.

And when it comes to it I expect a nasty experience in store. Ministers cannot obfuscate, gloss over and interupt in court as easily as at the dispatch box or TV studio. Neil Hamiltion found that in his libel case against the Guardian when George Carmen annihilated him in less than ten minutes.

Rupert Murdoch hits the stand this morning and it may be he has a little more to say on the matter. It would only take one small prod to knock Hunt flying off the political cliff.

Thursday 19 April 2012

Formula for a Riot

Formula One used to be one of the finest and most exciting sports.

It was a tortuous balance between engineering, driving skill, courage and luck. Drivers such as Graham Hill, Jackie Stewart, Nikki Lauda and Ayrton Senna were suitably celebrrated as great sporting heroes.

But eventually the cars became computerised and the televsion money increased inexorably and sport, for many, simply died. Througout this entire era F1 has ben run by the redoubtable and ruthless Bernie Ecclestone. It is hard to fathom the motivation for an 81 year old who seeks to make even more millions on top of his collosal fortune.

But his bottom line seems to be 'nothing should be allowed to get in the way of commercial gain'. Last year the civil uprising against King Hamad's regime caused the cancellation of the Bahrain Grand Prix but this year it is going ahead. Quite how a sporting event can be staged in the midst of such turmoil and oppression is bizarre. But Bernie who has, on more than one occassion, expressed his admiration for Hitler's organisational skills, has no qualms.

We should remember there have been dozens killed by the security forces, thousand injured and arrested. Medical staff who helped the injured have been imprisoned. Naturally the protestors are channelling their energies to a huge protest aiming to disrupt the race. Meanwhile our Bern says Bahrain is "quiet and peaceful."

All he proves is financial astuteness does not mean he understands the first thing about politics and the value of human rights.

Tuesday 17 April 2012

The Last Word

Some years ago I worked in a part of the Home Office dealing with the hand-in of firearms after the Dunblane massacre.

I had the occasion to read the Cullen Report which included a passage on what the perpertrator, Thomas Hamilton, had done in detail. It was breathtaking and deeply disturbing, at times impossible to read - it was clear this murderer was exceptional and belonged in Dante's seventh circle of Hell.

The trial of Anders Breivik in Oslo this week has already shown he is even more despicable still. This dim-witted sociopath has no regret whatever about the 77 murderers he committed. He is in effect a modern day SS guard, perhaps he would not even argue with that description. Except many of the loathsome crimes of the SS were driven by the extremes of war. This excrutiating individual has created grand enemies from the safety of his own bedroom, in any case he is intellectually bankrupt and despite his claims of some honour in his 'cause' exists in a moral vacuum.

Sometimes events show there is actual evil within people, very occassionally a person is simply intrinsically evil themselves. It is unfortunate he has the right to publicise his perverse and idiotic beliefs on Norwegian television. I, for one, will not listen or read another word he has to say.

Monday 9 April 2012

Not Just Making this Up.

The 'Right to a Family Life' doesn't sound such a bad thing. But in context of immigration law it is an infuriating obstacle to Ministers' ability to deport thousands more foreigners.

The Home Secretary, for it is she, has decided to 'order judges' to ignore Article 8 of the ECHR when deciding on deportation cases. I didn't realise the law worked that way.

I thought laws had to be decided by Parliament or the courts and not in May's little Private Office. Nevertheless the UK is a signatory to ECHR and has also since 2001 brought it into domestic legislation. It cannot be willed away in the desire for favourable headlines in the Sunday Telegraph.

We've been here before of course when she embellished an old social myth about an asylum seeker's cat into the cornerstone of her conference speech.

This is often what happens to Home Secretaries, they lose the ability to listen to officials who might say the latest proposal is pointless, legally unsound and saving up for future embarrassment. They listen to their special advisers who say responds to the real people's expectations, and shows she's gonna act tough. I don't see how this changes anything and judges are not known for being susceptible to taking orders from Ministers.

Thursday 29 March 2012

The Worst Part of Us

We've been here before of course.
In September 2000, large, loud-mouthed truckers set up blockades preventing fuel deliveries and set in chain a mass hysteria from the car-driving public.
This time a potential strike by Unite tanker drivers has spooked Government Ministers to play Corporal Jones and actively encourage drivers to start hoarding petrol.
I rather agree with Ed Balls (for once) when he said the Government was having such a rotten week they needed a bogeyman to focus the nation away from their failings over budget and donors paying for access to the PM. It might have worked too if a strike had been called but without pickets, banners and braziers there are no 'militants' to focus the nation's ire on.
Frankie Maude made a right arse of himself suggesting drivers should peer into the far reaches of their "garage" and look for Gerry cans. It may be news to Maude but not everyone lives on Acacia Avenue and drives a Rover.
The panic twelve years ago showed a particularly foul side of the British character, which was irredeeably selfish and paranoid. But Tories had clearly not learnt from it and are still talking up "bringing in the army" as if the military can be deployed as some economic panacea to all industrial crises. The clear inference would be that any strlking union member would be up against our brave lads and so were by defintion unpatriotic if not actual traitors.
A footnote in the news coverage: OECD figures show UK is offically back in reession.

Tuesday 27 March 2012

Any More for Any More?


David Cameron's political judgement has been twice called into question since the release of the tape showing Tory Party Treasurer, Peter Crudas, offering access and policy leverage for £250k a pop.

First, for hosting these dinners for donors at No.10, although such grandstanding to big business is rather in the Conservative DNA. But secondly, to try and fob off the media and the opposition these were entirely "private" affairs and we should all just cut along and mind our own business.

Does he need reminding he is in public office and No.10 is a public building? When he did take advice and shoe-horned a confession into a speech to a dementia charity later, he played it as if they were three dinners for some old friends. Then refused all questions. These old chums are all immensely wealthy and between them have shoved £10m to the party. A very bad stink, by any measure.

He had not the balls to face the House and flicked the ear of (millionaire) Francis Maude to defend the indefensible. It was Maude who seven hours earlier, on R4's Today, had dismissed the issue as "nonsense" despite the implication from Cruddas he was able to break the law and accept foreign donations. This picture does not quite capture how sick Francis looked at the dispatch box. A lamentable performance, where he spent nearly all of the time talking about Labour in spite of gentle reminders from the Speaker the purpose of a Ministerial Statement was to set out Government policy and answer questions on it.

Milliband annoyed him thoroughly following on from his successful attack on Osborne and his inequitous budget. He is building a theme here and an old familiar one at that: Conservatives can't help protecting the privileged and the powerful.

Monday 19 March 2012

These Foolish Things

Budgets are always political but the specifics are usually only realised much later.
When Nigel Lawson knocked two points off interest rates in 1987 he fuelled an expanding economy into an overheated one, culminating in the 1990-2 recession.
The impact of George Osborne's big decision on tax rates will be felt much more immediately. It seems, from the leaked briefings, he intends to gift those earning in excess of £150k a tax cut taking the upper rate from 50 to 45p in the pound. This would be an 'adjustment' which can only benefit the wealthy and risks retoxifying the party as protecting the interests of the privileged. It hardly helps the front rank are well represented by Etonian millionaires, although I understand 'Oik' Osborne went to Westminster (his wealth notwithstanding) .
The Lib Dems have tried to temper the obvious iniquity by ensuring higher allowances before tax is paid for the poor (and the rich) and contributing to so much hot air about clamping down on tax avoidance. You would have thought we've all heard that one so many times.
The budget is likely to be remembered for this one tax break until the election and cannot be remotely justified in times of desperate austerity. Put it against the fact that about half of all young black men are without a job. The Government are also considering introducing regional pay deals which can only mean pay cuts in the north.
There goes 'One Nation' Conservativism at a stroke.

Friday 16 March 2012

Carry on Dick

Dick Fedorcio was Director of Public Affairs for the Met for 14 years and his evidence yesterday to the Leveson Inquiry could be summarised as a 'comedy of errors'.

In spite of his proximity to sophisticated media operators, Dick came across as far from astute about the degree of ethics which was apt when engaging informally with journalists. Nor did he appear as well briefed on how to cope with the impending cross examination at Leveson as Yates or Hayman.

He struggled not to squirm over his son gaining a job at MPS (having previously been employed by News International at the Sun). But was thoroughly banjaxed by questions over his awarding a £1k a day contract to NOTW's Deputy Editor, Neil Wallis, throughout reports of phone hacking by that paper and an investigation by his own force into those charges.

He also had Friday meetings with NI journalists about stories, allowed one, Lucy Paton, to use an office computer to file a story.

Judge Brian Leveson's regular interjections on the critical issue of "reputational risk" became increasingly exasperated as the court's mind moved to the obvious conclusion the Wallis contract was "set up to get a result." Dick's furtive looks gauging Brian's reactions to his answers betrayed someone uncertain of their own evidence.

For all of Dick's attempts to portray this 'glad handing' as normal business he couldn't convince the court he was playing a straight bat. The tendering process included Wallis as a one man band and the huge PR firm, Bell Pottinger - hardly an equivalent outfit.

Leveson had to remind him his role was also to advise senior officers if their actions risked being perceived as acting in the interests of News International editors. At times his only defence was his amateurism. He appeared as the epitome of the 'old boy's network'. He hosted the meeting with DSI Dave Cook and Rebekah Wade in 2003 but claimed his memory was clouded by newspaper reports he had since read. Eh? His testimony showed he sat on his hands unwilling to moderate the unjustifiable behaviour of the NOTW intruding into the private life of one his fellow officers. For someone whose role was to network and intervene with the media, he appeared throughly passive, lacking curiosity and only waiting to be asked before lifting a finger.

His most oft use phrase was "what I know now." He repeatedly implied that the ensuing time meant his poor judgement at the time could be excused. After so many, too many, years of experience in that post one would have expected his judgement.to have become more acute. The questioning suggested it was swayed by complicity.

Thursday 8 March 2012

You Do the Math

This is the current rolling stock of the East Anglian line into Liverpool Street I am compelled to endure. It dates back to the late 70s when Jimmy Saville was suggesting it was the "age of the train".
They are slow, dirty and uncomfortable. There is no ticket office or machine at my station. The price of a peak return to London is £73.30.
Last year, the operating company increased its profits to over £43m.
The previous Transport Secretary, Philp Hammond announced a review of cost and revenues for the British railways. He said the choice was stark; either increase taxpayer's contribution to the subsidy or put up fares. He neglected to focus on the hundreds of millions paid out to the 28 operating companies. For example East Coast Line profits last year leapt to £182m and First Great Western scooped £127.8m for their directors and shareholders, an increase of 56%.
The current Sos, Justine Greening, will today be backing the findings of a DfT report which will suggest wacking the subsidy and so letting communters be skinned again and do nothing about the profiteering from our public services. Although the McNulty report recognises our fares are about a third higher than (state owned) European counterparts, he favours introducing airline style structure where peak prices will rocket. Many commuters coming in from the West of London pay thousands a year for the prvilege of standing in a packed train - a particularly loathsome experience in the warm weather.
It reads as a very partial report. When considering the efficiency of the old British rail it comes up with this civil service classic "results [were] inconclusive, with studies ranking British Rail as the most efficient, others as the least efficient, and some about average." Presumably the same can be said for the private companies although they could not argue the current fractured structure could offer equivalent economies of scale.
We should not be altogther surprised, the Conservatives have always been in thrall to business and relish selling the state's assets for large corporations at the cost to the individual.