For the Many not the Few, Remember?

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

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

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

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

Pontificating on Racism

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

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

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

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

Gord Help Us

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

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

More conviction needed. Less convictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rewards of Loyalty: Deportation

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

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

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

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

Labour Determined to Lose the Middle Ground

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

Amess Still Needs the Buzz

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

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

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

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

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