Blow, Wind Blow

Chancellor George Osborne blamed the weather on Britain's much predicated tilt back into recession. The ONS figures suggest much of the 0.5% 'negative growth' was a sharp contraction in the construction industry. The drying up of orders coincided with the cancellation of the Building for Schools project by Michael Gove, deemed like all Labour projects facing the axe, as "wasteful and beauracratic."

This orthodoxy of cutting public costs regardless of strategic, economic or social need leads to bizarre and perverse outcomes such as the destruction of the brand new fleet of Nimrods (pictured).

There is certainly enough time between now and the election to declare full responsibility for the stewardship of the econmy on the Coalition. Osborne, in Opposition, always selected the political rather than economic argument - his ideology and inexperience are dragging the country back into recession quite unneccessarily. There is little mentioned about growth these days, rather the package of painful austerity cuts is sold like some psychological guilt about the prosperous era under Labour.

To be defined as a recession the economy would have to be below zero growth again next quarter. No bookie would take odds on that. The VAT increase looks like guaranteeing it. The next quarters will inculde the first impact of the huge cuts so there could be no end for a little while. And all despite desperate assurances from George that it was the weather. Certainly it was economic weather and Capn George is down below biting on his finger wishing the waves away.

It Tolls for Thee

Andy Coulson's resignation was almost as long coming as Gordon Brown's. Rather than adding my own analysis, I thought I would simply include a few quotes which capture the story (so far).

George Osborne, "Andy... was a patriotic servant of this country."

John Prescott, "An editor not knowing the sources of his stories would be incompetent."

Andrew Neill, " the approach by the police is unfathomable."

Tory backbencher (quoting Napoleon.), " the graveyards of France are full of indispensable men."

"Hacking phones became the default position for getting stories." Andrew Neill again.

Max Clifford, "A lot of very powerful people won't want any of this coming out."

Alistair Campbell, "I have always got on perfectly well with Andy Coulson."

And finally Coulson himself, before a Parliamentary Committee, " I do not remember...I do not recall... I have no evidence...as to whether or not this is correct...I don't know. I know as much as you do, you may know even more."

Racial Profile

This is a picture of Kasey Gordon. By all accounts he was very popular and talented student before he was stabbed to death outside his school in Tottenham last week. He and some other friends appear to have been trying to protect school girls from being intimidated by a local man. Kasey died at the scene and three others were injured.

I was somewhat amazed to read of this tragic event on page 21 of the local paper, the Evening Standard. The national media have been barely interested.

This coverage is in contrast to Jo Yeats whose death has been barely off the front pages for about a month. One could say her murder was more of mystery but if one were only interested in the sensational aspect, the Kasey Gordon killing has plenty of drama about it. The only conclusion one can sensibly draw is the senior editors of media organisations place wildly different significance on deaths depending on the skin colour of the victim.

Remember Stephen Lawrence's death was similarly treated as just another black youth death in the inner city until another big organisation, the Met, was shown to be institutionally racist.

Shabby Intentions

There is certainly the beginnings of a concerted whispering campaign against the Speaker, John Bercow in sections of the media. The Mail and the Telegraph are printing any comment about him and maximising the negative. Former Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, regretted JB's decision to dispense with traditional gaiters. Hardly a newsworthy event. The Mail said this was the latest "humiliation" and implied she considered him "scruffy", a word our Betty did not actually use.

He look scruffy to you?

In recent times he has been criticised for simply declaring to a constituent his opinion on fox-hunting as if he had broken the seals of his office. Grumpy Health Minister, Simon Burns, felt emboldened to call him a "sanctimious, stupid dwarf." Then apologised to dwarves everywhere.

The Tory backbench mafiosi are equally vocal in their quest to bring down the Speaker. Deputy Chair of 1922 Committee, Mark Pritchard, is picking fights with Mr Speaker like some garrulous playground tick. After a recent spat in the chamber, Pritchard found he was in the way of the Speaker's entourage and seemingly expected the Bercow make way for him. "You're not f-ing royalty," he bellowed.

"And a good morning to you, sir" responded Bercow, maintaining dignity under duress.

Executing the role of Speaker is vital to an effective Commons. The Tories may not like it when he upbraids hopeless Ministers, like Gove, on procedures and courtesies, but that is his job. Bercow is proving to be a very able speaker - his excellent lecture on comparing 1911 and 2011 Governments showed he has an acute historical perspective on Parliament too.

And history shows there have been many foul and even murderous campaigns against various Speakers so he should not be unduly worried. We have rather got into the habit of considering the Speaker to be a kindly Uncle Bernie Weatherill or cosy Aunt Betty B.

Even they had their confrontations. But little would compare with this encounter with Tory Chief Whip, Patrick McLoughlin who feels able to openly challenge the authority of the House.

http//www.youtube.com/watch?=yd2YyZP0b8

Bercow showed he understood when to dispense with charm and turn his full ire on the big bully, calling him back from "scurrying from the chamber."

Ultimately these tribal attacks from the right of the party will not succeed. Like the man in the fable, the lashing of wind and rain only makes this Speaker hold onto his mantle even tighter.

And Your Point Is?

Andrew Lansley presents the Health and Social Care Bill on Wednesday for its Second Reading. Rather than the usual questions on the level of funding or the degree of tax burden, the main question for this Bill is, "what exactly is it for?"

Although there is naturally some disconnect between GPs and Health Trusts in assessing any particular patient's needs, it seems small reason, indeed, to turn the whole health service upside down to make the GPs the drivers of nearly all decision-making. When Lansley has found time to try and explain his 'philosophy' such as it is, he immediately get aggressive and demands, "do you not trust your GP to make the right decisions about your health?"

The answer is simply 'no'. Not unless he has particular expertise in project management and accountancy. Last time I looked they weren't modules at medical school.

The NHS Federation has also queried the lack of "a compelleing story why the reforms are necessary" and assessed them as "extraordinarily risky". Just how risky, you may ask? Well, of course those hard-pressed officials at DH have been scratching over the figures and projections and analysing the likeliness of success.

Labour Health Minitser, John Healey wondered why these considerations had not been shared with Parliament, as is the tradition. A blank response from Ministers elicited an FOI request. The Coalition which decried the previous Government's lack of transparency actually refused the request on the grounds to do so would interfere with officials "space in which to develop thinking.. and may deter candid discussion in the future. "

Ministers would have a point if the question was to give a verbatim account of all meetings with senior officials. But it wasn't. I guess they just didn't dig what the results were. Healey called this Soviet style secrecy "disgraceful" as their plans for the NHS "affect the lives of everyone in England". So it would seem the next big plan is unclear in purpose, hard to discern whether it is worthwhile and they won't tell us when we ask.

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.