Two Doctors

A better standard of resignation.

By

on July 3, 2009 1:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Back in the 1950s, when policemen called you Sir and Wimbledon was contested by adults, the Crichel Down affair led to the resignation of Sir Thomas Dugdale.

He was not personally responsible for the problems with the case, and it is now widely cited as the classic example of the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility.

Nowadays, Ministers responsible for egregious failures cling on, bleating about needing the opportunity to fix their own mistakes. Opposition spokespeople fiddle taxes while preparing for high office. The Prime Minister's own fingerprints are all over various government disasters, from deregulation of the markets to the privatisation of the Tube, yet he will not go until the electorate drag him out of the door to Number Ten.

How much more impressive, therefore, is this news from Portugal. The Economy Minister made the sign of the bull to an opponent, implying someone else had got become very good friends indeed with his wife, and duly quit.

Questions of identity.

By

on July 2, 2009 4:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The decision that ID cards would be voluntary (alongside renationalisation of the East Coast main line and the shelving of Royal Mail's destruction), was made to look like Labour turning the narrative around on some of their most unpopular policies.

In particular, Alan Johnson was understood to be sceptical, and this retreat from compulsion supposedly allowed Brown to save face while his Home Secretary beat the retreat.

Unfortunately, it appears not. If there's a way to disappoint, be sure New Labour will find it. Here's the man himself:

"So, despite the headlines that would have readers think otherwise, I'm not scrapping identity cards - I'm committed to delivering them more quickly to the people who will benefit most."

The only people who will benefit are the IT companies queueing up to cash in at our expense, plus the fraudsters who'll have a new bit of plastic to scan and forge for profit.

Persisting with this inane idea drives a large chunk of the apolitical towards the Tories (as the ID opponents with the biggest media megaphone) and confirms Labour as the party with the most authoritarian instinct. I can only conclude they have a death wish.

Partial rail nationalisation (and then reprivatisation).

By

on July 1, 2009 7:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

When ultra-Blairite Lord Adonis says Labour is finally going to take one of the train operating companies into public ownership, you know what follows. Reprivatisation. Having fixed something, why not break it again? It's very New Labour.

But is there another interpretation? Is he leaving an opportunity for the next Labour leader as he or she struggles with opposition?

After all, Adonis says the plan is to keep the East Coast mainline in public ownership for at least a year, by which time Gordon will be history. The Tories will no doubt wish to rush it back into private hands, and Johnson or whoever could build a populist argument for going further and renationalising and reintegrating the whole thing.

Perhaps not, but would you rule out Labour being devious enough to leave the Tories some awkward issues on a timer? The test will be if Labour try to run it well: that would build evidence for continuing public ownership. But are they even capable of doing that now?

Body blow in Norwich North.

By

on June 26, 2009 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Iain Dale reports an interesting poll for the forthcoming Norwich North byelection.

Tories: 34% (+1%)

Labour: 30% (-15%)

Liberal: 15% (-1%)

Green: 14% (+11%)

I'm sure people will still be told that "only the Liberals can win here". Their increasingly absurd "Norfolk Blogger" claims this is "a blow to the Greens". If an 11% increase in our numbers is a blow, mate, I'd be happy to see one or two more of those.

Our friends in Norwich are led by the exceptionally effective Adrian Ramsay (above), the leader of the largest opposition group on the council and soon-to-be MP for Norwich South. They're great grassroots campaigners and very hard working. I think those numbers will shift pretty hard during this campaign, and the longer it runs the more the Liberal vote will trickle away.

Ladbrokes have Greens at 12/1 and the Liberals at 33/1, incidentally. Political Betting's thread is here.

Now let's have a Climate Change Policy.

By

on June 24, 2009 5:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Holyrood settled today for a compromise position on much of the Climate Change Bill, with a few notable exceptions.

The idea of carbon-costing future budgets is now written into law, the odd "may" is now a "must", and that interim target is higher, at least for now.

Rob Gibson quoted Patrick's comment that the SNP would need to be dragged kicking and screaming to 40% scathingly, as if that wasn't basically what happened (in fact, I could almost see him kicking his desk at the time).

The trouble is that when Labour made their move on this at FMQs last week, they needed to have loads of caveats in their text to keep Des (I'm guessing) happy.

When the Nats decided to try and outbid them, they gleefully adopted his language, caveats and all. Notably, they can abandon the target if they get a letter from the big boys in London allowing them to do so.

Stewart Stevenson made some pledges on that, as follows (I paraphrase):

"I promise not to ruin the Bill if we get a tough deal at Copenhagen, I promise only to ruin the Bill if I get the letter I've already got, and I promise only to ruin the Bill once."

The bottom line here remains the same, and the problem is much wider than the SNP. It's the policy weaknesses shared across the Chamber. Labour, the Tories and the Liberals are all signed up to climate-busting transport schemes across the country, to new coal plants with as yet undeveloped technical fixes (although you can never make opencast clean), to airport expansion, and to doing next to nothing on insulation.

Whatever the target, without actual policy change in these areas all we'll be doing in future years is berating Ministers for missing their targets. Those activists who pushed Parliament as far as the other 127 would go had better not pack up: without their continued efforts, on actual policy issues, we won't have achieved as much today as they hope.

We don't need a new Labour Party.

By

on June 23, 2009 9:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Simon Jenkins rails against the dearth of progressive choice in modern politics.

Of Labour: "The withering of the party apparatus and of its base in the unions and local government left nothing to which future reformers might grasp."

Of the Lib Dems: "They were beguiled by the magnetism of the vacuous centre."

The result? "Those on the left who are against the current wars, the drug laws, an authoritarian Home Office and a centralised state have no voice. Nor do those who want to see bankers taxed and local council housing surge."

His prescription: "At present [democratic equilibrium] needs a Labour party. Someone should found one."

I disagree, obviously. You can have all those things and sustainable economics too, with Greens. But you'll never again see a Labour Party able to deliver them (which I agree is a sad state of affairs).

I'm reminded of this curious paean to Clem Attlee in the Daily Mail. That's what you can't have back, right there.

Climate Change Bill: a partial victory.

By

on June 22, 2009 10:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So it'll be at least 42%, the interim target. Following the Maximum Eck's embarrassing performance at FMQs last week, having been lobbied by everyone from Cardinal Keith O'Brien to Ian Marchant, and having stared into the face of a Labour Party prepared to move in the right direction and rub their face in it, the Nats finally blinked.

You can tell how full of caveats it's going to be, though. The Liberals already had a 42% down, but that wasn't good enough for the SNP, so they've put down a last minute manuscript amendment with the same figure. I'm sure there's a section in invisible ink about exempting North Sea Oil or the FM's own limo, so the Chamber Desk better be on the ball.

At some point Stewart Stevenson will have to be told the good news, too. Whether or not he gets the science, sooner or later he'll have to pick and choose from those motorway projects he and the First Minister love so much. Without scrapping some of them, plus the new coal power stations the Nats are unnaturally fond of, even 42% could actually be a tough target.

To end on a more constructive note, here's a starter for any Ministers wanting to find another 8% carbon emissions reductions at short notice. The insulation scheme we proposed in last year's Budget would have (by their own figures) led to a 5.85% reduction all by itself, as well as substantial economic and financial benefits. Just sayin'.

Dog bites man.

By

on June 22, 2009 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Many of the papers today had a PA story about the Nats calling for more powers to be devolved. Here's one example: SNP tell Jim Murphy: We want more powers for Holyrood now.

Why on earth is this newsworthy? It's all they ever do. Alex Salmond wakes up calling for more powers, even as he then refuses to use the ones we have already, and he goes to bed cursing Westminster for not devolving the power to eat all the fish today. His dreams no doubt regularly feature him winning a big tug-of-war with Jim Murphy over the border.

If anyone who can find a senior Nat saying they're happy with the devolved settlement, then that's a story. Until then, how about a bit more coverage of, I dunno, maybe the biggest crisis facing humanity, something which Holyrood will actually vote on this week?

Berlusconi: the case for the defence.

By

on June 21, 2009 1:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Accused of "frequenting minors" by his wife, hiring call girls, and under fire, at least Blair's old friend Silvio Berlusconi can rely on his friends in the media (he's impotent, so it didn't happen) and his lawyer (he was only the "end user" of the women, and besides he can "have them in large numbers for free").

That's that cleared up then.

The Daily Mail vs the internet.

By

on June 21, 2009 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's hard to be tolerant of newspaper websites with click-to-vote polls on them. They're even less accurate than (say) Big Brother voting. Even using the word "poll" is dishonest, given how easily they can be rigged.

So when the Daily Mail asked their readers whether the NHS should allow gipsies to jump the queue, based on some spittle-flecked Littlejohn rant, the internet intervened, through Twitter and Facebook. Cue this result:

That'll make it a touch harder for Littlejohn or others to use the "results" as supporting evidence for future racist diatribes. I hadn't intended to vote multiple times, incidentally, but it wouldn't let me see the results without at least trying to. Inevitably, the whole thing got taken down.

The most spectacular and determined instance of "poll"-rigging remains April's 4chan vs Time Magazine smackdown. Read here for more.

Tom Harris draws deep from the well of our money.

By

on June 18, 2009 2:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Thumbnail image for harrismerge.png

In February 2008, Tom Harris, the Lord of the Scottish Blogosphere and Trappist monk of anti-Brownism, claimed a staggering £1568.69 (pdf) under the Additional Costs Allowance.

Items we paid for include £952 for his rent, £400 for pies food (the maximum under the "rules"), £80 for cleaning (scrub your own house or pay for it yourself mate), £55 for his council tax (!), £11.61 for his TV license, and £28 for telephone and internet.

So, before even touching his salary, he's spent the equivalent of a month's income, after tax, for someone earning more than £24,000. Of our money. (calculation via the useful Listen To Taxman).

People in other lines of work don't live like this, and neither should MPs.

Expenses: a musical summary.

By

on June 18, 2009 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As the redacted MPs' expenses documents go online, it's my last reasonable opportunity to post Beau Beau D'or's magnificent musical guide, parts one and two.

Clegg catches up on Trident.

By

on June 16, 2009 10:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Liberal position on Trident set out by Ming Campbell, and backed by his party, never made any sense to me. Let's wait and see, they said, presumably wondering if the Cold War was about to kick off again, or if terrorists might after all be deterred by a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle submarine-launched ballistic missile.

Nick Clegg has tonight changed his mind and confirmed that his party is now firmly against Trident. Although it's the cost that seems to bother him most, I do not believe that politicians who change their minds should be criticised simply for u-turning, only for selling out, which this definitely isn't.

Combined with the earlier straw in the wind from the Tories, this could leave Labour as the only pro-Trident party out there. Sometimes I really wonder why anyone's still a Labour member, activist or voter.

One caveat, though, on the Liberal position. Apparently Ming himself has been asked to look at "cheaper alternatives". If that's better diplomacy, great. If that's buying cheaper nukes from the North Koreans, no thanks.

Jenny Jones nails it.

By

on June 16, 2009 1:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'd paraphrase, I'd give my comments, but it'd be a waste. Jenny Jones (left, with Ken) gets it spot on in the Guardian.

"It's disappointing to see someone of Leo Hickman's stature reinforcing old stereotypes. His assertion that the Greens are a "one-issue" party is plainly wrong and his reasoning - that "the clue's in the name" - doesn't entirely stack up.

"Let's think about this for a moment. Suppose there was a party called... oh, I don't know, let's say Labour. By Leo Hickman's reasoning we would all assume it was a one-issue party that dealt only with employment issues. Its flagship policy would be Jobcentre Plus."

Choosing a new Speaker.

By

on June 15, 2009 5:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The ten candidates to take over from Michael Martin (Frank Field having dropped out) gave a hustings today attended by both MPs and the media, and the Guardian helpfully liveblogged it.

The qualities of the individual will be more vital than ever, and an open hustings like this is a great symbolic and practical step in the right direction.

Who I'd like to see: Bercow, despite his hard-right past, failing which Widdecombe, despite her anti-feminist credentials.

Who I expect to see: Haslehurst. The sort of patrician stuffed-shirt most governments really prefer. Young is also a strong contender, I think, but could do a better job.

Worst choice: Beckett, with Beith a close second. Both are weak, partisan and unimpressive. Luckily, neither seem at all likely.

We need a vigorous reformer, a campaigner for openness, an independent-minded champion for the Chamber as a whole, and someone prepared to stand up to over-mighty governments and their devious ways. I have a suspicion we'll be disappointed.

(pic from the Westminster CC stream)

To see oursels as ithers see us.

By

on June 14, 2009 3:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Scotsman successfully used FOI to extract a Government paper on Ministerial preferences (as per the shame heaped on Liam Byrne down south).

Much of it is no surprise. For instance, Salmond wants "facts and figures which demonstrate why the government's position is right", which I'm sure civil servants manage to provide even when the government's position is palpably absurd.

Other parts seem entirely sensible, and simply not newsworthy. John Swinney likes civil servants attending a meeting with externals to turn up 15 minutes early in case he wishes to discuss the matter in advance. It's called a pre-meeting, and it's standard practice.

More amusing, though, is the note that Stewart Stevenson prefers minutes "to be short, to the point and not repetitive". One thing's for sure: he's never had to sit in the audience for one of his own speeches.

Fear and loathing at Holyrood.

By

on June 11, 2009 1:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

This morning Parliament is discussing whether Westminster should have a general election. Come Decision Time tonight, how Holyrood votes will be crucial.

If the Tories, the Lib Dems and the Nats line up and vote for change at 5pm, Gordon Brown will finally relinquish control. Expect to see pics of him clambering into the hybrid Daimler and heading down to see the Queen and ask for a dissolution.

No, not really, but it is still a telling debate. The Tories are drooling at the prospect of power, and just love railing against Iain Gray as a Gordon proxy. For them, Scotland needs a new government purely because they want to see Dave's clammy hands on the steering wheel. They know the voters loathe Labour, and are determined to misread this as some kind of enthusiasm for Tory government.

Bruce Crawford and Mike Russell were in their element too, demonstrating the extraordinary extent to which attacking Labour is the SNP's core business. It's a mix of petty student debating points, the worst sort of hustings behaviour, and the pure loathing they feel towards Labour but not, curiously, towards the Tories. I think they've forgotten the 1980s (above).

Labour for their part share the loathing, and they spewed Tartan Tory-bashing rhetoric at the Nats. In particular, they refought the fall of Callaghan, when the Nats ushered in Thatcherism (although then as now the real problem for them was their own failures). They can add to that the pure fear they feel about this general election, with predictions of the Strange Death Of Labour Britain continuing to spread.

Grim stuff today, therefore. Everyone's time was wasted, it's as if there really wasn't anything more important to discuss, and the mood in the canteen will be like three stag parties meeting on Lothian Road, one in Celtic tops, one in Rangers tops, and one from Chelsea. Thankfully the testosterone levels will be higher than the alcohol levels, otherwise there'd be trouble.

Housekeeping notes: I've finally found out how to turn off authentication for comments, so discussion should flow a little more easily. If I get all that Chinese spam that 538 seems to suffer from I may change my mind. Also, the Tuesday before the Euro poll was this blog's busiest day ever, so thanks for stopping by.

A belated election review.

By

on June 10, 2009 11:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Now everyone else has hashed and rehashed the Euros, here's a wee review. At every level, the silver lining comes with a black cloud attached. (image from b3ta)

Scottish good news: It was our best ever result in a Scotland-wide election, even above the famous 1989 surge, and we continue to move up as the Liberals move down again.

Scottish bad news: The Westminster parties have never been less trusted, and we should have done better. Despite their total chaos, Labour won almost three times as many votes as us.

UK good news: Our friends down south saw the biggest increase in their support of any party, and came out on top across Brighton and Hove and also Norwich, the party's two top targets for the UK General.

UK bad news: Seeing Nazis get elected, especially in the Northwest, where just 5,000 more Green votes would have seen the wonderful Peter Cranie returned to Europe instead of the vile Nick Griffin. The BNP's vote fell and they gained seats. More than a quarter of a million more people voted Green, but we got no more seats, narrowly missing out in a few regions.

European good news: Greens were the big winners across the continent, with great results in France, Germany and elsewhere.

European bad news: The far right in Hungary, Netherlands and elsewhere also did well. Nick Griffin will have plenty of friends, even if they're furriners.

Looking again at the Scottish result, it seems clear that the SNP have positioned themselves as anti-Westminster, despite some shocking abuses of the expenses scheme, and so were ideally placed to pick up the reform/protest votes here that we might otherwise have won.

The ducks have a new councillor.

By

on June 6, 2009 7:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The most pleasing result so far for me, topping even the mighty work of Norwich Greens, was from Totnes, in Devon, one of four county councils now with Greens on them for the first time.

Sir Anthony Steen, owner of one lovely Copenhagen-style duck house at our expense, is now represented by new Green councillor Paula Black. The only surprise, given his staggering arrogance, is that anyone voted for a Tory in his area.

Roll on the Euros on Sunday night. It seems pretty likely he'll have a Green MEP too on Monday.

Update: Much of this story is simply wrong. I got the wrong Tory scoundrel. Sir Peter Viggers of The Duckhouse sits in Hampshire. Sir Anthony Steen, who does indeed have a new Green councillor, is the one whose house looks like Balmoral. Apologies to any ducks or others offended by this mistake.

The Love Song of J Gordon Brown.

By

on June 5, 2009 1:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A pal of mine, it turns out, has posted a few rather lovely Eliot knock-offs at New Labour's Book of Impractical Cats. I found out only when, by complete coincidence, I sent her the following:

Let us go then, you and I,
When New Labour is laid low in the polls
Like a patient etherised upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted polling stations,
The muttering resignations
Of restless days on green leather benches
And one-to-ones on College Green with Sky TV:
Briefings that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question..
Oh, do not ask, "When will he resign?"
Let us go and make our visit.

In the room the women come and go
Talking of Alan Johnson.

...

(I may come back and do the whole thing. Original here)