A view from the trenches

A shock and plaudits for the NHS

2009-07-04T07:40:00.002+01:00

So where was I? Back from Paris and ready to start political blogging again. There was just this little visit to a colo-rectal consultant to ascertain the results of a colonoscopy I had before going to France.

Result? A diagnosis of bowel cancer and instant admission to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham for an ileostomy from which I emerged yesterday. I now have chemo and another operation to face if the chemo works.

But from diagnosis to surgery in 4 days? What private health cover could better that? And if you have to have colo rectal cancer then have it in Birmingham which is a centre of excellence in terms of treatment.

I have frequently said nice things about the NHS but never before have I been so personally involved in how fantastic it can be in emergencies and I had excellent pre and post operative care and excellent surgeons.

The only sad thing of course is the post code lottery. That not everyone in Britain has the same access to the excellent facilities I enjoyed because of where they live. At the moment I don't feel like postulating too much on this - I am just too grateful for living where I do.

West is wise to stay on the sidelines

2009-06-21T08:38:00.005+01:00

Whether the 'convincing' election victory of President Ahmedinejad was intended to reinforce his position and prove his popularity in clear and open competition, it seems to have backfired badly with supporters of Moussavi continuing to challenge the result in cities all over Iran and thousands taking to the streets despite the use of violence by police and security forces.

President Obama is absolutely right to resist the hotheads in the US - particularly in the Republican camp - who want stronger censure of the Iranian government. Obama is only too well aware that any strong actions from the Americans will lead immediately to the finger being pointed at the US as the eminence grise behind the unrest.

He has felt obliged to say something, after resolutions in Congress condemning the Iranian government, but he has remained as low key and uninvolved as possible, simply asking the Iranian government to stop 'violent and unjust action against its own people.'

Obama has to stay strong and resolute on this issue, not giving in to the hotheads of the Bush years who would have been all for labelling Iran as the 'Arch Demon of Evil' or some such rubbish by now

A wonderful week away

2009-06-19T11:32:00.002+01:00

Last week was a wonderful escape from the turgid derrings-do of British political life as I spent a week in Paris with two friends -separately if that makes sense. I had long arranged to meet an old American friend who was holidaying there with her daughter and grandchildren and this I did. It was so good to see her again after a very long time.

My other friend is English and she and her husband are living in Paris for eight months while her husband is on an academic assignment. I spent a day with them and discovered the delights of the 5th arrondisement, a clearly upwardly mobile area on the left bank of the Seine.

It was good to be in a 'lived in' area of Paris full of cheese shops, bread shops, book shops and patisseries and away from all the tourist attractions. Of course I did a few of those as well but I preferred the quieter areas of the city.

Normal service resumes on Sunday

What a silly blogger!!!

2009-06-17T07:49:00.004+01:00

Apologies to readers of the blog for disappearing off to Paris on holiday and forgetting to post that I would be away for ten days. Do I have any readers left? It's clear not much has changed in my absence, MPs expenses and Gordon Brown's leadership still to the fore - although Brown does appear to have ridden the storm for a time. Now he has to be seen to learn from it.

The Iranian elections produced, not surprisingly, a victory for Ahmedinejad but the scope of revolt by the 'reformers' must have taken the Iranian authorities by surprise and now the genie is out of the bottle it will be interesting to see exactly how strong is the current regime's hold on power.

I thought President Obama walked a pretty skilful tightrope in making it clear that he was interested that due electoral process won out, and that was down to the will of the Iranian people.

Anyway now I am back in harness, I will get back to regular opinions and sorry for not letting you all know

Last Days in the Bunker?

2009-06-06T18:00:00.003+01:00

The events of the last few days, for any supporters of the Labour Party, have been horrible. The election results, we knew, were going to be dire but to read of Gordon Brown attempting to reshuffle his cabinet, trying to preserve an air that he had some degree of choice, was more than painful. At the same time, Ministers have been resigning all over the place - Purnell bluntly, Hutton guardedly and Flint bitchily.

Brown has a cabinet in place and, I suppose in practice, can continue to govern but he looks more and more like a dead man walking. Clearly his hands were tied by events and people have stayed in jobs simply because he does not have the clout to move them.

He appeared on television and recited his usual mantra about being the man for the job, pushing Britain out of recession etc etc and there have been calls now to unite around the new government - naturally.

But how long can this frail knocked-together group last. Brown looks like a man with a bunker mentality - going on and on pretending he is leading the nation when everyone else sees him as a lame duck. I'm sure he means what he says. He believes in his destiny. He always has. But can he not see that the ranks of those who agree with him have withered away so fast that he is almost talking to himself.

It is clear he wanted this job so badly that he is going to hang on to it unless shifted by a force of Labour opposition within the parliamentary party. If Gordon Brown really loves the Labour Party, he should bite the biggest bullet of his life - and hand its Premiership to someone else. With Brown at the helm the party is headed for one of its biggest electoral defeats of all time.

Labour Party on the point of implosion

2009-06-02T18:18:00.003+01:00

Gordon Brown must today have that uncomfortable feeling of being a General without a command. With his Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, standing down over the expenses scandal and the possibility still of high profile Alistair Darling, Geoff Hoon and Hazel Blears following suit, Brown has had more bad news today when it was announced that, along with David Chayter, another expenses victim, former Minister Patricia Hewitt and Childrens Minister Beverley Hughes both announced they would not be standing at the next election, wanting 'more time with their families'

This time honoured excuse is probably a greater kiss of death for Brown than the expenses resignations. Because everyone knows its polite political speak for 'We are stuffed. I have had it. I have lost confidence in the Party under your leadership and I want out."

There are a growing number of these people and a growing danger for Brown. It is pretty clear that New Labour has fallen apart at the seams and that Brown is hanging on to salvage something from the wreckage.

He may not get the chance. As Labour's fortunes worsen , so the contempt for Brown's leadership seems to be growing within whats left of the Labour Party and he could easily be dumped before the next election. It won't save the Labour Party from electoral humiliation but maybe the Party will get the opportunity in the wilderness to renew itself and rediscover its core values.

Sensible voting may be the biggest casualty

2009-05-30T07:44:00.002+01:00

Next week on June 4th , we have the European elections and, whether you are in favour of Britain's membership of the EU or not, should provide the opportunity for the electorate to make a rational decision at the ballot box. Of course they never do, and for years the European election has been seen as the big opportunity to work off your beefs about what is happening locally.

But this year the voters anger could take a new and dangerous turn. It's OK letting off steam if your frustration and anger results in a marginal rise in the fortunes of the minor - some extreme - parties but without creating more than a ripple.

This time the expenses row which has consumed Westminster has fired voters with a fierce rage and it looks, from the polls, as if Labour - not surprisingly - is destined to feel the brunt of most of this, and the Tories somewhere behind. Perhaps more surprisingly, even the Liberal Democrats look as if they are going to be punished for being one of the major parties. Voters seem to have a 'plague on all your houses' sense about them and it looks as if the benficiaries of their wrath are going to be UKIP and the British National Party.

UKIP look like making a very strong showing but what is more worrying is that, in certain areas, the BNP could well be sending MEPs to Brussels.

I sincerely hope that British voters have a last minute injection of common sense. For all that the anger with our established politicans is justified, it will not help the cause of politics or democracy to give power to parties like the BNP, even as a knee jerk reaction. Once they get a foothold, there could be very unpleasant and unforseen results for everyone, including those who were blinded enough by anger with the system to vote for them.

Promises, Promises ?

2009-05-27T08:16:00.002+01:00

There is no doubt that, whatever you might think of David Cameron and the Conservative Party, the guy knows how to sell himself. While politicians of all parties have suffered the shame and humiliation of being exposed as expenses fiddlers - and some Conservatives have been the worst offenders - Cameron has seized the opportunity to show his leadership strength in dealing with his offenders in a way which leaves Gordon Brown appearing comparatively floundering.

Cameron himself has been under the spotlight for using his expense allowance to pay his mortgage but at least he has been clear and open about this from the start and, whatever you may think of the expenses machinery, he is clearly not a major offender. So he has been able to stride through this crisis of confidence in politicians and has become one of the few to come out of this with his reputation enhanced in the eyes of the public.

If as most people now suspect the Tories win the next General Election, Cameron's pronouncements take on a more pertinent hue and deserve to be subject to close scrutiny.

Yesterday, in a major speech, he declared that a Conservative Government would revolutionise British politics in a number of ways. They would :-

Reduce Prime Ministerial power and restore the role of parliament

Would consider fixed length parliaments , taking away the right of the PM to judge best date for an election.

Devolve more power to local government

Reduce the degree of whipping on key votes

Reduce the use of the royal prerogative by the Prime Minister

Wonderful. All this sounds very good in the light of the expenses scandal and there is no doubt that it's the kind of speech which will be seized on by those who are sick to death of the goings on at Westminster and thirsty for some kind of promise of change.

And I fear that's all it is. Tony Blair made a few grandiose promises before his election in 1997 with regard to the openness of the British parliamentary system but very little changed when he got into office. Some of these changes are easier than others. In order to give the British electorate real local choice, the whole concept of funding local government has to change and the balance between local and national taxes completely revised. Are the Tories going to commit to that?

And I see the promise about reducing Prime Ministerial authority as so much hot air too. I can't honestly see Cameron being prepared to subjugate his own pretty strong will to a Conservative Party where he has a number of elements of whom he is wary.

So does Cameron mean what he says? Maybe? Some of it. But I suspect he has gauged a speech which everyone wants to hear and which may help him sail into power next year - and what then? Well sorry if I'm cynical but the expenses scandal will be old news - though I don't doubt voter anger will still be high - there will be a new administration with lots of new MPs (if present predictions of sackings come to fruition) and an opportunity for Cameron to set out his personal stall.

I suspect much of this 'new Jerusalem' will be quietly shelved - just as it has always been in the past.

Cantab misreads the mood again

2009-05-25T08:41:00.003+01:00

There are times when I read the pronouncements of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams and wonder if Rowan Atkinson might do a better job. His latest pronouncement suggests that we have gone far enough in exposing the pecuniary frailties of our politicians and that to continue to do so 'might undermine our whole political democracy'.

This, in my view, is rubbish. What is he suggesting? That we are better off drawing a veil over these excesses thus preserving an impression that our politicians are thoroughly decent people and deserving of our trust? What tripe. Now that the lid is off, I believe there is a public duty to continue examining all these cases and if, as forecast, 375 MPs out of 625 are cleared out of the House of Commons in shame before the next election then so be it.

This is an opportunity for a complete renewal of our political establishment, and it should be grasped with both hands. If people have committed acts of, essentially, fraud with taxpayers money they should go..and let that be a warning to the new MPs who will replace them that times have changed and that the new system they find in place will be strict and relentless.

As for Dr Williams, well I suppose he will carry on chuntering into his beard to anyone who is the least disposed to listen. The crowds must be growing smaller by the day.

Just when Americans thought it was safe .......

2009-05-23T16:41:00.003+01:00

...so George Bush's enforcer returned to the arena condemning President Obama's attempts to restore decency and order to American politics by closing Guantanamo. As always, pitbull Cheney contemptuously dismissed waterboarding, torture, deprivation of human rights and everything else Guantanamo signifies as justified in the interests of American security.

It is an easy argument to sell to the homeland because it plays on fear. An argument that uses some form of moral integrity allied to sound common sense, as Obama is attempting to do, is much harder to sell, and, indeed,the President has had to compromise a little on his original closure plans. But at least his aims and intentions are still firmly fixed on the right goals.

Cheney doesn't care about America's image abroad. He sneered at Obama's 'gaining applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo' He doesn't care about the views of Europe for which he clearly feels some disdain. But we all know this, don't we. He and the Smirking Chimp presided for 8 years over the most immoral and despised American administration in many years, a regime which callously murdered 100,000 Iraqis in order to achive 'regime change' to satisfy America's ambitions in the region. A regime which ignored world opinion and went ahead with its criminal war in Iraq anyway.

That's why so many Americans voted for Obama last November. When they listen to Cheney mouthing his contempt and his distaste for trifling incidentals like human rights, maybe enough of them will remember why they turned their backs on the Republican Party, and once again return the monster to his swamp.

Just the kind of Tory to drive Cameron to drink.

2009-05-22T13:16:00.002+01:00

What an amazing interview by Tory MP,Anthony Steen, who exploded with anger at any suggestion that his expense claims were unreasonable.

His comments encapsuled everything the average joe perceives about the Tory gentry, arrogant, unfeeling and completely in a world of his own. Steen suggested that critics were jealous of his home, which resembled Balmoral.

More amazing were his assertions that Ministers had 'mucked up' the system by introducing the Freedom of Information Act and that the public 'have no right to interfere in my private life'.

No right? Whose money does this stupid man this he was spending? £87,000 of OUR money to be precise on maintaining his idyllic estate. And the suggestion that MPs should have been allowed to continue creaming off the cash unimpeded by some intrusive law.

For all that David Cameron is pushing his new Tory 'Jerusalem;, there are some party elders who will never change..and more than you think.

An inevitable finale

2009-05-19T19:28:00.003+01:00

So Michael Martin has, at last, 'resigned' as Speaker of the House of Commons though of course he was really forced out of office, the first Speaker in 300 years to suffer such a fate. If he was to be admired today, it was the succinct no-nonsense way he delivered his resignation, effective in a month's time at which point elections will take place for the first time for a replacement. His insistence that the day's business be continued after his announcement was probably because, at that point, he couldn't stomach the intended plaudits and tributes from the mealy-mouthed, many of whom had wanted him out.

But the decision is the right one for the Commons needs drastic renewal..and at last politicians from all sides of the house are realising how urgently. The House needs a Speaker who commands respect and is beyond reproach. In addition, new measures were announced to ensure that in future an outside body will monitor and regulate MPs pay and expenses...no more a 'Gentlemens Club' as Gordon Brown put it today.

But is it too late? The disclosures have clearly shocked the British public and they are set to wreak their revenge, one suspects, in the European elections on June 4th. We could get a very strange pattern of results which , as I said in an earlier post, will probably do nothing for any sensible European representation but will be a knee -jerk.

Politicians of all camps are bracing themselves for this but the bigger worry will come in less than 12 months when a British general election is held. Will the electorate have cooled down a little in that period or are they just biding their time? Time will tell but the last few weeks have detonated a bomb under the British political system, the damage from the fall-out still incalcuable.

Hope for a new start in Palestine

2009-05-17T11:44:00.003+01:00

I made reference in a post in April to the difficulties the United States has had in the past in influencing the way Israel behaves, due to the tremendous Jewish lobby within the US which has affected how much the United States can do. I expressed the hope that Barack Obama would herald a new approach.

It would seem that my optimism is justified for it would seem that Mr Obama intends to make clear to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's new Prime Minister, that there will be no more blank cheques, no more automatic support for Israel simply because that support is in the interests of the Jewish state. He will push hard, it seems, for two things - For Israel to make positive moves towards the creation of an independent Palestinian state and for Israel to give up its nuclear weapons - the latter having shocked the Israeli government.

What is so heartening about this, is that in a recent poll in the US, Mr Obama's initatives were supported overwhelmingly by the Jewish voters who supported him in November.

I think this is one of the healthiest signs for the future of Palestine for many years. The fact that Jewish voters in America have lost patience with the intransigence Israel has shown towards any recognition of a separate Palestine and endorse Mr Obama so strongly boosts his position tremendously and leaves Netanyahu holding a pretty sorry baby. Without the guarantee of US support, Israel is left facing a very tough reality check - and not before time.

Netanyahu will struggle to concur with much of this, his own position at home depends on his continued stubborness to grant Palestine anything more, but if the consequence of American firmness means that Netanyahu has to go, then it will be a great leap forward for peace in the region.

Police running the country now, are they?

2009-05-15T19:34:00.004+01:00

I had a dream - or rather a nightmare - today, of all our elected representatives being booted out of Parliament after the expenses scandals and replaced by policemen. It seems my nightmare is part way to reality with the announcement from the Association of Chief Police Officers today that it no longer intends to monitor hunts, nor do hunts need to inform police of the time and place of their meets or their planned route.

So in other words, ACPO have taken it upon themselves to give a green light to hunting -legal or illegal - with the implied suggestion that they don't consider hunting a priority. Oh well that's fine then.

Whatever you may think of the rights and wrongs of foxhunting, many people fought long and hard to get the hunting ban put in place and surely the police should be finding ways to execute their responsibilities in this area instead of airily informing the public that they don't consider it a priority and don't intend to bother with it.

Instead they have told forces , on the one hand to rely more on anti hunt groups (getting someone else to do the police's job) and on the other to effectively distrust such information because of the emotional nature of the groups interest. So effectively they are telling forces to back off altogether.

Since when did the police acquire the right to ignore law made by our elected representatives , however slimy and fraudulent that latter group now appears? This really is symptomatic of the way the police regard themselves as another branch of government not servants of the people through the democratic will of parliament. It's not the first time the police have taken a unilateral high handed stance about what they will and won't prosecute.

Senior police chiefs have an important role in feeding their concerns to government and expecting those concerns to be taken on board. They do not have a right to effectively neuter an Act of Parliament by effectively removing its ability to function.

The government should seek an early meeting with ACPO and start hammering tables. ACPO should be left in no doubt that laws which are on the statute book of this country will be upheld and that it is an extremely arrogant position for the police to adopt to announce to the world at large that there is one law they see as pointless and , effectively, are closing down any resources dedicated to it. This position should not be tolerated.

The Nuremberg Defence

2009-05-14T09:34:00.005+01:00

I have resisted - although the thought had crossed my mind - comparing our shamed MPs and their expenses racket with its 'I was just following the rules' - to the Nazis at Nuremberg and their 'I was only following orders' but a number of our national newspapers have seen the similarities, if not in extent of crime, then to the rather pathetic, whiny back-pedalling now they have been found out, and used the term 'The Nuremberg Defence'

It is now clear that our MPs have had the opportunity to canvass their constituency electorate in the weeks since this all blew up and it is equally clear that what they have discovered has frightened them to death. The degree of public revulsion is of such a magnitude that I think many now see their careers exploding before their eyes. That explains why so many MPs are preparing to pay back some staggering sums of money, led by Health Minister Phil Hope who is repaying over £41,000 in additon to a spaniel-like appearance on TV asking for people to start believing in his integrity again.

And Hazel Blears, quietly confessing 'I know people are angry'. Damn right they are Haze..when someone has blatantly worked the 'second home' system as comprehensively as you!!

But still few admit they were wrong. They just concede that people 'view them as wrong'. Ms Blears, Mr Hope and many others must be relieved that they don't have to face the electorate in the next few months, or their careers may have headed for oblivion. Fortunately for them there is the chance for the public mood to cool a little. The 'Nuremberg' parallel continues with the way these people continue to find euphemisms and excuses to justify their behaviour. Two MPs were today sacked from their jobs, one Labour, Elliot Morley and Tory Andrew Mackay. Morley described his claiming £16000 allowances on a mortgage already paid off as 'a sloppy accounting practice for which I take full responsibility' Bullshit, Morley. It's criminal deception which you haven't owned up to.

Mackay and his MP Wife Julie Kirkbride have each claimed a second home allowance on different homes without having a named first home. Mackay apologised, not for his own behaviour, but for listening to the advice of the Fees Office. That's right - find someone else to blame. Another 'Nuremberg' trait. Gutless.

Although I too am angry at what has happened, I hope this doesn't result in a massive cull of our errant MPs. The people guilty of blatant fraud should be booted out of their respective parties and prosecuted to the full extent of the law but maybe the lesser offenders should be given a flea in the ear and left to fight for their careers. I know the prevailing mood is 'they bloody well deserve it' but what would kicking them all out achieve? A wonderful opportunity for minor parties to cash in on the anger and discontent but all you may get is the election of some people of of lesser talents and some, like the BNP, who would be positively dangerous.

But I hope these MPs , now shaking in their boots, regard this as a massive kick up the backside for their impudence and arrogance. It will be hard for many - who have been exposed as claiming massive fortunes and playing the housing market - of saying again 'I am in tune with the wishes of my constituents' without receiving a massive raspberry in response. I hope they all learn from it. Humility is good for the soul.

Readers, I promise to get off the expenses scandal sometime soon but this really is a shattering political event which could change the face of our politics and hence the attention I have given to it. But I will try :)

Don't listen to Tebbit

2009-05-13T09:53:00.002+01:00

Sir Norman Tebbit has suggested - and been predictably slapped down by David Cameron for doing so - that Britons should use the European elections on June 4th to register their contempt and disgust at the major parties over the parliamentary expenses scandal by boycotting them in the election.

Now I am all for showing my contempt and disgust in whatever way is most effective, because I believe MPs in all the major parties somehow took leave of their collective senses in the way they abused the expenses system, but I don't believe we should use the European elections for that purpose.

I would like to see the British exercise more responsibility in European affairs not less. We should be trying to select the men and women who can best represent us in a European arena which is ever growing in importance and legislative responisbility. For too long the British have simply used the European elections as a protest vote , and I realise there is even more likelihood now that the pattern will repeat itself, but I sincerely beg the British electorate to think twice...and start voting positively for your European candidates, not waste your vote on a knee jerk response to the sleazy individuals who have been disgracing parliament of late

Not the man for the job

2009-05-12T09:34:00.002+01:00

In December last year, I expressed my view on Mick Martin's fitness for purpose as Speaker of the House of Commons and found it wanting. There has been more evidence over the last week of Martin's unsuitability for his role, first in the way he handled the expenses debate last week, which could have been called manipulative at best. I felt that he connived to achieve a result the government wanted last week and failed to show even handedness in the way he intepreted motions.

Now this week he flew into something of a rage because people criticised the way he handled that very debate. He seems to have no conscience about being a major player in the great expenses debacle just a whiny defensiveness about any suggestion that he might have been less than competent in the way the whole thing was handled.

And as Nick Robinson says on his blog, on a day when the mood was to show a little humility about expenses excesses, not a word of apology from the Speaker. I do believe it is time he was replaced, in the interests of Parliament.

Still creating scapegoats

2009-05-11T08:43:00.003+01:00

I watched the 'Panorama' special which revisited the tragic Haringey 'Baby P' case and it was revealed that a video had been made, as part of a case exercise, of Baby P's mother talking about her new boyfriend, the man who later was found to be responsible for beating the baby.

The information was not given to the police and it seems that the only people who know why that was are Sharon Shoesmith, the former director of Haringey SS and her deputy Cecilia Hitchen who was sacked last week, along with case worker Maria Ward and two others. But I can understand why such things disappear in a maze of paperwork and red tape.

It seemed to me that the only thing which came out of the programme was a feeling of a buraucratic nightmare which still shows little sign of improvement and an understaffed service where the social workers on the ground are feeling more and more neglected by their bosses and the politicians.

Ed Balls, the Childrens Minister, seemed to have little time for the social workers with whom he has dealt, comparing their input unfavourably to that of teachers. But I believe there is now a real crisis of confidence - people frightened to do or say anything critical for fear of losing their jobs.

The government seems to have thrown a lot at social services - new technology, more management etc etc but at the level where it matters, there are social workers, some under trained, taking on far too much work and bowing under the strain.

And this attitude of creating scapegoats every time there is a tragedy like Baby P will not help the situation one iota.

These leaders of ours are beneath contempt

2009-05-09T03:43:00.002+01:00

There seems to be a common thread between this and my previous post 'Screwing people honestly', for we are unable to get away from the issue of the expense claims of British MPs and, thanks to the Daily Telegraph, we now have details of the claims of Ministers of the Crown and the picture is even more disgusting than even seemed to be the case before.

The way these conscience less parrots bleat about 'it was all within the rules' sounds more and more like a group of people who, instead of showing us what leadership ought to be about, had completely lost any moral compass.

The Telegraph, regardless of how it got its story and for whatever political motive, has done the electorate a favour - and left us with a bleak picture. There are few of them on either side of the House who have not dived in, snouts in the trough, to get whatever they could out of the parliamentary expenses system.

Some of the revelations are appalling.

Multi millionairess Barbara Follett claimed £25000 of taxpayers money for personal security. Excuse 'It was within the rules'

Hazel Blears claimed expenses on THREE properties within a year as her 'second home' 'It was within the rules'

Jack Straw claimed 100% of his council tax back when he was only paying 50% anyway. At least he didnt say that was within the rules just that he was ' a busy man and it was an oversight' Have you noticed that these busy men never UNDER claim?

Phil Hope spent £37,000 of OUR money refurbishing his flat. 'It was within the rules'

And perhaps the biggest inbuilt scandal of all is the legal loophole which allows MPs to make massive profits on properties which they have refurbished using taxpayers money. It is clear that Ben Bradshaw, Hazel Blears and Geoff Hoon have all dipped into this treasure chest and of course they are not alone. The full picture with regard to the Tories is yet to emerge.

Of course now our great and good moral guardians are panicking. 'All this will benefit the BNP' whines Harriet Harman, now trying hard to beg for votes. Well so it might, but these people, these hypocrites who have the temerity to tell us how to behave, should have thought of that before.

Ah but of course they did - when they all tried to be excused being included under the Freedom of Information Act knowing what the outcome of exposure would be. Now they are blaming the Telegraph , the media in general and most of all 'the system'

Do any of them have the moral guts, late in the day, to reflect honestly on the real culprits -themselves?

Screwing people honestly

2009-05-08T11:24:00.005+01:00

There is a rather nice story from America this morning about porn star Stormy Daniels - winner of the 2007 Golden G-String Award - deciding to challenge Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter for his Senate seat on a platform of 'Stormy Daniels - Screwing People Honestly'

This is because Mr Vitter is one of those anti-gay, God fearing, Christian values holy rollers who was caught with his pants down consorting with prostitutes back in 2007. There is little to compare with these smug self righteous zealots suddenly found wanting and Ms Daniels challenge has certainly stirred up a scandal Mr Vitter hoped might go away. Like all these sanctimonious Christian right wingers, Vitter -only when found out - confessed to a 'serious sin' but now 'had received forgiveness from God'. Presumably he has a direct line to the Almighty to be sure of these things. Whether that translates into forgiveness from the Louisiana electorate for his hypocrisy is another matter.

>

Ms. Daniels is unlikely to win but the prospect of the competition must be sending Republican Party chiefs into the depths of despair and making Barack Obama's 'new' Democratic America appear even more attractive nationwide.

Meanwhile Ms Daniels is having a ball - or two if her quotes are anything to go by. She has challenged Vitter to a family values debate but says 'he hasn't got the balls' and says she decided to enter the political arena because she was looking for something that was dirtier than the job she already had.

If Vitter hangs on to his seat it will probably be a Pyrrhic victory with the spectre of his carnal sins brought up at every stage and the Republican Party just praying for the whole thing to go away.

A squalid shameful act

2009-05-07T08:36:00.002+01:00

The Iranian government stands accused this week of a shameful, squalid - and cynical- execution of a young woman, Delara Darabi, who was convicted of murdering a relative when she was just 17. She initially confessed to the crime, hoping to save her boyfriend, and then retracted her confession. She had been in prison since 2003.

Amnesty International took up her case in 2006 when the facts of her trial came to light and which Amnesty does not consider to have been fair, her lawyer being denied the right to present evidence which, it is claimed, would have proved she could not have committed the murder.

Iran has ignored the international agreement to ban capital punishment for those who committed crimes as juveniles but , only on 19th April Delara Darabi was given a 2 month stay of execution while international appeals were considered. Despite this, on May 1st, with no notice to her lawyer or her family, Delara Darabi was taken out of her cell and hanged in the compound of Rasht Prison. The speed and secrecy was, of course, to avoid international protests until it was too late.

140 people have been executed in Iran this year, including another woman and one other who committed the offence while under the age of 18. Two more juvenile offenders are scheduled to die this week.

Amnesty International is launching world wide protests in front of Iranian emabassies and if any readers of this blog would care to add their protests in the form of a letter to the Iranian embassy in your location, to stop capital punishment particularly of child offenders, you will have my gratitude.

'Dark Forces' or simple incompetence?

2009-05-07T07:20:00.005+01:00

I watched the Chelsea v Barcelona European Champions League semi final last night, which of course, as anyone who follows football now knows, Chelsea lost to an away goal scored deep into stoppage time.

I'm no great lover of Chelsea but it was hard not to sympathise with the explosion of anger after the final whistle, directed at a referee, many of whose decisions were incomprehensible. Chelsea had four penalty appeals turned down, two of which appeared absolutely clear-cut. It was perhaps unfortunate that two of them involved 'Dorothy' Drogba, the big girls blouse with talent,but who falls over if you blow on him. This, of course, leaves a mark on the minds of officials but a competent official should be watching the play not allowing such things to cloud his judgement. Drogba was furious with the referee at the end of the game and roundly abused him for some minutes,which will cost him dearly.

The referee, Mr Tom Henning Ovrebo was awful. There is no other adjective to describe his performance. What is amazing in a game at this level, Mr Ovrebo admitted later to EUFA officials that he had made serious errors - not all of them one sided. It was incredibly harsh to send off Barcelona's Abidal for a minor tangle of legs as well as his apparent lack of eyesight for many of Chelsea's appeals.

Doubly astonishing was the fact that the Barcelona manager and players, after the match, almost shamefacedly sympathised with their opponents over the referee's performance, Pique admitting that he had handled the ball and felt lucky a penalty had not been awarded.

All in all a shocking night for the referee. But of course there are those who see more in this. Some Chelsea players and the pundits in the Sky TV studio suggested that the referee may have turned a blind eye to Chelsea's appeals because EUFA did not want two Premier League clubs contesting the European Final again. I can well believe they didn't, and are happier with a Barcelona v Man United final but I think it demeans the accusers to make such allegations against the European Association. I think it is down to simple incompetence. Ovrebo was clearly not good enough to referee, under pressure, at this level and EUFA need to take heed of this. There needs to be a strict tier of high quality officials for games of this magnitude because last night did little for anyone's sense of justice.

Another step down the 'benign' authoritarian road

2009-05-05T08:17:00.004+01:00

The government has published its list of people banned from entering the United Kingdom, based on the views they have publicly expressed. As I said once before when Dutch MP Geert Wilders was denied entry to the UK, I am becoming more and more concerned at the ease with which this government rolls over the established tradition of free speech in favour of some 'benign' - they think - authoritarianism.

OK most decent people dislike the views of homophobes, ranting racists and so on but hasn't it always been a part of our democratic system that we absorb those with views we don't like and only take action when a specific offence has been committed?

Since 2005, the Home Office has had the power to expel or exclude people from the UK if they are considered to hold views which are likely to inflame. In whose view? The view of the government of course and this is a very dangerous road we are on. Jacqui Smith has already announced, last October, that there will now be 'a presumption of exclusion'. In other words, the British government makes up its mind it doesn't like the cut of your jib and then you have to prove them wrong. And there are inconsistencies and omissions. Why for example did they ban American lifestyle guru Martha Stewart? OK she had been jailed for lying about shares in her company but hardly a threat to the safety of the UK. A lot of this is nonsense and incredibly intolerant.

The current legislation and its enactment cuts across all the principles of British principles and behaviour and it worries me greatly that the government is so easily prepared to go down this road wearing such a morally self-righteous stance as it does so.

Come on Hazel - you're either with him or you're not!

2009-05-03T12:00:00.003+01:00

Labour's permanently beaming little snugglebunny, Hazel Blears, popped her head over the parapet yesterday to voice her opinions on the lamentable state of the Government, of which she is a prominent member. She claims that Ministers have shown a 'lamentable' failure to communicate, that YouTube is not the means by which to launch policy initiatives , that 'slick presentation and clever soundbites' should be left to the Tories and that people don't believe what the Government says. Pretty damning eh?

Ah but wait a minute. This was not, says Bubbly Blears, any hint of an attack on Gordon Brown's leadership. Of course it wasn't, Hazel. We know that Gordon is just a figurehead on the periphery of events and absolutely nothing to do with any of the failings you describe.

They really are spineless these modern Ministers who seem to be so easily bypassed by their leader. If Hazel's article was not an attack on the way Gordon Brown has allowed this situation to come about, I don't know what is. But of course it's not as simple as that. The whole point of Hazel Blears's article is called 'positioning'. You don't say quite enough to get yourself fired...or at least I assume she took advice on how weak Gordon's position is re firing Ministers...but she set herself up for a key post in any post-Brown Labour Party by setting out her stall.

It's all posturing and in-fighting and, at a time when Britain needs its government to be pulling together, hardly a pretty sight

Preparing to desert the sinking ship is a mistake

2009-05-02T08:47:00.003+01:00

A story is circulating today that some Labour MPs, we are not privy to how many, are preparing to ditch the Labour Party when (rather than if) the Party loses the next General Election, and to seek a political future with the Liberal Democrats. Lord Ashdown who broke the story says these centrist politicians fear a 'shift to the left' when Labour loses.

Well first off, instead of talking about shifts in any direction, why don't we talk about a return to some good socialist principles of fair distribution of wealth instead of trying to ape Tory policies in a vaguely anaemic way. Let's not be ashamed to talk about public services paid for by the taxpayer in accordance with his abilities. Let's have an education system and a social services regime we can be proud of. Let's back off these hideous defence commitments designed to make Britain look like a first division military power when it is clearly all kippers and curtains. Surely these are not reasons to defect or pin labels. The Labour Party should be going back to basics. It's what has sustained it for over 100 years. The New Labour bubble was clearly built on straw and has failed as it was bound to do as there was no belief to prop it up, simply the desire to keep winning elections.

And what if these milksops do defect? Do they think the Liberal Democrats are the answer? Oh sure their hearts are generally in the right place and they sometimes support good causes but the Party is really a hotchpotch of the disenchanted. It has no real creed. Do these people not remember the SDP? How that was going to be the saviour of Labour's middle-of-the-roaders and how the 'old' Labour Party would disappear? Never happened did it - OK it went through changes but it remained intact - and the same will happen again.

My advice to the currently disenchanted is to stay put and take part in a conscientious debate about where the heart and soul of the Labour Party really ought to be. Then you might make a sensible decision. Let's not talk about shifts to left or right, let's instead talk about the Labour Party discovering its true self once again. It can't come soon enough.

Swine Flu: A little restraint required with the warnings?

2009-05-01T18:32:00.004+01:00

The world has been obsessed this week with the outbreak of swine flu, understandable when a new strain of flu appears for which there is no current vaccine and which has the capacity - and I choose my words carefully - to reach pandemic proportions. It does seem to have gone beyond confinement to national borders yet so far there is little evidence of the disease appearing in clusters unrelated to the source in Mexico, though I accept it's early days.

What concerns me though is the reaction, much of it initiated by the world's press who provide their usual mix of valuable reporting and headline irresponsibility. To know where the flu pockets are is useful information, but headlines about 'Killer flu strikes' are not helpful. All influenza is a killer to certain vulnerable sections of the population and a figure was quoted yesterday that 31,000 Americans, for example, die of 'normal' flu every year.

It worried me to see anxious tearful mothers clutching their offspring outside a Torbay school where one child had contracted the disease after a holiday in Mexico. You would have thought that it was the children's last day on earth, rather than them running a mild risk of a type of flu. I do think there needs to be a bit of calming here and reminders that, like any other form of flu, if your child is unlucky enough to catch swine flu then plenty of bed rest, lots of liquids and tender loving care should see them over it in 5-6 days just like any other flu bug. Statistically speaking their chances of coming though it without serious health damage is very high. People need to be warned and advised how to best avoid it, but they also need to be reminded that its not Ebola fever or Typhoid - it's flu.

And Ive just watched a rather silly manifestation of media hype on this issue where dear old BBC Midland News, ever desperate for a news story that doesn't involve cats up trees or a dog with three legs, sent a news crew hotfoot to a Staffordshire school where it was reported that a girl had shown the symptoms of swine flu. Live we went to the scene of this tense, gripping situation where the reporter rather sheepishly admitted that it had just been announced that the kid had a cold!

Gordon Gump does it again!

2009-04-30T09:56:00.003+01:00

Having staked his prestige on a cut-costs solution to the admission of Gurkhas to the United Kingdom - a shameful, squalid move designed to limit as many as possible from qualifying - our stumbling Prime Minister found himself on the wrong end of a humiliating defeat yesterday, only the third vote the Government has lost since 1997. The worrying thing for Brown is that the defeat was ensured not just by the Conservatives and Liberals voting together but by a sizeable number of Labour MPs who defied the Prime Minister's strictures and voted against him.

This really is the panic button for Gordon. The bells are tolling for Mr Brown's stewardship of the United Kingdom and he appears to be losing more respect and authority by the day. And today there is a vote on his proposals over MPs expenses. He must be shaking in his shoes

Obama and the Israel problem

2009-04-30T08:10:00.005+01:00

President Barack Obama has just celebrated his first 100 days in office and declared himself 'pleased but not satisfied'. I think this is about the right tone to strike since America is still deep in financial crisis and unemployment is running at nearly 9%, the highest for many years.

But the President also has reasons to be cheerful. He is still riding high in the popularity stakes and he has taken some very brave decisions. His approaches to Iran, to Venezuela and to Raul Castro's Cuba have been giant strides towards opening windows of dialogue with nations America has shunned for years. His Presidency is a wonderful breath of fresh air in terms of approach.

But soon, in May, he may be faced with one of his biggest challenges as he hosts the new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington DC. And it is here that Mr Obama needs to show a different side of change and talk extremely toughly. It is imperative that the new American administration shows that it regards steps towards an independent Palestinian state as a number one priority and concedes nothing to Israeli vacillating on the issue.

This is going to be tough. America has, since Israel's birth, given the Jewish state virtually unqualified support and there is a powerful Jewish lobby running through the American political system. But the President will need to take on all of that, and the intransigent Mr Netanyahu, if the current , totally unacceptable, situation in Palestine is to be changed.

Israeli politicians are already talking about discussions on a Palestinian state as 'premature' instead preferring to talk of options to lighten the economic problems without actually ceding anything. The Israelis continue to expand their settlements on the West Bank in direct contravention of UN resolutions to stop, and Mr Obama may well have to risk a lot of unpopularity with the Jewish lobby at home as well as the Israelis themselves by threatening some form of sanctions if the Israelis refuse to comply.

It is a difficult issue for the American President and he has my sympathy, for, in microcosm, I have experienced the frustrations of criticising the actions of the Israeli state. I have some dearly treasured Jewish friends but this issue is so often a stumbling block that I have taken to avoiding it. For many Jews it seems, a criticism of Israel is seen as close to anti semitism and a failure to understand the intense drive to protect Israel's borders at all costs.

While recognising the need for Israel's security, the Jewish state can not continue its political and military policy in Gaza, in Lebanon, on the West Bank without continuing to lose the world's sympathy..and heaven knows it has managed to lose enough. President Obama has to do more than talk tough to Netanyahu. The Israelis have to be brought, kicking and screaming if necessary, to a conference table with their Palestinian counterparts and a deal hammered out for a viable, independent Palestinian state as a matter of urgency.

Oh Lord, please Brown retire on 'health grounds'!

2009-04-28T16:42:00.004+01:00

Gordon Brown should quit and quit now. Can't his advisers persuade him to develop a long dormant dicky heart or perhaps, more credibly, some mental condition. I don't care that pundits will say it would cost the Labour Party the next general election. They have already lost the next General Election. The public of Britain can't wait to get rid of them. Not because the Tories will be any better but simply because they are anybody but the Incapability Brown/Scrounger Smith/Manipulative McNulty/ New (and hopelessly adrift) Labour. Labour desperately needs renewal. It needs to find a path of honour and decency and with this gaggle of clowns and rank amateurs at the helm it is simply floating along, its only target the sole object of re-election.

Brown has no judgement. Not a scrap. Now the idiot is digging his heels in and defending his proposed quick fix for MPs expenses with a standard attendance allowance. Can he not see how the public would perceive that? Has he not taken soundings from the European Parliament where such a system is already in place? SISO they call it there. Sign in and Sod off. How is that going to restore the image of our tarnished politicians. The current system is dreadful but it is right that an alternative be properly thought out and intelligently implemented by a commission set up to fully research the task. Why does Brown think his quick fixes will not be seen through as an attempt to prop up his ailing party?.

Then back to the Damian McBride issue and Brown's belated apology on a building site for something he knew nothing about and was horrified to discover. Ian Hislop on this week's 'Have I got news for you?' almost blatantly accused Brown of lying. It beggars belief, he said, that a personal advisor can sit in the same room coming up with fancy schemes to discredit the opposition and his boss knows nothing about them. And it does. As I have said in earlier posts, once a plotter always a plotter. Brown's wonderful line showing his mastery of the situation was replayed to hoots of laughter in the studio. "I am prepared to take full personal responsibility for what has happened, and therefore the person responsible has been dismissed." If only!!

Frankly Brown's attempts at being Prime Minister are rapidly becoming a joke. He may see his future as world economic guru but his attempts at running the nation are rapidly subsiding into farce. There have been rumours for some months of a potential leadership challenge very soon. Normally these things subside to nothing and are stuff of the Fleet Street rumour mill but I believe there are many Labour MPs who believe as I do that the government is probably doomed anyway but absolutely for sure under this guy.

Blair's warnings about allowing Brown into this job have been borne out with interest. Rarely has a politician been found so wanting. The sad fact is that, should a successful challenge take place, it will simply produce more of the same and not the renewal that the REAL Labour Party so desperately needs. I am, however, getting to the point of thinking we who love Labour and its ideal can worry about that later. For now any alternative will do.

Cervical cancer jabs and Birmingham schools

2009-04-27T10:31:00.005+01:00

I commented some months back on the wonderful breakthrough of the HPV jab giving Britain's girls the opportunity to enjoy a life with minimal risk of cervical cancer.

And indeed there is a marvellous opportunity to ensure total coverage by administering the injection in schools. I can't understand, therefore, why Birmingham has decided on a sort of half and half approach to this. Half the city is going to administer the injection at school and the other half have decided it's the GP's responsibility. It would seem that the problem lies, not with the schools, but whether you are lucky enough to live in an area of Primary Care Trust responsibility which has decided to sponsor school visits

This seems ridiculous. Surely the only way to ensure that all the girls who qualify for the injection receive it is through a common policy, namely via visits to the schools. What is happening seems a recipe for a mess. Schools are going to have to check that girls have not been injected at a GP's surgery, and GP's practices are going to have to waste time ensuring that the girls have not been injected at school.

The worst part, of course, is that the PCTs who choose to leave it to the GP are also risking that some girls will not get the jab at all.

Surely there is a Department of Health issue here which should ensure a common policy across the board.

Appalling pub toilets

2009-04-25T16:06:00.006+01:00

I was going to head this 'Pissed off' but I thought that was rather too coarse and low for a blog of this gravitas (ahem!!) but I am horrified at the state of the toilets in some of the pubs I visit. As I mentioned in an earlier thread I suffer from colitis so, unfortunately, my necessary visits often involve more than just leaping in and out for a leak.

I can't believe that either the management of the pubs concerned or their owners are prepared to let this situation continue. Are they not ashamed? A good evening out in a smart bar can be spoilt by the visit to the toilets which often as not have flooded floors, no toilet paper and the locks broken.

I'm sure my native city is far from the only offender, British traditions in this area traditionally erring on the side of the disgusting. We could take lessons from the Germans in terms of providing public facilities and where severe fines are imposed by an active inspectorate on premises which fall below an acceptable standard.

I accept that the state of the 'loos' is just negligence but I am puzzled by what seems to be the deliberate policy of removing door locks. Do they expect to catch armies of graffiti fiends or maybe some homosexual tryst? God knows but I do find this to be another black mark on pub loos. I'm not particularly a retiring violet but nobody wants some guy blundering in and saying 'sorry mate' as you sit there with trousers round your ankles, hardly at your most dignified.

Anyway there is one site which clearly feels as I do!! They've had the good idea of giving red, amber and green flashes against the pubs visited by their readers, dependent on the quality of their toilets. Dark green is excellent, light green good, amber average, light red is bad, and - if you visit premises marked dark red - take a clothes peg for your nose, your own loo paper and anti nausea pills. I hope their name and shame policy has some effect!

What do we actually sell any more?

2009-04-24T14:16:00.005+01:00

I was watching a Midlands News item today about the recession biting deeply and hitting , quote, "one of Birmingham's most important industries" which turned out to be conference centres and arenas. Which made me wonder, not for the first time, what Birmingham actually survives on these days.

This is a city spawned by the industrial revolution and its hallmark was that it made things that people wanted to buy. Birmingham made cars, one of the biggest manufacturers in Europe if not the world, until the eventual collapse in 2005 of Austin Rover.

We made motor cycles at BSA, short for Birmingham Small Arms, and its name gives evidence of our other major industry - we made guns. We made bicycles, jewellery, chocolate and glass. We had something tangible to offer, a disparate range of production items we could sell to the world.

We lost our major car plant in 2005, motor bikes to the Italians and later the far east years before that. Other industries simply became redundant but, it seems to me, have never been replaced. Everything the consumer wants - TVs, DVD players, washing machines, cars, bikes - all made in the far east or somwhere not in the UK

Now we seem to sell that intangible of intangibles - 'services'. We sell conference space and arena shows and all the peripheral stuff - the pretty girls and the razzmatazz that goes with it. We are a dependency economy, dependent on other companies outside the city - and many from abroad - seeing Birmingham as a market stall on which to lay out their goods. So we are Mr 10% - we take the commission for providing a pretty setting for other people to sell stuff.

In a current review of Birmingham, two of its industries are described as finance and tourism. Well forgive me, love my city though I do, I would hardly count on its future as a tourist destination and , even if it were the Rome of the Midlands, what sort of an industry is 'tourism'.? That's for the likes of Majorca and the Bahamas,with precious little else going for it, not a major city with a massive potential workforce.

It was announced this week that Birmingham has suffered more than most under the recession. Well I don't think that's greatly surprising. When you have what was once a major manufacturing city now vulnerable to the whims of other people's businesses because we specialise in service industries and entertainment, then in a recession those are going to be cut back pretty quickly.

I have watched the renaissance of Birmingham with some admiration and more than a little worry. The bars, restaurants and clubs which have sprung up on our canal side are very impressive and a joy to take visitors.

But I come back to where the money comes from? What is sustaining this growth of leisure and entertainment, these comparitively rich kids who come into the city and spend £25 on a meal and £4 on a pint of lager? Where does their money come from? And is this recession, now seen to be the worst since the second world war and counting, going to finally blow apart the apparent prosperity of Birmingham as a facade that cannot be sustained?

Mad Dogs and Englishmen!

2009-04-23T18:46:00.002+01:00

Now assuming you are English, did you wake up this morning and remember it was St Georges Day? No nor me. We are incredibly underwhelmed in England by our national day, despite the efforts of a few to hold fetes etc, always highlighted by the BBC Midland News, ever desperate for a decent story, but by and large it seems to go by largely without celebration.

It seems to be part and parcel of the English languid approach to nationalism. There are more St Georges flags around when England play football than on our national day. There have been a number of theories put forward as to why this is, none of which totally convince. Some people have said its since England has become a multi cultural nation with more ethnic races who have no ties to our traditional saint (who wasn't English anyway). I think this is rubbish because I never recall St Georges Day having a very high profile when I was a child over 50 years ago either.

Maybe its because we have a sort of sense of general contentment about ourselves without having to go in for nationalist excess. That's the version I like anyway. I am happy that the English generally don't go for the overt kind of nationalism seen in the United States which can be so easily perverted to a political path by unscrupulous politicians when the Commander-in-Chief is also the President.

I'm told that St Georges Day is making a comeback, possibly because commercial interests are encouraging it, but maybe partly because of the devolution of Scotland and Wales, making the English think more about their Englishness than Britishness.

Anyway its all hypothesis. But despite the changes in the demographics of the nation there are still a few old English diehards left. I went for lunch at my local pub today which is where I realised it was St Georges Day, simply because one of the elderly regulars with whom I am on chatting terms and who usually shows up in his cardigan and flannels, turned up in a blue suit and panama hat, sporting a massive rose in his lapel and determinedly sat outside to advertise that he had remembered the day.

He was soon back in the lounge, complaining that the kids playing bowls were taking the mickey out of his hat. There aren't many of his ilk left, God bless 'em!

Cameron should be grateful he's on the opposite benches

2009-04-22T20:54:00.004+01:00

Alistair Darling today delivered a budget in which he knew he couldn't win. The economic situation is dire, he was facing the inevitability of massive borrowing - £175 billion this year and £700 billion over the next 5 years. Total national debt will peak at 80% of Gross Domestic Product virtually double the 'top line' figure set by Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor, and we will not be back in balance - at best - until 2018.

Could it be worse? Darling did at least attempt to boost the economy through job creation measures, desperately needed, but his hands were necessarily tied by the balancing act of trying to please everyone at a time when the piggy bank was empty and the need to borrow so much money.

The interesting thing is that criticism has mainly been that he hasn't committed enough funds to boost business, boost housing or benefit the poor. All this probably true but he was on a hiding to nothing. The criticism has come from business leaders and economists alike and it puts the Conservatives approach under the microscope.

David Cameron was able to manufacture some outrage and passion over the 'utter mess' Brown and Darling had made of the economy, and, of course, there were enthusiastic cheers for the sentiment from the Tory benches.

However let's stop a moment. Cameron may be getting his day in the sun at Labour's expense, sneering at Brown's claims during the good years that 'boom and bust are over'. But it's a good job for Cameron that no one really puts the opposition proposals under the spotlight until an election is called. So he and George Osborne can continue blaming Labour's mishandling of the economy with impunity.

But what is their solution? To sit tight, to save money, to not spend our way out of recession. The interesting thing is hardly any of the world's leading economists agree with them. Because that means deflation, a squeezing of commerce, no money circulating to get the economy moving again. And Cameron and his policies really should be put under the spotlight. But they won't be until they become possibly relevant, two or three months before an election.

So I advise David Cameron to cash in while he can. When his policies begin to be dissected, line by line, in the light of the world global crisis, my suspicion is that 'the great white hope' of our monied classes will begin to look horribly naked.

Britain pilloried again on child welfare

2009-04-21T16:07:00.002+01:00

There have been three reports in as many years on the state of child welfare across the world, by UNICEF in 2007, Save the Children in 2008 and now the Child Poverty Action Group. In only one, the simplest in terms of expectation, did Britain come out anything like smiling and that was the 8th place in a world poll of Save the Children and they simply took the mortality rate of under 5s, the number of under 5s who are underweight and the number of infants enrolled in school.

In the other polls which asked far more wide ranging questions, Britain came bottom in the world in the UNICEF poll of rich nations (see below) and now, in the CPAG survey, a miserable 24th out of 29 countries in Europe. These are not figures to be proud of, particularly after 12 years of Labour government. Only Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta were lower than the UK, and given our relative wealth, that's a pretty depressing set of nations to be lumbered with.

The CPAG has acknowledged, in fairness, that the British government is trying to tackle the problem through Sure Start, the Children's Plan and tax credits but says more funding needs to be allocated to the problems.

The issues that seem to have done for us are primarily the high numbers of children living in families with nobody in work and in bad environments, added to the poor rate of pick up on immunisation - a really serious worry - , the inability of British children to communicate well with parents and, another major problem, bad diet and consequent child obesity.

The Dutch came top of the list for child welfare, followed by the Scandinavian countries and Britain clearly has a tough job to get among the leaders, where a nation as rich as ourselves ought to be. Tax policy is clearly an issue, and the reluctance of New Labour to commit to a tax policy which meets the nation's social needs, instead trying to avoid Tory flak of being a 'tax and spend' party, is a majo factor.

We need to go back to basics, unlikely under the present lot, and determine how much we need to spend to provide the United Kingdom with the social framework it deserves, rather than how much can we afford to tax people without giving the Tories ammunition. Labour has simply fallen between two fences, neither satisfying the country's social welfare needs or satisfying the electorate that it is necessarily the sounder choice.

Of course there will be those who read the statistics and immediately blame one parent families and the breakdown of the family unit in the UK for much of this. But Scandinavia, which is frequently lauded to the skies, has almost abandoned traditional marriage as a precursor to raising children and most kids are brought up outside a traditional married environment. The difference is that state policy and high taxation has allowed more flexibility in the way children are targetted for benefit, regardless of the status of their parents.

It's not just the government, of course. There needs to be a substantial mind set change on diet, particularly among poorer families, on the provision of junk food for children. The statistics on child obesity make horrifying reading, and while the problem is growing across most socio-economic groups, it is among the poor that the issue is most significant. The common excuse that other foods are too expensive is simply not true and there is a fixed food attitude problem which needs urgent re-education if Britain is to make any strides out of this rather ignominious depth.

This week there is a budget and it is yet to be seen whether Alistair Darling will grasp the nettle and allocate the resources necessary to boost the well being of Britain's children to the degree required to drag us out of this rather shameful position. I'm not holding my breath.

A triumph for substance over superficiality

2009-04-20T20:41:00.003+01:00

Another non political post - but I suppose everyone who watches TV is now aware of the triumph of Scotland's Susan Boyle in the 'Britain's got talent' show last week. I didn't watch the show (and no I'm not just saying that for snobby effect) but once her success was reported on, I watched the clip on 'You Tube'.

Neither the show nor her choice of material is really my cup of tea, but it was hard to avoid a glow of delight to see a middle aged woman who, by her own admission is no oil painting and dresses in a somewhat frumpy manner, wipe that cynical leer off the face of Simon Cowell by suddenly turning from ugly duckling to swan as soon as she opened her mouth.

By any bookies odds she must have looked a non starter, a middle aged, rather plain, spinster from a Scottish village who lived alone except for her cat, suddenly producing such a wonderful singing voice. It was gratifying to see the ever supercilious Cowell reduced to embarrassed confusion, along with Piers Morgan and for the audience to react in the way that they did, suddenly realising that there was real talent up there on the stage.

Ms Boyle herself was a breath of fresh air. She must have been aware that her age and appearance was making her the subject of cruel cynical sneers and laughter before she opened her mouth. It was a real triumph of the human spirit to overcome that in front of such a large audience - most people would have been riddled with nerves in any case - and to produce the performance she did.

AS she said afterwards 'I wasn't bothered about my hair do and my frock - after all its not a beauty contest is it?" No it shouldn't be but in an entertainment business which lauds the superficial and cosmetic over real talent, Susan Boyle has raised a standard for those who have to rely on natural talent and not the art of the cosmetician.

I don't know how far she will go in her belatedly discovered show biz career but she has my warmest wishes for success.

Formula One living up to expectations!

2009-04-19T11:12:00.006+01:00

Well it's nice to get away from scheming politicians and violent policemen every now and again, so I was delighted with the triumph of Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber for Red Bull in today's Chinese Formula One Grand Prix in Shanghai.

Being a British sporting patriot (I'm not very overtly patriotic in other ways) I would like to see Button or Hamilton win the title at the end of the year, but it's great to see the hopes of some competitive racing this year coming to fruition. Any way Red Bull is a British team so if it wins the constructor's championship that would be good too. It makes for a much better contest in any sport when rivals are closely matched and it really does look as if the changes to the aerodynamics of F1 cars this year have resulted in a more even playing field and that can only be good for the spectators and the sport which was beginning to die of an excess of technology.

Vettel seems at his best in the wet. He won at Monza last year in similar conditions and did the same again today. It was a good result for Aussie teammate Webber who has had some appalling fortune with cars and finishes of late.

I'm pleased that F1 had the courage to grasp this nettle and make so many radical changes. The results are now being seen in what looks like being one of the most competitive seasons in years.

I was sadly reminded yesterday of how much things have changed over the years in terms of car safety in design, for F1 deaths are now, thankfully, a rare event. I was watching a documentary on my all time favourite driver Jim Clark, killed at Hockenheim in 1968 after hitting a tree at 174mph in a season where 6 other drivers were also killed. I love excitement and risk but that kind of price was way too much to pay.

The plot thickens

2009-04-18T13:56:00.004+01:00

It seems difficult to get away from the Damian Green affair and the shadowy motives of either the British government and/or the police, particularly as it has now been revealed that a key target of the police search through Green's e-mails was the name of Shami Chakrabarti, the Director of Liberty.

Now we know that Ms Chakrabarti causes smoke to come out of the nose of Andy Burnham, for one, after his scathing comments about her relationship with David Davis - “late-night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls”. OK the government doesn't like her affinity to Davis, nor I suspect do they like her strong mobilisation of opinion against the 42 day detention proposals, but is Shami Chakrabarti really considered to be a danger to the state, a security risk worthy of investigation - or is this a politically motivated group of people, working off political beefs against someone, in her role as protector of human rights, who appears to thwart their objectives at every turn?

Whatever the truth it seems pretty clear that there was no connection to Damian Green and the leaks and it appears no one told Ms Chakrabarti that she was under suspicion for anything.

This is all starting to sound even more off the wall and out of control and reflects very badly on the government in general.

In a separate development today, Alice Mahon, the former left wing Labour MP has resigned from the party in disgust over what she describes as 'the last straw' of the appalling Damian McBride e-mails but her anger and disillusion is more widely aimed at the direction in which the Labour Party is headed.

In remarks which must reflect the feelings of so many she said 'When Gordon Brown took over as leader, I really felt we might move further in the direction of being a principled and caring party. I couldn't have been more wrong."

And so say many of us!

Our freedoms are being eaten away by stupidity

2009-04-17T14:11:00.006+01:00

The Crown Prosecution Service yesterday decided there was no case to answer against Damian Green, the Conservative Shadow Immigration spokesman, over leaks of government information, and the result has been a total humiliation for Jacqui Smith and the Home Office.

I know Smith was not initially responsible for calling in the police. But she is the senior Minister in the Department and she had the power to call the dogs off before this got out of hand. She should have assessed whether any of this stuff really was a breach of national security or whether someone was acting out of pique because so many leaks were taking place. It should never have been allowed to get to a situation where an Opposition MP, doing his job as he saw it, was threatened by the police with life imprisonment, as appears to have been the case. But as with other things she doesn't seem to have had her eye on the ball, doesn't seem to have seen the possible fall-out of such a dramatic step and did nothing about it. It seems to me she has no credibility left and simply has to go, sooner rather than later.

Even the police it seems were at odds on how to proceed. Sir Paul Stephenson, now head of the Met, clashed with Bob Quick who led the commons enquiry. Quick, who resigned last week over his own stupid security breach, was adamant that the full weight of the law be thrown at Green while Stephenson advocated a more informal series of steps, clearly aware of the danger of such precedent.

The government seems to be more than just error prone at the moment, it appears, in many key areas, to be downright incompetent and that starts at the top. Whatever my opinion of Tony Blair, particularly after Iraq, I think his judgment that Gordon Brown was not a natural leader of the party was spot on. Look at the Damien McBride affair. Brown appears not to have known what was going on despite the man being his policy adviser. He took ages to apologise for what was done and then did so yesterday in Scotland, clearly aware that his rather distant 'regrets' were not cutting it. But is Brown as innocent as he makes out? When Blair was Prime Minister, it was well known that Brown and his cabal plotted incessantly against Brown's enemies. Does anyone remember Charlie Whelan and the Mandelson home loan affair? Another enemy of Brown's was outed by Brown's spin doctor, presumably with his boss's approval. Has Brown the plotter really changed that much now he has the top job?

And as for the ludicrous misuse of the Terrorism Bill, there is a video on You Tube of Brummie film maker Darren Pollard filming the police from his front garden .

The consequence is that two worthies from the West Midlands Police knock on his door and demand that he stop filming them 'because it's illegal'. Pollard is made of stronger stuff and demands that they show him where in British law it is illegal to film policemen and eventually they walk away, tails between their legs. But the sting in the tail is that from this month, it will be illegal to film the police under certain conditions where, presumably they are involved in anti terrorist work. But you can bet your bottom dollar the police will interpret this as freely as they like.

And yesterday two Austrian tourists, a man and his young son, were stopped by police in London because they were filming a bus depot in Walthamstow, and told to delete the pictures as they constituted an offence of 'photographing transport' under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The police took their passport numbers and hotel addresses. For Christ's sake...if it wasn't so pathetically sad it would be funny. But two keen tourists say they will never come to Britain again. The government is allowing us to slide into a situation where we will soon be policed like Albania and not the UK

I don't think the government necessarily intends this kind of ludicrous excess. But once again rushed legislation without adequate controls is allowing the police, once given an inch, to take a mile - again I'm sure believing that they are fulfilling their duties under the Act.

But we need to slow down. This government, instead of panicking in the face of Islamic extremism and continuing to bring in new laws (Over 3000 since 1997 and counting) seriously needs to sit down and assess the legislation we already have. And they need to strike a better balance between necessary control and the erosion of freedoms which we have long cherished. At present I see a frightening lurch into authoritarianism.

And Brown needs to be Prime Ministerial. We need to stop looking at appropriate quotas of women, blacks, asians or any other politically correct criterion which has so driven this Labour government , and pick the best Ministers for the job. At present they ain't there! Brown has a limited amount of time to make the Labour government even barely credible and if he continues to play Nero while his party burns around him, then he will deserve what he gets at the polls. The saddest part is that the alternative of a Conservative government sickens me to the stomach, maybe a nausea I could tolerate if I thought it had any likelihood of being more efficient, more competent, less error strewn than the shambles we have in office now. The pity is I don't..and they have an ethos which is total anathema to me.

If 'Respect' stands in my Constituency they may well get my vote and that's sad in a way, because it will be a disillusioned angry protest. I could never consider the idea of voting Conservative but to vote again for this Fred Karno's Army of incompetent amateurs currently trying to drive the country into an authoritarian abyss is more than I can stomach.

How do we best police the police?

2009-04-15T18:26:00.003+01:00

This week has produced a plethora of reminders that our police are very removed from the 'Dixon of Dock Green' image some of our, particularly, right-wing newspapers would like to portray them. There have been two incidents from the recent G20 summit, one of which resulted in a man's death and poignant reminders today from Hillsborough 20 years ago when not only were the police responsible, by neglect, for the 96 deaths which occurred there but further compounded their sins by lying about what actually happened. Yet no single police officer - not even David Duckenfield the officer in charge - faced criminal prosecution.

Matthew Parris, journalist and himself a former Conservative politician, wrote in 'The Times' this week that he believed the Conservative Party since the war had made a grave mistake in promoting the view that any criticism of the police was close to seditious and would lead to a breakdown of respect for law and order.

What has happened as a result is a situation whereby investigation into police actions by the media is strongly discouraged and the police are allowed to police themselves, not always that convincingly. Parris made the point that if the unfortunate Ian Tomlinson, who died after being struck by a police officer at the G20 summit. had been hit by anyone else in broad daylight and the attack had been recorded in such clear detail, the assailant would already be in custody. As it is the policeman concerned has been 'withdrawn' from the headlines and the force again has pulled the security curtain around one of its own.

Today Britain's top cop, Sir Paul Stephenson, Head of the Metropolitan Police, has expressed disquiet at the pictures which have been emerging from the G20 summit and has invited Her Majestys Commissioners of Police to investigate policing methods at events like the G20. Now this procedure in itself is concerning. The boss of the very force whose officers stand accused of violent conduct is the man who decides whether to invite Police Commissioners in to investigate procedure.

The British tradition, as Parris again points out, is to keep the police out of politics...or to be more accurate, to keep the way the police do their job out of the reach of politicians. Parris makes the point that the police are a public service, just as firefighters, sewerage workers and council employees are, and should be equally accountable. They appear as a cost line on my council tax statement just as does every other public service.

But for some reason, it has been seen as appropriate to bestow an 'untouchable' status on the police force, supported by the argument that to allow them to be at the beck and call of politicians would pervert the nature of their role. That tradition has, of course, been broken this year when the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, effectively sacked the previous Head of the Met, Sir Ian Blair, a man he hasnt even the power to appoint.

Parris argues that to politicise the police within the remit of local politicians would give more accountability than does the present system, and would replicate the kind of system seen in the United States.

Simply looking at the Sir Ian Blair situation highlights one glaring weakness in the current system. The Home Secretary appoints the Head of the Met, rather in the way Prime Ministers appoint Archbishops of Canterbury, and have little say thenceforth in how they operate. It took Boris Johnson, who effectively overturned the rule book and said 'I may not be able to sack you but I can withdraw the cooperation of my officers' to make Blair's position untenable.

There are a bewildering array of interests which currently have some involvement in running the Met but the lines are drawn in a bewildering and inefficient fashion.

My answer would be similar to that of Parris. Lets put the Met under the total control of the London mayor and lets have other police forces directly answerable to an elected local political body. Already there are police authorities which have the responsibility of overseeing our regional police forces and these bodies need to be structured differently within the electoral system and given many more teeth. There would be problems but none that could not be overcome.

The biggest obstacle to change is likely to be the police service itself which is certain to guard its privileged position of virtual immunity from close political oversight with a jealous determination. This has to be overcome in the interests of greater accountability and , I believe, a better police service.

Is Brown really in charge?

2009-04-14T07:27:00.002+01:00

Hope everyone had a Happy Easter!! Better in fact than Gordon Brown, who has been faced with the revelations that Damien McBride his former Press Advisor wrote some e mails for a Labour blog which never saw the light of day, e- mails containing scurrilous and unsubstantiated comments about members of the Conservative Party including David Cameron and George Osborne.

McBride clearly feels that he is unlucky and has been 'betrayed' by Paul Staines who writes a blog called 'Guido Fawkes' and who came by these mails and chose to publish them. Has McBride considered that a senior press man in a Labour Government should not be stooping to this kind of juvenile level at all, whether or not the results were intended for publication?

It does make one wonder how much authority Gordon Brown really has over his team. Even now it seems to have taken him a long time to recognise the severity of what has been done and how much damage could have been done to his own prestige and that of his government.

Now, belatedly, Brown is calling for 'a tighter code of conduct'. But it all seems very vacuous and very late. At present this government seems to be mired in sleaze, given the row over expenses and now a rather nasty bit of obscene libel. And I don't get the impression that the Prime Minister is really thumping the table and getting these people into line. I think he needs to become pro-active, rather than reactive, very quickly and start demonstrating some Prime Ministerial authority. At present he simply appears to be carried along by events.

A government with its head in the clouds

2009-04-08T08:15:00.004+01:00

Well it would be seem that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is having a cavalier existence these days, either fiddling her expenses or, like Mr Gladstone, saving fallen women...or so she apparently believes. The proposed new legislation on prostitution would make it a criminal offence by the male customer if he pays for sex with a woman who is controlled by pimps.

How ludicrous is that? Can you imagine the conversation? "How much for a ten minute quickie, luv - but I must see written evidence that you are working alone, entirely unconscripted and not subject to force or duress in any way!' Its total bananas.

But of course the government is not mad. It knows that placing the onus in this way is unfair - and it doesn't care. As the holier than thou Mrs Smith said yesterday 'there will be no more excuses for those who pay for sex'. Perhaps there should be no more excuses for those who pay a lot more of taxpayers money to keep their homes but enough of that.

Someone should confront her on this but nobody in politics has the guts to break ranks on an issue which is seen as 'morally justified'. But what is wrong with paying for sex if it is a mutually agreed contract? Not every woman making a living from supplying sexual services has been dragged here from Romania or Albania, not every one has been forced into it by evil men with gold jewellery and flashy BMWs either. And it is clearly totally unfair to put a criminal onus on men who are not in a position to know the truth. People have paid sex for all sorts of reasons and I don't believe, provided there is no force or coercion, that should be a criminal offence.

As one 'punter' interviewed on TV said yesterday, it is an accommodation shrouded in shame and lies..on both sides. The man wants to remain anonymous, the girl is hardly going to admit she is controlled by anybody and thus lose business. All that will happen is that the trade will be driven ever further underground.

I have said before that while I have supported the Labour Party all my life with its creed of social welfare there are times when that falls over the edge into Victorian nannying. It is no good Mrs Smith proclaiming 'no more excuses for paid sex'. Paid sex has been in existence since the dawn of time and will continue to be so. The government needs to start looking at this from a different perspective.

A rather unsavoury analogy of how the government is operating with regard to prostitution might be the of the old British gentry before flush toilets were invented who just threw unsavoury matter into the cellar and let the servants clear it into the sewers, pretending it wasn't there.

This is no way to go on or to keep the girls engaged in the trade safe. The government needs to bite the bullet on its Victorian hang-ups and start thinking seriously about tolerance zones where the girls involved in the trade can be properly housed, pay rent, be medically examined and supervised..and basically be reasonably safe. This is the way to deal with the issue not these petty ludicrous impositions on the man who pays..and especially to impose criminal sanctions when he is hardly likely to be in possession of the facts which turn him into a criminal.

Are British standards of behaviour getting worse?

2009-04-07T07:55:00.003+01:00

The Association of Teachers and Lecturers is the latest organisation to reflect a decline in standards of both childrens behaviour with a quarter of teachers reporting that they had been attacked to some degree by a pupil and, even worse, nearly 40% reported that they had been attacked by a parent.

There were reports of six year olds 'losing it', becoming so violent that they trashed a computer and cases of six year olds attacking teachers with scissors. Many teachers said they had lost confidence as a result and, in some cases, were seeking to retrain in other professions.

I know there have been violent children down the ages, but surely not on this scale. What is happening and why? Are we simply seeing the products of a parental generation which had no respect for authority either? I used to be a governor of an inner city Birmingham school which was one of the first to install a metal grille in front of the entry door to keep out violent parents. Dreadful situation.

Are we generally declining in terms of behavioural standards in this country? You look around at almost every part of the social fabric and its hard to argue. TV entertainers don't understand boundaries. Look at Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand and the despicable performance over Andrew Sachs's grand-daughter. Drive on Birmingham's roads and watch the idiotic performance of young drivers who think it's clever to weave in and out of lanes almost shaving your wing off, then respond with a finger or worse if you hoot in protest. I've seen two young men get out of a car and kick a guy's headlights in because he hooted a protest at their illegal overtaking. Kids carrying knives and this week two young boys, 9 and 10, seriously injured with knives carried by others of a similar age. And these are just a few examples of situations I don't believe would have happened 15 or 20 years ago.

These things are always tricky. I suppose the first question is...is my assumption true? Are we simply getting an impression from the media that society has become less tolerant and more violent? I would suspect there is enough evidence to prove things are worsening.

Maybe faith has a part to play in this. I'm not religious but I can readily understand that in times gone by religion provided a creed to live by which seems to have been eroded as we become more and more godless a society. So what can we do? It's certainly not an issue that can be dealt with through legislation, but maybe there are initiatives that could be launched in communities to try and get people to calm down. As a society we seem to be living on a dangerous edge and if the present situation continues, will the country be worth living in in ten or fifteen years time?

Looks like a great Formula One season in the making

2009-04-05T15:05:00.002+01:00

One of my 'background' sporting interests, way behind football and cricket, has been motor racing, but my interest has been elevated by circumstances this season. I do some DJ-ing for an American internet radio station and they have asked me to send a regular Formula One report to their weekly NASCAR show and thus keep the Americans in tune with 'European' Motor Racing.

I couldn't have picked a better year with the new rules completely turning the 2008 form book upside down and the new Brawn Mercedes team rising from the ashes of the Honda pull out and winning the first two races of the new season, both with Jensen Button at the wheel. I am delighted for Button, a guy I've long thought was a better driver than his record suggests and who has been in uncompetitive cars for the last few years. So at present we have one British world champion possibly superceded by another, unless McLaren can get their act together pretty quickly.

The racing has been first class and there is little doubt that the rules governing the aerodynamics has produced more of a level playing field which , although Brawn seem to be setting the pace after two races, they are not dominating in the way McLaren and Ferrari have done in years gone by. Any of BMW Sauber, Toyota, Red Bull or Williams could come through to challenge Brawn's current supremacy.

Formula One needed some kind of an injection to make the racing more competitive and to give the spectators something to enthuse over. Of course the one thing rules cannot resolve and that's the weather, sadly proven today when the Malaysian Grand Prix was abandoned after a torrential downpour after 32 laps. Not that Button was to unhappy - he was in the lead and got the points - but unsatisfactory for race fans and the organisers.

What a breath of fresh air!

2009-04-02T20:35:00.002+01:00

The power of the American President could never be under rated, but today was a refreshing and stark example of how the perception of an entire nation can change when the rest of the world hears the man who holds that office.

Today at the end of the G20 summit we all heard an American President admit first of all America's culpability in the economic crisis that grips the world. Some might say he could do little else. But he did so in a way which did not hedge bets but was clear and concise, and said it was now America's responsibility to help fix the mess.

Barack Obama talked about American leadership and how his nation should not be embarrassed by its strength and power but how that power was best used when America listened and showed some humility. He talked about America forging international partnerships rather than imposing its will on the world. He talked about a world of different cultures which America would try to understand and deal with rather than confront.

It made the policies of his predecessor and the PNAC think-tank which pushed the proposal that America should impose itself more forcefully and particularly in the middle east, seem a hideous nightmarish memory rather than a hideous nightmarish reality which killed thousands and from which America and Britain are still trying to recover.

I believe this man means what he says. I only hope he is not dragged down by the economic crisis or shot by some lunatic in mid term. He may not be able to save the world's economy overnight but already, in just over 2 months, Barack Obama has changed the world's perception of the United States which had fallen to the most grievous low. Let us all hope he is given the support and the enthusiasm back home to continue doing so for 8 years

Entente Cordiale by necessity

2009-03-31T08:07:00.003+01:00

I was watching the Channel Four news discussion between Peter Mandelson, Britain's Secretary of State for Business, and Christine Lagarde, the French Finance Minister, and for all the disagreements between Britain and mainland Europe on how to get out of our financial mess, there was a rare bon accord between the British and French ministers on one issue - the need to deal with tax havens.

I have to say that Mandelson, who I have never particularly liked since his days as Blair's enforcer pre 1997, is a more than competent Minister and he was refreshingly honest about past fiscal mistakes. Of course he could afford to be as they were all Brown's mistakes and we all know etc etc.... But anyway he didn't duck or hedge and said that the expansive love in Labour had with the free market and minimal controls had proved to be a mistake and lessons needed to be learned. He was insistent that British tax havens like my paternal homeland, the Isle of Man, plus the Channel Islands and other places within the reach of British intervention would be brought to book and disclosure compelled under new international finance rules to be drawn up at the G20 summit next week.

Mme Lagarde nodded enthusiastically and added her own firm support for the similar control of French hideouts like Monaco. I gather the French have already compelled Prince Albert to sign a declaration that the assets of French companies and individuals held in Monaco will be disclosed to the French government.

If all this goes through it is a massive step. It's one which is, of course, overdue and maybe - making virtue out of necessity - it may be the start of a more prudent mind set in terms of government and individuals about finance and savings and not spending money you haven't got. There does seem to be a feeling of urgency that somehow we have to get back to basic prudence in our financial dealings and hurray for that!

As a by product though, it does make me wonder what is to become of the Isle of Man, a place for which, being my father's home and where I had many happy childhood memories, I have a lot of affection. It has long faded as a holiday resort , in which guise it flourished up to the 1960s and has since become a centre of 'tax efficiency' as I was once taught to call it by the insurance company for which I worked. For many years now the TT tourist's motor bikes and old cars have been replaced by Porsches and Mercedes saloons parked outside the new company HQs which have sprung up all over and provided the island with a lot of stable revenue. It seems to have nowhere else to go if, as a result of new legislation, all these advantages disappear.

Sad for the Isle of Man, and its fellow havens, but very necessary and overdue.

Consequences worse than the 'crime'

2009-03-30T08:12:00.003+01:00

I feel a little sorry for Jacqui Smith. Given her job, her public profile and the vultures who now await her on the Tory benches, the revelation that her husband added two soft porn films to her expenses claim must be a source of overwhelming embarrassment for her..more in fact than the circumstances demand.

I live in the same cable area and take the same Virgin Media service and I can quite see why two porn films can have been overlooked in that VM don't itemise the movies you watch unless you request them to do so (presumably to protect embarrassed spouses who might have to own up) but it is surely wrong that additional bought movies, porn or otherwise, over and above the basic telecommunications allowance should have been claimed.

No wonder these politicians did not want their expenses published. They must have realised what an impression would be given to the public and, so far, it must be a worse impression even than many had feared. Pigs in the trough.

I am beginning to wonder if Jacqui Smith has a future. Not because of the porn films but because this whole issue of expenses is making her look extremely careless. She claims the flat she shares with her sister as her 'main residence' and then claims on her website that 'she still lives in Redditch with her husband and two children' This clearly to impress local voters but it would be appear slightly deceitful on one side or the other. Either she is cooking the expenses books or lying to the electorate.

Then surely, even if you ARE a busy Home Secretary, you put some time aside to personally vet stuff which is being claimed in your name..in fact PARTICULARLY if you are Home Secretary and given the nature of your job. The fact that either she didn't or she is now wriggling out of a mess of her own making, doesn't say much about her judgment.

And Ministers of the Crown, blatantly lacking good judgment, are not what Gordon Brown needs in the Labour government right now.

The answer to the rules of succession

2009-03-27T12:25:00.002Z

It seems that all our political parties are united in their agreement that the 1701 Act of Settlement, which confirmed the laws of succession of our Royal Family, are archaic and no longer represent the standards of the 21st century.

And of course they are right. It is ludicrous in this day and age to debar a member of the royal family from the throne if they marry a Roman Catholic. Religious bigotry of this sort has no place in a modern Britain, though one could understand the fears which prompted the law back in the early 18th century. Similarly to suggest that a male child should always take precedence over a female in the rights of succession is likewise archaic. Princess Anne is the Queen's second born but is now only 10th in line to the throne behind Prince Charles and his male children, and other male cousins.

Suggestions are being made by those in the constitutional know that, despite cross party agreement that things should change, nothing will, mainly because of the fear that any such constitutional changes might open up a wider debate on the monarchy within the Commonwealth.

Would that be a bad thing? Would it not be an excellent moment for the nations of the Commonwealth to take a long hard look at their constitutional position and decide whether or not they wish to retain a Monarchy or become a Republic. And that list, of course, should include the United Kingdom.

Iraq enquiry - Catharsis or cop-out?

2009-03-26T23:48:00.003Z

It has been announced that an official enquiry into the Iraq War will be held 'after July', which is when British combat troops will have effectively left the country. David Miliband has said the government is 'committed to holding a comprehensive enquiry' and, if taken at face value, should be a source of celebration.

But I find the bile rising in my mouth already, sensing the prospect of just further betrayal. From a purely personal point of view, the decision to invade Iraq was the most sickening decision a Labour party of which I had been a member for 40 years had ever taken. It was then I left it. I didn't want to leave it but I felt I had little choice. I couldn't do a Robin Cook and leave the government. Nor was I part of a Constituency which I believed felt as I did. There were members who were as enraged as me and who made the last meeting with Gisela Stuart, our MP a difficult one. But by and large, the Constituency establishment - including the MP - and the Secretary were primarily concerned about backing Blair and screw the morality of the invasion.

I went to London for the protest and joined the million impotent people who this fucking Labour government simply ignored. For the next months and years until the truth was revealed about the absence of real justifications, and deprived of a political focus I watched with anger every time I saw Blair at his most 'sincere' justifying every decision he made.

I have never been so disgusted by politics in my life and it has lingered to this day. Now is there to be a catharsis? Are we to really take the lid off every aspect of the Iraq invasion? Are we to go back to basics, examining the root justifications, testing their weight, examining the evidence of legality and who said who to who? Are we in fact going to come anywhere near making a quasi legal decision about whether the justifications outweighed the negatives, whether we were blatantly lied to in order to appease an American agenda? Are the politicians responsible for prosecuting that war really going to have to answer for it?

My immediate response is - of course not. I have so little faith in this government that I believe it will be just another piece of stage management in order to try and appease the doubters with so many caveats on its scope of enquiry as to make it useless. At the end of the day I fear little would satisfy me except to see that bastard Blair facing an International Criminal Court. But as that ain't going to happen we might as well spend the money on the victims of the war rather than lining the pockets of yet more lawyers.

Have we taken leave of our multi-cultural senses?

2009-03-26T21:30:00.003Z

The actor, Sir David Jason, has been forced to apologise and some radio station reduced to wetting its knickers in abject distress because the recently knighted actor cracked a 'joke' which involved a play on an Indian sub-continent name. He said 'What do you call a Pakistani cloak room attendant?' Answer: 'Mahatma Coat'

The 'joke' is something from the 1930s, I think I first heard it at primary school back in the 1940s/50s (though it probably said an Indian then as Pakistan was hardly conceived and Mahatma Gandhi had been the Indian Premier) The point is it's a silly play on words like 'Lunchtime o' Booze' the 'Irish' journalist much beloved by Private Eye or the female stone thrower 'Eva Brick'. It is NOT an attack on Pakistani people.

Have we become so frightened of causing offence in this multi-cultural paradise that every single silly joke like this has to provoke a feast of bed wetting? It's not particularly funny..it's too old and corny...but unfunny has never been a reason for apologising for humour. And when you hear some of the really nasty, vicious stuff that goes out on air these days you do wonder what the fuss was about.

Of course Del Boy was misguided in telling the joke -not because it IS offensive but because, in the current climate, there was bound to be somebody claiming it was. That's just the way of the world. Maybe had he said an Indian cloakroom attendant he would have got away with it because I suspect half the panic and walking on egg shells is because Pakistan is Muslim.

I don't like racist jokes..and I mean those which seek to demean and undermine another person's race and culture in the way Bernard Manning used to do, for example. But for heaven's sake, to make such a fuss about this type of pun hardly shows a society at ease with itself. And I don't believe most of our asian citizens would have found this offensive - only people with an agenda who deliberately look for something offensive in order to make some political point.

Now they're taking the piss!

2009-03-23T19:42:00.003Z

I make no apology for briefly returning to the issue of MP's expenses since it has been revealed today that Tony McNulty, the Work Minister, has claimed £60,000 on 6 years for a 'second home' HIS PARENTS HOUSE, eleven miles from his own.

Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the committee for standards in public life, has said that most MPs simply do not have the mind set that these expenses are intended to help with a hardship but, instead, believe they are a deserved 'perk' of the job. How has it got to that? One of the criteria supposed to be used is 'Could my claim damage the reputation of Parliament?'

Is there any doubt? McNulty when quizzed said he was 'compliant'. What does that mean? Presumably that he followed the dotted 'i's and crossed 't's and decided he was eligible for a bit more brass without any risk. It would appear that he doesn't even stay there. Well why would he when his own home is so near? But he uses it as a 'base'.

This simply smacks of profiteering. These guys are supposed to be setting an example and it's quite clear that they are incapable of doing so. And there is no leadership from the top. It would seem that the British tradition of putting responsible men and women on trust has failed miserably.

Clearly new and swingeing rules need to be brought in to deal with this. If these people are going to behave like irresponsible children who see only a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, then they deserve to be treated like it.

The maudlin, almost obscene, Jade Goody industry

2009-03-22T18:14:00.004Z

Yesterday a young woman aged 27 died of cancer. This is sad in itself. As sad as the similar deaths of thousands of young men and women in this country who die prematurely without having had any kind of a life. Young people have died from disease, road accidents, even, sometimes, in battle. Most die grieved only by their nearest and dearest, their deaths unknown to the rest of us. The deaths make an obituary, at best, in the local newspaper, paid for by the family, to inform any one who cares.

This particular young woman was not particularly blessed with any great qualities which made her stand out as someone to admire or emulate. She came from a difficult family background, her father a career criminal, her boyfriend a man with criminal convictions. Her life, in fact, was similar to that of many throughout the United Kingdom and her contribution to the quality of British life hardly consequential.

She had the good fortune to be selected for the 'Big Brother' reality show for which she was primarily noted for a racist attack on an Indian actress, cavorting naked and being completely ignorant of the geography of England. But such are the perverse standards which we now apply to those considered worthy of admiration, that this young woman was elevated to celebrity status and subsequently became a multi millionaire through product endorsements and good marketing.

Then her short lived but successful rise to the top of the Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame tree hit a tragic finale. She was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Tragic for Jade Goody, for of course it is she, but a heaven sent opportunity for the maudlin, mock sentimental, money-grubbing gossip and celebrity industry which has grown up around her. Every moment of her declining days and weeks has been lovingly captured by the newspapers and gossip magazines and the cash registers rattled merrily as each aspect of her chemotherapy, her death bed marriage and now, her death will have been lapped up by an avaricious public which seems to have lost all sense of perspective.

And now - I know I shouldn't be irritated but I am - it was announced that the Prime Minister is leading the tributes. Why, for goodness sake? This is the woman who embarrassed him on a visit to India by her ill timed racist abuse of an Indian actress? As I said at the beginning, any death of a young person is to be regretted and this one is no exception but what on earth has she done to be the focus of Prime Ministerial tribute? She has not been an ambassador for Britain in any field at all - arts, entertainment etc - which would be worthy of the Prime Minister's notice. It's not really the PM's fault. Politicians have always made sure they acknowledge popular culture in order to show they are not too removed from the peasantry, though few can be fortunate enough to get Tony Blair's 'Princess Di' moment. 100 years ago it might have been a music hall artist, 50 years ago a rock star. It is the goal posts which have moved. Miss Goody was simply a 'celebrity' - famous for being famous - spawned by this amazing growth in reality television which is creating a whole new sphere of heroes and heroines.

There is no doubt that Channel 4 came up with a brilliant concept which has captured the nation - to take the so-called average Briton off the street, show him and her in natural habitat - drinking, swearing,screwing, throwing up - and make us all relate to them. It has worked wonders, no doubt, though I detest the whole format. But it seems to have produced a very strange concept of who is worthy of elevation in the public eye and also a prosperous industry of parasites in the form of agents and media attention which feeds on the publicity.

In this case the hyenas are literally feeding on the corpse - and it's a development I find very, very hard to stomach.

Surely the time is right for a compassionate rethink?

2009-03-20T09:24:00.003Z

Patricia Hewitt MP, has called for a change in British law allowing terminally ill, fully compos mentis adults to be allowed, free of legal penalty, to end their lives in Swiss clinics. I personally would go further and allow British clinics to offer a similar service but such is the opposition to assisted suicide that such a proposal is light years away.

So let's walk before we run. Ms Hewitt's compassionate appeal is very likely to fail to gain sufficient support because of the deeply rooted aversion to suicide within our culture. But why? Our Judeo-Christian culture has long taught an abhorrence of suicide as a grave sin against God so there are deep reasons why our legal attitudes reflect this. The Jewish and Roman Catholic faiths, particularly, view suicide as mortal sins.

But we are now in the 21st century and, without intending to offend anybody, I don't believe that modern government should necessarily reflect ingrained religious beliefs when so many people don't believe in God anyway. It seems to me there is a good case for a humanitarian rethink on this entire topic. Why is it necessary for a man or woman stricken with cancer, motor neurone disease or some life destroying disease to be propped up for maybe another decade with expensive drugs and treatments when that is simply not what they want? Who is made to feel better by this legal obligation? Whose consciences are satisfied? Probably not the patient who has reached a point where every day is a humiliating, embittered journey of survival possibly unable to move or even eat without help.

It is, of course, clear that suicide is so much the ultimate irreversible decision that safeguards have to be put in place to ensure that people whose minds are temporarily disturbed by broken love affairs etc are not allowed to flit to a clinic to end it all, but safeguards and a consultative process involving counselling physical and mental health over a period of months should enable a recommendation to be made with a reasonable certainty that the potential suicide has thought over all their options and has made a rational, clear choice that life is no longer worth living. That seems to me to be a kind and responsible social approach, not one which should incur legal penalty.

Ms Hewitt has my support and, even though her initiative seems doomed to fail this time, maybe it will start a thought process which will result in a more enlightened view before too long. I can but hope.

Thank LABOUR for the National Health Service

2009-03-18T08:52:00.003Z

I have, from my earliest involvement in politics, been a passionate supporter of Britain's National Health Service. Oh it has its critics and some of the criticism is justified, but as an institution and an ideal it stands as one of the greatest testaments to the Labour Government of 1945-50 and to Aneurin Bevan in particular. It has become such a rock on which the British people depend that our 'socialized medicine' as the Americans call it, has become a precious national element which the Tories dare not destroy though there have been Tory administrations that would dearly like to have done. They have tried to weaken it by encouraging the development of more private health plans but nothing has shaken public determination to support its most treasured possession - with all its flaws.

But apart from my philosophical support for the NHS, I have over the last 12 years had practical reason for gratitude for its existence. I suffer from ulcerative colitis, a disease which cannot be cured, but can be kept largely in remission by the application of some expensive drugs which need to be taken every day of my life. I have often wondered, now that I am over 60,and not exactly being a millionaire, how I would have managed in the United States and what the cost of my health insurance would have been to provide the care I get now.

And some times that disease flares up, fortunately rarely, but this week has been just such a time. And then it can leave you feeling like death and in need of even more supplements than the expensive staple diet of drugs I take already. At a time when I was expecting friends from abroad and wondering how on earth I was going to cope, I was in my doctor's surgery at 8am being examined and prescribed a cocktail of drugs to calm the condition down. Within hours the medication had left me feeling 1000% better - it is a disease which brings you down remarkably low but with an application of, in particular, steroids, can magically improve your condition in a matter of hours.

But the drugs must cost a fortune and again I wondered how I would manage if I lived in a country which purely operated on a health insurance basis. For here I get the treatment I need, when I need it, and, being over 60, I get everything free of charge.

Now I know nothing is free and that other people in the form of taxation, are paying for my health. But in the many years when I was working, happy, carefree and free from illness, I was paying for the treatment of other people through taxation - and I never resented a penny of it. Because that's what a welfare state should provide. Never mind this right wing garbage about 'state control' and 'nannying'. It's about looking at the priorities of your nation and taking care of them. That's what good socialist government is about. That's what we had in 1945. Sometimes I could weep.

Schadenfreude can be so fulfilling

2009-03-17T12:38:00.002Z

Just for one day, last Saturday, I was a Liverpool fan. At least I was by the time their third goal went in at Old Trafford and it became clear that this was one game Manchester United were not going to rescue at the death. By the time Liverpool scored the fourth I was howling like a loon. It was just so perfect. To be hammered out of sight on your own ground, particularly, is never an edifying experience for any team but for this team of all the talents in particular, a team which had almost begun to believe in its own invincibility, the experience must have been totally humiliating.

That the opposition was Liverpool only added further salt in the wounds and I was over the moon with delight. Why do I dislike Manchester United so much? In rational terms it's a hard question to answer. Why do football fans, apart from a passionate love of their own team, make very black and white choices about whether they hate other clubs. Because to most fans, some opposition clubs are more tolerable than others for reasons not altogether clear - but it's astonishing how often Manchester United top the hate lists.

I believe it stems, oddly, from a tragedy - the 1958 Munich air disaster in which United lost so many players and staff. At that time, they had just become a very successful club, a wonderful young team with a good manager, with none of the modern 'luggage'. The whole nation was united in its sympathy for the club at that time. It is since that date that Manchester United became an institution not a football club.

From the horrors of Munich and the aura which then surrounded the Club, Manchester United became a 'brand' rather than a football club and began to draw support from everywhere in the world, thanks to some very effective marketing. Now they rival Real Madrid as perhaps the best known Club in the world, and certainly, along with Real, the most prosperous. Along with that went an image of football 'royalty' which removed Manchester United from the tradition of local tribal support which has always driven the English game and put them on a football pedestal. It didn't take long then, of course, for other clubs - and their fans - thirsting to knock them off that plinth and restore them to mere mortality.

I'm sure one of the factors in perpetuating this delight at seeing United receive the football equivalent of a custard pie in the face is Sir Alex Ferguson. Good manager he has undoubtedly proved over the years, but Jeez, what a petulant prima-donna! He has waged a four year no-speaking war with the BBC over a report they did suggesting he was making dubious financial gains from the activities of his son and now has refused to speak to Sky Sports after the defeat to Liverpool - blaming the broadcaster for the timing of the match - and presumably thus to United's defeat.

How can a highly paid manager behave like a spoilt kid in this fashion and get away with it? Because, say people in the football world, he is the manager of Manchester United. How does he get away with criticising referees in the way he does without penalty? For the same reason.

The club is arrogant and so is its manager. So it was a delight to sit in a pub on Saturday and, for just one day at least, glory in a Liverpool victory so comprehensive that Sir Alex must have felt he had been dropped into a cold bath.

Now I hope Liverpool can overhaul the points deficit and win the title at the death. That would be the ultimate poke in the eye for the surly Scot!

Ever more cynical about politicians

2009-03-14T08:14:00.003Z

My Labour M.P. has sent me - for the second time - a letter and a questionnaire telling me how sincerely she wants to open up a debate on immigration. It is, she says, an honest and open attempt to engage the public on an issue of national importance ahead of the government's impending legislation. The questionnaire is presented as a series of options, purportedly allowing an unbiased and free choice of responses, though clearly angled towards an acceptance of the government's position. But at least it does give options

Then she spoils the facade with a PS. 'This is not about asylum seekers," she writes. "It is about economic migrants. People genuinely fleeing persecution will always be welcome in the UK."

Aha. So by implication our minds have been made up for us. Let's forget this attempt at democratic involvement. This is simply an attempt to rubber stamp her own beliefs on an issue she believes is a vote-winner.

If the voters of my area are to be canvassed so earnestly on immigration, why not on other areas of government policy? Let's have a letter on what we should do about alcohol consumption, the Criminal Justices Bill - which certainly had a few contentious anti-human rights elements . And why didn't she consult us on the invasion of Iraq? Apart from a few pockets, my neck of the woods is hardly an area where immigration is a major source of social problem.

The truth is that the next General Election is going to be difficult for the Labour Party. In some areas - and mine is possibly high on that list - it is going to be damn near impossible. So what better to try and bolster support than an issue on which you can attract the 'send-the-bastards-home' brigade to your camp, and point them to areas of government policy which will have their tails wagging.

I really have become sick of politicians jumping on a bandwagon and pretending they are doing it for reasons of deep social concern and a desire to involve the electorate. I remember the days when the Labour Party had some sense of principle - or was it just always better in the 'good old days' ?

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words

2009-03-10T20:50:00.003Z

(Acknowledgements to Peter Brooks and 'The Times')

President Obama and a few niggling doubts

2009-03-07T07:54:00.003Z

I think it is fair to say that most of Europe has welcomed the arrival of President Barack Obama as a man of vision, of refreshing ideas, an articulate man, too, who is a splendid orator able to get his convictions and ideals across convincingly.

It is recognised that the President has taken office at one of the toughest times in recent history and there is much goodwill flying in his direction and hopes that his Presidency will be a landmark one for all the right reasons.

There is no doubt that the President's aims are not just ambitious but daring. There are many in his own party now more than a little nervous about the amount of money he intends to spend to force America out of recession. So no one can doubt his political courage.

But, of course, it takes more than a crusading spirit and a set of convictions to be a successful President as Jimmy Carter, for one, found to his cost. You need to have an organisation in place which effects your decisions smoothly and effectively.

And that - at the moment - seems to be Obama's problem.

In the first few weeks of his Presidency he lost one key appointee after another, mainly due to some personal scandal, hitherto undetected. OK there may be a few glitches when you start the job, though hopefully not as many as Mr Obama has faced, but at some point your machinery has to start running smoothly.

Now, however, it has been revealed that the US Treasury Department is more or less being run single-handed, by the Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, and there are still jobs to be filled for SEVENTEEN deputy officials to help carry the workload. The G20 summit starts in London in three weeks time and, according to 'The Times' British officials are privately very worried that the Americans are not up to speed on key elements of the talks and may not be before the summit begins. That would be pretty disastrous as the Americans are, naturally, one of the most important players

.

People are declining posts in the US Treasury for 'personal reasons' and there is a growing fear that some of this may be due to a concern, even among Democrats, about the thrust of the President's fiscal policy, and that when, as they fear, it goes wrong they will be left carrying the can.

Whatever the cause, Mr Obama needs to dedicate himself, for a few weeks at least, to ensuring that his staff are in place and that the visionary approach he has set out for the future of America is not undermined by a lack of administrative resources to implement it.

Good day for Gordon

2009-03-05T08:28:00.003Z

It was good to hear Gordon Brown so well received yesterday by both houses of the US Congress - though it was noticeable that his call to resist protectionism was heard in respectful silence rather than enthusiasm - but all in all he got some exposure in the United States and at least the Americans now know who they are dealing with rather than 'the guy who replaced Tony Blair'

Of course it is window-dressing to some extent in that it provides Mr. Brown with an opportunity to be statesmanlike in front of a friendly audience and a good speech can't do his ratings in this country any harm. That's not to say I think it did his ratings that much good either, and certainly didn't much affect the British perception of the Labour government. But let's be fair, it was a good day for him and he deserves the favourable press coverage.

I do, however, wish British leaders, when addressing American politicians, would stop harping on about 'the special relationship'. It makes me wince every time I hear it because it sounds so desperate somehow. The British need the relationship to be special to retain some sort of illusion that we have some power and influence in DC when events have shown this to be pure self delusion. I'm sure the Americans take a deep breath and listen politely whenever this phrase is used, and feel slightly compromised by it. Successive Presidents have paid lip service to it out of politeness and then treated us just like any other outsider with an opinion. So this is my appeal to all current and future British leaders. Say what you have to say to the Americans and make them respect you for what you offer. Don't cling to this cloying 'special relationship' appeal which exists in the minds of one party only - if it exists at all.

The day cricket became a political weapon

2009-03-03T22:01:00.002Z

It is grimly ironic that yesterday I wrote a post suggesting that carpet pitches could be choking the life blood out of cricket, never thinking for one second that, the following day, a more shocking and tragic method would be found to kill cricketing tours, certainly to Pakistan for the forseeable future.

The gunmen who shot up the Sri Lankan cricket team bus this morning, killing six policemen and injuring seven players, have made sure of that. Which of course was almost certainly one of their aims. To undermine the confidence of the Pakistan authorities and to bring home the message that no one is safe in the most dramatic way

It's not the first time, of course, that sportsmen have been used as targets for an assassination and everyone remembers the tragic Munich Olympics in which so many Israeli athletes were killed. But there was a difference. The Israelis represented the sporting ambassadors of the very nation with which the gunmen bore a grudge. Although it's not yet clear who was responsible for the Lahore shootings they bore a similar stamp to the Mumbai killings some months earlier so we can probably assume an Islamic fundamentalist group was responsible and the Sri Lankan team were simply a high profile target with which to make a point. It is doubly sad that Sri Lanka stood in for India, who withdrew from the tour because of the Mumbai shootings, and this was their reward.

Pakistan is becoming a major problem. It is already being described as a 'failed state' for there seems to be no social and political cohesion within the country which can stop these extremists making it their home. What the next step is, politically, is anyone's guess. But the world of cricket has suffered a blow for which it was totally unprepared.

Batting their way to a boring finale

2009-03-02T22:11:00.004Z

One of my favourite loves is the game of cricket and I have long argued against the jibes of non cricket-lovers that the game is boring and worse, ridiculous, when it can go on for 5 days and there is no result. Ah, I have argued but it's not just the result that matters. It's the skilful appreciation of the conditions, to know the strength of your batting and bowling, to know when to declare and put the other side in, to time a run chase etc etc - knowing full well that my sceptical friends, here and abroad, would not believe a word of it.

I have to say that the game between the West Indies and England, just ended in Barbados, made my defence very shaky. It is a measure of my confidence in the England team at present than when they were able to declare at 600 for 6 wickets, I thought the pitch must be a carpet on which the West Indoes would do almost as well, batting second. In fact they did a damn sight better making an incredible 794 for 9 declared and virtually ensuring that the game was drawn, England making certain of that by batting safely today.

But are games like this going to safeguard the future of test cricket? Yes it was wonderful to see Ramnaresh Sarwan score 291 and his batting partner young Denesh Ramdin score 166 , his first test century but games like this are pointless and simply add fuel to the fire of critics who see no point in a game which is simply a feat of endurance where it becomes clear pretty early on that it will simply fizzle out into a draw despite all the batting heroics.

The West Indies, in particular, while wonderful contributors to the high scoring will be one of the major victims if cricket gets too many Tests like this. Youngsters in the West Indies are not playing cricket as they once did, instead turning to baseball as a more exciting game which gets a result. The talent the West Indies once had, when they dominated the world game is no more - and its unlikely to return.

Pitches have to be prepared which produce a better game between bat and ball than this. OK one of the problems could well be very average bowling attacks on both sides but the incredibly flat pitch with hardly any deviation for the bowlers, certainly didn't help. Somehow cricket needs to get the crowds back all over the world - and games like this one will not help!!

Don't blame Sir Fred - blame capitalism

2009-02-26T18:43:00.002Z

No this is not a piece of Marxist propaganda. I am a firm believer in the mixed economy and capitalism with rules. I don't believe a completely socialist system works for long simply because it takes no account of human greed and competitiveness. And while greed might be an unwholesome quality, it does provide an incentive which reliance on public spiritedness does not.

But it has to have rules and principle and common sense. Qualities sadly lacking in the contractual deals involving executives in Britain's most powerful companies. We have Sir Fred Goodwin, former Chief Executive of the humiliated Royal Bank of Scotland refusing to pay back any of his pension of £693,000 pa despite having presided over the worst performance in British banking history. But why should he? He has lived a lifestyle that paid him £4 million per annum during his tenure at RBS where he feels he simply took high risk decisions that failed. His pension was part of his contractual deal and he sees no reason to apologise for it.

I can understand why. We have allowed a situation to develop where top executives in this country have paid themselves obscene amounts of money for years and there is nothing to stop them. I have figures only as recent as 2006 but in that year a relatively unknown British executive with a very down to earth name, Mick Davis of Xantra Mining, was paid a mind-boggling £15 MILLION per annum plus added benefits and an index linked pension. Lord Browne of BP earned over £1 million as did Tesco boss Sir Terry Leahy and Charles Allen, former head of ITV.

But if you don't need that kind of money to live a decent lifestyle just get yourself into the right gentlemen's clubs and get recommended as a non executive chairman. Back in 2006, the average pay for these guys was £270,000 for two days work a week. Sir John Sunderland of Cadbury-Schweppes managed to clock up 3.5 million in that year plus share options of £2million for his two days a week.

Then, of course, there are bonuses. Back in my day, bonuses were an exception. They were paid for exceptional and tangibly measurable work. Now they are built in to the 'fat cat' salary structure. In 2006, only 4 Chief Executives on the FTSE top 100 failed to take a bonus as part of their 'package' and there is no legal requirement to show how bonuses are 'earned'

Now here are some figures. In 2006, bonuses made up a staggering £19 BILLION of the amount paid out in the United Kingdom. Here's an evening more staggering figure - £10 BILLION - or over 50% - was paid out to the Financial Services industry (surprise, surprise) - the very people who have landed us in the bloody mess we are in now.

Well at least we do recognise who has landed us in the bloody mess we are in now. The finger is usually pointed at the trade union movement and the total amount involved in a settlement for thousands of men and women who can only fantasise about the lifestyles - and paid deals - of some of their bosses!!

Has government lost its moral compass?

2009-02-22T15:35:00.003Z

I have no idea whether the expenses claimed by Jacqui Smith for her sister's home in London are justified or not - I will leave any judgment to an enquiry which should be in possession of all the facts.

I do know, though, that I am heartily sick of our parliamentary rulers claiming that they have 'abided by the rules' rather than done what they believe to be honourable. We have had the same justification put forward by the 'cash for advice' Labour peers, by the candidates for the Labour Party deputy leadership - and even Gordon Brown has spent £9000 of taxpayers money on refurbishing his domestic kitchen. OK again it might be an entitlement but I've never had £9000 of taxpayers money to spend on my kitchen and I've never earned as much as Mr Brown does.

Yes I know that the Tories do it too and probably on a grander scale. But I don't expect any better from them. I do feel that the Labour Party should think long and hard before using - or abusing - the privileges granted to them by the terms of their parliamentary allowances. Instead, the very people who should be setting an example, particularly in times of economic crisis, seem to be scouring the small print to see what they can get away with - and that's a pretty unpalatable sight from a Party which used to claim the moral high ground.

We seem to have no moral leadership from our politicians and this is a time when the whole country - for many reasons - has never needed it more.

'Dream ticket' or a nightmare?

2009-02-21T14:35:00.005Z

If rumours are to be believed Harriet Harman, the Labour Party's esteemed Deputy Leader is positioning herself to make a push for the leadership of the Labour Party when either Gordon Brown is appointed Global Finance Guru or loses the next General Election (which appears favourite) She is attempting, it is said, to put together a 'dream ticket' of herself and Jon Cruddas as the answer to Labour's woes and to restore left wing values.

Now my only query is why a bright spark like Cruddas would ever want to associate himself with Ms. Harman. This woman has reached and stretched beyond the level of her own incompetence on more than one occasion, most notably when she pissed off Frank Field, a man with ten times her intelligence, who in 1998 resigned from his job rather than report to Harman. She was found out later that same year and left in a cabinet reshuffle.

She has failed at several posts and was censured during her successful Deputy Leadership campaign for failing to declare several donations on time. Though she claims to have a 'left wing agenda' she voted for the Iraq War in 2003, later saying she wouldn't have done had she known all the facts. Wow!! Some of us, Harriet, saw it as morally wrong from the outset!!

If this woman becomes leader of the Labour Party then its death knell will be well and truly sounded in my view. She shouldn't be put in charge of a whelk stall!

When is it right to curtail free speech?

2009-02-13T16:32:00.003Z

I am somewhat concerned by the ban, imposed yesterday, on the right of Geert Wilders to enter the United Kingdom. I know he is controversial, I know he is facing trial in the Netherlands for inciting racial hatred. But I believe at the moment he is not a convicted criminal, he is a Member of Parliament in the Netherlands and thus, not only a fellow citizen of the European Union but one of its elected representatives.

It seems to me that his invitation by Lord Pearson of UKIP, though it may have been mischievous in intent, was a controlled visit to show his film 'FITNA' to a select group in the House of Lords.

I understand the film attempts to link the Koran and some of its verses to acts of terrorism by Muslim extremists. It may well be a piece of out and out racist bigotry or it might pose some awkward questions. I don't know. I haven't seen the film. But then neither has Boy Wonder Miliband who was breathing hot air all over the TV screen yesterday justifying the government's decision to ban Mr Wilders on the basis of his film that 'seeks to justify Islamophobia and divide communities'. When asked if he had seen the film, Miliband spluttered that he hadn't 'but , come off it, we all know what it's about, don't we'

Well I don't and clearly Miliband doesn't either but apparently a knowledge of the facts is not a necessary credential for this Labour Government to once again step in and impose some authoritarian sanction. It may well be that there are good reasons for banning Wilders from the country but I didn't hear them from Miliband. Just the usual righteously indignant rhetoric.

I don't suppose Wilders was all that put out. Its less than an hour back to Holland and I daresay his flight was paid for. But I worry about the government's consistency. We have allowed a number of controversial characters into the country recently, like reggae singer Rodney Pryce who hates homosexuals and glorifies black gang culture. Surely we have to be extra careful when the target is a fellow citizen of the EU with rights of free travel within the Union unless there are very specific grounds to refuse him. Does this qualify? I have my doubts.

Michael Portillo has criticised the decision on the basis that an 'unknown twit and a bigot has been turned into a minor celebrity' and there is some truth in that. My bigger fear is that this government is not refusing entry based on the seriousness of the offence but how much trouble is likely to be stirred up by the targets.

So if radical Islam threatens to take to the streets, set fire to effigies and generally make life uncomfortable for the forces of law and order, does that mean all its critics will be automatically banned? If that is the way the right to free speech is being interpreted, as appears very much the case, it makes the government look very weak indeed.

Edging closer to an authoritarian state 'in the interests of national security'

2009-02-08T10:50:00.002Z

I am getting sick to death of this f***ing Labour government which I once used to serve with enthusiasm as a Party activistfor many years. How idealism changes into disillusion so quickly.

Now, following ID cards and other computerised stores of information designed to give the government ever greater control over our lives, we have the proposal of a national travel database which will record every detail of where each one of us travels to, including our names, addresses, where we went, how long for, who we went with and even our seat numbers. Why? Need you ask? The same old hoary chestnut about 'national security and protecting us from terrorism'. Well I might be mad but I'm getting to the point where I'd be prepared to risk my life at the hands of some politically motivated assassins than continue to accept this ever increasing drift towards an authoritarian society where the government knows our every move.

I seriously wonder if this is in conflict with European Union rules and rights? Maybe worth challenging in the European court. And I wonder how many nations will play along with this? Hopefully people will be able to exploit loopholes, say travel to Ireland and get a long distance flight from there.

Why am I bothered? I must have something to hide. That will be the reaction of supporters of this move. No, not at all. I go abroad quite frequently and its all about human rights. If I want to tell people Ive been to Prague or Berlin or whatever I'll do it. I hate the idea of some all-seeing state taking away that freedom and replicating the worst suspervisory aspects of Stalinist Russia.

I hope this withers on the vine. But given the ease with which the government has pushed through other illiberal legislation in recent years with either a token scrutiny or none at all, I fear the worst.

'Liberty' where art thou? It's time to stand up and be counted once again - and by some means convince the complacent British not to stand for all this. Sadly though the alternative of a Conservative government is the only means of protest in our so-called democracy. And the prospect of that is even worse!

We bark and YOU roll over!

2009-02-05T07:56:00.003Z

The day after Hillary Clinton paid warm tribute to the 'special relationship' between the US and the UK, the amazing outburst came from two of our High Court judges accusing the United States of demanding that evidence of torture in the case of Binyam Mohammed, a British national held at Guantanamo for four years, be suppressed 'in the interests of national security' (Yawn...oh how many more times?)

It is almost unprecedented for our judges to step into the political arena in quite such a vehement fashion and they were clearly angry that the United States government was withholding vital evidence. But their anger was not reserved solely for the US government but for the British government who, it seems, were aware of what was happening to Mohammed and did absolutely nothing to intervene on his behalf. It would seem, after 4 years incarceration, that no charges will be brought against Mohammed and he will be released.

There is no point in railing against the US government and its inhuman treatment of suspected Al Queda operatives. All that is well documented and took place under the jurisdiction of the most hideous Administration America has ever inflicted on the world. Now we have a new President and it's fair to give him time to clean up America's act.

But it IS reasonable to continue asking what the British government sees its role to be in this 'special relationship'. Yesterday boy wonder Miliband denied that the British had 'rolled over' in the face of American pressure and denied too that the Americans had threatened to withhold intelligence sharing if the British broke ranks on this one.

So our High Court judges lie do you think? They are prepared to risk the full weight of government anger on some sensational press report from the 'Sun' ? I don't think so somehow. LT. Colonel Yvonne Bradley, the military lawyer representing Mohammed, visited him last week and her assessment was blunt. "What the US is doing," she said, "is not about security or intelligence - it's about saving face."

And this presumably is part of what the 'special relationship' is all about. America commits human rights violations at Gitmo and the British help to cover them up. Maybe, as Jeremy Paxman said recently of George Osborne's relationship with his leader, David Miliband should be given a shovel so that he can walk timidly behind the American horse, collecting all its manure and depositing it somewhere where no one will notice the smell. Seems to be our international role in life.

EU employment rules a mixed blessing

2009-02-02T08:35:00.002Z

The situation which began at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire and has now spread across the country has highlighted a glaring weakness in the interpretation of EU free migratory employment laws. The idea of a mobile European workforce, free to take up jobs in all EU countries where there are needs to fill, is a good one and I support it - as I do our membership of the European Union. Indeed thousands of Britons have taken advantage of these rules to find work in Spain, France and Germany and, of course, Britain has had many workers from Poland and other eastern european countries to fill a need when our economy was expanding.

The greatest test of these freedoms was always going to come in times of recession when the economy is contracting and jobs are being shed. If one looks at the free movement of labour in a theoretical sense, then it makes perfect sense - certainly in terms of traditional right wing economic theory. An imbalance occurs through protected wage agreements in one country and, in a recession, companies seek to protect profits by legally importing workers whose wage scales do not fall within the protected agreements, thus production costs come down, wages of the indigenous population come down to match and thus they become competitive again.

Great in theory but in practice what has happened with the energy plants is a red rag to a bull and a recipe for industrial unrest and something has to clearly be done to stop a deliberate attempt to get round national wage agreements and the government is right to suggest that there are loopholes here which need to be closed. On the other hand I am sorry this is giving succour to all those fanatics on the right - including the BNP - who are using this issue cynically as an argument for leaving the European Community. In my view membership of the EU is a much greater strength than a weakness and we should resist the temptation to only take from it what suits us and refuse to honour the rest. This has been Britain's position right from day 1 and why we are regarded with suspicion as the 'problem child' by so many in the EC

Something stinks whether the law has been broken or not

2009-01-26T19:47:00.006Z

Is it any wonder that people are cynical about politics and politicians? So often we hear interviews with the 'man in the street' who says he won't vote, can't be bothered, they're all the same, just 'in it for themselves'. Then as a counter we have government ministers shaking their head sadly and telling us that people should have more respect for politics and politicians.

Then we get the likes of Lord Taylor of Blackburn, standing up in the House of Lords and admitting that he took up to £120,000 to use his influence to change the law on tax breaks for retailers. He stood up today making his apology 'if he has brought the House into disrepute' with the usual rider that he didn't think any laws had been broken.

IF he has brought the House into disrepute? Is there any doubt about it? Whether he and the other three Labour peers, Lord Moonie, Lord Snape and Lord Truscott actually broke the law of the land, they surely besmirched the concept of public service. These men were ennobled to act as second chamber lawmakers as part of the checks and balances within the parliamentary system. They were not ennobled to line their own pockets by selling their influence...and the topic was discussed by admission whether they actually took the money or not. They considered it. Whether or not the law has actually been broken these people are in a position of trust- and honour (Yes sorry to be old fashioned) to behave in a way which upholds the spirit of their role not just the dotted i technicalities. And surely in the case of these people who would pocket thousands of pounds for selling their influence that sense of honour has surely been dragged through the mud. And I'm sorry to see Labour peers involved in this from whom I somehow expected better.

We are supposed to have registers of outside interests, yet the British system is rotten to the core with people simultaneously holding positions of power in government yet able to use that power for private gain. There needs to be a complete overhaul of this by an independent body. Would I trust politicians to police such a review themselves? Not on my secret list of expenses I wouldn't!

BBC Gaza stance unjustified

2009-01-25T08:53:00.002Z

I believe the BBC's decision not to broadcast a humanitarian aid appeal for the stricken people of Gaza to be totally unjustified. I have read the explanation by Mark Thomson, DG of the BBC, where he makes two justifications for the refusal - the first being that there is no guarantee of aid getting through and thus the public may be squandering money. Well surely the answer to that is to insist that the problems of delivery are explained in the appeal and to let the public make up its own mind. So that is a pretty trite one, I believe, and easily overcome.

The more significant issue is the BBC's insistence that it could compromise impartiality. How? Surely the news pictures of Gaza are evidence in themselves that terrible devastation has been wrought on an already impoverished area and that hundreds have been killed and injured. I really cannot understand this stance unless the Israeli government (and possibly the US?) has been applying pressure and claiming that such an appeal is a political move.

To air an appeal which simply states the facts of human need is not taking sides in a war. I would hope that if Tel Aviv was shelled causing wholesale destruction, and the Israelis needed help, we would not shirk from a humanitarian appeal for them too.

The British government is certainly not the problem as it has been trying to get the BBC to change its mind, and indeed all its rivals who, at first, took the same stance have decided to broadcast it. I am guessing that the BBC will, eventually, concede that it has lost the so-called moral high ground on this and give in.

The sooner the better. The more TV exposure such an appeal has, the more effective it will be - and these people are in desperate straits. They need help now.

Britain's impoverished military laid bare

2009-01-23T09:54:00.002Z

An interesting article by Bronwen Maddox in today's 'Times' backs up a situation I have often commented on in this blog - that militarily we are broke. A kippers and curtains nation trying to pretend we are not punching above our weight. Bronwen says:-

The delay over Britain’s new carriers – and the fudging of the reason for it – is exactly why Britain’s stock is falling so low in Washington. There is real doubt in President Obama’s team – as there was in George W. Bush’s Administration – that Britain has any significant help left to give.

Good luck, Gordon Brown, in trying to portray yourself as the economic wise man who can offer avuncular advice to the novice. It won’t make up for Britain’s reluctance to offer many more troops in Afghanistan – and the US suspicion that even if Brown wanted to, he couldn’t.

To Washington eyes never has Britain seemed more like toytown than in the heady first 48 hours of the Obama White House. But even if the attention that Obama’s military advisers pay to British affairs is slight, it takes only a second to register the hard numbers.

They can see at a glance the cuts in military spending, the shrinking of the Army and the national debt. It doesn’t take much to work out that this means cutbacks, and mysterious delays in expensive new kit. It is significant that Robert Gates has stayed on as Defence Secretary from the Bush era. He shares this scepticism about Britain’s future military contribution, officials suggest.

There is more along the same lines to the degree that for all the niceties and politeness, the Americans are not really taking Britain seriously as a major contributor to further suppliers of troops.

Of course what will happen is that the British Government will hastily scrabble together some sort of financial package - undoubtedly at the cost to something more worthwhile - to ensure that we 'keep our end up'. Good Lord we can't have these American chappies suggesting that we're not up to the task! Let's keep supplying troops somehow even if they don't have protective body armour, if they have crap boots, if the planes are not coated with anti inflammatory spray. Let's put lives at risk!! Anything rather than admit that we can't hack it any more.

It is a policy which is utterly ridiculous. As I have said many times before, Britain should concentrate its attention on being a full participant in Europe and that includes supporting a European Defence Force which can take on military actions which involve the defence of Europe and to which Britian will supply a reasonable number of troops.

We should back off these ridiculous international commitments, many of which our electorate, if consulted, would not support anyway, and cut our cloth according to our means. It is insane for our politicians to continue making military promises we are not in a position to honour - and furthermore it is criminal to do so by cheeseparing on armour and equipment which increases the dangers for soldiers already doing a highly dangerous job.

There might be change in DC but here its business as usual

2009-01-22T14:35:00.006Z

Having heard Barack Obama talk about a new code of ethics for the Washington political set up, I was tempted to hope this was one American bandwagon our own politicians might jump onto.

We've had this disgraceful attempt by our MPs to evade accountability under the Freedom of Information Act and, as has sadly become so regular since assuming the leadership, Gordon Brown behaving like a big girl's blouse. At first he seemed to side with those demanding exemption and has now pitifully done an about turn. The man doesn't seem to lead. He sticks his finger in the air and follows the prevailing wind. When it comes to finance the man is in his element - on anything else he seems pitifully out of his depth. Why should these people be treated differently to everyone else? It is quite clear, given the panic, that some people have a lot to hide.

Then we have Peter Hain, though not deemed guilty of a criminal offence, severely reprimanded by the Commons standards watchdog committee for a late declaration of £103,000! And it is said that he only avoided a prosecution because police could not find out 'who was responsible for logging and declaring the donations' Doh!! What? Isn't it a simple case of looking at the structure of Hain's campaign team and demanding who was responsible? I can't see the police walking away that easily frustrated from a private company...or from you and me.

And even Uncle Boring over at the Ministry of Injustice has been carpeted for failing to declare £3000 - despite being reminded two years ago.

It's about time the Government got its house in order. I don't think it's corrupt but it's become arrogant and sloppy. Maybe the government should spend more time kicking ass over politicians practising what they preach instead of some of these pettifogging bits of offences they seem so obsessed with - 3000 in eleven years. Maybe a code of commons ethics with teeth should be much higher on their agenda.

Maybe the honeymoon has to end but today was marvellous

2009-01-20T20:14:00.003Z

I switched on the CNN channel this afternoon because, for obvious reasons, it had a much longer coverage of Barack Obama's inauguration than did the British TV channels and I wanted to soak up the kind of atmosphere that seemed to heighten as the day progressed. There were interviews with Americans from different walks of life and the mood was unmistakeably one of excited anticipation - not just of the day but of a sea change in American politics. Only time will tell, of course, if they are right.

I have watched American Presidential inaugurations before mainly because 'they were on' and just kind of watched the goings on while vacuuming or making phone calls. Never before have I sat down and watched the thing non-stop for four solid hours. I even made a salutary ritual of it by pouring myself a glass of single malt and raising it to my lips as the clock struck noon in Washington and Obama was now President ....and Bush and his hideous administration were a memory.

And that is a part of it for me and, I suspect, many other Europeans. Not only is it a historic inauguration because Obama is an African American - which makes it an election of historic significance - but also because rarely can an outgoing administration have been so detested throughout the rest of the non American world.
Gone are the architects of Iraq, the Neros who fiddled while Katrina wreaked its havoc on New Orleans, the shysters who ignored Eisenhower's warning about the dangers of the Military Industrial complex and got rich directorships in companies like Carlyle and Halliburton, the guys who thought climate change was someone else's problem and that the rules of the World Trade Organisation on protectionism applied to everyone else not the USA.

Now the world has an American President who is singing from a different hymn sheet and I only hope his hopes and fine words can be matched by action. That can only be judged after the magic 100 days but his inauguration speech was a fine and biting one. It was almost European in its delivery - I say almost because there was the reference to God and faith which is a mandatory element in American politics and would be the kiss of death in England - but otherwise there was a clear, strong unambiguous statement of intent to do a lot of things very differently. I heard talk of a deliberate reconciliation with the Muslim world based on mutual respect, of an Administration that intends to exhaust diplomacy before military options are considered. An acknowledgment that the rest of the world - and its perception of America - actually matters!!! Dear Lord above, what is going on? Did my ears deceive me? No they didn't. That's what he said and I believe he means it. If he carries all this through, America will earn more respect than for decades.

Obama certainly has a personality but its not the same kind of personality as Bush - or for that matter many other American politicians. He's not a folksy, good 'ol boy. He's not always ready with a wink and a smile on cue. He doesn't have that 'well I'm just one of you guys' appeal which seems to captivate so many American hearts.

He is almost a political loner. He doesn't try to ingratiate himself. He doesn't need to. He's a man who seems to believe he has the ability to lead and has the confidence to do it. He has, at the moment, my unqualified admiration and my warmest best wishes for the task ahead. He will need every good wish and every prayer going to accomplish it.

The return of a political heavyweight

2009-01-19T19:30:00.004Z

I am pleased to see Kenneth Clarke back in front line politics. For one thing he is a Tory with a set of principles and some intellect. People understand what he says and where he stands. I reckon there will be some interesting political jousting between Peter Mandelson and Clarke for both are men with considerable experience and ability. I think politics can ill afford to lose people of quality, there are already too many people who have been promoted above their level of competence.

I also think his appointment could be an explosive ingredient which blows the Tory electoral ship off course. It is of course well known that Clarke is a Europhile in contrast with the Tory party line and just about every other member of the shadow cabinet. Although he says he is 'content' to accept the line on Europe, is he content to accept everything else? Clarke has always been a free spirit and if elements of Tory economic strategy seem to be diverging from the things Clarke believes to be right - and that's far from impossible - will Clarke remain silent then?.

This appointment could be a major mistake for the Tory election prospects and sow the seeds of rift and division which Labour can exploit before the next election. One can but hope, anyway!

Saluting a great feat

2009-01-17T20:51:00.002Z

Current affairs blogs, like the news in all its forms, tend to be dominated by the negative - criticism of countries, politicians etc so its nice, just occasionally, to be able to say 'what a wonderful achievement'.

And the skill shown by Captain Chesley Sullenberger in landing an Airbus in the Hudson River so skilfully that no one was killed and the aircraft ditched without breaking up was truly amazing. The 57 year old pilot, although a military pilot of many years experience, had hardly any time in which to make a momentous decision when a flock of birds took out both engines. He had to decide in seconds whether he could make it back to La Guardia and land safely, to do as he was advised and land at the small Teterboro airfield or to ditch the plane in the river.

That he chose the last, avoided the George Washington bridge, found a stretch of the Hudson free of bridges , boats and the like and put the plane down so carefully that it avoided breaking up showed astonishing reactions, cool nerve and skill.

Captain Sullenberger deserves all the accolades coming his way.

Miliband showing his muscles

2009-01-15T13:30:00.003Z

I was listening to the boy wonder Miliband, who has breezily announced that the British government has long thought the terminology 'war on terror' was a bad idea. Wow!! I wonder if this burst of British freedom of thought is linked in anyway to the fact that Bush is leaving his post and thus his British acolytes no longer feel the need to stand in line.

It must be very liberating for Miliband to feel free to express such radical opinions knowing that the new President has slightly more liberal sentiments than his predecessor.

Is this really a new dawn for British independent thought or will it all wither on the vine if Obama finds the realities of power compel a different approach from his promises? I suspect that this brave new attitude will last just as long as it is consistent with American aims, and when it does not...the naughty boys and girls will retire to their seats and shut up once more.

Dyslexia remark stupid but.......

2009-01-15T10:18:00.002Z

Graham Stringer has made himself look a complete nit-wit with his comment that there is no such thing as dyslexia, although it's not the first time such comments have been made. Professor Julian Elliott from Durham University made the same allegation three years ago and said that dyslexia was a contrived condition with no scientific or medical basis and that the reasons for its elevation as a more prevalent condition in society was because it was an 'emotional construct' designed to protect children who read badly and who, it is felt, need to feel better about themselves.

Although experts point to certain neurological traits in sufferers from dyslexia, it is true that there are no clear and accepted neurological symptoms on which every medical expert can agree.

Although Graham Stringer has clearly put himself up to be shot down, I do feel there may be something in both his and Professor Elliott's suggestion that too many kids are being defined as dyslexic simply because of poor teaching methods. No child learns to read with quite the same facility as another and my concern would be that educationalists are finding 'dyslexia' to be an easy label and including too many children in too wide a web. The worry for me here is that too many children are effectively being labeled as suffering from a disability and packed off to some special needs facility when what they really need is more individual help and a more understanding home environment.

I am certainly not joining Mr Stringer in suggesting that 'word blindness' does not exist but I am suggesting that 'dyslexia' might have joined those words it's fashionable to toss out to explain a slowness in grasping a particular skill, which probably takes something away from the 1 or 2% of children, classed as dyslexic, whose inability is total and who do need special help.

Browns giveaway scheme just chasing losses?

2009-01-12T19:29:00.006Z

I hate to say it, but I don't believe Gordon Brown's financial incentive scheme to train people, who have been out of work longer than 6 months, is going to work. Sure the companies will take the money and go through the motions of fulfilling their obligations but, I believe, companies are basically exploitative and will already be employing accountants to work out how long they need to keep people on to fulfill basic obligations before letting them go.

I still remember the Development Areas programme under Harold Wilson. Great idea, nominating areas of high unemployment as Development Areas and pouring in loads of taxpayers money to ensure factories got moved to the north- east and Scotland. The companies bought the deal then as soon as it was legally and economically convenient, closed the factories and left everyone as badly off as before.

I don't believe you can artificially correct unemployment, not by trusting the good nature of private enterprise anyway. If there are no real jobs to do these trainees will be out of the door as soon as the government money dries up. And then what? Training has a limited shelf life. You might know how to weld the underside of a vehicle or spray paint an SUV - but if the recession is a long one and you have had no chance to use those skills then employers wont look at you twice.

Far better, I believe, if government money is used in government directed schemes - road building or housing, for example where the work is guaranteed for a considerable period of time. Unless you suspend the whole principle of capitalist based economics, attempts to artificially keep people employed are doomed to failure, in my opinion. I wish Brown's initiative well but I fear for the success of it.

A minor notoriety who inspired a great song

2009-01-11T11:11:00.004Z

It was announced this week that William Zantzinger had died at the age of 69. This rather unpleasant man would not have been remembered at all but for the fact that a crime he committed in 1963 resulted in a Bob Dylan song called 'The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll' which was included on Dylan's 'Times they are a Changin'' album released in 1964 which contained a whole host of gems.

Zantzinger (right) is pictured with his wife and lawyer outside the Baltimore courtroom

The report of Zantzinger's crime and what he did later in his life - extorting rents from black people who lived in shanties he no longer owned - is contained here.

Zantzinger was, apparently, angry at the treatment he received in Dylan's song saying it was unfair and loaded but he sounds like one hell of an unpleasant guy to me, so my sympathy for any distortion or 'poetic licence' is considerably muted.

The Great White Tribe that rule us

2009-01-10T23:05:00.008Z

Prince Harry has been carpeted for following in the footsteps of his revered grandfather in being completely oblivious to the effects of racist terminology,- dismally depressing particularly when used by a member of the Great White Tribe which sits at the head of our multi-cultural, multi-racial state.

He is supposed to have called an army colleague a 'Paki' as a jest, for which he has apologised. Well personally I'm not going to get too worked up about that. He is a silly lad from a silly family which has no concept of the sensitivities of ordinary people who work for a living.

What disturbed me more was the explanation put out by St.James Palace for that and for another term he used - 'Raghead' The Palace propaganda machine put out the following statement.

'In using the term 'raghead', the Prince had no intention of insulting a friend. He was using it to refer to a member of the Taleban or Iraqi insurgent'

Oh well that's all right then. As long as they're the enemy it doesn't matter, presumably, if the Prince refers to them as 'sand niggers', 'coons', 'wogs' or any other term that might take his fancy. Do this exotic tribe from Buck House have any concept of the real world?

Brown nose award

2009-01-05T23:43:00.002Z

It was announced today that departing President George Bush is to reward his most slavish foreign acolytes with the US Medal of Freedom, the highest honour, apparently, America can bestow on those foreign servants who have faithfully done its bidding.

AS well as that example of Socialist excellence, Anthony Lynton Blair, the medal goes to John Howard the former Prime Minister of Australia and Alvaro Uribe, President of Colombia. Just the sort of political company Blair deserves - this man of the people whose departure has been such a source of sadness to the entire Labour Party.

Well I can't show you the actual medal just the container in which it comes:-

Inching ever closer to a police state?

2009-01-05T09:00:00.002Z

'The Times' reported yesterday that the Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan which allows police to hack into our computers without a warrant. This has, apparently been sponsored by Brussels, and is considered to be an important new step in the fight against internet crime.

But, I seriously ask, does there come a point at which the excuses given by government for giving police ever greater snooping powers, have to be weighed against the effects on us as a society?

Tony Blair reacted very angrily in the Commons, some years ago, when the accusation 'leading a police state' was thrown at him by an opposition MP. But just consider the number of CCTV cameras in our streets, the rights of police to intercept our e mails, the ability from Jan26th this year for police to raid your home to see if you possess 'dangerous pictures' and now an endorsement of their right to hack into your home PC.

I'm sure the Home Office could quote loads of statistics on how this will assist in the fight against crime. But what protection does the average citizen get against abuse of this privilege. It is not sufficient for self-satisfied guardians of law and order to say 'If you've done nothing wrong, you don't need to worry'. Apart from this being the wrong premise to adopt from the start, what constitutes 'wrong' as evidenced by the Dangerous Pictures Act , is ever changing and seemingly on a political whim.

I wish 'Liberty' had more teeth. I wish our MPs had more guts in opposing this kind of thing without clear and workable safeguards in place. For those who think I am scaremongering, just look at how we reviled the Soviet Union some years back for the sinister policy of spying on all its citizens and how we said 'Thank God we live in a democracy. That could never happen here!'

A major test for Obama

2008-12-30T21:57:00.004Z

As if the incoming President had nothing else to do - like getting America back to work,trying to resolve the financial mess etc - he has one massive foreign policy challenge ahead of him and it's called Palestine.

The issue that George Bush chose to put on the back-burner is something which Obama desperately needs to bring to the front of America's foreign policy agenda. Why? Because America has the power and influence to broker some kind of an urgently needed deal to get Israeli - Palestinian negotiations back on track.

The situation which escalated this week has hideous possibilities. Given the hatred that exists between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel, it was always a massive uphill climb to hope for a lasting peace, but when Hamas won the elections in Gaza in 2006 that situation took an even more sinister turn. The Israelis are having to deal with two Palestinian governments which don't trust each other and both hate Israel.

While Israel is prepared to deal with the Palestinian Authority in the west bank it will not deal with Hamas in Gaza, regarding the organisation as terrorist and not to be recognised. Fair enough, some may say, given that Hamas has declared that Israel has no right to exist - but perhaps Israel should look back to the late 1940s when its own freedom organisations were regarded by the British in exactly the same light.

There is a lot to be said about wording. Hamas has said it does not recognise Israel's right to exist. That could be a long way from a vow to destroy the Israeli state. However reluctant Israel may be to deal with these Gaza 'terrorists' maybe they have to swallow their own vomit and get round the table.

Certainly what has happened this week cannot be allowed to continue. Hamas has continued to provoke the Israelis, firing 80 rockets a day into the country and randomly killing its citizens. No nation on earth is going to put up with that. But Hamas knows that when Israel strikes back it does so with a vengeance. Hamas is surely inviting Israel to commit to a ground war which, even if it 'wins' (whatever winning means in this context) the international condemnation will be so great that Hamas will have won a diplomatic victory.

This is where, I believe, the new American government can play a strong leading diplomatic role. Obama has a lot of good will and credibility going for him at the moment and maybe he can rescue America from some of the opprobrium surrounding the Bush legacy by making this issue of the Palestine -Israeli conflict a primary one. America must try its best to persuade Israel to sit down with both Hamas and the Palestine Authority and it must, I believe, commit diplomatic resources to spurring on such a coming together and more to be a key player in hammering out the basis of a new independent Palestinian state.

It's not going to be easy, far from it. It is going to be a major diplomatic headache, maybe for some years to come. But I believe America is best placed to exert pressure and influence on both parties and to come through with the kind of diplomacy which used to be an American by-word.

During the invasion of Iraq, one cynical US military chief said 'We don't DO nation building'. Well I believe that's exactly what America has to try and do as a top priority, with European help. If not and these fierce adversaries are just left to go the way Gaza has gone this week, the middle east will soon be another bloody inferno and it will be too late to do anything about it.

The Pope's depressing mediaeval message

2008-12-27T14:23:00.003Z

I've been away over Christmas hence the lack of updates to the blog and I would certainly have commented on this issue before. There must be millions of progressive Catholics all around the world shaking their heads in sorrow at the Pope's choice of Christmas message.

Pope Benedict's Christmas message, which said that saving humanity from homosexuality was at least the equal of saving the world from the effects of climate change, was shameful and a throw-back to attitudes at least 100 years out of date.

Comments of this sort from the head of the world's biggest Christian faith can do nothing but stir up hatred and discord when the secular forces in the western world have sought to overcome these traditional attitudes which blighted our society for too long.

Does the Pope think a person chooses his or her sexuality? Surely that is something as ordained by God (if He exists) as one's ability to be a Shakespeare or an Einstein?

It is one thing to suggest what membership of a particular Christian church believe...that is the Pope's right as head of that church and the right of others to either endorse that view or disagree with it, but the Pope went much further than that. He suggested that the human race was in peril from homosexuals..and that is akin to witch-hunting - at which the Catholic Church has proved notoriously enthusiastic over the centuries.

Anyone would think homosexuality was a new 'fad' rather than an orientation which has existed since human beings existed and it is so depressingly mediaeval that the Pope should use his Christmas message - supposedly bringing peace and love to ALL mankind - to create division and the possibility of encouraging 'gay-bashing' as a result.

It is not merely depressing but grossly hypocritical coming from a church which not only opposes the genuine love between two people of the same sex, but is so keen to avoid tarnishing the reputation of its clergy that when homosexual abuse of young children has been committed by the Church's own representatives, it has gone to great lengths to cover it up and protect the guilty regardless of the misery inflicted on those unfortunate children.

The best they could get from a squalid tragedy

2008-12-12T17:15:00.007Z

The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot dead by police marksmen at Stockwell tube station three years ago, in the mistaken belief that he was a suicide bomber, have returned an Open verdict on his death.

Whatever gloss the police might try to put on this, it is a devastating indictment of their behaviour, particularly after the tragic incident, where officers have clearly lied in their teeth to protect themselves. The coroner ruled out a verdict of Unlawful Killing as an option, otherwise I reckon the jury may well have returned such a verdict. There was certainly no grounds for the outcome desired by the police, that of Lawful Killing, not only because they got the wrong man but because the procedures were flawed and several officers covered up the truth.

The result is the best the De Menezes family could have got, though the family must feel anger as well as grief that some police officers are getting off the hook. The De Menezes family lawyer suggested that perjury charges could be brought against officers who claimed to have shouted a warning which none of the tube train passengers heard, but that option has been ruled out of order.

What is SO distressing about the case is not the tragic death itself - though of course to the family of the dead man it is everything. It was understandable in those anxiety fraught hours and days after the July 7th bombings that police officers would take extreme measures to stop a repeat and that there was the possibility of a mistake being made.

What has angered me throughout is that the police seem to have been unable to put their hands up and say 'we made an honest mistake which has cost a man his life and we are more sorry than you can imagine'

Instead a smoke screen was thrown up, a tissue of lies about De Menezes vaulting the barrier to escape the law, suggestions that he was an illegal immigrant (as if that made killing him justified in any case) We now know too that the firearms police believed they were operating under Kratos, a strategy the British special firearms unit adopted, secretly, from training they absorbed at the hands of the Israeli security forces. Basically this says, if you are virtually certain you have the right man, don't shout a warning because they will blow the device. Instead open fire to the head and kill them. (The bullets they use, incidentally, are fragment on impact bullets which virtually destroy the victim's brain and do not go through the body, thus are safer in a crowded place).

Now I can understand why they believed this to be such a situation, (wrongly directed though it was and I am yet to fathom how the operational control seems to have skated out from under this mess...except of course for the ritual 'falling on his sword' of Sir Iain Blair. The officers who were directly responsible are still in post) What I cannot understand is why, once the error was realised, the police had to concoct all sorts of stories about shouting warnings and De Menezes reaching for something suddenly. All of this, as testified by eye-witnesses, is rubbish.

We seem to have a situation where specially trained police units are told to operate in a way which is outside the code of practice laid down for armed confrontation. However they are not to ever ADMIT that such a covert policy is in existence and to go through the theatre of claiming that they had taken such and such an action in accordance with the rule-book.

One of the two men shown above, C2, who shot De Menezes broke down in the witness box and said it was a burden he would have to carry for the rest of his life. And I believe him. But he HAS his life and that of his family. The De Menezes family have lost an innocent son to a horrible operational mistake.

I don't suggest for a minute that the police officers are any happier than anyone else that an innocent man died. I believe that they set out to do their duty in protecting the public from bombers..and that is a brave and honourable thing to do. What is neither brave nor honourable, is, once a mistake has been realised, to do everything possible to obstruct the course of justice by claiming all sorts of actions on their part which didn't happen...and all sorts of actions by the dead man -also which didn't happen - which impugn him and his family.

When are the police going to realise that the public would have far more respect for them if they told the straight, honest truth that they tried to do the right thing and failed. We are all human, we can all understand that. What the public cannot stomach, from our guardians of law and order, is a tissue of lies every time a serious mistake is made, designed to cover arses. That HAS to stop.

Human rights and how to circumnavigate them

2008-12-08T09:30:00.005Z

This Wednesday, December 10th, is Human Rights Day. It is the acknowledgment of two things. The fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came into being 60 years ago this week affirming basic human rights to every man, woman and child on earth. The second acknowledgment is that the Declaration is cynically trampled on day by day, hour by hour all over the world.

Last Saturday, Amnesty International, of which I am an active member, held a human rights card signing for prisoners of conscience all around the world, at St Martins Church in Birmingham's Bull Ring Centre and, as always, attracted a lot of people into the church annexe to sign the cards. Maybe they will forget all about it later but it pricks a conscience every year and maybe some of those people will do more than walk by and sign cards. Maybe some will become involved.

Later that evening another Birmingham Amnesty group sponsored a music and poetry evening at Birmingham's Library Theatre for a group of people called 'Writers without borders' - a group of talented people from all over the world who have settled here, many of whom are victims of oppression in their original homelands. The talent was considerable but the sincerity of purpose was even more impressive and I left feeling uplifted.

Even walking nearly 5 miles to my home on icy pavements, thanks to the city being gridlocked by late night shoppers and not a bus in sight, failed to dampen my good spirits.

What did - and what should dampen yours if you are British - is to look at the commitment to human rights by our two main political parties. Although the Conservative Party -as one would expect - is the most shamelessly hostile to being 'hostage' to all the provisions of the human rights declaration, the Labour government is not much better, with its attitude of 'we're all in favour of human rights provided they don't inconvenience us too much'

The Tories have blatantly threatened to repeal the Human Rights Act if - God forbid - they get into power at the next election. The Labour Party - which passed the Human Rights Act in 1988 - has since pathetically, shamefully backed off it and has derogated from the European Convention on Human Rights, claiming -as do all pathetic governments when doing squalid deeds like this - 'national emergency' and 'threats to national security'. Well apart from the fact that such threats have been invited by the hideous, foul decision to back Bush and make war on Iraq, there is no excuse for any government to tear up a basic fundamental right of any human being, regardless of the extra effort to pursue the truth. Yes people who were party to acts of aggression against the UK have to be arrested and tried. But they MUST be given full legal representation and they MUST be treated with humanity, regardless of what they are suspected of. You do not prove your human rights credentials by sinking into the same tactics as the people you accuse. Sometimes it is hard work and a government faces criticism for a 'soft approach'. But such criticism HAS to be overcome.

A person's human rights are not negotiable by governments on the basis of necessary expediency. And where those rights are trampled on, governments should be held to account either in the appropriate European or International Courts of justice. And that holds true for the Americans in particular whose shameful refusal to recognise or endorse an International Criminal Court has been another stain on the Bush administration. Their reluctance, of course, following the invasion of Iraq is understandable and self preserving - but shameful, nonetheless.

Barack Obama has claimed that he will 're-visit' the issue of American participation without actually promising 100% support for the Court but I am hopeful, in the light of his other commitments, that he will add this to his list of moves to turn America around to being the moral force it ought to be. The world will be a better place when all the major powers realise that they have an obligation to practice what they preach.

Human rights is not something you can sweep under the carpet if it doesn't happen to suit your agenda. If December 10th does nothing else it should remind us all of that.

Why the system fails children at risk

2008-12-05T16:09:00.009Z

I don't usually 'lift' articles from newspapers but I'm afraid of losing this one from yesterday's Times Law Review by Martha Cover a member of the Family Law Bar Association and, in my opinion, one of the clearest most dispassionate analyses of why child protection sometimes fails, and why, in the opinion of the writer, changes in legislation regarding child protection are likely to produce more 'Baby P' s unless something is done to change the culture within government and social services.

"Ed Balls moved swiftly to remove Sharon Shoesmith from her post, and states that every local council must learn the lessons of Baby P’s death. But in many ways, Shoesmith was the perfect children’s director for the new-look Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Since 2004 two of the goals set by the department have been to reduce the number of children subject to formal or legal protection by the courts. The numbers of children in care and on the child protection register had to come down. And they did.

Last December, four months after Baby P’s death, an Ofsted report praised Shoesmith’s regime for this dangerous achievement. To any childcare lawyer or judge it does not seem credible that in December 2006, social workers could hand the nine-month-old to a young friend of his mother’s, when a paediatrician and police had decided that his head injury and bruising were suspicious. They allowed him to drift home after a few weeks because the police were unable to identify the perpetrator and charge anyone with a crime.

Baby P should have been the subject of a legal planning meeting between social workers and a local authority solicitor. An application for an interim care order should have been made to the family proceedings court. A judge or magistrates would then have been asked to decide if he should go home or not, including Baby P’s court-appointed guardian. But not only was Baby P not offered the protection of the court and a guardian, the social workers did not seek legal advice until July 2007. How could this have happened?

In 2004 Every Child Matters, a very important Green Paper, was published. The aim was to provide for all children by joining up services provided by education, health and social services. The focus was to be on early prevention and intervention. These services have failed to materialise.

The one clear effect has been to raise the threshold of risk to frightening levels before social workers will take legal action. The Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) have ignored repeatedly the serious impact this policy has had on children at risk.

These were the national findings of the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) from 2004-07: “Access to family support for many families in need is severely restricted. Families in considerable distress on the threshold of family breakdown and serious harm are not getting the sustained support they need. Some services operate inappropriately high thresholds in responding to child protection concerns and taking action to protect children . . .” This warning went unheeded. In April last year responsibility for inspecting children’s social services was taken away from CSCI and handed over to Ofsted, diluting expertise and marginalising the role of in-depth inspection in child protection.

In the summer of 2007 a procedure for care proceedings, called the Public Law Outline or PLO, was piloted. It was designed by senior family judges with the intention of reducing delay in court proceedings by ensuring that social workers had assessed the family thoroughly before going to court.

However, it placed burdens on local authority social workers and lawyers for which they were completely unprepared. Social services departments had neither the people nor the resources to carry out the in-depth pre-action assessments required. They took fewer and fewer cases to court.

Last March the MoJ published findings of government research into care proceedings brought in 24 different courts in 2004. The conclusions were unequivocal: “There is no evidence that local authorities bring care proceedings without good reason . . . The expectations of local authority practice in preparation for care proceedings under the PLO far exceed what was undertaken or could have been undertaken before action to protect the child in most of the sample cases.”

On the first page of the summary of the research, led by Professor Judith Masson, there is an MoJ disclaimer: “The views expressed in this research summary are those of the author, not necessarily those for the Ministry of Justice (nor do they reflect government policy).” On April 1, with no attempt to evaluate its impact on child protection, the MoJ and the Department for Children, Schools and Families launched the PLO nationwide.

In May the ministry increased the court issue fee for care proceedings from £150 to £4,000. Five issue fees could pay for a family support worker for a year. Ten could pay for a senior inner city social worker. Ministers and the Association of Directors of Children’s Social Services repeated their bland assurances that this would not affect the protection of children, because local authorities still had a statutory duty to issue care proceedings. There was a
further immediate drop in care proceedings.

The Government does not like care proceedings. Nor do local authority managers. The reason is cost, both to the legal aid fund and to authorities, who are ordered to carry out comprehensive assessments that have been needed for years but never done.

Each care case is a mini-inquiry into the welfare of the child, his development and needs, his family circumstances, the ability of his family to care for him, and the amount of support and assistance they have been offered or would accept. Judges are often critical of local authorities’ failure to intervene sooner and more effectively, even where the family has been known to them for years. In case after case, one reads of the alarm being raised by health visitors, schools and neighbours. After short-term intervention, there is the constant refrain “case closed”.

Children will come on to the child protection register, and then, when things improve slightly, come off. Support and monitoring is withdrawn. This is the trigger for another crisis, within days or weeks. But local authorities are now set targets to reduce the number of children on the register for more than two years, and to avoid children being put back on the register once they have come off. This source of protection for children is also actively discouraged. The ministry research has established that more than 90 per cent of families in care proceedings are already known to social services, and more than 45 per cent for five years or more, before proceedings are taken.

Care proceedings can also have an impact on parents who may have been lulled into a false sense of security by years of ad hoc and intermittent intervention. When they find themselves in a courtroom they know they are in serious trouble. They get automatic access to legal advice and robust advice from an experienced lawyer can change their understanding of the concerns. Finally, many parents will listen to a judge when they will not listen to anyone else.

Children’s social work is about managing risk. It is a complex and skilled task, requiring close observation, the ability to talk to people, time spent with the child and his parents in their home. It is extraordinary what a difference a good social worker can make. Good social workers will use the court process to share the responsibility with the judge and get help and resources for the child. But these social workers often achieve what they do in spite of, and not because of, their managers. Their judgments are often overruled by managers chasing targets who have never met the child or his family. They are under pressure to complete paper work assessments, churning out low-grade checklist documents. Time spent talking to the parents and observing the child is devalued.

Children need to be protected from harm, and parents need to be protected from the improper interference and the unjust exercise of power by public authorities. The judges, guardians and lawyers help to ensure that the child is protected, against further abuse, against social workers unable to see the danger in the plausible but deceitful mother, and also against the promotion of government targets over the interests of the individual child."

Martha Cover - the author

A man who fell to the occasion

2008-12-05T14:48:00.002Z

Michael Martin is a man I ought, in theory, to endorse as Speaker of the House of Commons. He has the kind of background of which Socialist legends are made. His father was a merchant seaman and his mother a school cleaner. He was a trade unionist from his teens who joined the Labour Party in 1966 when he was 21. He became a Labour MP for Glasgow Springburn in 1979 and served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary from 1980 - 1983. He served on various Parliamentary committees for the next 17 years, doing all the right things, and finally was chosen to succeed Betty Boothroyd as Speaker in 2000. The appointment was controversial as it had been convention to alternate the leading political parties in the Speakers role but Martin succeeded his fellow Labour MP.

The result has, in my opinion, been a grievous mistake. Martin's performance as speaker has constantly courted controversy, not least on the question of his claiming expenses.He was much criticised last year for using tax payers money to pay for lawyers to block negative press stories about him. He has refused to allow his wife to be security vetted and has also tried to block the publication of MPs expense sheets - presumably because they may well reflect on his own claims. He was investigated after his wife went on shopping trips and incurred £4000 in taxi fares which Martin subsequently claimed. He also charged the refurbishment of his home to expenses at a cost of £1.7 MILLION - the sort of figures most of us could only dream of.

Then, last week, came the arrest of Damian Green, the Tory immigration spokesman during which police searched Green's office in the House of Commons. Questions were asked about who had given the police permission to conduct such a search, the ultimate responsibility being Martin's. He came to the Commons on Wednesday with a speech designed to clarify the issue.

In my opinion the speech was hapless. Martin came across like some stumbling, insecure Uriah Heep putting most of the responsibility on the Serjeant-at-arms, Jill Pay. I have no doubt that Martin probably did find out too late to do much about it but being a public figure is all about taking responsibility. Martin's red-faced shuffling performance, punctuated with cries of 'Order' before he was even interrupted, came across like a 'nothing to do with me, guv' rebuttal.

It was not a performance guaranteed to inspire confidence and although it is convention to publicly support the Speaker, MPs can hardly fail to have been discomfited by the clear avoidance of responsibility shown by the senior figure in the Commons.

I believe Mick Martin should stand down as Speaker. This performance must, for many MPs have finally sapped whatever confidence was left in a man whose record in the role - both in the chamber and in his dealings outside it - has been sadly disappointing.

Do we need to think differently about child welfare?

2008-12-02T08:10:00.006Z

So the predicted 'night of the long knives' following the report into the Baby P case has taken place. Ed Balls, the Secretary for Children, has done what was expected and suspended or sacked a number of senior child welfare staff in Haringey.

I have spoken to a number of social workers on line over the last 24 hours and there isn't one who thinks this is anything more than window-dressing. The problems still remain of a government which wants to see statistics which look good, furnished by a social services executive in every major council which ticks all the right boxes, and case workers on the ground who feel their bosses are too far removed from the action and don't understand their concerns.

It would seem that we need to change a number of things within the machinery if there is to be any perceptible change in the success rate within child protection. The obvious one of these - and I'm sorry if its TOO obvious - is that it wasn't Sharon Shoesmith, Cecilia Hitchen, Maria Ward or any of the other people who were sacked or suspended yesterday, who knocked Baby P about until the poor little mite was almost unrecognisable - it was the guardians with whom he lived. There may have been failings in Haringey and I am sure they are repeated in child protection services across the country, simply because these people have a thankless task and are battling under legal constraints and red tape which make their job often difficult and sometimes impossible.

And that, I believe, is the first and most fundamental change we need to consider - the culture that says a child is always better off with its parents. There seems to be some romantic delusion about parents and children bonding when facts would tell you that while giving birth to a child is a biological fact, loving it afterwards is far from a given.

Seems to me that we need to be a bit tougher in this area, no matter how many heartfelt cries and tears from 'distraught' parents when their children are taken away. Most people,I believe, no matter what the stresses and strains of daily lives which prompt anger and frustration would NEVER in a million years take those frustrations out on a baby. It is a mind set. If you are capable of beating up a child once, then frankly, do you ever deserve to be trusted with children again?

The second step has to be legal. I understand that the costs of obtaining a child protection order have increased over 20 times in the last 12 months, prompting councils to be more cautious about even taking such a step. Surely this is wrong and needs urgent review. Nobody wants a situation where social services act like the Gestapo. But at the moment they clearly do not have the balance of the law on their side. And that needs to change..and change fast!

Questions to be answered over Damian Green

2008-11-29T07:01:00.004Z

There are serious questions which need urgent answers after the arrest of Conservative Immigration spokesman Damian Green on Thursday. There is no doubt that he has discomfited the government on a number of occasions over recent months, with information known to be leaked from the Home Office. Green was arrested on suspicion of 'aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office', held for 9 hours and released on police bail - due to face further questioning in February.

It is clear that Green got his information from a Home Office 'mole' - information which the government clearly did not want published - and that forms the substance of the charges.

But this raises very serious questions about the ability of the Opposition to do its job and the role of the police in such matters. There are issues which any opposition sees as being in the public interest which governments will try to suppress - primarily because its not in their interest rather than the public's. Gordon Brown is saying that government ministers were not involved in any way in the police decision to raid Green's parliamentary office and his two homes.

This may well be true. But I think it needs to be clear to everyone what did motivate the police action and exactly why, without any hiding behind some 'compromising future legal proceeedings' bullshit. The police need to come clean about what evidence they acted on in this case and who initiated the arrests.

We do need to be certain, regardless of our choice of governments, that democratic rights of Her Majesty's opposition are not being hindered and threatened by a wrongful use of police intervention.

Picture of the week

2008-11-27T23:45:00.004Z

Remember him? Cheney's puppet? The guy who used to pretend he was running America until Obama stepped in and relieved him of a job for which he was hopelessly out of his depth? Well, he's obviously decided to go back to what he clearly does best

Has the bottom fallen out of Cameron's boat?

2008-11-25T18:35:00.004Z

A few months ago, Gordon Brown was on the ropes...no, worse,he was half way through the ropes heading for a knock out at the next general election. His handling of the government was criticised, local election results were dreadful for Labour and the knives were out. David Cameron, on the other hand, was basking in the sure knowledge that he was Prime Minister-in-waiting, the British public certain to hand him the next election on a platter. The Tories were riding high in the polls. In a thriving economy, Cameron's arguments about Labour overspending and how his Tories could match the government's spending plans on necessary health and educational improvements without resorting to more borrowing - in fact robbing Peter to pay Paul - had met sympathetic ears.

Then came the credit crunch and the failure of the banks. Out of a financial disaster came Gordon Brown's hopes of salvation. Although the public blamed the government for some mistakes - not least the shilly shallying over the future of Northern Rock - it has bought Labour's contention that the problem is world-wide and needs extraordinary financial leadership. And, amazingly, despite being the party of government, and the Prime Minister being the man who has presided over Britain's fiscal policies for 11 years, it was to Brown the public has turned for leadership.

Suddenly Gordon was in his element. More, he was bestriding the globe like a financial colossus, hectoring, nagging, bullying governments - and especially America's - to follow his lead and spend their way out of trouble. Incredibly the United States Republican government has flirted with a form of socialism, baling out Wall Street to keep the banking system alive, intervening to pump money into the economy - policies which America would never have contemplated once.

And suddenly Cameron looks out of touch, caught off guard. He has had to do a series of U turns on what Conservative policy now is. They wont try and match the governments spending plans, they don't believe in spending our way out of a recession. The trouble is it's not clear what they do believe in. The situation seems to have caught them completely on the hop and at present Cameron is floundering.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that the Conservatives are now a busted flush. But certainly their serene stroll to power which not too long ago seemed inevitable is no longer the case. The budget of Alistair darling yesterday is a mind-boggling gamble which, if it fails, could plunge Britain into the level of recession not seen in decades. But if it works and the financial repayment strategy works to plan we could see, come the next election, one of the greatest revivals since Lazarus.

Is the blame-game a knee jerk response?

2008-11-15T23:33:00.003Z

The saga of tragic little Baby P. whose hideous treatment and eventual death at the hands of his mother, her boyfriend and a lodger, has been front page news for a week or more now and I don't intend to again detail the horrors of the case here.

But much is being made of the fact that it happened in the same London borough of Haringey as a previous front page case, that of little Victoria Climbie, 8 years ago.

Already the knives are out for the social services staff in Haringey, and not least for Sharon Shoesmith, the Director of Childrens Services in the borough. It is being said that for two such horror stories to happen in the same borough must imply major failings in the social services set-up there.

Well it may be true. Certainly the case is more shocking even than the Climbie case because the little boy was on the 'on watch' register and had been seen by countless officials and a paediatrician, all of whom, it appears, were misled to an amazing degree considering the extent of the little boy's injuries.

But we have to look at the complete picture. Haringey is demographically a very mixed borough, reasonably prosperous in the west, and pretty deprived in the eastern part. How many successful interventions have social workers made in the last eight years? I would imagine that there are parts of that borough where they are constantly on their toes.

Ms Shoesmith as Director of Children's Services has come under savage attack from the media and there is some pressure for her to resign her post. If that were to happen, it might satisfy the knife wielding critics, but would the children of Haringey be any safer. As soon as the knives came out for Ms Shoesmith, an amazing show of support came from nearly every head teacher in the borough.

"She has done an amazing job in turning this borough round ..there are no schools in special measures in Haringey" were a couple of the remarks in support.

There are, indeed, serious questions to be answered over social worker Nevres Kemal who claims that her concerns for some children in Haringey were ignored by her bosses and that she 'blew the whistle' on the Baby P case 6 months before the child died...and there does indeed seem to have been intense efforts by Haringey Council to legally have her silenced and the plot thickened this week when it transpired that a letter sent by Ms Kemal to Patricia Hewitt, the then secretary of state who passed it on at a time when two government departments were changing roles and the letter appears to have fallen down a bureaucratic hole in the middle. The classic cock-up theory - 'if the worst thing can manifest itself out of confusion, it will'

So there are serious questions to answer. But before social workers or their Director are roasted on a spit to pacify some media inspired sense of outrage, there should be a full and comprehensive public enquiry to ascertain if, as Ms Shoesmith said this week 'Sadly if parents are intent on killing their children it is very difficult to prevent them' or whether there are still fundamental flaws in the way the department of social services in Haringey operates. If there are, then at that point changes should be made - possibly of personnel as well as procedure. But until then, I believe hard working people with terrible decisions to make daily should not be scapegoated on the altar of some misplaced sense of righteous justification.

The ultimate manifestation of the American obsession?

2008-11-11T09:07:00.003Z

Yesterday, an incident took place in St.Johns, Arizona, which shocked even local police and townspeople in a country which has become inured to terrible gun violence.

An EIGHT year old boy calmly and methodically shot and killed his father and a lodger in the house with a .22 calibre rifle. A case of a child doing something in spontaneous haste? Oh no. The child used a single action hunting rifle from which he had to eject the shell each time he fired - and he shot each man at least four times.

To the average mind, this kind of behaviour by an eight year old child is inconceivable. It seems the conduct of a monster. But is it all part of the twisted psychology linked to America's obsession with the gun? We have seen so many occasions in the past where teenagers have acquired a gun and wreaked havoc in the shopping mall or on the college campus and, in every case, some investigation has gone on into their disturbed past and then America has gone on just as before.

This little boy's father was a hunter. He taught his young son to shoot almost as soon as he could walk. And he taught him pretty well, it would seem. The kid was unerringly accurate. The child was taught to kill prairie dogs when he was very young and one wonders what his father's attitudes actually were to shooting anything. Now heaven forbid that I should blame the victim in the case of a murder but - and this is rhetorical since I don't have the answers - was the parent's priority all wrong.

Was the child taught that being able to shoot a gun was manly and macho? That being accurate and deadly was important? Was he also taught that a gun was something you had to respect and use to kill only when it was necessary? Did his father talk to him gently about the sanctity of human life and how the weapon he held in his hand was so lethal that he had to think twice three times every time he pointed it at something ? Was his father the kind of man to get that message across or was that perceived as wet, sentimental woman's work?

And what happened with the maternal side of his upbringing. The parents had recently divorced and the father awarded custody. That's unusual. What kind of influence did his mother have? Did he hate his father over the marriage break up. Maybe we'll never know.

But a tiny child now stands accused of the murder - premeditated and cold-blooded - of his father and another man. Is this the manifestation of the ultimate horror...that American children have such ease of access to guns and so little understanding of the finality of their use? That a gun is a kind of fantasy toy that you read about in the comics..something that takes away all the troubles in your life?

The new President-elect is concerned about the degree of gun ownership in American homes and attitudes by some towards their use. But there is precious little he can do about them faced with the tough lobby of the National Rifle Association and the terrific amount of money poured in by pressure groups to maintain this perverse interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

If it is impossible to take the guns away from American homes, as seems the case, maybe when he becomes President, Obama could spearhead a campaign for much tighter controls and maybe classes in infant schools to press home the message of how lethal a gun is. But I suspect it will all fall on deaf ears and I fear that some American children - like the little boy in Arizona - will continue to see the gun as the answer to all their problems without fully understanding the enormity of what they've done.

A time for hope and renewal

2008-11-05T08:50:00.004Z

Well to my absolute joy, the US election did produce a watershed, not a wash-out (see previous post) and what a stunning result with Senator Obama winning by a landslide.

America can be an amazing country in its ability to transform and metamorphose virtually overnight. Speaking personally - and I don't think I'm alone - I'm a 'foreigner' who, as of this morning, has renewed his love affair with the United States after eight years of almost despising the country, politically. After eight years of the squalid Bush administration where America's reputation throughout the world reached the pits, a Kenyan American black man, by one stunning victory, has changed that picture in a way that is little short of miraculous.

It makes me wish that Martin Luther King could have been alive to see this day. I'm sure he would have been very proud. I accept that Obama does not come from the former slave population of America, but from a mixed Kenyan and American parentage, but that's really a nit pick. His skin colour alone, not that many years ago, would have ruled him out of any contention for the highest office in the land.

And he motivated black voters in a way never seen before AND he achieved success with convincing the white electorate too. It is a stunning achievement in a country which, only 40 years ago, needed anti race discrimination laws forced upon it, where children were bussed to segregated schools, where black civil rights workers were set upon and killed.

There is a danger that too much will now be expected from a man who has been elevated to the role of America's - and the world's - Messiah. That's only natural given the hype but it is a major danger. Winning could be Obama's finest hour and the rest could all be downhill unless real change is seen in the first 100 days of his administration.

Just a word for John McCain. I think he is a good man but I'm relieved that he lost. I'm relieved not so much because of his ramshackle campaign -forced upon him to some extent by trying to be a 'new' Republican and distancing himself from Bush - but because he IS a Republican and, regardless of his own views, he would have carried the luggage of die hard Republicanism into the White House..and frankly the world needs a break from that...and it's got one - in style.

Obama has inherited a nation fraught by problems in the economy and with withdrawing from the Iraq mess that Bush created. How he handles both in the first 100 days will be a measuring stick of his executive qualities, hitherto untested. I hope too, that an Obama presidency may give a fresh impetus to resolving the Palestinian problem. I believe Obama can, and will, take a step back from the old Israeli-American bear hug which gave the US little room for manoeuvre and start taking a more objective position in negotiations. I don't expect the US to abandon Israel, and nor should it, but neither should the opportunities for a peaceful resolution to this issue be hampered by the US always being seen to be in Israel's pocket.

Amyway time will tell what kind of a president Obama will make. For now I will simply glory in the capacity America has for self renewal after eight years of ignominy, and last night they did it in style! God bless America!!!

A watershed or a wash-out?

2008-10-31T19:41:00.004Z

Next Tuesday the most eagerly anticipated US Presidential election in years will take place and, of course, it could ...and should..provide a historic first, a watershed in American history, a turning point where black Americans can truly feel they have the same standing and respect as whites, the day when America elects a black president for the first time.

Obama is, by most counts, streets ahead in the polls. But there seems to be a very strange atmosphere in the Democratic camp - and it's not simply the necessary modesty that precedes the crowning of their champion. There is genuine fear gripping the gut that the polls are misrepresenting the truth, that the large numbers of 'undecided' voters are not really undecided at all, but in fact cannot bring themselves to vote for a black man, but don't like to admit it.

In the aftermath of the Iraq War and, frankly, one of the most hideous Presidencies in my long lifetime, there has been more interest in this election outside the United States than I can ever remember. The reason is obvious. Americans may not see this, or like it, but the national reputation of the United States as a force for good in the world has been terribly tarnished under George W Bush. Europeans, by a margin of about 10 to 1, are longing for an Obama presidency for Europe sees Obama as someone who can change the image of the United States for the better. Someone who will bring a wise and very different approach to, particularly, foreign affairs.

Of course, as a dear friend in Connecticut once told me, for an American politician to be loved by Europeans does not necessarily enhance his electoral chances in the United States which has different priorities.

John McCain is not a bad man. He is not another Bush. But he has found it very hard to prove to anyone that the same tired Republican policies of Bush will not be continued should he win on Tuesday. He is talking about 'winning in Iraq' and that for a start shows a completely unrealistic assessment of the situation on the ground. He has picked a Vice Presidential nominee in Sarah Palin, who may have done brave things as Governor of Alaska but her attitudes are reactionary and her understanding of world politics naive to the point of absurdity.

So many people who care about politics in Europe are holding their breath - just as are the Democratic Party. Will America do the right thing on Tuesday? Will it cross that line of prejudice and bigotry and usher in a new era where a good, intelligent black man with the middle name of Hussein is elected to the top political job in the world. Or will it fall back on fear, resentment and racial prejudice to, almost furtively, vote for an elderly white man with health problems, and whose campaign has been ragged, disorganised and , at times, down and dirty to a degree which was revolting,- simply because he is not a black man?

McCain does not deserve the Presidency on the basis of performance on the campaign trail or of policies offered. But he might still creep in through the back door thanks to the bigotry and prejudice of enough voters who said one thing but do another. It is an unpleasant prospect but one which, however much it turns the rational stomach, might have to be confronted on Wednesday morning.

Squalid non-news but is it a symptom?

2008-10-29T11:03:00.005Z

There can be few people in Britain who are not now aware of the row which has developed over two of the nation's best known presenters and 'funny men' (ironic quotes), Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, making prank phone calls to the answering machine of Andrew Sachs, another former funny man who was 'Manuel' in 'Fawlty Towers'.

For anyone, especially overseas readers, who haven't read the furore, Brand and Ross phoned Sachs, who is now 78 and long retired, on a late night show, found him to be out and left obscene messages on his answering machine, one particularly being a boast by Brand to Sachs that he had 'f***ed your granddaughter'

Sachs was so disgusted when he got the messages that he immediately complained to the BBC and, once the incident received nation-wide press coverage, there have been clamours for the presenters heads to roll and for a full enquiry to be launched. The granddaughter, Georgina Baillie, is not exactly a wilting violet, and has a life as 'Voluptua' in a erotic burlesque group called 'The Satanic Sluts'.

Because the girl was no saint, this presumably was the 'permission-giver' for the two entertainers to do what they did...and amazingly the show content had been approved by BBC light entertainment bosses.

While it seems pretty clear to most people that what happened was way in excess of acceptable banter, I am equally sure that Brand and Ross, on an adult late night show, were sure that their obscene repartee was nothing out of the ordinary for a 'sophisticated' late-night audience.

And that's the point of this little article really. They were probably right in their judgment of their audience..and that's a worry to me. Our society, and its humour, has become much more cruel and indifferent to personal hurt. There are BBC shows like 'Little Britain' which exhibit this trait and they have a fond following. Now they and stunts like that of Brand and Ross may well be aping the times, but I do feel that the TV companies have a responsibility to start looking seriously at the messages they are sending out not just rolling with the flow. I'm not a prude - far from it - but some of the stuff that passes for entertainment is beyond the pale and the company to which we pay our licence fee has a duty to do something about redressing that situation.

I know the BBC is not the guardian of our morality, nor would I wish it to be. Indeed I have been one of the supporters of more freedom in subject matter, particularly when dealing with sex and adult themes. But what's happening now is not a growing maturity, it's quite the reverse. It's a case of overgrown schoolboys indulging in locker-room humour in the full glare of a mass audience, indifferent to what hurt they cause...and it's a trend which responsible broadcasters need to get a grip on.

A toast to Swindon Council!!!

2008-10-23T14:44:00.004+01:00

Glory be....a council in England has had the guts to publicly acknowledge what most of us motorists have known for years, that speed cameras are simply an easy means of additional taxation and do precious little to curb accidents.

Swindon in Wiltshire has become the first council to discontinue the use of speed cameras on all its roads, saying that the revenue it would have spent keeping them maintained will now be spent on better road lighting, improved junctions and better driving awareness initiatives.

The British government, needless to say, disapproves of this decision, and the Department for Transport has already been critical saying that speed cameras reduce accidents by 42%. Swindon Council has responded that, by the Government's own figures, speed is a significant factor in only 6% of accidents, while tiredness, lack of concentration and sheer carelessness account for 42%.

There is no doubt that people drive slower through a speed camera zone, but I'm not sure that makes them any safer. In fact my experience is I spend more time looking for the next camera and at my speedometer and that is time I would normally have spent watching the road, and particularly the car in front.

I hope this is the beginning of the end for speed cameras. They are a cash cow and little more. They may make people slow for a short time but they don't change habits and people simply look out for them. Swindon's approach in suggesting more driving awareness initiatives, particularly for those caught speeding, is a good one.

So upstanding everyone and please drink a toast to....Swindon Council. And may I ask you, Swindon councillors, when you come to disposing of them, can I come along with a hacksaw and chop the head of the first one please?

PS. My judgment is slightly clouded having just applied for a new European style plastic card driving licence to replace my years old paper one. Part of my reason for paying £17.50 for a new one was to have a new licence clear of speeding endorsements (having been picked up twice by aforementioned damned cameras) Unfortunately, when it arrived, one endorsement was still on it.....and has only 2 weeks to run!!! I had forgotten that endorsements are now on for four years not three.

Lies, damned lies and statistics

2008-10-23T11:34:00.002+01:00

Mark Twain once borrowed an extract of a speech by Benjamin Disraeli and uttered the famous phrase, 'There are three kinds of lies - lies, damned lies and statistics'. The truth of this emerges at regular intervals when governments produce figures designed to make themselves look good and to placate fears felt by their electorate.

The latest of these - which will come as no surprise to anyone who lives in the inner cities of Britain - is that the police in some areas have under reported the level of serious crime. To such a degree it would appear that the level of violent crime in the United Kingdom was under reported by a staggering 22%.

It appears clear that this is not crime that was omitted, simply put into the wrong category, but the difference once clarification has been made is quite shocking. Of course the police spend half their time compiling statistics and putting a tick in the right box just so that government ministers like the Home Secretary. Jacqui Smith, can appear on television quoting crime statistics that favour the government.

Most of the problem is caused by the Home Office continually sending out new instructions in the way they want crime reported. As recently as April this year the guidelines were changed again and the police sent another set of instructions on how they account for crime.

This is quite ridiculous and clearly being fine tuned to such degrees that the prime aim is to provide great political ammunition and not assisting in controlling crime. Keith Bristow who is the Chief Constable of Warwickshire supports the recent government changes to reporting statistics but I'm sure he and other police chiefs would now be grateful for a degree of stability in all this chopping and changing.

As far as Ms Smith's government department is concerned it might be well advised to declare a moratorium on further tinkering with the way crime statistics are analysed and spend time ensuring that every police force is singing off the same hymn sheet. I do feel there is a tendency with this government to over complicate in every area - lets face it they have driven the teachers nuts over SATS testing - and this is another example whereby the recording of data enables the government to parcel it in any way that suits their purpose. Lets get back to basics and concentrate on letting the police do their prime job of catching criminals and not filling in tick sheets designed to make the government look good in the media.