- Jails 'too comfy' to merit escape - Prison Officers Association spokesman Glyn Travis (named after the Blakes 7 character? Does he have an eyepatch?) reckons that inmates are happy to stay inside as they can get hold of drugs, mobile phones and sex. It's very similar to being at school or college, in other words - so why not run a story saying "universities too comfy to merit graduation"?. Reporting of this story strikes me as bizarre - for one thing, shouldn't we be pleased if inmates aren't trying to escape from prison? Also, if prisons are "too nice" for people to want to get out, isn't it some indication that the quality of the life experience outside prison needs to be raised, rather than making the inside even more f***ing awful than it already is? And isn't the prison service doing the country a favour by acclimatising prisoners to the conditions they will face when the UK turns into one big police state any day soon - "look guys, here's how it is. You have to get up early to work to an externally imposed timetable and you don't have any say in how your life is run, but look on the bright side: there's drugs. And sex. And mobile phones (perhaps all 3 in the same package?)"?
- Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond is advising Scottish drivers not to panic buy fuel in advance of the Grangemouth refinery strike. Dunno about you, but I can't think of anything more likely to make me want to go straight out and buy a full tank (at least) than a leading politician coming on the telly and saying "don't worry. The fuel's not going to run out". Probably if Salmond went on and said "oh yes! You should panic buy! And you'll be helping the economy too as petrol stations have put prices up by 15p a litre to take advantage of your generosity!"... that would put paid to any shortages. Pychology, dear boy.
25 April 2008
Been off the case for a bit but the news is still making me laugh...
Hi there - been so busy over the last month I've had very little opportunity to post but fortunately the news remains hilarious, so you've got plenty to entertain yourselves with. Two good examples from today's BBC website:
09 April 2008
Proud to be British (or French) for once
In what often seems to be a tumult of news downers, I was very pleased that the Olympic torch relay was disrupted by pro-Tibet protests in Paris and London.
It could only have been better if the UK Government had impounded the Olmpic torch and said we ain't giving it back to China until they end the illegal occupation of Tibet.
But of course they won't do that because this isn't a 'progressive' UK regime, it's a bunch of apologists for a reactionary dictatorship whose action in Tibet makes Saddam Hussein look like Jimmy Carter. It's hilarious to see people like Tessa Jowell apologising for the Chinese regime and saying the protesters are degrading the Olympics... and where the hell are the neo-Cons when you need them? Why isn't John McCain out there saying 'invade China now'? Why isn't the f***er in the front line? Jesus, you can't rely on anybody.
It could only have been better if the UK Government had impounded the Olmpic torch and said we ain't giving it back to China until they end the illegal occupation of Tibet.
But of course they won't do that because this isn't a 'progressive' UK regime, it's a bunch of apologists for a reactionary dictatorship whose action in Tibet makes Saddam Hussein look like Jimmy Carter. It's hilarious to see people like Tessa Jowell apologising for the Chinese regime and saying the protesters are degrading the Olympics... and where the hell are the neo-Cons when you need them? Why isn't John McCain out there saying 'invade China now'? Why isn't the f***er in the front line? Jesus, you can't rely on anybody.
...and some more worrying news (or is it?)
Finally some data comes through to back up the 'house price crash' theory... Halifax released data showing a 2.5% month-on-month fall in average prices. Don't all jump out the window at once, folks... the Halifax and Nationwide indices of house prices are notoriously volatile. Nonetheless it would have been pretty extraordinary if there hadn't been some kind of fall in the wake of the credit crunch.
But so what? Prices have been ludicrously inflated for years now. Restoring some kind of sanity to the market would be a blessed relief. We should be more worried about the increase in global food prices than the fall in UK house prices...
But so what? Prices have been ludicrously inflated for years now. Restoring some kind of sanity to the market would be a blessed relief. We should be more worried about the increase in global food prices than the fall in UK house prices...
03 April 2008
The credit crunch: worrying trends...
Flipping through the news to find the latest stories on the credit crunch is revealing a worrying picture. It's like watching a huge explosion in very slow motion - the bomb ticking under the global financial system has already gone off, but most of the fallout hasn't reached the general public yet.
But it is on the way... for example, in the last couple of days, First Direct and the Co-operative Bank have withdrawn mortgage deals from new customers. They say it's because they have been swamped with applications after other lenders have raised interest rates on mortgages for new applicants. Possibly... or it could be that they can't secure adequate financing at reasonable rates to make it economical to take on new business (in which case, expect FD and the Co-op to raise their rates soon too). Whatever, the outcome is that if you want a mortgage you're gonna currently be chasing an ever-shrinking pool of reasonable offers and you may end up having to pay much more than you would have done six or twelve months ago. That is going to hit the housing market very hard... after the crazy inflation of the last decade, we may now be looking at an early-90s style property crash.
At the same time, Wednesday's Evening Standard carried the headline 'Home owners in debt binge.' I eventually managed to find the story even though their website is complete crap, and although it claims to be based on new data released from the Bank of England I'm pretty sure that in actual fact, like most ES stories, it is recycled from something run on the BBC website a few weeks before, suitably distorted and exaggerated. (Quick aside: apart from the Will Self column, which is damn fine coffeeee, the Standard is hopeless rubbish populated by vacuous imbeciles without a writing brain between them. But anyway).
The gist of the story was that credit card debt and bank loans and overdrafts both went up in February according to the Bank of England figures, whereas given the shortage of credit, one would have expected a fall, other things being equal. But of course other things ain't equal... the Standard reckons that consumers are being forced into other lines of credit now that mortgage deals are getting harder and more expensive to come by. To quote, "the fear is that once borrowers have exhausted all sources of credit, many will be forced into insolvency or have to give up their homes." Quite possibly: still, seeing as insolvency only seems to last for about 2 weeks now before people are allowed back on the treadmill (an attempt to promote 'Enterprise Britain' apparently), will anyone care?
All the same, it is worrying. To use a (no doubt inappropriate) analogy, the data coming out at the moment make the UK financial sector look like a dying star running out of its basic fuel - hydrogen (aka mortgages) for fusion reactions, which is then forced to turn to the heavier elements - helium etc (credit cards and overdrafts) to prolong the show for a little while before the whole system finally collapses. We seem to be living on borrowed time. All this begins to make Gordon Brown's chances of re-election in 2010 (as it will almost certainly be, not 2009) slim as hell, although he could yet do a John Major and win in the teeth of everything if Cameron and Osborne contrive to look lame-ass enough.
For me, though, it is now time to do the Smart Thing... start betting heavily on the Tories to win in 2010. If nothing else, it provides a fighting/survival fund to endure what will no doubt be one of the most vicious and retarded periods of govt seen in Blighty since the last Tory accession of 1979. Hunter S Thompson would have died laughing at all this (if he weren't dead already... girl, you know the reason why.)
But it is on the way... for example, in the last couple of days, First Direct and the Co-operative Bank have withdrawn mortgage deals from new customers. They say it's because they have been swamped with applications after other lenders have raised interest rates on mortgages for new applicants. Possibly... or it could be that they can't secure adequate financing at reasonable rates to make it economical to take on new business (in which case, expect FD and the Co-op to raise their rates soon too). Whatever, the outcome is that if you want a mortgage you're gonna currently be chasing an ever-shrinking pool of reasonable offers and you may end up having to pay much more than you would have done six or twelve months ago. That is going to hit the housing market very hard... after the crazy inflation of the last decade, we may now be looking at an early-90s style property crash.
At the same time, Wednesday's Evening Standard carried the headline 'Home owners in debt binge.' I eventually managed to find the story even though their website is complete crap, and although it claims to be based on new data released from the Bank of England I'm pretty sure that in actual fact, like most ES stories, it is recycled from something run on the BBC website a few weeks before, suitably distorted and exaggerated. (Quick aside: apart from the Will Self column, which is damn fine coffeeee, the Standard is hopeless rubbish populated by vacuous imbeciles without a writing brain between them. But anyway).
The gist of the story was that credit card debt and bank loans and overdrafts both went up in February according to the Bank of England figures, whereas given the shortage of credit, one would have expected a fall, other things being equal. But of course other things ain't equal... the Standard reckons that consumers are being forced into other lines of credit now that mortgage deals are getting harder and more expensive to come by. To quote, "the fear is that once borrowers have exhausted all sources of credit, many will be forced into insolvency or have to give up their homes." Quite possibly: still, seeing as insolvency only seems to last for about 2 weeks now before people are allowed back on the treadmill (an attempt to promote 'Enterprise Britain' apparently), will anyone care?
All the same, it is worrying. To use a (no doubt inappropriate) analogy, the data coming out at the moment make the UK financial sector look like a dying star running out of its basic fuel - hydrogen (aka mortgages) for fusion reactions, which is then forced to turn to the heavier elements - helium etc (credit cards and overdrafts) to prolong the show for a little while before the whole system finally collapses. We seem to be living on borrowed time. All this begins to make Gordon Brown's chances of re-election in 2010 (as it will almost certainly be, not 2009) slim as hell, although he could yet do a John Major and win in the teeth of everything if Cameron and Osborne contrive to look lame-ass enough.
For me, though, it is now time to do the Smart Thing... start betting heavily on the Tories to win in 2010. If nothing else, it provides a fighting/survival fund to endure what will no doubt be one of the most vicious and retarded periods of govt seen in Blighty since the last Tory accession of 1979. Hunter S Thompson would have died laughing at all this (if he weren't dead already... girl, you know the reason why.)
27 March 2008
Heathrow Terminal 5 gets off to a great start
Could almost have guessed that this would happen, but it's still amusing. Thank god I don't fly any more than I have to (which is almost never. Those poor bastards. Our poor planet.
Olympics: boycott, or better...
Been out of action on the blog again for a week - apologies. I took a week off work this week and have been trying to keep away from dirty old politics and look round a few galleries and stuff.
But it's been hard to keep away from two stories - firstly the 'debate' over the embryo bill (if one can call it that, as it seems to boil down to a few reactionary Catholic clergy against the rest of us, who use our brains to think through an issue rather than relying on a Stalinist diktat from the Vatican) on the other); and secondly the debate over whether to boycott the Olympics - which is a little more nuanced.
Many, many people are now calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in protest at human rights violations by the Chinese government, most obviously in Tibet. I'm sympathetic - certainly if the US felt justified in boycotting Moscow in 1980 then there's just as much reason, if not more, to boycott in this case.
Having said that, there may be a way to express protest which is even more effective than a boycott. I don't know if the Great Britain kit design for the athletes competing in the games has yet been finalised, but if it were possible to include on the vests, in as large letters as possible, "FREE TIBET NOW" (in Chinese and English), this would be an effective way of getting the message across while continuing to compete. If every country attending the games included the "FREE TIBET NOW" slogan on their kits, in Chinese and their own language, this would send a big signal to the Chinese government regarding just what we think of the Tibet occupation. They would then have a choice of (a) cancelling the games to avoid the Tibet publicity - which would totally backfire; (b) arresting all competitors from other countries and continuing the games with Chinese competitors only; or (c) continuing the games and giving free publicity to the Tibetan cause. Either way, it would be a big statement. So how about it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, London is hosting the Olympics in 2012 and so we need to avoid pissing off other regimes, no matter what a bunch of bastards they are, so that they won't impose a reciprocal boycott and damage 'our' games. Silly me...
But it's been hard to keep away from two stories - firstly the 'debate' over the embryo bill (if one can call it that, as it seems to boil down to a few reactionary Catholic clergy against the rest of us, who use our brains to think through an issue rather than relying on a Stalinist diktat from the Vatican) on the other); and secondly the debate over whether to boycott the Olympics - which is a little more nuanced.
Many, many people are now calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in protest at human rights violations by the Chinese government, most obviously in Tibet. I'm sympathetic - certainly if the US felt justified in boycotting Moscow in 1980 then there's just as much reason, if not more, to boycott in this case.
Having said that, there may be a way to express protest which is even more effective than a boycott. I don't know if the Great Britain kit design for the athletes competing in the games has yet been finalised, but if it were possible to include on the vests, in as large letters as possible, "FREE TIBET NOW" (in Chinese and English), this would be an effective way of getting the message across while continuing to compete. If every country attending the games included the "FREE TIBET NOW" slogan on their kits, in Chinese and their own language, this would send a big signal to the Chinese government regarding just what we think of the Tibet occupation. They would then have a choice of (a) cancelling the games to avoid the Tibet publicity - which would totally backfire; (b) arresting all competitors from other countries and continuing the games with Chinese competitors only; or (c) continuing the games and giving free publicity to the Tibetan cause. Either way, it would be a big statement. So how about it? Oh, sorry, I forgot, London is hosting the Olympics in 2012 and so we need to avoid pissing off other regimes, no matter what a bunch of bastards they are, so that they won't impose a reciprocal boycott and damage 'our' games. Silly me...
20 March 2008
FSA: a pointless (and maybe counterproductive) search
The FSA is investigating whether false rumours are being deliberately spread to undermine the value of shares. They are pointing the finger at "short sellers" - people who sell stocks they don't have (using derivatives based on the stock's current share price) and then buy when the price goes down. Apparently these people are behaving irresponsibly, or unpatriotically, or something like that. (By following the maxim "buy low, sell high", which I thought the whole financial system was based on... but never mind).
This was sparked by the big fall in the price of HBOS (Halifax/Bank of Scotland) shares last week after rumours that the bank was in trouble. But, given that Bear Stearns was insisting it was in fine financial fettle until about 24 hours before it collapsed and had to be bailed out by the US Federal Reserve, can anybody blame financial traders for believing negative rumours? Might it not be more rational to believe bad news about banks than good news in the current climate?
How on earth are the FSA going to identify the people starting the rumours, anyway? Everyone will just say they were going on information they heard elsewhere and the whole thing will go round in a circle. So, short of fining all market participants, there doesn't look like much the FSA can do. Their statement looks like complete hot air to me, and if anything, is likely to spook the markets even more. In the current climate, if someone in authority tells you everything is all right, it almost definitely isn't. As soon as another UK bank gets into Northern Rock - style difficulties - which will probably happen soon - the FSA's stance will be blown right out of the water. Better to say "we are in uncharted waters, and caveat emptor" (or indeed caveat vendor) as far as financial transactions go". But they would prefer to bullshit people... so be it.
Anyone who is buying and selling in the current climate (rather than holding on for a reversion to normal market conditions, which will surely come at some point, even if a few years down the line - and if it doesn't it probably means the whole system has collapsed, in which case why the hell are you still bothering with stocks and shares when we've got a new society to construct - GET OUT ON THE STREETS!!!) is a moron in any case, and deserves what they get. (Or someone who has been very badly financially advised, in which case... SUE.)
This was sparked by the big fall in the price of HBOS (Halifax/Bank of Scotland) shares last week after rumours that the bank was in trouble. But, given that Bear Stearns was insisting it was in fine financial fettle until about 24 hours before it collapsed and had to be bailed out by the US Federal Reserve, can anybody blame financial traders for believing negative rumours? Might it not be more rational to believe bad news about banks than good news in the current climate?
How on earth are the FSA going to identify the people starting the rumours, anyway? Everyone will just say they were going on information they heard elsewhere and the whole thing will go round in a circle. So, short of fining all market participants, there doesn't look like much the FSA can do. Their statement looks like complete hot air to me, and if anything, is likely to spook the markets even more. In the current climate, if someone in authority tells you everything is all right, it almost definitely isn't. As soon as another UK bank gets into Northern Rock - style difficulties - which will probably happen soon - the FSA's stance will be blown right out of the water. Better to say "we are in uncharted waters, and caveat emptor" (or indeed caveat vendor) as far as financial transactions go". But they would prefer to bullshit people... so be it.
Anyone who is buying and selling in the current climate (rather than holding on for a reversion to normal market conditions, which will surely come at some point, even if a few years down the line - and if it doesn't it probably means the whole system has collapsed, in which case why the hell are you still bothering with stocks and shares when we've got a new society to construct - GET OUT ON THE STREETS!!!) is a moron in any case, and deserves what they get. (Or someone who has been very badly financially advised, in which case... SUE.)
17 March 2008
Systemic collapse?
Obviously, the Bear Stearns collapse and fallout is the main headline at the moment. Some reporters are going a bit over the top perhaps... Bear Stearns was a large US investment banks but not the largest. If it had been Citibank or J P Morgan going under then that would have been worthy of some of the hyperbole which has been thrust in the markets' direction over the weekend. And the FTSE 100 is 217 points down in trading today; well, that's not tiny, but neither is it earth-shattering. It's been up and down like a yo-yo recently anyway.
No, at the moment the real news is the unease and suspense gripping the markets; no-one knows how big this credit crunch really is. Certainly the Federal Reserve is behaving like it's very big indeed; cutting interest rates every week, injecting billions and billions of dollars of liquidity into the market. It would be very interesting for someone to do an analysis of who benefits most from these market interventions. Is it encouraging even more reckless speculation? Is the Fed throwing good money after bad? Certainly J P Morgan, who acquired Bear Stearns for about $2, seem to be laughing all the way to the bank. The joys of being just a little more solvent than one's competitors are becoming more and more evident in the current economic situation - to those that hath, more shall be given.
The nagging worry is that the interventions are just delaying the inevitable - a systemic collapse with most of the financial institutions in the US going to the wall, not just one or two. If that happens then it may end up making the early 80s recession look pretty shallow. On the other hand Bear Stearns could be the bottom of the barrel. No-one knows for sure. Fun, innit?
No, at the moment the real news is the unease and suspense gripping the markets; no-one knows how big this credit crunch really is. Certainly the Federal Reserve is behaving like it's very big indeed; cutting interest rates every week, injecting billions and billions of dollars of liquidity into the market. It would be very interesting for someone to do an analysis of who benefits most from these market interventions. Is it encouraging even more reckless speculation? Is the Fed throwing good money after bad? Certainly J P Morgan, who acquired Bear Stearns for about $2, seem to be laughing all the way to the bank. The joys of being just a little more solvent than one's competitors are becoming more and more evident in the current economic situation - to those that hath, more shall be given.
The nagging worry is that the interventions are just delaying the inevitable - a systemic collapse with most of the financial institutions in the US going to the wall, not just one or two. If that happens then it may end up making the early 80s recession look pretty shallow. On the other hand Bear Stearns could be the bottom of the barrel. No-one knows for sure. Fun, innit?
11 March 2008
Turning Britain into a Boy Scout fascist state
When I read this I thought April Fools' Day might have come a few weeks early:
School leavers are to be "urged" to swear an oath of allegiance to the queen.
This would turn Britain into nothing more than a glorified boy scout troop. Why don't we get people to go round wearing silly uniforms all the time with little badges on them while we're at it? (Of course, at school, we already do. But how long before someone from this moronic government suggests it for adults?)
I do not recognise the queen as a legitimate head of state for the UK as she has never been elected. As far as I am concerned, technically we live in a dictatorship. Who actually won the Falklands conflict? Because the people running this country (those of them that are visible, at least) look more and more like General Galtieri every day.
We are on the march towards tinpot fascism in the UK, and I urge every one of you to take a stand against it. Don't vote for anybody - of any party - who endorses citizenship tests and that kind of malarkey. Better still, stand as an independent so that you can point out the f***ing great wave of B.S. heading right towards us. (I am managing the campaign of a possible candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon - I'll tell you more as details become available. (i.e. when I can convince the guy to actually stand!)
Signing off - FOR NOW.
School leavers are to be "urged" to swear an oath of allegiance to the queen.
This would turn Britain into nothing more than a glorified boy scout troop. Why don't we get people to go round wearing silly uniforms all the time with little badges on them while we're at it? (Of course, at school, we already do. But how long before someone from this moronic government suggests it for adults?)
I do not recognise the queen as a legitimate head of state for the UK as she has never been elected. As far as I am concerned, technically we live in a dictatorship. Who actually won the Falklands conflict? Because the people running this country (those of them that are visible, at least) look more and more like General Galtieri every day.
We are on the march towards tinpot fascism in the UK, and I urge every one of you to take a stand against it. Don't vote for anybody - of any party - who endorses citizenship tests and that kind of malarkey. Better still, stand as an independent so that you can point out the f***ing great wave of B.S. heading right towards us. (I am managing the campaign of a possible candidate for Oxford West and Abingdon - I'll tell you more as details become available. (i.e. when I can convince the guy to actually stand!)
Signing off - FOR NOW.
10 March 2008
Democrats: getting ready for a major league "stitch-up"
I'm using the excuse that Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the Wyoming Primary to file another report on the interminable struggle for the Democratic nomination. And it really is interminable, as the projections for the remaining 12 states now show that it is very unlikely that Obama will reach 2025 delegates based on elected delegates alone; which means that the 800 unelected 'super-delegates' - party officials - will be decisive.
Current projections show a split of around 60%-40% in super-delegates between Clinton and Obama but that's largely irrelevant when the Democratic convention comes around in August because they don't have to vote any particular way - they are guns for hire, perhaps literally. It is entirely possible that Clinton could somehow swing a majority of super-delegates around, even though she is very unlikely to have more of the elected delegate vote than Obama by then.
My worry isn't so much that this would be "unfair" - it's not immediately obvious that 100% election by caucus or primary (some of which involve independent voters who may be Republican sympathisers!) is the best way to choose a candidate, and an electoral college between party officials and voters (which is what they effectively have at the moment) might make more sense. It's more that, if there is such a deal and Clinton gets the nomination, a lot of Obama supporters are going to be so pissed off that they're not going to bother to turn out and vote in the presidential election in November. The same might happen in reverse with Clinton supporters if Obama wins the nomination, but I think that's less likely because he could at least claim he has the weight of "popular opinion on his side.
This struggle is dragging on and on - largely because Obama's support softened badly in Texas and Ohio when he ran into a wave of negative publicity about the corruption rap for his friend Tony Rezko, and he didn't handle it very well as far as the footage from the press conference I saw on Channel 4 news suggested. Of course the footage could have been edited to make it look like just about anything, but you can be damn sure that a successful Democratic candidate will have to be able to deal with the media onslaught and scandals both real and manufactured just to survive. Bill Clinton went from strength to strength largely because he was able to do that; Jimmy Carter got blown away after one term largely because he couldn't. The real danger is that Obama ends up suffering the same fate as Carter, rather than being able to combine the sense of resuscitating the corpse of political hope that both Carter and JFK embodied with the political balls of the Clintons. Both Bill and Hillary are real sluggers, as is Dubya Bush, and any successful president needs some of that. You can't biuild yourself up by cultivating a sense of hope in people and then fall apart when the going gets tough. That's the route to landslide defeat and condemning the Democrats to another generation of impotence (once again, look at Carter in 1980).
So, extra rations of bile and roughage for Obama over these next couple of months and he ought to be able to get through this. But if he looks too weedy or flaky then it's gonna be Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Should be interesting.
Somewhere, John McCain is rubbing his hands at the prospect of 5 more months of Democratic infighting. But as the poll ratings of both Democratic contenders against him in the election have risen since all this started, maybe the joke's on him...
Current projections show a split of around 60%-40% in super-delegates between Clinton and Obama but that's largely irrelevant when the Democratic convention comes around in August because they don't have to vote any particular way - they are guns for hire, perhaps literally. It is entirely possible that Clinton could somehow swing a majority of super-delegates around, even though she is very unlikely to have more of the elected delegate vote than Obama by then.
My worry isn't so much that this would be "unfair" - it's not immediately obvious that 100% election by caucus or primary (some of which involve independent voters who may be Republican sympathisers!) is the best way to choose a candidate, and an electoral college between party officials and voters (which is what they effectively have at the moment) might make more sense. It's more that, if there is such a deal and Clinton gets the nomination, a lot of Obama supporters are going to be so pissed off that they're not going to bother to turn out and vote in the presidential election in November. The same might happen in reverse with Clinton supporters if Obama wins the nomination, but I think that's less likely because he could at least claim he has the weight of "popular opinion on his side.
This struggle is dragging on and on - largely because Obama's support softened badly in Texas and Ohio when he ran into a wave of negative publicity about the corruption rap for his friend Tony Rezko, and he didn't handle it very well as far as the footage from the press conference I saw on Channel 4 news suggested. Of course the footage could have been edited to make it look like just about anything, but you can be damn sure that a successful Democratic candidate will have to be able to deal with the media onslaught and scandals both real and manufactured just to survive. Bill Clinton went from strength to strength largely because he was able to do that; Jimmy Carter got blown away after one term largely because he couldn't. The real danger is that Obama ends up suffering the same fate as Carter, rather than being able to combine the sense of resuscitating the corpse of political hope that both Carter and JFK embodied with the political balls of the Clintons. Both Bill and Hillary are real sluggers, as is Dubya Bush, and any successful president needs some of that. You can't biuild yourself up by cultivating a sense of hope in people and then fall apart when the going gets tough. That's the route to landslide defeat and condemning the Democrats to another generation of impotence (once again, look at Carter in 1980).
So, extra rations of bile and roughage for Obama over these next couple of months and he ought to be able to get through this. But if he looks too weedy or flaky then it's gonna be Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Should be interesting.
Somewhere, John McCain is rubbing his hands at the prospect of 5 more months of Democratic infighting. But as the poll ratings of both Democratic contenders against him in the election have risen since all this started, maybe the joke's on him...
04 March 2008
...and so does the Daily Telegraph
More absolute bollox on school choice lotteries from the Telegraph - 'children have lost out', apparently, because in the most popular schools, less kids got their first choice of school than last year, before the lottery system had been introduced in any local education authorities.
But that statistic is meaningless because it's entirely dependent on how many children applied for the school in each year! For example, if a school has 100 places per year, and last year 150 kids applied for a place, but this year 200 kids applied, then last year a third of the applicants would have been disappointed, whereas this year half of them were. But that's nothing to do with the lottery system - it's to do with the number of kids applying. And if a lottery system encourages parents who wouldn't have tried to get their kids into the best schools under the previous system to give the lottery a shot - what's wrong with that? Surely it's what the scheme is designed to do.
They'll be running a headline next saying 'National Lottery - the ticket-holders lose out'...
But that statistic is meaningless because it's entirely dependent on how many children applied for the school in each year! For example, if a school has 100 places per year, and last year 150 kids applied for a place, but this year 200 kids applied, then last year a third of the applicants would have been disappointed, whereas this year half of them were. But that's nothing to do with the lottery system - it's to do with the number of kids applying. And if a lottery system encourages parents who wouldn't have tried to get their kids into the best schools under the previous system to give the lottery a shot - what's wrong with that? Surely it's what the scheme is designed to do.
They'll be running a headline next saying 'National Lottery - the ticket-holders lose out'...
03 March 2008
School choice lotteries: Dave misuses the English language
Well, today was the day when thousands of kids in England found out which school they were going to. An increasing number of local authorities are moving towards lotteries as a way of allocating school places after the government's new Admissions Code banned some (although not all) of the practices that schools had previously used to discriminate between applicants (interviews, questionnaires, etc.)
Dave Cameron thinks that the lottery system is 'unfair and inequitable' and pledges that the Tories will scrap it if they get elected.
Well, Dave, I've got news for you: the lottery might be many things, but by definition it can't be 'unfair' or 'inequitable'. (Assuming, of course, that it's not rigged.) In fact, it's the only fair system if schools are oversubscribed, unless we expand all the oversubscribed schools so that they can take all the extra pupils. (Which maybe we should do...)
What Dave means of course is that it's unfair because middle-class parents can't 'play the system' like they used to. And where will we be if the middle classes can't stitch up social outcomes? Egalitarian society? It doesn't bear thinking about. Never mind, there's always the private sector for the really well-off...
The lottery system is not perfect. For one thing, it's optional - not all local authorities have introduced it. For another, there are still forms of selection allowed under the new Admissions Code - e.g. by parental faith (in faith schools). So a kid could get into a school just because his or her parents happen to be religious nutters (or even, sensible religious people) - or, as this article by Times columnist Alice Miles from last year points out, because their parents are hypocrites who pretend to be religious just to get them into the school. Also, grammar schools are allowed to select by ability, and private schools according to any old criteria. So, plenty of reform still needed, but we can certainly do without the likes of Dave Cameron and Micky Gove denying the fundamentals of the English language. Jog on...
Dave Cameron thinks that the lottery system is 'unfair and inequitable' and pledges that the Tories will scrap it if they get elected.
Well, Dave, I've got news for you: the lottery might be many things, but by definition it can't be 'unfair' or 'inequitable'. (Assuming, of course, that it's not rigged.) In fact, it's the only fair system if schools are oversubscribed, unless we expand all the oversubscribed schools so that they can take all the extra pupils. (Which maybe we should do...)
What Dave means of course is that it's unfair because middle-class parents can't 'play the system' like they used to. And where will we be if the middle classes can't stitch up social outcomes? Egalitarian society? It doesn't bear thinking about. Never mind, there's always the private sector for the really well-off...
The lottery system is not perfect. For one thing, it's optional - not all local authorities have introduced it. For another, there are still forms of selection allowed under the new Admissions Code - e.g. by parental faith (in faith schools). So a kid could get into a school just because his or her parents happen to be religious nutters (or even, sensible religious people) - or, as this article by Times columnist Alice Miles from last year points out, because their parents are hypocrites who pretend to be religious just to get them into the school. Also, grammar schools are allowed to select by ability, and private schools according to any old criteria. So, plenty of reform still needed, but we can certainly do without the likes of Dave Cameron and Micky Gove denying the fundamentals of the English language. Jog on...
21 February 2008
More on the Rock... why George ain't got a leg to stand on
This is George Osborne we're talking about here (rather than Dubya Bush) but both are equally clueless, and from suprisingly similar backgrounds: Gideon Osborne is a trust fund kid, Dubya had plenty of funds from his family oil business to buy coke and booze, dodge the draft and set up disastrous companies with names like Arbusto (Spanish for 'shrub').
But we digress... I don't normally take a rabid pro-Labour line in this blog as who the hell wants to hear that? But the Tories are so unbelievably clueless on Northern Rock that it's important to weigh in to point out just how duff they are.
There's plenty in the Northern Rock crisis that the Opposition could justifiably criticise: the government's dithering about, the desperate attempts to court lame-ass bids to asset strip the company from private equity hawks and Richard Branson, the regulatory slackness that allowed Northern Rock to overextend itself so ludicrously in the first place (although hindsight is a wonderful thing - for most of the decade the rock was being lauded as an example of genius financial management in the northeast by 'expert' commentators in the financial media). And indeed, Vince Cable for the Lib Dems has been doing a very good job of asking all the right questions of the Govt's approach.
By contrast, the official Opposition - the Tories - have revealed themselves to be economically illiterate on this one. On Monday when the news was announced Dave Cameron called nationalisation a "disaster". He thus revealed himself as a Tony Blair clone in a very real sense - both of them know shit all about economic policy. Now, this isn't necessarily an obstacle to a future Cameron government being successful - after all, Tony Blair won three elections whilst being an economic ignoramus. But Blair had Gordon Brown to do all the sums for him. Whereas Cameron has George Osborne, who is just as much of a numbskull as Dave is.
Where is the alternative Tory plan for Northern Rock? What would they have done instead of nationalise it? Let the Bank of England take it over? I'm sorry, that's the same policy slightly redressed. Let it fail in September when it got into difficulty? Ballsy, but foolhardy - a banking failure on that scale could have taken other financial institutions down with it and let to a major slump of a scale not seen since the 1930s. Of course, economic failure on that scale would have probably let the Tories in at the next election - and that is probably the point. But don't tell me that these guys have the competence to run a men-only private members' club in Mayfair, let alone the economy. New Labour is deeply unpleasant in many ways but the Tories are a f***ing laughing stock. Which probably explains why they are only about 10 points in front in the latest polls and not 25 or so...
But we digress... I don't normally take a rabid pro-Labour line in this blog as who the hell wants to hear that? But the Tories are so unbelievably clueless on Northern Rock that it's important to weigh in to point out just how duff they are.
There's plenty in the Northern Rock crisis that the Opposition could justifiably criticise: the government's dithering about, the desperate attempts to court lame-ass bids to asset strip the company from private equity hawks and Richard Branson, the regulatory slackness that allowed Northern Rock to overextend itself so ludicrously in the first place (although hindsight is a wonderful thing - for most of the decade the rock was being lauded as an example of genius financial management in the northeast by 'expert' commentators in the financial media). And indeed, Vince Cable for the Lib Dems has been doing a very good job of asking all the right questions of the Govt's approach.
By contrast, the official Opposition - the Tories - have revealed themselves to be economically illiterate on this one. On Monday when the news was announced Dave Cameron called nationalisation a "disaster". He thus revealed himself as a Tony Blair clone in a very real sense - both of them know shit all about economic policy. Now, this isn't necessarily an obstacle to a future Cameron government being successful - after all, Tony Blair won three elections whilst being an economic ignoramus. But Blair had Gordon Brown to do all the sums for him. Whereas Cameron has George Osborne, who is just as much of a numbskull as Dave is.
Where is the alternative Tory plan for Northern Rock? What would they have done instead of nationalise it? Let the Bank of England take it over? I'm sorry, that's the same policy slightly redressed. Let it fail in September when it got into difficulty? Ballsy, but foolhardy - a banking failure on that scale could have taken other financial institutions down with it and let to a major slump of a scale not seen since the 1930s. Of course, economic failure on that scale would have probably let the Tories in at the next election - and that is probably the point. But don't tell me that these guys have the competence to run a men-only private members' club in Mayfair, let alone the economy. New Labour is deeply unpleasant in many ways but the Tories are a f***ing laughing stock. Which probably explains why they are only about 10 points in front in the latest polls and not 25 or so...
17 February 2008
Northern Rock: the biggest step forward for industrial policy in 30 years
Hooray! They've finally taken Northern Rock into public ownership.
It's about time too. The Government spent far too long faffing about with private sector "rescue" packages which basically seemed to involve giving billions of pounds to either private equity firms or Richard Branson, neither of whom floated my boat.
Still, while the Government was faffing about the share price was drifting down and down... so they (we) got a bargain.
Not since the heady days of British Aeropace and Shipbuilding in 1976 has nationalisation been used as a policy instrument in the UK. And it's nice to see it back. Primarily because, if done properly, Northern Rock could be the template for a new kind of bank... one that actually treats customers with respect rather than ripping them off with sky-high charges and piss-poor customer service at every turn. Despite being ostensibly competitive, the banking sector's record for customer satisfaction is appalling, and an innovatively-run public sector bank would have a lot to recommend it.
We won't get an innovatively run public sector bank, of course: we'll get a badly run approximation of a private sector bank. That's because this is a strictly temporary move, until market conditions return to "normal", at which point the bank will be sold off to the private sector. Which makes some sense from a public finances point of view, but is a real missed opportunity from the perspective of industrial policy. In fact, it's the fact that they were run just as badly as the private sector companies they were intended to improve upon which eventually gave nationalised industries a bad name in the 1960s and 70s.
What does any of this mean for the customers? Very little, probably. But in a pinch, they're probably safer with a government-run concern than with RIchard Branson. Now then, how long will it take for the public to get its £50 billion back? Still, more chance of getting that back than all the money that's been pumped into the railways to go to National Express shareholders...
It's about time too. The Government spent far too long faffing about with private sector "rescue" packages which basically seemed to involve giving billions of pounds to either private equity firms or Richard Branson, neither of whom floated my boat.
Still, while the Government was faffing about the share price was drifting down and down... so they (we) got a bargain.
Not since the heady days of British Aeropace and Shipbuilding in 1976 has nationalisation been used as a policy instrument in the UK. And it's nice to see it back. Primarily because, if done properly, Northern Rock could be the template for a new kind of bank... one that actually treats customers with respect rather than ripping them off with sky-high charges and piss-poor customer service at every turn. Despite being ostensibly competitive, the banking sector's record for customer satisfaction is appalling, and an innovatively-run public sector bank would have a lot to recommend it.
We won't get an innovatively run public sector bank, of course: we'll get a badly run approximation of a private sector bank. That's because this is a strictly temporary move, until market conditions return to "normal", at which point the bank will be sold off to the private sector. Which makes some sense from a public finances point of view, but is a real missed opportunity from the perspective of industrial policy. In fact, it's the fact that they were run just as badly as the private sector companies they were intended to improve upon which eventually gave nationalised industries a bad name in the 1960s and 70s.
What does any of this mean for the customers? Very little, probably. But in a pinch, they're probably safer with a government-run concern than with RIchard Branson. Now then, how long will it take for the public to get its £50 billion back? Still, more chance of getting that back than all the money that's been pumped into the railways to go to National Express shareholders...
11 February 2008
McCain, Mike's 335, and the small prospect of a backlash
John McCain is looking in a pretty strong position after the Republican Super Tuesday primaries. Although he didn't win most of the Super Tuesday states overwhelmingly, he benefited a lot from a split opposition - Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were both courting the 'real conservative' vote, but Huckabee had difficulty reaching outside the hardcore evangelical Southern Christian base leaving Romney with a motley crew of everyone else in the Republican party who didn't like McCain. As most of the Republican primaries are 'winner-take-all' this meant McCain piled on delegates - he's now more than halfway towards the nomination.
The immediate result of this was that Romney threw in the towel last Thursday. Actually that's not quite accurate; he's "suspended" his campaign, meaning that his delegates will still be in play at the Republican Convention. I'll explain why this is important in just a second. But overall, many will be glad to see the back of Romney, so let's dwell on his misfortune for a second. A slimy cheeseball punk who made George Bush look like an honest man, he spent extraordinarily heavily to low great effect and his campaign ran second only to Giuliani's in its ineptness. To their credit, the Republican voters seem to know an unelectable turkey when they see one. McCain is definitely their best shot at the White House, despite the fact that he is older than Michael Foot was when he was leading Labour in the 1983 UK election. (Now that is an interesting comparison...)
Something weird happened in the primaries this weekend just gone, though. Mike Huckabee suddenly went back into overdrive, winning in Kansas and Lousiana. Could this be the start of a conservative fightback? Mike certainly knows how to strap on a Gibson (at 00:57 in the video), but I think it's all too late. Still, it all depends on how well organised the Christian anti-McCain hard right is (and how many of them actually don't want McCain to win; Bush and selected other right-wingers have already endorsed him so that may well be enough.) I'm still hoping we'll be hearing that 335 a while longer...
The immediate result of this was that Romney threw in the towel last Thursday. Actually that's not quite accurate; he's "suspended" his campaign, meaning that his delegates will still be in play at the Republican Convention. I'll explain why this is important in just a second. But overall, many will be glad to see the back of Romney, so let's dwell on his misfortune for a second. A slimy cheeseball punk who made George Bush look like an honest man, he spent extraordinarily heavily to low great effect and his campaign ran second only to Giuliani's in its ineptness. To their credit, the Republican voters seem to know an unelectable turkey when they see one. McCain is definitely their best shot at the White House, despite the fact that he is older than Michael Foot was when he was leading Labour in the 1983 UK election. (Now that is an interesting comparison...)
Something weird happened in the primaries this weekend just gone, though. Mike Huckabee suddenly went back into overdrive, winning in Kansas and Lousiana. Could this be the start of a conservative fightback? Mike certainly knows how to strap on a Gibson (at 00:57 in the video), but I think it's all too late. Still, it all depends on how well organised the Christian anti-McCain hard right is (and how many of them actually don't want McCain to win; Bush and selected other right-wingers have already endorsed him so that may well be enough.) I'm still hoping we'll be hearing that 335 a while longer...
Obama moves into the driving seat...
...or very close to it, anyway. Almost a week since Super Tuesday, and I should have got it together to post earlier, but there was just too much stuff going on. Anyway, waiting a few days allows me to incorporate the results from the Democratic primaries in Maine, Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington. Obama was some way ahead of Hillary Clinton in all four of these and unless Clinton can win by a substantial margin in Ohio and Texas in March, it looks very much like her campaign is gonna run into the ground.
That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that Obama is a shoo-in because a few hundred of the Convention delegates are local party appointees rather than being elected. Clinton is - currently - ahead in terms of the number of these 'super-delegates' who have come out in her favour. But it's impossible to know for sure how they will vote as they are representing no-one but themselves (and maybe the local party bigwigs). It's a weird overlay of cronyism on what is basically a democratic selection process, and it could mean that Clinton gets the nomination despite having less delegates than Obama. Which could tear the party apart at the Convention... the Obama camp must be hoping that Barack gets a clear enough lead by the summer that he won't need to rely on the super-delegates. That may well happen if the pro-Obama swing continues, but that's pure speculation at this stage. Next stops Maryland, Virginia and Washington DC. It's a constant gravy train...
That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that Obama is a shoo-in because a few hundred of the Convention delegates are local party appointees rather than being elected. Clinton is - currently - ahead in terms of the number of these 'super-delegates' who have come out in her favour. But it's impossible to know for sure how they will vote as they are representing no-one but themselves (and maybe the local party bigwigs). It's a weird overlay of cronyism on what is basically a democratic selection process, and it could mean that Clinton gets the nomination despite having less delegates than Obama. Which could tear the party apart at the Convention... the Obama camp must be hoping that Barack gets a clear enough lead by the summer that he won't need to rely on the super-delegates. That may well happen if the pro-Obama swing continues, but that's pure speculation at this stage. Next stops Maryland, Virginia and Washington DC. It's a constant gravy train...
06 February 2008
Typing this on my wife's new Eee PC!
Great stuff... the Asus Eee sub-laptop, mentioned last month, arrived today having been ordered a couple of weeks ago from play... I was beginning to think that this was 'vapourware' or that stocks had completely sold out, but then... there it was. I did find a stock-checker in the course of my travels, which might be useful for seeing who has one in stock... don't pay more than about £220 for the 4Gb model though.
It's great. Only 22cm wide... the screen has a diagonal of only 18cm (7" in old money) as there are speakers either side of it, but it's very clear, so seeing what you type isn't a problem. Typing on this keyboard is not the easiest for me but then I have big hands... I could get used to it. Anyway it's my wife who's going to be using this one most of the time so I'll get her opinion soon. I must mention the dinky sequence of 4 LEDs at the bottom right of the computer... the wi-fi one is blue, and looks extremely cool. why is it always the little touches that impress most?
I am gonna put a post together on the Super Tuesday results today or tomorrow but it's looking so tight that I want to wait until all the results are in before making comment.
Eee, by gum.
It's great. Only 22cm wide... the screen has a diagonal of only 18cm (7" in old money) as there are speakers either side of it, but it's very clear, so seeing what you type isn't a problem. Typing on this keyboard is not the easiest for me but then I have big hands... I could get used to it. Anyway it's my wife who's going to be using this one most of the time so I'll get her opinion soon. I must mention the dinky sequence of 4 LEDs at the bottom right of the computer... the wi-fi one is blue, and looks extremely cool. why is it always the little touches that impress most?
I am gonna put a post together on the Super Tuesday results today or tomorrow but it's looking so tight that I want to wait until all the results are in before making comment.
Eee, by gum.
31 January 2008
US elections - the fields thin out...
Big news from both US presidential races yesterday as dropouts were announced.
For the Democrats, John Edwards has thrown in the towel after failing to make much impact in any of the primaries so far, running a distant third behind the media frenzy enveloping Clinton and Obama. Despite making substantial criticisms of Clinton's attacks on Obama during the early primaries, Edwards is not endorsing either Clinton or Obama - for now. This is probably strategic - keeping his options open to cut a running-mate deal with whoever wins the presidential nomination. It's a pity Edwards didn't make more headway as he was the most radical of the candidates and the only one who made action to reduce the shocking levels of poverty in America the centrepiece of his campaign. To a large extent he has been eclipsed by the emergence of Barack Obama as the alternative to the Clinton dynasty in this campaign - although Obama's policy platform isn't actually that radical.
Meanwhile, after what has turned out to be the most strategically wrongheaded campaign in recent history, one-time favourite Rudy Giuliani has pulled out of the Republican race. Giuliani's campaign was a disaster, full stop ("period"). He didn't bother to campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan etc because he was concentrating on Florida because it had a lot more convention delegates. What he didn't take into account is that by failing to compete in those early primaries he looked like an also-ran time after time, and he missed out on any media coverage. The strategy might have worked if the early results had been a complete mess, with none of the other candidates gaining any net advantage, but the fact that John McCain was in the lead by Florida, and that McCain was also the candidate whose policy stance is closest to Giuliani's, effectively wrote him off. It's an extraordinary failure for the guy who was at one stage being touted as the great white hope for '08. Giuliani has endorsed McCain.
For the Democrats, John Edwards has thrown in the towel after failing to make much impact in any of the primaries so far, running a distant third behind the media frenzy enveloping Clinton and Obama. Despite making substantial criticisms of Clinton's attacks on Obama during the early primaries, Edwards is not endorsing either Clinton or Obama - for now. This is probably strategic - keeping his options open to cut a running-mate deal with whoever wins the presidential nomination. It's a pity Edwards didn't make more headway as he was the most radical of the candidates and the only one who made action to reduce the shocking levels of poverty in America the centrepiece of his campaign. To a large extent he has been eclipsed by the emergence of Barack Obama as the alternative to the Clinton dynasty in this campaign - although Obama's policy platform isn't actually that radical.
Meanwhile, after what has turned out to be the most strategically wrongheaded campaign in recent history, one-time favourite Rudy Giuliani has pulled out of the Republican race. Giuliani's campaign was a disaster, full stop ("period"). He didn't bother to campaign in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan etc because he was concentrating on Florida because it had a lot more convention delegates. What he didn't take into account is that by failing to compete in those early primaries he looked like an also-ran time after time, and he missed out on any media coverage. The strategy might have worked if the early results had been a complete mess, with none of the other candidates gaining any net advantage, but the fact that John McCain was in the lead by Florida, and that McCain was also the candidate whose policy stance is closest to Giuliani's, effectively wrote him off. It's an extraordinary failure for the guy who was at one stage being touted as the great white hope for '08. Giuliani has endorsed McCain.
29 January 2008
Good to see the Tories can still pull out a real turkey
The heat's been on New New Labour (aka 'New Conservatives', 'Stalin's Bean Feast', etc) for several months now, and sleaze has been a central element of that. But lest we forget, the Tories were the masters of sleaze under John Major in the good ol' days of the mid-90s, and it's good to see Old Bexley and Sidcup MP Derek Conway keeping up the tradition.
Conway paid his son Freddie about £40,000 for three years of employment as a 'researcher' although there is no obvious evidence that he did any work whatsoever. Now, that's not necessarily incriminating in itself - parlimentary researchers don't tend to publish huge great wodges of research reports, for example. They tend to be more occupied with day-to-day "bits and pieces" - looking up statistics and references, for instance. But £13,000 per year is, to my knowledge, a pretty high rate for a parliamentary researcher even if Freddie wasn't just taking the money and doing naff all. It looks a hell of a lot like a way of funding the kid through university at the taxpayer's expense. Well, I guess once the Tories introduced student loans in teh early 90s we were always going to be on the slippery slope to this kind of thing.
Dave Cameron has acted quickly and decisively by withdrawing the whip from Conway, which is probably a sensible thing to do unless this kind of thing turns out to be rife on the backbenches, in which case the Tory party could be looking a bit thin in a few months' time.
The most ludicrous stance came from fellow Tory MP Roger Gale, who said that Mr Conway was "an honourable man" who was being accused by a Labour MP (John Mann) with an "axe to grind".
Yeah, right. So presumably Roger would say the same about Peter Hain and Alan Johnson? They're the subject of "witch hunts" too? Twat.
In any case it's good to see Tory sleaze back on the shelves, selling next to the Labour variety. So when are the Lib Dems gonna get in on the act?
Conway paid his son Freddie about £40,000 for three years of employment as a 'researcher' although there is no obvious evidence that he did any work whatsoever. Now, that's not necessarily incriminating in itself - parlimentary researchers don't tend to publish huge great wodges of research reports, for example. They tend to be more occupied with day-to-day "bits and pieces" - looking up statistics and references, for instance. But £13,000 per year is, to my knowledge, a pretty high rate for a parliamentary researcher even if Freddie wasn't just taking the money and doing naff all. It looks a hell of a lot like a way of funding the kid through university at the taxpayer's expense. Well, I guess once the Tories introduced student loans in teh early 90s we were always going to be on the slippery slope to this kind of thing.
Dave Cameron has acted quickly and decisively by withdrawing the whip from Conway, which is probably a sensible thing to do unless this kind of thing turns out to be rife on the backbenches, in which case the Tory party could be looking a bit thin in a few months' time.
The most ludicrous stance came from fellow Tory MP Roger Gale, who said that Mr Conway was "an honourable man" who was being accused by a Labour MP (John Mann) with an "axe to grind".
Yeah, right. So presumably Roger would say the same about Peter Hain and Alan Johnson? They're the subject of "witch hunts" too? Twat.
In any case it's good to see Tory sleaze back on the shelves, selling next to the Labour variety. So when are the Lib Dems gonna get in on the act?
27 January 2008
Cabinet '08: it's the march of the duffers...
...or in fact the January of the duffers.
First the resignation of Peter Hain three days ago, after alleged irregularities in donations to his deputy leadership campaign were referred to the police by the Electoral Commission.
This followed news coverage of alleged irregularities in donations to Harriet Harman's (successful) deputy leadership campaign back in November.
And now... alleged irregularities in donations to Alan Johnson's deputy leadership campaign.
Would Hazel Blears or Hilary Benn care to step forward now so we can get their investigation of donation irregularities over with? Or shall we just carry on doing them one by one?
(I think Jon Cruddas is safe as he didn't take up a ministerial post despite being allegedly offered one by Brown just after the handover in June).
Back in the spring when there was an extensive debate in the Labour Party over whether it would be a good idea to hold a deputy leadership, there were several arguments against having one: it was too expensive, it would distract from the key business of getting Brown established as the new PM, it would turn Labour's focus inward instead of outward, etc. One argument I can't remember anyone using was, "there shouldn't be an election because no-one involved will adhere to the rules on donations and so it will result in an avalanche of negative publicity and a police investigation." And yet this is precisely what has happened.
It seems to be the case that almost no-one involved in several of the deputy leadership campaigns either understood or adhered to the donation rules. WIth people this lame involved in the day-to-day running of the Labour party, is it any wonder Labour is behind in the polls?
Perhaps the worst aspect of Hain's resignation is that his place has been taken by James "Mr Photoshop" Purnell, a Blairite hack of the very worst kind. Hain may have been clueless, but he at least had a radical history, even if it was pretty distant. Purnell seems like the kind of guy for whom buying The Independent constitutes a radical act. It's a glimpse of the future of mainstream politics in this country, and it's depressing. One of the (few) consolations of a Conservative victory next time round is that Purnell would be out of the Government - unless he decides to switch parties, which, given that his political position is indistinguishable from David Cameron's, is quite possible.
First the resignation of Peter Hain three days ago, after alleged irregularities in donations to his deputy leadership campaign were referred to the police by the Electoral Commission.
This followed news coverage of alleged irregularities in donations to Harriet Harman's (successful) deputy leadership campaign back in November.
And now... alleged irregularities in donations to Alan Johnson's deputy leadership campaign.
Would Hazel Blears or Hilary Benn care to step forward now so we can get their investigation of donation irregularities over with? Or shall we just carry on doing them one by one?
(I think Jon Cruddas is safe as he didn't take up a ministerial post despite being allegedly offered one by Brown just after the handover in June).
Back in the spring when there was an extensive debate in the Labour Party over whether it would be a good idea to hold a deputy leadership, there were several arguments against having one: it was too expensive, it would distract from the key business of getting Brown established as the new PM, it would turn Labour's focus inward instead of outward, etc. One argument I can't remember anyone using was, "there shouldn't be an election because no-one involved will adhere to the rules on donations and so it will result in an avalanche of negative publicity and a police investigation." And yet this is precisely what has happened.
It seems to be the case that almost no-one involved in several of the deputy leadership campaigns either understood or adhered to the donation rules. WIth people this lame involved in the day-to-day running of the Labour party, is it any wonder Labour is behind in the polls?
Perhaps the worst aspect of Hain's resignation is that his place has been taken by James "Mr Photoshop" Purnell, a Blairite hack of the very worst kind. Hain may have been clueless, but he at least had a radical history, even if it was pretty distant. Purnell seems like the kind of guy for whom buying The Independent constitutes a radical act. It's a glimpse of the future of mainstream politics in this country, and it's depressing. One of the (few) consolations of a Conservative victory next time round is that Purnell would be out of the Government - unless he decides to switch parties, which, given that his political position is indistinguishable from David Cameron's, is quite possible.
The boys are back with the Barack
(with apologies to Alan Partridge...)
Good result for Barack Obama in the South Carolina primary. 55% for Obama against 27% for Clinton is a huge victory margin and it looks like Obama benefited from a backlash against the increasingly negative campaigning of the Bill and Hilary double act. Those two are pulling dirty tricks out of the bag as fast as they can, in a way that suggest they may be running pretty scared... and it's gonna be interesting to see what they pull out next in the run up to 'Super Tuesday' in 9 days' time.
I was surprised to see John Edwards not doing better than 18% of the vote in what is almost his home turf, but I think he's been squeezed badly in the Clinton/Obama crossfire. Nonetheless, if he stays in the race up to and including Super Tuesday he could still emerge with enough delegates to hold the balance of power at the Democratic Convention, if it's a close enough race.
I've not yet seen detailed polling from any of the Super Tuesday states so at this point there's not much more to say on this topic at this point in time - I'll come back to it later in the week.
Good result for Barack Obama in the South Carolina primary. 55% for Obama against 27% for Clinton is a huge victory margin and it looks like Obama benefited from a backlash against the increasingly negative campaigning of the Bill and Hilary double act. Those two are pulling dirty tricks out of the bag as fast as they can, in a way that suggest they may be running pretty scared... and it's gonna be interesting to see what they pull out next in the run up to 'Super Tuesday' in 9 days' time.
I was surprised to see John Edwards not doing better than 18% of the vote in what is almost his home turf, but I think he's been squeezed badly in the Clinton/Obama crossfire. Nonetheless, if he stays in the race up to and including Super Tuesday he could still emerge with enough delegates to hold the balance of power at the Democratic Convention, if it's a close enough race.
I've not yet seen detailed polling from any of the Super Tuesday states so at this point there's not much more to say on this topic at this point in time - I'll come back to it later in the week.
24 January 2008
Rogue Trader Plus
As if the stock market turmoil of the last few days weren't enough, news emerged today that 31-year-old Jerome Kerviel has just become the Nick Leeson of the 21st century, blowing a €4.9bn hole in Société Générale's balance sheet.
Details of what exactly happened are very sketchy but it looks like Kerviel was cultivating an increasingly large uncovered position - effectively betting that the market would rise, and doubling up when the index moved against him. Very similar to what Leeson did in Singapore in the early 1990s (his Rogue Trader is a pulp classic if you haven't read it.)
SocGen's losses are an order of magnitude greater than what Leeson inflicted on Barings in the mid-1990s - the difference is that Barings was tiny by international standards and collapsed as a result of Leeson's antics, whereas SocGen is a major multinational player and will, incredibly, still manage to turn a profit despite the huge losses on Kerviel's trading.
All of which makes the London Lite free paper's assertion that Kerviel caused the global stock market crash by spooking the market with huge volumes of unorthodox-looking trades somewhat hard to swallow, to say the least. €4.9bn is big money to most of us, but compared with the scale of losses from the sub-prime fallout, it's tiny beer. Still, if you get your news from London Lite you deserve to be misinformed.
Amazing, though, that over a decade after Barings, a major bank did not have basic safeguards in place to stop this happening (separation of front and back office operations, anyone?) More on this as more of the details come out.
Details of what exactly happened are very sketchy but it looks like Kerviel was cultivating an increasingly large uncovered position - effectively betting that the market would rise, and doubling up when the index moved against him. Very similar to what Leeson did in Singapore in the early 1990s (his Rogue Trader is a pulp classic if you haven't read it.)
SocGen's losses are an order of magnitude greater than what Leeson inflicted on Barings in the mid-1990s - the difference is that Barings was tiny by international standards and collapsed as a result of Leeson's antics, whereas SocGen is a major multinational player and will, incredibly, still manage to turn a profit despite the huge losses on Kerviel's trading.
All of which makes the London Lite free paper's assertion that Kerviel caused the global stock market crash by spooking the market with huge volumes of unorthodox-looking trades somewhat hard to swallow, to say the least. €4.9bn is big money to most of us, but compared with the scale of losses from the sub-prime fallout, it's tiny beer. Still, if you get your news from London Lite you deserve to be misinformed.
Amazing, though, that over a decade after Barings, a major bank did not have basic safeguards in place to stop this happening (separation of front and back office operations, anyone?) More on this as more of the details come out.
23 January 2008
The Fed takes a gamble (but the Bank of England may be taking even more of a gamble...)
The US Federal Reserve panicked yesterday in the face of a global stock market slump and cut interest rates by 0.75 percentage points (or 75 "basis points" as the guys in the City like to say). That doesn't sound a lot, but given that they were only 4.25% to start with, it's a huge reduction. Also it was a week before the Fed's normal Open Market Committee meeting - which made it look even more like a panic move.
The States is desperate to avoid going the way of Japan over the last fifteen years, where the collapse of the huge 1980s asset bubble was followed by a prolonged economic slump. At one point interest rates in Japan fell to 0.1% - pretty much the lowest practically possible. Hence, fiscal and monetary stimuli are being applied - the interest rate cut on the monetary side, and on the fiscal side Bush has lined up a $145bn stimulus package of tax cuts. Naive Keynesian economic theory suggests that both these measures should have positive effects by boosting demand for goods and services and making it less likely that high borrowing costs will force firms into bankruptcy. However, naive Keynesianism also ignores a lot of other factors (many of which would have been familiar to J.M. Keynes himself), for instance:
Why? Basically because King has a sole remit to keep inflation at a 2% target rate, whereas the Fed is tasked with maintaining a monetary environment conductive to "high and stable employment" as well as low inflation. This means that when times are difficult, Bernanke can (at his discretion) slack off on inflation to boost employment. But King doesn't have that flexibility. And he's worried that oil, gas and food price rises are going to feed through to inflation, which doesn't give the Bank of England any wiggle room on interest rates.
Now, the FT, Economist and many other commentators will tell you that taking risks with inflation is dangerous. They're almost completely wrong. There is very, very little evidence that an inflation rate of (say) 10% is any worse for economic growth or employment than a 2% inflation rate. Now, I say "almost completely wrong" rather than "completely wrong" because at some point, inflation does have big costs - look at Zimbabwe for example, where it's 4,000,000% (or something like that). But that's hyper-inflation, not 'regular' inflation. The idea that we would be taking huge risks with the economy if inflation had to rise to (say) 5% rather than 2% because of temporary price pressures on oil and food, is garbage. Remember that next time you're in the pub with an FT journalist!
The States is desperate to avoid going the way of Japan over the last fifteen years, where the collapse of the huge 1980s asset bubble was followed by a prolonged economic slump. At one point interest rates in Japan fell to 0.1% - pretty much the lowest practically possible. Hence, fiscal and monetary stimuli are being applied - the interest rate cut on the monetary side, and on the fiscal side Bush has lined up a $145bn stimulus package of tax cuts. Naive Keynesian economic theory suggests that both these measures should have positive effects by boosting demand for goods and services and making it less likely that high borrowing costs will force firms into bankruptcy. However, naive Keynesianism also ignores a lot of other factors (many of which would have been familiar to J.M. Keynes himself), for instance:
- if the interest rate cut and fiscal stimulus reduces investors' and consumers' confidence in the strength of the US economy it could have the reverse effect to that intended.
- the current crisis was partially triggered by an epidemic of bad (sub-prime) lending facilitated by low interest rates - so is it really a good idea to fan the flames by sending interest rates even lower?
Why? Basically because King has a sole remit to keep inflation at a 2% target rate, whereas the Fed is tasked with maintaining a monetary environment conductive to "high and stable employment" as well as low inflation. This means that when times are difficult, Bernanke can (at his discretion) slack off on inflation to boost employment. But King doesn't have that flexibility. And he's worried that oil, gas and food price rises are going to feed through to inflation, which doesn't give the Bank of England any wiggle room on interest rates.
Now, the FT, Economist and many other commentators will tell you that taking risks with inflation is dangerous. They're almost completely wrong. There is very, very little evidence that an inflation rate of (say) 10% is any worse for economic growth or employment than a 2% inflation rate. Now, I say "almost completely wrong" rather than "completely wrong" because at some point, inflation does have big costs - look at Zimbabwe for example, where it's 4,000,000% (or something like that). But that's hyper-inflation, not 'regular' inflation. The idea that we would be taking huge risks with the economy if inflation had to rise to (say) 5% rather than 2% because of temporary price pressures on oil and food, is garbage. Remember that next time you're in the pub with an FT journalist!
20 January 2008
Clinton vs Obama: close calls, stupid voting systems and stupid voters
Results from the Nevada Democratic primary show a narrow win for Hillary Clinton.
Or at least, the headline results do. The actual delegate figures show Obama with 13 delegates from Nevada to Clinton's 12. This is due to the idiotic first-past-the-post system of delegate selection by precinct (and that isn't a dig at the States because we have the same stupid system for our elections - it's how New Labour ensures a working majority with only 35% of the vote.) Overall, Obama has 38 delegates to Clinton's 36, with Edwards on 18.
What this means is that one has to 'read the small print', i.e. look at how the primary and caucus results are translating to numbers of delegates at the Democratic Convention in the summer, before making any predictions on who's going to get the nomination. Based on current evidence the Democratic race looks too close to call and it's entirely possible that neither Obama nor Clinton will end up with the necessary 2,025 delegates by the time of the Convention - which could leave Edwards as the 'kingmaker'. An interesting thought.
Also interesting, if a little spooky, is BBC North America editor Justin Webb's claim in his blog today that some people haven't been voting for Barack Obama in the primaries because they think he's a Muslim. Well, I guess if the American education system is set up to produce drones - both working and middle class - who get their entire info from Fox News, then this is the kind of crap you end up with. And that's not to say the UK system is any better - anyone who remembers the 1987 general election and the widely touted claim that if Kinnock won, Soviet Tanks would be rolling down Whitehall within 48 hours, will know there's no room for complacency.
Or at least, the headline results do. The actual delegate figures show Obama with 13 delegates from Nevada to Clinton's 12. This is due to the idiotic first-past-the-post system of delegate selection by precinct (and that isn't a dig at the States because we have the same stupid system for our elections - it's how New Labour ensures a working majority with only 35% of the vote.) Overall, Obama has 38 delegates to Clinton's 36, with Edwards on 18.
What this means is that one has to 'read the small print', i.e. look at how the primary and caucus results are translating to numbers of delegates at the Democratic Convention in the summer, before making any predictions on who's going to get the nomination. Based on current evidence the Democratic race looks too close to call and it's entirely possible that neither Obama nor Clinton will end up with the necessary 2,025 delegates by the time of the Convention - which could leave Edwards as the 'kingmaker'. An interesting thought.
Also interesting, if a little spooky, is BBC North America editor Justin Webb's claim in his blog today that some people haven't been voting for Barack Obama in the primaries because they think he's a Muslim. Well, I guess if the American education system is set up to produce drones - both working and middle class - who get their entire info from Fox News, then this is the kind of crap you end up with. And that's not to say the UK system is any better - anyone who remembers the 1987 general election and the widely touted claim that if Kinnock won, Soviet Tanks would be rolling down Whitehall within 48 hours, will know there's no room for complacency.
16 January 2008
Staying on a sci-fi tip...
Continuing my limited excursion into sci-fi blogging that began with Sunday's post discussing differences between Battlestar Galactica DVD sets in the US and UK, whilst following a BSG link I came across a blog post from a couple of years back by Wil Wheaton, who will be familiar to Star Trek: The Next Generation fans as the guy who played Wesley Crusher. I always thought he could have been called 'Ratings Crusher' as if I had a pound for everyone who had told me over the years that they found The Next Generation unwatchable because of that silly twerp Wesley, who managed to save the ship week after week despite being only about 14 years old and having no formal training whatsoever... and being an annoying whiny little bastard to boot... I would be able to afford at least one of the Next Gen season box sets.
Early Next Gen was the perfect example of a good basic concept hamstrung by a couple of characters so annoying you wanted to beat them up; Crusher, and Will Riker, played by Jonathan Frakes so cheesily that he made Shatner look like a vegan. If the original Star Trek series had had anyone as duff as these two in the cast it wouldn't have lasted six episodes.
It wasn't Wil Wheaton's fault that Wesley was crap, of course; the character was written to be an annoying jerk, and like Colin Baker in the ropey mid-80s Doctor Who era, Wheaton did the best he could with the dross he was given. Anyway it was a pleasant surprise to find his blog and it seems very good. He's recently got into Tom Baker-era Doctor Who, for instance. Additionally, I'm a sucker for posts which swear a lot, so I enjoyed this one. Although I would argue that five or six swear words is not "lots", Wil.
His book 'Just a Geek' looks interesting, too - great title. Must read that one.
Early Next Gen was the perfect example of a good basic concept hamstrung by a couple of characters so annoying you wanted to beat them up; Crusher, and Will Riker, played by Jonathan Frakes so cheesily that he made Shatner look like a vegan. If the original Star Trek series had had anyone as duff as these two in the cast it wouldn't have lasted six episodes.
It wasn't Wil Wheaton's fault that Wesley was crap, of course; the character was written to be an annoying jerk, and like Colin Baker in the ropey mid-80s Doctor Who era, Wheaton did the best he could with the dross he was given. Anyway it was a pleasant surprise to find his blog and it seems very good. He's recently got into Tom Baker-era Doctor Who, for instance. Additionally, I'm a sucker for posts which swear a lot, so I enjoyed this one. Although I would argue that five or six swear words is not "lots", Wil.
His book 'Just a Geek' looks interesting, too - great title. Must read that one.
Republicans '08: and the frontrunner is...?
The Republican primaries continue to provide electoral excitement here in dreary old blighty. (Well, at least to sad people like me who find the presidential race interesting.)
The Michigan primary yesterday resulted in a comeback for Mitt Romney, who got 39% of the vote to McCain's 30%, with Huckabee third with 16%. This means total confusion for electoral pundits already reeling from Hillary Clinton's surprise win in New Hampshire after being written off.
Romney's winning speech in Michigan was lame even by the low standards we've come to expect from this campaign. "Tonight marks the beginning of a comeback for America" indeed... the guy is a third-rate cheeseball - even by the low standards we've come to expect... etc. etc. It's quite possible he only managed to win Michigan because it's his home state.
Right now, one would have to be brave, rich or stupid (or all 3?) to put a bet on who's gonna win this Republican campaign. All this confusion is probably going to help Rudy Guiliani a lot as by targeting his resources on the Florida primary in late January and then a blitz on 'Super Tuesday' on 5 Feb, he may be able to exploit a divided field and emerge as the frontrunner. Advertising agencies must be having a field day - after all, the longer there are multiple candidates in the race, the more money is spent on advertising in aggregate. Good to see someone's doing well out of the current US economic collapse.
The Michigan primary yesterday resulted in a comeback for Mitt Romney, who got 39% of the vote to McCain's 30%, with Huckabee third with 16%. This means total confusion for electoral pundits already reeling from Hillary Clinton's surprise win in New Hampshire after being written off.
Romney's winning speech in Michigan was lame even by the low standards we've come to expect from this campaign. "Tonight marks the beginning of a comeback for America" indeed... the guy is a third-rate cheeseball - even by the low standards we've come to expect... etc. etc. It's quite possible he only managed to win Michigan because it's his home state.
Right now, one would have to be brave, rich or stupid (or all 3?) to put a bet on who's gonna win this Republican campaign. All this confusion is probably going to help Rudy Guiliani a lot as by targeting his resources on the Florida primary in late January and then a blitz on 'Super Tuesday' on 5 Feb, he may be able to exploit a divided field and emerge as the frontrunner. Advertising agencies must be having a field day - after all, the longer there are multiple candidates in the race, the more money is spent on advertising in aggregate. Good to see someone's doing well out of the current US economic collapse.
13 January 2008
Battlestar Galactica: a guide to DVD Regions 1 and 2 for the perplexed
2 days ago Battlestar Galactica: Razor arrived in the post on US import. As soon as I have a chance - yesterday evening - I gave it a spin in the player. Great stuff, but I'm not going to say anything about the plot here. If you've already seen it plot analysis will be redundant, and if you haven't seen it, you don't need some idiot giving away spoilers in a blog that is only occasionally about TV. Instead I'm going to talk about the huge contrast between how BSG gets released on DVD here in the UK, and the US release.
Razor- which is a TV movie designed to fill the gap between BSG seasons 3 and 4 (18 months or longer) - was shown pretty much simultaneously on Sky in the UK and on whatever channel broadcasts the show in the US, and then rush-released on DVD. The UK DVD release of Razor is atypical because it seems to have the same extras - commentary, deleted scenes, etc. - as the US release. In all the previous BSG releases the UK extras have been minimal - in fact on Season 3 they're non-existent. By contrast, US viewers in Region 1 get commentaries for each episode from series creator Ronald D Moore. The UK version of the Season 2 DVD has the podcasts for the first 4 episodes but nothing after that.
Fortunately the episode commentaries are also available here at the Sci-Fi Channel's US website. However if you are watching the Region 2 DVD whilst listening to a downloaded podcast you need to bear in mind that PAL (Region 2) DVDs run about 4% faster than NTSC (Region 1) DVDs, so your podcast will drift out of sync with the video unless you use an editor like Audacity to slow the mp3 down.
Bizarrely, Season 3 is available here in the UK, but not yet in the US - which has resulted in some people who can't wait importing the UK Season 3 set into the US, which is unusual - normally it's the other way round.
Even more bizarrely, I must mention the flyer that comes with the US edition of Razor - apparently "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA ACTION FIGURES ARE AVAILABLE NOW!" They are available from Diamond Select Toys. The initial choice of figures is somewhat strange - why Hotdog, or Kat, before they've done Baltar, Roslin or Admiral Adama, for example? Also, none of the figures looks anything like their real-life counterpart. That'll be familiar to anyone who bought Star Wars figures back in the late 70s and early 80s... but what's the audience for BSG action figures? The show's not aimed at kids, so who's buying them? Sad thirtysomethings who want to put them on their desks at work? Maybe...
Razor- which is a TV movie designed to fill the gap between BSG seasons 3 and 4 (18 months or longer) - was shown pretty much simultaneously on Sky in the UK and on whatever channel broadcasts the show in the US, and then rush-released on DVD. The UK DVD release of Razor is atypical because it seems to have the same extras - commentary, deleted scenes, etc. - as the US release. In all the previous BSG releases the UK extras have been minimal - in fact on Season 3 they're non-existent. By contrast, US viewers in Region 1 get commentaries for each episode from series creator Ronald D Moore. The UK version of the Season 2 DVD has the podcasts for the first 4 episodes but nothing after that.
Fortunately the episode commentaries are also available here at the Sci-Fi Channel's US website. However if you are watching the Region 2 DVD whilst listening to a downloaded podcast you need to bear in mind that PAL (Region 2) DVDs run about 4% faster than NTSC (Region 1) DVDs, so your podcast will drift out of sync with the video unless you use an editor like Audacity to slow the mp3 down.
Bizarrely, Season 3 is available here in the UK, but not yet in the US - which has resulted in some people who can't wait importing the UK Season 3 set into the US, which is unusual - normally it's the other way round.
Even more bizarrely, I must mention the flyer that comes with the US edition of Razor - apparently "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA ACTION FIGURES ARE AVAILABLE NOW!" They are available from Diamond Select Toys. The initial choice of figures is somewhat strange - why Hotdog, or Kat, before they've done Baltar, Roslin or Admiral Adama, for example? Also, none of the figures looks anything like their real-life counterpart. That'll be familiar to anyone who bought Star Wars figures back in the late 70s and early 80s... but what's the audience for BSG action figures? The show's not aimed at kids, so who's buying them? Sad thirtysomethings who want to put them on their desks at work? Maybe...
10 January 2008
The big nuclear sell-out: a corporate cave-in disguised as environmentalism
Big news of the day in the UK was the Government's decision to give the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations.
This is an extraordinary turn around from five or ten years ago, when it was only really the nuclear industry - the companies that build, maintain and supply the plants - that were pushing nuclear. It was seen as an expensive and unpopular failure from the post-war era, along with things like Concorde. So what's changed?
Essentially the nuclear industry has found a new, 'progressive' argument to use in lobbying the government - which is that nuclear power can help the UK meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets. It could - but renewable energy sources like wind farms would do that just as well, without huge subsidies from the government, and without creating radioactive waste which we still have no long-term plan for disposal of. But of course wind power is still small beer at the moment and there isn't a huge corporate lobbying industry around renewables the way there is around nuclear.
The recent 'consultations' over the issue were, as usual, a complete fraud - the Government had already made up its mind. No wonder Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth pulled out.
The Tories, as so often nowadays, have parrotted the Government line on this (Except to say that there shouldn't be any Government subsidies for the new plants - of course there shouldn't, but how likely is that?) Of the big parties, only the Lib Dems have a sensible position. Good for them - I'm thinking very strongly about joining up. Anything to get rid of the two Conservative parties... 'New Conservative' and 'David Cameron's Conservatives'. Go Cleggie.
With any luck there are going to be massive on-the-ground struggles when they start trying to build these new plants. It'll make the Twyford Down M3 bypass protest of the 1990s look like a village fete. That's assuming, of course, that potential protesters haven't already been detained under anti-terrorist legislation...
Fight the power.
This is an extraordinary turn around from five or ten years ago, when it was only really the nuclear industry - the companies that build, maintain and supply the plants - that were pushing nuclear. It was seen as an expensive and unpopular failure from the post-war era, along with things like Concorde. So what's changed?
Essentially the nuclear industry has found a new, 'progressive' argument to use in lobbying the government - which is that nuclear power can help the UK meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets. It could - but renewable energy sources like wind farms would do that just as well, without huge subsidies from the government, and without creating radioactive waste which we still have no long-term plan for disposal of. But of course wind power is still small beer at the moment and there isn't a huge corporate lobbying industry around renewables the way there is around nuclear.
The recent 'consultations' over the issue were, as usual, a complete fraud - the Government had already made up its mind. No wonder Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth pulled out.
The Tories, as so often nowadays, have parrotted the Government line on this (Except to say that there shouldn't be any Government subsidies for the new plants - of course there shouldn't, but how likely is that?) Of the big parties, only the Lib Dems have a sensible position. Good for them - I'm thinking very strongly about joining up. Anything to get rid of the two Conservative parties... 'New Conservative' and 'David Cameron's Conservatives'. Go Cleggie.
With any luck there are going to be massive on-the-ground struggles when they start trying to build these new plants. It'll make the Twyford Down M3 bypass protest of the 1990s look like a village fete. That's assuming, of course, that potential protesters haven't already been detained under anti-terrorist legislation...
Fight the power.
08 January 2008
A Toshiba Libretto for the 00s?
And so to technology... I was flicking through Linux Format magazine today (somebody has to) and read a very positive review of the Asus Eee laptop.
For those who don't keep up with this sort of thing, the Eee is a very cheap, small and light laptop which runs Linux as the default operating system (although it is capable of running Windows), has a 4 Gb flash drive instead of a hard drive, a 7 inch 800x600 display, a built in webcam, and weighs only about 900 grams. As a concept it reminds me a bit of the Toshiba Libretto which was a 'sub-notebook' PC of similar size and weight from just over a decade ago; the main selling point of the Libretto was that, unlike the other sub-notebooks of the time, which were jumped-up PDAs, it was fully capable of running Windows 95. A good mate of mine who was very active in the IT industry at the time, bought a Libretto in about 1997 and says that it 'saved his ass' on more than one occasion. The Eee has much of the feel of the Libretto about it - except that, at £220, it is MUCH cheaper than the Libretto, even relative to current laptop prices (if I remember correctly the Libretto was about the same price as an average-spec full size laptop of the time.)
Anyway these things seem to be flying off the shelves - they're out of stock at most of the main online stockists (scan, dabs etc.) Given that you're effectively getting full PC functionality for not much more than a well-specified iPod, it's starting to look very tempting... certainly more exciting than an iPhone IMHO.
For those who don't keep up with this sort of thing, the Eee is a very cheap, small and light laptop which runs Linux as the default operating system (although it is capable of running Windows), has a 4 Gb flash drive instead of a hard drive, a 7 inch 800x600 display, a built in webcam, and weighs only about 900 grams. As a concept it reminds me a bit of the Toshiba Libretto which was a 'sub-notebook' PC of similar size and weight from just over a decade ago; the main selling point of the Libretto was that, unlike the other sub-notebooks of the time, which were jumped-up PDAs, it was fully capable of running Windows 95. A good mate of mine who was very active in the IT industry at the time, bought a Libretto in about 1997 and says that it 'saved his ass' on more than one occasion. The Eee has much of the feel of the Libretto about it - except that, at £220, it is MUCH cheaper than the Libretto, even relative to current laptop prices (if I remember correctly the Libretto was about the same price as an average-spec full size laptop of the time.)
Anyway these things seem to be flying off the shelves - they're out of stock at most of the main online stockists (scan, dabs etc.) Given that you're effectively getting full PC functionality for not much more than a well-specified iPod, it's starting to look very tempting... certainly more exciting than an iPhone IMHO.
07 January 2008
Ha! Clarkson PROVES he's a complete idiot
As the great Hunter S Thompson would have said, this is a "ho ho ho" moment... after saying that 'Discgate' was a fuss about nothing, and publishing details of his bank account in The Sun to prove it, Jeremy Clarkson has become a victim of identity fraud.
Always great when someone you know is a complete twat proves it voluntarily in so spectacular a fashion. In the inhospitable bastard of a month that is January, we need stories like this to raise a smile. Thanks Jez.
Always great when someone you know is a complete twat proves it voluntarily in so spectacular a fashion. In the inhospitable bastard of a month that is January, we need stories like this to raise a smile. Thanks Jez.
06 January 2008
Barack Obama storms out of the blocks...
And so, as promised, on to the Democratic race, where, only 4 days into the campaign proper, Hillary Clinton is already starting to look like a lame duck. The general media consensus was that the amount of funds raised by the Clinton campaign and the support of Bill would be enough to propel her through the primaries with Barack Obama a creditable second, and John Edwards a long way back in the rear.
Instead, what seems to be happening - based on the results from Iowa and the latest polls in New Hampshire - is that Obama is surging into a big lead, with Edwards and Clinton fighting over second place. Obama got 38% of the vote in Iowa with Edwards and Clinton pretty much tied at 30%. One of the polls from New Hampshire puts Obama 10 points in front - and if the actual result goes that way, it would be an even bigger upset than Iowa.
The factor that seems to be propelling Obama to the front of the field seems to be a big surge in support among young activists and voters - see, for example, this BBC piece. It could be that, like George McGovern in 1972, Obama is going to cruise to the Democratic nomination on a wave of youth radicalism - but unlike McGovern, there is a strong possibility Obama has the charisma to go all the way to the White House.
This of course, doesn't mean in itself that he'll be any good. Democratic presidents of whom much was expected have been complete letdowns before - Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter (although his focus on energy policy now looks extremely ahead of his time) and, arguably, even JFK. However, Obama does have the advantage of not being George W Bush, Hilary Clinton, or Mike Huckabee, which, given the state of politics in the US, might be as good as any reason to vote for him.
To finish, a few words on John Edwards, who is unlikely to get the nomination - he doesn't have anything like the campaign funding that Clinton or Obama have, but his decision to mount a (relatively) left-wing campaign highlighting the appalling levels of poverty that exist in the US and a strategy to reduce them, is to be applauded. He may well decide to drop out if he has won few or no primaries by 'Super Tuesday' in February, but he'd surely be a good choice for running-mate if Obama does get the nomination. An Obama-Edwards ticket would be about as good as we can expect from the Democrats this year, and should be strong enough to beat anyone the Republicans can come up with.
Instead, what seems to be happening - based on the results from Iowa and the latest polls in New Hampshire - is that Obama is surging into a big lead, with Edwards and Clinton fighting over second place. Obama got 38% of the vote in Iowa with Edwards and Clinton pretty much tied at 30%. One of the polls from New Hampshire puts Obama 10 points in front - and if the actual result goes that way, it would be an even bigger upset than Iowa.
The factor that seems to be propelling Obama to the front of the field seems to be a big surge in support among young activists and voters - see, for example, this BBC piece. It could be that, like George McGovern in 1972, Obama is going to cruise to the Democratic nomination on a wave of youth radicalism - but unlike McGovern, there is a strong possibility Obama has the charisma to go all the way to the White House.
This of course, doesn't mean in itself that he'll be any good. Democratic presidents of whom much was expected have been complete letdowns before - Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter (although his focus on energy policy now looks extremely ahead of his time) and, arguably, even JFK. However, Obama does have the advantage of not being George W Bush, Hilary Clinton, or Mike Huckabee, which, given the state of politics in the US, might be as good as any reason to vote for him.
To finish, a few words on John Edwards, who is unlikely to get the nomination - he doesn't have anything like the campaign funding that Clinton or Obama have, but his decision to mount a (relatively) left-wing campaign highlighting the appalling levels of poverty that exist in the US and a strategy to reduce them, is to be applauded. He may well decide to drop out if he has won few or no primaries by 'Super Tuesday' in February, but he'd surely be a good choice for running-mate if Obama does get the nomination. An Obama-Edwards ticket would be about as good as we can expect from the Democrats this year, and should be strong enough to beat anyone the Republicans can come up with.
04 January 2008
I Hate Huckabee (even though I don't know him at all well... yet.)
The US presidential election kicked into life yesterday with the results from the Iowa caucuses. Whereas most news reports seem to have covered the Democratic results first, I'm gonna start with the Republicans in this post, just for the hell of it. And also because I didn't know who the hell Mike Huckabee was until this morning.
Looking like a morph between John Hutton and Robert Lindsay, former Arkansas governor Huckabee got 34% of the Iowa vote, 9% in front of Mitt Romney, who had expected to win after spending heavily. Everyone else was a long way behind.
A surprise result, according to most of the news sites, and especially to me, as the last time I looked at the Republican race in any detail (which was about October, I think), the front-runners were Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain, with Ronald Reagan wannabee Fred Thompson as a wild card outsider. Huckabee didn't even figure on the menu - he was out there with principled no-hopers like the libertarian congressman Ron Paul. But here he is with 34%.
Of course, Huckabee has God On His Side - his main strength seems to be that he is the 'genuine article' religious conservative. Evangelicals have serious doubts about the relatively late conversion of Romney to the anti-abortion platform, and Giuliani is viewed in certain parts as pretty much a Satanist for his pro-choice stance. All this plays pretty well with a certain constituency of Republican voters - who I guess are probably the same kind of people who can be bothered to turn up at caucus meetings in the middle of winter in Iowa. You know... the hardcore.
I checked out the Huckabee site and the initial quote from him on there is not promising:
A vertical candidate's probably preferable to a horizontal one - I'll give him that. But surely the vertical axis runs up and down? I mean, what is this cack? A click on 'learn more' takes us to the blog page, with a roll of about 200 Huckabee-supporting blogs. Jeez, Mick... "there's too many of them". I'll be restarting Hal's Friday Evening Blog Review as Huckerbee's Sunday Evening Blog Review (the day of the Lord) in a couple of days' time.
God-fearing Democrats and even the odd agnostic will probably be praying tonight that Huckabee continues to gather momentum to the extent that Giuliani's campaign pretty much collapses before 'Super Tuesday' in early February, where he's spending most of his campaign funds on trying to get a big result in Florida and other key states. If Huckabee can mop up the Romney and Thompson support he certainly stands a reasonable chance of getting the Republican nomination, and that would be the biggest help to the Democrats since the days of 1964 and Barry Goldwater. That is, of course, assuming that hardcore religious conservatism, making even George Bush look wishy-washy, is a big turnoff to a large enough section of the US electorate. If it isn't, then we really are in big Barney Rubble. But back to that sometime soon...
It should be stressed however that this is VERY early days. If Iowa turns out to be a complete freak-out and Romney does well in New Hampshire and the other primaries over the next few weeks, Huckabee will be out of the race probably by the end of February. However, no-one in the US (or UK) media predicted this result so I don't feel particularly compelled to stick to the form-book any time in the near future. Next post... the Democratic race.
Looking like a morph between John Hutton and Robert Lindsay, former Arkansas governor Huckabee got 34% of the Iowa vote, 9% in front of Mitt Romney, who had expected to win after spending heavily. Everyone else was a long way behind.
A surprise result, according to most of the news sites, and especially to me, as the last time I looked at the Republican race in any detail (which was about October, I think), the front-runners were Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain, with Ronald Reagan wannabee Fred Thompson as a wild card outsider. Huckabee didn't even figure on the menu - he was out there with principled no-hopers like the libertarian congressman Ron Paul. But here he is with 34%.
Of course, Huckabee has God On His Side - his main strength seems to be that he is the 'genuine article' religious conservative. Evangelicals have serious doubts about the relatively late conversion of Romney to the anti-abortion platform, and Giuliani is viewed in certain parts as pretty much a Satanist for his pro-choice stance. All this plays pretty well with a certain constituency of Republican voters - who I guess are probably the same kind of people who can be bothered to turn up at caucus meetings in the middle of winter in Iowa. You know... the hardcore.
I checked out the Huckabee site and the initial quote from him on there is not promising:
I think the country is looking for somecody who is vertical, who is thinking, 'let's take America up and not down.'
A vertical candidate's probably preferable to a horizontal one - I'll give him that. But surely the vertical axis runs up and down? I mean, what is this cack? A click on 'learn more' takes us to the blog page, with a roll of about 200 Huckabee-supporting blogs. Jeez, Mick... "there's too many of them". I'll be restarting Hal's Friday Evening Blog Review as Huckerbee's Sunday Evening Blog Review (the day of the Lord) in a couple of days' time.
God-fearing Democrats and even the odd agnostic will probably be praying tonight that Huckabee continues to gather momentum to the extent that Giuliani's campaign pretty much collapses before 'Super Tuesday' in early February, where he's spending most of his campaign funds on trying to get a big result in Florida and other key states. If Huckabee can mop up the Romney and Thompson support he certainly stands a reasonable chance of getting the Republican nomination, and that would be the biggest help to the Democrats since the days of 1964 and Barry Goldwater. That is, of course, assuming that hardcore religious conservatism, making even George Bush look wishy-washy, is a big turnoff to a large enough section of the US electorate. If it isn't, then we really are in big Barney Rubble. But back to that sometime soon...
It should be stressed however that this is VERY early days. If Iowa turns out to be a complete freak-out and Romney does well in New Hampshire and the other primaries over the next few weeks, Huckabee will be out of the race probably by the end of February. However, no-one in the US (or UK) media predicted this result so I don't feel particularly compelled to stick to the form-book any time in the near future. Next post... the Democratic race.
03 January 2008
'one'/Network Rail hate me and my wife... and if they get the chance they'll f*** up my life
Daylight dawns... you wake up and you're... not going into work today because the train station still isn't properly open.
Doesn't scan as well as Paul Weller's original but it's certainly accurate.
Some of you may remember the comedy last year with 'one' railway where Managing Director Andrew Chivers was dodging an interview with the local paper. He did eventually give that interview, and it was, for the record, complete bollox.
Anyway, this time 'one' and Network Rail have surpassed themselves by failing to re-open Liverpool Street station after it was closed between 23 December and 1 January for engineering works. TfL needed to demolish a bridge on the approach to Liverpool Street for the East London line extension, which is fair enough - it's a big job and it's gotta be done so why not do it over the quietest period of the year? What isn't fair enough is that thousands of commuters went back to the grindstone yesterday and were faced with no rail service whatsoever on the Colchester - London line... there was no replacement bus service (unlike the previous ten days) and passengers were simply advised not to travel. 'one' couldn't even be bothered to try to arrange alternative transport... we were told the station would be open at 10, then 11, then 4pm, and by now they have managed to restore some of the Colchester line into Liverpool Street but other lines (Southend and the Metro service) are terminating at Stratford until mid-morning. I'm working at home until I'm confident the station is completely sorted. Which will probably be March at the earliest...
The core balls-up here is from Network Rail - although 'one' are good at making a bad situation worse by failing to implement any sort of contingency plan. Network Rail say 'a shortage of skilled engineers' has been responsible for the overrun. That's a great idea... schedule a line closure and then find you haven't got enough staff to do the job. Maybe it's because loads of them got fired when British Rail got privatised... But why the hell not just hire in extra staff from abroad? That's what happens with most infrastructure projects.
Really, the managing director of Network Rail should be fired over this. Hitting the management hard is, at the end of the day, the only way to ensure a good quality of service from these monopoly operators. The poor bastards travelling on this line pay through the nose for an appalling service. Is there anything they can do? I guess the main practical measure is to buy some shares in National Express, who own 'one'. Analysis of the company's share price over the last five years shows that it's roughly tripled. That outstrips even the inflation in rail fares over the period... so buy some shares and get your money back! It also means you can turn up at the AGM and disrupt the bastards.
Doesn't scan as well as Paul Weller's original but it's certainly accurate.
Some of you may remember the comedy last year with 'one' railway where Managing Director Andrew Chivers was dodging an interview with the local paper. He did eventually give that interview, and it was, for the record, complete bollox.
Anyway, this time 'one' and Network Rail have surpassed themselves by failing to re-open Liverpool Street station after it was closed between 23 December and 1 January for engineering works. TfL needed to demolish a bridge on the approach to Liverpool Street for the East London line extension, which is fair enough - it's a big job and it's gotta be done so why not do it over the quietest period of the year? What isn't fair enough is that thousands of commuters went back to the grindstone yesterday and were faced with no rail service whatsoever on the Colchester - London line... there was no replacement bus service (unlike the previous ten days) and passengers were simply advised not to travel. 'one' couldn't even be bothered to try to arrange alternative transport... we were told the station would be open at 10, then 11, then 4pm, and by now they have managed to restore some of the Colchester line into Liverpool Street but other lines (Southend and the Metro service) are terminating at Stratford until mid-morning. I'm working at home until I'm confident the station is completely sorted. Which will probably be March at the earliest...
The core balls-up here is from Network Rail - although 'one' are good at making a bad situation worse by failing to implement any sort of contingency plan. Network Rail say 'a shortage of skilled engineers' has been responsible for the overrun. That's a great idea... schedule a line closure and then find you haven't got enough staff to do the job. Maybe it's because loads of them got fired when British Rail got privatised... But why the hell not just hire in extra staff from abroad? That's what happens with most infrastructure projects.
Really, the managing director of Network Rail should be fired over this. Hitting the management hard is, at the end of the day, the only way to ensure a good quality of service from these monopoly operators. The poor bastards travelling on this line pay through the nose for an appalling service. Is there anything they can do? I guess the main practical measure is to buy some shares in National Express, who own 'one'. Analysis of the company's share price over the last five years shows that it's roughly tripled. That outstrips even the inflation in rail fares over the period... so buy some shares and get your money back! It also means you can turn up at the AGM and disrupt the bastards.
01 January 2008
Greetings, Team '08
Happy New Year to all and sundry...
Hope everyone is doing well. I'm well aware that 2007 was not a majorly productive year for giroscope, most of the time. Posts were often sporadic and pithy, the Friday evening blog review project was abandoned, and everything seemed to lack focus.
In short, by the end of the year, giroscope was looking at bit like the Brown administration.
So the objective for '08 is to Do Better in almost every conceivable way... at least 2 decent posts a week for starters, some action (finally) on the "Golf Ball" blog (first proper post planned for Sunday 6th), and also more contributions to Dilate, BHappY... more of every damn thing really, and less falling asleep on the job. We'll have a look back at the end of this month and see how things are going but I feel quietly confident I can get my shit together this year.
Whether Gordon Brown can do the same remains to be seen. To paraphrase a lyric from a band I was in back at school, "he had it/ and he's lost it." One of the greatest absentees from the blog over the last few months has been a proper analysis of what the hell went wrong for 'Newer Labour' between September, when they looked on top of the world, and December, when things had collapsed to such an extent that I was wondering if Iain Duncan Smith was moonlighting as Gordon's chief political strategist. (The quiet man advising the clunking fist... strange days indeed).
There is little doubt in my mind that the idiotic build up to the 'ectopic election' of October was the major mistake that Brown and the so called "creche team" of Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander made. These guys marched the troops up to the top of the hill, banging the drum loudly, expecting Cameron and Osborne to simply fall over, and then, when the opposition showed some last ditch bite and balls, cut and ran - leaving the impression of being (a) cowards and (b) completely green incompetents. Which they probably are. It's quite probable that a November election would have been a toughie, although I think it's unlikely Labour would have lost. It's a much bigger possibility that they could lose in '09 or '10 now. The polls, for the first time under New Labour (bar about a week during the 2000 fuel protest) are pretty damn awful. Of course governments have come back from being this far down before (the 80s Tories spring to mind), but the election-that-never-was precipitated such a wall of adverse publicity, with bad news for the government arriving virtually every day and from every quarter, that one was left wondering what the f*** was left to go wrong next. Northern Rock! Discgate! David Abrahams! Vince Cable correctly identifying Gordon as a cross between Stalin and Mr Bean at PMQs!
Meanwhile, Dave Cameron, who had been in all kinds of trouble in July and August with internal dissent and complete confusion over policy, suddenly started to look like a possible election winner. He was partially assisted in this by the continuing freefall of the Lib Dem's electoral prospects at the tail end of the Ming Campbell era - culminating, of course, in Campbell's quiet assissination by Lib Dem MPs desperate to recover some chance of actually saving their seats (those guys must be REALLY pleased there was no election last year).
So what can Labour do to get the initiative back? In some ways, not doing too much would be good. I can't think of anything LESS guaranteed to dig them deeper in a hole than another wave of bullshit policy initiatives designed to cover up the fact that the extra public spending money has run out - without producing sufficient improvements to convince the public it's been worth it and what they have left is an economic straitjacket that no-one wants to wear, particularly with a recession probably around the corner. Rather, they need to get health, education and transport policy sorted (admittedly a pretty tall order), whilst abandoning plans to destroy our civil liberties with crap like ID cards. If a cabinet minister would go on the TV and it were to look, even for a minute or two, that they weren't lying through their teeth, it would be a start.
Gordon Brown needs to stop being a neo-liberal who talks a lot to Irvin Stelzer and Alan Greenspan, and start behaving like the progressive social democrat that he has spent the last years telling the Labour party he.is He's never going to be a Bill Clinton style communications expert but if he could at least act like a man who's held a conversation a few times before when he gets up to PMQs, it would be a start. Failing that, a well placed sniper with a tranquiliser gun and instructions to fire if Gordon starts to flail too badly would at least ensure damage limitation. This guy has dug his own grave and looks increasingly ready to walk into it... salvation is still possible, but there needs to be a complete change of tone from the last ten years, and pretty damn quickly. Doing a hatchet job on Tony Blair similar to what Kruschev said about Stalin at the 1956 Soviet Party Congress would be a good start. If Brown isn't prepared to say Blair was a disaster then Dave Cameron, or indeed Nick Clegg, will be quite happy to, as the public increasingly comes to realise that it has been sold a pile of doo-doo over the last decade.
More on this rather soon. Hope everyone's recovered from the hangover by now!
Hope everyone is doing well. I'm well aware that 2007 was not a majorly productive year for giroscope, most of the time. Posts were often sporadic and pithy, the Friday evening blog review project was abandoned, and everything seemed to lack focus.
In short, by the end of the year, giroscope was looking at bit like the Brown administration.
So the objective for '08 is to Do Better in almost every conceivable way... at least 2 decent posts a week for starters, some action (finally) on the "Golf Ball" blog (first proper post planned for Sunday 6th), and also more contributions to Dilate, BHappY... more of every damn thing really, and less falling asleep on the job. We'll have a look back at the end of this month and see how things are going but I feel quietly confident I can get my shit together this year.
Whether Gordon Brown can do the same remains to be seen. To paraphrase a lyric from a band I was in back at school, "he had it/ and he's lost it." One of the greatest absentees from the blog over the last few months has been a proper analysis of what the hell went wrong for 'Newer Labour' between September, when they looked on top of the world, and December, when things had collapsed to such an extent that I was wondering if Iain Duncan Smith was moonlighting as Gordon's chief political strategist. (The quiet man advising the clunking fist... strange days indeed).
There is little doubt in my mind that the idiotic build up to the 'ectopic election' of October was the major mistake that Brown and the so called "creche team" of Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander made. These guys marched the troops up to the top of the hill, banging the drum loudly, expecting Cameron and Osborne to simply fall over, and then, when the opposition showed some last ditch bite and balls, cut and ran - leaving the impression of being (a) cowards and (b) completely green incompetents. Which they probably are. It's quite probable that a November election would have been a toughie, although I think it's unlikely Labour would have lost. It's a much bigger possibility that they could lose in '09 or '10 now. The polls, for the first time under New Labour (bar about a week during the 2000 fuel protest) are pretty damn awful. Of course governments have come back from being this far down before (the 80s Tories spring to mind), but the election-that-never-was precipitated such a wall of adverse publicity, with bad news for the government arriving virtually every day and from every quarter, that one was left wondering what the f*** was left to go wrong next. Northern Rock! Discgate! David Abrahams! Vince Cable correctly identifying Gordon as a cross between Stalin and Mr Bean at PMQs!
Meanwhile, Dave Cameron, who had been in all kinds of trouble in July and August with internal dissent and complete confusion over policy, suddenly started to look like a possible election winner. He was partially assisted in this by the continuing freefall of the Lib Dem's electoral prospects at the tail end of the Ming Campbell era - culminating, of course, in Campbell's quiet assissination by Lib Dem MPs desperate to recover some chance of actually saving their seats (those guys must be REALLY pleased there was no election last year).
So what can Labour do to get the initiative back? In some ways, not doing too much would be good. I can't think of anything LESS guaranteed to dig them deeper in a hole than another wave of bullshit policy initiatives designed to cover up the fact that the extra public spending money has run out - without producing sufficient improvements to convince the public it's been worth it and what they have left is an economic straitjacket that no-one wants to wear, particularly with a recession probably around the corner. Rather, they need to get health, education and transport policy sorted (admittedly a pretty tall order), whilst abandoning plans to destroy our civil liberties with crap like ID cards. If a cabinet minister would go on the TV and it were to look, even for a minute or two, that they weren't lying through their teeth, it would be a start.
Gordon Brown needs to stop being a neo-liberal who talks a lot to Irvin Stelzer and Alan Greenspan, and start behaving like the progressive social democrat that he has spent the last years telling the Labour party he.is He's never going to be a Bill Clinton style communications expert but if he could at least act like a man who's held a conversation a few times before when he gets up to PMQs, it would be a start. Failing that, a well placed sniper with a tranquiliser gun and instructions to fire if Gordon starts to flail too badly would at least ensure damage limitation. This guy has dug his own grave and looks increasingly ready to walk into it... salvation is still possible, but there needs to be a complete change of tone from the last ten years, and pretty damn quickly. Doing a hatchet job on Tony Blair similar to what Kruschev said about Stalin at the 1956 Soviet Party Congress would be a good start. If Brown isn't prepared to say Blair was a disaster then Dave Cameron, or indeed Nick Clegg, will be quite happy to, as the public increasingly comes to realise that it has been sold a pile of doo-doo over the last decade.
More on this rather soon. Hope everyone's recovered from the hangover by now!
19 December 2007
Good initial signs from "The Clegg"... sort of
Well, Nick Clegg won the Lib Dems leadership election - by a much narrower margin than the pundits expected - but as very few of the pundits are (I imagine) Liberal Democrat party members, what the hell would they know?
Clegg has the obvious drawback of looking like of a Dave Cameron clone, but having met him in person (something I can't say for Dave) he seems a reasonably nice guy. Early omens were good this morning when, on the ludicrously named "Radio 5 Live"(what, so no other radio station has live shows, then?) Clegg said he didn't believe in God. Finally a sane man at the top... pass the copy of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion many of you probably received for Christmas last year (oh, the irony).
(Clegg then balanced his ticket somewhat by pointing out his wife was Catholic and his kids were being brought up Catholic. See, this is how the virus perpetuates itself... the Church insists on indoctrinating the kids before they are too old to know better. I'm sure we'd still get some religious nutters even if faith schools were abolished - but probably a lot less of them.)
Clegg has also brought in Brian Eno, of all people, as an adviser on "how to reach out beyond Westminster to people who don't get a say in politics." This could lead to some very interesting possibilities, e.g.:
Clegg has the obvious drawback of looking like of a Dave Cameron clone, but having met him in person (something I can't say for Dave) he seems a reasonably nice guy. Early omens were good this morning when, on the ludicrously named "Radio 5 Live"(what, so no other radio station has live shows, then?) Clegg said he didn't believe in God. Finally a sane man at the top... pass the copy of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion many of you probably received for Christmas last year (oh, the irony).
(Clegg then balanced his ticket somewhat by pointing out his wife was Catholic and his kids were being brought up Catholic. See, this is how the virus perpetuates itself... the Church insists on indoctrinating the kids before they are too old to know better. I'm sure we'd still get some religious nutters even if faith schools were abolished - but probably a lot less of them.)
Clegg has also brought in Brian Eno, of all people, as an adviser on "how to reach out beyond Westminster to people who don't get a say in politics." This could lead to some very interesting possibilities, e.g.:
- keynote speeches at the next Lib Dem conference being filtered through Eno's synthesiser array to give the general effect of whalesong, or insects walking on formica.
- policy being chosen on the basis of the 'Oblique Strategies' card deck.
07 December 2007
Police pay - strike? It's a no-brainer
The police are pretty pissed off with their pay award not being backdated to September (at least in England and Wales - in Scotland the executive saved itself the hassle and backdated the new settlement).
It's 2.5% which ain't particularly generous to start off with, but 1.9% without the backdating, which is pretty damn low, if you ask me.
But the point of this post is not really to debate the rights and wrongs of the police but to point out that the Police Federation (a kind of 'trade union' for the police although it is not affiliated to the TUC) has been considering asking for the right to strike to be extended to the police.
What's to consider? Just go for it, guys. After all, who's going to arrest you for going on strike illegally? The police? Er... they're on strike. It seems to me these guys have the government over a barrel. All they need to do is think the logic through.
I guess they could send in the army to arrest the striking police officers... er, hang on, they're all in the Middle East. Goddamnit!
It's the biggest "no brainer" I've seen all year.
It's 2.5% which ain't particularly generous to start off with, but 1.9% without the backdating, which is pretty damn low, if you ask me.
But the point of this post is not really to debate the rights and wrongs of the police but to point out that the Police Federation (a kind of 'trade union' for the police although it is not affiliated to the TUC) has been considering asking for the right to strike to be extended to the police.
What's to consider? Just go for it, guys. After all, who's going to arrest you for going on strike illegally? The police? Er... they're on strike. It seems to me these guys have the government over a barrel. All they need to do is think the logic through.
I guess they could send in the army to arrest the striking police officers... er, hang on, they're all in the Middle East. Goddamnit!
It's the biggest "no brainer" I've seen all year.
24 November 2007
Rock on Rudd
Initial exit polls suggest that little Johnnie Howard is goin' down in the Australian election.
Please god, make it so (said by a good atheist who nonetheless loves Patrick Stewart). Howard is, more than any other world leader apart from Bush, a cheap punk... a nasty little populist fascist who has introduced the most draconian labour laws you will find anywhere outside China and the United Arab Emirates, and backed the US's loony foreign policies to the hilt.
Also, at the 2003 World Cup final, when Australia gave one of the most gutsy performances I have ever seen in an international rugby match, and very nearly overturned the hot favourites, England, Howard was handing out the losers' medals to them and he was very nearly spitting on those poor bastards. It was a display of misanthropy and contempt on a grand scale... which made it obvious he was a cheap little wanker.
I know very little about Labor [sic]'s Kevin Rudd, but he can't be any worse than Howard. Also, there is a faint chance he might be related to AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd, and that would be worth voting for in itself. Rock on Rudd.
Please god, make it so (said by a good atheist who nonetheless loves Patrick Stewart). Howard is, more than any other world leader apart from Bush, a cheap punk... a nasty little populist fascist who has introduced the most draconian labour laws you will find anywhere outside China and the United Arab Emirates, and backed the US's loony foreign policies to the hilt.
Also, at the 2003 World Cup final, when Australia gave one of the most gutsy performances I have ever seen in an international rugby match, and very nearly overturned the hot favourites, England, Howard was handing out the losers' medals to them and he was very nearly spitting on those poor bastards. It was a display of misanthropy and contempt on a grand scale... which made it obvious he was a cheap little wanker.
I know very little about Labor [sic]'s Kevin Rudd, but he can't be any worse than Howard. Also, there is a faint chance he might be related to AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd, and that would be worth voting for in itself. Rock on Rudd.
If anyone else has the misfortune to be awake at 7am on Saturday morning...
...I recommend that for a laugh, you tune into the Mo Dutta show on Radio 2. This guy basically is the real Alan Partridge. He's bringing the cack-handedness of local radio to the UK's most listened to radio station. It's amusingly crap, unlike, say, the Sarah Kennedy slot early mornings on weekdays, which is just a senile moron telling stories about her cats and slagging off various members of the community for no good reason. And she had the nerve to call mid-morning DJ Ken Bruce an "old fool"...
Terry Wogan is, by now, Radio 2's answer to Leonid Brezhnev (he's kept alive for public appearances but there's nobody home) and surely will be pensioned off soon. When that breakfast show slot becomes vacant I hope they give it to Mo Dutta. (A few years ago I'd have said "please give it to Noel Edmonds" but that was before Deal or No Deal took off.) Radi0 2 is worth very little unless it is utterly ludicrous. Jonathan Ross understands this very well (and walks off with a large slice of my licence fee money in the process. I should decide the allocation of resources... more programmes for Tony Benn and Leo Sayer, please.)
love-on ya.
S.B.R.
Terry Wogan is, by now, Radio 2's answer to Leonid Brezhnev (he's kept alive for public appearances but there's nobody home) and surely will be pensioned off soon. When that breakfast show slot becomes vacant I hope they give it to Mo Dutta. (A few years ago I'd have said "please give it to Noel Edmonds" but that was before Deal or No Deal took off.) Radi0 2 is worth very little unless it is utterly ludicrous. Jonathan Ross understands this very well (and walks off with a large slice of my licence fee money in the process. I should decide the allocation of resources... more programmes for Tony Benn and Leo Sayer, please.)
love-on ya.
S.B.R.
21 November 2007
"You're dead you're f***ing dead"...
...as the guy with the balaclava on said in Nathan Barley.
In this case, it's directed at Steve McClaren.
Hal Berstram here, back on the sports desk for 1 night only. I've just watched probably the lamest England performance since the failure to qualify for 3 consecutive international tournaments in the mid-1970s.
These guys are paid huge amounts and they can't perform for shit. In that sense they are very, very similar to the directors of firms like Northern Rock and Paragon.
Welcome to 21st century UK market capitalism... a system where you get paid huge amounts for being rubbish.
The good thing about this is that McClaren will be history. Probably ex-Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McClaren could put out a better side. Maybe it's time to make the job into a big reality TV experiment. Just get a randomly picked punter to have a go... could they be any more duff?
It's lame, for sure. I'm going to Layer Road to watch Colchester on Saturday and I'm sure I'll find a better standard there. Onward and downward...
In this case, it's directed at Steve McClaren.
Hal Berstram here, back on the sports desk for 1 night only. I've just watched probably the lamest England performance since the failure to qualify for 3 consecutive international tournaments in the mid-1970s.
These guys are paid huge amounts and they can't perform for shit. In that sense they are very, very similar to the directors of firms like Northern Rock and Paragon.
Welcome to 21st century UK market capitalism... a system where you get paid huge amounts for being rubbish.
The good thing about this is that McClaren will be history. Probably ex-Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McClaren could put out a better side. Maybe it's time to make the job into a big reality TV experiment. Just get a randomly picked punter to have a go... could they be any more duff?
It's lame, for sure. I'm going to Layer Road to watch Colchester on Saturday and I'm sure I'll find a better standard there. Onward and downward...
I've got a good idea - let's burn the Child Benefit database onto a CD and send it through the post.
Not a lot of time to post over the last few weeks but the extraordinary story of the missing Child Benefit data has jolted me into action.
For once, headlines from duff papers such as the Daily Mail make perfect sense - "mind-blowing incompetence".
The data include bank account details and various other sensitive info. They ere apparently put on CD by a junior HMRC operative in Newcastle, posted to London using a courier - not unrecorded Royal Mail delivery as some sources initially reported - and failed to arrive about 3 weeks ago.
AFAIK the data were not encrypted or even password protected in any way.
What the f***? Haven't these people even heard of secure FTP? Why the hell were the data being put in the post in the first place?
If it was just one person whose details had been compromised in this way it would be scandalous. But it's 25 million people - half the bloody country.
Brace yourselves for the paralysis of the banking system as justifiably concerned customers ring up to request changes of account details and query any anomalies - or perceived anomalies which appear on their statements. Which is just what we need in the current financial climate. Meanwhile the whole thing rather undermines the Government's campaign for greater vigilance to prevent ID fraud. Are people gonna bother to take precautions if government departments are this sloppy?
If this kind of story appeared in a political drama it would be criticised for being too unrealistic. Good luck getting out of this one, guys - the Tories will be having a field day.
For once, headlines from duff papers such as the Daily Mail make perfect sense - "mind-blowing incompetence".
The data include bank account details and various other sensitive info. They ere apparently put on CD by a junior HMRC operative in Newcastle, posted to London using a courier - not unrecorded Royal Mail delivery as some sources initially reported - and failed to arrive about 3 weeks ago.
AFAIK the data were not encrypted or even password protected in any way.
What the f***? Haven't these people even heard of secure FTP? Why the hell were the data being put in the post in the first place?
If it was just one person whose details had been compromised in this way it would be scandalous. But it's 25 million people - half the bloody country.
Brace yourselves for the paralysis of the banking system as justifiably concerned customers ring up to request changes of account details and query any anomalies - or perceived anomalies which appear on their statements. Which is just what we need in the current financial climate. Meanwhile the whole thing rather undermines the Government's campaign for greater vigilance to prevent ID fraud. Are people gonna bother to take precautions if government departments are this sloppy?
If this kind of story appeared in a political drama it would be criticised for being too unrealistic. Good luck getting out of this one, guys - the Tories will be having a field day.
08 November 2007
OK... Plan B
On second thoughts, I've decided the music scene is not interesting enough - in itself - to carry giroscope forward. I'd like to be able to say that it's this decision that explains why no post since 24 Oct, but actually it's because I'm damn lazy. That's right, I'm bone idle. Sorry about that.
But a compromise has been reached. giroscope - that which you all know and love - will continue as that unique blend of politics, comedy and Herb Alpert's mariachi trumpet sound that has captivated audiences since 1962 or thereabouts. I'm pleased to announce the imminent return of Seth B Ramal as political correspondent. Barney Ruddle is still out there on the farm cider, but on the off chance that he is sober enough to type, expect further occasional contributions. Hal Berstram has been downgraded to the status of 'typesetting automaton' after failing to come up with anything vaguely coherent during his sole tenure. As they said in both Aliens and Billericay, 'you had your chance, Gorman'.
Extra writers always welcome. I've been trying to entice 'Van Patten' to have a go in a PJ O'Rourke / Pat Buchanan 'alternative viewpoint' style but Van is having problems getting an internet connection that'll actually let him log on. The free market, eh?
Meanwhile a brand new 'brother blog' will detail the musical adventures, opinions and idiocies of a good musician friend of ours known to the masses as 'Brother Typewriter', currently residing in the where-is-the-next-song coming from file at the Burning Lodge. That will be set up late November/early December (even sooner if I pull my finger out). Watch these spaces.
best,
S. B. R.
But a compromise has been reached. giroscope - that which you all know and love - will continue as that unique blend of politics, comedy and Herb Alpert's mariachi trumpet sound that has captivated audiences since 1962 or thereabouts. I'm pleased to announce the imminent return of Seth B Ramal as political correspondent. Barney Ruddle is still out there on the farm cider, but on the off chance that he is sober enough to type, expect further occasional contributions. Hal Berstram has been downgraded to the status of 'typesetting automaton' after failing to come up with anything vaguely coherent during his sole tenure. As they said in both Aliens and Billericay, 'you had your chance, Gorman'.
Extra writers always welcome. I've been trying to entice 'Van Patten' to have a go in a PJ O'Rourke / Pat Buchanan 'alternative viewpoint' style but Van is having problems getting an internet connection that'll actually let him log on. The free market, eh?
Meanwhile a brand new 'brother blog' will detail the musical adventures, opinions and idiocies of a good musician friend of ours known to the masses as 'Brother Typewriter', currently residing in the where-is-the-next-song coming from file at the Burning Lodge. That will be set up late November/early December (even sooner if I pull my finger out). Watch these spaces.
best,
S. B. R.
24 October 2007
F*** politics, This Is Music
Hello people,
Just to let you know that I have decided - for the moment - to abandon political commentary and focus on music. Because politics at the moment sucks. Big time. A plague on all their houses. Who cares who the new leader of the Lib Dems is or what Gordon Brown's latest sell-out will be? Do the politicians even care themselves?
Before signing off from politics entirely though I must recommend that you go out and buy Raj Patel's new book Stuffed and Starved and anything you can get your hands on by Carbon Trade Watch. These are the guys taking it forward - for all of us. And as soon as I can get my head together I'll be with them. But not yet... too busy in the studio.
More to follow soon.
love,
H.B.
Just to let you know that I have decided - for the moment - to abandon political commentary and focus on music. Because politics at the moment sucks. Big time. A plague on all their houses. Who cares who the new leader of the Lib Dems is or what Gordon Brown's latest sell-out will be? Do the politicians even care themselves?
Before signing off from politics entirely though I must recommend that you go out and buy Raj Patel's new book Stuffed and Starved and anything you can get your hands on by Carbon Trade Watch. These are the guys taking it forward - for all of us. And as soon as I can get my head together I'll be with them. But not yet... too busy in the studio.
More to follow soon.
love,
H.B.
15 October 2007
Fare Well Camp Bell
A sad day, in many ways, that Ming Campbell has resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats.
I will miss his straight talking no-bullshit style (promised, but so far not delivered, by Gordon Brown) and wish him all the best. He never looked like Prime Minister material, but then neither did John Major, and he did the job for almost seven years... in any case, since when was there a realistic prospect of any Lib Dem leader becoming PM?
In the end, Campbell was done in by the media requirement for photogenic, identikit political leaders - politicians like reality TV stars. I have no doubt that Gordon Brown would have suffered exactly the same fate if he'd ascended to the Labour leadership after a long period of opposition, rather than being in the government for ten years beforehand. He's only been indulged so far as he's got previous form. And on the evidence of the last week's shenanigans, that might all be rapidly unravelling. But that is excitement for another post...
Now I'm not saying that Campbell was perfect - in many ways he was a one-man revivalist for the Michael Foot school of politics - the amiable old buffer zone... but then Foot was great too. Certainly infinitely preferable to Thatcher in '83.
Anyway, this raises the interesting question of who the Lib Dems will go for next... I think Nick Clegg would be their best bet. Certainly not Chris Huhne, who is an egotist to rival Robert Kilroy-Silk. And Vince Cable, while a great guy and an excellent Shadow Chancellor, works a lot better in that role than he would as leader. Most of the other alternatives are either too eccentric to be successful or too right-wing to be tolerable.
Anyway, the leadership contest offers a little consolation now that the election has been called off for at least 18 months.
I will miss his straight talking no-bullshit style (promised, but so far not delivered, by Gordon Brown) and wish him all the best. He never looked like Prime Minister material, but then neither did John Major, and he did the job for almost seven years... in any case, since when was there a realistic prospect of any Lib Dem leader becoming PM?
In the end, Campbell was done in by the media requirement for photogenic, identikit political leaders - politicians like reality TV stars. I have no doubt that Gordon Brown would have suffered exactly the same fate if he'd ascended to the Labour leadership after a long period of opposition, rather than being in the government for ten years beforehand. He's only been indulged so far as he's got previous form. And on the evidence of the last week's shenanigans, that might all be rapidly unravelling. But that is excitement for another post...
Now I'm not saying that Campbell was perfect - in many ways he was a one-man revivalist for the Michael Foot school of politics - the amiable old buffer zone... but then Foot was great too. Certainly infinitely preferable to Thatcher in '83.
Anyway, this raises the interesting question of who the Lib Dems will go for next... I think Nick Clegg would be their best bet. Certainly not Chris Huhne, who is an egotist to rival Robert Kilroy-Silk. And Vince Cable, while a great guy and an excellent Shadow Chancellor, works a lot better in that role than he would as leader. Most of the other alternatives are either too eccentric to be successful or too right-wing to be tolerable.
Anyway, the leadership contest offers a little consolation now that the election has been called off for at least 18 months.
06 October 2007
BOTTLER
GB has bottled it...
Why do I feel the sudden urge to say "James Callaghan?" Gordon might very well rue this day when he's up against it in spring 2010 with time running out to go to the country.
Oh well.
Why do I feel the sudden urge to say "James Callaghan?" Gordon might very well rue this day when he's up against it in spring 2010 with time running out to go to the country.
Oh well.
04 October 2007
Post-Tory Conference polls out... now it's getting interesting...
Well, the Labour lead has definitely narrowed in the wake of the Tory conference... latest polls show:
YouGov (Channel 4 News) Lab 40, Con 36, LD 13
Populus (The Times) Lab 39, Con 36, LD 15
ICM (Guardian) Lab 38, Con 38, LD 16
Of course, 24 hours after they were saying an election was inevitable, all the papers, news sites, etc will now be saying that Brown will decide to call the whole thing off. If I were him I would still go for it, because it's more of a risk to hang on into next year. What about if the Brown 'bounce' disappears and he's facing a poll deficit during the whole of 2008 and 2009? He'll look like a right banana.
The way I see it, these polls are showing the absolute maximum popularity of the Conservatives, before any Labour counter-attack - just like the polls last weekend were showing the maximum popularity of Labour. In an election campaign the parties would no doubt settle down at a Labour lead of around 6 or 7 per cent. I can't actually remember an election campaign making a major difference to the relative popularity of the parties in my lifetime - people often cite 1992, but the actual problem there was that all the polls were way out of line because people didn't want to admit they'd vote Tory. A correction factor has been put into polling to control for this ever since and subsequent campaigns have been much more accurate.
I think Brown would be mental to call off now - he'll go into public folklore as a "bottler" and this could do him real damage in the long run. More later this week on why the Labour lead has narrowed - I don't think Dave's speech was good enough to do it by itself. Guardian Unlimited suggests that it was the announcement that the Inheritance Tax threshold would rise to £1 million under the Tories that produced the swing. If that's the case then IHT has taken on a political importance out of all proportion to the money it raises for the Exchequer. Maybe the Daily Express is gonna set the agenda for this election - which is very bad news. My view is that taxing inheritances is actually a lot more justifiable than taxing earned income, but more on that once we get into the campaign. If we get into the campaign...
YouGov (Channel 4 News) Lab 40, Con 36, LD 13
Populus (The Times) Lab 39, Con 36, LD 15
ICM (Guardian) Lab 38, Con 38, LD 16
Of course, 24 hours after they were saying an election was inevitable, all the papers, news sites, etc will now be saying that Brown will decide to call the whole thing off. If I were him I would still go for it, because it's more of a risk to hang on into next year. What about if the Brown 'bounce' disappears and he's facing a poll deficit during the whole of 2008 and 2009? He'll look like a right banana.
The way I see it, these polls are showing the absolute maximum popularity of the Conservatives, before any Labour counter-attack - just like the polls last weekend were showing the maximum popularity of Labour. In an election campaign the parties would no doubt settle down at a Labour lead of around 6 or 7 per cent. I can't actually remember an election campaign making a major difference to the relative popularity of the parties in my lifetime - people often cite 1992, but the actual problem there was that all the polls were way out of line because people didn't want to admit they'd vote Tory. A correction factor has been put into polling to control for this ever since and subsequent campaigns have been much more accurate.
I think Brown would be mental to call off now - he'll go into public folklore as a "bottler" and this could do him real damage in the long run. More later this week on why the Labour lead has narrowed - I don't think Dave's speech was good enough to do it by itself. Guardian Unlimited suggests that it was the announcement that the Inheritance Tax threshold would rise to £1 million under the Tories that produced the swing. If that's the case then IHT has taken on a political importance out of all proportion to the money it raises for the Exchequer. Maybe the Daily Express is gonna set the agenda for this election - which is very bad news. My view is that taxing inheritances is actually a lot more justifiable than taxing earned income, but more on that once we get into the campaign. If we get into the campaign...
01 October 2007
Dave and his party of dildos
Just came back from Blackpool where the Conservatives are currently holding their conference. Blackpool is one hell of a lame-ass town, but more on that soon - I'm still recovering from it.
Like the Labour conference last week, it was hard to get that worked up about this; the Tories are putting a brave face on it but the delegates I saw had the look of condemned men/women. Brown is walking away with the big prize and suddenly all Dave Cameron's careful work over the past two years looks very much in vain. A come-from-behind win for Dave in the forthcoming election is certainly possible - Ted Heath managed it in 1970 after being similarly written off by the pundits - but the electoral arithmetic still works against the Tories even after boundary changes. Dave would probably have to be 6 points in front to get an overall majority - he will likely start the campaign around 6 points behind. Even in 1992 (the election when the polls got it most wrong in recent times) they weren't out to that extent.
The new policy platform unveiled so far has offered thin pickings - George Osborne's pledge to raise the Inheritance Tax threshold to £1m will be popular but isn't going to swing many votes on its own, it's just not important enough an issue for the vast majority of people, despite the Daily Express's best efforts. Likewise cuts in stamp duty. The Conservatives still face a huge problem in trying to knit together the outputs from their six policy review groups into a coherent manifesto - it's not so much that the policies themselves will be incoherent, because Labour's 2005 manifesto (a model of vacuity if ever there was any) proved that you can win an election without having any policies. It's more that the whole rhetorical thrust of the two major policy reviews, Goldsmith/Gummer on 'quality of life' and John Redwood on 'competitiveness', are 180 degrees opposed to each other and that's a very large crack to paper over. Goldsmith and Gummer say - quite rightly - put the environment first, whereas Redwood says fly as many planes as possible and f*** the environment. How is Dave gonna square this off? Most likely he will fudge it somehow, but it's very hard to see a coherent policy platform emerging from these reviews at short notice.
And all the time there are senile senior figures sniping in the sidelines. This week's Spectator has a piece by Norman Tebbit lamenting the lack of 'popular' (i.e. quasi-fascist, in Tebbit-speak) policies among the Cameronite modernisers. Tebbit is now - or maybe always has been - so crazy that he thinks that all the Tories' current problems stem from Mrs Thatcher being 'conned' into joining the ERM by the 'Europhile Tories' who were apparently 'pulling strings behind the scenes.' Real reds-under-the-bed conspiracy theory stuff, and sad to see from a guy who once seemed pretty sharp, even if he was a complete wanker. Next we find Malcolm Rifkind saying 'a snap election would be an outrage' because governments with a working majority in the House of Commons should serve a full term. Presumably then Malc was saying the same thing in 1983 and 1987 when Maggie went to the country? She still had a full year left to run, after all. Also, isn't Malcolm's outburst rather at odds with Dave's insistence that Gordon call an election immediately when he became leader in June?
It's this kind of inconsistency that's going to make it surprisingly easy for Labour to fight the campaign. They just need to point to the endless selection of hypocrites, duffers and madmen in the ranks (and also some of them on the Tory front bench) and Dave's credibility will most likely evaporate. Of course, if the Tories wanted to do themselves and the country a favour there are several worthwhile and progressive points they could campaign on, for example:
Like the Labour conference last week, it was hard to get that worked up about this; the Tories are putting a brave face on it but the delegates I saw had the look of condemned men/women. Brown is walking away with the big prize and suddenly all Dave Cameron's careful work over the past two years looks very much in vain. A come-from-behind win for Dave in the forthcoming election is certainly possible - Ted Heath managed it in 1970 after being similarly written off by the pundits - but the electoral arithmetic still works against the Tories even after boundary changes. Dave would probably have to be 6 points in front to get an overall majority - he will likely start the campaign around 6 points behind. Even in 1992 (the election when the polls got it most wrong in recent times) they weren't out to that extent.
The new policy platform unveiled so far has offered thin pickings - George Osborne's pledge to raise the Inheritance Tax threshold to £1m will be popular but isn't going to swing many votes on its own, it's just not important enough an issue for the vast majority of people, despite the Daily Express's best efforts. Likewise cuts in stamp duty. The Conservatives still face a huge problem in trying to knit together the outputs from their six policy review groups into a coherent manifesto - it's not so much that the policies themselves will be incoherent, because Labour's 2005 manifesto (a model of vacuity if ever there was any) proved that you can win an election without having any policies. It's more that the whole rhetorical thrust of the two major policy reviews, Goldsmith/Gummer on 'quality of life' and John Redwood on 'competitiveness', are 180 degrees opposed to each other and that's a very large crack to paper over. Goldsmith and Gummer say - quite rightly - put the environment first, whereas Redwood says fly as many planes as possible and f*** the environment. How is Dave gonna square this off? Most likely he will fudge it somehow, but it's very hard to see a coherent policy platform emerging from these reviews at short notice.
And all the time there are senile senior figures sniping in the sidelines. This week's Spectator has a piece by Norman Tebbit lamenting the lack of 'popular' (i.e. quasi-fascist, in Tebbit-speak) policies among the Cameronite modernisers. Tebbit is now - or maybe always has been - so crazy that he thinks that all the Tories' current problems stem from Mrs Thatcher being 'conned' into joining the ERM by the 'Europhile Tories' who were apparently 'pulling strings behind the scenes.' Real reds-under-the-bed conspiracy theory stuff, and sad to see from a guy who once seemed pretty sharp, even if he was a complete wanker. Next we find Malcolm Rifkind saying 'a snap election would be an outrage' because governments with a working majority in the House of Commons should serve a full term. Presumably then Malc was saying the same thing in 1983 and 1987 when Maggie went to the country? She still had a full year left to run, after all. Also, isn't Malcolm's outburst rather at odds with Dave's insistence that Gordon call an election immediately when he became leader in June?
It's this kind of inconsistency that's going to make it surprisingly easy for Labour to fight the campaign. They just need to point to the endless selection of hypocrites, duffers and madmen in the ranks (and also some of them on the Tory front bench) and Dave's credibility will most likely evaporate. Of course, if the Tories wanted to do themselves and the country a favour there are several worthwhile and progressive points they could campaign on, for example:
- the transformation of Britain into a low carbon economy, in line with the Goldsmith/Gummer blueprint, and constrasting strongly with Labour's rather faltering steps in this direction.
- enshrining civil liberties and halting the steady drift towards a police state (which, of course, Mrs T started).
- getting rid of the Stalinist 'target culture' in public services, substituting instead a reliance on competent and well-motivated professionals monitored by democratically elected oversight boards (or something like that anyway).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)