It's an insult to democracy that we have to continue to put up with this loud, bullying, self-important windbag.
If the second chamber were elected by PR, presumably Prescott would be high on the Labour party list. We'd have no way of getting rid of him.
May 31, 2010
Yvette Cooper Balls for leader?
Yvette Balls has written a typically smarmy piece for The Guardian on "Why I'm not standing for Labour leader - this time".
Forget her generalisations about women and children. They're irrelevant.
The fact is that Yvette Balls accomplished next to nothing as a minister. She rose almost without trace.
And what traces she did leave have rightly vanished in the coalition's first few days. It was Yvette Balls who wouldn't pay compensation to Equitable Life policyholders despite the ombudsman's findings of maladministration. Policy reversed.
It was also Yvette Balls who brought in the pointless Home Information Packs. When accused of doing more than EU regulation required, she said she would never apologise for 'greenplating'. Policy reversed.
Yvette Balls probably parroted 'Because it's the right thing to do' more than the rest of the government put together.
This uniquely annoying woman has no political achievements to her name. If she were a man, she would be a political non-entity. If she was any other woman, she might have been over-promoted as far as junior ministerial level.
She got where she did because she was Mrs Balls.
And she was no good.
Forget her generalisations about women and children. They're irrelevant.
The fact is that Yvette Balls accomplished next to nothing as a minister. She rose almost without trace.
And what traces she did leave have rightly vanished in the coalition's first few days. It was Yvette Balls who wouldn't pay compensation to Equitable Life policyholders despite the ombudsman's findings of maladministration. Policy reversed.
It was also Yvette Balls who brought in the pointless Home Information Packs. When accused of doing more than EU regulation required, she said she would never apologise for 'greenplating'. Policy reversed.
Yvette Balls probably parroted 'Because it's the right thing to do' more than the rest of the government put together.
This uniquely annoying woman has no political achievements to her name. If she were a man, she would be a political non-entity. If she was any other woman, she might have been over-promoted as far as junior ministerial level.
She got where she did because she was Mrs Balls.
And she was no good.
Dying for a 13th century country
Child brides escape marriage, but not lashes, reports the New York Times, writing about two Afghan girls aged 13 and 14.
It heads its article with a picture of
It heads its article with a picture of
Sakhina, 15, was sold into marriage to pay off her father’s debts when she was 12 or 13.A few foreign soldiers cannot change a country in a few years. This war is hopeless.
Do as I say
Greece has fired 234 finance ministry officials for their failure to pay taxes since at least 2007. "I mention this", writes Irwin Stelzer, "not to amuse but to point out that government promises of austerity have to be weighed alongside the history of the officials charged with honoring them".
Hm, maybe ministers have to set an example, Danny Alexander?
Hm, maybe ministers have to set an example, Danny Alexander?
May 27, 2010
Qualifications Authority gives the game away
Via Douglas Carswell, we learn that the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency is to be abolished.
Good.
The chairman of the QCDA said: "Our priority is our staff, so we are focusing on their wellbeing during this time of uncertainty".
Your priority should be making sure your functions are transferred smoothly to their new homes.
Good.
The chairman of the QCDA said: "Our priority is our staff, so we are focusing on their wellbeing during this time of uncertainty".
Your priority should be making sure your functions are transferred smoothly to their new homes.
May 26, 2010
Scottish climate nuts in la la land
Scottish climate groupies have been having a nice conference on their own little planet, talking about how much money Scotland would need to fund its transformation to a low carbon economy.
Scotland must act fast to capitalise on its lead in development of marine renewables, said a Minister, since Barack Obama had pledged £103bn for renewables over the next decade.
Clearly Scotland's £2bn will go a long way.
Have these people not heard that there is a growing financial crisis?
Lady Susan Rice ... told a conference yesterday she estimated £20 billion was needed to fund investments in renewables needed to bring about green schemes such as major wind farms and new marine renewable technology.Just where do they think the money for these pointless investments is going to come from? Fear not, WWF has an idea. Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland, did agree that money was "the big challenge".
This was far higher than the one-off £2bn government funding set for a planned new Green Investment Bank, she said.
However, he pointed out that last year publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland made more than £2bn in profits and bonuses.Can such a big cheese really be unaware that dividends in general go towards people's incomes and pensions, and that in particular we need RBS's share price to rise so that it can be sold back to the private sector?
He questioned why this profit could not be ploughed into development of renewables, in addition to the £2bn pledged to the Green Investment Bank.
Scotland must act fast to capitalise on its lead in development of marine renewables, said a Minister, since Barack Obama had pledged £103bn for renewables over the next decade.
Clearly Scotland's £2bn will go a long way.
Have these people not heard that there is a growing financial crisis?
May 21, 2010
Interesting times for the EU
A typical Ambrose piece strings together gloomy prognostications from analysts and research reports, and concludes with his own summary.
Today, as usual, the most interesting part comes at the end. Details of last week's EU summit confirm that Ms Merkel was ambushed by a French-led bloc, agreeing to demands for a €750bn rescue package for Club Med under duress, he says. Karl Otto Pohl says this was about protecting banks which have lent to Greece - especially French banks.
Ambrose concludes that "France may have won a Pyhrric victory, securing a short-term triumph at the cost of alienating the German people and setting off a political process that may cause Germany to turn its back on EMU".
Jeff Randall's theme is that the euro in its present form is dead. "In its present form". It will doubtless survive somehow. How quickly will the eurozone diminish? That depends on Greek politics, German politics, and the markets. Hardly a basis for firm forward planning.
When Greece defaults, there will be huge market pressure on other countries which might follow. Having spent on Greece and failed, Germans will refuse to throw larger amounts of good money after bad to support the other PIIGS. France will demand to cling on in the diminished eurozone, and blame everyone else for its difficulties. In private, the german government is doubtless already turning the screw on its banks.
Once countries start to be forced out of the eurozone, the notion of a European "Union" will start to sound bizarre. Germans may start to look more closely at the subventions they are giving out to other european countries. So may other eurozone paymasters. The Netherlands can't change the politics of the EU on its own, but may prove very ready to follow a German retrenchment.
If the money tap is turned off, will Greeks want to leave the EU altogether? That would be seismic.
The central question is not whether Germans will tire of supporting Greece. It is not even when Germans will tire of supporting Greece. When that happens - and it will - will that refusal feed across into the other subsidies Germany pays to other EU countries?
If it does, who will pay for the EU then?
Today, as usual, the most interesting part comes at the end. Details of last week's EU summit confirm that Ms Merkel was ambushed by a French-led bloc, agreeing to demands for a €750bn rescue package for Club Med under duress, he says. Karl Otto Pohl says this was about protecting banks which have lent to Greece - especially French banks.
Ambrose concludes that "France may have won a Pyhrric victory, securing a short-term triumph at the cost of alienating the German people and setting off a political process that may cause Germany to turn its back on EMU".
Jeff Randall's theme is that the euro in its present form is dead. "In its present form". It will doubtless survive somehow. How quickly will the eurozone diminish? That depends on Greek politics, German politics, and the markets. Hardly a basis for firm forward planning.
When Greece defaults, there will be huge market pressure on other countries which might follow. Having spent on Greece and failed, Germans will refuse to throw larger amounts of good money after bad to support the other PIIGS. France will demand to cling on in the diminished eurozone, and blame everyone else for its difficulties. In private, the german government is doubtless already turning the screw on its banks.
Once countries start to be forced out of the eurozone, the notion of a European "Union" will start to sound bizarre. Germans may start to look more closely at the subventions they are giving out to other european countries. So may other eurozone paymasters. The Netherlands can't change the politics of the EU on its own, but may prove very ready to follow a German retrenchment.
If the money tap is turned off, will Greeks want to leave the EU altogether? That would be seismic.
The central question is not whether Germans will tire of supporting Greece. It is not even when Germans will tire of supporting Greece. When that happens - and it will - will that refusal feed across into the other subsidies Germany pays to other EU countries?
If it does, who will pay for the EU then?
May 20, 2010
Labour leadership election
With the entry of Andy Burnham and Diane Abbott into the Labour leadership election, it seems some of the real questions may be asked.
The 'establishment' candidates, David (Dave?) M, Ed M, and Ed (two Eds are better than one) Balls are admitting that they found their own voters disaffected on the doorsteps. They plan to propose new policies to address these voters' issues.
This is nice and cosy but brushes under the carpet two big questions that have to be addressed first.
To start with, what did Labour do that upset its core vote? Andy Burnham has instanced Brown's abolition of the 10p tax rate, which Brown lied would make no one worse off. In fact, as Frank Field doggedly pointed out at the time, many lower paid people were worse off. Telling them they weren't only added insult to injury. Doubtless there was more.
Secondly, what did Labour not do which these voters wanted done? Ditch Brown to start with (some lifelong Labour voters couldn't bring themselvesd to vote for a party led by him). What else? Canvassing has evidently identified concerns about immigration and welfare.
Despite talking up reforms to incapacity benefit, Labour pretty much washed its hands of welfare reform. Partly it is a question of benefit fraud. Partly also voters in low paid jobs see unemployed people with a higher standard of living then them and a life of ease.
None of these concerns can have been a surprise to the Labour party. Admittedly their final DWP minister was the spectacularly useless Yvette Balls, but why did Labour make what must have been a deliberate decision to duck welfare reform?
In the other key area of concern, why did they choose to fudge immigration, and have as minister the unappealing Phil Woolas, who showed on The Daily Politics and the Immigration Ministers' debate that he was hopelessly out of his depth?
Labour has to look into its soul, and ask: Why did we choose to desert our voters?
Their establishment candidates show no signs of doing that. But if you choose to ignore a major cause of your failure, how likely are you to propose the right solutions?
The 'establishment' candidates, David (Dave?) M, Ed M, and Ed (two Eds are better than one) Balls are admitting that they found their own voters disaffected on the doorsteps. They plan to propose new policies to address these voters' issues.
This is nice and cosy but brushes under the carpet two big questions that have to be addressed first.
To start with, what did Labour do that upset its core vote? Andy Burnham has instanced Brown's abolition of the 10p tax rate, which Brown lied would make no one worse off. In fact, as Frank Field doggedly pointed out at the time, many lower paid people were worse off. Telling them they weren't only added insult to injury. Doubtless there was more.
Secondly, what did Labour not do which these voters wanted done? Ditch Brown to start with (some lifelong Labour voters couldn't bring themselvesd to vote for a party led by him). What else? Canvassing has evidently identified concerns about immigration and welfare.
Despite talking up reforms to incapacity benefit, Labour pretty much washed its hands of welfare reform. Partly it is a question of benefit fraud. Partly also voters in low paid jobs see unemployed people with a higher standard of living then them and a life of ease.
None of these concerns can have been a surprise to the Labour party. Admittedly their final DWP minister was the spectacularly useless Yvette Balls, but why did Labour make what must have been a deliberate decision to duck welfare reform?
In the other key area of concern, why did they choose to fudge immigration, and have as minister the unappealing Phil Woolas, who showed on The Daily Politics and the Immigration Ministers' debate that he was hopelessly out of his depth?
Labour has to look into its soul, and ask: Why did we choose to desert our voters?
Their establishment candidates show no signs of doing that. But if you choose to ignore a major cause of your failure, how likely are you to propose the right solutions?
May 18, 2010
A NICE pickle
While the professional political blogs invent possible rifts in the coalition, NICE - which says we cannot afford cancer drugs which other EU countries can - proposes that parents of children under five should be able to get home checks to ensure they are keeping their youngsters safe.
The draft guidance, we are told, recommends introducing new regulations requiring the fitting of permanent safety equipment in all social and rented housing, including hard-wired smoke alarms, thermostat mixer valves for baths, window restrictors and carbon monoxide alarms. Equipment should meet British or European safety standards and inspectors should take into account the developmental age of the child, cultural and religious beliefs, disabilities, literacy levels, and whether English is the family's first language when making checks.
This is not just some bureaucrat's draft report. Guidelines for inspections have been drawn up on the instructions of the Department of Health, we are told, in a bid to prevent injuries among under-15s in the home. We are told 208 under 15's died in 2008 from injuries in the home. What we are are not told is how many were under 5 (the age limit for these inspections). Nor are we told how many inspections are envisaged, how much they might cost, and who would pay for them.
Optional Home Risk Assessments would involve "systematically identifying potential hazards in the home, evaluating those risks and proving information or advice on how to reduce them".
Who thinks those most at risk would systematically set about putting these problems right? What is the cost/benefit case? What of the privacy issues?
NICE said that the assessments would form part of the Health Child Programme, a Labour scheme to provide health, childcare and advice to families, particularly those in the poorest areas.
So where is Andrew Lansley while the bureaucratic machine grinds on, untouched by a change of government? How is this compatible with The Big Society?
More importantly, there is no more money. Did no one tell NICE? We can't afford it. So stop invading our privacy.
The draft guidance, we are told, recommends introducing new regulations requiring the fitting of permanent safety equipment in all social and rented housing, including hard-wired smoke alarms, thermostat mixer valves for baths, window restrictors and carbon monoxide alarms. Equipment should meet British or European safety standards and inspectors should take into account the developmental age of the child, cultural and religious beliefs, disabilities, literacy levels, and whether English is the family's first language when making checks.
This is not just some bureaucrat's draft report. Guidelines for inspections have been drawn up on the instructions of the Department of Health, we are told, in a bid to prevent injuries among under-15s in the home. We are told 208 under 15's died in 2008 from injuries in the home. What we are are not told is how many were under 5 (the age limit for these inspections). Nor are we told how many inspections are envisaged, how much they might cost, and who would pay for them.
Optional Home Risk Assessments would involve "systematically identifying potential hazards in the home, evaluating those risks and proving information or advice on how to reduce them".
Who thinks those most at risk would systematically set about putting these problems right? What is the cost/benefit case? What of the privacy issues?
NICE said that the assessments would form part of the Health Child Programme, a Labour scheme to provide health, childcare and advice to families, particularly those in the poorest areas.
So where is Andrew Lansley while the bureaucratic machine grinds on, untouched by a change of government? How is this compatible with The Big Society?
More importantly, there is no more money. Did no one tell NICE? We can't afford it. So stop invading our privacy.
May 14, 2010
Baldemort baulks
Via Guido, we learn that Liam Byrne has written a piece in The Guardian which could be seen as a sighting shot for a Labour leadership bid, but proves to be pompous and condescending. The next leader, he says, "must grasp the mood of our core votes - and take the fight to the doorstep".
The only policy failing he admits to is that "we were too slow to transform Britain's creaking constitution". But he notes that's not what concerned the C2 voters.
Not mentioning that some traditional voters just could not bring themselves to vote for Gordon Brown, he says "many are ... frustrated with welfare reform and immigration".
But according to Byrne it is not those issues that they were really concerned about.
If he can swallow that humbling notion, the next step is to look at those problems and ask: why did the Labour government fail on them?
It's not as if they didn't know. "My research" hasn't revealed new truths. The C2s know benefit fraud is widespread. They see it in their neighbourhoods, and it offends them. Labour just went through the motions of addressing it.
Similarly, on immigration, Labour in government refused to acknowledge the scale and scope of the problem. They did all they could to talk it down.
So it's unsurprising that the C2s felt they had nowhere to go.
I've not heard any Labour politician since the election say that the Labour government failed on these big issues. Until they face this, they will only be papering over the cracks of their failure.
Until they can admit that they failed, they can't start asking: WHY did we fail? The answer will be complicated and unpalatable, going deep into the Labour government's refusal to deal with issues it knew about, deciding instead to flannel us. It didn't work, did it, Liam?
This was something rotten in the culture of the last Labour government. So far they don't seem to be able to look it squarely in the eye. But only then can they ask: what was wrong with us?
And only then will they get to first base. For the time being, they are baulking at addressing their own failings.
The only policy failing he admits to is that "we were too slow to transform Britain's creaking constitution". But he notes that's not what concerned the C2 voters.
Not mentioning that some traditional voters just could not bring themselves to vote for Gordon Brown, he says "many are ... frustrated with welfare reform and immigration".
But according to Byrne it is not those issues that they were really concerned about.
My research (he says pompously) shows workers on between £20,000-£30,000 a year have faced huge forces in our economy, squeezing pay packets and the cost of living for at least five years.They're working hard, says Byrne, but they're not getting ahead. So, he says, the new leader's first test is, can he or she begin the job of pinpointing answers to how "modest-income Britain" gets ahead in life in the decade to come?
Without a plan that renews our approach to jobs, tax and benefits, the minimum wage, welfare reform, skills and higher education, university funding, childcare, social care, social housing and pensions, we will be left without an offer for aspirational families. (Note no mention of immigration.)Maybe Liam Byrne should consider the notion that his C2 voters aren't as stupid as he condescendingly thinks they are. Maybe, when they say they are concerned about welfare and immigration, they are actually concerned about ... welfare and immigration.
If he can swallow that humbling notion, the next step is to look at those problems and ask: why did the Labour government fail on them?
It's not as if they didn't know. "My research" hasn't revealed new truths. The C2s know benefit fraud is widespread. They see it in their neighbourhoods, and it offends them. Labour just went through the motions of addressing it.
Similarly, on immigration, Labour in government refused to acknowledge the scale and scope of the problem. They did all they could to talk it down.
So it's unsurprising that the C2s felt they had nowhere to go.
I've not heard any Labour politician since the election say that the Labour government failed on these big issues. Until they face this, they will only be papering over the cracks of their failure.
Until they can admit that they failed, they can't start asking: WHY did we fail? The answer will be complicated and unpalatable, going deep into the Labour government's refusal to deal with issues it knew about, deciding instead to flannel us. It didn't work, did it, Liam?
This was something rotten in the culture of the last Labour government. So far they don't seem to be able to look it squarely in the eye. But only then can they ask: what was wrong with us?
And only then will they get to first base. For the time being, they are baulking at addressing their own failings.
May 13, 2010
Austerity? Not DoPH, DoH
The Tories, it's being reported, proposed changing the name of the Department of Health to the Department of Public Health.
Wrong. The state must experience austerity. If we are all in this together (as rich senior ministers keep telling us), don't spend a penny of taxpayers' money on departmental rebrands.
Set an example. Start as you mean to go on.
Wrong. The state must experience austerity. If we are all in this together (as rich senior ministers keep telling us), don't spend a penny of taxpayers' money on departmental rebrands.
Set an example. Start as you mean to go on.
Scotland SNiPped
Both coalition parties promised to implement the Calman proposals, reports The Telegraph, under which income tax rates north of the border would be reduced by 10p in the pound across all bands and Scotland's grant reduced by the amount correspondingly lost to the Treasury.
This would equate to about £4 billion a year. The Scottish Parliament would decide the income tax rate to apply to make up, or increase, its budget.
Good idea. The SNP could choose a high tax or low tax economy.
The coalition is also to set up a separate body to discuss the West Lothian Question, whether it is right for Scottish MPs to vote on issues, such as health and education, that are devolved to Holyrood.
What's to decide here? The present situation is a clear injustice to England, which also finances the celtic fringes.
This would equate to about £4 billion a year. The Scottish Parliament would decide the income tax rate to apply to make up, or increase, its budget.
Good idea. The SNP could choose a high tax or low tax economy.
The Tories and Lib Dems are committed to replacing the Barnett formula, which gives Scots more than £1,600 more per head of public spending than the UK average.And suddenly the party which wants Scottish independence wants a UK veto:
They want a needs-based system that would probably result in Scotland getting less, and Wales and Northern England receiving a more generous settlement.
In a letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Salmond demanded assurances the Government will not change the Barnett formula without the consent of Scottish ministers.Ironic, that. It's our money. You're not needier just because you're in Scotland. And the three English Regions which are net tax contributors don't need your permission before they decide to reduce your bonus.
The coalition is also to set up a separate body to discuss the West Lothian Question, whether it is right for Scottish MPs to vote on issues, such as health and education, that are devolved to Holyrood.
What's to decide here? The present situation is a clear injustice to England, which also finances the celtic fringes.
May 11, 2010
TV overtakes the web
Sky News and the BBC News Channel were the place to be yesterday for breaking news. Both showed that it needn't be expensive - you just put knowledgeable reporters in the right place and let them talk live to camera. Sky perhaps edged it yesterday by being blunter in their reporting and questioning.
At 7.15 this morning neither was doing a good job, though. The BBC was broadcasting a piece about a fire that happened 25 years ago. Sky's Eamonn Holmes told Simon Hughes that people found the parliamentary arithmetic complicated - no we don't, Eamonn, we've seen your diagrams. Mrs Duffy understood the scale of the deficit from news channels (probably yours), so she and many like her can certainly get their heads around the parliamentary arithmetic. Stop patronising your viewers.
Someone should tell Sky's B team that no one as far as I know is proposing an "alternate" vote. If they are, I would like to know what that is. But I do expect to be able to vote in every general election, not every other one.
At 7.15 this morning neither was doing a good job, though. The BBC was broadcasting a piece about a fire that happened 25 years ago. Sky's Eamonn Holmes told Simon Hughes that people found the parliamentary arithmetic complicated - no we don't, Eamonn, we've seen your diagrams. Mrs Duffy understood the scale of the deficit from news channels (probably yours), so she and many like her can certainly get their heads around the parliamentary arithmetic. Stop patronising your viewers.
Someone should tell Sky's B team that no one as far as I know is proposing an "alternate" vote. If they are, I would like to know what that is. But I do expect to be able to vote in every general election, not every other one.
May 10, 2010
"Progressive" coalition will be anti-English
How could a Lib-Lab coalition not be anti-English? It would rely on celtic nationalist parties for critical votes.
The Scots Nats and Welsh Nats could and would hold the government to ransom. We need to slash the deficit and the debt - even though the SNP representative on the Daily Politics business ministers discussion said that the SNP didn't want the deficit cut at all.
They would make England take the strain. Even withion England, there are only three tax-exporting regions of the country, London, east England, and the South-East.
England can't afford a Lib-Lab coalition.
The Scots Nats and Welsh Nats could and would hold the government to ransom. We need to slash the deficit and the debt - even though the SNP representative on the Daily Politics business ministers discussion said that the SNP didn't want the deficit cut at all.
They would make England take the strain. Even withion England, there are only three tax-exporting regions of the country, London, east England, and the South-East.
England can't afford a Lib-Lab coalition.
May 04, 2010
Parties' immigration policies destroyed
It was a brutal session of the excellent Daily Politics afternoon policy debates, with Nigel Farage from UKIP joining representatives from the three main parties (but not the BNP) to be interrogated on immigration.
Under fire from the ever excellent Andrew Neil and impartial today Mark Easton, all four parties' policies were torpedoed.
We knew the Lib Dem immigration policy on an amnesty for illegals was under-researched. Oddly the Lib Dems haven't strengthened their case since the subject came up in the last leaders' debate, and down they went again. Similarly their policy on allowing immigrants to work in certain areas but not others. It would apply to where they worked, not where they settled, and the arrangements for enforcement seemed minimal. Back to the drawing board, and bear in mind that if you're going to become a significant political force, people will read your manifesto. You can't just chuck stuff in to please your membership. Well you can, but it may well lose you votes, and you'd better be sure you understand the implications of your own policy.
For a minister, Phil Woolas has remarkably little command over the numbers of migrants, from inside or outside the EU. Most striking, though, were his repeated claims that immigration policy had changed since Brown became PM. He displayed no command of the scale of the problem. Now, that may have been deliberate, but it choked his credibility. Out of his depth.
Nigel Farage (a late replacement for Lord Pearson, we were told - I would love to have been a fly on the wall for that conversation) was easily able to show that the others were ignoring the EU elephant in the room and were thus unable to grip the problem, and reminded us that it was East Europeans Mrs Duffy had singled out for her concern. It was going so well until it came to his definition of "immigration". UKIP says it wants to stop immigration, but it emerged that they don't mean immigration as we know it, they just mean people wanting to come and settle here. Short term work permits would still be available. Farage did not seem to be able to put a number on these.
Damian Green was not only unable to say what the Conservatives' immigration cap would be - it would be settled after consultation with all and sundry - he also got tied up in defining who would be included under the cap. It doesn't include students or family members. I think he was saying that spouses of those allowed in under the cap would automatically be admitted and be given the right to work. But with not even an indication of numbers, the policy just seemed like PR. A Conservative policy cobbled together for effect? Could that be so? Damian emerged as an amiable man useful for disarming the issue in Opposition. But in government you need a minister with the intellectual determination to stick to the essentials and push policy through against institutional inertia, especially as immigration is the area which concerns voters most after the economy. Sorry, Damian, ineffectual and probably too nice.
BBC please note that there was only one thing wrong with the programme - it was 45 minutes but it could have been twice as long. There was, for instance, no time to probe Woolas's assertions that migration has been beneficial. They all stressed integration over multiculturalism, but again there was no time to explore what that might mean on the ground.
Certainly more rigorous and revealing than the trumpeted leaders' debates. The leaders have got off lightly.
Under fire from the ever excellent Andrew Neil and impartial today Mark Easton, all four parties' policies were torpedoed.
We knew the Lib Dem immigration policy on an amnesty for illegals was under-researched. Oddly the Lib Dems haven't strengthened their case since the subject came up in the last leaders' debate, and down they went again. Similarly their policy on allowing immigrants to work in certain areas but not others. It would apply to where they worked, not where they settled, and the arrangements for enforcement seemed minimal. Back to the drawing board, and bear in mind that if you're going to become a significant political force, people will read your manifesto. You can't just chuck stuff in to please your membership. Well you can, but it may well lose you votes, and you'd better be sure you understand the implications of your own policy.
For a minister, Phil Woolas has remarkably little command over the numbers of migrants, from inside or outside the EU. Most striking, though, were his repeated claims that immigration policy had changed since Brown became PM. He displayed no command of the scale of the problem. Now, that may have been deliberate, but it choked his credibility. Out of his depth.
Nigel Farage (a late replacement for Lord Pearson, we were told - I would love to have been a fly on the wall for that conversation) was easily able to show that the others were ignoring the EU elephant in the room and were thus unable to grip the problem, and reminded us that it was East Europeans Mrs Duffy had singled out for her concern. It was going so well until it came to his definition of "immigration". UKIP says it wants to stop immigration, but it emerged that they don't mean immigration as we know it, they just mean people wanting to come and settle here. Short term work permits would still be available. Farage did not seem to be able to put a number on these.
Damian Green was not only unable to say what the Conservatives' immigration cap would be - it would be settled after consultation with all and sundry - he also got tied up in defining who would be included under the cap. It doesn't include students or family members. I think he was saying that spouses of those allowed in under the cap would automatically be admitted and be given the right to work. But with not even an indication of numbers, the policy just seemed like PR. A Conservative policy cobbled together for effect? Could that be so? Damian emerged as an amiable man useful for disarming the issue in Opposition. But in government you need a minister with the intellectual determination to stick to the essentials and push policy through against institutional inertia, especially as immigration is the area which concerns voters most after the economy. Sorry, Damian, ineffectual and probably too nice.
BBC please note that there was only one thing wrong with the programme - it was 45 minutes but it could have been twice as long. There was, for instance, no time to probe Woolas's assertions that migration has been beneficial. They all stressed integration over multiculturalism, but again there was no time to explore what that might mean on the ground.
Certainly more rigorous and revealing than the trumpeted leaders' debates. The leaders have got off lightly.
Repeal billS
David Cameron proposes a Great Repeal Bill - an idea lifted from The Plan. This is endorsed today by Patience Wheatcroft, who pleasantly describes it as a "bonfire of inanities".
A Conservative government should have repeal bills every few months at fixed intervals.
Since 1997, when Labour came to power, the legal and regulatory burden has grown exponentially. It has added 4,300 offences to the statute book, compared with only 494 under the previous Conservative administration.Tory MP Douglas Carswell, co-author of The Plan, has been asking readers of his blog what measures they would like to see repealed.
A Conservative government should have repeal bills every few months at fixed intervals.
- The first bill could come forward quickly, and not be held back because of a desperate need to cram in all the many candidates.
- This would keep alive interest in the subject, and in debates about what topics should be included.
May 03, 2010
UKIP's disaffected - call to arms
The Junius blog continues its loving reporting by and about UKIP's disaffected.
Why do they all bother? Most of them are, after all, better than Farage in intellect and morality - though that isn't a particularly high bar.
Yet they are dancing to his tune.
So much energy poured into pummelling UKIP. If all the disaffected had got together in a new party, and directed their energy positively, think how much more effective the results could have been - both in attracting voters and in worrying UKIP's leadership.
After all, a party rejecting Greenery and the EU doesn't have any respectable rivals. But most voters don't put these issues at the top of their list of concerns. On the economic issues most people are most concerned about, UKIP's policies are just a rollcall of saloon bar prejudices.
Whyever would that be?
A plausible political party has to have attractive and realistic policies in areas which people consider important. Otherwise it is just a ... pressure group.
Remind you of anyone?
Why do they all bother? Most of them are, after all, better than Farage in intellect and morality - though that isn't a particularly high bar.
Yet they are dancing to his tune.
So much energy poured into pummelling UKIP. If all the disaffected had got together in a new party, and directed their energy positively, think how much more effective the results could have been - both in attracting voters and in worrying UKIP's leadership.
After all, a party rejecting Greenery and the EU doesn't have any respectable rivals. But most voters don't put these issues at the top of their list of concerns. On the economic issues most people are most concerned about, UKIP's policies are just a rollcall of saloon bar prejudices.
Whyever would that be?
A plausible political party has to have attractive and realistic policies in areas which people consider important. Otherwise it is just a ... pressure group.
Remind you of anyone?
Global warming good?
If you believe in global warming, David Whitehouse reports a study which suggests that mankind’s GHG emissions may have produced a warmer, greener planet, supporting more people, that it would otherwise have been.
Intriguing
Intriguing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)