Politaholic

Marr's stomach-churning sycophancy

2012-02-08T05:33:00.003Z

Just out of curiosity, just to see how low Marr has sunk, Politaholic watched - with growing incredulity - Marr's eulogy to Elizabeth Windsor (nee Saxe-Coburg). All I can say is that Super-injunction Marr fully deserves the Alistair Burnett Medal of Honour for forelock-tugging servility ("lick, lick, smarm, smarm").

P.S. There was a very apt description of Marr in The Independent last week: "..like Uriah Heep seeking a knighthood".

Meryl Streep movie is Rubbish

2012-01-09T19:49:00.003Z

Politaholic has just seen the Meryl Streep Thatcher movie and it is garbage. It isn't that is pro-Thatcher, of course it is. It is that there is virtually no politics in it. The little bit of politics there is in it is comic book. For the most part it is about an old lady suffering from dementia, it could be any old lady really. It has little to do with Thatcher. If I were a Thatcheritre I would think this a movie that demeaned her. Of course the Thatcherites love it, because they think it will rehabilitate the evil old bag.

Meryl is obviously a diva big time. Hardly anyone else gets any screen time; Richard E Grant plays Heseltine: blink and you will miss him. It's all about Meryl. The only other actor given any screen time is Jim Broadbent doing his genial old buffer routine - he has done it as Mr Iris Murdoch, Mr Mary Whitehouse and God knows who else. It's wearing a bit thin. Meryl of course is always Meryl - there is no suspension of disbelief, you never believe for a second that this is Thatcher, always that this is Meryl acting Thatcher (isn't she good? no, not if she can't disappear behind her character, not if you never for a single moment forget that this is Meryl being Thatcher). For me Lindsay Duncan as Thatcher was excellent; miles and miles better than this crap (and Lindsay Duncan's was not an entirely unsympathetic portrait, a more complex one perhaps). The other thing about the Streep movie is the screenplay. God it's awful.

Now I did see a really good movie. The Artist. If you don't see this you are really missing something exceptional.

How Corrupt is UK Government?

2011-12-23T09:37:00.003Z

The recent reports of the top-nobs at the tax inspectorate hob-nobbing with CEO's of big companies before agreeing how much tax they should pay has raised this question in my mind. What is the answer? Here are my thoughts:

1. Human nature being what is is corruption is unavoidable, everywhere in the world it goes on. Doh!
2. But some countries are more corrupt than others (also Doh!) - for example, I am reliably informed by colleagues familiar with Pakistan that this is simply how things are done there. If you want a visa, or a driving licence, or whatever, the way to get it done quickly is to grease palms, fail to do so and it takes months, if you ever get it. That kind of thing is not common in the UK.
3. By comparison with a lot of other countries UK politics is reasonably clean - some of the overseas students I teach are surprised to learn, for example, that a government Minister had to resign for fast tracking a visa for his lover's nanny. That it just so "small potatoes".
4. And yet....perhaps the impression we have that the UK is relatively free of corruption is because so much of what - on a broader definition of the word - is "corrupt" is also perfectly legal. It seems (if Margaret Hodge is to believed) that the tax bosses broke no law, although they may not have adhered to their own guidelines. But it looks iffy to me. The "revolving door" syndrome (where ex-Ministers and ex-civil servants turn up on the boards of companies with which they have had dealings in government) is on any common-sensical definition of the word "corrupt" but again quite legal (I am thinking also of a former top copper who was/is cosy with News International and whose recent evidence before a Select Committee was brazen insolence). Or take PFI (and the preferred bidders) - and there is a revolving door here as well - all quite legal and in my view quite corrupt. Finally, it is interesting is it not that although there have been prosecutions and convictions of corrupt bankers in the USA there has been not one, not a solitary one, in the UK. That is not how things are done here. I wonder also if the old T. Dan Smith type of thing still goes on in local government (when the supermarket chain got permission to build the mega-store did the members of the local council planning committee find their bank balances inflated?). Another example: some years ago Politaholic experienced a spell of unemployment and was sent to a private company which was commissioned by, I suppose, the DHSS, to run what are essentially job-clubs. What a scam! For each unemployed person, sitting around all day in what is essentially day-time detention, the company received a generous stipend (at taxpayers expense). Those running it appeared very cosy with those who commissioned it.
5. I am only aware of one scandal actually linking a former senior politician to organised crime but I suppose it is wise to say no more.
6. I suppose these sorts of things - privatisation scams, revolving door corruption - go on in other countries too. I think the UK is certainly less corrupt than the USA, or Italy, or Bulgaria, or Pakistan, or....
7. But even so, perhaps there is more of it than we like to think. Its just that much of it is legal.

Hillary Clinton: We - the USA - came...

2011-10-28T05:28:00.002+01:00

There are two notable features here: (i) the staggering vulgarity of it (ii) the mask slips - "We came...". We being the USA. Precisely.

Lynching of Black Migrant Workers in Libya

2011-09-04T10:00:00.005+01:00

A few days ago the Guardian carried an article by Richard Seymour about the lynching of black migrant workers by Libyan rebels. It appears that the rumour that black mercenaries were fighting for Gadaffi is without foundation; but is providing the"justification" for the attacks on African migrant workers. It is Seymour's argument that the Libyan revolution has, essentially, been hijacked by domestic and foreign elites (the NTC is composed of "the former regime notables, businessmen and professionals, as well as exiles" and the military campaign has been orchestrated by NATO).

The Bloody Assizes

2011-08-19T08:04:00.003+01:00

Following the imprisonment of a woman who slept soundly throughout the riots but accepted a pair of stolen shorts comes the imprisonment of a man - who had spent his last £4 on alcohol and presumably had nothing to eat - for stealing doughnuts. My feeling is that the public mood is changing. There is no sympathy for the rioters, especially those who engaged in actual violence. But the vindictiveness of the sentencing vis-a-vis those not involved in violence (those guilty of petty opportunist theft from high street stores)- and the departure from previous norms - is being noticed, and especially the contrast with the treatment of those at the top. The MP's have largely "got away with it", the bankers have got way with it, the police who took money from the News of the World have got away with it, and so far the phone hackers have got away with it. I don't believe that Andy Coulson knew nothing about phone hacking by the NoW - I don't think any sensible person thinks this - and I don't believe that when Cameron employed Coulson that he - Cameron - believed that Coulson knew nothing about it. Cameron believed Coulson would get away with it, so he would get away with employing him. People can see this hypocrisy.

ADDENDUM

In October 2010 a man with defective eyesight driving a 32-ton tipper truck knocked down and killed a 30-year old cyclist. He was fined £200 by Kingston magistrates court. Just as well he didn't steal a doughnut.

A "sense of entitlement"?

2011-08-15T11:27:00.003+01:00

According to Boris Johnson an - unjustified - "endless sense of entitlement" is apparently one cause of the riots. Not something you'll find on the Tory front bench.

P.S. That's Alexander Boris de Pfellel Johnson, Eton and Oxford, former member of the Bullingdon Club.

Henry Porter raises the taboo question

2011-08-15T11:11:00.003+01:00

Henry Porter in The Observer raises the taboo question (the first time I have seen it aired) only to dismiss it: "...some even believe the Met held back to make their point about the effect of government cuts. This cannot be true..." Can't it?

Already the pressure to exempt the police from the cuts is building. The Government is - so far - resisting (in private they are probably furious with the police), but I expect (another) U-Turn.

Mind you, the riots have helped the Tories: they wiped the Hacking scandal off the front pages and have boosted a "law-and-order" lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key agenda.

Wandsworth Council meanwhile appear to have opted for Israeli-style collective punishment. They have served an eviction notice on the mother of an 18 year old boy accused (but not yet convicted) of violent disorder and attempted theft. Why leave it at that? Does he have grandparents?

Police "industrial action"?

2011-08-11T06:58:00.003+01:00

Is Politaholic alone in thinking that part of what is going on is a spot of - highly effective - industrial action by the Knackers (eager not to bear their share of public service cuts)? Inspect a lot of talk from Cameron (supported by Miliband) about more support for front-line policing.

Murdoch's Strategy

2011-07-13T10:30:00.002+01:00

Murdoch's strategy will, I think, be as follows:

1. Play for time (if Cameron persists in pushing the judicial inquiry into the distance that will help)

2. Widen the net (if it turns out that the Mail, Express, Mirror, etc, were all up to the same tricks that will lessen the pressure on News International.

3. Specious justifications - The Sun, for example, is apparently arguing that its motivation for publishing the story about Gordon Brown's child was to raise public awareness of cystic fibrosis (rubbish).

4. The take-over of BSkyB may have to be postponed to another day; in the meantime The News of The World can be re-launched as The Sun on Sunday.

5. A few token heads may have to roll.

The Evil Empire is in trouble but sadly it is, I think, not the end.

Also: a judicial inquiry may not be the remedy everyone thinks; even now Cameron will be looking for a Hutton-esque "safe pair of hands".

Two gems: (1) A letter in The Guardian giving some advice to Rebecca Brooks: "If the Murdoch's suggest a yachting holiday: don't go" (2) Keith Vaz summing up the police's rather inadequate efforts: "More Clouseau than Columbo". But then which former Commissioner of the Met was it who said it would be a fine thing: "If the police arrested more criminals than it employs"? Setting the bar low, but a bit too high for the Met.

Thank God That's Over

2011-04-30T12:55:00.002+01:00

The Guardian had 5-6 pages of royal garbage yesterday. God help us. Politaholic managed to avoid most of the rubbish, but it was impossible to do so completely. Is anyone opening a book on how long it is before the divorce, or the first tabloid-sensation extra-curricular?

The AV Campaign

2011-04-28T10:48:00.002+01:00

There has been quite a lot of comment about the pathetic campaigns run by both the "No" and "Yes" camps. The two broadcasts I have seen treat the voters, essentially, as idiots. The "Yes" people seem to think that AV would have avoided the MP's expenses scandal - which is ludicrous. One of the most egregious cases (admittedly one end of a spectrum) was that of the former MP for Barnsley Central, but in that constituency Eric Illsley would have been elected under AV (in 2005 Illsley got 61% of the vote). The broadcast by the "No" campaign was, if possible, even more infantile.

In British Columbia there was a referendum on whether to introduce STV in 2005 (there was a majority in favour but less than 60% so another referendum was held in 2008 and STV was defeated). Below is a link to an animation produced by the pro-STV group. OK it is one-sided, it puts the "Yes" argument. But just compare the quality of this - which explains the system and sets out an argument - with the puerile, infantile, insulting rubbish broadcast by both sides in the 2011 AV referendum.

See THIS: BC-STV

Child Benefit Fiasco

2010-10-10T10:00:00.004+01:00

The extraordinary thing about the child benefit fiasco is that it appears to be so ill thought-out. It seems clear it wasn't discussed in Cabinet (It would be interesting to know if Nick Clegg knew in advance. Did Cameron and Osborne inform their coalition partner?). It seems that as the fiasco unfolded Cameron "wobbled" but that Osborne (who sees this a a clever political wheeeze ahead of October 20, allowing him to say that higher earners were hit first) took a hard line. Together with the Coulson affair - it is simply incredible that Coulson didn't know about the phone tapping (incredible as in "not credible") - it begins to look as if Cameron is becoming less sure-footed. Or could it be that for the first time the media is beginning to scrutinise the Tories (they had such an easy ride in Opposition)? Meanwhile Ed Miliband has made a good decision (which surprised me) in choosing Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor. (Johnson is a bit too much of a Blairite for me, but he is a fully-paid up human). It is probably also a good decision to stick with the Darling plan for deficit reduction rather than Balls alternative (although to be frank I'm not sure anyone - even, or perhaps especially, the professional economists - really knows how deep and how quick the deficit should be cut).

David would have been better than Ed

2010-10-06T06:52:00.004+01:00

Politaholic thinks it would have been better if David Miliband had won the leadership election rather than Ed. There are several reasons for this. First, the "Red Ed" tag will not go away (Odd how such a trivial fact such as "Ed" rhyming with "Red" can have political significance. The Tory press will not let it go: "Red Ed", "Reds under Ed's bed", "Ed the Red", and so on). Second, Ed won with the support of the union vote (of course, this is no longer a block vote); both the MP's/MEP's and the constituency section did not have Ed as first choice. Again, to the Tory press this is a gift. He is already being portrayed as a creature of the unions. Third, Ed's victory sems to have exacerbated the factional divisions within the party (the Blairites are furious) - and I suspect trouble lies ahead. Fourth, despite the factional rivalry, I can can see no great ideological difference between David and Ed. Some have hailed Ed's victory as the triumph of a revived progressive social democracy over Blairite neo-liberalism. I am not convinced. Ed tilted to the left to win the leadership, now I suspect he will tilt to the right to try to shake off the "Red Ed" tag. In any case, what do his left credentials amount to? He now thinks the Iraq War was a mistake. It is unclear what he thought at the time (his "get out of jail card" is that he was not in Parliament at the time) but he is against it now. Now, that is, that it is over. As for the war still going on - in Afghanistan - he is gung-ho about that. What else? He thinks the 90 day detention proposal was wrong. He didn't mention the 42 days. But as an MP he voted for both the 90 days and the 42 days. He is Green - but voted as an MP for the extension to Heathrow Airport (and tried to persuade Chris Mullin to do so also, as recorded in Mullin's Diaries). Obviously he has had a change of heart. In time for the Leadership election. Again, he is in facvour of trade unions but against "irresponsible" strike action - which is so vague as to be worthless. He favours a Graduate Tax (obviously an overture to the Lib-Dems). He wants to keep the 50p tax rate (the Tories have no immediate plans to do away with it). And so on, and so on... The gullibility of what passes for Labour's left is staggering. "Won't be fooled again?". Not a bit of it. Fooled every time. Repeatedly. Monotonously.

I am also unimpressed by the "Talking About My generation" rap. First, what does it say to older people (to old farts like me)? Fuck off and die? (Or, perhaps: "Why don't you just F-f-fade away? And don't try to dig what we all say?"). Second, Ed - for goodness sake - is over 40. Is it altogether seemly for someone in their forties to prattle on about how young they are? When I turned 40 I thought life was over!! Third, "getting down with the kids" never works for politicians. Shades of William Hague's baseball cap.

I am also unimpressed by his riff about the hardships his parents endured long before he was born. I don't want to minimise these hardships but they were endured by his parents not by him. So far as life's lottery is concerned, he's been pretty lucky (he is not to blame for that, of course, but that is the fact of the matter).

How will it all work out? Who knows? It depends, I think, on how deep the cuts go, how protracted they are, who they hurt most, what the reaction is, whether there are strikes (or riots), and how voters react to cuts, or to strikes. "It's the economy, stupid" as the Clinton campaign said.

Finally, where did this idea that Ed is "inspirational" come from? About as inspirational as a wet lettuce.

Cameron's Goats

2010-08-24T10:37:00.004+01:00

It is, in a way, unsurprising that the Labour Goats should join up with the Coalition: Blunkett (to help in the assault on welfare claimants), Field (to help attack the poor generally as "poverty Tsar"), Hutton (to review pensions), and Milburn (to help privatise the NHS). They have been attacked in fairly robust terms - most notably by the good Lord Prescott (who does have a point - these are people who owe a great deal in terms of their own career development to the Labour Party and a little loyalty might not go amiss). But the reality is that politically there is very little to choose between Blunkett/Hutton/Milburn/Field and Cameron/Clegg. Indeed, there are quite a few others who could just as easily have signed up to the Coalition: Byers, Hoon, Hewitt, Purnell - even Mandelson. What it really shows is how little choice the voters have been given over the last couple of decades. It brings to mind the old anarchist aphorism: "No matter who you vote for, the government gets in". One small point: as I understand it Blunkett and Field are still Labour MP's (and Hutton is a Labour peer). Shouldn't joining up with the Coalition be something that must be cleared with the Whips/party Leadership first? Shouldn't these three have the whip withdrawn? Not that they would care that much.

Nat West Plonkers

2010-08-19T08:50:00.003+01:00

I have recently returned from holiday (cycling in Denmark). On the ferry back I changed Kroners into Pounds. I am given a few fifty quid notes (I haven't seen many of these before, they are not something I encounter every day.

Monday afternoon. Nat West bank on the corner of Dover Street/Oxford Road. I have 3 fifty pound notes. Conversation with bank clerk goes roughly as follows:

Me: Oh hi, could you change these three fifty pound notes into twenties and tens?
Clerk: Do you have an account with Nat West?
Me: No, my account is with Abbey National (or Santander as they are now).
Clerk (with smug smile): Then you will have to go to Abbey National to change those.
Me (with a little sarcasm): Thank you very much.

NatWest is part of the Royal Bank of Scotland group which has recieved squillions in public money.

Blair's Sqillions

2010-08-19T08:28:00.003+01:00

Blair is to donate the proceeds from his "Journey" to the British Legion. I wonder how he got that one past Cherie? John Harris in The Guardian reports that Blair has 5 homes (including the one in Connaught square worth £3.7 million and a £5.75 million "home county seat"). The two sprogs - Nicky and Euan - each have "high end London pads". Blair is estimated to be worth about £60 million. Maybe even Cherie thinks that's enough but I wouldn't bet on it.

Drugs and the cowardice of the politicians

2010-08-18T12:12:00.003+01:00

The outgoing head of the Royal College of Surgeons (Ian Gilmore) has called for decriminalising illicit drugs. This follows on the furore a few months back when the then Labour Government's drugs advisor Professor David Nutt said much the same thing. The response from the political class has been the usual moral posturing. I suspect three things:

1. There are a lot of people (like Gilmore) in important public positions (lawyers, doctors, politicians, even policemen) who hold these views in private but are reluctant to say so in public (it is interesting that Gilmore waited until his resignation before "coming out").
2. The politicians believe that public opinion will not tolerate liberalisation of the drug laws and are panic-stricken at the idea that they might be depicted as "pro-drug"; as an irrational knee-jerk reaction they resort to primitive denounciation of "drugs". It is partly electoral calculation, partly stupidity, and partly simple cowardice.
3. Public opinion is moving very slowly but is ahead of the politicians on this (A recent NOP poll showed 37% in favour of cannabis legalisation with 12% "don't know". The % of MP's prepared to say they favour cannabis legalisation is far short of 37%). Eventually in a decade or so the politicians will follow public opinion...

The argument is not about whether drugs are "good" or "bad". It's simple economics. If there is a demand for them, and they are illegal, criminals will supply (an often dangerously adulterated) product on the black market.

Labour's Leadership Contest a Damp Squib

2010-06-07T09:46:00.003+01:00

The Labour Leadership contest is hardly inspiring. Five of the candidates (the Milibands, Balls, Burnham and Abbott) are Oxbridge educated. The three front-runners plus Burnham have only ever worked as policy advisors or political researchers (although Balls was a journalist at the FT) before entering Parliament. All four are apparachiks who - whatever they say now - never, at the time, uttered a syllable of dissent about the war in Iraq or New Labour's knee-bending adulation of the City. David Miliband seems to have spent a lot of his time as Foreign Secretary trying to make sure that the truth abour British complicity in out-sourced torture never came to light. Balls was Brown's consigliere for years. This is not so much Next Labour as "old" New Labour.

Another lunatic on the road: Y844 OEN

2010-06-05T07:34:00.002+01:00

There are roadworks on Oxford Road (Manchester) currently so the road is narrowed. At several points there is no room for a cycle and car to safely travel side-by-side. So if you are on a cycle, and in front, a car should really wait behind until reaching the stretch of road where it widens again before overtaking. By law a car is supposed to give a cyclist ample room when overtaking. But that would have meant waiting behind for a whole couple of seconds. So what does this lunatic do? He overtakes - at speed - leaving no more width that a sheet of paper between my bicycle and his car. As it happened he parked his car a hundred yards or so up the road - to go to the hole-in-the-wall, I think. I caught up and remonstrated. This was one thuggish, loutish individual. "I don't care. It's you whose going to die", he said. Politaholic is not a young man (he had 20 years on me and I have one arm that doesn't work properly) and, frankly, I am not of a pugilistic disposition, but there are times when I wish I were (this being one of them). The thug even took my photo on his mobile, when he saw me take down his licence number. I phoned the police - they log such incidents (but to make an official complaint I would have to go to the police station and there is little point since, for one thing, it is a fairly everyday incident to be nearly killed by some nutter overdosed on Jerry Clarkeson, and, second, it is my word against his. I'm not sure what the purpose of logging the incident is; perhaps if the nutter succeeds in killing someone the police can look at these logs, and see a pattern. Do they help in a future prosecution? Anyway, watch out for a thug driving Y844 OEN.

Seating arrangement in the Commons

2010-05-16T07:21:00.002+01:00

Presumably the Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats will sit on the government benches. But will they sit in separate party groups or will they co-mingle? Here's a suggestion. They could sit in separate groups according to which public school they attended: Eton here, Westminster there, and so on.

Labour Should Make the Lib-Dems an Offer They Can't Refuse: Clegg for PM

2010-05-09T07:16:00.006+01:00

The election result is not as bad for Labour as it might seem. For all kinds of reasons it is very hard to win a fourth successive term, and after the financial crisis would have been pretty miraculous. Despite predictions, Labour did not come third in the popular vote as - to my surprise - the Liberal-Democrat balloon deflated (they finished only 1% up on their share of the popular vote and with fewer seats). Above all, despite Cameron's and Osborne's champage-popping celebratory rhetoric and their Bullingdon-type attempt to jemmy the door of No. 10, they do not have a Commons majority. The Tories argue that the voters have rejected Brown. They talk of "the" voters as if the millions who voted were a single personality with a unified (Rousseau-like) General Will. In fact different voters wanted different outcomes. Labour had 29% of the vote - I assume these voters at least prefer Brown to Cameron. Indeed, one might equally argue that the voters rejected Cameron - since although the Tories got more votes than any other single party the Liberal-Democrats and Labour between them got 52% which is 16% more than the Tories. I can't for the life of me see why two parties which between them have 52% have less of a mandate than one party with 36%.
Currently the Liberal-Democrats are talking with the Tories. It is hard to believe that Clegg will be fobbed off with a committee of inquiry into electoral reform. Does Clegg really go so giddy at the prospect of a Cabinet seat? Yet the fact that they are talking again today suggests either Clegg has settled for this or Cameron will concede - in a Disraeli-like "leap in the dark" - a referendum. (He doesn't have to say he favours electoral reform, merely concede a referendum. Even if they form a coalition the Conservatives could argue for "No" to change in the referendum, even as the Liberal-Democrats argued "Yes" - there is the 1975 precedent when Wilson suspended collective responsibility). Of course, it is also quite possible that talks will break down and the Conservatives form a minority government; or that agreement will be reached on Liberal-Democrat support a Conservative minority government (which seems to be the outcome most expected).
Labour should do this and do it quickly: (1) communicate to Clegg that Brown is, within days, going to resign as Prime Minister but will stay on as Labour Leader until a new one is elected (there cannot be another "coronation"). If Brown is reluctant the "men in suits" must force Brown to do this. Clegg cannot make a deal with Labour as long as Brown remains, and he certainly cannot enter a coalition with Brown as PM. It is just impossible. (2) Offer a referendum on the Additional Member System (with 40% elected by the regional list system: better than Jenkins). (3) Offer the post of Prime Minister to Nick Clegg (with Vince Cable as Chief Secretary to the Treasury), and Darling staying as Chancellor. Clegg would lead a Cabinet in which Labour had the majority of posts. (Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister after 1931 although National Labour had only a handful of MP's).
The numbers are there. Together Labour and Liberal-Democrats have 315 to the Conservatives 306. There is no guarantee the DUP wll back the Conservatives (money is more important than ideology, Cameron supported a rival party in Northern Ireland, and Cameron in his capacity as leader of the South-East of England Nationalist Party identified Northern Ireland as a priority area for public spending cuts). In any case the promise of electoral reform should be enough to get the SNP and Plaid Cymru to support Labour/Liberal Democrats in a confidence vote (they need not be in the coalition) and there are 3 SDLP and 1 Green MP's who presumably prefer Labour/Liberal-Democrats to the Conservatives (and possibly 1 Alliance MP also).
So Clegg for PM? No, I suppose not. It would be Labour's smartest move, but I can't see it. Too many egos. I suspect Clegg is not so stupid as to go into coalition with Cameron without a referedum on electoral reform. It looks like a Cameron minority government, with the Liberal-Democrats thrown a few bones in return for their support.

Afterthought:

One problem is that Labour may not be able to deliver a referendum on electoral reform; that is, depending on how many Labour MP's will vote against it (even if whipped). A referendum on AV was in the Manifesto; but not a referendum on PR.

I read in the Observer that some Labour MP's are saying a period of regrouping in Opposition might not be a bad thing. I think myself it is better to keep possession of the ball.

It does look as if Brown is determined not to step aside to make it easier for the Lib-Dems to deal with Labour. What on earth he hopes to gain from that I don't know. It simply means that Cameron will be PM in a day or so.

Rawnsley's tittle-tattle

2010-03-11T12:35:00.003Z

Politaholic has been reading Andrew Rawnsley's book. This caught my eye (page 364):

"The two men (Blair and Brown) were forced into each others company in the first week of April when they shared a car journey...As they sat in the back of the limo, Blair attempted to engage Brown in conversation. Brown responded by taking out some papers and burying himself in them. He refused to reply to every overture until Blair eventually gave up trying to make conversation. The journey passed in bitter silence".

The source for this is: "Interview, Cabinet Minister".

Well, how did the unnamed Cabinet Minister know this? There are several possibilities:

1. He also was in the car (Rawnsley doesn't make it clear if Brown and Blair were, apart from the driver, alone)

2. He was told this by either Brown or Blair; presumably, since the story reflects badly on Brown, by Blair.

3. He was told by someone who in turn had been told by Blair.

We don't know whether the source is relaying first, second, or third hand information.

Two questions arise. First, since the story is anti-Brown and the only source is presumably a single Blairite Minister who may not have witnessed the event in question how much credence can be put on it? I mean, how much weight does evidence from, to take hypothetical examples, John Reid or Charles Clarke or Alan Milburn have vis-a-vis an event like this given there is no other corroboration (Rawnsley refers to a "Cabinet Minister" in the singular) and given their well-known dislike of Brown? Second, why the need for anonymity? I suppose it could be the source is someone still in government. Or maybe the source is Blair himself.

I know it is a very small incident. But given the clear anti-Brown bias of this book, it is telling. Frankly I would be reluctant to believe anything an ultra-Blairite says about Brown.

Darling helps the Tories

2010-02-24T07:47:00.003Z

Weeks away from a General Election, with the Tories poll lead narrowing, what the f*** is Alistair Darling playing at? It seems he was shoddily treated; but he should have it out with Brown face-to-face behind closed doors instead of gifting Cameron a PMQ easy hit. What a t***.

Bullingdon Hotline

2010-02-24T07:44:00.002Z

The incomparable Steve Bell. Says it all, really.

Bullingdons against bullying?

2010-02-23T07:53:00.003Z

It looks as though we will, at PMQ's tomorrow, be treated to the spectacle of a Bullingdon veteran lecturing Gordon Brown on the iniquities of bullying. At least the good Lord has a sense of humour. Perhaps Brown should remind "Dave" that he sometimes loses his cool because he takes this stuff seriously, and doesn't regard it as a more amusing version of the Eton Wall Game.

Dangerous Manchester Bus Driver CX58EVU No. 268

2010-01-31T10:55:00.004Z

Politaholic had a brush with death on Friday 29th January 2010, just before 5 p.m. Cycling along Whitworth Street in Manchester there is a left turn onto Oxford Road. It is wise, if a bus or lorry is in front, not to cycle along the inside; since there is little room to turn and a bus or lorry or large car has to cut across the cycle path to do so. So I always stay behind. On this occasion, however, I am in front. The bus behind me, eager to beat the red light, overtakes and turns left, cutting across the cycle path and very, very nearly, knocking me off my bike. Why? Why not wait until I have turned the corner then follow? Can a few seconds be so important? This bus was license number CX58EVU and it was a single-decker No. 268. It must be only a matter of time before the driver kills someone.

Indigenous?

2009-10-24T09:57:00.003+01:00

On Question Time Nick Griffin referred to the "indigenous" people of these islands (the English, the Scottish, the Welsh, and the Irish) who have been here "for 17,000 years". Among other failings poor Nick has a slender grasp of history if he thinks the bloody English have been here for 17,000 years...

Cameron the egalitarian

2009-10-10T09:49:00.003+01:00

David Cameron says he wants everyone to have the opportunites he had. You can't say that's not ambitious. He is the son of a stockbroker, educated at Eton and Oxford, worth God knows how many millions (he won't say), who owns the mansion in Oxfordshire shown here, and is married to an aristocrat whose Daddy is apparently worth £60 million, and who designs handbags which retail at around a thousand pounds (although her cheap publicity stunt of wearing a High Street dress she wouldn't normally be seen dead in was applauded by a fawning and supine press). I'm not sure everyone could enjoy the opportunities Dave and Samantha have had. If everyone consumed the resources these parasites consume the earth would be stripped bare in a week.

What to expect...

2009-10-01T04:19:00.006+01:00

A recent edition of The Economist (Sep 26-Oct 2) has its wish list of cuts: the extension of VAT to food, ending free bus travel for pensioners, ending winter fuel payments to pensioners, means-testing child benefit... The "Tobin tax"? Obviously a very bad idea. Elsewhere in the same issue: the Tories are planning the wholesale privatisation of schools (currently they are to be "not-for-profit" but that could - will - change). And at their conference the Tories (while leaving their precious inheritance tax untouched) outlined their plans to freeze public-sector wages, end tax-credits for thousands of families, and raise the retirement age (which won't affect those with enough dosh to be able to retire early). A more recent edition of The Economist (October10-16) praises Osbone ("That's More Like It") and adds a few more items to the wish list: closing Sure Start Centres, and raising university tuition fees. And after the election: will the minimum wage survive? pension credit? public libraries? Will there be a private-insurance model for health? Just because its not in the Tory Manifesto doesn't mean it won't happen...

Revisiting Chappaquiddick

2009-09-04T11:15:00.004+01:00

Perhaps the most horrifying aspect of the Chappaquiddick "incident" is the well-grounded suspicion that Mary-Joe Kopechne did not die of drowning but of suffocation. The medical examiner decided she had drowned, but there was no autopsy (and a later attempt to exhume the body to carry out an autopsy was denied). Kennedy did not report to the police station until after the body had been discovered the next morning, and the diver who discovered the body believed - from the position of the body - that she died when the air ran out, and was conscious at the time. She probably survived for several hours after the crash, and if Kennedy had reported the accident immediately she would have lived. If you or I had behaved as Kennedy did we would have gone to jail, and for a very long time; but in United States power and money cannot be denied their due.
I don't deny that Kennedy was on the right side of American politics - at least as compared to the George W Bushs' of this world.
But Chappaquiddick was not just a tragic accident: it isn't just the cowardly self-interested behaviour of Kennedy immediately after the accident (and for all we know he may have been drunk or stoned or both) but the cover-up and lying afterwards, and the use of power to place a "golden one" above the law.

Newcastle Metro Declares War on Cyclists

2009-08-18T10:10:00.004+01:00

During a recent visit to "Our Friends in the North" Politaholic discovered that the Metro in Newcastle (the Tyne and Wear Metro) has decided to prohibit the transportation of bicycles at all times. This edict is enforced with unflinching zeal (rarely can a body of men have been so dedicated to their work). Rather makes a mockery of "green" pretensions.

Will Cameron get tough with...Cameron?

2009-05-24T08:59:00.003+01:00

What exactly is the difference between an expenses claim for duck island and one for removing wisteria?

The demise of "Gorbals MIck".

2009-05-20T06:37:00.004+01:00

Quick thought on Speakergate: Michael Martin is obviously not the sharpest tool in the box, but then Speaker doesn't strike me as a very demanding job (it would be a waste of Vince Cable's evident talents) and Martin is not by any means the first rather dim jobsworth to become Speaker. But all that to one side, there is a deeply unpleasant Bullingdon-type Bullying in the baiting of "Gorbals Mick" (the class war is alive and well). It would be a pretty shabby outcome if Martin is singled out for sacrifice while Douglas Hogg (who named Pat Finucane under privilege less than a month before his murder), Hazel Blears, Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper, and Jacqui Smith, et al, effect a Houdini-like escape.

MP's expenses

2009-05-17T10:16:00.002+01:00

The bottom line seems to be that MP's consider themselves poorly paid. Of course, they are not badly paid at all - around 64 grand is a pretty sum by most peoples standards (the median is around 23-grand) and some of those in the headlines are also on ministerial salaries - but MP's "comparative reference group" (lawyers, head teachers, company executives, dentists, accountants) earn more, and so MP's, and Ministers, feel hard done by. This is itself a reflection of life inside the Westminster goldfish bowl, with MP's envying the bigger fish, with little idea what it is like in the big bad world outside. One might call this "the Mandelson syndrome". Yet MP's - or successive governments - have been unwilling to vote for wage increases because of the likely adverse public reaction. So instead a basically corrupt expenses system (and an extremely generous pensions system) was put in place, allowing MP's to make all sorts of ludicrous claims, with nothing resembling scrutiny from the Fees Office. It seems to have been made clear to MP's by the whips that this was a supplement to their income, and they should claim as much as they could get away with (and the Fees Office took the same view). This was all intended to be kept secret; but assidous research by some journalists using the Freedom of Information Act means that disclosures will officially been made by the end of July. The Telegraph bought the info ahead of time - for, it seems, a 6-figure sum - and carefully staged its disclosure (Labour first) to damage the Labour Party more so than the Conservatives. The whole farrago is at once hilarious and slightly worrying: it seems that the main beneficiaries (if voters turn away from the Establishment parties) will be UKIP and maybe even the BNP (Although the expenses scandal is not the only factor here; for years Labour - obsessed with winning over "Middle England" - has simply taken what was hitherto its "natural constituency" for granted). Yet the anger of the voters is clearly understandable - some MP's (such as Hazel Blears, Douglas Hogg, Andrew MacKay and Julie Kirkbride, and Jacqui Smith) have behaved disgracefully. The vulgarity of Hazel Blears flourishing her cheque in front of the TV cameras was particularly nauseating (her constituents must be reflecting on how fortunate she is to be able to write out such a cheque at a moments notice). In any case, if she thinks she has done nothing wrong why is she paying the money back? David Cameron seems to have responded rather better than Gordon Brown, at least (as one might expect) from a PR point of view. But then the party in government is bound to suffer more from this (although the blame does not lie with Brown to any greater extent than his predecessors). The Telegraph also kindly gave the Tories more time to mull over their response; and in any case Cameron's response is all spin - he himself claimed the second-home allowance in full (not to mention £700 for gardening, which he is repaying!!) and he is not exactly short of a bob-or-two. Also, the sums of money involved while pretty big by the standards of most ordinary people are trifling in terms of government spending, certainly insignificant by comparison with the zillions that have been spent on bailing out the bankers; and it has to be said that the level of corruption exposed would not figure on the Richter scale in, say, Italy. What's more there are more serious kinds of corruption in British public life: not least the notorious "revolving door" syndrome; and the shovelling of shed-loads of money towards consultants and PFI contractors. A small note: Brown, personally, does not come out of this especially badly. £53 a week for a cleaner is more than some of Hazel Blear's constituents have to spend on food for a week (and Brown could certainly afford to pay it out of his own pocket) but it is not exhorbitant - and according to his sister-in-law Brown paid full National Insurance contributions for the cleaner which, if true, shows him in a better light than many such employers of this kind of casual labour. Brown does not strike me - for all his manifold faults - as someone who is in politics for personal enrichment (although he is in thrall to the bankers) or as someone who gives much thought to such things (now Blair, by comparison...!!). Of course, Brown tolerated the system; but then it goes back several decades. Finally, there is no doubting the seriousness of all this, but I am rather afraid that after the European elections we may reflect that, as cheap and vulgar as claiming for trouser-presses, moat-cleaning, mock tudor beams and so on are, there are far worse things...

Christopher Galley MP?

2009-04-18T09:00:00.003+01:00

This is an odd thing for me - an old leftist - to say but I think Government ministers must be able to have discussions with civil servants or other ministers without fearing that these will appear in the Daily Mirror or The News of the Screws the following day. Without this expectation of confidentiality there will be much more decision-making by an inner cabal, with no paper trail, and no input from anyone but a core of trusted cronies. Of course, a civil servant ought to be able to offer a "public interest defence" for leaking information; but there is a great deal of difference between "what is in the public interest" and "what the public might be interested in" (a distinction the DPP's statement elides). And there is a big difference between leaking in the public interest, and leaking merely in the interests of the opposition party, and in the expectation that this might help one in a future political career. For example, on September 1 The Daily Mail ran with a leaked letter from Jacqui Smith to Gordon Brown which predicted that the credit crunch would lead to a rise in crime. Now: (i) this is to state the bleeding obvious; (ii) it is ludicrous to pretend that the leaking of such information is a threat to national security, (iii) the civil servant who leaked this cannot plausibly offer a"public interest" defence; this is just the sort of thing ministers ought to be able to discuss in confidence (It's not as if we are talking about the government concealing from the public key facts about the sinking of the Belgrano. Christoper Galley is no Clive Ponting). As I read the DPP's statement, there is a "high threshold" before a criminal prosecution can be justified and in this case "there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction". This falls far short of a general commendation for either Christopher Galley or Damien Green. True, the DPP does dismiss the idea that the leaks were a threat to national security; but he does say they damaged the "proper functioning" of the Home Office (why did the government not take this line?). Contrary to what almost everyone else is saying, I do not think Galley or Green come out of this well. Galley in particular is not someone I would trust as far as I could spit. I don't know what assurances Damien may have given you, Chis, old son, and maybe in your dreams you can already see "Christoper Galley M.P."; but I wouldn't bank on it...

Manslaughter?

2009-04-18T08:46:00.002+01:00

The Guardian front page says that the policeman who struck Ian Tomlinson may be charged with manslaughter. Mmm. Is there a hope in hell he will be convicted of manslaughter? The blow he struck was unprovoked, and pretty nasty, but in all fairness I don't see how he could reasonably have anticipated that it would lead to Tomlinson's death. It would be different if he had forcibly struck Tomlinson on the head with his truncheon (as apparently happened at Bishopsgate). Is he going to be charged with the most serious offence with which he could be charged on the expectation that there will be a much lesser chance of a guilty verdict? That's how it looks to me. He deserves to lose his job; and he ought to be charged with a lesser offence. But manslaughter? He will be suspended on full pay while the trial takes place; he will be acquitted; he will return to duty a canteen hero; and after a while it will all be forgotten. I think that's what the police call a "result" It smells a bit fishy to me.

The arrogance of authority

2009-04-16T08:17:00.005+01:00

It isn't so much the amount of violence involved; there was worse, much worse, at Bisopsgate - the police attacked when there was no media around for a reason. But there is a whole world of meaning in that slap by the back of the hand. It tells us a great deal about the attitude of the police, and for that matter of this government, towards protest. There is an arrogance, a contempt for the right to protest, an incomprehension of dissidence, the worship of power. The violence - the slap then the truncheon - is not used in self-defence, and is not used against someone who is "tooled-up", it isn't even used "man-to-man"; it is used by a large hulking copper against a woman who cannot possibly defend herself. He hits her because he can. Would that particular policeman even understand the proposition that one of his duties - not his only duty, to be sure - ought to be to ensure that the protestors are able to protest, to guard their right to protest. I doubt it.

Last came Anarchy: he rode

On a white horse, splashed with blood;

He was pale even to the lips,

Like Death in the Apocalypse.

And he wore a kingly crown;

And in his grasp a sceptre shone;

On his brow this mark I saw -

'I AM GOD, AND KING, AND LAW!'

The first commandment of spin

2009-04-14T10:27:00.007+01:00

Monday's Guardian cartoon was spot on. It had Alistair Campbell handing out the ten commandments of spin, a cowed Brown and McBride before him, a shadowy Blair behind him. And the first commandment? "Don't get fucking caught". I doubt if anyone in politics is quite as shocked by the McBride/Draper affair as they affect to be; there is a certain amount of thespian artfice to the parade of outraged Tories we have seen over the last few days. Politics is a hard old game and no party is quite innocent of dirty tricks. Guido - a Tory outrider - and Dale (a Tory candidate) are not exactly strangers to gossip. Guido's blog - and even more so the comments of his band of faithful public school interlocutors - are so scurrilous and so vulgar as to beggar belief, and the sight of Guido heading for the moral high ground is a little incredulous. You can't be a "louche libertarian" (as he styles himself) and the Vicar of Dibley at the same time. You can bet your life that if it were rumoured that a Labour politician had taken cocaine in the past Guido would be after him like a bloodhound. I have no doubt McPoison is a nasty piece of work and Dolly Draper a social-climbing catastrophe-prone dimwit (whom no sane person would touch with a bargepole); but it isn't as if the Tories don't have a few nasties and dimwits of their own. Remember Bernard Ingham? Aitken's "shiny sword of truth"? Brown envelopes? Jeffrey Archer? And as for Andy Coulson (formerly of that guardian of the moral high ground, The News of the Screws) his past form does not suggest he is a choir boy.
Running the McBride/Draper operation out of Downing Street and inviting Draper to Chequers (I mean, why?) was, apart from anything else, inept. Leaving an electronic paper-trail is a bit daft (what happened to quiet off-the-record chats over a few beers?). But there are other questions. Just how did Guido get hold of the e-mails? It seems clear the Tories have a mole or two inside the government machine (and - aided by friends in the media - they have just neatly dispatched the copper who tried to look into this, his replacement being - apparently -"one of us"). The Tories are certainly determined to milk this for what's its worth; but, as I say, I doubt if the average voter is quite so shocked as the parade of outraged Tories touring the TV and radio studios purport to be. We know a performance when we see one.

Brown pays homage to Washington

2009-03-08T12:47:00.002Z

So Brown has been to Washington to pay pledge fealty to the new Emperor. Addressing Congress was - so it is being reported - a highlight of his career, something of which he is immensely proud. From where I sit it was a display of rather embarrasing grovelling by a local satrap eager to please. The theme? "America the wonderful". The so-called "special relationship" was laid bare. Special it may be to Brown, but I doubt if, for Obama or Congress, it is especially special. They looked at Brown and saw someone who came to pay them homage, and took it as their due.

Thatcher - a sympathetic portrait?

2009-03-08T12:17:00.004Z

I seem to be out of kilter with everyone else in respect to the TV drama Margaret, about Thatcher in her bunker. The prevailing view - in nearly all the reviews I have seen - is that it was at least a somewhat sympathetic portrayal of Thatcher, showing her "human" side. I didn't see that at all (but maybe that's just me). The arrogance and conceit was there, the petty humiliation of colleagues (asking Howe to fetch her shawl), and even the vanity (the smirk of pleasure as Charles Powell comments on her ear-rings or remarks that she looks "radiant" - a very unsympathetic but probably accurate portrait of Powell as a scheming, sycophantic courtier). Yes, there was the "private side" but I didn't find it sympathetic - it was mostly maudlin self-pity. She was certainly depicted as having a limitless capacity to feel sorry for herself but there was little evidence here of any ability to empathise with others (and of course the real Thatcher didn't have any). Yes, she put a blanket over Crawfie in one scene; but then Crawfie appears to have been a family retainer, someone useful. To anyone not useful to her, or to whom she was not related, Thatcher - on the evidence here - gave no thought at all. It was all about Margaret. She didn't even have the grace to leave the stage with dignity after the gig was over; she had to be dragged from office kicking-and-screaming. Lindsay Duncan's performance was excellent, but one thing was missing. It is impossible to truly appreciate the awfulness of Thatcher without that voice. It turned my blood cold; it was both repellent and nauseating. Time moves on. It is thirty years since Thatcher was elected; nearly twenty since she left office. One has to be in one's fifties to have lived through those awful years. You had to be there. You had to hear her in her pomp. Ever now I cannot hold back a shiver of distaste.

Should there hae been a ballot?

2009-03-08T12:03:00.004Z

Arthur Scargill and the other Miners leaders have often been criticised for not holding a national ballot on whether to strike in 1984. I am fairly agnostic about this. Perhaps it was a mistake - it certainly handed the Tories a propaganda gift. But I doubt if - had a ballot been held (and even if the Miners voted to strike) - it would have made a difference to the eventual outcome. The whole might of the state was against the Miners and add to that the pusillanimity of most of the rest of the trade union leaderships and of Kinnock et al and it seems to me the Miners had a very uphill task. Scargill argues - in Saturday's Guardian - that if the pit deputies union Nacods had come out the strike could have been won (he obviously suspects that some behind-the-scenes skulldugery explains why they choose not to, and he may well be right) and he thinks that if picketing had been increased at Orgreave after June 18 the coking plant could have been closed. Maybe. But vis-a-vis the ballot Scargill has a point. The difficulty was that Miners in some areas - believing (falsely) that their jobs were safe - could vote against a strike, effectively voting Miners in other areas out of a job. Scargill quotes Peter Heathfield speaking at the time: "...a ballot should not be used and exercised as a veto to prevent people in other areas defending their jobs". As I say, I am not convinced the decision taken not to hold a national ballot was correct; but this is certainly a fair point. Very often the "recieved version" of past events is allowed to stand with insufficient scrutiny.

Lock-em-up and take the cash

2009-03-08T11:48:00.003Z

Saturday's Guardian has a truly horrendous story about judges in Pennsylvania recieving kickbacks from the private-run prisons for passing custodial sentences on children. Each inmate represents a bundle of cash paid from the taxpayer to the private-run prisons; the more there are the more money there is; so it makes sense to buy judges (two were bought for $2.6 million). The case has been called "kids-for-cash" . Judges have passed custodial sentences on a child for throwing sandal at her mother, on another for stealing a jar of nutmeg worth $4, and on another for slapping a friend at school. One judge in the first two years of his term passed custodisal sentences in 4.5% of cases; by 2004 (by which time he was on the payroll) it had risen to 26%. Of course, here in blighty New Labour as been pushing private prisons with great enthusiasm. Whether the same sort of thing happens here we shall probably never know; but it is perfecly obvious that a privatised prison sector has a deep vested interest in ever-higher levels of incarceration.

Fill circle

2009-01-18T10:17:00.007Z

There is an obituary in Saturday's Guardian of Hamas leader Said Siam, killed recently by the Israelis. He doesn't, on the evidence here, seem a terribly nice man (he "led a unit that killed Palestinians suspected of informing for Israel", and "human rights agencies highlighted his ministry's use of torture"). But here it is, the story of Palestine, which tells us a great deal about the roots of this conflict, and probably a great deal about said Siam: "...he was born in a Shati refugee camp, Gaza, to a family who hailed from Al-Jura, a now destroyed village west of the Israeli city of Ashkelon...".

John Pilger in The New Statesman (12/1/09) reminds us of the "...infamous Plan D of 1947-8" which "resulted in the murderous depopulation of 369 Palestinian towns and villages" - much like Al-Jura. He also reminds us of the "massacre of Palstinian civilians in such towns as Deir Yassin, al-Dawayima, Eilaboun,..." and so on. Ben Gurian when asked "What shall we do with the Arabs?" made (according to Israeli historian Benny Morris quoted here by Pilger) "..a dismissive, energetic gesture with his hand and said 'Expel Them'..."

And on it goes.

It takes all kinds

2009-01-18T10:13:00.004Z

Geoffrey Robertson in his Guardian obituary of John Mortimor says that: "In Henley, he encountered with interest the bookshop-owning lesbians who had taken opium with Cocteau, and a prim, elderly lady who had, in her youth, urinated regularly upon pioneering sexologist Havelock Ellis...". I think possibly Politaholic has led a very sheltered life.

In praise of...Israeli refusniks

2009-01-18T09:52:00.004Z

Politaholic has a lot of time, a lot of respect, for people whose moral boundaries are not wholly circumscribed by their own ethnicity, and who can look beyond their own ethnic identity to, well, a common humanity, a universal sense of right and wrong. I mean the white South Africans who stood against apartheid, the white (and perhaps impossibly brave) young people who participated at great risk in the voter registration drives in the Deep South in the 1960's. So it is heartening to read in Saturday's guardian about Israeli "refusniks". These are people whose views on the Middle East are, I suspect, not coincident with my own; but they are brave, and their ability to see beyond "my own ethnic group right or wrong" deserves respect. One of these, No'em Levna (who was imprisoned for 14 days) is quoted as saying: "Killing innocent civilians cannot be justified...Nothing justifies this kind of killing"; and he also refers to the "incontinent theft" of Palestinian lands.
Meanwhile The Independent reports (18/1/09) that: "British Jews have been attacked for expressing support for Palestinians suffering under Israeli military strikes in Gaza. Police confirmed yesterday that they have provided protection to a number of people believed to be victims of UK-based Zionist extremists angered by expressions of solidarity with Palestinians..."

I blame the parents

2009-01-11T11:38:00.003Z

The News of the Screws has a story about Harry Windsor calling a colleague a "Paki" and referring to "fucking rag-heads". Harry - son of Phillip, grandson of the "Queen Mother" - a racist? No shit Sherlock. I am as shocked as This chap.

Licensed to Kill

2009-01-10T11:04:00.005Z

The death-toll in Gaza is now - what - 800 and rising? - as Israeli's genocidal onslaught (which is also their their peculiar form of electoral campaigning) continues. The victims include 13 members of the same family after their house came under tank fire. They include those killed in the two schools which were targetted by the Israelis after they had been given their GPS co-ordinates by UN officials who identified the schools as refugee centres. (UN officials were in control of the schools and deny the presence of Hamas fighters). Why did the Israelis target the schools? Because they are deliberately targetting civilians. Consider this: how many Israeli soldiers have been killed in the last few weeks (excluding "friendly fire" incidents) and how many Palestinian children (the figures are less than ten compared to several hundred). The children of the colonised are at far greater risk than the "soldiers" of the occupying colonial power. Israeli is, as Avi Shlaim argued in G2 (7/1/09) a "rogue state" which "habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction, and practices terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes". And, as we can see in the picture above showing Israeli settlers apparently jubilantly watching Gaza bombed and children killed, they think murder is a form of entertainment. But then Israeli is always held, by the western powers, to a different and lesser standard of morality than anyone else on the planet. Robert Fisk quotes Fintan O'Toole in The Irish Times: "At what point does the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews cease to excuse the state of Israel from the demands of international law and of common humanity?"

It looks like President Obama

2008-11-02T08:45:00.006Z

Unless there is a turn-about it looks as if Barack Obama is heading towards victory in next Tuesday's election, and Politaholic - considering the alternative - very much hopes so. (Although I never expected it; I thought Obama could not win, that the Republicans would play the "race card" against him: but these expectations have been confounded). Here is what might go wrong:

(1) "Nobody says it out loud but nobody needs to", says Gary Younge in the Guardian: he might be assassinated (with someone shouting "Kill Him" at a Sarah Palin rally this is a real fear).

(2) The "Bradley effect": as I understand it there is some doubt about whether there is such an effect, and even in the case of Bradley there are other explanations. And yet...

(3) Massive electoral fraud by the Republicans, especially in Florida and Ohio, where they have a track record in these things (apparently the Democrats will have thousands of lawyers at polling stations to try to prevent this).

(4) A "late swing" to McCain - which seems unlikely.

I think Obama will win. But I also think that those who expect big "change" are in for a disappointment. Obama is essentially a pragmatic conservative politician. Under an Obama Presidency the US empire will not be dismantled. The US may be a bit more collegiate vis-a-vis Europe, and the US may begin to disengage from Iraq (I do not expect speedy withdrawal). For the most part it will be "business as usual". Obama endlessly talks of "change", but is less specific about the change he seeks; indeed, it seems to be widely believed that "he is the change". Mmm.

If Obama does win one reason will be that he broke his word and declined public funding; allowing him to outspend McCain. For this he was universally praised: it showed he was "determined to win", that he was "tough" and "pragmatic" etc. Had it been the other way round - had McCain declined public funds and Obama accepted them - I doubt if it would have been reported in this way.

Harold Evans in the Guardian has one of the precious few articles I have seen voicing any kind of critisism of Obama. He comments on the extraordinary easy ride Obama has had in the press, which began in the primaries:

"...the press let the Obama campaign get away with continuous insinuations below the radar that the Clintons were race-baiters. Instead of exposing that absurd defamation for what it was - a nasty smear - the media sedulously propagated it.
Clinton made the historically correct and uncontroversial remark that civil rights legislation came about from a fusion of the dreams of Dr Martin Luther King and the legislative follow-through by President Lyndon Johnson. The New York Times misrepresented that as a disparagement of King, twisting her remarks to imply that "a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change". This was one of a number of manipulations on race by the Obama campaign, amply documented by the leading Democratic historian, Princeton's Sean Wilentz..."

"Chelsea Clinton joining Clinton's campaign prompted Shuster to report she was "pimping" for her mother".

"...until it became inescapable because of a video rant, they wouldn't investigate the Reverend Jeremiah Wright connection for fear of being accused of racism. They wouldn't explore Obama's dealing with the corrupt, now convicted, Chicago businessman Tony Rezko. They haven't investigated Obama's pledge to get rid of the secret ballot in trade union affairs. After years of inveighing against "money in politics", they've tolerated his breach of the pledge to restrict himself to public financing as McCain has done (to his cost)".

When - as I think he - wins, there will be a giddy celebration of an historical barrier broken: the first black President. But I suspect that, as after many a celebration, there will a hang-over...

Poor George

2008-11-01T10:19:00.005Z

According to Marina Hyde in last Saturday's Guardian poor George Osborne - seen here on the left - was known as "Oik" by his Bullingdon chums, because he went to St. Pauls public school, rather than Eton or Harrow (the good Lord never rests). He appears to have been the butt of Bullingdon "high jinks" (or "hooliganism" as it is known, if you don't have zillions in the bank). On one occasion he was held upside down and his head banged on the floor. Each time he was asked: "What are you?" and his head banged on the floor again (explains a lot methinks) until he came up with the correct answer, which was, aparently,in the unexpurgated version: "I am a despicable cunt" (a view apparently held by a good many Tory backbenchers who find George a tad "full of himself"). Who would have thought Bullingdon thugs could be so perspicacious?

Corfugate

2008-11-01T09:17:00.006Z

The interesting thing about "Corfugate" is the way it allowed us peasants a glimpse of the life-style enjoyed by the "Masters of the Universe" who rule over us. Here they are - the bankers, the press barons, the politicians, and assorted shady characters - cavorting together on luxury yachts, exchanging favours, gossip, and intimacies regardless of party affiliation (as benefits the members of a single ruling class). And all this is governed, apparently, by a strict code of omerta (which the callow Osborne was too dim to understand). Osborne, incidentally, clearly did - unless Rothschild is lying - solicit a contribution from Deripaska: that is what Rothschild says and Osborne is not sueing. (The Electoral Commission appears to be like many of these regulatory bodies: afraid to bark never mind bite). Now it transpires that Deripaska, who has financially benefited from decisions taken by Mandelson (who initially suffered from a convenient amnesia regarding when they first met), is refused entry to the US because he is suspected of being linked to organised crime. (It is beyond credulity that Mandelson and Osborne did not know this, if they did not, as Nye might have said, they are too stupid to hold government office). In the Guardian Martin Kettle for his part sees nothing wrong in having rich friends (now why would he say that?). But friends like this? Anyway, it depends what you mean by "friends". Aristotle thought true friendship only possible between equals (I'm afraid that's why he thought men and women couldn't be friends!). Now if I go for a drink with a mate and buy him a pint I expect him to buy me one back. Not so here, I think: Mandelson is aboard the yacht (which costs zillions to buy and still more zillions to run), he is quaffing Rothschild or Deripaska wine, eating their food (I don't think we're talking sausage rolls here), and generally "enjoying their hospitality". (Has Mandelson never heard the old adage: "There is no such thing as a free lunch"?). It's not that Mandelson can't do something in return, but he can't - unless he has a £80 million yacht hiddden away somewhere - exactly reciprocate. This is not a relationship between "friends"; this is the kind of relationship the wealthy have with a family retainer, trusted no doubt, but servile nonetheless. Another thing that strikes me is that all this fawning before the mega-rich, to which Mandelson appears to be addicted, betrays a lack of self-respect, a smallness of ambition, a lack of dignity. This man - Mandelson - was and is again now a Minister of the Crown; why should he feel the compulsive need to bow-and-scrape before such people?

Old Man Ross "going on 16"

2008-11-01T08:52:00.006Z

Martin Rowson is bang on the button: one needs to get thing into proportion. Apropos Jonathan Ross, is there not something odd about a man who must be nearly 50 years old cavorting around like a badly brought up sixteen year-old? I mean, the so-called prank call wasn't even funny. Of course, neither Ross nor Brand will suffer from this. All publicity is good publicity in their line of business and they are laughing all the way to the bank. But really old man Ross - the oldest teenager in town - is a pathetic figure.

P.S. An afterthought on this. There is a lot of talk about the BBC retreating from "cutting edge" programmes in the wake of all this. But there is nothing at all "cutting edge" about Jonathan Ross, unless you count mindless vulgarity. TW3 was cutting edge; Spitting Image was cutting edge; occasionally so is Have I Got New For You. But Jonathan Ross?! Give us a break. What's cutting edge about saying FuckShitWank and falling around in helpless laughter as though this was the sharpest, wittiest comment one has ever heard?

Mandelson: in the Cabinet and outside Parliament?

2008-10-05T12:08:00.006+01:00

At the risk of constitutional fogeyism the quesion arises: Has Mandelson actually started his new job? Is he - as of now - Secretary of State for Business? Because, as things stand, not only is he not an MP but he is not - yet - a member of the Lords (I suppose Lord Mandelson of Spin will emerge in due course). When is the last time a member of the Cabinet was outside Parliament? My guess is 1963. After Douglas-Home removed himself from the Lords but before he returned to the Commons, there was, I think, a - short - interval when the PM was outside Parliament. There were, I believe, letters to The Times questioning the constitutionality of this. The same question arises vis-a-vis Mandelson. The British Constitution is a mysterious thing, but is there not at least a convention that a Cabinet member should be in Parliament and shouldn't Mandelson wait until he is before assuming his duties? For that matter, once he is installed in the Lords, as I assume he will be, he will be a Secretary of State who is outside the Commons. There are precedents for that (leaving aside the Leader of the Lords and the Lord Chancelllor), most recently - I think - Charlie Falconer (for a few weeks Justice Secretary), but before that one has, unless I am mistaken, to go back to the 1980's (Lords Carrington and Young). Mandelson's position will be fairly unusual - he will be able to avoid being questioned in the Commons, not that he will be bothered about that.

Brown "too clever by half" (again)

2008-10-04T12:00:00.003+01:00

Politaholic has not had time to mull over the reshuffle but my immediate reaction is that bringing back Mandelson - which certainly took me by surprise - is typical Brown: "too clever by half". The calculation is obvious, I think: (i) it looks bold, decisive, etc; (2) it is intended to defuse the incipient Blairite revolt; (iii) Brown probably intends Mandelson to run the election campaign. The trouble is Brown's calculations are always so transparent, and what is intended to be clever just looks devious. I don't think this will unify the party; it is more the cohabitation of rival factions, and my guess is that warfare will break out between them eventually. Personally if I were Brown I would not trust Mandelson as far as I can spit. He represents everything sleazy and small about the Blair era (dodgy mortgages; the infatuation with the moneyied classes; the contempt - even, I think, the hatred - of Labour's traditional working-class core voters; the dirty politics - remember the Saddleworth by-election?; the infatuation with spin). And of course Mandelson is unelected (I rather think the Tories will on occasion remind us of this). Actually the return of this reptile to the cabinet just makes me want to puke.

Comrade Osborne? Hardly.

2008-10-01T05:15:00.004+01:00

So George Osborne doesn't believe in "market fundamentalism" and has no time for the "capitalist casino" economy, and thinks fat cats should bear the blame, etc. This is a bit Alice in Wonderland isn't it? Haven't the Tories been pushing privatisation and deregulation since the mid-1970's and wasn't that the gospel of their suburban heroine? He has a point, it has to be said, when he argues that Gordon has been "running the casino" for the last ten years, but are we meant to believe the Tories would have done it differently? The whole political class is to blame for this; they all bought in to "market fundamentalism".

Labour's Conference

2008-09-28T08:45:00.005+01:00

The Labour Conference has come and gone. Central Manchester looked like a police state for the duration: coppers everywhere, a little OTT perhaps. (Last Saturday there was a demo against the Iraq war. I saw a policeman - an officer by the look of it - on the steps of the BBC building with a telephoto lens, photographing demonstrators. Agree with the demonstrators or not, they are simply exercising their democratic rights. Is it entirely appropriate to treat them as potential criminals? I suspect that the intelligence services over the years have spent far too much time and resources spying on student Trots who are no danger to anyone except possibly themselves, while Combat 88 and Islamicist nutters of one kind or another slip under the net).

Anyway, Brown's speech went well, at least until her husband came on stage. Actually, Gordon's speech was well-recieved - the line about this being "no time for a novice" was a well-crafted blow at Miliband - and Labour seems to be enjoying a post-Conference bounce; but we will have to see the lie of the land after the party conference season is over. The most cringe-making moment must have been David Miliband's insincere, underwheming and oleaginous praise for Brown: "Gordon, it's not just about politics. You have transformed the debate about international development in Britain, and we should take inspiration from that!" Simon Hoggard commented: " I was reminded of a Chinese dissident at a show trial during the Cultural Revolution, dementedly praising Chairman Mao before being taken away to be shot". And "Gordon is alive"...for the moment.

Good one, Derek

2008-09-28T08:34:00.003+01:00

The avuncular Derek Simpson on Question Time: "I suppose it's easier to rob a bank if you already have the keys".

...and multiply

2008-09-28T07:47:00.005+01:00

The "Go Fourth" campaign launched by Alistair Campbell et al is extremely odd. In colloquial English the expression "Go Forth" invites the immediate retort "and multiply" which as we all know is a euphemism for a more robust phrase of Anglo-Saxon derivation, and one with which Campbell is not unfamiliar. Not a happy choice, I would have thought. Not only that, but "Go Fourth" rather unhelpfully reminds the voters that Labour will indeed be up for a fourth term in the next election, and while Labour partisans would welcome a fourth term, many ordinary voters may think this is too long for one party in power, or that it is "time for a change". Finally, the line-up hardly inspires: Campbell (unscrupulous spin doctor), Glenys Kinnock MEP (the whole bloody family seems to have boarded the European gravy train at one time or another), John Prescott (shagger extraordinary, stranger to the English language, pugilist of note), and Richard Caborn (who he? Google says a Sheffield MP who is to be "Britain's" ambassador for the 2018 football World Cup bid. So: a sports bureaucrat). "...and multiply" is the most likely response to their efforts.

Clegg: Let Them Eat Cake

2008-09-21T10:19:00.003+01:00

Nick Clegg apparently thinks pensioners live on 30p a week (no, thirty quid). Clegg is the son of a banker, he went to Westminster public school and Cambridge. Like Cameron, he is a wealthy Blair-clone so far removed from the great unwashed as to have no comprehension at all how ordinary people live. In the photograph Clegg is explaining why he is so popular with the ladies.

The banking crisis

2008-09-21T09:59:00.006+01:00

Politaholic only discovered a few days ago what short-selling is, so I am not really competent to comment on the intricacies of the banking crisis. But some quick observations:

1. The delicious irony of the bankers, the free-market fundamentalists of yesterday, running to government to bail them out when all it goes arse-over-tit. I thought governments could do nothing right, and markets could do nothing wrong? Comrade Bush has been nationalising banks like there's no tomorrow.

2. The obscenity of same bankers sagely advising us on how best to handle the pigs-ear their own greed created, or sloping off into the sunset with squillions in bonuses, while poor old Buggins has to pay for it through his taxes or with his job.

3. Larry Elliot pointed out in the Guardian a week or so back that - politically - this ought to be a crisis for the right. The trouble is that New Labour bought into market fundamentalism in a big way. Gordon Brown has been telling us for a decade that the economy is tickety-boo. What ought to be, ain't.

4. Then again we needn't worry. Gordon has the solution. And it is...loft insulation??

Cycle helmets?

2008-09-20T07:37:00.004+01:00

Simon Jenkins had a rather silly article on cycle helmets in Friday's Guardian. It seems the model Elle MacPherson was photographed riding without a helmet and was pilloried in the tabloids. Jenkins springs to her defence. Fair enough. It's a personal choice. There is an argument that cyclists are safer without helmets. It derives from the "Wilde-Adams theory of compensatory risk assessment": the idea being that motorists give helmet-less cyclists a wider berth, and that the helmet-less cyclist is likely to ride more carefully than one who feels protected by the helmet. There is probably something in this. But then again...I wear a helmet because I think with or without one most motorists in the UK are careless when it comes to cyclists (sometimes I think they are deliberately trying to kill us) and I don't need to take my helmet off to try to be careful. But, as I say, its a personal choice. The silliness in Jenkins argument stems from his absolute dogmatic assurance that bare-headed is best. It's not so straightforward. And he becomes extremely silly when he points out that helmets are rarely worn in Holland (where cyclists are fairly safe) and are worn in Western Australia (which requires helmets by law and which has three times the cycling death rate). But this has nothing to do with helmets. Cyclists are relatively safe in Holland because of a superb network of cycle paths, the near-universality of cycling, and a "cycling culture". It is not that cyclists are safer in Holland because most don't wear helmets; rather, most don't wear helmets because they are so much safer. Jenkin's "causal arrow" points in the wrong direction. It would be a brave Dutchman who tried to navigate Manchester's Oxford Road without a helmet. I wouldn't recommend it (although I do see bare-headed cyclists, but I doubt that they are safer than I am).

McCain chooses Palin

2008-09-03T10:17:00.006+01:00

Sadly, the "pro-life", creationist, gun-nut and not the globe-trotting Python. The latest in this saga is that apparently she used to support an Alaskan separatist organisation (see today's Guardian). Poor Michael looks as if he thinks McCain has chosen him.

What's wrong with falling house prices?

2008-09-03T09:18:00.006+01:00

Politaholic is not an economist (a bit of a disadvantage for a politaholic) but here are some probably naive musings on the housing crisis: (i) Are falling house prices really such a bad thing? Can it really be reasonable to buy a house, which triples in value over a few years, and then walk off with a bundle of cash? (Of course, if you want to buy another house there is no real gain, unless you go down-market). Where does the money come from? If the "winners" are the guys whose houses triple in value, who are the "losers"? Can it really be sustainable for houses to keep going up in value like this? It seems not. (ii) If someone borrows five times their annual salary in order to buy a house in the expectation that it will triple in value, and then they find themselves struggling to meet the mortgage repayments, isn't that best described as greedy and stupid? Why should taxpayers money be used to help them out? Is it really the government's job to protect people against the consequences of their own greed? Is the government going to dole out money to those in rented accommodation?

I know, this all sounds a bit harsh. I'm not sure I mean it 100% (Not everyone in difficulty borrowed 5 times their salary or bought as an investment. I feel some sympathy for those who behaved reasonably prudently and now find themselves in difficulty; but not for those who borrowed-to-the-max in the expectation of a something-for-nothing bonanza). So if not 100%, I mean it something-per-cent.

So-called "honour" killings

2008-09-03T08:55:00.004+01:00

Monday's Guardian carried a report of a so-called "honour" killing in the Baluchistan district of Pakistan. Three teenage girls were buried alive for the henious crime of wanting to choose their own husbands. It seems some of their relatives, who protested, were also killed. No one has been arrested, and it is unlikely anyone will. There are reports that government vehicles were used to abduct the girls, and the murders were overseen by the brother of a (provincial) government Minister. Incredible, male politicians in parliament are claiming that these barbaric murders are "part of our custom". According to the Guardian: "In Pakistan's national parliament, an MP from Baluchistan, Israrullah Zehri, said on Friday that "this action was carried out according to tribal traditions", a view backed up by some other male lawmakers, who attacked a woman senator who had raised the case". Cultural relativism? Maybe not.

Welcome back to Blighty

2008-08-29T09:36:00.006+01:00

Politaholic has just returned from the Netherlands where the national cycle network is truly fantastic. Even in a big city such as Rotterdam it is possible to cycle safely. Everyone cycles. Parents carry toddlers on their bicycles. And then...back to blighty. Princes Quay is a shopping mall in Hull, and this is how cycle friendly they are. And the "cycle path" shown must be the shortest in the world - it ends where the blue sign is (all of, oh, twenty feet!!).

Politaholic on holiday

2008-08-03T10:04:00.002+01:00

There will be no blogging for the next few weeks. I am on a cycling holiday in Holland. This is a minor triumph. Some months ago I had a cycling accident and suffered a dislocated shoulder and a "rotating cuff injury" which required an operation and quite a lot of pysiotherapy. I still can't raise my left arm high (I suffer from "reverse Strangelove syndrome": he struggled to keep his down, and I can't get mine up, so to speak), but at least I can ride the bike and I am very thankful for the NHS. So its beer and cycling for the next few weeks.

And the plotting goes on...

2008-07-30T08:22:00.003+01:00

Politaholic has just read Miliband's article in the Guardian and has immediately forgotton what it said. Which says something about me, or it. I can remember that there is not a word about Brown: no ritualistic declaration of fealty. Perhaps that is significant (given that the papers are full of signatures being gathered). He says Cameron is a conservative (not a radical, like Thatcher), and more radicalism is what is needed. I'm not sure what being radical means, but for the past ten years terms like radical and modernisation have, in New Labour's lexicon, been synonyms for privatisation. (Maybe it is significant that Purnell seems to be behind Miliband). I suspect voters are tiring of the idea that involving the private sector is the solution to everything (Interestingly, this week the re-marking of SATS tests has been taken out of the hands of the American ETS company, after they made such a complete pigs ear of it). After ten years of "privatise everything" and "involve the private sector everywhere" isn't this doctrine conservative? Wouldn't the radical thing be to question this dogma? Anyway, I suppose Miliband's article means he is advertising his availability, but it doesn't read like a direct challenge. And as for policy, it sounds pretty much like more of the same.
And as I speak Mandelson is on Today talking of Labour being in "flux", of "turbulence" and "uncertainty", and its need to "rediscover its equilibrium". He says "the debate about what the party needs to do" has to take place, etc, etc. He is only trying to help. Of course.

Men in Suits?

2008-07-28T11:30:00.002+01:00

Gaby Hinsliffe in the Observer yesterday questioned the "men in suits" scenario vis-a-vis removing Gordon. She suggests their power is "largely mythical": "The Tory leader Iain Duncan-Smith was visited by such a delegation at least twice, according to one shadow cabinet minister - 'He just told them to fuck off"..." IDS was of course later removed by a vote of no confidence by Tory MP's. Labour has always been more sentimental about its leaders. If this were the Tories Brown's carcass would be floating face down in the nearest canal.

Brown's Duty: Lead Labour to Defeat

2008-07-26T13:24:00.004+01:00

Just listening to the Saturday edition of Any Questions. Anthony Howard argues that, even after the Glasgow east catastrophe, Brown will stay on as Leader and take Labour into the next election. More, he thinks he has a duty to do so. Labour is heading towards General Election defeat (most probably) and there is no point in tainting a new Leader with electoral defeat (who on earth would want to take over now?). So Brown's duty to the party is to lead it to defeat, then exit, leaving the new chap to take over. This looks like a shrewd analysis to me, the only problem being whether Brown or someone else is best placed to minimise Labour's losses next time.

Postscript:

This morning's Observer takes the opposite view: "Labour's choice may be between ordinary defeat under a new leader and extraordinary devastation under the current one".

Dave Loses His Bicycle

2008-07-26T10:13:00.002+01:00

Dave doesn't know how to look after his bicycle. He "chained it" to a two-foot high bollard allowing the thief to simply lift it over and walk off with it. Apparently he stood around for five minutes muttering "But I chained it". Not the brightest tool in the box. On the other hand, a determined thief with the proper equipment can steal any bicycle, no matter how well locked. What one should do is chain both wheels and the frame to a sufficiently sturdy immovable object, using proper locks: a combination of a D-lock and a proper chain is probably best. With this you are at least protected from opportunist thieves without the proper equipment (which is probably what happened in Dave's case); and you can at least slow down a determined thief (Perhaps he will decide to steal another bicycle instead. It doesn't sound very comradely, but...). Don't assume because the bicycle is chained up in a public place that makes it any more safe. People will just walk-by oblivious to theft occurring under their nose; you will be very lucky if someone raises the alarm. Some people have two bicycles: an old one not worth stealing for everyday commuting, and a good one for touring or racing or whatever. I hardly ever chain-up my good bike anywhere in Manchester unless I can see it - e.g. pop into the cafe for a coffee, chain the bicycle up outside, but keep it under view through the window so that if anyone goes near it you can rush out and rip out their throat. I am currently considering what locks to take on holiday: a D-Lock, yes, but I don't want to have to carry a heavy chain around for hundreds of kilometres. So I have decided on the small Kryptonite D-Lock and a Kryptoflex cable. This means I will have to be very careful where I leave the bike, because frankly, with the proper equipment, the cable can be easily cut through. Another thing is that, if you have a good bike, thieves will take what they can: one of the wheels, or the saddle bag, or for that matter the handlebars! Finally, what about bicycle thieves? Politaholic thinks capital punishment is the answer. Nothing so quick as hanging. They should have their entrails drawn out and burnt before their eyes, their bollocks cut-off and...well, that's just for starters.

Postscript:

Dave has got his bike back - minus the front wheel (suggesting that he chained only the front wheel to the bollard, again not a very good idea). The bike itself doesn't exactly look top of the range. Odd, given he has zillions. PR conscious?

Shock Horror: there are drunk people in pubs

2008-07-22T12:20:00.003+01:00

I caught something on the news yesterday about the evils of booze. Landlords it seems are serving under-age drinkers. I dare say some do but the pubs I frequent seem very strict on this and I have frequently seen people refused service for not having appropriate ID, although sadly I've never been asked for ID myself. Even worse however it seems pubs are serving people who are "clearly intoxicated" and they shouldn't be doing this. Eh! Drunk people in pubs? Never! All I can say is that if "clearly intoxicated" individuals are refused service it would cut my drinking in half (might not be a bad thing). The criticism is directed at clubs as well as pubs. Now, its a fair while since I've been in a club, but I think I'm right in saying that most go to a club after the pub, so if clubs refused service to drunk people they wouldn't do any business at all. Politaholic is not a fan of yobbish culture but all this smacks of tarring all drunks with the same brush. Some of us drink far too much but cause no trouble to anyone (apart from becoming a little too loquacious at times). That, as JS Mill might say, is our right, so long as we cause no harm to others. Beer drinkers of the world unite! Cheers.

Zelig Purnell takes on the scroungers

2008-07-22T12:12:00.003+01:00

The 1834 Poor Law Amendment act, which introduced workhouses across the country, was based on the principle of “less eligibility”. The idea was simple: if conditions inside the workhouse were superior to those outside, then hordes of scroungers and benefit cheats (as we might say today) would flood to the workhouse. The solution was equally simple: to make conditions inside the workhouse so brutish than only those in absolute desperation would turn there for help. This is not a million miles from the animating principles behind James Purnell’s proposed welfare reforms which are designed to make life so bloody miserable for the unemployed (by cutting benefits, by sentencing them to a penal spell of community service, and so on) that they will agree to take any McJob however awful. As the economy dips into recession - and presumably unemployment will rise as a consequence – Purnell has decided that this is the time to “bash the unemployed”. Of course, he oozes talk of “helping” the unemployed, of “encouraging” them back to work. As so often, the Financial Times tells it like it is. No nonsense about “helping” or “encouraging”. Instead, it reports: “Benefits plan to force jobless to work”. And that’s it. If you don’t take this job shovelling poo for a farthing a month then your benefits will be cut. Some of this is to be contracted out to the private sector – ah, the solution to all problems under the sun - and they are to be allowed to keep as profits part of the benefits savings. The Financial Times reports concerns that this will lead to “cherry picking” and one can only imagine the bullying to which it will also lead. By coincidence, yesterdays Guardian carried a report from Glasgow’s Easterhouse estate. Life expectancy is 5 years below the Scottish average, the rate of low-birth-weight babies is 62% above the Scottish average, and there is 25% unemployment. Here’s a solution: put the 25% unemployed in orange jump suits (with a suitable insignia on them, a giant “U” for “unemployed” perhaps), make them wander around the estate picking up litter, under the watchful gaze of some creepy guy with dark sun-glasses and a shotgun, and pay a private company zillions to organise the scheme. I must be honest. It’s Purnell that gets me. Nye and Ernie knew something about “their people”, even if one was on the Labour left (sort of) and one was (by the standards of that time) on the Labour right. But looking at Purnell, shiny suit and shiny shoes, public school written all over him, smug smirk, all café litte and sun-dried tomatoes – it is just so puke-making. I hope in Glasgow East they vote for the party with some social-democratic principles, i.e. the Scottish National Party. The fact is that there already is a large disincentive to voluntary unemployment and that is the very low level of benefits. No one in their right mind who is able to get a reasonably paid job would choose to be unemployed. That is why all these schemes – it isn’t as if we haven’t been here before – produce such paltry results, at such high cost. But, hey, they produce some good headlines in The Sun and Mail.

More on Genoa

2008-07-21T11:43:00.004+01:00

Apropos my earlier post on Genoa, this letter in the Guardian on, I think, saturday, asks some pertinent questions:

"Regarding Nick Davies's horrifying report of the Italian police riot in Genoa in 2001, at the G8 conference, I wonder has Tony Blair ever been called upon to apologise for his defence of the Italian police behaviour?
And did I perhaps miss the small print, but which European Union leader has ever condemned or even criticised the Berlusconi government for its silence and complicity concerning the brutality of its police towards legal and peaceful protesters?
Furthermore, has any EU leader ever spoken out about the vicious treatment of its own nationals by the Italian police? If they have, I haven't seen it.
So, are we to conclude that in other far-off lands, police and the state are to be condemned if they beat up and torture peaceful protesters, but in "civilised" Italy, an EU member, it is just business as usual?"

Ernest Rodker

London

Trade Unions Threaten Chaos

2008-07-19T09:39:00.004+01:00

A bunch of crazed Leninists are trying to drag the Labour Party back to the bad old days of the 1970's - before Thatcher saved the nation for hedge fund managers - when we all lived on potato peelings and trade union barons exercised droit de seigneur with our daughters. These beasts plan to ambush the Labour Party National Policy Forum, and present a series of "demands". What do they want? Well, according to yesterdays Guardian some of the things they want are:

scrapping NHS prescription charges
bringing hospital cleaning back in-house
a new council house building programme
extending the minimum wage to 18-21 year olds.
free school meals for all children in primary schools
a 50p income tax rate on those earning more than £100,000
the extension of the "not-for-profit" model to passenger train operators
a legal duty on individual company directors to "take all reasonable steps to ensure health and safety"

The bastards! They won't get away with this neanderthal nonsense. Gordon is having none of it. Earlier this week Mr Brown said: 'There will be...no retreat from continued modernisation...". Ah, modernisation - hospital cleaning auctioned to fly-by night spivs whose cleaners are employed on part-time, temporary contracts, paid shit wages, and have no security of employment. No, these trade union bastards are not going to impede modernisation. The Daily Mail and Gordon won't let them.

Genoa...and now

2008-07-18T09:10:00.005+01:00

Yesterday's Guardian had a pretty grim article by Nick Davies about the attack on anti-globalisation protestors in the Diaz Pertini school building in Genoa 2001. Here are a few extracts:

She still cannot remember what happened. But numerous other witnesses have described how officers set upon her, beating her head so hard with their sticks that she rapidly lost consciousness. When she fell to the ground, officers circled her, beating and kicking her limp body, banging her head against a near-by cupboard, leaving her finally in a pool of blood. Katherina Ottoway, who saw this happen, recalled: "She was trembling all over. Her eyes were open but upturned. I thought she was dying, that she could not survive this.

It was at that moment that a police officer sauntered over to him and kicked him in the chest with such force that the entire lefthand side of his rib cage caved in, breaking half-a-dozen ribs whose splintered ends then shredded the membrane of his left lung. Covell, who is 5ft 8in and weighs less than eight stone, was lifted off the pavement and sent flying into the street. He heard the policeman laugh. The thought formed in Covell's mind: "I'm not going to make it."
The riot squad were still struggling with the gate, so a group of officers occupied the time by strolling over to use Covell as a football. This bout of kicking broke his left hand and damaged his spine. From somewhere behind him, Covell heard an officer shout that this was enough - "Basta! Basta!" - and he felt his body being dragged back on to the pavement.

Officers broke down doors to the rooms leading off the corridors. In one, they found Dan McQuillan and Norman Blair, who had flown in from Stansted to show their support for, as McQuillan put it, "a free and equal society with people living in harmony with each other". The two Englishmen and their friend from New Zealand, Sam Buchanan, had heard the police attack on the ground floor and had tried to hide their bags and themselves under some tables in the corner of the dark room. A dozen officers broke in, caught them in a spotlight and, even as McQuillan stood up with his hands raised saying, "Take it easy, take it easy," they battered them into submission, inflicting numerous cuts and bruises and breaking McQuillan's wrist. Norman Blair recalled: "I could feel the venom and hatred from them."

In the corridor, they set about her like dogs on a rabbit. She was beaten around the head then kicked from all sides on the floor, where she felt her rib cage collapsing. She was hauled up against the wall where one officer kneed her in the groin while others carried on lashing her with their batons. She slid down the wall and they hit her more on the ground: "They seemed to be enjoying themselves and, when I cried out in pain, it seemed to give them even more pleasure."

There's plenty more in the same vein. The cops gave fascist salutes, forced their victims to sing pro-Mussolini songs and to shout "Viva il Duce" and "Un, due te, Viva Pinochet", and threatened to rape and murder.

It also seems that Gianofranco Fini (the "post"-fascist Deputy Prime Minister) was in police HQ while this was going on.

Thanks to the efforts of some of the victims and one of those extraordinary Italian prosecutors we often read about (usually in the context of an anti-Mafia investigation) 15 police officers (a fraction of those involved) have been convicted; but none will go to jail (the caee is tied up in the appeals procedure and Berlusconin is currently pushing though legislation which will essentially indemnify the police - and himself - because the events occured before June 2002). Many others police who were involved have escaped altogether and some have been prmoted.

Meanwhile, earlier this year the newly elected "post"-fascist Mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, declared: "We are the new Falange" and was greeted with fascist saultes and cries of "Duce, Duce" by his supporters at Rome's city hall.

Meanwhile the Romani camps in Naples have been attacked and set on fire by mobs, and this has been followed by smilar attacks elsewhere, including Sicily, where it seems the local mafia encouraged the attacks. The Italian government is currently pressing ahead with plans to fingerprint all Romani people, including children.

And what did Tony Blair say about what happened in Genoa? He protested vigorously to the Italian government....Nah! Only kidding. His spokesman said: "The italian police have a difficult job to do. The Prime Minister belives that they did that job".

Revisiting the 90 days

2008-07-15T12:15:00.002+01:00

Politaholic is currently reading the paperback edition of Anthony Seldon's Blair Unbound. It is hugely impressive, and massively researched. In some ways that's the problem - it has a feel of "woods and trees" about it, a blow-by-blow account, in exhastive detail. The first volume, I think, was superior, better (and more interestingly) structured.

Anyway, this on the 90 days vote in November 2005 caught my attention. The vote was lost by 332 to 291 votes, but "...Blair was surprisingly philosophical...The Brown camp was not alone in believing that he had stuck so stubbornly to 90 days for party political reasons. Nick Brown points to Milburn saying: "Wouldn't it be good for us to say we're harder on law and order than the other parties?". Some high up in the civil service thought similarly: "If they'd picked thirty days, sixty days, they'd probably have got it through the House of Commons. But it was tied up with politics and outflanking the opposition was too good an opportunity to miss...Even some Number 10 aides concur: "Wrong-footing the Tories was what it was mostly about. It was one of those classic campaigns where the issues in the debate were less important than getting one over on the Tories..." (p.400-401).

Well, of course, we know this already, but it is nice to have it confirmed from such impeccable sources. Interesting also that the Brown camp were sceptical of this transparent ruse over 90 days, but are basically playing the same game of trying to wrong-foot the Tories with 42 days...

What a bunch of wallies

2008-07-14T09:28:00.003+01:00

Politaholic is an atheist and regards religious organisations with bemusement. But the spectacle of Anglicans in a tizzy over what consenting adults do to each other with their genitalia, and what kind of genitalia you need to be a priest, is hugely amusing. Good to see these guys getting to grips with the real, urgent, serious problems of our age...

Will Politaholic Go to Jail?

2008-07-14T09:13:00.003+01:00

Politaholic is a little worried about the furore around knife crime because - speak it softly - I carry a knife (not, I hasten to add, as a weapon). It is a "Victoria" version of the Swiss army knife, and is especially useful when I am cycle touring. But I carry it routinely; I use the blade to cut bread and cheese etc for lunch at work, it has inter alia a bottle opener, cork screw, tin opener, scissors, and a wonderful little thing for pulling tent pegs out of the ground. It could be used as a weapon, I suppose (not by me) but then so could many things - you could put someone's eye out with the pointy end of an umbrella. I carry it because it is a very pleasing object (yes, I know it's a bit nerdy), and one never knows when it will come in useful, as it often does. Am I in danger of going to jail if PC Plod stops and searches me?

Silly Season Dawns

2008-07-09T08:58:00.003+01:00

The silly season has truly dawned when Harriet Harman is being touted as a replacement for Gordon Brown (the Daily Mail carried the story a few days ago, although no one actually put their name to it; and some Labour blogs appear to be taking it seriously). I suppose it could be worse: Hazel Blears, anyone? Or Ian McCartney? Ben Bradshaw? I know, step forward...Sir Vaz!

The thoughts of Eton Dave

2008-07-09T08:35:00.004+01:00

This is from Eton Dave's peroration about the "broken society":

"Of course, circumstances - where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school, and the choices your parents make - have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make".

Dave made good choices; he chose to be born the son of a wealthy stockbroker and the daughter of a baronet, chose to go to Eton, chose to join the Bullingdon, etc...

Why can't we all be as wise as Dave?

The good lord never rests

2008-07-07T20:51:00.003+01:00

The obituary of ultra-right fruitcake Jesse Helms appears in todays Guardian. It says: "To echo this newspaper's memorable comment on the death of William Randolph Hearst, it is hard even now to think of him with charity". Helms, the paper reports "...became one of the most powerful and baleful influences on American foreign policy, repeatedly preventing his country paying its UN contributions, voting against virtually all arms control measures, opposing international aid programmes as "pouring money down foreign rat holes", and avidly supporting military juntas in Latin America and minority white regimes in Southern Africa. In domestic politics he denounced the 1964 Civil Rights Act as "the single most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced in the Congress", voted against a supreme court justice because she was "likely to uphold the homosexual agenda", acted for years as spokesman for the large tobacco companies, was reprimanded by the justice department and the federal election commission for electoral malpractice, and compiled a dismal personal record as a slum landlord".

A pretty nasty piece of work. But, for all that: "The irony was that he was often seen as a relative moderate in his home state of North Carolina...".

Arise Sir Vaz

2008-07-04T06:55:00.002+01:00

Sky News have an interesting take on Buff (Hoon)'s letter to Vaz (assuring him that he will be "appropriately rewarded") - they think the letter was leaked by Hoon's people, and this because Hoon was angered by Vaz's insistence that the offer be put in writing. Which suggests that Vaz didn't trust Hoon to keep his word. And that he right to do so - since it is being argued that it will now be more difficult to give Vaz his knighthood (Buff's intention being to sabotage Vaz's knighthood). In the USA they have a saying: "An honest politician is one who, once bought, stays bought". Of course, Buff is doing the buying here, rather than being bought, but mutatis mutandis Buff fails this test. Apparently, in the Commons the other day, he looked outraged and hurt that anyone could think he would behave other than with the utmost propriety. He should be on the stage. Meanwhile at PMQ's Cameron was able to make Brown look devious and dishonest; essentially because the way in which Brown won the 42 days vote was devious and dishonest...

Six Stories

2008-06-29T09:02:00.005+01:00

ONE:

Metalholic runs a machine-tool manufacturing business. It manufactures widgets, many of them for government agencies. He is a progressive-minded fellow, but not exactly a leftist (as a businessman!). He votes Liberal-Democrat. He believes fervently in equal opportunites for everyone, regardless of sex/gender or ethnicity/race. But when he advertises for machine-tool engineers what he finds typically is that all the applicants are male. He would be willing to employ a suitable qualified woman; but there just don't seem to be female machine-tool engineers out there (even if there were, his staff turnover is quite low - since he is a good employer - so that even if he employed, say, two women for every one man for all future applicants it would be many years before the male: female ratio of machine-tool engineers in his employ was 50/50). Metaholic knows that this probably reflects "societal sexism" - girls are probably not sufficiently encouraged to study science or engineering, as children they play with dolls rather than Meccano sets, and so on. Metalholic as a progressive-minded person (and father of three girls) wishes it were not so; but what can he do? He has a business to run.
Now the Government is requiring that he produce an audit, showing the relative wages of men and women in his employment. The audit shows men earn much more (there is a big "pay gap") - the reason for this is that the highly-skilled machine -tool engineers are highly paid as compared to his other staff (many of whom are women) who do different jobs. The Government are going to introduce "contract compliance" policies. Unless Metaholic can reduce the "pay gap" he will lose business. Metaholic muses: "But the pay-gap does not compare like-with-like since it compares people doing different jobs. And, yes, it is evidence of "sexism in society at large" but it is not evidence of discrimination by me".

TWO:

Many years ago Bob and Kate both applied for a job in marketing. They were similarly qualified, but Kate had more experience. Her interview was dreadful, the chairman of the panel asked if she intended to have children, and did that mean she would soon be leaving her job? He did not ask Bob the same question. Bob got the job.
Over the years Bob rose to become a middle-manager. Over his lifetime his average earnings have exceeded those of Kate, who did eventually get a job, but who struggled for promotion.
Bob is a liberal-minded fellow. He believes in equal opportunties.
It is nearly thirty years later. At Bob's company they now have a "positive action" policy. They want to encourage women and ethnic minorities. Bob is a great supporter of this (he, of course, is not privy to what happened at Kate's interview years earlier, he has always believed he was appointed on merit).
Today Bob chairs the panel which interviews two candidates for a job in the company: Fiona and George. They are both similarly qualified, but George has more experience. When the interviews are over Bob proposes that Fiona be employed. She is perfectly capable of doing the job, and the company employes too few women and needs to close the "pay gap" if it is not to fall foul of the government's "contract compliance" policy. Fiona gets the job.
But we can see that favouring Fiona does not rectify the injustice done to Kate, and that it was Bob, not George, who was the beneficiary of the earlier injustice.

THREE:

It is true that Bob and George belong to the same "group" (men) and Kate and Fiona to a different "group" (women); and it is true also that comparing one group to the other shows than men are advantaged compared to women. The justification for favouring Fiona over George is that she belongs to a "disadvantaged group".
George comes from inner-city Manchester. He grew up on a council housing estate awash with drugs and crime. He never knew his father. But his mother was a determined and decent women. She raised three children on a low income and encouraged George in every way. He did badly at his A-levels at the first attempt, but went to night-school to take them again (while holding down a job as a supermarket shelf stacker) and was successful. At University he excelled. His mother is very proud of him.
Fiona grew up in Leafy Meadow in the posher part of Didsbury. She attended a private school until she was 11, and then went to Manchester Grammar. When she was struggling with her A-levels Daddy employed a private tutor. Daddy is a successful lawyer. Mummy teaches at the University. Fiona does not see much of either of them.
When Bob argued in favour of employing Fionna he pointed to the "pay gap"; he argued that women were unfairly disadvantaged compared to men, and something should be done about it.
(If Metaholic had heard this he would, in principle, have agreed).

FOUR:

Madge lives on a council housing estate. She is a single-parent mother with three children. She struggles on income support. She did have a part-time job in a local pub for a few hours three days a week. It helped a little. But she became worried when one of the other bar-maids was caught by social security and had her income support reduced. She gave up the job. Today, the kids are at school. Madge is watching day-time television. There is someone called Harriet Harman taking about women "banging their heads off the glass ceiling" in The City. "Which city?", Madge wonders, "Who has a glass ceiling?" Madge is not well-educated. She struggles to read. She was never any good at school. No one encouraged her. But she loves her kids and is determined that they should do well. She wishes she could help them but their school work is too difficult for her.
That evening Fionna is celebrating in a wine-bar in Didsbury. She is so glad that she got the job, but she is worried about promotion prospects: "Everyone knows that the glass ceiling is a reality", she says.

FIVE:

Tommy is in the library. He is looking through the books that are being sold-off because no has borrowed them for ages. One old book is called "Socialism: an Introduction". Beside it is another: "Reducing Social Equality". It seems no one is interested in these things. He goes over to where the new books are. There is a very glossy one entitled: "The Politics of Identity: Ethnicity and Gender". Tommy looks at it but it isn't his cup of tea. Actually he only came in to borrow a book to read to his young daughter. He sees one: "Through the Looking Glass", and leaves with it.

SIX:

Madge is arbitrating a dispute between two of her children: Damon (aged 10) and Kylie (aged 8). She knows that Damon is more often the one who is at fault. But this time it seems it is Kylie who is at fault. Kylie protests, pointing to all the other occasions when Damon was at fault. Madge is at her wits end. Then she remembers something, something she wants to teach Kylie: "Two wrongs don't make a right", she says.

Brown: time to go?

2008-06-27T07:51:00.004+01:00

The result of the Henley by-election is humiliating for Labour: they lost their deposit and finished in fifth place behind the BNP with only 3% of the vote. True, it is a conservative safe seat. Boris had 54% of the vote in 2005 (and the Tory candidate this time had 57%). But Labour had 15% in 2005. Turnout was lower than in 2005: 50% compared to 68%. On a lower turnout the Tories increased their number of votes from 19,796 to 24,892. It could hardly be worse.

This comes on top of the ICM poll in Wednesday's Guardian which gave the Conservatives a 20-point lead on 45% to Labour's 25%. Gordon Brown's personal approval ratings are abysmal.

The ICM poll showed only 13% think that Britain's economic problems are the result of global difficulties; 40% think the government wholly or mainly to blame. This may seem unreasonable - since Brown is, for example, hardly to blame for rising fuel and food prices - but (a) that's politics, (b) governments are never slow to claim the credit when economic prospects are good, and (c) the government - Brown - does bear some responsibility for the easy credit, the house price boom, and the lack of regulation of financial institutions over the past decade.

It seems to me Labour is, as they say, "up shit creek without a paddle". I can't see Brown turning this around. And I don't think a new Leader - probably Miliband - can wave a magic wand and everything will be fine-and-dandy.

Yet even so (Politaholic has finally concluded) it is probably worth giving Miliband a shot at it. Brown has had his chance, and blown it.

Is about 14 days?

2008-06-22T11:58:00.004+01:00

Politaholic has just watched Thursday's Question Time on BBCIPlayer and it looked to me as if David Davis was skewered over the 42 days, chiefly because he voted in favour of 28 days. On his blog Davis argues that he supports 28 days as a "necessary evil" but "not a day more". So its about 14 days not 42? Of course, we all know that we have to balance security against liberty, but if you support 28 days and oppose 42 you can hardly argue, as Davis has been, that this is a matter of principle. I suppose the principle could be "no longer than is strictly necessary"; but then how long is necessary is - it seems - a pragmatic calculation. After all, I suppose those who support 42 days or 90 days also do so on the grounds that it is a "necessary evil". Frankly, I doubt that 42 days is necessary (and from what I have read in the papers that, it seems, is the view of M15 as well). Remember we are not talking about the police having enough evidence for a conviction; merely enough evidence to bring a charge. If they can't do that after 42 days one wonders why they have the poor devil in custody in the first place. Indeed, 28 days seems too long to me.
More generally, although Davis opposes the spread of CCTV and ID cards, he also opposes the Human Rights Act and supports capital punishment, not conventional liberal standpoints.
The argument about CCTV is also complicated. I personally don't like them; but there is no question that in working-class inner-city areas they are popular, and one can understand why.
I'm afraid that so far as Davis is concerned I can't quite swallow the "man of principle" pitch; perhaps I am just too cynical, but I think this is about self-promotion and the Conservative leadership. We are all assuming that Davis has given up the prospect of becoming Home Secretary if the Tories win the next election. Davis may have sensed that Cameron had other plans.
I seem to remember, many moons ago, reading something about Davis in the Guardian Diary concerning his time in the Territorial SAS. It seems, in a training exercise, he planned an ambush, arranging his men on opposite sides of the road and instructing them to open fire as the target passed. Until someone pointed out that, facing each other on opposite sides of the road, his men were in each others line of fire...

Polly and Gordon are no longer an item

2008-06-14T07:47:00.005+01:00

Polly Toynbee has gone right off Gordon. Her latest is scorching. Gordon, vis-a-vis the 42 days "knowingly did what was wrong in an absurd attempt to out-tough the Tories and please a punitive public". To be saved by Anne Widdicombe, UKIP and the DUP was "personally shaming". And - together with the inept attempt to bribe the middle-class with a tax cut - these are "character-destroying catastrophes from which Brown can never recover, because they betray dishonourable and dishonest intent - and that has been rumbled by the voters". So the wedding is off then?
She is right, of course. "Not flash, just Gordon"? I don't think so. "Not flash, and obsessed with short-term gimmicks and inept attempts to outflank the Tories on the right". Blair without the cheesy grin and communication skills. His "moral compass"? Pass the sick bag.

Harriet ("throw away the key") Harman

2008-06-13T07:50:00.004+01:00

Politaholic watched PMQ's on BBCIPlayer yesterday. Who was that sitting on the frontbench nodding in agreement as Brown defended locking people up for six weeks without charge? Harriet Harman, former stalwart of what was then the National Council for Civil Liberies (NCCL) and is now Liberty (during her radical five minutes, an essential item on any ambitious posh girl's CV). What must it feel like to sit there while the Tories argue against "ineffectual authoritarianism" on the grounds of civil liberties? Ah, times change...

Has David Davis lost it?

2008-06-13T07:02:00.004+01:00

What on earth is David Davis up to? I'm buggered if I know. He says it is to protest against the “slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms” by the Government. But his party voted against the 42 days didn't it? His constituency, Haltemprice and Howden, is a safe seat; at the last election he won 47.5% of the vote (22,792) and the Liberal-Democrats were in second place with 36.8% (17,676). The Liberal-Democrats are not going to stand a candidate in the by-election, so there seems to be no reason why Davis should not romp home. So what's the point? It obviously has something to do with Cameron's ascendancy. Davis - like Brown in 1994 - clearly thinks "it should have been me!". I presume has been cut out of Cameron's inner circle. Perhaps he suspects that, if Cameron wins the next election, he will be re-shuffled down (or out). Probably there is not much love lost there. But even so it all seems very odd. How it will help Davis's leadership ambitions (which is what this must be about) is beyond me. Has he gone bonkers? Gordon will be popping the champagne corks.

A Humiliating Victory

2008-06-12T08:34:00.002+01:00

The SDLP's Mark Durkan got it right: for Gordon Brown yesterday's vote on the 42 days was a "humiliating victory". Yes, he won the vote, very narrowly, and probably saved his bacon for the moment. I dare say he thinks he is a tactical genius, outflanking the Tories on the right. He certainly looked pleased with himself, striding out of Downing Street grinning all over his face. But to be saved by Peter Robinson (at a price) and Anne Widdicombe. How grubbier can it get? If Gordon Brown seriously imagines this will enhance his reputation or that of the government then he is a bloody fool.

Spot the Tory

2008-06-08T10:04:00.002+01:00

Politaholic has just watched Jacqui Smith and Boris Johnson on the Andy Marr show and it was hard to tell which was the Tory. Well, actually Jacqui Smith sounded like the Tory, and a pretty blinkered one at that. Boris's parting shot was that it is wrong to try to "scarify people into taking away their civil liberties", which is exactly what Smith had been doing, and not with a great deal of subtlety. She came across as an apparatchik to her fingertips. (Incidentally, she also denied trying to bribe the DUP. Pull the other one...).

Gordon the Brave?

2008-06-03T05:36:00.003+01:00

Brown has recently been getting a lot of advice - most recently from Andrew Rawnsley - that he should "be bold" and take firm stands on the issues he believes in. No more "neither one thing nor the other" (as over the signing of the Lisbon Treaty), no more u-turns, no more indecisive dithering. A new, clear-sighted Gordon the voters can respect. Trouble is, he appears to have decided to nail his flag to the mast over, er, the 42 days, as shabby a piece of triangulation as any, with no purpose so far as I can see except to make Brown look "tough" - and, crucially, tougher than the Tories - on security. (Meanwhile - as Brown "hangs tough" - behind the scenes Geoff Hoon and Jack Straw, and also Jacqui Smith, are offering concessions hand-over-fist in a desperate attempt to win over backbench rebels, apparently with some success. Backbenchers are probably also unwillling to inflict a defeat on the Government given Labour's catastrophic poll ratings and the continuing speculation about the leadership). Brown presumably thinks that if he wins next week's vote that will be a great triumph (given the expectation that he would lose) and if he loses, well, at least he is seen to be standing firm for what he believes, standing up for the national interest against those bleeding-heart Tories (this is how Blair played the 90 days). Perhaps he has also factored in a more grim calculation. If - God forbid - there is another suicide bombing then Brown can say "I told you so" even if the 42 days would not have prevented it, as it would not have prevented the last suicide bombing. In any case it won't work. Whether Brown wins or loses the vote on the 42 days it looks like what it is: Brown posturing, super-Brown with his underpants outside his trousers. Short-term tactics again.

Poor John

2008-05-27T05:58:00.004+01:00

Yesterday's Guardian had some gems.

From Decca Aitenhead's interview with Prescott:

"After failing his eleven-plus, he sent a love letter to a girl at grammar school, who returned it with all his spelling corrected".

An old tutor of Prescott's once said: "He has a mind like knitting the cat has played with..."

Prescott is still smarting over not being invited by Tony to Chequers. The guest list had "...Lady-Be-Good stamped all over it...Cherie...did all the lists..." Cherie obviously though John too common. I mean, Cherie ("supermarket dash") Blair thought that...

And this from Charlie Brooker: "Imagine a carefree game of frisbee with Gordon Brown at a summer barbeque. You can't. That's why the poor bastard is doomed..". Hmm. Imagine a carefree game of frisbee with Thatcher...

No, its not Harry Enfield. Honestly.

2008-05-26T11:35:00.003+01:00

Spotted this on Recess Monkey (not sure what the blogger etiquette is, is it "hat tip"?). Anyway here we have an ordinary, down-to-earth, not-at-all-toff Tory wannabee. Presumably Cameron sounded like this when he was at Eton, before the PR men got to work.

Brown will not be going (soon)

2008-05-26T07:54:00.004+01:00

The Tories are arguing that if Brown is replaced as Leader there should be a General Election because it would, as Tory front-bencher Chris Grayling puts it, be "quite absurd" to foist a second "unelected" Prime Minister on the country. But in this country the Prime Minister is not directly elected. It is not a Presidential system. There is certainly no constitutional requirement for an Election, and a new Leader could plausibly argue that he should be judged on his record after a period of governing. The Tories line of argument can be effectively countered by pointing out that this is just electoral opportunism on their part, they want an election because they are ahead in the polls. Of course they do. That's not a good enough reason to give them one.
But will there be a new Leader? The papers yesterday were full of speculation: a possible Leadership challenge by Alan Milburn or Charles Clarke (could either get 70 signatures?), positioning by David Miliband in case a vacancy arises (he is not apparently considering a challenge to Brown), a deputation from "men in suits" (Straw, Hoon, etc) to offer Brown a bottle of whiskey and a revolver (But if Brown declines? Is mass resignation likely?).
My feeling is that despite the storm of speculation, and likely defeat on the 42 days, Brown will survive. The two main reasons for this are the sheer difficulty of removing him should he be unwilling to go (and the damage it would do to the party) and the simple fact that a new Leader would inherit the same problems (credit crunch, falling house prices, rising fuel prices, rising food prices). Added to that none of the possible replacements are exactly inspiring. And, for that matter, if Blair were still PM where would Labour's poll ratings be?
How much is Brown's personality to do with Labour's troubles? Well, he hasn't changed his personality since becoming PM, and when he did become PM he was hardly an unknown quantity, and yet for the first few months Labour was riding high in the polls. The problem is not, I think, his moodiness and awkwardness in public. No one actually liked Margaret Thatcher, did they? But - to her supporters - she seemed decisive and strong and knew where she was going. That's the problem with Brown. He has acquired a reputation for indecisive dithering (starting with the election-that-never-was and reinforced by, for example, the emergency mini-budget) and for short-term opportunism (inheritance tax, the 10p tax band) which is going to be hard to shake off. In the Observer Gaby Hinsliff says that: "Brown's inner circle is spending the week-end discussing a fightback. He is being urged to turn the threat of defeat to his advantage with a "go for broke" strategy unleashing ideas he has previously considered too controversial to explore - modelled on the success of his bold defence last week of embryo research, late abortion and IVF treatment". In order words, taking clear positions, instead of always trying to have it both ways (and ending up getting shafted both ways). With that, and taking the fight to the Conservatives Labour still has a chance (The Tories are enjoying an amazingly easy ride in the media (For example, the Tories criticised the abolition of the 10p tax band but don't promise to reinstate it and don't say how, if it were reinstated, it would be paid for. Having criticised the abolition of the 10p tax band they also criticised Brown's attempt to undo the error with the emergency budget. Is any of this coherent? What exactly would they do? Silence).
I have just heard Anthony Seldon on radio 4 say that Labour should wait until six months before the next election and then choose a new Leader (probably Miliband). This seems right to me. Go for broke. If it doesn't work then a cabinet coup (surely even Brown would bow to the inevitable). But its not over yet.

Cameron is a Tory Toff. Don't forget it.

2008-05-24T13:27:00.004+01:00

I know its not the most pressing issue in the world but I am intrigued by the comments in the press on the "Toff Tactic" deployed by Labour in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. It is widely percieved as a failure. I'm not so sure. It must come pretty low down the list of reasons why Labour lost Crewe. Jonathan Freedland, in an interesting article in The Guardian points to several hazards with the tactic:

(i) It can sound like the "four-Yorkshireman" style of inverted snobbery (on the Conservative side, David Davis, and on Labour's side, Alan Johnson, sometimes sound like the "four Yorkshiremen").

(ii) It can be a bit "retro" - by which I think Freedland means old-fashioned (cloth caps and whippets); an image from which Labour wants to distance itself.

(iii) And, Freedland suggests, the English quite like a toff: deference to those "born to rule" may still lurk "deep within the DNA of this society". Freedland observes that: "There was a hint of that in (Boris) Johnson's campaign trips to traditional white, working-class areas of London. Watch him with the butchers of Smithfield meat market or with the drivers of black cabs, and it could have been a royal visit to the Blitzed East End: all that was missing were the doffed caps and declarations that "You're a gentleman, sir, and make no mistake".

To this one might add that:

(iv) Labour has plenty of toffs of its own; not least the recently departed Tony Blair, now busily aquiring property like there is no tomorrow. And there are plenty of others.

(iv) The tactic was badly judged in Crewe and Nantwich. The Tory candidate, Edward Timpson, is certainly hugely privileged and vastly rich, but his family does seem to have practiced a kind of Cadbury/Rowntree philanthropy (I do not mean that sarcastically): they took in numerous foster-children, two of whom they adopted, and these included kids with Down’s Syndrome and behavioural problems. (The Telegraph muses that Timpsons public school, Uppingham, is “a school for the sons and daughters of Midlands manufacturers, not toffs”. Ah, the English class system..). On the other hand, I doubt that the Labour candidate, Tamsin Dunwoody-Kneafsey, has ever had to worry about where her next meal is coming from. Her mother and two grandparents were in the House of Lords. She too lives in a (not quite so) big house even if she doesn’t have any Llamas (neither does Timpson, it seems). True, this is the Labour aristocracy rather than the landed (or manufacturing, or retailing) aristocracy, but even so. Labour seems to have treated the constituency as if it were a family heirloom, "parachuting" in Tamsin for no other reason than to trade on her mother's name.

And yet. For all this I think there is mileage in the "toff tactic". The Tories are vulnerable on this front, and know it. Freedland quotes Stefan Stern, from the Financial Times: “If David Cameron is so proud of the “great school” he attended – it was Eton, by the way – why does he never mention it by name in public?”. For that matter, why does he bend over backwards to appear “ordinary” using phrases like “fessing up” on the Today programme (presumably to show that he’s “down with the kids”)? Why have they gone to such efforts to keep the notorious Bullingdon photograph out of the newspapers? I can't see any reason why Labour cannot continue to point out that Cameron is a filthy rich Eton-educated aristocrat, who at Cambridge choose to join a notorious gang of bullies who revelled in their privilege, and that neither he nor Osborne can have any idea what life is like for ordinary people. One of the more risible features of the by-election was the Tory exploitation of the 10p tax band question. As if they - or the average Tory voter - gives a flying whatsit about the impact upon those on low incomes. For goodness sake - these are Tories. Labour should not abandon the Toff tactic, just because Cameron/Osborne would like them too. And here's the photograph they don't want anyone to see.

Is Brown "hopeless"?

2008-05-21T06:35:00.004+01:00

A very interesting letter by Nick Matthews in yesterday's Guardian arguing that "the best stuff we implemented after the 1997 victory was nothing to do with Blair or Brown; it was the legacy of John Smith - minimum wage, trade union recognition, social chapter...", etc. He also argues that the real surprise is "how hopeless he (Brown) is as a politician". It is a surprise to me also, although perhaps it ought not to have been. Meanwhile poll ratings reach new depths - 27% in the Guardian ICM poll. Matthews wants Brown replaced quickly or "...we go into oblivion with Brown". I think it unlikely. Tomorrow is Crewe and Nantwich. Prepare for the worst.

Replacing Brown?

2008-05-18T14:19:00.003+01:00

There is an awful lot of speculation about Brown resigning (very, very unlikely) or being challenged for the Leadership. I can't see it, for several reasons:
(i) There is no obvious alternative. Certainly there are plenty of names being bandied around: Jack Straw, David (or even Ed) Milliband, Ed Balls, Charles Clarke, Alan Milburn, Alan Johnson, James Purnell (God help us all...), David Burnham, Uncle Tom Cobley... But none of these is the obvious successor (the phrase "all chiefs and no Indians" comes to mind). This might make for: (a) a game of wait-and-see with each hoping one of the others will make the challenge (on the principle that "he who wields the dagger fails to win the crown", what one might call "the Heseltine principle") which will benefit Brown - if no one is actually first to step forward, and/or (ii) a messy battle for the succession.
(ii) Anyone replacing Brown inherits the same problems. A new Leader cannot "magic away" the credit crunch and falling house prices, and the increase in the price of oil and food. A new Leader will still face the problem of trying to lead the party to a fourth election victory (which has only been achieved once in the 20C, in 1992). Whoever it is will be someone who has been (even if he is not now) a Cabinet Minister, and can no more claim to be untainted by any percieved Labour failures than can Brown.
(iii) Who would want the job? With Labour trailing in the polls, cruising for election defeat, it could be a short-lived Leadership (although a new Leader could pin the blame for defeat on his predecessor). Most likely candidates will probably wait until after the next election (if Labour loses Brown will go, if there is a hung Parliament he will go, and if Labour wins with a much reduced majority - who can say?).
(iv) A party which changes Leader rather too often looks like it has lost its way. To lose one Leader might be a misfortune, but to lose two, one so soon after the other, and so close to an election, begins to look like carelessness...
(v) Even if Labour loses Crewe and Nantwich, which seems likely (although it will be very close) Brown has the blessing that the summer is almost upon us. Politics will be suspended for a couple of months. When everyone returns - from Cape Cod or Scotland or wherever - it will be, what, a year-and-a-half at most from the General Election? And leaving an election to the last minute makes the Government look "frit" and gives no room to recover if things go pear-shaped (not that they aren't already) in the last few months. It's a bit late to be changing Generals.
(vi) Some are arguing that it might be a good thing if Labour lost next time, rather than scrape through and suffer obliteration the time after that, and lose office for a generation. It will, the argument goes, give Labour time to regroup and redefine its goals - best done in Opposition. If Cameron proves a busted flush in office Labour can lose the next one, win after that, and perhaps secure a second or third term thereafter. This it seems to me is a very optimistic scenario, and if it were me I wouldn't bet the farm on it. If the Tories win next time they could be there for a very long time. True, they will inherit an economy in difficulty, but they can blame the previous Labour Government for that (after ten years Labour can't play this card so easily).
Politaholic is not optimistic, but I think Labour will have to soldier on with Brown, and try to use the summer to figure out what to do next...

Cherie Spart the sex goddess

2008-05-18T11:21:00.004+01:00

Cherie ("supermarket dash") Blair - a socialist? Give me a break. Apparently Tony rolls his eyes when she says this, as well he might. Over the past week we have had her soliciting sympathy over the size of her mega-mortgages (poor dear, how she must struggle), whingeing about her alleged deprived background (I wonder...), and regaling us with the minutiae of her contraceptive regime and Tony's naked massages with Carol Caplin. I wonder how she squared her socialism with, a few years back, prosecuting a poll tax protestor for non-payment (if memory serves he got a custodial sentence). At the time we heard a lot about the "cab rank" principle...umm... Anyway, in today's Sunday Times she tells us that she when she first bonked Tony she already had two guys on the go: "..that left with me with three men in my life. Tony knew about John but not about David [Attwood]. John knew about David but not about Tony, and poor David fondly imagined I was living a quiet life of hard work in dreary London". Sorry, all this is a bit confusing for me. Anyway, not just a socialist, but a femme fatale. Blokes queueing round the block. I mean - Cherie Blair? ...

Welcome to Ruritania

2008-05-18T10:52:00.003+01:00

A minor royal - Peter Phillips (the son of Anne Phillips nee Windsor) - has just married a Canadian management consultant, Autumn Kelly. He is 11th in line to the throne, and, in order not to lose his place in the pecking order, she had to renounce her religion (Roman Catholicism) since the 1701 Act of Settlement prohibits Catholics or those who marry Catholics from "ascending" to the throne "for ever". (Okay, perhaps she has genuinely converted to Anglicanism - after all, people do convert, as Blair has, in the opposite direction - but Politaholic is sceptical). Of course, none of this makes any difference to the price of fish. No one with any sense really cares. But nowadays we think of the UK as a liberal and multi-cultural country and it is an insight into that antiquated artefact("the British Constitution") that an heir to the throne can, in law (if not in practice), marry a Muslim, a Hindu, or indeed a Satanist, but not a Roman Catholic. Then again, having an hereditary head of state in the first place is even more absurd.

The Scottish Wendyrendum

2008-05-10T13:26:00.003+01:00

"Wee Wendy" Alexander appears to have declared independence for Scottish Labour. She has called for an early referendum (or "Wendyrendum" as it is being called) on the calculation that it more likely to produce a "No" vote. Gordon was reduced at PMQ's to denying that Wendy said what she patently did say ("bring it on" is hardly ambiguous). Presumably he felt compelled to do this because the only alternative is to admit that he has lost control of his party. (Cameron taunted him with just that). But it made Gordon look like a moron (And it seems that no one has yet told him to look straight ahead at PMQ's inside of sideways. How can he get such a simple thing wrong?). Alex Salmond prefers a later referendum (2010 or 2011); he thinks that, if the Tories win the election, the Scots are more likely to opt for independence (if the alternative is to be governed by a lot of Eton toffs). Both Wendy and Alex are probably right; but the Wendy strategy is - for Labour - a bit risky. Voters have a reputation for not always voting on what they should e.g. using local elections to deliver a verdict on national goverment (odd, isn't it, that after all these years of enmity between Gordon and Ken, that Gordon finally finished off Ken by supporting him?) and they may use a referendum to do the same. In any case, it now seems clear that, sooner or later, there will be a Scottish referendum on independence. Labour is, of course, terrified of this: if Scotland becomes independent they would lose around 40 MP's at Westminster. The poor bloody English would end up with near-permanent Tory government.