The Andrew Marr Show

Apart from his interview of Theresa May this morning which Ms May handled rather well, Andrew Marr also interviewed Sir Jock Stirrup, the out going Chief of Defence Staff. Andrew Marr asked rather political questions which I would have thought a Chief of Defence Staff would have had to refuse to answer being above, or is it below, politics. Why was Andrew Marr asking those questions and why was Sir Jock answering them albeit diplomatically at times. Sir Jock for example confirmed the £38bn hole in the defence budget but did say it included a £10bn wish list. Sir Jock also revealed that the Defence Chiefs had themselves identified and proposed cuts to the Labour government but could get no decision. Finally Andrew Marr elicited from Sir Jock that over the last two years the Government had become properly focused on equipment and manning levels in Afghanistan. This led me to the conclusion that the whole point of the interview was to demonstrate that the Labour Government had not been so hopeless in running defence as the Coalition are saying. The BBC's view is not one shared by many of its unwilling paymasters.

The Next 3 Years

My elder brother, who has never read a blog in his life nor even sent an email nor opened a computer - he is simply not wired up to do so, asked me today what I saw becoming the most controversial political issues over the next three years. Even having had time to reflect further I still believe that the answer I gave over lunch is the correct one. The answer I gave was that there would be two issues (a) the EU and whether we should change to become at most a Swiss like affiliate and (b) Global Warming and whether we should be spending the huge sums of money that we are in line to pay over the next few years. Both issues will come to the forefront of the political scene at roughly the same time and will lead to huge and passionate rows that will transcend normal political associations and split families and friends. One of the casualties will I hope be Peter Luff of the European Movement who tried to defend the indefensible last night on Jeff Randall Live - he could only bluster and was quite unable to put forward a single coherent reason as to why the EU budget should not be reduced. Mats Person of Open Europe was more than able to cope with the Luff hype and to demonstrate the size of fraud in the EU, which Luff had belittled, is truly significant. On my return home I read various blogs and to my surprise discovered that the Political Betting blog (www2.politicalbetting.com/) had posted that the EU has in effect a non-issue with the electorate. We'll have to see whose right. What do you think?   

Ash - Who needs it?

Why does government spend money on organisations so that the latter can pay for reports attacking the government? It is a kind of masochism but as most of us are not into S&M (apologies to those who are but sometimes the majority has to have its voice heard) and it is our hard earned money which after all gets funneled through to ASH and others to attack the government, this kind of self-flagellation should be stopped. There is no reason for it at any time but least of all now with all the cost saving going on (we hope). I prefer to spend the money saved on, well ....... cigarettes.

And another thing, there is every reason for reducing housing benefit to £400 a week maximum. The government must stand firm on this. After all you can get a 4 double bedroom house which was renovated last year for £365 pw. Where? Putney. See Iain Dale's Diary - //www.iaindale.blogspot.com/

Boris has yet to respond to my email yesterday about his bike docking stations. Can it be because he is too busy with his new love? See Guido Fawkes blog for more detail - //order-order.com/

A Bad Left Day

The BBC headline this morning declared that the GDP figures to be released today would show a sharp slowdown. Unfortunately for them they had to change the headline following the release of the figures to say that the UK recovery was faster than expected. The UK economy had been expected to grow in the third quarter by only 0.4% whereas in fact it grew by 0.8%. This is good news as it is now expected that the Bank of England will postpone unleashing more quantitative easing for the time being.

Although Labour has not, as far as I am aware, yet commented on the announcement last night by the London Fire Brigade Union of its planned strike for bonfire night there are plenty of others who have done so. Virtually none of the comments have been supportive of the Union which seems to be striking for the most trivial of reasons and just to try and show that it has a bigger one than the Fire Brigade. Pathetic.

Yesterday we had the new Labour MP Tristram Hunt saying that Cameron is taking us back to the ethos of the Eton workhouse and today Guardian journalist Polly Toynbee saying the Tories have a final solution for the poor. Such insults are pathetic but they, coupled with the BBC's scare story on growth and the firefighters' proposed strike, will be giving Miliband a bad day. The comments today on his speech to the CBI yesterday will also have been unwelcome as will Paul Martin's comment on Jeff Randall Live last night that whilst the economy was doing well Brown should have been saving for a rainy day rather than overspending as he did. Paul Martin was the Canadian Finance Minister who rescued the Canadian economy after it went down 12 years ago. The rescue involved tough and immediate cuts. As a result of the action he took Canada paid off its deficit and subsequently generated surpluses.    

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) - 2

It has come as somewhat of a shock to learn that the IFS is mainly supported by the taxpayer through fees generated by the IFS from the BBC, the European Commission, the Treasury, other government ministries, quangos and the IMF. Surely there is a conflict of interest here which would preclude the IFS from commenting in public on anything the government does. Why though does the government instruct the IFS to undertake reports on its behalf if they know that some of these reports will be hostile and will be made public. Seems crazy to me - a kind of masochism. I hope the government will cease spending our money on the IFS immediately.

Boris's Bikes

I enjoy my short hops on Boris's bikes but today was a nightmare. I appreciate that this week is half term for many children and that fewer bikes will be in use than normal, thus resulting in fuller docking stations. I picked up a bike from the Bourne Street docking station to ride to Mayfair for lunch with the intention of parking in Pall Mall. The docking station in Pall Mall has been full on 2 previous occasions when I've done this and the docking station in St James's Square has also been full on one previous occasion. I then had to cycle on to Panton Street and dock the bike there. Today though the docking stations in Pall Mall, St James's Square, Panton Street, Cockspur Street and Waterloo Place were all full. Exhausted by this time and despairing of ever finding a docking station so that I could take up the lunch invitation to Brooks's I 'phoned TFL's offices where a most helpful young lady told me that there were 3 empty slots at the Grafton Street docking station. There were several other Boris Bikers also circulating around the same docks as myself all looking for somewhere to dock their bikes. As they were younger and fitter than myself and there were seven or eight of them I didn't inform them of the three empty spaces in Grafton Street. I felt somewhat guilty about this but not that much as I am not a martyr. I duly rode uphill to Grafton Street where indeed I was able to dock my bike. Riding around like that certainly gives one an appetite and if that is the purpose of full docking stations then fine but Boris might find user numbers declining as a result. It is clear that extra docking stations in the St James's area are needed urgently. Why not one in Jermyn Street and why not another in Pall Mall? No further bikes need be bought specifically for these new docking stations as they will fill up at lunchtime with bikers from other parts of town and empty again later as bikers return from whence they came.

Cuts and Comments

Is it because the left in general have the worst arguments that they unfailingly misrepresent what the those on the right are saying or doing? Look, for example, at what the left always say about the BNP - that it is an extreme right wing organisation. This is simply untrue. Most of the BNP's tenets are those of the left and those that aren't are certainly not of the right with the sole exception of reducing personal taxation. The BNP would renationalise monopoly utilities and services. I know nobody on the right that has ever wished to do that. It is therefore no surprise that Danny Blanchflower (a Brown appointee to the MPC of the Bank of England) has come out against the cuts by saying that they are the 'biggest and riskiest macroeconomic experiment'. The reality is that the cuts have brought certainty and if that is a risky experiment then let's have more of them. I could also have bet that at some point we would have heard from Dame Suzi Leather, a Labour Party apparatchik appointed as Head of the Charity Commission following the enactment of the Charities Act 2006, and sure enough she was on radio 4 in her capacity as Head of the Charity commission this weekend. In so far as you could understand what she was saying it was that the cuts will be bad for charities. It seems odd to me that as a civil servant she felt able to make what was after all a political statement since it is at odds with the Government's well known keenness on charities. I suspect it is time for Suzi to depart. I think it is also time for the class warfare Charities Act 2006 to be replaced with an Act that respects private education.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)

The IFS, the Unions and of course the Labour Party all say the the Government's 'cuts' will hit the poor hardest whereas the Tories, the LibDems (well Mr Clegg at least), Mr Murdoch and the OECD say that the 'cuts' are fair, which must mean that they do not think the poor have been the hardest hit. Who you believe is no doubt, as nearly always in politics, which side your heart instinctively supports (my country right or wrong kind of thing). The IFS is said by the Guardian to be Britain's leading tax and spending experts but I instinctively knew they were going to come down against the 'cuts'. I was not disappointed since as far as I can remember they have been against every announcement made by the Tories that they have commented upon. Why is that I wonder and why would the Guardian be such a fan? Why did they always support Brown's budgets? Could it be because they are a Labour supporting think tank? Doesn't that mean that anything they say must be taken with a pinch of salt? Doesn't it also follow that they can't possibly be Britain's leading tax and spending experts? 

The Spending Review

Crikey - what a long speech Osborne gave. He certainly seemed to know what he was talking about. I hope he does and I hope he's right for all our sakes. We are not going to know the results of the decisions the Government have made for a number of years though. Even if they get it half right the Government will claim success but if they get it wrong Labour will claim their prescription would have done the trick. It is probable that the next election will be decided on the outcome of the Spending Review. Johnson gave a good account of himself in his response although he gave no detail of what he would have cut and by how much and I guess he never will. It would have been good too if he had acknowledged his government's role in causing the financial mess we're in but again politicians never apologise and never explain and always pretend any disaster has nothing to do with them. A little more honesty would be refreshing. It is extraordinary that Gordon Brown failed to turn up in Parliament for the announcement. Is that an admission of guilt or at least the result of his embarrassment at getting everything so wrong? Wishful thinking on my part?         

Defence Review

It makes me angry, nay bloody angry, that the Labour Government so mismanaged our finances that there is a £38 billion hole in our defence budget. It makes me disappointed, nay sad, that as a result the Nimrod replacement has been cancelled, Ark Royal is going, our Harriers are being stood down, our frigates and destroyers are being reduced from 23 to 19 ships and that there will be a gap between the 2 new aircraft carriers being built and the joint striker planes being delivered. Why not keep Ark Royal and the Harriers in commission until the arrival of the new planes? Why not make cuts in the NHS and the Overseas Aid budgets to pay for this? We all know the NHS budget is stuffed full of waste and that the elimination of that waste would not adversely affect its performance in any way.  Perhaps not enough of us though appreciate the need for a strong defence force even in this day and age. Cameron impressed today both in Parliament and at the UK Permanent HQ. A pity the same could not be said of Ed Miliband.

   

The Labour Response

Alan Johnson read out a prepared script today setting out the Labour Party position on the cuts. One wonders if he understood what he was saying as he refused to answer questions about his speech afterwards. Hmm, despite the reaonable tone in which the speech was delivered it was not an inspiring start to his new career. Will Miliband or Johnson respond to Osborne's speech on Wednesday? Either way it will be intriguing to watch. 

Good News?

Much to this blogger's surprise the Government has chosen the sites for 8 nuclear power stations. Will they be built in time though to ensure 'energy security'? The building of coal fired power stations will also go ahead once the system to capture the CO2 emissions  and store them underground has been worked out. Will the new capture and storage technology be ready in time though and what happens if it isn't? The tidal energy scheme across the Severn has been dropped mainly because of its expense but further wind farms are to be built. What stupidity. It is odd though that neither the nuclear power stations nor the coal powered ones are to be subsidised but the wind farms will be. One wonders why. The answer to that question will be at the end of the money trail!

George IV

There is a bust of George IV in the window of the Anthony Outred shop in Pimlico Road, London SW3 that looks somewhat similar to George Osborne. Is there a relationship? Is that why Osborne changed his first name from Gideon to George?  

George Osborne on Andrew Marr

Did Osborne make a slip of the tongue on the Andrew Marr show this morning when he said the Government were going to go after companies and individuals who took steps to avoid tax? There is nothing wrong with avoidance. Everyone is allowed to organise his affairs in such a legal way in order to pay the least amount of tax possible - that is known as avoidance. Everyone would be mad to organise his affairs in such a way in order to pay the most amount of tax possible. Evasion though is another thing. Evasion involves breaking the tax laws and is illegal and thus punishable and no government can tolerate that.

Osborne came across well and seems to be growing into his job whereas Alan Johnson, who appeared earlier in the same programme, did not really have a lot to say. He came across as a nice enough person but as somewhat complacent and, despite being given an easy ride, a little out of his depth. Whereas I did not doubt Osborne would grow into the job I am not sure about Johnson.

Secret Iraq

Probably most of you were asleep on the two nights this week that BBC2 screened parts 1 and 2 of Secret Iraq. I recommend you watch it on BBC iPlayer as it is one of the best programmes I have seen on the insurgency in the aftermath of the Iraq War and the beginnings of its slowdown. It was humiliating to learn what many suspected were the reasons behind our departure from Basra and of our defeat at the hands of the insurgents. It was also interesting to have one's suspicions of Blair confirmed - definitely not a man to go tiger hunting with. Whether you thought it was right or wrong to go into Iraq there can be no argument that the manner of our leaving was a disgrace and Blair should go down in history as one of the worst and least principled leaders of this country. The Americans are welcome to him.

PMQs

I have just seen this afternoon's PMQs on BBC iPlayer. Ed Miliband gave a creditable performance although he should not be judged on this showing alone as he could hardly have been given an easier target than the Child Benefit one. The Government does not have an answer to the question why two parents earning £80,000 between them should be entitled to keep Child Benefit when only one parent is in work and earning more than £44,000 is set to lose it. The Government knows this is unfair and yet refuses to acknowledge it. No wonder Cameron looks and sounds uncomfortable on this issue. Is there something else going on in the background here? I would like to think so.  I doubt Ed Miliband will have many more opportunities to embarrass the Prime Minister as easily as he did today. I expect next week's PMQs will be very different. 

Global Warming

I have just read on James Delingpole's blog the resignation letter Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, sent to Curtis Callan Jr, President of the American Physical Society. Referring to what he calls the global warming scam Mr Lewis states that 'it is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist'. Damning stuff and something which I recommend you read. The link is below.
   
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

University Fees

It was no doubt inevitable that with the significant increase in students since 1992 that the Blairite funding system had to change and that as a result of the mess we're in students are going to have to pay more. Lord Browne's report seems well measured and although students and others are protesting it seems to have been well received by University Vice-Chancellors and by most politicians. Despite their election pledges it looks unlikely that there will be a rebellion by LibDem MPs. Students will not need to start repaying their loans until they earn at least £21,000 (increased from £15,000), thus University tuition fees do not need to be paid at the time of supply nor at any later time by the less well off. There was an intelligent discussion about all this earlier this evening on Jeff Randall Live on Sky News.

All protests against Lord Browne's proposals are strangely muted in comparison to those protests in Paris today against the increase in the retirement age from 60 to 62 and the age of receipt of the full state pension from 65 to 67. There are some sops though but these have to be paid for out of increased taxation. Although I have not seen it reported there will no doubt be French citizens who think we and other EU saps, as with the Common Agricultural Policy, should pay for their self indulgence. After all we are talking of La France. Would we do so? Quite possibly if paying the increase demanded of us by the EU is anything to go by. Being a revolting lot the French can though no doubt understand the SW3  cry "No taxation without a vote on the EU and all its ways"! Merde alors!            

The EU and 10:10

We all know that the economy is in trouble and that our lives are going to be harder as the Government seeks to sort out the horrific mess Labour has left behind. If we are all in this together then it will make it easier to swallow the pill if inanities that make many scream with rage were attacked/stopped/opposed by the Government such as the increase in the amount we are due to pay the EU and the 10:10 campaign supported by our embassies on Sunday. If the taxpayer is going to have to pay more and suffer cuts there is absolutely no excuse for giving more to the EU or the 10:10 campaign. A little bit of resistance to these and other totally unnecessary expenditure will stiffen morale no end.

Some climate warming specialist lady from the Hadley Centre said something curious on the radio at lunchtime today which went something like "Whereas there has been global warming over the last 50 years not every warm summer or cold winter can be taken as evidence proving the same." The data used by the Hadley Centre for its global warming theories is questionable to say the least. Let the EU and the 10:10 campaigners eat cake, stale and mouldy cake at that!

 

Power Cuts

One of the great failures of the Labour government was to put off ordering replacement power stations. The reason for doing so was because they wanted to look good in the eyes of the climate change fascists. The climate change fascists and their theories will be brushed aside as it becomes increasingly apparent that without consistent power we will be unable to heat ourselves or even work. That we should  seek to protect and eke out our fuel supplies is clearly sensible. To try and invent new forms of power to replace our reliance on fossil and possibly nuclear fuels is clearly a worthwhile challenge as well. We do not know how long inventing new power technology will take though and so in the interim we should be using the most efficient and cost effective power sources we have. This means building coal fired and nuclear power stations not wind farms and other such ridiculously expensive fripperies.

There have been power cuts in London today!   

Aftermath

I only saw the last few minutes of Cameron's speech yesterday but I thought he finished it with a passion that I had not heard from him before. Like many, I am still not sure I get the 'Big Society' other than if we want things to be done we are going to have to do many of them for ourselves in future as the government is no longer going to try to do everything for us. Most people can surely live with that as this is flip side to closing down the nanny state which became so expensive and intrusive and was an abhorrent idea in the first place. A silly example I know but the happiness the eradication of Blair's soviet style bus lane on the M4 has brought is a wonder to behold.

Whether or not the withdrawal of Child Benefit is to be executed as fairly as it should be, its announcement has certainly brought it home to people that dealing with the deficit is going to have an impact on us all. If that was the intended effect of the announcement, and there is evidence that it was, it was certainly successful. Further evidence of the tough decisions coming our way is this morning's interim report from Lord Hutton. This makes it clear that public sector workers are going to have to work to a later age and pay more into their pension pot in order to try and fill its massive £1 trillion black hole. How did things get into such a mess? 

Child Benefit

Has George made a bit of a Horlicks? Did he misread the anticipated reaction? It would appear so as any number of Tory and LibDem supporters are appalled by George's announcement. Whereas I agree Child Benefit should go for those earning over £44,000 I do see that it is unfair to them if it continues to be paid where both parents earn say £43,000 each. Can this anomaly be resolved without means testing? It seems not but compensation is likely to be forthcoming through the introduction of transferable tax allowances between spouses.  I had thought the transfer of allowances between spouses was a dead duck as a result of the coalition. Apparently not, even though the LibDems are said to be against the policy. George is reckoned to be a first class political tactician, so was this a tactical ploy to make it difficult for the LibDems to continue their resistance to the transfer of tax allowances policy now that a number of their members are losing Child Benefit and want compensation? More likely George was trying to smoke out Ed Miliband or maybe he was trying to do both! Whatever the reasoning Horlicks appears to be the answer at this stage.  

Democracy EU Style

If anyone wanted further proof of what a nasty anti-democratic organisation the EU is they need go no further than read Dan Hannan's blog of earlier today. On certain issues the EU Commission will make proposals that will be automatically adopted unless rejected by the Council. There is apparently nothing in the Constitution which allows it to use such a procedure but niceties like that do not of course apply to the Commission - rules are for others. What breathtaking arrogance - although it will surprise no one! Will this be a matter that will be caught by the new law being introduced in the UK providing for referenda to be held whenever there is a change to the European Constitution? It should do but somehow I doubt it.

Why do we continue to remain members of the EU? What advantages has it brought us? It has certainly brought us a lot of grief including the ERM, 13 years of Labour misrule as a consequence, thousands of needless regulations, disastrous agricultural and fishery policies, unwarranted sinecures for discarded politicians like Lord Kinnock and an ever increasing tax burden. We need all the money we pump into the EU for ourselves.  

Thank Goodness

The damage  Gordon Brown caused both as Chancellor and as Prime Minister was bad enough, heaven knows, but the damage he would have caused if he had taken us into the Euro would have been far, far worse. Thus if it's true that he stopped us from joining the Euro we have to be applaud him. One only has to read what is happening to Ireland, where the Euro has caused them horrific problems, to know we are better off out. Their problems are quite possibly insoluble and they will most likely need to start again with a clean slate.  In other words to save themselves they are going to have to default.

The fear that we might go the same way is not one shared by the more sane commentators since with our own currency and with the reductions in future expenditure we will certainly escape Ireland's fate. We do though need to ensure that the private sector is allowed to grow and that the conditions for it to do so are made as conducive as possible by the Government through lower taxes, less regulation, control over inflation and a supportive currency policy. The amount spent on the EU, wind-farms and other such fripperies must be radically reduced (better still stopped altogether) and  projects such as nuclear energy plants and a new airport or at least a new runway, all paid for by the private sector, must be allowed to go ahead as soon as possible.

These are all optimistic issues and it is to be hoped that they and other expressions of confidence in our future will be highlighted in speeches to be given at the Tory party conference.