Politics And Death

Labour and the Libdems managed to have their spring conferences on the same weekend. A feat of organisation some would say and others, the cynics amongst us, may think it was down to a lack of communication. I'd go with the latter because no political party wants to share publicity with another.

Nick Clegg and Michael Moore spoke to the faithful in Inverness but had little of interest to say. I have to be honest - the little I did see of the Libdem leadership was only more feeble requests for the referendum to be brought forward. Congratulations must go to Caron for her debut on the Sunday Politics. She stuck hard and fast to the party line and Willie Rennie should be grateful to have such support.

Dundee should have been full to the brim with Scottish Labour supporters this weekend but that wasn't the case. This past Saturday was no busier than any normal Saturday and few people seemed to realise the leaders of Labour and Scottish Labour were coming to town. Changed days. Only a couple of decades ago most Dundonians would have shown some interest in the visit of their then rulers.

Ed Milliband and Ms Lamont didn't have much to say for themselves either, other than the usual 'we need to win back the trust of the people' and 'separation is bad for the soul'. Johann Lamont reiterated her lies about the new Forth Bridge contracts and mentioned Labour were to set up their own wee anti-independence talking shop.

Both Labour and the Libdems repeatedly called for the referendum to be held 'sooner rather than later' but neither party can agree on who will lead the No campaign and what its key messages should be. One message from both conferences was that any agreement still looks a long way off.

The SNP didn't escape the Sundays either with the Scotsman revealing the (alleged) murky past of one of their MSPs.  Rightly, the SNP immediately suspended Bill Walker, while they investigate the matter more thoroughly. The Scotsman may have questions to answer too now that Lallands has uncovered this little piece of dusty legislation.

The weekend of politiking was overshadowed by the untimely death of QC Paul McBride who is thought to have died from natural causes in his sleep during a business trip to Lahore. His friend and fellow QC Derek Ogg described him as a 'star'. A fine tribute indeed.

1965 -  2012

Tweet

We're Being Duped

One thought that pops into my mind on a daily basis is 'Are we being duped?'

The coalition have been in government for nearly a year and there's little to show for it.  Lots of talk about cuts, university fees which will help the poorest, increasing the efficiency of the NHS while angering most health professionals and increasing the state pension - but not for current pensioners.

The coalition allowed English universities to increase fees to a maximum of £9,000 per annum, saying to students that only a few universities would charge anything like the top rate, yet even the lowest rated English university has announced it will charge £8,000 a year.

David Cameron insisted, prior to his election, that the English NHS would never go down the privatisation route.  Now he's had to put his NHS Reform Bill into cold storage because so many of those concerned with the implementation have found too many faults.

This week the media is excited at the news that pensioners will receive a flat rate of £140 a week which will avoid the humiliation of older people having to provide confidential personal information in order to receive a few pounds to help them pay their bills. Tens of thousands are too proud to do this we're told. So it's great news for us pensioners as we'll no longer be required to go through the intrusive means test.  But no, the new rate isn't for anyone presently receiving a state pension, it's government 'forward planning'.  When the new rate comes into being, there will be two rates for pensioners.

David Cameron was in Pakistan admitting Britain caused many of the world's problems and as recompense for a diplomatic 'misunderstanding' last year he vouched to give around £650 million over the next four years towards education in Pakistan, which spends barely 2% of its annual budget on education, but more than 15% on defence.

I don't expect the Prime Minister, when he is abroad, to be running down his own country purely to seek favour with his hosts.  He, of all people, should be talking Britain up not down.

We have Nick Clegg insisting his 'overriding mission' is to improve social mobility.  Surely his overriding mission should be the restoration of the public finances and reform of public services.  His wish to create a 'fair' market in internships is both patronising and fatuous and has all the hallmarks of Labour's headline-grabbing initiatives which get kicked into the long grass.

The few issues mentioned above are the tip of a very large iceberg with a hollow core.  We're repeatedly told we must reduce the deficit, yet will having two state pension systems save money?  Does giving handsome gifts of over half a million pounds as a bribe towards business save money?  The only fair way to increase social mobility is to repeatedly tell them it is intelligence and hard work that count, not their social backgrounds.

Policies rushed through the parliamentary process without due scrutiny or foresight - such as the two mentioned - will cost taxpayers far more than if they had been carefully and thoroughly crafted.

Are we being duped?  Too right we are. The Cameron and Clegg duo will continue with their chicanery until someone is brave enough to stand up and shout, 'Enough'. I wonder if this man will be heard.

Tweet

Government By Blackberry

In the past seven days the Westminster government has been severely criticised over their handling of the evacuation of British nationals from Libya.

The MSM and the 24-hour drip feed of news provided by Sky and the BBC have delighted in bringing angry Brits, with their stories of abandonment by the UK government, to our living rooms.

From what I've seen on television, I think the UK government has done a reasonable job considering the PM and deputy were out of the country, but more about that later.  The initial hesitation may have been attributed to this.

Anyone going to work or live in a country like Libya must know the risks involved. Many go because they're paid more than they would be in the UK and if they stay out of the UK enough days each year, they do not have to pay UK taxes.  I have no problem with that because it's their choice.

What I do have a problem with is some Brits expecting immediate rescue when - with the exception of those in the desert - they could have left the country a week ago as civilian flights were still operating to a reasonable schedule and the UK also chartered aircraft.  Many decided to disregard the situation until the middle of the week when they found Tripoli airport in chaos with thousands desperate to leave and civilian flights few and far between.

"It's the UK government's fault," was a popular response in the media.  I disagree.  When anyone decides to go abroad, for whatever reason, they must take responsibility for their own health and safety.  In serious emergency the British Embassy may be able to help but it's not always possible.  In the past couple of days Libya has become a serious emergency and, if the words of those who have successfully escaped the country, the Embassy staff have done everything in their power to ensure they were safely escorted to the port/airport.  I've yet to hear a word of criticism against anyone connected with the evacuation by an evacuee.  Neither have I heard any criticism of BP who also accepted other nationalities when  space was available on their flights to Malta.

It is unfortunate some oil workers' families, here in the UK, decided to go public with their concerns for their loved one's safety because they also gave too much information to the interviewer.  Those who work in middle east oil fields are well protected by guards employed by the relevant company. Looting from local crooks is not unknown and the guards and workers do their best to keep a good relationship with the host nation. After William Hague's plea to oil workers to let the Foreign Office know where they were, it was obvious to anyone listening that their safety was in doubt and action was being considered.

Most are very acquaint with survival skills but these were reduced when one of their escape routes, through the desert, was blocked. Too much information was being provided on news channels which was putting any rescue attempt in jeopardy.  Thankfully late yesterday around 150 British and other foreign nationals were airlifted safely to Malta by the British military.  Another 300 await rescue.

The media must be told to be more responsible. Gaddafi's henchmen didn't need to spend much time finding out where the UK's special forces were gathered. There is a fine line between news and news which must be withheld from the public because it would endanger the lives of others.  The line was crossed a few times this past week.

But David Cameron certainly didn't provide an acceptable level of leadership this week.  Since the coalition was formed I've occasionally questioned why he was giving Nick Clegg so much exposure in the media and wondered if he was hoping Mr Clegg would eventually flounder.  Nick Clegg did so last week - spectacularly, but David Cameron was unable to capitalise on it.  Why?  For some strange reason he allowed Mr Clegg to trot off on a skiing holiday in the same week the middle east was in uproar and he was to jet around parts of it in an effort to boost the sales of his business entourage. Such planning is not permitted in Ruralshire and certainly it was poor diary organisation from No 10.

It escapes my memory whether it was David Cameron or Nick Clegg who was reported to have said there was no necessity for the PM or his deputy to physically be in the country because communications equipment was excellent these days. The Blackberry was mentioned.  Does this show that Britain's PM and other senior politicians are purely figureheads these days or has it always been so and it's only due to modern communication systems, such as the Blackberry, that their hollowness has been revealed?

Tweet

Leave Universities Alone Mr Clegg

When it was reported that Nick Clegg is demanding that England's top universities stop favouring children from private schools and must take more pupils from state schools - admitting them on lower A-level grades - I was exasperated. (Mr Clegg is a product of Westminster school then Cambridge.)  He describes the present system as 'social segregation'.

Nick Clegg was the cause of the national student unrest in the past few months with his support of raising university tuition fees and now he's decided to attack the institutions.  When he left Westminster school in 1985, if he'd been told that his place at Robinson College, Cambridge, had been given to someone with worse grades than him - whatever their background - he would have been outraged at the unfairness.  It shows the character of the man that he is prepared to inflict that unfairness on those who come after him.

We all know private schools produce children with a higher level of education.  It's not only the children of the rich who attend fee-paying schools - many parents with average earnings sacrifice a great deal to ensure their children receive a better quality education than is provided in the majority of state schools.

If Mr Clegg wants to involve himself in education, he should be calling for total reform of state education and not asking universities to water down entry requirements.  The gap between England's (and Scotland's) best and worst schools is indefensible.

Fortunately in Scotland, 'education snobbery' isn't as prevalent as in England, but we too have the problem of bright children not achieving their potential in some of our schools, yet we spend more per head in education than many other countries.  Teachers have a responsibility to instill confidence into their pupils and ensure they understand that hard work does pay. By labelling young people from poorer backgrounds as less intelligent than others is insulting and will damage their confidence.  I certainly wouldn't have liked to have gone to university knowing I was there just because of my background and not my abilities.  That would have been demoralising.

The LibDems are lurching from one crisis to another. David Cameron appears to be quite happy to let them.  Possibly part of his hidden agenda.

Tweet

Transparency - a Murky Business

Since the Freedom of Information Act came into force I've used it a few times.  Have you ever tried the system?  Believe me your tenacity gets a thorough workout.

Two requests were handled speedily (and to my satisfaction) and the other four replied with a standard letter stating my request breeched the Data Protection Act, section xyz, paragraph abc.  I'm paraphrasing.  Two of those I thought were important enough to pursue so I did.  Neither was resolved and they became battles for access to information which ought to be in the public domain. It's time consuming interpreting the jargon and excuses and I can understand why many people give up.  One wrong word in your request and it's ammunition for the recipient to make life as difficult as possible for you.

The Deputy Prime Minister recently argued, in a high-profile speech, that openness should be extended to more organisations which benefit from public money 'yet who cannot be properly scrutinised'.  Few people would disagree with that statement.

But, tucked away in the civil service verbosity of a civil liberties package unveiled by Nick Clegg, are moves to exempt senior royals from freedom of information laws. The Royal Family is to be granted absolute protection from public scrutiny in a reform designed to draw a veil of secrecy over the affairs of the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William.

Tom Brake, the MP for Carshalton and Wallington, is 'disappointed' by the failure to enforce more openness. Disappointed?  I'd be much happier if he'd said he was furious but he possibly doesn't want to fall out with the royals, although his card may well be already marked 'no honour under any circumstance'. Quite rightly he states "the Royal Family are recipients of substantial sums of public money.  They should be accountable through FOI. In my view it should be possible to differentiate matters that rightly should not be subject to FOI from those that should in terms of the expenditure of public money".

Buckingham Palace disagrees because they say the FOI has failed to protect the constitutional position of the monarchy and heir to the throne.  The spokesman explained that the sovereign has the right and duty to be consulted, to encourage and warn the government, and by extension, the heir to the throne had the constitutional right and duty to prepare himself for the role of King. 'This constitutional position relies on confidentiality so that all such correspondence is confidential,' said a spokesman.

I sense Charlie is building his defences prior to being promoted.

But there's good news for us hoi polloi. 'The Ministry of Justice intends to increase the number of organisations to which FOI requests can be made, bringing bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Services Ombudsman, the higher education admissions body UCAS and also all companies wholly owned by any number of public authorities.

What have the royals to hide?  We'll never know now, but if you read the end of the Independent's article, there have been quite a few revelations in their expenditure when they were open for FOI business.  MPs will be rubbing their hands with glee and desperately hoping that they're next in line for protection from FOI.

Nick Clegg isn't doing too well in government is he?  Most of his principles seem to have vanished like 'sna aff a dyke'  because of his desire to sit on the front bench and look authoritarian.  I won't mention the armoured car and his protests about government ministers using such transport. The damage he is doing to his party appears irrelevant.  Time a libdem backbencher stood up and told him a few home truths.

Tweet

Between the Devil and the Deep

"He doesn't know either."

For the past couple of weeks Vince Cable and Nick Clegg have been nipping round television and radio studios trying to defend the indefensible on university fees.  They seem to have forgotten they benefitted from a free university education.

During the election Nick Clegg insisted he would first abolish tuition fees, then changed his tune a little by saying he wouldn't increase them.

Now he seems stunned that the young voters who promoted him to the post of Deputy Prime Minister are angry and his response is that the proposed system is fairer than the current system.  Also Mr Clegg's unable, or unwilling, to say if he's even going to vote for the proposal, although Vince Cable thinks he may abstain, even though he's the man in charge of implementing the fee increase.  What a ludicrous situation to ask his Tory allies to vote for his proposal but not to do so himself.

The LibDems are between the devil and the deep on this issue, but if the increase in student fees can be halted by popular resistance so too can the whole programme of public service cuts. The aftermath of the vote should be interesting.

Tweet

The Libdems and Trident

I should have written about this last week and apologise for the delay but it is important that it's recorded because there was little in the MSM about it.

One of the Libdem's manifesto promises was the rejection of the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. Nick Clegg said: "The world has changed, the facts have changed, you've got to change with them. So like for like replacement for Trident is just not right."

To be accurate Mr Clegg was not against nuclear weapons per se but wished for analternative to Trident and he wanted the incoming government to include Trident in the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review (SDR). In his words the question of Trident was 'non-negotiable'.

The Scottish and Welsh nationalists want rid of Trident altogether because they consider it a complete waste of money and well out of date.

Last Tuesday in the House of Commons, there was a vote on the proposal that government include Trident within the terms of the SDR. As Eric Joyce pointed out in a blog post, prior to the vote, Nick Harvey MP, now Minister of State for Defence, states on his website: 'It would be ridiculous not to consider Trident in the Defence Review."

However, just after the vote Eric Joyce posted again with the title: 'Er, so the Libdems just voted for Trident'.

Giving consideration to the abject state of our economy, it's a disgrace Trident is not even going to be discussed in any depth and our politicians are quite happy to spend around £130 billion on a weapons system which will be controlled, like the current one, by another country.

I suspect many Libdem supporters may have been feeling a little upset last week knowing that one of their leader's non-negotiable policies bit the dust so easily.

Tweet

Nick Clegg Under Pressure

Andrew Neil questions Nick Clegg about his MP expenses. His constituency house isn't his home it's a home on loan from the taxpayer. It's a bit of a dump but he's tarted it up with taxpayer's money and when it's sold he'll give the profit back to the taxpayer.

Then, when Andrew Neil says he'd like to come and stay because he's a taxpayer, Nick Clegg says there's a limit. He's not keen on Mr Neil resting on 'my cushions' - bought by the taxpayer.

I think Mr Clegg has upset a few of his constituency neighbours by calling his house 'a pebble-dashed semi'. A neighbour said, "This is one of the smartest middle-class areas in the city and a lot of people want to live here." More details of his properties and claims relating to them can be read here. A photograph of the four bedroomed pebble-dashed semi is below.

Tweet

Posh Boys

Labour has made much of David Cameron's schooling. At every opportunity Eton is mentioned but little, so far, has been said about Nick Clegg's early education. He attended Westminster school, one which some of my English friends say offers a superior education to Eton.

I can't make the comparison because I have no knowledge of either school.

Because both Eton and Westminster have always been seen to be part of the cream of English private schooling, labour feel they can label Gordon Brown the 'common' man. Of course we know that's not true because he also had a very privileged upbringing.

Back in the 50s and 60s few Scots considered private education for their children. The state system provided as good an education as any private school. There was no class divide within the system. Even today in Scotland there are far less children in private education than in England.

Don't be misled. All three of the unionist party leaders were privileged posh boys and continue to be privileged posh men.

Tweet

LibDems Lose the Plot

What is it about the Liberal Democrats that makes me feel sorry for them - I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps it's because the Scottish libdem bloggers are a pleasant bunch and are quite a cohesive force in their criticisms of Scottish politics.

However, today's announcement that the 'rich' are to be taxed much more in order to take 300,00 poor out of the tax bracket is just so ludicrous it makes the libdems look like they desperately need a lesson in economics.

Vince Cable, their Media Celeb, has recently admitted he was wrong about the Lloyds TSB/HBOS takeover and I'm sincerely hoping he'll admit to being wrong about this, although listening to Nick Clegg on radio, I 'hae ma doots' that Vince will break the party line.

The proposal is a property tax which targets properties over £1m, on the assumption that the owners are 'rich'.

"We have seen the super-rich pouring their money not into job creating businesses but into acquiring mansions,” he said, as he turned his fire on bankers, businessmen and the Shadow Cabinet’s former members of the Bullingdon Club.

Yes he has a point there, but what they should be proposing is a complete overhaul of the banking system to stop banker's recent behaviour ever happening again and he should be proposing a new taxation system as the present one allows certain big business companies/people to avoid taxation.

But to go for people who own homes valued at £1m and over is telling those who can afford to live in such a property that it will cost them more. Running a large house is expensive and those who can afford to own one are, in many cases, preserving buildings which may well either be sold to developers or demolished to make way for another concrete tower.

I know people who have homes in this bracket and the value is usually because they live in areas which can demand, what I consider, silly prices. My friends are certainly not 'rich' but what is termed nowadays as 'asset rich'. Paying a few thousand pounds more a year to stay in their homes (which they have worked hard for all their lives) could see them having to sell up and moving to a smaller property. Why are people like that being forced to make such a choice? I thought the libdems were all for choice, but this proposal leaves no choice. Well that's not quite true; the choice is pay up or move to a cheaper home.

Why didn't the libdems support IDS's paper which was issued last week? That makes sense to me. Raise the non-tax level to £12,000 and have a standard rate of tax for everyone. Easier to collect and calculate and then perhaps the Inland Revenue could spend more time investigating the big boys who avoid tax, but at the same time encouraging those who have the ability to earn larger salaries that they are welcome in the UK.

Who make the laws that allow tax avoidance? You're right - politicians. Governments have created a layer of tax accountants because of the complex system and never ending new legislation and regulation.

So libdems, this proposal makes me pleased I'm not a libdemer because all it's going to do is discourage people from buying larger properties, unless they are filthy rich of course, then a few thousand pounds is petty cash and at the same time make the older generations of this country feel very insecure because many know they cannot pay more out of their pensions.

Doesn't do a lot for today's pensioners does it? Those pensioners who have worked all their lives and managed, through many sacrifices to to achieve a comfortable home. Now the libdems want more money from them when their pensions pots have been raided by pathetic Westminster legislation, which dare I say, there was little if any protest from the libdems during debates against the measures.

Pity they couldn't support the tory proposals or even suggest they would have talks with the tories. You can read IDS's proposals here. I'll be accused of being a real right-winger with this post but I make no apologies for supporting Ian Duncan Smith's paper. It just makes sense along with the SNP's policy of taxation based on income not the size or value of your home.

Source: Times

Tweet