Gertsamtkunstwerk

Credit crunch, bailouts and the Robert Peston Show

The sharp-eyed among you will have noticed an almost dearth of incisive comment about the global banking crisis. Although I am an Accountant with a Politics degree, I have a blind spot when it comes to Economics. I did study a bit as part of my Graduate Conversion Course (accountancy training) but I had to squint to decode a demand vs supply graph, and it all got too heavy from there on in.

I wish it were over. No doubt Robert Peston really knows his stuff, but it's getting too much, he's everywhere. I wake up with Robert Peston on the radio, I have my tea with Robert Peston on the TV, my night-time cocoa is brought to me by Robert Peston. I just wish he'd learn to string a sentence together without putting 'you know' between every bloomin' you know phrase.

Despite me knowing nothing about Economics,  it has not come as a surprise that the banking system has collapsed. Too long we have been expected to respect these people who just play with pretend numbers. I could never be an out-and-out full-bloodied socialist because I do believe in real investment and entrepreneurship - venture capital -  but I do feel that Stock Market is a glorified betting shop. It is discussed so often in terms that can only be described as pretentious wank...silly men on the telly getting orgasmic at what the 'Numbers' are doing, and imagining that 'The Market' somehow has the ability of independent thought. (And then you get wimpy weather men in cardigans trying to out-macho the business men by using 'Numbers' to inform of forecast temperatures).

I did have an attitude that anybody with 'shares' is a capitalist who ought to be taken out and shot at dawn, then I remembered I abhor capital punishment, so considered a fine and some community service to be their just reward. Then I learnt that just about everybody (except me) is a share-owner. Many people have occupational pensions that are at least partly invested in shares; I am in the peculiar, unfunded, Civil Service Pension Scheme. Anyone with bank deposits is likely to find that they are at least partly invested in shares - and that also goes for people who save with mutuals such as Building Societies and Credit Unions.

Whereas my savings are in Government Bonds, which is how Government Funds borrowing to purchase banks. Damn, I've become part of the 'share-owning democracy!'. As a good old Clause Four Democratic Socialist,  I am having a good old chuckle as Good Old Clause Four Socialist Gordon Brown and his audacious sidekick known only by the codename of 'Darling' march in and nationalise the Banks. Tony Blair would be turning in his grave, were he dead. So would Thatch*, too.

Remember, I know nothing about Economics so please, you know, correct me on bits what I get wrong. But the way I see it is:

In the short term the Government is going to spend yours and my money to buy shares in these Banks at a time when Bank shares are pretty damn low. In the short term this will cost the Government enormous amounts of money, which they will have to borrow via Government Bonds. In the long term (whatever that is) banking will return to normal (whatever that is), and the Government will be faced with a dilemma - whether to sell these shares at maybe 50% profit - but have to pay Capital Gains Tax(!)- or whether to hang onto them and reap the dividends. They couldn't off-load them all at once because that would depress the Sacred Market, so for several years, surely, they will combine drip-selling shares and drawing the dividends. Either way, surely, that will cause another problem for Brown and his sidekick Darling. Whether to cut taxes or increase spending on schools, hospitals and public transport. I'm sure they will have worked it out by the 2010 budget Insert Big Grin Here. David Cameron would be spinning in his grave, were he dead.

It can't be that simple, can it?

I have noticed quite a lot of talk about gold recently. Apparently, people are getting out of shares and buying gold. Is it just me or is that innumeracy? If I had gold, I'd sell it, now, when the price is shit hot, and buy shares, which are almost certainly bound to go up.

And then we get the Iceland thing...Iceland as a country, reportedly, is bankrupt. Reportedly, several months ago Iceland the country was reported to be the Toxic Waste of the Global Banking System. I don't think I have many , if any, regular Icelandic readers, but for those out there, I'm sorry, it mustn't be nice. I'm told there was a news report this morning that residents of Iceland, concerned about imminent devaluation and possible Zimbabwe-scale inflation,  are stocking up on staples, which is what I would do in the circumstances.  Human nature being what it is, prudent stocking-up becomes panic-buying.

In my imagination, a whole sub-section of British society is right now down at a well-known high street supermarket (which discriminates against the childless), stock-piling against disaster, because they've only heard part of the story and have decided to worry.

Like someone told me last week she is really worried that NatWest Bank will collapse before the end of the month and those who bank with them, like her, and me, won't get paid. I couldn't honestly say it absolutely won't happen, but I don't see any point in worrying about it, because if a major bank did collapse that way leaving millions destitute, Something Would Have To Be Done. So, I see no point in worrying about a hypothetical theoretical, when it's not like I - or she - haven't enough real and imminent problems already.

* champers round my place when she pops her clogs

Idiot!

Link: BBC NEWS | England | London | Councils' £139m in troubled banks.

Mark Wallace, campaign director at the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Every year we hear that councils don't have enough money and need to raise taxes but it seems they have had sufficient excess tax to salt tens of millions of pounds away.

"In short, they should not have stashed this money in the first place and they simply weren't equipped to try to be clever in the markets with it."

"It's an absolute disgrace. If the councils can't get their money back, the people who took these excesses should seriously consider their positions as councillors."

I would have thought that someone who runs a Pressure Group about public money would take the trouble to learn the very basics of financial management. What this tosser is actually saying is: either Councils should spend money the minute it comes in or if they happen to have any excess cash they should keep it under the mattress. Has he not heard of reserves?

Doesn't he know that just about any organisation of any size has a Treasury Management policy or department? That often surplus cash is invested just over night, or for short periods. Indeed, at least in theory, it's no different from what individuals do, in terms of moving funds between current and interest-earning savings account. I remember the repercussions of the BCCI collapse, and the discussion about the reliability, and concern about the extent firms (and councils) could rely on the Bank of England. If I recall, councils such as Western Isles (as was) argued that they placed reliance on a list published by the BoE of deposit-accepting institutions, the BofE argued it was just a list.

But at the current time, who can seriously say councillors or council officials are guilty of maladministration by depositing with any particular financial institution -  B&B, HBOS, Lehmann Brothers?

I would have expected the 'campaign director' of a legitimate organisation campaigning about public spending to have a  vague knowledge about, well, public money. And it seems they number people like Patrick Minford and Kenneth Minogue amongst their supporters. It seems that they are basically associated with the Tory Party, so they ought to be a bit more careful criticising their Tory comrades. Or is financial illiteracy the norm for today's Tory Party - it's not just in ideas they're bankrupt?

Talking about bankrupt ideas, what on earth is David "Dave" Cameron's intention in declaring non-partisanship over the banking crisis? Doesn't he know that the government doesn't actually need his support to do what they have to do? Does he mean he will lay off the puerile point-scoring? Or does he mean he will fail in his duty as the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which should be about scrutinising the Government and holding it to account?

Bradford & Bingley to nationalise

Link: BBC NEWS | Business | Treasury to nationalise B&B bank.

It doesn't seem that long ago that institutions such as Bradford and Bingley and Northern Rock were Building Societies, Mutuals, owned by their savers and borrowers. The rapacious City Boys saw opportunities to make big profits and proposed takeovers, with sweeteners of almost several hundred pounds for members, who proceeded to benefit from the lowering of savings rates and raising of borrowing rates (relative to base rate)...um, maybe not benefit.

And now look...

It gives me no pleasure to observe that Capitalism and the Free Market seem not to have an effing vindaloo...

Doomed doomed we're all doomed...

Link: BBC NEWS | Business | Darling warns of economic crisis.

I have to admit that I'm in total denial about this. I reckon that if I stick my head in the sand it won't affect me. And then there's this other, little, part of me that thinks...actually, this could end up being a total nightmare. What happens when my mortgage deal runs out. I am sure that my present mortgagees HMG trading as Northern Rock will try to deter me with a massive hike in rates. Suppose my house value falls below the outstanding mortgage. Suppose interest rates go up to double digits and higher.

And then I just deny it.

Olympian reflections

I enjoyed watching the very many hours of Olympic coverage I consumed from my sofa. It was entertaining. That's why I enjoyed it.

I have several observations to make, some of them in response to criticisms I have read elsewhere or heard in conversation.

A lot of people object to the sheer amount of coverage of the Olympics, contrasting it with other forms of entertainment - eg how few Proms are televised, particularly on terrestrial TV. I agree. Although I don't actually object to the Olympics, at other times of the year there are hours of sports which attract tiny audiences of devotees, bolstered by those who will watch whatever's on. The use of the red button and the ability to choose from a menu of options  is a really good demonstration that the technology exists to offer a much wider selection of entertainment than is currently available. It shouldn't be that difficult to stream all the Proms that way, especially if they cut out the talking heads and the attempts to be just like Match of the Day Live.

Jingoist patriotism and nationalism is the last bastion of the scoundrel. To support an individual or a team just because they were born within the same arbitrary borders is irrational. I agree - up to a point. I think there is a natural human instinct to take sides in anything competitive. There are people who bet on the outcome of two beetles crawling across the ground. Tribal loyalty is not dissimilar to community solidarity. It's important to belong. But it's not good to think oneself superior. That there is a nasty violent  side to nationalism doesn't mean that supporting one's team is equally bad, no more than the horror of rape makes loving or fun sex bad. And I would far rather get patriotic about people competing for medals than people killing non-combatants in a foreign field like Iraq or Afghanistan.

It isn't right to make such a big deal out of people who are good at sport. Not everyone can be, and it isn't fair to those who aren't. Why is sport treated as so much more important than other fields of endeavour?

I find that a more difficult one to answer. On a simple level, I would far rather celebrate the success of people like Chris Hoy, Ben Ainslie, Bradley Wiggins and Rebecca Adlington than the vacuous celebs that appear on the front of magazines. Those four, and all the others from wherever and those that didn't make it, work hard.  They don't have it handed to them on a plate. They demonstrate that success can only really come from single-minded determination. I have more respect for the little finger (or thighs, in the case of the Real McHoy...) of one of them than for all the lazy self-centred talented nobody wannabes who just want 'to be famous' . It's so easy to criticise young people for being all sorts of negative things, but you can't say that about Tom Daley nor about Peter Moore, Young Musician of the Year, who was interviewed on the Handover party thing. (And I doubt either will have any problem getting laid when they pass sixteen).

I don't like the focus in schools on excellence. A lot of people have bad memories of PE teachers who were bullies. The PE teachers at my school were without exception amongst the most decent non-bullying teachers or people one could meet. But they were a product of their training and their time, when the emphasis was on the school teams and maybe the Borough/County, to the detriment of fitness and general exercise for the majority. Schools should concentrate on sports that everyone can benefit from, introducing kids to new activities. They should identify those with exceptional promise and  refer them to specialist coaches and organisations to be trained to national and international excellence.  Most of our gold medals - the 'sitting down' ones  - were won in sports that most schools don't or can't teach. Nicole Cooke was superb in Beijing and even better at Heathrow when she eloquently argued that cycling must become part of everybody's lives - more children should cycle to school, adults to work, there should be more cycle lanes,it's good for obesity, for transport and for the environment.

So many people argue that 'Athletics' is the only Olympic sport that matters ultimately. As far as the media, I guess that is probably true. This is partly because it's so big in the USA, and a large part of income for the Olympics comes from the USA - their TV company pays nearly half the total of TV rights and many of the major sponsors are US-based corporations.

Additionally and conversely, athletics is an area where competitors from poor countries can shine. Jamaica's gold medals, its 1-2-3 (or strictly speaking 1-2-2) in the women's sprint was an amazing achievement for a small island. I can't envisage them ever featuring in many, if any, of the sitting down sports, because of the sheer cost at entry level.  Yet, in a sophisticated and prosperous country like Britain, Athletics is a tiny minority sport. I know plenty of people who run marathons and/or cross country but I don't think any of them do track. Who in their right mind wants to throw a javelin or a discus past the age of about 15.

Yet so many people participate in swimming and cycling, not especially for competitive reasons. I accept that if you're really poor, swimming baths admission or a bicycle is prohibitively expensive, but for the vast majority with some disposable income, the costs are pretty trivial. Obviously yachting and rowing appear more exclusive but I have known so many people over the years who are not startlingly rich who have taken advantage of living near the Rivers Thames or Trent or the Bridgewater canal, or near the coast or Sale Water Park to mess about in rowing boats or sailing dinghies. It's caricatured by the media as being elitist, for posh people, much like skiing and scuba-diving used to be. But we'll always be rubbish at skiing because of the climate yet as a nation we luxuriate in locations for boating.

I hope that the successful TeamGB will provide an inspiration to all, but especially to children and to policy makers. I was quite gob-smacked as one after the other Tory politicians - Moynihan, Coe,  Johnson -  trumpeted the success of public funding for the competitors. Then John Major had the gall to take the credit. Sure, he set up the Lottery, but he still didn't get it - the Tories insisted that all this lottery money went on buildings, for Sport or for the Arts. Neither Major nor his predecessor lent any support when Manchester bid for the Olympics. After the Tories were removed from power, sports-people began to get funded, not just buildings. We wouldn't have won London 2012 if the government hadn't fully backed the bid. I doubt that we would have got it without a pan-London government of the sort Thatcher abolished and Blair re-introduced (not entirely without regrets!).One gold in Atlanta, nineteen in Beijing. 15 (plus 2 Winter)  under Thatcher, 6 under Major, 20 (plus 1 Winter) under Blair, 19 under Brown.

And did you know that Chris Hoy and Steve Redgrave share a birthday? As does Joe Calzaghe - reigning BBC Sports Personality of the Year. March 23. I don't suppose that statistically it's particularly freakish, but it seems that way...

Cameron considers Davis's future

So, what a surprise, David Davis wins his artificial by-election

He forced this by-election to demonstrate "look at me!" his principled stand on Terrorism Legislation.

So principled is David Davis that he is proven not to actually give a stuff about Terrorism Legislation, that is, legislation that the Government believes is essential to protect the lives and liberty of UK citizens and that many commentators fear will have the unwanted consequence of eroding certain principles of liberty. A difficult balancing act, one on which I have no opinions, and don't envy those committed to Freedom who have to make finely-balanced judgements.

And why do I know that David Davis gives not a stuff?  Just last month, Lord Carlisle of Berriew QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Acts presented his annual report to Parliament. In paragraph 9 of the Introduction, on Page 4, he writes:

I make myself available to Ministers, officials, the political parties throughout the UK, pressure groups and other outside bodies, the media and of course members of the public on reasonable requirements, and give many lectures and speeches on the subject of terrorism. Generally the political parties have been ready to engage in discussion with me, hopefully for the better performance of my task as well as to assist a more accurate approach to political debate. I regret that my letters to the then Shadow Home Secretary have gone largely unanswered, and that in his undoubtedly hectic life he was able only to offer me an appointment as long as nearly 12 months distant from my first request.

It doesn't exactly inspire one about the commitment and competence of the Cameron Dream Team or whatever schoolboy nickname they have this week.

Secrets on a train

I really cannot believe the stupidity of people.

Secret terror files left on train

This sort of fuckwittery just makes my life more difficult.

I've heard rumours of the grapevine of Whitehall Village* that all writable CD/DVD drives, memory sticks etc have been disabled as a proportionate and appropriate over-reaction to the HMRC-Child-Benefit-Discs-to-NAO scandal. The only commensurate control against this incident is to ban all public servants from travelling on public transport. Or else to prevent anyone from taking any pieces of paper out of any Government building.

I could recount numerous anecdotes from the past of people making silly mistakes and leaving documents where they shouldn't. I had a manager who managed to leave a signed account in a pub, which is just really embarrassing. Someone I worked with trained with someone who was reading clients' papers on a train; someone from the client was on the same train;  the trainee became very sacked in just a few days.

I had great fun reading a counsel's opinion on a contract on the Heathrow Express a few months ago. Eventually, the woman reading it, and discussing it on the phone,  cottoned onto to her indiscretion and put it away.

A former colleague on a train was becoming increasingly irritated by the annoying loud conversation from the party across the aisle. He realised they were in the same professional institute, and told them that as they were discussing the private business of their employer in public, if they didn't shut up, he would report them to the institute for gross professional misconduct

A former colleague took home a 'confidential' report which was tantamount to an Idiots' Guide to Fraudulently Claiming Agricultural Subsidies. Our manager had been reluctant to let him take it, but agreed. Sod's Law, his morning train was really crowded, so he put the report on the overhead rack, and forgot it until he had got off the train and the train had begun its next journey. It was several hours before he was able to retake ownership of his locked briefcase.

I remember all those years ago when I started in this business, nothing with a marking, even restricted, was supposed to be carried in anything but a locked briefcase. These standards have slipped - just look around any bus or train and spot the paucity of briefcases compared to rucksacks and shoulder bags - but there again, most of us don't even have access to 'Top Secret/UK Eyes Only' files, let alone the ability to remove them.

It's easy enough to do, I suppose. I have often had meetings in another building and rather than go out of my way to return to the office, I have gone straight home carrying papers. I once went to the Barbican carrying 'Confidential' papers for a meeting the next day and was very relieved when they didn't order me to leave my rucksack in the cloakroom, as they had done in the immediate aftermath of the July 2005 bombings.

* unattributable, non-departmental specific, as always;-)

Embryo research, IVF and the right to choose

I am really puzzled why Cabinet Ministers such as Ruth Kelly, Paul Murphy and (alternatively reported as) Andy Burnham or Des Browne are allowed to selectively exercise their so-called "consciences" in matters such as these, when they had a total departure of conscience when it came to bombing people in Iraq.

I love that sort of conscience where you are happy to see people die or live their lives in pain and suffering rather than create a set of non-viable cells that won't ever become a human being.

I love the sort of conscience that wishes to ban single and lesbian women from having IVF because you oppose IVF, full stop anyway. Every sperm is sacred. Nice for those who can bang a sprog every year for four years.

I find it staggering that on one side of the debate yo get a wide range of research charities, the British Medical Association and other bodies staffed full of people who have dedicated their lives to improving the human condiiton. On the other side of the debate are a bunch of religious nutters whose lives have been dedicated to spreading fear and are full of hatred. And those MPs choose to side with the haters.

I'm almost tempted to up stcks and campaign against Kelly in the next General (I will have connections in her redrawn constituency), only the Tory is even more evil.

Fortunately, with a progressive majority in the House of Commons, the embryo and IVF clauses of common sense got through. I can't hang around waiting for the results of the abortion vote. But come on, does anyone with a brain actually think that a late abortion is desirable? Surely, if it were possible, all women wanting an abortion would want an early one. Most late abortions are for the very old, the very young or for unviable/barely viable foetuses, and far too many people who are way out of touch are playing a game of ramdon numbers.

Local elections

It was a good few years ago that the magazine of my Professional Institute ran a Leader column about elections and politics in general. The thrust of it was - why n earth are politicians bending over backwards to pander to the wishes of people who don't participate in the political process. It was a very black-and-white argument and superficially very attractive - along the lines of: as no one is preventing them from expressing their views and getting involved, it's their choice not to be involved and therefore why bother about them.

It's tempting to go along with that. I met people at University who shrugged that politics was nothing to do with them - although they moaned about the paucity of their grant. I have a recall of a woman whose door I knocked on in a 'Registration Drive'. She lived on the Valley Road Estate in Streatham - so we're talking about early to mid 90s, when a combination of lack of government funding (£4 billion backlog of council house repairs and maintenance) and an inefficient council running a corrupt Direct Services Organisation and inert housing department meant that council housing was dire. She was on benefits and had children of school age. she refused to register to vote because 'The government has done nothing for me'.

I can't believe the number of times I have heard direct or reported about people who found the London electoral system confusing. Granted, there will always be a few who can't cope - two years ago I was behind an elderly woman escorting her mother to the polling station. The daughter and the polling clerks were trying to get over to her that she had three votes. Sadly, I think she was well past understanding the concepts either of 'three' or 'votes'. I'm talking about people who hold down responsible jobs. I am amazed that there are people who can't understand three simple sets of instructions (first sheet - you have two columns, in the first mark an 'x' against your first choice for mayor and in the second mark an 'x' against your second choice; on the second sheet make an 'x' for whichever candidate - who are listed along with the name and picture of their political party - you would like to be the Assembly member in your area; on the third sheet mark an 'x' against which party you like best across London). These people are allowed to have their feet on the accelerator and clutch and their hands on the steering wheel while looking in the mirror, signalling and getitng ready to pull out. And yet they can't follow these simple instructions on how to vote.

( I can understand why people don't always understand the mathematics and the tactics of alternative vote and party lists. Having voted for Ken in the first column it was a waste of effort to put my X next to Sian Berry in the second column, just as in the Streatham Selection, having voted for Chuka 1 it was a waste of effort to vote Steve 2. But the maths and the tactics aren't the mechanics).

I know I am banging my head against a brick wall. My first election campaign was twenty four years ago. My favourite subject at both A-Level and degree level was psephology. But it annoys me like hell that people vote on National Issues in Local Elections. We had the ridiculous situation two years ago in the London Borough elections of certain idiot bloggers saying 'Vote Lib Dem' because of Iraq, displaying their political (and verbal) illiteracy - fortunately sufficient (and more!) of the voters of Lambeth decided 'vote Labour because of the horrendous mess the LibDems and Tories have made of running the council' - and yes, back in 94, many of them said Vote LibDem because of the mess Labour has made. So in each of 94 and 06 Lambeth bucked the national trend because of Local Issues in local elections, whilst in places like Croydon they voted on national issues. Yes, that allowed crowing emails to be sent round work to Conservative residents of Croydon, but I doubt it was really a reflection on how the Tories had been running Croydon Council nor on how Labour promised to do so. The same but vice versa in 2006.

It puzzles me how the closer an issue, and the more impact it has on people's daily lives, the less likely they are to engage. Reading through the 'comments' in the right wing newspapers on-line this week, people are sounding off about this and that and laying blame where it doesn't lie, or only partially lies.

Meantime, in their local communities decisions are being made about local schools, bin collections, planning strategy, social housing, traffic calming, pollution and noise control, parking, and all sorts of issues that affect people on a day-to-day basis. and, it seems, a large proportion of those who could even be bothered to vote decided not to hold their local councils accountable for those decisions, but, instead, participated in a great big opinion poll about...what?

All those who voted Tory on the swing, do they honestly believe that a Cameron government would have left Northern Rock to collapse, and with it the life savings of thousands of people? Do they honestly think a Cameron government would have not joined in the Iraq war which has been a major factor in soaring oil prices and the knock-on effect? Do they think that a Cameron government would somehow join the Eurozone and thus reduce the cost of our summer holidays, just like that? Are they taken in by the Tory promises of £20 billion pounds cuts in public services running simultaneously with vote grabbing soundbites of increasing services (uncosted) to the early-middle-aged-middle-class-prosperous who demographically ought to be voting Tory but haven't done so for more than a decade?

God help London

We have a buffoon as our Mayor. A racist sexist homophobic pig who knows fuck all about what he's in charge of and what he isn't, can't manage his way out of a paper bag, can't add up...

"Oh, but he's funny on HIGNFY..."

"We thought we'd give the government a kicking...", but you weren't voting for the UK government. You've chosen a lunatic to be in charge of policing, transport, strategic planning, and the minor matter of the Olympics.

The only slight consolation I can see is that every mistake Boris makes, every time he puts his foot in his mouth, every time he displays his foolishness, or his ignorance of London and Londoners, it will just remind us all why we don't want his chums from the Bullingdon Club running the country.

Roll on the revolution

Pupils 'to take allegiance oath'

Lord Goldsmith's stroke of genius.

I expect if you go round the blogosphere you'll find lots of bloggers jumping up and down in consternation at these proposals. The rightwingers will be exclaiming "It simply isn't enough! Tattoo a Union Jack on them, too". And many on the Left will be "What? Do me a favour!"

But me, I think it's a splendid idea. Most people, they get to adulthood and they don't really give it a second thought. Monarchy, whatever. Queen's on the stamps and banknotes. Whatever.

But this suggestion would mean that every snivelling teenager will be specifically asked to swear allegiance to the Queen. I admit it is some years since I was a teenager, and even so, my Republicanism hasn't progressed beyond the rhetorical. But I am pretty certain that if someone said "You have to swear allegiance to the unelected unaccountable Queen, who is totally disconnected with your life, and irrelevant to the challenges you face, or else..." I would have been pretty miffed. I know people who weren't allowed to join the Brownies or Cubs because of the oath of allegiance. Whether then, as a teenager, or now, as an adult, I don't feel any need to demonstrate my 'patriotism'. I think it's measurable by something other than waving a large Union Flag and going 'ra-ra-ra'. I certainly don't think it's up to anybody to define what is patriotic and isn't. (And I see no need for anybody to feel 'loyal' to a country, anyway - a false country like Great Britain United Kingdom?). I feel that I have sufficient track record (in the past) of contributing to my local community that I don't need anybody telling me to toady to someone who has no legitimacy.

Perhaps if you get more people to actually think about the role of the monarchy, maybe a lot more will think that it's about time to get rid.

Cameron fails to capitalise on Hodge's Own Goal

Update: Gordon Brown seriously pissed off with Hodge

Wealthy heiress Margaret Hodge proclaimed yesterday that Proms not inclusive saying

Tthe Proms was one of several major cultural events many people did not feel comfortable attending

Fantastic, I thought, at last someone is taking seriously the fact that the Albert Hall 'air-conditioning' is entirely unfit for purpose once the daytime temperature exceeds 25 degrees.

Oh, that's not what she meant.

The audiences for some of many of our greatest cultural events - I'm thinking particularly of the Proms - is still a long way from demonstrating that people from different backgrounds feel at ease in being part of this," she added

Implied is that because clearly 'ordinary people' can't cope with the Blue Peter Prom. Or maybe she hasn't heard of the Venezuelan Youth Orchestra, whose Proms last year under Gustavo Dudamel created such a buzz that Ed Balls has proposed introducing a similar 'sistema' into England - capturing children from deprived areas and training them as musicians to rival the best in the world, with the non-musical benefits being startling - amazing. To the extent that not adopting similar practices indicates a lack of commitment to the Social Exclusion/Anti-Drugs/Community Cohesion/Crime Reduction agendas and is tantamount to neglect.

What she actually means is that one half of one concert of over 80 that gets shown on BBC1 on a Saturday night at the end of a two month season is full of crap music catering to the lowest common denominator without any substance or value.

Old Etonian Cameron, married to a wealthy heiress, decides to run with this one. It's all about British values, he says. See above remark about the Venezuelan Youth Orchestra. Or maybe peruse the programme and consider whether the Concertgebouw, the Boston Symphony Orchestra, Buskaid Soweto String Ensemble, Yo Yo Mar's Silk Road or Ravi Shankar are most representative of British values. Or perhaps that honour would go to the European Union Youth Orchestra.

Or perhaps they worry about the prohibitive cost of tickets - five or six pounds to stand, nearly forty pounds for the most expensive seats.

Lots of people feel uncomfortable going to football matches or night clubs. So what, are elitist fools Hodge and Cameron saying that they should change their essence to cater for people who aren't interested or can't be bothered. Or should they accept that in a heterogeneous society like Britain, different people have different tastes. What they're actually saying is

We're rich and well-educated and still incredibly thick, so we can't begin to understand how you little people without our obvious advantages need anything more challenging than Coronation Street. Just crawl back to your hovels please.

Rather at odds with Gordon Brown's belief that in cultural matters we should be striving for excellence.

The Virtual Stoa has pointed out two other statements by Hodge in the same speech, one just incorrect one horrendously idiotic.

The fact that Dumbed-Down Cameron didn't bother to comment on the howler that 'Henry VIII separated state and religion' means either it went straight over hi s head, or else he felt that the British public, especially potential Tory voters, are too thick to understand why that is so so wrong. And too brain-dead to contemplate why it might matter.

Update: More discussion at the Guardian. They interpret it as being Hodge saying Black People don't go to classical concerts. Well, a few weeks ago on a sunny Saturday, Jimmy and I went to Brockwell Park, in Brixton ie the capital of Black Britain. Hundreds of people had the same idea. Mainly white British. Quite a lot of Polish and French (white) people, a good number of Chinese, a few Asians. One family (Mum, Dad and two children) were black. Again and again we see this in parks and other attractions close to areas where large numbers of black people live, and in attractions where admission is free. I can barely guess the reasons why, but to change The Proms because not many black people go would be as stupid as proposing to build over Brockwell Park because black people don't go.

Oh, and the recent Brixton and Streatham Hill Branch Labour Party meeting I attended, I was surprised at how high a proportion of Black and Minority Ethnic people were there, in comparison to when I used to regularly attend, up until about four years ago, when it was overwhelmingly White.

Thoughts on Harry

I have a lot of thoughts about the reason Harry Wales shenanigans.

I am not comfortable about the occupation of Afghanistan. I was broadly supportive of the effort to get rid of the Taliban and dig out Al-Qaeda and firmly of the view that if George W Gump hadn't gone ahead with his lunatic and illegal invasion of Iraq, the Afghanistan problem would have been over long ago.

I have no doubt that 'Our boys and Girls in Afghanistan' are doing a fine job and are brave, but I can't get very excited about the 'poor equipment' saga. A year or so ago I was sitting in the coffee bar at my local hospital and read a flyer celebrating that a new children's hospital had been built and there was now a voluntary fund-raising drive to find £1 million to equip it...

I think it's pathetic that the only job the Royals consider doing is Armed Forces. I kind of accept that there are reasons why they can't go into commerce or industry, but there are numerous ways they could occupy their time in public service outside of the army (navy/air force). Wouldn't it be cool if one became a fireman or an ambulance person? But perhaps it has been decided that these are jobs are too dangerous for Royals. There would be a pathetic irony in that.

I was gobsmacked that the news was extended on Thursday because it had been leaked that Harry was in Afghanistan. Jimmy was furious that Gordon Brown's keynote speech on Saturday was interrupted on BBC News 24 in order to show pictures of Harry arriving at an airport. Normally, Jimmy would be muttering about the time given over to an electioneering speech by a politician.

It is clear that the BBC, and the Establishment in general, expect us the public to show respect to Harry merely on account of him being the son of the son of the daughter of the son of...an institution and family who still believes it is God's will that they are where they are in society, through birth and nothing else.

For years rumours have been circulating that Harry is the son of some bloke that Diana had an affair with (Hewitt??). Some people say it's nobody's business. Perhaps he is, and Charles decided to treat him as his son. He wouldn't be the first, or the last, to do so, and normally, I would say it's nobody's business but the individuals concerned (mother, child, biological father, legal father). But when Establishment expects us to kow tow to this person on the basis of his genealogy, don't we have a right to know - to demand - whether he really is "worthy" of us kow-towing.

BASH shortlisting, and thoughts on representation

I have been round the block in the Labour Party; there are very few things I haven't done (except National Conference). Oh, and vote for the winner in a Leadership contest...

I have been a member for 24 years and in that time I have participated in several Parliamentary selection processes. For  1987 in Altrincham and Sale it was a bit half-hearted; it would be when you know your bloke - and let's face it, it was mainly blokes back then - would come a poor third. I think we actually selected a chap called Geoff but he ended up withdrawing and Dave Hinder came a poor third to Fergus Montgomery, knight of the Shires,  and Greg Mulholland's Dad. By the time I moved into Nottingham South Alan Simpson had already been selected as candidate. Despite my best efforts, he didn't win in 87, but thankfully did in 92, and, sadly,  is standing down next time around.

I think I participated in selection process in Southend East, but again, it was to select the bloke who was going to come third to the redoubtable Teddy Taylor. I see a name on a Spreadsheet but it brings back no memories.

This meant, of course, that I missed the famous Streatham selection (timed to coincide with the Worldcup semi-final - the night Gazza cried), designed to select a candidate to overturn a Tory majority of 2407. By the time I moved into Streatham,  Keith Hill was embedded as candidate, and the internal campaigning newsletter was called "2407". We won in Streatham in 1992, with a majority of 2317, so you can guess what we called the campaigning newsletter up to 97!

There were boundary changes for 97, with six constituencies becoming five over Lambeth and Southwark, so there was a semi-serious attempt to ensure that John Frazer,  MP for the disappearing constituency,  had a fair crack fo the whip. I don't recall there being anything of a selection process for 2001 or 2005.

However, after nearly sixteen years as a fantastically good constituency MP, and having risen to the lofty position of Minister of State (before becoming the PM's PPS until last June), Keith is standing down. And we have a selection process in full swing.

There was much talk in the summer about there being as many as 23 people interested in the nominations. Rumours of a snap election being called by Gordon fuelled panicky phonecalls about the likelihood of a candidate being imposed. Gordon obviously took notice, and since Christmas, Gert Cottage has been bombarded with a huge stack of paper, and more than a few phone-calls from the aspirants and their supporters. I skim read the leaflets, and also considered what I knew about the candidates. I believe that I have excellent political instincts but I also know they are rusty. My gut feeling was that there were three candidates that stuck out head and shoulders above the rest. Which is where it becomes difficult, because there were two more that I have considered as friends a long time, both of whom I have affection, admiration and respect for, and a third whom I don't really know other than through Facebook, but ditto.

Politics has come a long way since 1992. We now live in an era of All-Women Shortlists, but not in Streatham. I don't know for sure, but maybe the decision not to make us all-women was based on the fact that the other two Lambeth MPs are Kate Hoey and Tessa Jowell. I have always supported All-Women's Shortlists. Parliament cannot really be considered as 'representative' until the representation of women is broadly comparable with men. I don't believe in quotas or positive discrimination for employment, but where the key task is to  represent, I don't see how a body made up almost entirely of white straight able bodied men can seriously represent the country.

We have another issue in Streatham. For some utterly strange, vindictive and politically asinine reason, back in the early 80s Brixton was split into 3 different constituencies, including Streatham. Brixton is iconic as the capital of Black Britain;  the ethnic mix has become far more complex in the past twenty five years and it might just be the most multi-cultural part of the most multi-cultural city on earth. So, it's not irrelevant to consider ethnicity in the selection process.

In the selections for the last council elections, we had a definite policy of actively encouraging more BME candidates , especially BME women, which is absolutely right. I wrote at length about encouraging women to stand for Council, and I think to a large extent the same principles apply for BME.

However, although I support All Women shortlists and definitely think there needs to be more BME MPs, I am not so certain about the need or desirability to make a point about actively encouraging women and/or BMEs. If you are going to stand for Parliament you need to be ruthless and driven, able to take the flack, and with a profound understanding of the issues. Don't even bother applying if you're not - and that goes for every party.  I read leaflet after leaflet extolling the virtues of this candidate or that, very many of them with proven track-records as councillors, or community campaigners, or national campaigners. I don't think any of them needed 'encouraging',not at this stage. Before the shortlisting I had made up my mind whom my first preferences were going to go to.

I arrived at the venue, and spent a pleasant few minutes greeting old old friends, some people I have known all my time in Streatham CLP, others who were at my councillor selection meeting in 1993, and many others, some I haven't seen for aeons, some who are as inactive as I am. I counted 62 people. Admittedly, we are a branch of two wards, but in 24 years of the Labour Party I have never attended a ward meeting of 62 people.

In conversation I discovered that the Youth Forum last night had nominated exactly the people I was intending to give my first preferences to, which made me feel happy that my political instincts are not so out of kilter.

We were presented with a list of 47 people who had submitted CVs for consideration. Most of them were entirely unfamiliar names and the chair remarked that many had done nothing other than submit CVs. I suppose if you live in an eternal Tory constituency such as Altrincham & Sale or Southen East it is difficult to imagine the passion and competition that surrounds the selection of a prospective parliamentary candidate in a Labour held seat. Albeit one with a majority of 'only' 7,456 (down from 14,270  in 2001), and  a multi-millionaire selected to fund an expensive campaign for the  LibDims. Nominations were invited from the floor, and members were invited to speak for or against nominees. Then we voted in three categories, to get three names to go forward for shortlisting by the constituency.

One woman stood up and observed that her perusal of the leaflets had made it seem as though they were running for "Mayor of Streatham" and I thought that a point well made. I think all of them concentrated too much on local issues; the best showed how national politics affect the local area. But I don't think any of the leaflets fully confronted the fact that an MP (whether as a backbencher on Select and Standing Committees or as minister has a national and indeed international remit).

Nevertheless, I felt happy to cast my vote in the BME category for Chuka Umunna, who was duly nominated; in the women's category Dora Dixon-Fyle who didn't get nominated in an utterly ridiculous result borne out of perverse voting. But hey, why open the wounds from the 90s for a second time in an evening ;-) In the 'open category' I decided to vote strategically. It was a bit illogical because even under an preferential voting system, there is no prize for coming second, and it was pretty obvious who was going to come first. So I didn't vote for Steve Reed in the end but I am entirely happy that he secured the branch nomination. If I had any the slightest doubt that he would be runaway winner, I would have voted for him. How illogical is that?

The constituency's shortlist will be drawn up on 1 March, I believe, and there will be a hustings/voting for all members running concurrently with the arrival of my sister and family to visit. Grrrrrr. I suspect that it will end up being between Chuka and Steve. Either one of them will make an excellent candidate and a superb MP, as indeed would Dora, and it's sad that one of them will end up losing - but that's the harsh reality of politics.  As it happens, both are members of BASH, as is our retiring MP.

Wikipedia - Steve Reed and Chuka Umunna

My tuppence on Sharia

Murky waters...

It's pretty obvious from the news coverage that some of the opposition to the Archbish's remarks are orchestrated by the evangelicals in the CofE determined to get him for anything in order to block his moves towards tolerance* of homosexuality.

Some of the rest of the opposition is founded in general uninformed racism.

So, what do I think?

One of the advantages of large-scale immigration is that the best of what immigrants bring from their culture can be incorporated into British culture to the benefit of all - this is most apparent in cuisine but examples abound elsewhere. I am insufficiently familiar with Sharia Law to know whether there are aspects that are worth incorporating into the British system, but if there are I wouldn't oppose it merely on principle. And certainly, there is an established tradition of local arrangements for arbitrating matters such as neighbour disputes, and if a Sharia system is acceptable to both parties, I see no obvious reason to oppose this.

There has been some opposition to allowing Sharia to be the basis of settling, for example, marriage disputes. All the evidence is that Islam, along with Christianity and other religions, exists merely to sustain patriarchy. In other words, secular society has worked to make the British system fairer to women, anything that moves away from that is wrong. If people don't like the way the British system works, campaign to change it. Campaign to persuade the majority of the wisdom of your way. Or shut up.

My concern about the Archbishop's view are deeper than that, though.  Over the past ten years or so, there have been several examples of where the Democratically elected government has legislated to create a fairer society against the prejudices of the religious fanatics - the most obvious examples being on gay matters. The forces of organised Christianity still labour under a misconception that they are a suppressed group, discriminated against, despite the evidence to the contrary. They don't seem to understand, or understand but reject, that any laws against homosexuality make life intolerable for gays,whereas laws equalising homosexuality have no impact on the lives of those who oppose them.

We only have to look at the ridiculous row over adoption agencies, where the Catholic Church declared that its agencies which specialise in placing 'hard to place' children would shut down rather than 'be forced' to place children with gay people (thus demonstrating  that they care less about child welfare than their sex obsessions). Although the Anglican Church doesn't maintain such a bigoted position with its adoption agencies (which must have come as a shock to many of its members), it supported the Catholic Church's right to practice mindless bigotry.

So perhaps Rowan Williams is actually trying to say that all religious organisations and its practitioners should have the right to set up a parallel legal system outside the bounds of civil society.

This could include, for example, rejecting any state 'interference' in state-funded religious schools (suspending the employment law against religious discrimination, persecuting employees whose sex lives don't meet their requirements, resisting attempts to implement a sensible and workable sex education policy, fear that they might have to accept pupils who live locally irrespective of their parents' religious practices).

I suspect some of the reactionaries and evangelicals would be less vocal in their opposition to Williams if they understood his agenda. Even so, many of them are opposed to any recognition of Islam, or any other non-Christian religion, because of their unshakeable conviction that their way is 'right' and any alternative is 'wrong' even though they are united in their hatred of women and gay people.

*As a by the by I hate the word 'tolerance'. It's entirely inappropriate for attitudes towards homosexuality. 'Tolerance' is something one does grudgingly -  one tolerates various impositions as preferable to alternatives. One tolerates low-level pain because there is nothing we can do about it. One tolerates the tolerable because to demand better requires disproportionate effort.

Never enough police on the streets

Like buses really, you don't get one for ages and then 18,500 come along at once. Well, that's the numbers the organisers say, I expect The Police will claim it's about 5,000, that's what normally happens with demos in Central London.

All those years when I used to go on marches and we'd be surrounded by police, now I'm surrounded by police and I'm not demonstrating. Speculation is rife - will there be a baton charge and if so, who will charge whom.

Police in protest rally over pay

My camera is at home...

Newsbiscuit says Police break up police protest

Speaking as a feminist...

Williams makes criminal age call

for all sorts of reasons I'm not getting into the detail of this, although I always find it a relief on the rare occasions that the bigwigs of Organised Religion comment on matters of morality that are nothing to do with Religion's Sexual Obsessions.

I have been meaning to post for a while on the issue of jailing women.

Rowan told the Sunday Telegraph women with young children should only be jailed as a "very last resort".

and I think this is almost certainly the correct wording. A few weeks ago I had reason to read the Corston Report, and most of it made total sense and is clearly an excellent report.

But one aspect jarred - the assumption that was written into it that 'woman' and 'mother' are interchangeable synonymous terms, when it is obvious from 2001 Census, from less official statistically valid data collection and from anecdotal observation that only a small proportion of women are mothers of children (I'm excluding mothers of adults).

I discovered a few weeks ago an appalling tale about a chap I know call Steve. I say 'know' but he is barely an acquaintance, albeit one I have been slightly acquainted with several years. He has a daughter who is 8; the girl's mother died about 7 years ago. Steve is a single parent. I encountered his daughter at a great-nephew's christening a few months back. That weekend, the daughter was staying with 'Aunt S and Uncle P', a couple who are close friends of Steve's and slight friends/good acquaintances of me. I didn't ask the reason why. Turns out Steve was in the nick on remand. I know Steve to be a decent and gentle bloke, although I don't know anything of his past. His case came to trial and he was found guilty of ABH and bound over. He had got involved in an altercation and had shoved the other bloke, who had fallen over and banged his head. Not big not clever but on a scale of heinousness, this barely registers. I don't feel afraid that Steve is at loose in my community. I am just shocked that he was banged up. So was the magistrate or judge or whatever, who declared it an outrage that he was imprisoned on remand. I know that Steve is a good father - I know that from observing him when his daughter was little. I know that from chatting with his daughter this spring (yes, I know her name, it's fairly unusual, no need to publish it here). I think Steve is a good bloke.

I find it appalling that Steve's responsibilities as a lone parent were not considered when he was remanded. This is nothing to do with childcare being a feminist issue, but being an issue for society. I have total respect for Sue and Phil for looking after the child; there again, I would hope all decent people would do the same. I know there are plenty of blokes banged up who don't give a damn for the children they so ignorantly or carelessly fathered, but there are plenty who do. And I think that any compassion (and bottom line pragmatism) that saves mothers from prison should also apply to fathers. As a feminist I have always argued that childcare is not a feminist issue, because it is irrelevant to the lives of most women and extremely important to that of many men. Also, I don't see why rules should be about 'child'care when an increasing number of people have responsibility for dependent adults or elderly parents etc. I think it is easier to arrange respite or foster care for children than it is for dependent adults with complex needs, and even though the majority of carers are (probably) women, it still isn't a feminist issue, but a problem for specific individuals and a challenge for society

Snap Election?

If I were Gordon Brown, which obviously I'm not, because if I were Gordon Brown I wouldn't be blogging my thoughts about whether or not to call a snap general election this autumn, but I were Gordon Brown I wouldn't call a General Election.

It is only two and a half years since the last General Election, and although Parliaments rarely last their full five terms - the 1992-97 Parliament went almost to the limit, but that was Major's desperation at staring humiliating defeat in the face - there is a general perception that four years is about right. It was necessary for Wilson to call quick elections in 1966 and 1974 in order to increase a slim majority and turn a minority government into a majority, respectively. The current Parliamentary majority is big.

The Tories tried to make it out as a constitutional necessity that there be an Election after Brown took over, which is total rot, and to do so would undermine Parliamentary Democracy - we vote for a Local Representative, often/usually on the basis of Party label and we expect the Leader of the biggest party to form a government, as First Among Equals. We do not vote directly for the Head of Government.

I have a perception that Elections tend to bore people. Not always, especially not when the result is in doubt, but I do strongly fell that people in general do not care for unnecessary elections.

Autumn Elections are not good news. They are not good news for activists - I do not feel comfortable leafleting in the dark, or the cold, rainy, windy days that are typical of later October and November. Fewer people will open their doors when canvassed. And people are less likely to leave their warm hearths to go to a Polling Station on a dark autumn night than in May or June. There has only been one Autumn General Election in my life-time, that of 74 which was necessitated by political deadlock. It followed an equally unsuitable February one when Ted Heath - Who Rules Britain? and the electorate said "Not you mate!".

I can see the attraction for going early, with opinion polls looking good, the "Brown Bounce" matching the "Cameron Decline". But if I were Gordon Brown - which I'm not - I would not be able to sleep with fear that I blow it and become the shortest serving PM in history, except for George Canning who died in office.

There is always the fear of - like Jim Callaghan - leaving it too late. All the experts predict an economic downturn in the next couple of years. And even if the reasons for economic changes are clearly to do with global factors outside the control of any one particular government, the electorate tend to hold the Government responsible, which I don't regard as a bad thing in itself.

None of the know-it-all pundits in the papers I have read have mentioned the Olympics. An autumn 2007 election would lead (probably) to a Spring/Summer 2012 Election. If I were Gordon Brown, which I am not, I would have some trepidation at holding an election at a time when, probably, all the infrastructure projects will be struggling to complete on time, way above budget, and the criticisms of the whole endeavour will be at their shrillest and loudest. A successful Olympiad will create an Election-winning Feel Good Factor - perhaps - but I wouldn't wish to risk holding out until the last minute in order to reap the Olympic benefits.

But Gordon Brown hasn't asked my advice, even though he knows where to find me should he want it! And if he does call a snap Autumn election, I shall be blogging "Vote Labour". But I don't know who will be the Labour candidate where I live (sadly, our wonderful MP since 1992, Keith Hill, will be standing down after years of tireless service to the constituency of Streatham including Brixton Hill, Clapham Park and parts of Balham)

Very stupid idea

Controls urged on teenage drivers

I can understand - and to some extent sympathise - the concern over murderous driving. But a reaction to a few recent headlines doesn't really disguise the fact that thousands of people die every year at the hands of dangerous drivers of all ages.

Banning teenagers (which I suspect would translate to under-21s) from carrying passengers after dark will destroy any attempts to popularise 'designated drivers', will place a lot more teenagers at risk from attacks from predators and violent passers-by. Also, nightfall comes very early at some times of years, so presumably this will rule out car-pools to and from work, school and college, nannies/au pairs/older siblings and young parents on the school run, and be against the interests of teenagers with constructive evening activities such as drama, sport, church etc.

I wonder if the efforts of the police would be better spent enforcing a ban on all teenagers or targeting any drivers that show any signs of disregard for other road users - thunderous cRap music, lack of indicators when turning, children without seat belts (let alone booster seats). I understand that the mobile phone ban is honoured more in the breech than the observance.

Of course it is a problem, but no problem has ever been solved by knee-jerk reactions.

Personalised Prime Ministerial bus stops

It is a little-known fact of British political life, and one of those "Official Secrets" that tourists are not supposed to know, but every Prime Minister is allowed his (or, indeed, her) personal bus stop on the corner of Parliament Street and Parliament Square.

We were fortunate enough at the beginning of June to witness the transition.

Tony's bus stop was there in its full glory.

When we passed, the creation of Gordon Brown's was work-in-progress

The Mayor, of course, gets two Tube Stations for his own personal use.

If I suddenly stop blogging, assume I have been marched off to the Tower for divulging this Top Secret information

Reasons to vote Tory

Brilliant idea, Jimmy and I can just slip down to Lambeth Town Hall and get married. We don't even have to tell you lot, or our families. It would probably cost us about £100 if we do it on the cheap.

And then the Tories would give us an extra £20 a week.

Brilliant! Payback period, just over a month. Sound investment. Ninety quid a month. A thousand quid a year. Free, gratis and for nothing.

It will change absolutely nothing.

Except my bank balance, of course. Which will be a package holiday a year better off.

Superb, Vote Tory! An extra cheap package holiday annually for Gert and Jimmy. That's going to strengthen society, isn't it!

The Blair Legacy

Okay, as blogging is a far more attractive alternative to what I really should be doing, I shall highlight three achievements of the Blair Years and as succinctly point out why they are (regarded as) partial successes.

The Human Rights Act. This seems a long time ago, and when it was first introduced it was quite scary for public bodies. As a Lambeth Councillor, we contemplated the impact of ordinary people taking the council to court for the right to decent housing. We concluded it would be a Good Thing, if expensive. Some of the actions brought under it have played into the hands of the right-wing hate mongers.

But even though, for example, I believe any school has the right to make rules on uniform and ban the political posturing of headscarves, I think the girls who bring these actions have the right to argue their case. In addition to individual cases, and cases where precedents are set, this has a real impact on thinking about how public policy affects individuals, and has emphasised the presumption of non-discrimination. As a little ordinary person, certain human rights as enshrined in the act have been helpful - to an extent - in challenging planning applications, past and present. However, I regret that in the face of sustained attacks by the Conservative Party and the illiberal self-interested capitalist Press, certain members of the Government have failed to say "This was the right thing to do, and continues to be the right thing, and the occasional perverse result does not in any way diminish its moral correctness."

Freedom of Information Act. Again, I am miffed at the preposterous Private Members Bill that served to exclude MPs from its requirements, on the spurious premise of protection of Individual's Confidentiality. The confidentiality of the individual has always been enshrined in it, and is the reason why HM Treasury refused to release details of David Cameron's employment history. It is also the reason that the Act, so trumpeted pre-1997 took so long to ocme to fruition. But setting a general principle in allowing public access to information previously withheld has changed our attitude and has caused documented changes in perceptions of actual policies.

The third is a bit of a catch all encompassing public spending, from the minimum wage to increased investment in, for example schools and hospitals. If people are living on the minimum wage they are still, certainly in relative terms, and arguably absolutely poor, thus are unlikely to be grateful because, rightly, they want more, valuing their labour at a higher rate.

Not long ago the medical establishment argued that reducing waiting times below 18 months was an impossible task. The fact that they are now weeks is a testament that nothing is impossible. I fully acknowledge that the NHS is not a nirvana of perfection. And I know that there are controversies - drugs withheld by NICE because of dubious clinical efficacy (which is no comfort for someone who hopes it might just be the cure), health trusts overspending in their desire to meet targets (hmm, that's called bad budget management and is intolerable in any organisation public or commercial).

Schools have benefited from actual capital expenditure, which simply did not happen under the Tories. Again, measures have been introduced into schools, such as the Literacy and Numeracy hour, which are boring for the bright child, and constraining for the teacher, but have shown demonstrable improvements in basic literacy and numeracy, without which all the rest of schooling is a waste of time. Still far too many children are leaving school with an inadequate education. The middle classes moan about the cost of higher education (all of which can be deferred until and if the student moves into high earning work). But society as whole benefits most from investment made at an early stage in the most desperate/deprived cases viz Sure Start.

I am not claiming that these are all works of perfection that have created a perfect Britain. I have deliberately avoided highlighting failures. But in my view, they are positives that absolutely would not have happened if the Tories had been in power for the past ten years, and would be threatened if they were to be re-elected. It is easy to be oppositionalist and in Opposition, a lot harder to grasp that the actual task of being in government is sometimes about making hard choices, often about falling short of expectations, and frequently about unleashing the Law of Unintended Consequences. Inevitably and I think correctly, it is the negative aspects that receive more attention from the media (good and bad), rather than the quiet little improvements happening in different areas of our lives. I have never believed that the obstacles to 'excellence' should prevent attempts at 'good', or 'better', or 'something'.

Oh, and my mortgage rates have remained low throughout this period, giving me an incredible amount of freedom unimaginable under the 15% of Tory Misrule.

I shall employ a capricious approach to censorship of comments. Don't even bother writing personal attacks 'what about Iraq' etc because they will simply be junked

Son of a Preacher Man

It's weird, as a Labour Party member of 23 years standing, I ought to be blogging more about the change of Leadership.

We have a new Leader. To no great surprise, it is Gordon Brown. We also have a new Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, who was my second choice, so I am pleased.

Changes in Party Leadership are rare enough, changes in Prime Minister rarer still. Although I have slight memories of the 74 Elections and when Wilson changed to Callaghan, my first real memory, when I first paid active notice was in 1979, when I was in top juniors at school, and Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. For two seconds I was pleased at the break through for a woman; my two seconds of inappropriately feminist delight did not eradicate my disgust at the political result.

1990 was a spectator sport of the most delightful nature, enhanced by the fact that I happened to be on study leave at the time.

1997 was unforgettable and a wonderful wonderful experience and memory.

And now, we are about to get the fourth Prime Minister of my adult life, and I am not sure what to say.

I have been meaning to write an assessment of ten years of Blair in government. So much good done, so much achieved, so many mistakes made, so many opportunities missed. But then, I think, everybody else is writing assessments, what new can I add? And over everything hangs the spectre of one word, four small letters - Iraq.

Everything that Tony Blair has achieved - and it is considerable - will be overshadowed by the debacle in Iraq. Watching The final episode of Andrew Marr's incomparable sterling programme on post-war British history, I can only concur with the conclusion that it was the single biggest mistake made by any British Government in 60 years. I believe that Gordon Brown would not have made the same mistake. However, he did vote for it. Unlike Robin Cook and John Denham, he did not resign as a matter of principle. He simply did his Macavity impression, conveniently helped to some extent by Budget Purdah. And I am not wholly convinced that if, presented with the same Foreign Office briefings that Tony was presented with, he would not have made the same misguided mistake. foget the opposition parties. The Tories seek to make political capital out of Iraq, ignoring the fact that support for the war was their official policy; those front benchers who opposed it were obliged to resign. Forget the LibDims even more. Their opportunism in catching part of the public mood in initial opposition was matched only by their cynicism in embracing the tabloid-set unthinking agenda of 'Support Our Boys Under Fire'. In any case each of the three main political parties were divided at Parliamentary and grassroots level.

Perhaps one day I shall write my assessment of the Blair Years. I think it is too soon to tell, yet. Ultimately, in a democracy, we have to select a government, and it is unlikely we will find one that is a perfect match. I know for sure that if the past ten years had been spent under the Tories, it would have been a disaster for Britain.

But say what you like about Gordon Brown, he is a gift for those of the "I Know A Song About That" tendency. For years we have sniggered at the Stranglers' almost eponymous song. Yesterday the BBC News were obviously playing that game with their repeated references to "Son of a Preacher". And unwittingly above, I made a reference to TS Eliot's wonderful poem, immortalised in tune by ALW. I'd YouTube but I'm feeling very anti-YouTube right now.

How about the secondary moderns?

Tory quits post over grammars row

He had to go, of course, nothing else matters in Altrincham and Sale quite as much as the secondary moderns grammar schools. It is the entire reason to live in Altrincham and/or Sale. Five state funded grammar schools, plus two more fee paying for the failures. There are also secondary moderns in Altrincham and Sale. In fact, although I don't know for sure, I would guess there might be more secondary moderns. Or at least, more pupils in seocndary moderns. They're for the kids who fail the 11 plus, written off before they even hit puberty.

I love the dishonesty bit:

he first got involved with the Conservative Party aged 16, when he joined a campaign to save local grammar schools

Hmm, he's 40. Gets out fingers (see, even a grammar-school educated accountant needs fingers to take 39 from 40). Ooh, he was the year above me, him at Alty Grammar me at Loreto Grammar, Altrincham. So, he joined Altrincham and Sale Conservative Association the year before I joined Altrincham and Sale Labour Party... was he that Dork, or was that someone else? So this campaign to save Grammar Schools would taken place when I was fifteen, attending a Grammar School, very politically aware, about to join the Labour Party, when Trafford Council was controlled by a clear Tory majority, when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, and no one told me that someone was trying to get rid of Grammar Schools, in Trafford, in Altrincham? Admittedly, we had some fun canvassing in 1986, pretending to dyed-in-the-wool Tories that that was our only policy. But, you know, for all the years from 86 to a couple of years back when, on-and-off, Labour controlled Trafford Council, there was never any proposals to abolish Grammar Schools. Yes, there was a parent-led petition to gauge opinion, because, you know, quite a lot of parents don't like their children to be condemned as failures at 11 and consigned to non-aspirant schools.

Ah well, I expect I'm the only person outside Altrincham and Sale who has ever heard of Graham Brady; I'm sure one more faceless chinless wonder won't be missed from the Tory front-bench. And having gone to Altrincham Grammar, not Eton, he was never going to get any position of significance, anyway. Still, better than going to Welly Road, though.

Tax cuts will stop gun crime

says David Cameron.

He said he backed tax breaks to help families stay together

Fathers 'must fight gang culture'

Ironic that the boy that got shot this week in Clapham was living with both parents; this didn't seem to have prevented him from being excluded from Ernest Bevin or being under a supervision order.

Of course, in an ideal world, all other things being equal, the best way to bring up a child is by both legal - biological? - parents. In an imperfect world, where so many different factors are involved that isn't always the best option, or even a possible option. And it's so obvious that teenage boys who lack a positive male role model are at a disadvantage to those who do. But the majority of boys raised solely by their mother, or with a father more absent than present, or by a mother and step-father, are not gun-toting gangsters. And 25% of men have a criminal record, almost all for petty one-off offences, the exuberance or misjudgement of youth; most of them haven't been lacking a father or father-figure.

There is no simple solution to the cesspit of problems that culminates in three teenagers being shot dead in two weeks, within a few miles of each other (and my home). If there was a simple solution, it would have been applied years ago.

I don't see a problem in principle in encouraging fathers to take more responsibility for the upbringing of their children. How to enforce it, and how to enforce it in a way that isn't counter-productive is another issue. I'm not sure of the proportion of children who have a genuinely unidentifiable father, but that can be eradicated by having all men's DNA compulsorily stored on a database (gay? vasectomised? lifelong monogamous? Catholic priest? Nope, you're a man, guilty of breeding random children until proved innocent). Although I am not quite sure who would pick up the pieces when it is revealed that the legal father, the mother's husband, isn't after all, the father.

We could release all fathers from prison so that they can take care of their children. Yes, even those jailed for abusing their own children. We can cancel all the restraining orders resulting from domestic violence. We can compel mothers to hand over their children to their drug-using gun-toting gangster fathers. We could compel widows to marry their late husband's brother. Failing that, we could make abortion compulsory for all unmarried pregnant women. Or perhaps sterilisation, female and male, for all those who fail the criteria for a 'licence to breed'. There could be exceptions on religious grounds ( a note from your Parish Priest/Imam/Rabbi should suffice), and those resulting bastards can be placed in large specially built institutions where their basic subsistence needs will be covered by non-English speaking temporary labour from Eastern Europe - not EU countries, obviously, because they'll demand at least minimum wage, and we can't afford that.

And we can ban the sale of rap music. All rap music. In shops. And request the BBC to stop playing rap music on Radio 2.

And a tax cut for David and Sam Cameron will, presumably, make all the difference between the junior Camerons becoming gun-toting gangsters. Even though, as far as anyone knows, neither the junior Blairs nor the junior Majors have turned into gun-toting gangsters, despite their parents not having that preventive tax cut.

David Cameron: never a coherent policy where a photo-opportunity will suffice.

I really should join the Tory Party; I could make their policies up for them as I go along.

Sex-obsessed bigots

I am sick and tired of people using the cloak of 'religion' to protect their hate-filled bigotry.

First, the trivial Muslim PC refused to shake hands

The woman's refusal was based on her view that her faith prevented her touching a man other than her husband or a close relative

- because she had to draw the logical conclusion that the mere act of shaking hands would cause Sir Ian Blair to leap on her and shag her senseless in front of hundreds in a public place...

What an impertinence.

The society in which she lives regards a handshake as a conventional way of expressing non-intimate good will. Refusal to shake a hand is a deliberate insult designed to indicate a lack of respect or a refusal (well-grounded or not) to accept a gesture of friendship. If somebody refused to shake my hand I would be mortified, and I really would not accept that their prejudices trump my feelings. Because, when I go to meetings - at work, as a private citizen or formerly as a councillor - it has never been my intention to cop off with the person I'm meeting.

Far more importantly, Catholic threat on gay rights law, where another set of sex-obsessed bigots reveal how they have caused unnecessary suffering to the most vulnerable children

The Catholic Church's agencies are said to handle 4%, or about 200, of all adoptions a year. However they handle about a third of those children judged difficult to place.

I think, in an ideal world, the best environment for a child to grow up is with both biological parents, who are capable of caring for them, and without any physical or mental disabilities, or anything that resembles poverty. Guess what, this isn't a perfect world.

A substantial body of evidence exists to show that the worst environment for a child is 'in care', (despite the best efforts of foster carers, many of whom do remarkable jobs). If a child cannot live with their biological families, the best alternative is for a knowledgeable and experienced professional social worker to select adoptive parents who have been through the most rigorous approval processes.

Gone are the days where there was a glut of perfect white babies ready for adoption at six weeks. Thank God.

Most children for adoption are older, often of school age, usually having suffered the trauma of dysfunction, or abuse or neglect. Or have profound multiple disabilities. These children do not require some nice middle-class middle-England straight married Catholic couple full of good intentions.

They need adoptive parent(s), straight gay whatever race whatever age who have the personal skills, dedication, patience, understanding - and love to be parents in a way that the vast majority of natural parents are never required to be. I think it's profoundly unfair to these children to be denied loving parent(s) just because some weirdos disapprove of their relationship.

The Catholic Church has revealed it has been taking adoption decisions that are not necessarily in the best interest of the child, and they wish to continue doing so. They should hang their heads in shame, that when purporting to be dedicated to the welfare of the most vulnerable, their squeamishness at sex is still more important. (isn't it bizarre that a Catholic marriage is deemed to be a lifelong all encompassing relationship, in which sex is just one part, but a gay relationship is considered to be just sex sex sex sex? Perverted bigots. Sex-obsessed.)

Political reporting

Maybe it's just me being cynical, but it's quite illuminating to watch a political news story develop in the media.

I really don't get it with all the TV news crews camped outside the building. Interestingly, it rarely happened at the old building, and I am convinced that an editorial decision is based entirely on the fact that there is a wide pavement, traversed by few people other than locals, outside a telegenic building.

Again, without being unduly cynical, I am curious as to what these so-called journalists are actually doing. If they are reporting from outside the building, they sure as hell aren't inside interviewing people with info. They do get admitted on occasion, but when there are TV crews outside every exit, I do wonder what they are adding to the sum of human knowledge. On the Ten O'Clock News last night Nick Robinson was reporting live from one place, and James Landale from another place just five minutes walk away. Giving the impression of thorough investigation. But ask yourself, if they were sitting on sofas in the studio would you feel they were less well informed? Would they in fact be less well informed.

I caught a glimpse of James Landale in the afternoon doing a piece to camera, being interviewed by the news anchor. Ooh, an in depth interview. He stated that the most important question was "Did the Secretary of State know?"

Well, without commenting directly, I would say that such a question is rarely the most important. Sure, in terms of accountability and democracy, there are textbook precedents about ministers taking the ultimate responsibility. On the other hand, anyone who has ever studied politics at school will know about Crichel Down, which states that not only need the Minister not have known but additionally, he need not have been in post at the time in order to be obliged to take responsibility. Which, in my opinion, is lunacy.

Whenever there is news story about maladministration, whether or not the minister knew is usually of secondary, or lower, importance to 'is the problem going to be resolved'. Obviously, if the minister knows, that enables the minister to give orders to sort the problem out. And, of course, if the minister had known, why didn't he give orders to sort it out.

Let's consider a theoretical example of which I know very little. A few months back there was some coverage in the media about the woeful lack of provision for sexual health. STIs are on the increase, and the Health Service is struggling - failing - to cope. I regard this as cause for concern.

Someone I know went to her GP complaining of pelvic pain and was offered a chlamydia test, then the GP read the small print and realised that it was only available for people under 25. This woman felt aggrieved. No such tests had been available when she was under 25, and she has been more sexually active since then than before. Furthermore, she argues that at her age, the need for diagnosis and treatment is far more urgent for her than it is for a woman fifteen years younger.

She feels that this is a scandal, and that she is being discriminated against on age grounds, and realises that this will be the pattern for life now. She is not entirely convinced by arguments that things are far better now, because chlamydia tests were simply not offered in the early-mid Nineties, so their availability to a small proportion is a massive step forward.

To her it's not good enough, and the failure to diagnose and treat is likely to have a devastating effect on her life.

So, turn this into a media story, and stick a few reporters in front of cameras on Whitehall and Millbank. Would you get a reporter implying that Patricia Hewitt has nothing else to worry about other than the availability of tests for one specific STI. Would questions be asked about the woeful lack of provision and treatment for one infection.

If someone working in the Department of Health were to say, well, the ministers are more concerned about deficits, MRSA, obesity, anti-smoking, blood donations, social care, effectiveness of treatment, access to costly drugs for terminal or long-term life-limiting conditions, would anybody really be surprised? Would anybody seriously imply that the Ministers or officials were being incompetent because a woman with pelvic aches was denied access to a test that might confirm the presence of an infection?

I recognise that my analysis is over-simplified, but there is a culture in the media, which really does influence politicians, is that the only subject that matters is the outrage of the day. In reality, in whatever department, the overwhelming vast majority of the time is devoted to the strategic issues which require a long term and joined-up approach. And, with the best will in the world, the Department of Health would find it difficult to prioritisesexual health over many other clinical needs.

Tories still barking mad

Bring back Victorian values, says key Tory | Politics | The Observer

In fairness, the Tories have moved on a smidgen and are beginning to recognise that having large numbers of the population living in poverty is not good for society or the economy. Well, duh, one is tempted to say.

So, their solution: bring back Victorian values.

Hmm, I would say, first get facts straight.

My housemate did her Social Administration dissertation on something to do with poverty in single parent families. One of her stunning pieces of research that there were far more single parent families in Victorian times than in the 1980s. As this was an undergraduate dissertation I am certain this was not an original discovery. Any casual perusal of history, literature etc will reveal many flaws in the Victorian method of bringing children up.

Again they bang on about tax-breaks for married couples. No,no, and again no. This is a dangerous assumption that all married couples have dependent children and that all longterm stable couples with dependent children are married. The focus should not be on the adult relationship but on the children (and also importantly other dependent adults such as those with learning disabilities and the elderly infirm). I am the opposite of an expert on the loopholes and traps of the unintended consequences of the tax-and-benefit system.

The report backs tax breaks for married couples, arguing the present tax credits system makes some couples better off apart.

I find this difficult to believe. I will accept that the take-home pay of two people living separately is higher than if they were together, but I need a great deal of persuading that this is so distorted that it makes sense for a happy couple to incur the costs of maintaining two separate households simply for the tax-benefit advantages. Otherwise, thousands of happy couples would be maintaining two households next door to each other, which to my knowledge just isn't happening.

They have confused chicken with egg or cause with effect. They argue that more co-habiting than married parents split. I have no doubt that this is true. But. And it's a big but. Even nowadays, a great number of people still go through the routine of deciding to get married and then deciding to start a family, having already built a relationship with a fair chance of enduring...hey, I only need to look at my blogroll.

A great many more people find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy, before their relationship has established itself as 'together forever' and, accepting their responsibilities, try to establish a sustainable relationship, where carrying out a wedding ceremony takes a lower priority than the pregnancy or founding a home together. If they split, it's not because they weren't married, but because they were ultimately not suited. They would have split, or lived unhappily together forever, if they had been forced or tax-break-bribed into a marriage.

But can anybody justify a tax system that would make Jimmy and me better off simply by dint of strolling down to Lambeth Town Hall, dragging two random strangers in from the bus stop to act as witnesses, and calling ourselves married? Would that tax break be equally ludicrously applied to Mike and K? If not, is that because they are same-sex? Where would that leave same-sex coupled parents - exempted on the grounds that one is not the 'biological parent'. Would there be similar exemptions for numerous committed straight step-parents - eg from the blogroll Elle and Himself. It's bonkers and bears no relationship to actual real functioning families that exist in reality today, but to an outdated religious-inspired ideal that many people may aspire to but few achieve.

They also talk about tackling poverty. The easy way to do that is by throwing cash money at the problem. And it does make a difference. People still claim that they lose money if they go out to work rather than claim benefits (rent/housing benefit is the big obstacle). I am not entirely convinced, but if this is the case, there is a need for a relook at the system, and it is a persuasive argument for continuing to raise the minimum wage, ensuring that the working tax credit is fair, simple and accessible, and guaranteeing that housing benefit tapers properly not to act as a disincentive.

But poverty is also tackled as society. This article also discusses anti-social behaviour and petty crime, of which poor people are disproportionately the victims. Much of this is blamed, rightly and wrongly, on 'disaffected youth'. I was at a lecture the other week hosted by my Professional Institute about 'Respect', where the Government's Respect Co-ordinator argued persuasively that aggressive intervention in the poor or non-existent parenting skills of a hardcore tiny minority would be as big a social achievement for our generation as building sewers was for the Victorians.

There is a body of evidence that proves consistently that seemingly expensive programmes, from intensive reading to sports and arts, that force children and young people to participate as full members of society reap dividends in a range of social objectives, including economic activity, tackling poverty and anomie, crime prevention, and health improvement that benefit wider society perhaps more than even the targeted individuals.

Tinkering with the tax system may make some households who are comfortable but struggling marginally better off, probably at the expense of people like me. I would willingly pay higher taxes to fund properly social integration and anti-poverty programmes. If I had a straight choice between paying 'x' more a month in tax or 'x' more in interest rates, it's a no-brainer. And - here's the political bit - under a Labour Government I have paid a lot less in mortgage interest and a bit more in tax. Long may this continue.

House of Lords

I had an interesting day out today, a guided tour of the Houses of Parliament, along with a group of my colleagues, by Lord Rosser. We also attended Lords' Questions.

It's always interesting to be in the Palace of Westminster. I did a tour when I was in Sixth Form in 1985, I have attended a few sessions from the public gallery in the early 90s when I first moved to London, and over the years I have attended quite a few meetings in the corridor above Westminster Hall.

It's worth pointing out that despite the forbidding looking security outside, it is perfectly legitimate for members of the public to attend sessions in either chamber. Obviously it is quite difficult to get in for popular sessions, such as Prime Ministers Questions Time, or for controversial debates. But in principal, it's possible just to turn up and walk in. Indeed,more than possible, it's essential for the democratic process. Same with law courts. It is vital that their proceedings - with specific exceptions such as Family and (I think) Youth Courts - happen before the public. Again, if you want to attend a notorious trial, you'll be lucky to get in. but normal run-of-the-mill stuff. Just turn up. Not that I have ever done so.

For a political junkie, it was interesting seeing so many famous faces around the place. To some extent it was a bit of the Ghosts of Christmas Past, or Spitting Image Rides Again. Nigel Lawson arrived in the Palace just after we did. Cecil Parkinson spoke to me. Then Geoffrey Howe appeared looking a lot like a sheep in sheep's clothing. If Norman Tebbitt had also appeared, I would have felt like exclaiming "no, no, tell me it's not happening, take these Scary Men away." No sign of Herself. Rumour has it she's quite quite mad. Also lots of Labour (nobody really famous but quite a few recognisable faces) and other Tory ex-MPs from the distant and not so distant past.

But perhaps the most bizarre and scary aspect of the whole day was coming face to face with Frank Carson. I was actually behind the photographer's left shoulder when this picture was taken. Why are they smiling? It's the way I tell 'em...

Sarah, Colleen and other women

Inside the world of Mrs Brown

A bit of a strange article. The writer seems to feel it's bizarre that someone like Sarah Brown can get to forty having had a successful and stimulating career, then now seem to want to devote herself to motherhood. I don't see anything strange in that. She seems to be the sort of person who is capable of making rational decisions and not being particularly bothered by what other people think. And the strangest thing

She makes no real money now, but the Browns live frugally: and if she ever misses her old life, it doesn't show.

So, Gordon gets £137k. I'm not sure what an Observer journalist gets but I'm not quite sure in what world a six figure salary would require 'frugal living'.

And then we get a feature on Colleen McLoughlin, who is famous only for the man she lives with. Cate Blanchett, who I believe to be an actress of some note, is featured as

giggling with Brad Pitt, 'feeling eggy' with George Clooney and falling in love with Bob Dylan.

Then we get a headline saying: Mother caught on CCTV minutes before her murder

So, today's message from the Observer is that women only matter in terms of the role they play for other people. We would never have heard of Sarah Brown or Colleen McLoughlin if it wasn't for Gordon Brown and Wayne Rooney; Cate Blanchett's acting career seemingly matters less than her relationships with men; and this poor woman who was brutally murdered has grown-up children and was filmed on CCTV returning home from doing something other than mothering.

And as for the Observer Woman monthly, well, this seems to be about clothes, partying and pretend celebrities.

It's a pretty damning indictment that Femail has articles about Beatrix Potter, Julie Walters, Computer Gaming, and a book about Latin.