I am having to contain myself here. Someone who I respect very much works at the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure it is made up of very earnest and hard-working people.
So I separate the people at the Ministry of Defence from the corporate body which is "The Ministry of Defence" - if that makes any sense (probably not, in which case go swiftly onto another blog, please).
Suffice it to say that I had some experience of observing "The Ministry of Defence" during the denouement of the Greenham Common saga (said Common being about a mile from my home - or 300 yards if you count a bit of green which is historically part of it).
Getting information or concessions out of "The Ministry of Defence" during that saga was a bit like trying to extract a digested three-penny bit from the wrong end of a duck. Difficult.
In fact, I dined out several times on my little aphorism about the MOD. It was: If you ask the Ministry of Defence what date Christmas Day is on this year they will tell you that they can't release that information in the interests of national defence.
Nuff said.
So, I am very sorry. I am very very sorry. It may be unpatriotic of me but I allowed myself several guffaws this evening when I read this story. It is beyond a joke and leaps into the realms of complete farce. I think it is British to laugh at these things.
I mean, for goodness sake. You could get enough secrets onto a memory stick to overturn the entire balance of power of the World. The Ministry of Defence have lost 100 of the things. And they have lost 650 laptops in the last four years. 20,000 laptops have been recalled because they forgot to encrypt them properly. Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I mean come on! Iran? Korea? Syria? Just come along and take our secrets. The Ministry of Defence are too busy turning down requests for legitimate information from British citizens to worry about real security.
With repeated apologies to those who work at the Ministry of Defence.
Friday, July 18, 2008
British secrets? Take one please
Understated sotto voce subtlety of the week
From Lindylooz Muze A Topsy Turvy World - Cameron or Clegg on tax? :
High praise for Nick Clegg from Iain Dale
There is high praise for Nick Clegg's tax plans from Iain Dale in today's Telegraph:
I hate to say it, but if they truly mean what they say on tax, the Lib Dems are in danger of being in touch with the overwhelming majority of the British people, who are now feeling overtaxed, over-regulated and over-governed. Clegg has tapped into the Zeitgeist and may reap the electoral rewards. His political opponents, within and without his party, will pour scorn on him and accuse him of populism and worse. The truth is somewhat different. He hasn't just pledged a reduction in taxes; he has promised a cut in public spending, too. Admittedly, it is only £20 billion, a mere three per cent of total government spending, but it's a start. And it's a damn sight more than any other politician has had the guts to do.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
It's official: Davis campaign was a total failure
Politics Home, via their panel of 5000 voters, has found that, since he resigned and was re-elected, David Davis is more unpopular and oppostion to 42 days detention has actually decreased. The only good news for Davis is that more people know who he is, so the prospects of excellent sales for his (no doubt) forthcoming memoirs have been boosted by the use of £180,000 of taxpayers money to hold the Haltemprice & Howden by-election.
Impressive Clegg launch of "Make it happen"
If there’s money to spare, we won’t simply spend it. We’re looking for ways to cut Britain’s overall tax burden, so ordinary families have more of their money to help themselves. Our tax cuts will be fair. We’ll change the tax and benefits system to make sure it helps ordinary people - not the rich. We’ll increase the state pension in line with earnings and give women pensioners a fair deal. We’ll simplify benefits to make it easier for everyone to get out to work. We’ll be tough on tax avoidance. We’ll help ordinary families struggling to pay for gas and electricity by forcing energy companies to invest windfall profits to cut bills so everyone can afford to stay warm this winter. We’ll help families facing repossession by forcing banks to offer financial help and advice first. And we’ll replace the unfair council tax. We will be frank about how we pay for this - by closing the loopholes that favour the rich, diverting unnecessary Government spending, and by taxing pollution.
The document is brilliantly put together. In particular, it clearly makes the starting point for each area is the British people. For example, the passage on foreign policy:
People in Britain are caring and compassionate about people’s suffering around the world. We donate vast amounts of our money to charities and campaign groups that help people trapped in poverty, stand up for human rights, and speak out against dictators and oppressive regimes.
But the government doesn’t follow through on these basic British values.
They invaded Iraq even though a million people marched to stop it. They export arms to countries with shocking records of torture and abuse. And they even tolerate corruption in international business. Governments of both big parties have propped up dodgy regimes when it suited them, and undermined international law for short-term gain. It’s time to base our foreign policy on our values - our belief in fairness, the value of human life, and the importance of democracy and civil rights.
We need a separate Department of Energy
Full marks to Alexis Rowell on the Belsize LibDem blog, who deserves a pat on the back for his excellent post entitled: The rising cost of food and energy. It has set me thinking quite deeply.
But one thing the article has jolted me to ponder on is the need for a separate Department of Energy in government, with its own Secretary of State. Wikipedia tells the history of the Department of Energy here. It was set up during the 1970s oil crisis and then wound down in the 90s with its energy efficiency brief going to what is now DEFRA and energy policy going to BERR, where it has its own page on its web site.
The US has it own Department of Energy with its Cabinet secretary. It is blindingly obvious that, with the huge, multi-generational challenge to wean ourselves off oil and onto renewables with reduced use of energy, we need a government, cabinet level ministry to decide the strategy and drive it.
I note that Nick Clegg's new policy document Vision and Values, includes plans, or at least suggestions, to scrap the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. I hope that energy policy is retrieved from this "scarpping" and recycled with energy efficiency into its own department.
"Clegg shines at PMQs" - Spectator
Fraser Nelson on the Spectator Coffee House blog has highly complimented Nick Clegg for his performance at this week's PMQs:
...I’d give Nick Clegg the best attack line. He went on the economy, and raised the prospect of a Winter of Discontent. One of the Treasury bench smiled here, which gave Clegg a great chance to say “I don’t know why he’s smiling when unemployment today is up for its highest rate for 16 years” – but I rather doubt whether one can spy a smile from that far across the chamber.
Brown was, as always, caught between his two responses on the economy. Response A is “it’s bad out there, your Great Helmsman will guide you through the storms.” And then there’s Response B, “I’m a great Prime Minister, things are really good here, record employment, lower inflation than anywhere in the world.”
Unwisely, he chose Response B claiming that British inflation was the lowest in Europe (it’s not) and that employment is at a new high (a crude function of record immigration and naturally rising population). Seduced by his ability to produce Brownies like this, Brown is tiptoeing closer and closer to Callaghan “crisis? What crisis?” territory. No one reading any newspaper today, or buying anything in the supermarket, will believe inflation is lower. And no one cares about the price of sauerkraut in Germany. Clegg’s response “he’s so out of touch he doesn’t know how bad things are” was precisely the right one – even if he then veered off into fuel poverty.
Clegg's bold tax cutting plans
The Independent gives about as much detail as if available so far on Nick Clegg's bold tax cutting plans, which are being announced today. A policy document called "Vision and Values" (which sounds like a pre-manifesto to me) is mentioned and it all sounds very exciting. Spending cuts, tax cuts. A bit like the Conservative manifesto 1992....no - only joking.
This is some of what the Indie says:
Nick Clegg will today commit the Liberal Democrats to cutting the overall tax burden as he relaunches his party as one committed to fairness for people on low and middle incomes.
He will attempt to undercut Labour and the Conservatives by pledging to slash Whitehall spending to pay for tax reductions, and will reaffirm his commitment to lowering the standard rate of income tax to 16p in the pound. The Liberal Democrat leader will say: "We will get wasteful government spending under control and give the economy a boost by cutting taxes from the bottom for those who need the most help. If there is money to spare, we won't simply spend it. We are looking for ways to cut the overall tax burden."
Mr Clegg will try to cut through the increasingly dominant battle between Labour and the Tories by launching a statement of values designed to outline the big ideas he believes will help double the number of Liberal Democrat MPs within two general elections. He will argue that his party can deliver in a way the main parties cannot, saying: "If you want Britain to be fairer, you know who will make it happen – we will. Labour can't, the Tories won't."
Most of this is a "sexy" re-announcement of our 4p<->green tax plans from last year. Thank goodness they are getting a bit of publicity. I have often said that they are our best kept secret.
What is new (as far as I can make out) is the aspiration to cut the overall tax burden and this is underpinned, if such a substantive phrase can be used for it, by a proposal of £20 billion worth of spending cuts which are to be defined.
Obviously, the nub or rub of the whole scheme are these cuts. Nick Clegg obviously needs to set out what areas these cuts will be impact. It seems he has laid out some broad direction for Jeremy Browne, who has the task to go away and detail where the cuts will be. Broad areas which have been suggested by Clegg include:
....scrapping the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and moving parts of the Civil Service to cheaper locations outside London.
Fairly non-controversial stuff on the face of it. HOWEVER - whatever happened to the Department of Energy? In the challenging times ahead I think we need a separate energy department in government as there was after the 1970s oil crisis. As far as I can make it out it was subsumed into the BERR so I think it needs to be pulled out of any "scrapping" of this department.
I look forward to seeing the policy document, overall it is welcome that some existing policies (including some constitutional policies such as reducing the number of MPs) are being relaunched and that Clegg is giving a high visibility relaunch to them - with a bit of a twist.
The LibDems do get drowned out by the other parties, so it is very welcome that Nick Clegg is making a decent attempt to be heard above the general hubbub.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Fascinating tax switch
Conservative leader David Cameron has admitted taxes may have to rise if he becomes prime minister.
Nick Clegg told a Journalists lunch today that he'd fight the next election on a "radical tax cutting programme for people on low and modest incomes"
Fascinating. On reading of Nick Clegg's remarks I think I can be forgiven for programming a celebatory treble into my alcohol consumption spreadsheet....
LibDem proposals for youth crime
Thanks to Aberavon and Neath LibDems for flagging up Chris Huhne's launch of the LibDem proposals to tackle youth crime.
The main proposals contained in the paper A Life Away From Crime include:
The creation of a Youth Volunteer Force, to engage with young people, involve them in community projects and give them skills to benefit them in later life
Establish Community Justice Panels across the country, where offenders admit their guilt to the community and agree on a Positive Behaviour Order as a course of action
Create a dedicated PCSO youth officer within every Safer Neighbourhood Team to identify and work with teenagers most at risk of offending
10,000 more police on the streets by scrapping the ID cards scheme
Intelligence-led stop and search and ‘hot spot policing’ targeted at gun and knife crime
Restorative justice programs to be run in every community, specifically targeted at early intervention with widespread use in schools and care homes
The full document can be downloaded here.
Anti-speed camera council leader was banned
Swindon Borough Council have been all over the news like a rash today. They have been making rumblings about getting rid of speed cameras - the final decision is to be taken in September.
The BBC pointed out that the fact that the council no longer receives revenues from the cameras (such funds have recently been re-directed to Westminster) appears to be a motivation behind the considered move.
Now the Press Association reports that the council's leader was once banned from driving for speeding:
Roderick Bluh, the leader of the Conservative-controlled council, was banned for three months after he collected 12 penalty points on his licence for speeding.
Mr Bluh said the ban, which was imposed before he became Swindon Council leader in 2006, had changed his behaviour but said there were other ways to improve people's driving.
"I was banned for three months. It has affected my behaviour," he said.
"But all cameras do is catch you when you have speeded."
I am finding that last sentence difficult to assimilate. "All cameras do is catch you when you have speeded." But if they are not there, they don't catch you - do they? Is Mr Bluh saying that is good?
He appears to be arguing that speed cameras are not a deterrent. Well, in his case, it seems to be true. To rack up 12 points takes some doing.
Is he in the right job? He's in charge of a council, part of whose remit is to improve road safety. It seems fair to ask whether he actually has a clue about road safety. Indeed, based his record, one might ask if he has an appropriate respect for road safety.
Monday, July 14, 2008
It is actually Lembit's fault that his private life gets more coverage than his spokesman role
Yes, Stephen Tall is right that it is utterly scandalous that Lembit Opik's revelation about the government keeping nearly £200m of council tenants' rent this year has received hardly any media coverage, while his break-up with the Cheeky Girl has received blanket coverage.
But let's not blame the media.
Who was it that splashed his private life all over Hello! ?
Who was it who brazenly made tacky jokes about it in the Commons and paraded arm-in-arm down the high street, with the press in tow?
Yes, Lembit himself.
Let's face it. Quietly going about his business is not in Lembit's nature. And thank goodness that - and for the colour he brings to British politics. But let's not kid ourselves that the above is the media's fault. That would be silly.
Knife crime - time for cool heads
The BBC's News at Six tonight added a very welcome sense of proportion to the knife crime debate. The programme is available until Tuesday 15th July at 18:29 here on the BBC's iPlayer and the report in question starts at 4.30 in the video file. Here's a summary:
The report featured three reporters from around the country in Glasgow, Bolton and Bristol. Taking the last first, the reporter said that yes, knife crime continued strongly in urban Bristol, but it has actually dropped across the Clifton suspension bridge in the rural areas and in the South West (only 12 youngsters taken to hospital with knife wounds there in the last year)
The reporter from Bolton, Manchester said, basically, that gun crime was more of a problem than knife crime there. There are some isolated high incidence areas in Moss side or in the city centre of Manchester.
The reporter from Scotland said that hospital admissions suggest that the number of knife assaults has gone down by third in recent years, but that stabbing remains by far the most common method of killing. The Scottish parliament is considering a mandatory jail sentence for carrying a knife.
Mark Easton, home affairs editor, summed up by saying that the number of deaths caused by stabbing has remained relatively static at around 300-350 per year which means about one case per day. Tragic and awful, but those are the figures and have been for some time. So, we've heard reports that there have been five killings by stabbing over the weekend, but that doesn't necessarily indicate an epidemic or a unusual increase across the country, but that there is a very specific problem in some localised areas. The age of the victims is going down and there are some obvious "hot spots" such as in London.
Slightly digressing for a moment, but nevertheless adding some general perspective, Mark Easton writes about the subject of youth on his blog:
Reading the great British press, one might be forgiven for thinking that all our teenagers are binge-drinking, drug-addled, knife-wielding thugs ready to leap out and stab a granny for a fiver.There is a real problem with knife-crime in some parts of the UK, let's not pretend otherwise. And there are many other problems concerning young people in this country.But I thought it might be timely to remind ourselves that youth doesn't necessarily mean yob.
He then goes on to list ten reasons to be optimistic about the "yoof", concluding:
This list doesn't mean teenagers are all little angels. They aren't and they never have been. But it would be a shame to demonise a social group that is actually happier, achieving at a higher level, with better health and more opportunity for travel, sport and cultural activities than any previous generation in our history.
Going back to the specific issue of knife crime, The Mail on Sunday yesterday quoted some scary figures. But when you look at their table (below - click to enlarge) it shows half of the reported police areas going up (in terms of knife crime incidents) and half the areas going down.
I notice that one of the areas that has gone down (albeit very slightly) is Nottinghamshire, where they are conducting what is described as:
...the first early intervention measures designed to build the social and emotional development of not only babies, toddlers and primary school children but also to help young mothers and to ensure that children grow up to take full advantage of the educational opportunities available to them, rather than becoming a burden on society and alienated and prone to disruptive behaviour, educational underachievement and in many cases criminality.
Ah. Excellent. At last a sign of some intelligent action in this area.
Chris Summers has an excellent analysis of knife crime on BBC Online. His report includes, again, some very welcome intelligence on the subject from Richard Garside, the director of the Centre of Crime and Justice Studies at Kings College London, who said:
If you look at the figures for the last 10 years the number of knife victims has remained relatively stable - although there have been spikes - at 200 to 220 a year. But there is some evidence the demographic has changed. The average age of homicide victims overall has been going down, with younger and younger victims. Those living in poorer parts of town are inevitably most at risk. For many years the murder capital for knife crime has been Glasgow, but now we are seeing it as a major problem in Manchester and London and other cities.
(In passing I note that the report quoted one Scottish police officer as saying: "If you think you've got it bad down in London, you should take a look at Glasgow." )
That comment from Mr Garside chimes in with a report on the underlying causes of knife crime issued by the Centre for Crime and Justice studies at King's College, London last December. The report can be read in full here. The college's press release summarised it thus:
A coherent evidence based strategy that recognises the deeper structural causes of inequality, poverty and social disaffection is needed to address knife related offending according to a report published today by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College, London.
The report argues that enforcement and punitive action to tackle knife carrying and knife use, such as harsher sentences, fail to take account of the fact that it is `merely one expression of interpersonal violence'. Success in tackling knife crime will only come with success in dealing with the underlying causes of violence, fear and insecurity.
The comprehensive review of evidence and policy states that:
-Knife carrying, especially amongst young men, is not unusual but there is insufficient evidence on the extent, nature, motivation, frequency and possible growth of knife carrying. Without further research, designing and implementing programmes to reduce the incidence of knife carrying will be difficult.
-According to official statistics the number of violent crimes involving knives in England and Wales has remained stable in recent years and it is impossible to establish either an upward or down ward trend in the number of actual incidents. Within particular offence categories there is no substantial evidence of a significant change in the proportions of knife use.
-Sharp instruments, which includes knives, are the most common weapon in a homicide. But as a proportion of all homicides the use of sharp instruments has fallen over the past decade, accounting for less than thirty per cent of homicides in 2005/2006 compared to nearly forty percent in 1995.
-There is limited research on the motivations for knife carrying but children who have been a victim of crime are more likely to carry knives. There appears to be a link between knife carrying and whether or not young people feel safe from crime and victimisation.
-The available research shows that children, young people, those living in poor areas and members of black and minority ethnic communities are more likely to be the victims of knife offences.
What is clear is that (a) the panicky hoopla surrounding this issue over the last few weeks is going to get us nowhere fast and that (b) some specific targeted studies and programmes are required to target the causes of knife crime particularly among young teenagers in poor areas.
Tying poor old Jacqui Smith in knots is going to get us nowhere. And David Cameron slicking back his hair and saying "What needs to be made clear is that carrying a knife is wrong" is also going to get us nowhere fast - although it might get Cameron lots of votes among the middle classes, who do not generally have a problem with knife crime. It appears that young people in some areas may be more frightened of being stabbed (thereby motivating them to carrying a knife to protect themselves) than being arrested for carrying it.
McCain's computer use: When in hole....
I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don't expect to be a great communicator, I don't expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need... I don't e-mail, I've never felt the particular need to e-mail.
Well, we can only hope that McCain will feel the need to e-mail if, heaven forbid, he becomes US President and receives millions of the pesky things each year.
Risky strategy
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Cameron shows his true colours with his "fat speech"
....Well, apparently Cameron has confided to intimates: "I suppose it will always be known as the "fat speech" now" - so who am I to disappoint him?
The Sunday Times sees the speech as the "third great moment" of his leadership of the Conservative party.
On the other hand, Jon Cruddas has an article in the Sunday Mirror entitled: "Cam shows his true colours":
I give him credit for saying what he really thinks. The point, however, is that this week the veil slipped - the real David Cameron stepped up. To me it undermined a lot of the positive work he had been doing over the last year or so.
Part of my anger is undoubtedly because of his background.
David Cameron went to a school where the fee alone is more than double what someone on the minimum wage gets for a year of graft.
It's a lot easier to stay healthy and in work when you're born into that kind of money, so he should be a bit careful lecturing the rest of us. He has no real knowledge of generational poverty or poor public services that you have to rely on... on the numbing effects of a chronic lack of social mobility and real opportunity... nor the day-to-day grind and struggle to make ends meet But it isn't about Cameron himself.
The big problem with Cameron's views isn't that they stick in the throat coming from him. It's that they are plain wrong.
I don't buy the idea that people living on the minimum wage or less are there because they deserve it, while people like Cameron are rich because they tried harder. It seems that he's going back to Thatcher's idea that "there's no such thing as society". The Tory view is that you fend for yourself, and if you fall down, well, it's sad, but it's your own fault.
I take the opposite view - we're stronger when we work together than we are on our own. That's why I have always been in a trade union, but it's also the principle behind local community groups, and ultimately it's what government is for too. And it is no surprise that David Cameron wants to cut back on the role of the government in terms of health, education, tax credits and other benefits.
Take family values for example.
Cameron says he's for them. But if you're a mum working 40-odd hours in a shop, you need the flexibility to take a few days off if your kid has stressful exams or is ill. A good parent wants to help their kid revise or get well again - but at the moment only parents with decent jobs and good wages can afford to take the time off. Cameron's Tories would scream blue murder about red tape, but to me that's what real family values are about.
Inequality is the fundamental issue. The richer someone is, the longer they are likely to live - it's poverty that's the real killer.
Behind Cameron's repackaging of the Tories is the same old brutal right-wing dogma.
The penny dropped for me this week.
Scandal of four MPs' second homes
The Sunday Telegraph has listed four MPs who have homes in their constituencies which are within reasonable travelling distance to Westminster.
However, these four MPs have used their ACA (Additional Cost Allowance) within the "letter" (if not the spirit) of the House of Commons expense rules, to use taxpayers' money to fund second homes in places further away from Westminster and nowhere near their constituency. It's incredible!
MP: Bob Neill
Party: Conservative
Constituency home: Bromley and Chiselhurst
Distance from Westminster: 12 miles
Second home funded by taxpayer: Southend-on-Sea, Essex (where else? It's lovely at this time of year and has the longest pier in the world)
Distance from Westminster: 44 miles
MP: Harry Cohen
Party: Labour
Constituency home: Leyton and Wanstead
Distance from Westminster: 10 miles
Second home funded by taxpayer: Colchester, Essex
Distance from Westminster: 70 miles
MP: Jacqui Lait
Party: Conservative
Constituency home: Beckenham
Distance from Westminster: 10
Second home funded by taxpayer: Rye, Sussex
Distance from Westminster: 76
MP: Anne Main
Party: Conservative
Constituency home: St Albans
Distance from Westminster: 26
Second home funded by taxpayer: Beaconsfield
Distance from Westminster: 31
Ed Davey, Liberal Democrat MP for Kingston and Surbiton lives in his constituency and commutes to Westminster. He is entitled to use the same "letter" of the rules to claim the ACA but does not, despite also bearing the cost of a second home in Dorset with his wife. He said:
To use the ACA in this way is incredible. It may be within the law, but it's like people doing dodgy tax deals which are just about legal but go against the spirit of the tax legislation. MPs should not just play within the letter of the law but also within the spirit of the law. The people opposing reform of this system are bringing democracy and Parliament into disrepute.
Friday, July 11, 2008
"Childish" political restriction on Clegg's intended visit to care centre
A political party leader wants to meet disabled service users and their carers at a care centre which is under threat of closure.
Problem?
One would have thought not. Happens all the time.
But not according to Conservative controlled Worcestershire County Council.
They have banned the meeting with Nick Clegg at the care centre in Pershore, quoting the issue of "political neutrality".
So it will go ahead anyway at one of the parent's homes.
Parent Judy Hall said: "We wanted Nick Clegg to have a better idea of what the centre did day to day for our children. We will still get together to discuss the state of provision for profoundly disabled people in Worcestershire. I am told that Mr Clegg is a disability rights campaigner and is very interested in this sort of thing. We are determined to keep our fight to save the centre alive and kicking."
Judy's husband Tony added: "The council has taken a childish attitude."
