"Every citizen should be guaranteed an irreducable minimum standard of life"

IDS has unveiled the reform of the welfare system, and it has strong echoes of the Tory doctrine of the 'safety net' and it will save millions from the hopelessness of long term unemployment

Making work pay

In order to tackle long term unemployment Iain Duncan Smith has correctly realised that one of the key challenges is to make work pay. At the moment, for too many people, there is an economic disincentive to work - they can secure a higher income from benefits. IDS proposals are capable of ensuring that work can pay, that the incentive becomes geared towards working, and not hopelessness.

And the pressure to resolve the problem has grown since the New Labour years set in, with nearly 5 million people on out-of-work benefits. Of which 1.5m for nine out of the last ten years. To resolve this growing problem IDS outlined three options:

• combining elements of current income-related benefits and tax credit systems


• Bringing the 50 or so jobless credits into a single "universal credit"


• Supplementing household earnings through credit payments reflecting circumstances as they change; with children housing, disability.

Now they are all radical, but it is the second option which I shall focus on. John Hutton MP [LAB] has explained that he expects the coalition to initially consider the third option, which changes to reflect altering circumstances via credit payments. However I'd caution against this approach, as it will surely add significant cost burdens for any initial set-up. And will complicate an already complicated system. The better option is for the coalition to pursue the universal credit solution.

Not only is it entirely in keeping with Tory lefts' concept of the 'safety net', but it also entails a major benefits system simplification. One which is badly needed after the years of Gordo Browns; off the books benefits credits; [and off the books borrowing to pay for it].

The SNP have urged caution, but welcome the 'progressive solutions', and the TUC have called the IDS policy proposals "as having merit". Seems Liebore will have a tough time opposing these reforms, especially when two of their more prestigious colleagues [Frank Field, John Hutton] have contributed to the outcome...

PM a "loud mouth" says David Miliband

Former Foreign Secretary David Miliband; the elder of the Mili-brothers; has called the PM a "loudmouth" after he spoke out against the failure of the Pakistan government to clamp down on terrorist cells

In what can only be assumed as a desperate attempt for publicity the elder Miliband brother has started to through verbal insults at the Prime Minister. Apparently this is how to turn your leadership bid around when your; altogether more Labour; younger brother is closing you down...

But I also think this is an extremely good insight into Davie Mili's mindset. To him it seems you don't criticise people for terrorism, torture and fundamentalism if they are on America's 'friends' list. Maybe that is kind of like Davie Mili's allegedly turning a blind eye to torture of terror suspects by allegedly complicit UK special forces when he was the ole' boss in the foreign office?

David Miliband was a disloyal member of the last government, a man overshadowed with allegations of turning a blind eye to torture, and a spineless plotter. This coalition of the national interest shall I hope take no notice of him.

Gove will earn the thanks of a generation

'Honest politicians have accepted for years that we must liberate schooling from state control'

Free and also free

The Conservative-led Coalition government has unveiled the Academies bill, and if it passes it is a desperately needed step in the right direction. The bill will begin to alter the currently depressing trajectory of British education, it will make a significant contribution in the fight to reverse our long term education decline.

The Academies Bill aspires to ensure that schooling is free to all, but also free. Free from the cruel monopoly of governmental autocratic control. Perhaps this long strived for goal is the part of the rationale behind the massive push to get the bill on the legislature? And long awaited it is, as New Labour under Anthony Blair began this drive for the "free school system", now it is a Conservative led government achieving the foundations.

Naturally the chaos this has sown on already dysfunctional Labour ranks has been pronounced, the Conservative education bill has exposed Labour ideological divisions. But leading the charge for the educational status-quo is the arch-Brownite Ed Balls.

Ironically, so desperate is he and his fellow colleagues to close down the troublesome [for them] debate on the merits and intent of the reforms - they have opted to shift their opposition on speed. He is protesting the Bill being pushed through under emergency measures - originally envisioned to deal with terrorism. I don't know about you, but I rather agree with Telegraph's Janet Daley when she writes "..as far as I am concerned, the condition of Britain's state schooling is pretty much on a par as a national peril".

More and more of our youngsters are not even being taught the basics of literacy in the educational status-quo. Under Labour the social mobility within education collapsed, and now it is harder than ever to go from an average state school to the best achieving college and University. Be under no illusions, education is dire for too many families and students; and as is all too often - it is the poor losing out.

If this government can provide the kind of independent-but-free education it is promising, with the raising of standards and student chances that would inevitably follow - they will have earned my support for the duration of its existence.

But in the face of all this, Ed Balls [the failing leadership contender, you remember him - married to Cooper] has grown more bizarre in opposition to the changes. Having clearly failed to close down the badly needed debate, by denying an emergency needing decisive reform, now he scaremongers. In a fashion all too reminiscent of the Brown-era briefers and mudslingers [Derek Draper anyone?], Balls pronounced in the Commons that Michael Gove was representing the "abolition of state education".

By that, of course Balls meant state controlled education; or at least that is what we need to assume as his words otherwise make absolutely no other sense.

What is being really proposed is an end to the government monopoly over provision, and open up the education system to other suppliers; so long as they keep to the free-at-point-of-use principal. Indeed the fact that the erstwhile Mr Balls is staking his political reputation and career on the need [in his mind] to preserve autocratic government control over education is telling. Has the movement undertaken by Blair and New Labour to get Labour to acknowledge the need to diversify means of operation really ended so abruptly?

Peter Mandelson wrote in his memoirs, 'Third Man':

"The CSR did not however amount to a fundamental reform of the way schools were run. They did not address the need to re-orientate the culture and operation from central control and toward the interests of the people they were meant to serve"

I return to my opener, 'Honest politicians have accepted for years that we must liberate schooling from state control'. Many Labour moderates, like Mandelson, agree with the goal of the Gove education reform - to make schools free and also free. Pity about Ed Balls, the Brownites, and their philosophical belief in the expansive need for extensive centralised state control over education.

Scottish Enterprise

Looming spending cuts are coming, it is time for the SNP executive to decide if 'Scottish Enterprise' is worth its weight in taxpayers gold?

When and where to cut?

There is a beginning point where every party seems able to agree in Scottish politics, that the private sector isn't as strong as it ought to be; or needs to be. Scotland has entered this recession with a weaker private sector than desired, and that already undersized entrepreneurial sector has taken a pounding.

It is in this context that we have to realise the hard time the SNP will face if re-elected in 2011. On the one hand, budgets need to fall to compensate for the rising unemployment and therefore reduced tax revenues being made available to Holyrood. On the other, with the private sector already so weak, can cutting the public sector undermine economic growth?

To an extent this question has been mitigated for the time being following George Osborne offering the SNP the chance to put off spending cuts altogether for another year. Thus it looks to be a dire political summer 2011.

The options

The Sunday papers have all been echoing a consistent theme on the back of this; they suggest that the SNP finance minister John Swinney is eyeing up Scottish Enterprise. And with the £277m budget, who could blame him?

Scottish Enterprise is a project which was always destined to be hard to make a success of. For example by nature of SE existing we are being asked to assume they are spending the money more wisely than would be the case if the money wasn't extracted from business in the first place. That in itself is a very difficult sell, even when times are good - which they obviously are not.

After all a third of SE entire budget goes on staffing and administrative costs alone. This means thus, that the remaining two thirds have to generate higher returns than had the whole budget been left in the hands of private sector [by low taxation]. Again, I return to my initial point - who can blame Swinney for wanting to eye SE as a cuts option? It's success criteria are simply unachievable for a big, public sector driven, state action.

But the SNP won't cut SE, despite the excellent case for them to do just that. Why? Market failure. Or more precisely the SNP are a left wing political movement committed to the slippery concept of 'market failure', which they use to justify the notion of large scale government intervention into the economy - cue their 'Scottish Futures Trust'.

Therefore, cutting SE would be counter to their political-economic instincts as a left wing party.

Yet, I blog today to urge Swinney to prioritise SE for cuts, rather than cutting back in other, more valuable aspects of public spending. SE itself represents the very worst aspects of contemporary Scottish politics; which willfully ignores the phenomenon of public sector workers "creating work" for themselves, to justify their budgets.

SE indeed adds to the cost of setting up new Scots businesses anyway, far from incentivising entrepreneurial spirit- SE actually incentivize grant seeking. For new business set ups the incentive is to develop the skills in the narrow art of lobbying for grants, to cultivate 'the right' personal relationships...it undermines entrepreneurialism and the private sector.

.

Ultimately the SNP and John Swinney have the chance to re balance the Scots economy by liberating the private sector from the costly burdens like SE. Come 2011 I hope the SNP executive decides to abolish SE altogether, returning the money to the public through lowering the taxes they are being devolved responsibility over.

CAP reformed

The Common Agricultural Policy is to be reformed, and as part of the proposals payments to farmers are likely to be capped for the first time

The new policy proposed for post 2013 is aiming to create a de facto cap on the size of CAP handouts to the EU bloc's farmers. This, according to EU agriculture commissioner Dacian Ciolo, will place a greater emphasis on the provision of public goods - like the environment.

In what is an important step forward in CAP reform, this proposal could reduce the unsustainable factor which has plagued CAP in the current form. Sustainable practise is essential in any reshaping of the subsidy scheme, and this reform proposal is aiming to do just that. So much for the europhobes and their criticism of CAP being 'un-reformable'.

Yet let us not lose sight of why the EU CAP subsidy is, and continues, to be an important cornerstone of EU policy. Statistics show that the majority of EU small farmers depend on some kind of CAP to make EU-based farming and agriculture sustainable in a price-cutting global environment. According to EUObserver;

"The relatively small size of many European farms and the bloc's commitment to producing high quality goods make the payments essential say the agricultural sector.

"Two thirds of farm incomes come from the CAP payments," said Padraig Walshe, president of the EU Committee of professional agricultural organisations (COPA). "They are absolutely vital.""

It appears clear however that the current system for calculating single farm payments for European farmers, a direct payment calculated according to a formula which looks at production levels over three reference years (2000-2002), is set to be scrapped.

"We are now going to have a discussion on how to move away from historical payments," Mr Ciolos told journalists, without revealing what the new formula will look like. The 12 EU member states that joined in 2004 or later already use a system based on hectarage rather than former stocking levels.

Despite the reform agenda, set to conclude in agreement by November, there are still voices of protectionism. Under the bogus arguments of deforestation, many CAP millionaires are attempting to block the major reform. Thankfully the conference managed to overcome these carrion voices - it is time to realise change must and will happen to CAP. With it taking up 40% of the EU budget, overhaul is now inevitable.

"One EU official who wished to remain anonymous said special interest groups would always seek to bloc trade deals that would ultimately benefit EU citizens as a whole, even if certain sectors lost out.

A senior Brazilian official said the claim that greater farm exports necessitated cutting down areas of the Amazon rainforest was completely bogus.

"Brazil's territory is twice the EU's territory and more than 30 percent of its rural land outside the rain forests is still available for agricultural expansion," said the official. "The deforestation argument is protectionism at its worst.""

India

The trade visit to India could make or break Cameron's desire to beef-up UK growth and investment prospects. Can he wrestle concessions, and what has he already achieved?

Indian growth boom

Being one of the world's fast-track emerging industrial economies, India has become central to EU member-state and US big-business trade hopes.

It is hard to blame them for their enthusiasm, when you realise it is the world's second fastest growing economy. And soon to be fastest.

Think about it, India has landed spacecraft on the moon. They have invented the world's cheapest car. And it has also been massively expanding its global investment brief. From the emergence of Tata now being Britain's leading manufacturer through the acquisitions of Corus Steel and Jaguar-LandRover , Cameron is correct to focus on India. It could prove vital for UK growth prospects.

Figures speak plainly, Indian growth is measuring 9% while the UK struggles to lift off above 1%.

Indian problems

Yet it isn't all one way traffic, the Indian economy has major short comings of its own. And this is where Cameron can target for new UK opportunities.

And the problems are serious for India, as they conspire in the large part to hold back growth. Infrastructure for example is still developing. This long term problem is best demonstrated by the fact that 40% of the Indian country's home-grown food rotting in summer. Multiplied by the dirt road networks and the bullocks rather than refrigerated lorries, India has major infrastructure weaknesses.

But on top of all of this is corruption and heavy layers of bureaucracy.

To cite the Sunday Telegraph investigative piece on Cameron's trip to India:

"Corruption is too much, roads are bad, and there are a lot of negatives. You have to succeed in spite of these problems"

Cameron's aims

Thus the Indian economy badly needs access to UK technology and development sectors. This is reflected by the comments by some of the soon-to-be members of Cameron and PM Manmohan Singh's proposed Chief Executives Forum. This forum, which Cameron has managed to secure advanced Indian support for will constitute a means to explore new ways to dismantle barriers to trade. Barriers to trade both from and to the UK and India. A two way process.

This new Anglo-Indian forum could very well prove decisive, in terms of the longer term recommendations they can make to both governments. It alone justifies the David Cameron's planned visit to India during next week.

But as is so often the case, team Conservative has already wrestled a critical flagship trade deal to play centrepiece in the announcements due. BAE systems, with support and advice lended by the Coalition government, has secured a £500m deal to construct 57 Hawk trainer jets. This will be in collaboration with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. This represents the direction of travel which the Cameron government intends to move down. It is a welcome step following the New Labour years, which saw a failure to engage with the developing economies.

Again, to quote from the Telegraph piece;
.

"The real need for investment in India is in infrastructure projects and support for British small and medium-sized enterprises [SME's], many of which back away from Indian bureaucracy and corruption"

This is a two-way deal, and Cameron has hurt himself in advance of achieving these laudable aims. His alienation of EU leaders by leaving the EPP-ED has reduced his capacity to get critical EU trade concessions in place; which will be required if the UK is to get India to agree to easing the post-Gandhi socialist protectionist traditions.

But he has went some way towards repairing this, as he did launch a very successful charm offensive in Paris and Berlin. Yet like it or not, if eurosceptics want the UK to trade more with non-EU economies like India ... they need to go realise that the EU is vital in furthering UK trading interests. India does realise that it, and not the UK, represents the worlds largest trading block...

'Two and a half big cheers' for the Big Society

Archbishop Rowan Williams has praised Cameron and his 'Big Society' pitch for moving beyond Thatcher and her 'no such thing as society' legacy. But isn't it ironic that it is a Conservative led government which has succeeded in getting Britain to 'post Thatcher' rather than languishing in 'anti-Thatcher'?

Empowering communities

At the heart of the 'Big Society' is the theme on which the entire Conservative 2010 manifesto orientated around. The joint themes of empowerment and aspiration, for our communities, families and individuals all around Britain. It is surely welcome then that important profiles such as Rowan Williams are now lending support to the campaign.

Williams outlined the basis for his support to the Daily Telegraph:

"I'd like to give a cheer for the sense and the feel that the face to face and the local is important. And a cheer for the sense that this idea is somehow built around thickly textured communities. But a half cheer, because we don't quite yet know how far this might be a buck-passing exercise."

This is at the very heart of the Big Society. It is all about the 'face-to-face' of real life. Let me paint you a picture as means of an example.

Most people care about the quality of their child's education at the local comprehensive, they want government, to sort things out. They desire better teachers, more funding, new curriculum emphases suited to their kids, and their local communities requirements. This is where the Big Society project will step in.
We Conservatives are using 'Big Society' as the catch-all term for devolution of decision making and authority on a hitherto unprecedented scale. As was referred to in the 2010 manifesto- we will seek to empower head teachers, so that they can sort things out locally, and much more effectively than a Westminster bureaucrat can.

Big Society will issue new power to those better placed to wield it, and in doing so aims to reverse more than 30 years of top-heavy - centralised - UK administration of power.

But, putting aside my strong enthusiasm for 'Big Society', Williams does have a point concerning the half cheer.

Delivery of vital services

Big Society under Cameron will not, and does not intend to be a cover for delegating responsibilities to local governments, and communities, which should legitimately be the purpose of the state.

We must empower schools, by making them more responsive to local needs by reducing dependency on local government. But equally, we Conservatives do realise that vital services like education cannot exist in a vacuum. Education requires the state to guide and nurture where necessary, and thus we are not proposing privatisation of schools, hospitals, social and local services. Rather we propose to hand them more power to innovate, while simultaneously keeping standards high through active inspection.

The Big Society can and will empower and generate aspiration because it will ensure that run down and often times neglected local enterprises shall get the attention they deserve. David Cameron, perhaps a tad too vaguely for some, tried to express this radical devolution agenda by calling this project an attempt to "turn the government pyramid on its head". I as a localist, communitarian Conservative shall therefore defend our 'Big Society agenda - and all of its heavy and meaty substance.

Let the left argue against the need for a big society emphasis all they like, but the UK needs and craves this shift of focus. New Labour failed to move the UK, and the apparatus of the state beyond the heavily centralised Thatcher legacy. Cameron is now doing just that.

Yet this is, and shall always be about more than basic devolution of powers, authorities and budgetary freedoms. It will take into account a systematic review of laws and regulations surrounding charitable activities, and individual activism with an aim to making it easier for individuals and charities to do more.

UK growth rate 'jumps'

A spat of good news for you all, it is revealed that new figures show a sudden and very welcome jump up in UK growth rates

Faster-than-expected

The faster than anticipated growth rate for the second quarter enables us to dispel more Labour myths. They informed the electorate during the UK 2010 General Election campaign that any Conservative emergency budget would "endanger the recovery". Now the statistics can illustrate why this was untrue - and another example of Labour economic incompetence.

With the ONS issuing growth rate in the UK of 1.1%, Labour must be squirming. It is very nearly double the 0.6% anticipated after the emergency budget was announced; which many on the left expected to dampen down second quarter growth. They could not; it is now clear; have been more wide of the mark.

The main driver of the better than predicted growth was in the services sector, which accounts for near three-quarters of the UK economy. Suggestions have been put forward by some Telegraph commentators that Osborne's emergency budget actually instilled confidence in the public [and business]. Maybe the chancellor's decision to get serious with the public debts, and his avoidance of the Labour job tax influenced the services side growth? Who knows for sure, but the fact remains, a critical Labour economic policy has been fatally undermined.

They held that it was 'too soon' to cut on Conservative proposed scale without undermining growth. That is hurt badly as an effective argument, indeed the only sector to actually reduce was travel and transport - and that is in a large part due to the Icelandic volcano...hardly down to Conservative handling of the economy.

Osborne judgement

Yet the more pleasing aspect is the vindication of George Osborne's judgement. Many of my fellow bloggers, including myself, speculated as to whether such a young man was up for the tough decisions. For full disclosure I have long been on record as calling for Ken Clarke to take up the chancellor spot. But never before have I been more pleased to be proven wrong.

"The Chancellor, George Osborne, said the figures proved his plan to cut the public sector was right.

He said: "In the Budget, I set out a plan to restore confidence in our economy by dealing with the deficit, starting this year, and to re balance growth from the public to private sector.

"Today's figures show the private sector contributing all but 0.1% of the growth in the second quarter, and put beyond doubt that it was right to begin acting on the deficit now."" [BBC]

Osborne had put his own judgement on the line by issuing the tough-but-fair emergency budget. He made the full extend of the structural deficit clear, he outlined the scale of the departmental cuts in un-protected areas. The growth rates, albeit only one quarter thus far, reveal that he was indeed correct to challenge Labour arguments that cutting in 2010 was 'too soon' for the recovery - the Institute of Directors have even said that the new figures were "as good as it gets".

So much for Labour's economic credentials when they tell us cutting in 2010 endangered recovery, Osborne had the courage to see policy through, and now things are "as good as they get".

Running Scared

SNP ministers have refused to go to Washington to account for their decision to release a mass-murderer terrorist, they are running scared for making the wrong decision

Turned down

The SNP regime in Holyrood have informed the USA that they will be declining their invite to provide some testimony concerning the Megrahi release. Apparently they want the confusion to continue to surround this heart-wrenching issue, rather than go and clear things up.

According to a spokesperson for MacAskill and Dr Frazer, since there was a Holyrood inquiry conducted they will refuse to attend on July 29. Nothing like helping the American families of the victims heal their hurt...

"Clearly, the Senate Committee has responsibility to scrutinise decisions taken within the US system, and Scottish ministers and public officials are accountable within the Scottish Parliament system. That is the constitutional basis of our democracies."

Glad to see the SNP are being helpful to the US inquiry, given the importance of trade and tourist relations for Scotland...and to help the victims families. It is an utter disgrace this release in the first place, followed by the offensive references to a divine, now the SNP are so scared, so out on a political ledge that they are leaving the victims families to stew in the USA.

Now I remember why I don't vote SNP, amateurs and indecent ones at that.

Higher debt than feared

Labour's debt legacy is worse than feared, with recent figures showing a public finances struggling under worsening debt

Tax and spending legacy

Labour has always been an economically incompetent Party, opting for often times reckless high octane tax and spending programmes - and last time was no different. However bad we have all had to realise the state of the public finances are since Labour were voted out; the truth is even more sobering than feared.

Public borrowing in June hit £14.5bn, well above most economists predictions of £13bn. According to the Office for National Statistics, if this trend were to continue, with Labour planned cuts and spending then there would be "fresh questions" about the country's ability to finance the debt. Better thank God the British people voted Conservative to get Labour out.

Labour's temporary leader Harriet Harman however seems to not either realise, care or comprehend what these new facts are saying. While she bleated on to the Telegraph about Labour having outlined a programme for cuts [you remember, the one they refused to tell you about]; she seems to have failed to understand a vital fact. The vital fact being that the ONS based their opinion on UK inability to afford the debt under Labour proposed plans. The ones they told civil servants about but refused to inform the voting public of...

So what to conclude? Labour governments always results in a serious debt legacy. Harman and her fellows for Labour leadership may pretend to themselves that there is no debt crisis serious enough the merit cuts. But the truth is, their economic profligacy, has forced this coalition of the national interest to act to avoid a re-run of the Labour IMF debacle.

The UK's AAA credit rating has, according to the George Osborne, only been maintained thanks in large part do the market confidence injected by the Conservative emergency budget.

"The public finance numbers today remind us why we need to get on top of the budget deficit"

At the same time it must be done with an eye on the poorest. To adopt one of the most sensible Tory tag lines - we must act to at all times to create One Britain. One Nation free from social disenfranchisement, poverty, and social and economic isolation. Perhaps that is why Osborne and this Conservative led government has implemented policies to restore the pensions-to-inflation link? Or lift millions of the poorest out of paying tax altogether through the progressive implementation of the £10,000 cut off. Indeed by maintaining surestart for families earning under £50,000 we are also maintaining the fight against childhood poverty.

It is gratifying that we Conservatives have done more for the lowest earners, and pensioners in under 6 months than Labour managed in 13 years. Getting serious with the Conservatives, about bloody time.

Tackle the tax code

The British tax code is the longest in the world. It undermines our attractiveness to foreign investment, it inhibits job creation by burdening business with excess costs, it is time to tackle the tax code

Labour legacy

One of the key historic failings of every Labour government has been on taxation and spending. 2010, post 'New' Labour, times are no different - it remains one of the key lodestones holding Britain back.

With a tax code sitting on 11,000 pages, a new Conservative government must streamline and simplify. Indeed the nearest tax code in terms of size is India, on just over 1,000 pages, and it should put into a very apt context the pressing need for reforming the UK tax code.

But should it be any surprise that Labour, and Gordon Brown in particular, have built up this huge tax code? For there is nothing more Labour than tax and spend economics, and a necessarily aspect of that incompetence is increased regulation. Excessive, and over sized tax codes are an economic threat, not a saintly virtue.

Conservative reform

We need to reverse 13 years of Labour tax side regulation. It undermines small-medium size business, who are central to employment. Any future Conservative tax code simplification must be built round making it easier to read, understand, and less complicated.

If we want to be competitive in a globalised world marketplace George Osborne is making inestimable sense.

At the end of the day, wouldn't it be nice if people had at least a chance of understanding the laws they are being asked to comply with?

In coordination with this tax code simplification, the cut in headline corporation tax from 28% to 24% over the coming parliament is important. This wider tax policy beefs up our Conservative brief a tad more, allowing us to present a policy driven reforming vision: lowering the tax burden, making the law clearer and simpler.

How can anyone disagree with that vision for the future? Who can stand up and say; 'no, I rather like a cumbersome, ineffective, job-destroying tax code thank you very much'?

Labour's trade union buddies can:

"The TUC union body said it was concerned the OTS could become a "softening-up exercise for tax cuts for the rich"."

Tax cuts for the rich? Is Labour really so out of touch in tax issues that they and their trade union bank rollers want to keep taxing small-medium size employers at a job-destroying rate?

If anyone is working to the tune of vested interests, I hardly think it is a tax cutting, pro-aspiration Conservative government. That is why we should all welcome the creation of a new Office for Tax Simplification.

The Third Man

I have succumbed to my fascinations and purchased Lord Peter Mandelson's 'The Third Man' hardback

All in all, and only being on page 73, it is very well written. What a thoroughly engaging read it has proven to be thus far; exploring his early years as a Labour student in childhood and Oxford University - to his return to government for a third time ["Can you help me?"].

Modesty is riddled throughout the book, much to my surprise personally. A whit, a hint of irony and a scathingly adept ability at criticise opponents without harsh clumsy phrases all push this memoir into the 'must read' category.

That all said, the price at £25 is more than a little expensive for many. But if you are interested in a very well written account of a key New Labour architect then naturally the price is a barrier you must overcome.

However one little criticism, indulgence. Lord Mandelson does indulge more than a little in re-writing history; though not for his own benefit. He seems eager to pin a number of historical facts down in more overtly pro-Labour ways. For example he suggests that the only critical reason for Tory victory in 1983 was the 'Falklands effect'. Now naturally it was a critical factor; but it is far too much to honestly even suggest that Labour policy failure, right to buy popularity all had little to do with the 144 seat Conservative majority that GE.

Additionally, he promotes the idea that Labour drift in the 1980s was due predominantly to 'Bennites' within the Party. But no suggestion that it may have had more than a little to do with the weak leadership of Lord Kinnoch...again I suspect rose tinted visions of history here. All for the apparent benefit of his New Labour legacy which fought against what the 'Bennites' represented [i.e a principled LABOUR Party]

So as I say, indulgence is his foremost sin in this memoir, but I thank him for it nonetheless.

Prince's Countryside Fund

With 18 charities founded, almost all of them massively successful; the Prince of Wales has locked targets with a new problem: rural deprivation

Deserving cause

Rural deprivation and poverty is an extremely deserving cause for the Prince of Wales to target his energies towards. With a successful C.V in campaigns and charity organisations his intervention may just help reduce the hardship and raise the profile of these very important series of issues.

Prince Charles is the best man for this job, with an impressive record including the Prince's Trust [which has helped more than half a million youngsters over its 34 years] or his Business in Community [which encourages 850 companies, that translates to 1 in 5 of the entire workforce] - I rather think he can make a lasting difference.

And look at the situation in rural Briton and this royal project comes not a moment too soon. When confronted by decades of rural neglect by urban-centric government hopefully the Prince's Countryside Fund can turn around the fact that nearly a million rural families are living below the official poverty measure.

The Prince in his launching speech outlined the economic realities faced by countryside farmers. He pointed out the plight of the UK domestic livestock farms, where its economic viability is being squeezed badly. The Telegraph reports that the Prince outlined the income realities of this neglected population of Britain,

"The average income of livestock farms in the uplands has fallen from £17,400 to £10,400 a year over recent years, with many trying to subsist on just £6,000"

No wonder then that the Prince went on to elaborate that the number of dairy farms has crumbled, by half in 10 years. Given the Prince excellent record in delivering a lasting difference through his campaigns, hopefully he can help turn around rural deprivation.

But it isn't just farmers, but the growing destitution of rural communities which the Prince hopes to target. He correctly identified the loss of local life as another major cause in rural deprivation, with nearly half of Britain's parishes lacking a shop or post office. And add to that nearly 36 pubs closing each week, plus 19 out of every 20 village halls struggling to survive the Prince of Wales must get all due support for his charitable adventure. After all rural transport, more vital than in the inner cities, is even more precarious due to the mistaken bus privatisations in the early 1990's.

God save the future King, and may his charitable launch raise the profile for this very neglected set of rural problems by our elected 'representatives'.

Ban the Burka?

France has joined Belgium in baning the burka in public. But here in Britain the coalition has ruled out matching the move

The conventions of a tolerant society

Ban the burka, but why? To liberate the women wearing it? Or to protect the public. These are the central arguments put forward by those in favour of an outright ban on the garment. However the truth is that these are no arguments at all.

To take the former argument, how can we 'liberate' women-kind by issuing them a dress code? It seems a curious logic to me that in our perfectly reasonable pursuit of female equality that those in power; predominantly male; tell women what they can and cannot chose to don in them morning.

Transcending that the latter is equally erroneous. After all it is already well within the powers of the police to search anyone - yes, even if they are wearing a Burka. Do those advocating its ban really think that a women choosing to wear a burka would struggle against being searched in public? Just because a woman decides to wear the burka does not mean that she is either extreme in her faith, or oppressed. These are presumptions being made by busy-bodying feminists and reactionary forces who go around citing 9/11 and 7/7 as the justification for just about any erosion of our civil liberties.

Thus reading Damien Green, Conservative MP, inform the Sunday Telegraph that the coalition government will not implement a ban my heart lept. For this is a coalition government with a damn good, and growing, record defending our civil liberties. He said that any ban would be un-British, as it would "run contrary to the conventions of a tolerant and mutually respectful society"

Yet it is worrying when once confronts the reality of public opinion. And the current mindset of the British public is for an outright ban on covering a face in public; at least that is what the YouGov poll discussed in the Telegraph informs. According to that poll, 64% of the public want "the wearing of full veils to be made illegal". Nothing like a British public who can respect women enough to allow them to wear what they want, to interpret their faith as they wish. For the great elephant in the room here is this: orthodox Islam is not terrorist. It is the big white elephant that no one seems willing to confront, that our society is rapidly making the mistake of conflating orthodox, traditional Islam with political Islam, a very different and more extreme movement.

If we are to overcome the dark shadow of another 7/7 atrocity the key is not to so lose our ability to distinguish between a faith and a political radicalism that we surrender civil liberties. Liberties which - by the way - are supposedly why we are fighting this war against terror.

Don't cut Europe's culture short

Governments across Europe are seeing culture and arts as a soft option in their cuts drives. However, given that any savings available prove to be minimal - maybe they should find the money elsewhere, and save European culture

Minimal savings

Pocket change. That is all the value of the savings which can be made by slashing our culture budgets. Yet given the need for savings, isn't abolishing waste in government, a better option than burning our common European heritage, culture and civilisation?

In Spain the head of the National Library resigned after seeing her budget slashed by 15%, down from her £43m budget. Surely there are better means to raise, or save money than to desecrate the cornerstone of our trans-European culture? A Spain without a valued National Library, is much like a Paris with no renovated Louvre...oh wait... the Louve has seen huge cuts too, there are no renovation works anymore ...

The scandal is nothing short of barbarism. State legislated hedonism, what kind of society are our politicians creating? Somehow the nation-states of Europe see culture as a soft option: an unemployed singer does not have the same electoral impact as an unemployed car worker; it seems.

Indeed times are set to be so bad that the Mayor of Cottbus has sacked 20% of the entire culture department staff. And Cologne has lost 30% of the art budget there too. All the while the bankers bonus gravy train burns through more of the taxpayers money across the European continent. Disgusting.

According to a German museum director, the answer rests in commercialisation. Thus the last of our cultural bastion crumbles before the vile and all-corrupting bile of commercialisation. Brave New World, it seems, is arriving on the very next speed-train...
.

Our cultural plight is best summed up in the German directors comments on how he plans to raise money. "the key is the bigger the skeleton you have, the better. People will pay through the nose - enough to pay my staff for a week - to party next to a dinosaur"

.

ARCHHHHHHH! I give up.

.

What is the point of emerging from a recession if the price is our culture, our heritage, and our arts. I say tax the bankers before a single euro is cut from member-state culture budgets. Bleed those guilty before sacrificing our stars and talent before the alter of boom-and-bust economics.

There is no better career service than to serve in uniform

Christine Grahame has continued her campaign against the British army, you will forgive me for not joining in.

The role of our Army
.

When listening to Christine Grahame condemn the army for making appearances at schools, university campuses and in our communities you will forgive me for my disbelief. Disbelief that anyone who can purport to represent the public, and constituents can seriously hold such damning views about our brave sons and daughters. When she made her claim last year that she didn't consider the military a "good" career, I was dumbstruck. But beyond the fact that Ms Graham is not impressed by youngsters willing to fight for our country livelihood and way-of-life; she now seems to be arguing that the British army is something so shameful that it cannot be seen to be active in our communities.

Ms Grahame has claimed that documents she holds "proves" the army is attending schools uninvited, in order to "soften up" future recruits. Naturally before I launch into why our army ought to be as visible as possible in our communities - let me bat Ms Grahams nonsense 'evidence' out of the ballpark.

Having read through the papers she alleges proves this "softening up" process, I'd advise her to get a grip. For example one example she cites is East Renfrewshire Council, where an alleged visit took place by the army to Madras Nursery in Neilston. The only problem with this 'evidence' is the little fact that the 'army representative' was actually just a submariner married to a staff member. Might it not be a tad more likely that he was paying a visit to his wife? Or is Ms Grahame such an avowed critic of the army that she'd rather belief in some grand military conspiracy to "soften up" those of nursery schooled persuasion?

Yet back onto the very underlying point at stake here, why does Ms Grahame consider it inappropriate for the Army to be active in universities, schools and other aspects of our community? Not all of us think like her; that the soldiers that keep us safe at night are to be ashamed of. Some of us happen to believe the army to be a most noble, dignified profession for the lions among us.

I would like to contend that the military ought to be able to offer much much more to our communities. And it seems the army chiefs are eager to pay the taxpayer back for their funding and support in tough times. For another example cited my Ms Grahame in her 'evidence' pointed to Scottish Borders Council; where the army approached the council with an offer to provide work experience for the secondary school pupils.

Ms Grahame says that this is further evidence of a "softening up" conspiracy by an unfit career path. I'd like to contend that it is actually more reasonable than her conspiracy suggestion.

To begin, the army most likely wanted to let pupils work in administration duties, not provide them with live bullets and guns. And why not let the armed forces offer our pupils the choice? If a pupil wants to go to the army for his or her work experience, why should Ms Graham tell them no? Not all of us think the army is a shameful harridan which needs locking up in a cellar somewhere.

Being frank, it is the Christine Grahame's of the SNP family that make them weak on defence, and all of the jobs dependent upon that fine career.

Sexual Discrimination in Bundesliga

Germany has been rocket by reports that the agent of injured captain Michael Ballack has accused the team that went to the world cup finals as "containing a bunch of Gays". Isn't it time to question why homosexuality remains taboo in the sporting world?

Der Spiegel

In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, the agent to Ballack is said to have said he aimed to "out" the "gays" in the German national team. According to Alexander Osang, recounting the interview with Becker; he has claimed that the agent Becker made reference to them; including one which was "half gay".

The issue has rocket the German Bundesliga which before the world cup was crippled by the homosexuality issue in the sport. But the threat to out secretly homosexual members of the third-placed semi-finalist team has apparently caused deep distress within camp Germany. But as if this story isn't enough of an example of sexual discrimination in the sporting world; this gets even more offensive.

Schalke manager Rudi Assauer has provoked outrage by saying that there is "no place" for gay players in football. No joke. Is this not a worrying example of the failure of gay rights campaigners to make inroads into the sporting profession in Europe. I suggest to you all that if a German player cannot hold the confidence to be himself, and be free from petty minded bigots like Becker and Assauer then we need to do more.

Becker himself has refused to apologise, instead attacked the journalist for printing his comments, as the interview was "not authorised". It seems that in Germany newspapers it is traditional for interview subjects to check quotes before publication, some may call it censorship to cloak bigots and gay bashers, and I am one of them. I'd therefore like to thank Alexander Osang for publishing these offensive comments, and forcing the issue back to the top of the German national agenda.

Eurozone Growth up

Industrial production in the eurozone countries are up, higher than expected - manufacturing is taking an ever greater role in leading Europe out of recession

Benefiting from weak euro

Eurostat, the EU statistics office has predicted manufacturing growth of 0.9%, to match the same increase since April. But it is likely that Eurostat has underestimated the potential strength of eurozone industrial recovery; with independent economic experts predicting growth in excess of 1.2%.

The statistics themselves auger well for the EU-wide economic recovery, especially for the UK. Fears had been growing that the temporary instability of the eurozone area due to the Greek sovereign debt issue might undermine consumer demand for UK exports. But with industrial growth figures up, and manufacturing in the eurozone area stable or growing - it is a positive sign for UK exports that the eurozone member-states are entering a stable recovery.

No double dip in EMU member-states is essential for any longer term UK industrial recovery; which we badly need to re-balance a heavily financial-sector dominated economy.

Additionally it seems that Eurozone producers are actively benefiting from the lower value of the euro; a drive behind the growth in EMU industrial output. It seems that the Greek sovereign debt problem has had the beneficial effect of lowering the value of the euro; aiding manufacturers for export.

More good euro news

To add to the positive news revealed today about the eurozone, it seems that leading British businessmen have gone beyond merely backing EU survival. A list of leading business leaders are calling for UK entry into the Euro.

According to the BBC website:

"Lord Simon of Highbury, former chairman of BP argued "it is time to recognise the importance of a more integrated economic / political system in Europe". Of the eight business leaders who responded only one had changed their mind. The rest were either undecided, or still think it is in Britain's interests to join the euro at some point in the future.

Another felt they could not offer a 'credible opinion' and only one no longer believed Britain should join.

Former chief operating officer of Ford, Sir Nick Scheele, argued that, "despite the debt problems in certain euro zone countries my belief that we should join the euro is based on the fact that 70% of our trade is with euro-based economies.""

It seems that the economic reality remains with the eurozone, and the inevitable end result of a UK trading in Euros. EMU isn't going anywhere people, and it will only grow stronger, as the fallout of EMU disintegration is unthinkable and materially catastrophic.

When will eurosceptics learn?

Anatole Kaletsky argues among other things, that EMU is a 'secret' plot for Federalism - in what can only be described as Times drivel from a medieval nationalist

Democratic or not democratic?

Time to drive a few home truths into all of the europhobes out there, as I have a bad cold [among other ailments], I shall not mince my words. I am not in the mood.

Times 'journalist' [using the word advisedly] manages to do the difficult, he has managed to rile me up so thoroughly in his eurobashing that it has taken me four hours to calm sufficiently to jot my notes here. Among many rambling points, he contends that the European Monetary Union is an undemocratic process - which the people have never had the chance to be consulted about:

"Voters must not be asked to give their opinion on the euro-programme. The construction of Federal Europe has never relied upon popular support..."

Before wishing to explain exactly why EMU has never been about sneaking up on 'Euro-federalism', I'd like to put a few issues to bed following that Kaleksy quotation.

For a start is he seriously contending that EMU lacks a democratic mandate; to legitimate its evolutionary progress- birth till now? How then does he square the referenda decisions in Eastern European member-states to not only join the EU; but adopt the Euro as well? Is he suggesting that these historic referenda were all either fixed or flawed? Maybe not, but writers like Kaletksy make a living through the power of suggestion, obfuscation and implication - not however through direct claim and honest discourse.

Naturally the absurdity of any claim, suggestion or anything else that the EMU process lacks democracy is patently absurd even beyond the point of Eastern European referenda. EMU has indirect democracy, that it was agreed to - and formulated all they way along the line by democratically elected politicians. Unless someone like Kaletsky is willing to argue that indirect democracy is not enough to legitimate policy; he can only be judged a disingenuous. I point you to 'give their opinion', he chose this wording very carefully. Carefully, as he cannot possibly make the argument that EMU lacks piles and piles of indirect democratic validity. He realises that as an staunch proponent of UK constitutional status-quo, that he is defending indirect democracy has a legitimate form of representing and validating policy.

So Kaletsky, and europhobes like him want us to condemn EMU [and the EU as a whole] on the grounds that it is not 'democratic'; though they privately accept that indirect democracy is valid and legitimate. But beyond even that, they are wrong to argue that 'the people' have not been asked their opinion in the formation of EMU; given the referenda process in eastern Europe.

Hypocrites, ignorants, disingenuous, liers? Take your pick - or add to that particular list.

But back to the nonsense claim that EMU has been about secret federalism.

EMU was an attempt to, and has always claimed to be, a process to further the EU treaty-law commitment to a EU free trade market area. A commitment the europhobes like Kaletsky pretend they are in favour of. But if they were they would support EMU with all their hearts - as it removes barriers to trade, vital for any free trade zone. Indeed what free trade market place can be worthy of the name when currency valuations can be politicised and deliberately deployed as barriers to free and fair exchange of business, finance and resources?

The idea that EMU is about 'Euro-federalism' is even more mad given that Euro-federalism doesn't need to hide behind secrecy. Do people like Kalestky really think that euro-federalists are unpopular cretins reduced to sly political games? All the while hiding in closets of nationalism?

We are not out of any closet - the fact is federalists like myself have never been 'in' it to begin with. EU leaders such as the Luxembourg PM among high representatives of the people have always been public federalists. Only in the fevered, nationalistic minds of medieval nation-statists does anyone seriously contend that we need any 'hidden' process to maintain our aspirations for Euro-federalism.

But the thing that topped Kaletsky off was when he revealed that he wanted to tell us all:

"I told you so"

He thinks it is a good thing to write 'I told you so' about EMU difficulties. He wants to see EMU collapse, even if it takes blocking treaty law revisions which would otherwise not merely save it, but make it more enhanced and stable. All so he can be europhobic, and say to us 'I told you so'.

It seems that Kaletsky doesn't mind that EMU collapse would precipitate another banking crisis [as liquidity and lending webs shut down in the chaos of EMU disintegration]. Never mind that the taxpayers are already telling us they are unhappy about the last costly bailout - Kaletsky wants to say 'I told you so'.

Never mind that EMU collapse would push the UK into another recession period - to experience a crippling -4.5% contraction. Never mind the rocketing inflation [or deflation in some EU member-states and USA]. NEVER MIND THE HUGE UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL COST BECAUSE THE EUROSCEPTICS WANT TO TELL US THEY TOLD US SO!

It is time to stand firm, defend EMU, and defend our DEMOCRATIC EU. Call the Murdoch-reading eurosceptics bluffs; force them to come out with their views and stop hiding behind suggestion and obfuscation.

Act of Settlement

When a future monarch can be anything from a Buddhist to a Satanist, but not a Catholic - there is something seriously wrong with the UK constitutional settlement today

Careful reform

Constitutional minister Mark Harper MP has issued a statement indicating that the agenda on repealing the act of settlement is not being dropped. He explains to us all that it is just being investigated as to the potential implications, pitfalls and technical detail. Sounds to me like a case of kicking and long grass...

"any change would have to be taken carefully and thoughtfully"

But the Conservative & Unionist manifesto had a pledge; one which I heartily supported; which outlined the aim to repeal the bigoted anti-Catholic law of succession. It had been pushed for inclusion by Oliver Letwin and George Osborne [not to say former MPs like Anne Widdicome], and Cameron is on record - not just manifesto - saying he would repeal the Act of Succession.

It seems to me that he has no choice but to follow through, especially when this final act of Catholic emancipation is also included in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

The moral case

A moral dilemma of the act is surely obvious on a symbolic scale. After all the moral case for Roman Catholic equality in matters of succession would seem obvious, and an argument is hard to put against it. Some often say 'but as the defender of the faith, how can a monarch be RC?'. This is an ineffective argument to place against Catholic equality in succession. After all is it any less a 'conflict' for a future monarch to be a divorcee? Or indeed a member of any other religion or organisation from Scientology to Buddhism and Satanism? Why is it that these people contend that only in relation to Roman Catholicism there would be an unacceptable constitutional and religious conflict of interest? Could it not be possible that we are facing the residual hangover from a more bigoted and sectarian phase of our Kingdoms historical development, I rather think it is.

This would only seem to add to the moral case for a repeal on the ban on Catholics becoming our head of state.

Yet there is a further moral angle, one which the Archbishop of St. Andrews & Edinburgh articulated to the BBC on Sunday.

"This law is a restriction on the private lives - and consciences - only of
members of the royal family"

Members of the Royal Family who chose to be Roman Catholic should have the religious freedom to be so. Even if this may have consequences relating to current succession and enthronement, it matters not. The moral principal is of fundamental importance, it is hard to argue against it.

Thus I do not want to hear a government made up of two political movements which both pledged to act say they cannot. Long grass is not the place for this issue, it is a matter of religious freedom for the royals, and for every single Roman Catholic in the UK - all of which are discriminated against day-in-day-out so long as this bigoted act remains in place.

Spain's victory was a victory for football

Dutch play could hardly of been more cynical, and in the end the deserving team won the day

Opening 45

Given the thuggery of Dutch play in the opening 45 minutes, it is still hard to believe that they weren't sent down to 9 men by half time. Whether it be for Van Bommel, or for the karate kick by Hollands midfielder de Jong - it was cynical thuggish play. Very un-Dutch, and sadly below the talent that they possessed.

Yet one can hardly blame the Dutch team for aspiring to deny Spain long-term possession of the ball, given their remarkable pass-success rate [with Xabi enjoying a +90% accuracy rate].

Both teams had well organised game plans, and the game never really got beyond the cynical tactics of the Netherlands until the second half and Extra Time.

Holland had two great chances with Robbens missing them both, yet excellent Spanish goal-keeping surely must be acknowledged. Over all however the victory came for Spain with the remarkable goal by Iniesta. Cool, composed, excellent first touch and solid connecting hit, placing it past the goal keeper and into the net.

But that goal, so late into ET was a victory for football. The performance, and maturity of the Spanish team on the night merits respect. It has also made them valued role models for the next generation of youngsters. I do not know about you, but I'd much rather the next generation of footballers aspired to be the next Iniesta, or Xabi than Van Bommel or de Jong [pictured opposite].

Allan Hansen summed it all up on the night for me, when he declared that Spain had to win; for the good of the sport. And there is n doubting that the Socialist Spanish government desperately needed the PR boost! What with 1 in 5 Spaniards out of work [that's 20% of the entire population!], and massive national strikes crippling the Kingdom. Frankly the Spaniards, for their maturity on the pitch, the talent in the cup and the level handedness of their austerity cuts back home deserved, needed and ought to have had their win.

Well done Espana: campeones!

Right to religious conscience

Traditionalists must have the right to interpret the Holy Scripture and practise their faith free from secularist atheist interference. It is a matter of religious freedom

Liberals destroy unity

The Archbishop of Canterbury, in union with Archbishop John Sentamu of York, have had their compromise for consensus rejected following militant liberal opposition. In the words of the Catholic Unity Group, the liberals in the communion have "broken our chance for unity", and have effectively voted to reject the right of orthodox Anglicans to adhere to the word and message of God.

The compromise would have enabled Liberals to have their female Bishops, while preserving the rights of traditionalists [like myself] who oppose their appointment to avoid being subject to their ministry. His Eminence John Sentamu spoke of the Archbishop of Canterbury as a gifted leader; with an unchallenged grasp of theology. However it seems that this was not enough for him to be able to persuade militant liberals in the church to agree to provide freedom of conscience to all members.

According to the Daily Telegraph, traditionalists like myself are likely to move to the Roman Catholic Church as part of Benedict XVI ordinariat. I have to tell you that this is extremely likely if there is an appointment of a female or openly homosexual bishop without any compromise in place for traditionalists.

Atheist interference

Yet the most alarming aspect is the interference in what are strictly Church-only matters by atheists and equality campaigners. My good friend from Munguin's Republic has written an excellent blog posting which illustrates the feelings of this group. While I utterly reject his interpretation and view, it is well written and worth reading.

According to his article "The law of the land is that there must be no discrimination made in any job over the sex or sexuality of the applicant. That’s really the beginning and the end of the story."

I wish to contend this point, as it seems the central point in equality campaigners eyes.

This matter is not about secular equality drives, it is not even about the views of the majority of the UK population. This is a matter for those of Anglican faith, and religious conscience, who have the right to be free to practise, debate and maintain their faith, values and beliefs however they see fit. So long as there is no harm inflicted on others, anything short of this religious freedom of conscience is comparable to Rousseau's tyranny of the majority.

If the House of Commons wishes to legislate on the rights of equality in the secular spheres of business, commerce, education etc, then that is fine and good. But it is crossing a line whether till now considered unconstitutional to legislate how independent faiths are to organise themselves.

Are we really content to see the evolution of political religion? Where our politicians tell our churches how to act, ho to behave and how to interpret our Holy texts? I think not.

If an equality is to exist, it must be the equal right to our conscience and feelings. Anything short of this is against free speech, thought and religious freedom. Perhaps the opponents of the orthodox could consider this?

Austerity budgets and growth forcasts

The Osborne budget maintained Labour's planned cuts of £40bn, but went over and above that, citing a need to regain market and lender confidence. However the Times raises important questions about how austerity may push companies into insolvency

Austerity and insolvency

Ask any Conservative [myself included] about the Osborne budget, and you will be told that it increased lender confidence in Britain's ability to service the national debts. To an extent, this is entirely true; but the flip side is what impact such fiscal tightening will have on companies, business in the UK.

Insolvencies last peaked in 1991, with 35,0000 recorded by Begbies Traynor, and last year over 25,000 were recorded for 2009. Yet Begbies is warning that Osborne may risk pushing another round of business insolvencies across the UK with excessive fiscal tightening.

Since Labour left office 127,000 companies are in financial trouble, which although 21% lower than the March 2009 peak means they are extremely vulnerable to excessive fiscal tightening.

On a positive note, the figure of vulnerable companies classed by Begbies as being 'in financial trouble' has continued to fall 31% below the 185,813 from the second quarter of last year. So far the Osborne budget hasn't blocked this positive trend, though it may yet impact negatively.

And there is plenty of scope for it to impact negatively, with the average debt up 60% from £340,000 to £545,000 - therefore any Coalition austerity must be sure to not to act excessively.

Beyond insolvency, Osborne has already directly undermined official growth prospects, with Dutch Bank ING lowering UK growth prediction to a GDP rise of just 1.2%. Eurozone growth, due to continued instability and UK refusal to contribute to a bailout fund has meant Eurozone GDP growth predicted at 1%.

My point here is not to argue against cuts, we need to cut. And the need to go beyond Labour's plans for £40bn remains to my mind clearly necessary. However the coalition must act pragmatically, as true Conservatives -if the coalition goes too far toward austerity they will generate recession Yet equally if they do too little [as Labour propose] we may be faced with recession too.

.

It is a tight rope to walk, but questions remain if Osborne is up to the job, or if Clarke or Cable might do better?

Break-up of EMU would silence Anglo-Saxon Shadenfreude

Any break-up of EMU would cripple Europe, bust Britain, and instigate deflationary pressure in the USA ... still pleased at its threatened demise?

Lehman Brothers 'a dwarf by comparison'

Any fully fledged disintegration of the eurozone, and European monetary union would devastate every EU member-state - including Britain, France and Germany. On top of other aspects it would create 'deflationary shocks'. Dutch Bank ING has warned, one of the worlds most respected institutions for its prediction accuracies.

The report has been entitled 'Quantifying the Unthinkable' is dreadfully worrying - and its contents ought to take the elation off the remarks of europhobes.

"Initial trauma is sufficiently grave to give pause for thought to those blithely propose EMU exit as a policy option", it said. It also aids Chancellor Merkel how has been struggling to contain German demands for a shake-out of weaker members. And she has been proven right to do so, as it is now clear that any new Greek Drachma would crash 80% against any new Deutsche mark. Further, any new currencies for Spain, Portugal, Ireland would fall by 50%. Clearly the impact from this dramatic trauma would be large scale inflation, potentially crippling to the already vulnerable families, governments and individuals across the EU.

Britain in focus

Yet in terms of our own British focus the UK economy would shrink by 4.5%, at the outset of any EMU collapse. How many jobs would be lost from this? Could the breadlines feed that many?

But beyond 2011-12, it would be a very unpleasant British experience in other ways, with the Island nation suffering from safe-haven inflows sending the Sterling through the roof. Thus EU demand for UK exports would contract dramatically - and more than 50% of all UK manufactured exports are consumed in the EU. Any manufacturing recovery would be cruelly killed off, with our remaining manufacturing sector potentially too hollowed out to ever recover independently.

But pensions would be annihilated, as euro assets would be destroyed in value. How many pensioners would freeze to death if this were to happen?

UK lenders, already under pressure for failing to lend out presently, would be needing another UK bailout as cross-border linkages collapsed in the EMU disintegration. Prominent TUC leaders have commented in the Telegraph article carrying the news describing it as risking 'disaster' for their members if EU monetary union collapsed.

Now. I dare anyone to adopt self-indulgent Anglo-Saxon Shadenfreude at EMU collapse, and all the harm it would inflict. Europhobes need to put their ideology after our national interest; which calls for UK contributions to any Euro bailouts.

Public sector excess: civil service pensions

Public sector has for a while now had all the benefits, and none of the downside - but just how sustainable is it? The civil service golden goodbye deals are now revealed

"'Ponzi' pensions"

The Public sector pensions Commission has accused successive governments of failing to deal with civil service pension deficits, indeed it argues they have deliberately underestimated the true size and scale of the debt.

In the comprehensive report it is a clear call for radical overhaul of the entire system. It seems that civil servants would need to set aside 40% of their salary, towards their pension. However currently they are setting aside just 20%, of which staff are contributing just 6%.

The top up bill required by 2015 will be £9.4bn, according to the office of budget responsibility. This is a ticking, growing time bomb, and the only answer is to drag the public sector into line with the private sector. After all in 2008 the top-up was £2.29bn,. By 2011, it is expected to be £4.6bn. This is unsustainable, and a dangerous waste of taxpayers money.

However the coalition has appointed John Hutton, Labour MP and former minister to lead a review commission into the matter. A move to be welcomed, as it may diffuse the partisan element of any reform.

But in light that 50 years time everyone over 65 years of age will be supported by just 2 people of working age today, it is time to reform. Frankly the 1945 welfare state is unfit for purpose today, with it now working against our projected long term demographic changes. It needs to be changed radically in terms of pension entitlement in the public sector, with the pension age raising to a minimum of 65, cutting the rate of accrual.

Match it with higher labour contribution rates, included in a switch to career average schemes or perhaps hybrid final salary schemes and we may be able to role back the years of social-democratic profligacy.

Electoral Reform is a fantasy, and any Tory should fight it till the end

The proposed changes to a lot for the LibDems, but nothing for democracy

The first element of the fantasy is that the public are wanting electoral reform and constitutional change. Indeed I wonder how many London saloon bars, and Manchester miners clubs have talked of nothing else? There is a notion being reinforced by the self-interested LibDems, and minority pressure groups; whose ability to shout far outweights their ability to think; that the recent election was a vote for constitutional and electoral reform. The truth is that it was nothing of the sort.

All that it confirmed where three key points;

a] that the public are thoroughly sick of a corrupt and dishonest Labour Party, b] that they want a Conservative government faute de mieux, and c] the LibDems deserved to be treated with the scepticism historically levelled at them

Other elements of the fantasy are equally bogus and comical. Nick Clegg [and the prime minister] seem to think that the more often they say the next GE will be on May 7th 2015, the more true it becomes. In reality anything can bring down this coalition at any time. It is inherently weak and unstable. Collapse may come once the full impact of the cuts are felt, and the union militants try and flex their muscles. However it may come from the resistance by Tory MPs to the proposed constitutional changes - though I acknowledge that saying this as a Tory right now is akin to swearing at a vicar tea party.

Are Clegg and Cameron really serious that we ought to have a major redrawing of the electoral boundaries ahead of the next GE, as an element of the reforms? The ink is still to dry in the 2005 boundary changes, which cost the taxpayer hard. It is almost as though someone in the coalition is still to realise that we are broke.

Finally the electors would know that after the 2015 election, no matter what they did, there would be a fixed five year parliament for them to dive into. I suggest to you all that the public want to total and polar opposite to fixed term parliaments. Wouldn't it have been better to have been able to have had easier ways of ending poor parliaments and bad governments, not less. What if we had been able to remove Callaghan and have a GE in 1976, after Labour so ruined the economy that the IMF ran it for us, rather than limping on till 1979? Or removing Major after 1992 and his central election plank of joining the single currency fell through on black Wednesday?

Fixed term parliaments are profoundly undemocratic, and an abomination in the context of our constitution. It ensures the useless, the incompetent and the plain corrupt can cling on to power even easier than Callaghan, Major or Brown did.

Furthermore, the coalition is proposing reducing the number of MPs by 50, but again - I rather think the public would rather see fewer departments of state, and ministers before fewer MPs. All they want from the MPs is honesty.

Given that we are running out of money [or already broke], fighting a losing war overseas, have a broken society, why does this coalition insist in kicking about this minority sport at the taxpayers expense?

The answer is simple, Cameron has Clegg in bed with him, without having to even properly consult his own supporters as to the terms. This is where he wants to keep him.

I mean honestly; I feel sorry for the LibDems if they feel cheated by the system. Really. But if they weren't such a bleating, canting, tragedy of a political Party they wouldn't be coming in third. They have only themselves to blame.

No one can think himself - or herself - a Tory if they support the proposed reforms by the coalition. No Tory can honestly even consider fixed term parliaments, rigged votes on dissolution's or anything else of it. The proposed changes help the LibDems, and strengthen the executive, undermining our democracy in the process. Let me quote Simon Heffer to finish;

"Serious Tories had better dig the last trench and be prepared to fight in it"

Torture claims: Cameron announces inquiry

As Cameron made his announcement, the former foreign secretary David Miliband sat mute, but lacks a poker face

Judge-led

The inquiry Mr Cameron announced to the House of Commons yesterday is to be an independent Judge-led inquiry aiming to uncover all examples of British complicity with torture. If any is found, it isn't only going to be the financial burden that stings us in thousands of compensation claims. The impact may well extend into the transatlantic relationship, and closer to home damage leading New Labour politicians.

During the announcement Daily Mail journalist Quentin Letts examined the body language of former Foreign Secretary David Miliband, caught up in the Commons before he could exit ahead of the announcement:

"And so it went on. He gurned, he grinned, he grimaced. When David Davis (Con, Haltemprice & Howden) demanded that the tribunal ‘follow the evidence wherever it goes’, Mr Miliband did a silent whistle.

Odd that he has risen so high in politics yet has not acquired a poker face"

Naturally that is no confirmation of guilt, but it is fascinating nonetheless to get a first hand account of the impact the statement made immediately onto the one man sure to have known if any torture did take place.

The inquiry itself will take a while to kick off however, so if there is any bad news Miliband the elder can at least have time to install himself as Labour leader. He for the present can hide behind the ongoing civil and criminal cases which at the moment prevent the inquiry into alleged torture by UK defence forces from starting.

Let us hope that the inquiry finds no basis to the torture claims, the implications for everyone and everything would be seismic.

The Queens very busy year at 84

Having reigned for 58 years and 150 days, and now a lady of 84, it is remarkable to consider just how busy her 2009 was in service to the nation

From her Christmas message [watched by 8.4m], to her garden Parties and overseas travels Her Majesty has done remarkably well.
2009 saw the Queen conduct 6 large scale receptions, diplomatic in nature the major ambassadors and diplomats all gather together. The largest of these events had 1,500 guests, from 130 different countries. All having gathered together, organised by the Queens staff and all paid out of the diminishing earnings.

Last year also saw 1 major state visit overseas, travelling to the West Indies, a fair feat for an 84 year old monarch. On top of that remember 2010 has seen her hit the ground running with a tour of Canada, again an official state visit aiming to keep Canada and Britain strongly together.

But closer to home the Queen had 150 'away days' to the regions of the United Kingdom. She had been to South Wales, to hear the farmers explain their needs, to the Tyne and Wear and Holyrood for the opening of her Scottish Parliament. These visits are in many ways among the most important of her official duties over the course of a year, as they enable the Palace to directly engage with her subjects of the regions, rather than the usual courtly bubble.

In total however the Queen had 355 engagements also carried out in the UK, in addition to the 'away days' to the regions. Indeed a further 20 were carried out overseas.

But there was the heavily ceremonial too, as 2009 saw the Queen 'receive' presentations of credentials when new ambassadors or high commissioners are appointed to the 'court of St. James'- in total 2009 saw 24 of these. On top of this she had 174 private meetings with foreign Representatives, military personnel and diplomats, all heavily important to the UK and her national interests.

There have been 33 people knighted last year, and 14 investitures, all conducted by the 84 year old monarch in service to the nation. Add to that the MBEs and other civilian and military awards gifted out over the course of last year - 624, in 14 further investitures. All carried out with the heaviest of ceremony, for hours on each occasion.

In total we have 1,680 honours bestowed by the sovereign last year in 14 investitures - lasting hours in length. Her Majesty has had 600 investitures over her reign, awarding and recognising the vital work done by her subjects, sporting heroes and community activists, and campaigners.

Let no one say Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II [&I] Alexandra Mary does not work very hard for this nation, and we all owe her the deepest allegiance and loyalty. God save the Queen.

Eurobonds

One way to revive the European economy without burdening national budgets would be to set up eurobonds and use them to finance pan-European transport networks and broadband connections, the head of EU's regional assembly said in an interview.

Mercedes Bresso has an extremely interesting proposal in the eurobonds idea, and it would be a significant economic good - reducing the pressures on member-state budgets. But it would also mean a major enhancement of trans-European infrastructure.

Currently the EU is only financing cross-border connections in so-called pan-European transport networks, effectively this is a "minimal contribution," especially since it is in the EU's interest to have well-functioning, good quality railways and highways.

Indeed the proposal has all the more merit if one considers that according to estimates by the European Commission, traffic between member states is expected to double by 2020 and the investment required to complete and modernise "a true trans-European network" amounts to some €500 billion from 2007 to 2020. Suddenly eurobonds is an innovative solution to this major problem.

"So why not finance the whole corridor with European bonds?" Ms Bresso said in an interview with EUObserver. "And then have an EU agency, not the member states, as owner of the infrastructure. In this way, the financing of the debt would be made available by the revenues in renting out the infrastructure."

Bresso may be an Italian Socialist, but her idea concerning developing such transport and communication networks is essential for regions and cities, in order to boost investments and employment, I call for her idea to be immediately implemented forthwith.

"We need development policies, not only restrictive ones otherwise we'll have deflation and GDP decrease at a moment when Asian and South-American countries are developing very quickly."

Helping people look for work is hardly cruel

Having been accused of being a cruel, heartless 'Tory' over on 'Munguin's Republic' I feel it is important to outline a defence of IDS labour mobility proposals .

Unemployment is a bad thing, on this point I am sure most of us can all agree on. It is bad for an individual; whose self-respect is dented; it is bad for society; as long term unemployed tend to be pushed to the margins of society and local communities. And it is clearly a bad thing economically; for two reasons.

Firstly, it places a significant burden on the welfare budget, all the more so now that we are in serious economic difficulty with a £606bn structural deficit. Secondly it means that the unemployed are not spending as much money on goods, services and labour - which undermines our retail economy no end.

It is with this context in mind that I ask you all to consider the irrationality of the current leftwing commentators. How many times do I hear a trade union leader or a leftwing blogger say providing state incentive and help to relocate to find work is "forcing poor into low pay jobs"? Indeed Labour leadership token Dianne Abbot has denounced IDS proposal as "cruel", but why is it that the leftwing commentariat and political leadership thinks that it is cruel and cold-no-end to provide aid to find work?

And be under no illusions, that is exactly what IDS has proposed, that we reduce this economically inactive group; which can only be a positive thing in all sorts of ways I've outlined above. IDS has my total support for his initiative to provide state help to those residents of council homes who wish to move to find work. They tend to want to move to the other end of their home city, and not across the country; another piece of leftwing nonsense.

Somehow the leftwing 'progressives' have lost touch with reality. It is the natural state of affairs for those who are able to support themselves do so.

If anything welfare ought to be primarily a safety net, to be there transitionally until people get back into the jobs market. IDS is proposing to help make work pay, as opposed to a life on welfarism. What the leftwingers are doing in opposing this reform is seeking to pay people to be depressed, and marginalised. Why else do they think it is cruel for government to provide support to the unemployed to move, who wish to?

Arthur Laffer had a lovely phrase, "paying people to be poor". Is this really the reality of the 'progressive left'? I think it is, especially given their objections to IDS desire to provide more state support and incentives to get back into work. Any opponent of the IDS scheme is in effect proposing that we bribe people to remain in a cycle of jobless depression.

I wish to challenge the left if they think that the 'progressive way' is to treat the millions of unemployed as some kind of immutable population, fixed where they are; at 'their station' at the bottom of society. It is high time that IDS, and a Conservative led-government seeks to promote work, and building ladders of labour mobility for those who wish to use them is deeply progressive - and fair not cruel.

Why is it that my fellow bloggie mates Tris and Munguin seem to think, alongside the legionary majority of the left that any kind of attempt at encouragement or incentive to improve their circumstances is simply sadistic harassment?

Yet while it is quite true that a great many people who leave welfare enter employment in low-paying jobs, all the evidence is telling us that they do not stay there for long. Because you see the world of employment is more often than not a constantly moving place, hardly stationary. American welfare reforms conducted by the Obama Democrat White house backs this up. Over there the measures [all of which are even more radical than IDS stuff here] is showing that once in employment they move up the earnings ladder quite rapidly and the spaces below are filled with new recruits. So I challenge the leftwing whingers to say again to me I and the Tory led government are being so cruel as to "force people into low-paying jobs".

The fact is that we cannot any longer afford the huge costs of the idle on welfare; to quote Janet Daley of the Sunday Telegraph: "Paid unemployment as a lifestyle option is no longer sustainable economically". Welfare is a safety net, not a lifestyle- only those unable to support themselves are entitled to longer term state support, not the idle healthy.