End of the Independent Judiciary

With the UK Supreme Court ruling regarding the interpretation of ECHR and access to lawyers; the High Court has been effectively overruled.

In what seems like the death of Scots independent judiciary; the High Court Edinburgh and the legal profession based in Edinburgh has been rocked.

According to the Act of Union, 1707, Scotland's High Court could expect to remain the highest court in Scotland. The precise wording, finally signed off by the Scots lords of the Union was that we could all expect it to "remain in the same force as before". So what has went wrong?

.

Was it ECHR? In part yes. Labour created a mountain of legal problems and difficulties after signing the UK up to the European Court of Human Rights, rather than maintaining our opt out. One such problem, which is now central to the demise of an independent Scots legal system, was the right to a lawyer. In Scotland; as in France, Ireland Netherlands, Belgium; suspects were not allowed access to a lawyer for 6 hours. However due to the ECHR legislation providing this as a 'fundamental right' - Scotland alongside France and the rest are having serious legal problems implementing it.

However the adoption of the ECHR isn't the main cause of the crisis and loss of independence for the Scots judiciary to a London based court. The real threat has come from the UK Supreme court; legally not allowed to adjudicate over Scottish cases; overruling our High Court. According to the latest decision by the Supreme Court - London - has interpreted the provisions of the Scotland Act differently. So we arrive at the next aspect of the issue. The Scotland Act, another Labour constitutional mess.

As Kenny MacAskil said, "Due to discrepancies in the Scotland Act, the High Court was overruled by a London-based Court." The Supreme Court, interpreting differently from the High Court, due to poor Labour-drafted Scotland Act wording has now placed itself up above the High Court. The exact ruling seemed itself harmless enough, but it wasn't and ended up creating a 5hour emergency-crisis debate in Holyrood as the Scots legal system faced the complete breakdown of the Police right to detain any suspects.

The Supreme Court decided, contrary to the High Court, that the Scots right to detain suspects for up to 6 hours before enabling access to a lawyer breached the ECHR. Yet no one seems to bother with why this right was fundamental to the police in Scotland in the first place!

The reason the police were granted this right, unlike in England, was because the police had significantly less time to hold suspects before charges had to be brought. So - in the round - the Scots setup made for more equity in the balancing of justice. That is all lost now. Scotland has been forced to conform to a ruling by an English court. Disgraceful.

Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. No - according to the Scottish Solicitor General, the emergency legislation rushed out by the SNP government and ratified by Holyrood opposition parties itself probably still doesn't conform to ECHR.

... where does this leave us? Well, for the moment the uniquely Scottish balance of justice has been lost to an English-based court. And police have to now provide access of suspects to a lawyer immediately. The new, still legally theoretical, right of Police to detain for up to 24 hours to compensate however ... well the Solicitor General thinks if the police use it ... they may lose any conviction to a technicality - as the UK Supreme Court may always decide that this too still represents a fundamental breech of ECHR...

If the SNP do anything, maybe they could ask if we could get our independent legal system back? After all, we were promised that it would "remain in the same force as before". Mind you, we were also promised more than 64 MPs ... but that guarantee has been striped from Scotland by London too. Ever have those moments when you feel like a promise isn't worth the paper it is written on?

Dirty, filthy, rancid, opportunism Mr Cameron

David Cameron has been peddling a europhobic line and denouncing the EU treaty change before negotiations even begin...if it smells like opportunism, looks like opportunism then it probably is

Cameron, not fit or happy with alienating Boris Johnson over his cuts to housing and the impact it will have on the national capital, is now locking horns with the EU. Why? To restore his support among backbenchers like Nadine Dorres [everyone's least favourite housewife], John Redwood [Mr Wales] and the whole crowd.

Pathetic.

Not least given the fact that the proposed Treaty changes would be principally affecting the eurozone countries. And the changes would create mechanisms for the commission to take a leading role in monitoring eurozone countries budgets and deficits, to avoid future Greek crises eroding the sovereign currency. To oppose it, out of political opportunism, is mad bad and dangerous. Given that 51% [as of 2008/9 figures] of our UK exports go to the EU [mainly eurozone buyers, like Germans, French, Italians, Poles, Bulgarians, etc] - Cameron is risking the UK export market. Does he not get it? We are all interconnected now, markets interlocking together, harmonised regulations, transnational businesses; the UK cannot expect to be immune from eurozone problems.

The news today is that Mr Cameron has been phoning round the capitals of the EU member-states and pleading with them to support his stand. How toe curling! The British Britannia, stalking round the homes of the EU brightest and best - like a rancid town drunk, looking for some kind of sympathy for her own foolishness. Desperate that he can pull out an EU agreement which shall justify his absurdly negative rhetoric [hot wind?] on the issue - he is now begging round the leaders of Europe. No dignity, no credibility, no statesmanship.

According to the BBC, "shadow Europe minister Wayne David accused Mr Cameron of using "blood curdling" language about Europe at home while his officials in Europe appeared to be indicating the government had already "thrown the towel in" and would accept a budget rise."

That would not surprise me, Cameron is the atypical 'eurosceptic' Tory leader, he wil howl about the evils of EU agreements - but still sign on the dotted line when asked. All the while he dances to the filthy euroscepticism of the UK news media industry [otherwise known in the UK as News International incorporated].

Suffice to say, one again, it is the issue of Europe that makes me really up happy with the current direction of Tory policy. Tell me; why do I even bother?

UK citizens abroad to get new rights

A new EU draft directive lays out the plan for a guaranteed "minimum standard" treatment and rights. This is vital in harmonising the legal approaches in the EU area - free movement demands consistent judicial practices

Kenneth Clarke has signed the UK up to the new EU draft directive which will, among other things, ensure that any European citizen arrested in a member-state shall have the right to have proceedings conducted in their natural language.

That is but one of a series of entirely logical, and justice-protecting measures to be introduced by the EU commission. It could very well result in reducing the number of alleged 'miscarriages' of justice on the continent due to issues like language differentials. It is not secret after all - and I don't think I am out of order for point out - that not all EU member-states have state policies designed to maintain minimum treatments for accused persons.

For example, a conviction of a British man in Romania, for allegedly engaging in the child-paedophilia ring rife in the new member-state, was partially overturned because the trial and proceedings took place in Romanian; not English. If we are to make the adoption and enforcement of justice across the EU more equitable, and rigorous, then this EU directive is long overdue.

However, despite the total logic in it, you still have the petty backbenchers in the Tory Party screaming about "selling out" to "the continent". These people are puerile. And that was me refraining from saying what I really think of them!

One of the more articulate [and therefore acceptable] members of the Eurobastards within the Party is MP James Cappison. According to the BBC, he has said that this new directive shall

"opting in to the directive would further undermine the UK Parliament's control of home affairs policy"

Can I point out to this erstwhile Conservative that the EU directive shall expand the capacity and remit of Justice across the EU. It shall ensure more security regarding judicial proceedings, through a more common approach. And before any other Mr Cappisons scream about selling short British folks, perhaps they should familiarise themselves with the currently incoherent state of European practices? For example in Denmark, Sweden and Greece and France you only get a verbal warning of your rights. And currently they only tell you it in the domestic language.

What this shall do, far from weakening the powers and freedoms of the British people - it can help ensure they can access equitable right to justice.

But then, try explaining a logical, reasonable directive to a Europhobic Tory-type --- if the proposals comes from 'johnny foreigner' then they automatically assume some dastardly scheme for stealing our freedoms.

There is a word for that isn't there? Allegedly it may be xenophobe?

Coalition will survive Tory majority?

A senior Cameron aide has hinted to the right wing press that they may need to get ready for coalition with the Liberals for longer than they thought. Is this part of a wider 'Cameron strategy' to pull the Party to the left?

This Sunday saw yet more reports sneaking into the mainstream press about rifts between Cameron and Osborne on political philosophical grounds - despite the formidable coalition press effort. But now, there is an interesting piece, deliberately placed - to prepare the ground in the future perhaps? - about the coalition continuing even after a Tory majority is secured in 2014/15.

As unlikely as this idea may initially seem, it has been leaked by a 'close Cameron aide' and arrives on the back of Francis Maude informing an exclusively private gathering that "the coalition is a bloody good idea" and "even if the Conservatives win a majority at the next Election, there will be a desire to continue with the Coalition among parts of the Conservative Party".

Unlikely coincidence or is David Cameron actually more determined to 'de-toxify' [i.e. de-Thatcherise] the Conservative Party that he would go the the extreme length of grafting on the Liberals into the medium to longer-term?

It may all just be speculation right now, but before any cynical minds conclude 'nah, all Tories are the same' perhaps they may take a few moments to consider the extremely hostile [over] reaction in the right wing press daily's to this speculation. These media moguls, like the Mail, have pretty exclusive access to parts of the Tory Party - and they are taking it seriously enough to spent precious Sunday paper space to rubbishing the idea. Gods, the Mail article even called in legend right wingers like Redwood, Nadine Dorres and Co from the 'nutters' section of the Party to comment! The shrill tone is laughable, but then --- it is the damn Mail ...

Personally, from my reading of Tory Party shifts - as a Party member and ex-CF future Scotland committee member - there is a revival of real One Nation Toryism. There is an exciting, bold sniff to the internal Party air to clear out the 'drys' once the leadership is strong enough vis-a-vis the Westminster arithmetic.

As a self-professed MacMillanite and 'wet' I look forward to Cameron pulling the Party to the left.

Let's remind Red Ed where this deficit came from

Public spending increased by 50% under Labour, and something sinister has happened ... where huge borrowing is seen as a long-term desire rather than a short term fix to unforeseen problems

"Red Ed, come off it!" shouted the new Labour leader in his first conference address, calling for a grown up debate about the deficit and the economic woes facing the UK. So, okay, let us do just that.

To begin, what alarms me the most is the gaping absence of content from the Labour criticisms; of both Osborne and the Scottish equivalent Swinney. Alan Johnson in his debue for the shadow chancellors role now befallen him proved better than could have been hoped, just how content-light the current Labour Party is. To the trade union backers, Red Ed and Postman Pat it seems that painting Osborne as a mad axeman and John Swinney as a 'tartan Tory' are just games. The rhetoric from Johnson in the budget debate, and from Andy Kerr in Holyrood is verging on comical. Where it not the serious economic mess they have left behind them; ranging from overspending, incompetent contract legacies and PFI debacles.

It is time to remind voters, especially before the Holyrood 2011 GE just how is responsible for the need to tighten the fiscal belt, north and south of the wall.

Jeff Randall in the Daily Telegraph explains just how a decade of Gordon Brown telling everyone that the busts were a thing of the past dangerously altered popular mindsets. Suddenly, the future was rosy under New Labour, full of financial sector under-regulation, unlimited overdrafts and huge quantities of public sector expansion at the squeezed middle's expense:

"Between 2000 and 2010, had government's annual expenditure just kept pace with inflation, the budget would have risen from £343 billion to about £450 billion. In the event, Alistair Darling spent £669 last year and Mr Osborne will spend £697 billion this year. In real terms, over the past decade, there has been a 50 per cent increase in the state's outgoings."

Now, as a believer in mixed markets, Neo-Keynesian solutions I can accept and indeed value the vital role of government-side expenditure. However for Labour, now in opposition across the entire UK, to seek to blame Tory, Liberal and SNP alike for their 13 year-old economic legacy is too bitter a pill to swallow.

Indeed the opportunism of Labour, Alan Johnson and Red Ed is laughable. They demand to know why Alex Salmond does nothing for the Scottish economy [forgetting that they oppose fiscal autonomy!] and howl about how George Osborne is about to slash spending to the bone, forcing us to survive on gruel and stale crackers. Time for some factoids, yes, those little inconveniences that Labour hates to burden itself with when in power:

1. If Osborne delivers all his planned savings, £81 billion over the next four years (by no means certain, given the scope for interest groups to resist change), spending on public services in 2014-15 will still be higher in real terms than in 2006-07. Yes, higher.

2. Salmond does little substantive about the Scots economy because he hasn't the devolved power to do it!

3. Sorry we won't just forget that the interest charges on our near-£1 trillion of debt will soon be costing the Exchequer £1 billion a week – distorting reality is so much more satisfying that facing up to one's own responsibilities. But then, that is Labour plc for you.

Alan Johnson: Labour will continue to tax & spend

In his first major speech delivered as shadow chancellor, Alan Johnson explained how Labour would act if in government - raise taxes, and carry on spending

Labour, now in opposition - and in hoc to the trade unions for funding - have changed their ratio of medicine. Whereas prior to losing power the Darling medicine advocated a 70-30 split between cuts and tax rises, now Alan Johnson is promoting a 60-40 split. In effect highlighting that to Labour - the best way to restore economic growth is to tax it out of consumers hands.

What was it that Johnson said about needing an economics primer?

The response by the business community seems to be swift, speaking out in favour of George Osborne's plans even before he could. According to the Daily Telegraph - they have received a letter of support, signed by 35 leading businesses in the UK; advocating that the Coalition maintains its medicine for growth, by insuring that cuts shall make up 70% of savings necessary to ensure future economic growth.

Johnson tried to explain his plans for new tax rises by indicating that they wouldn't target middle and lower earners. Instead, he proposes to introduce another tax on bankers; in addition to maintaining the coalition's new bankers levy. Populist it may be, and I know some of my readers will cheer postman Pat on; however taxing the bankers relentlessly isn't going to create employment, or restore market confidence to the UK. Yes, the taxpayer must get his/her money back, through re-privatisation of the institutions when the time comes. And in the meantime, we should all support the bankers levy the coalition has introduced; and the EU bankers bonus limit.
.

But this reckless, high octane Labour mixture of tax the job creators, tax the successful 50% of their earnings, and then spend it all on middle-rank public sector administrators is shocking. It isn't about value for money, it certainly isn't about ensuring market confidence in the UK [which matters, as they are our creditors]. What it is about is Labour reminding us why they can't be trusted with the economy.

RPI or CPI?

Chancellor George Osborne has announced that welfare uprating will be in line with the CPI rather than the RPI - is this malevolent spite, or a clever [and justified] modernisation?

Ever since 1947, welfare upratings were conducted via the RPI [retail price index], in order to maintain their value in real terms. However, since 1997 we have seen the rate of inflation become measured by the CPI [consumer price index]. This measurement has grown into favour by most European governments, as it is a common form of measurement of inflation across the entire EU - thereby providing a wider picture for comparison than the traditional RPI has. Indeed by December 2003 the treasury under New Labour changed index to the CPI for its inflation targets, so the process of switching to CPI has been a gradual process, but the benefits for extending the switch to welfare upratings is too obvious for the coalition to have missed - thankfully the didn't.

I understand that for some this switch to CPI for the uprating was nothing more than an attempt to save money at the expense of the poorest. But to my mind this view is too simplistic, and is dependent on the myth that Conservatives secretly like to inflict pain on 'the man'.

Thus let me outline why the switch to my mind is not only beneficial, but totally justifiable - and a long time in coming.

Firstly, yes - the switch of index from RPI to CPI will save money, and the money saved is due to the fact that the CPI records a lower rate of inflation. This means that benefits shall be increased by 3.1% instead of the RPI's higher 4.6%. Now this may be seen as a huge gap, but the average difference between CPI and RPI since 1997 has been a much smaller 0.85%. In the long run this marginal gap can save the taxpayer money, yet also be assured that upratings are actually being conducted purely to keep welfare payments steady in real terms.

According to 'The Economist' the CPI offers a more accurate indication of inflation; and the RPI doesn't. Effectively this means that every uprating conducted via RPI index is "making benefits more generous, rather than retaining their real value". In light of this, Osborne's alteration seems much more reasonable, and justifiable.

At the core of the debate whether or not the CPI or RPI is more accurate is in the different method used. The CPI method seems the right one; because its formula mimics the behaviour of consumers. Who buy less of a product that is becoming relatively dearer. The RPI method used, in contrast, implicitly assumes that consumers do not behave in this way. To me, the CPI measurement of inflation is not only the European index of choice, but it seems to better adhere to consumer behaviour too. Thus, I am far from convinced that the RPI does actually represent the real rate of inflation at all.

The so-called 'one cut to rule them all' therefore shall save more money on average for the taxpayer. Yes, but this is because under the RPI we have been uprating welfare payments above what is required to maintain their real values since 1947. Time to appreciate this error and change it.

The power of a phrase

The economist carried a fascinating little article today about the power of the New Labour phrase 'you know', and just what it can tell us about Ed Miliband. From his clear schooling in the art of modern communication to which New Labour PM he is the political heir of

"You know" Ed Miliband said to conference last year, as he then went on to rattle some Tory cages about the NHS. The deployment of that most New Labour symbolising catchphrase 'you know' can immediately inform us of one thing, young Ed [the youngest of the Party leaders at 40] is definitely the successor to the New Labour politics. Far from the likes of Kinnoch 'getting their party back', I'd argue the language Ed uses, the phraseology he depends upon smacks of New Labour.

Tony Blair was renowned for using catchy appealing and relating statements like 'you know' almost regularly. When he did it, it was always in an attempt to establish that he and the public were in a kind of agreement - it was a casual closeness. Entirely contrived, but eaten up by the modern media; and filtered further afield into every house in Britain for the 9 o'clock news.

Tessa Jowel, as Olympics minister even did the same thing, deploying the 'you know' approach to her political appeals too. She used it to defend Brown, in his last year in office - "I think - you know - nobody doubts his competence". The 'you know' symbolises an attempt to suggest to the media that she and her interlocutor [journalist, Paxman, or joe-public] share the same perspective.

Brown however as PM used the phrase differently. He used the power of the catchphrase to symbolise a hierarchy, with himself as the fountain for special wisdom. He always said 'you know' as a precursor for telling the public about a statistic, or something they certainly didn't know about [they have lives after all!].

It is in this context, of two different New Labour legacies that Ed Miliband, so very much schooled in the New Labour handbook of politics - that Red Ed's usage is informative. And how does he deploy it? "You know", Ed said in his first speech as leader, "we did save the National Health Service..."

... He insists that his leadership is to be inclusive, but having been Brown's other right hand man for the years of government; just how 'Blair' can we assume he is? [And I'd contend the presence of postman Pat in the Shadow Chancellors job indicates that factionalism is still very much in play in opposition Labour]

Just Giving: an appeal

I don't usually do this, but given the good nature of the cause [and the fact it's family] I decided to help. I have been approached by my old man [pictured, in China] to help his fund raising efforts for his sponsored Marathon run in London on behalf of Alzheimer's. He is a veteran runner, having previously managed a pre-3hr marathon round-robin so be assured, he shall finish. Please read his piece below;

http://www.justgiving.com/Stephen-Thomson0

"I am lucky to have a guaranteed place for the forthcoming Virgin London Marathon
next April 17th 2011.

I have decided to run the 26.2 miles for a different charity.
So I signed with Alzheimer's Society, as this seems to me to be a much deserving
cause.

I have connected via their English office but I am sure you will know this cause
is global.

Donating is easy using the my link above; one can sponsor as much or as little as
they choose - If prefered, I can email, scan or post via post a sponsor a form the
old fashioned way!

Here are just 9 facts that grabbed my attention;

1. There is no cure for Alzheimer's disease or any other type of dementia.

2. Dementia is one of the main causes of disability later in life ahead of cancer,
cardiovascular disease and stroke.

3. As a country (UK) the spend is much less on dementia than on these other conditions.

4. There are 750,000 people with dementia in the UK alone.

5. By 2021 there will be over 940,000 people living with dementia. This will soar to
1.7 million by 2050.

6. One in three people over 65 will die with dementia.

7. More than 60 per cent of all care home residents, aged over 65, have a form of
dementia.

8. There are over 16,000 people under 65 with dementia in the UK and this number is
growing.

9. Dementia research is desperately underfunded. The government invests eight times
less in dementia research than cancer research."

So as I said, please consider my Papa's request - I have already donated! [And I'm a poverty stricken student ... with a Laptop ...]

Moran to be the fifth?

Indications over on the Telegraph are that disgraced former Labour MP Margaret Moran maybe fifth little piggie to be placed in court; over expenses corruption

According to 'well placed Whitehall sources' it is understood that Moran, former Luton South MP is to face formal charges. Apparently the police suspect Miss Moran of submitting claims for work which was not conducted at the property designated as her second home for parliamentary purposes. Other invoices may have been inflated or the dates altered.

These are serious charges, and Ms Moran has a notorious history surrounding the expenses claims, she was best made notorious for claiming £20,000 of taxpayers money to clean up dry rot. On a property not in either her constituency or Westminster. Disgrace. Her Southampton home was 100 miles from either constituency or London.

Indeed the scale of the allegations are mounting;

"Detectives suspect that she may have made thousands of pounds at taxpayers’ expense. One receipt, for work to replace a boiler and associated work at her Luton property for more than £14,000, is from a company which is not registered. The VAT number provided on the invoice is not valid, according to HM Revenue and Customs.

The address on the invoice is residential. The builder who lives there said yesterday that he had been contacted by the police. He denied fitting a boiler for Miss Moran.

He added: “I told the police that the way the invoices were written out, I didn’t write them. I’ve never been there [to Miss Moran’s house].”

The Southampton work for dry rot was carried out by a builder in the same street. He refused to comment on how much he had charged the MP.

On another occasion, a claim of more than £2,000 for a carpet in London was rejected on the basis that Miss Moran had designated a property in Luton as her second home."

I have little doubt that this corrupt former official has other secrets to hide in the closet - however due process must be allowed to happen. If she is charged, and if she is found guilty; throw the damn book at her. No half measures, and absolutely no concessions, let her share a cell with Morley and co, the other crooks.

SNP divisions ahead of conference

The SNP are showing signs of division and stress ahead of their Perth conference, with ex-leader Wilson speaking out against Salmond and the alleged 'relegation' of the independence agenda under his leadership

Let me take you back three years, to the SNP victory over McConnell's Labour executive. Mr Alex Salmond is named "parliamentarian of the year" by the Spectator, for the "spectacular" victory at the polls. Now however the man who was once feared, according to Cochrane has now become a busted flush. He not only doesn't frighten anyone, but he is unable to stop criticism of his leadership from ex-leaders and Party grandees.

It is this context that Salmond badly needs s 'good' conference before the 2011 Holyrood GE. There is mounting discontent over his commitment to independence, within SNP loyalist ranks. And they do perhaps have a point, as Salmond has changed his tune on independence dramatically since assuming office in 2007.

Within three weeks of taking power from the discredited Labour-Liberal coalition, Salmond ordered the changing of the name of the devolved body. From the 'Scottish Executive' - still its real name - to the "Scottish Government", as a sign of his determination to drive through the separatist agenda. Today, he calls for the SNP to focus on achieving devolution-max. On top of that; much to Gordon Wilson's unhappiness; he has jettisoned the SNP raison d'etre till after 2011 elections. So bold saving the A&E wards, now so timid that he cannot even stomach a Holyrood debate on his own independence bill.

It is to much SNP internal dismay that Salmond has now given up even holding a debate in parliament on the issue; as Cochrane reveals in his Telegraph column - "it will not now even be debated" before 2011.

It is in this, dire, weak and slipping context that former SNP leader Gordon Wilson has turned direct fire on Alex Salmond. He accuses Salmond in direct terms, telling the Telegraph: "Salmond relegated independence".

To Wilson, Britain is a failing state - and Salmond is mad not to push the 'broken Britain' message. Ironically, this is the exact carbon-copy same criticism put forward last year by SNP grandee Jim Sillars. And it now is being parroted by other leaders of the separatist crusade. But more worrying still for team Salmond, and the cybernats out in the bloggosphere is the fact that Wilson informed the Telegraph that he was 'determined' to elaborate his views once at conference.

The engine has left the tracks ahead of the conference. Can the SNP create the impression of unity before the Holyrood electioneering begins next year? Or will they start mauling each other now, and implode upon their defeat?

Voters back welfare reforms

Voters have backed the coalition's drive to reduce Britain's welfare bill as it can be revealed how billions of pounds in extra cuts are set to be unveiled this month.

The Daily Telegraph explains why the majority of British voters now back Conservative-led reform to the failing welfare system;

"An ICM survey for this newspaper shows a clear majority of voters still supports the controversial decision to axe child benefit for higher-rate taxpayers from 2013.

They also back further reductions of the £195 billion welfare budget in preference to cutbacks in defence and education as ministers step up their assault on Britain's record budget deficit"

This follows on the eve of some of the toughest reductions in excessive welfarism to date, with the welfare department being asked by Whitehall chief's to cut by 25% over the next four years. And while this may sound severe, tough and excessive - it isn't. A progressive 25% cut over the outlined set period of time works out around 6.25%, barely above the rate Labour proposed under the last Darling budget.

I am pleased however that the Conservative government are locking targets with our own natural constituency, and telling the £44k and above crowd, that you too will take the brunt of cuts. Perhaps this can explain the mistaken conference leak of the child benefit cut for those on £44,000 - it was an attempt [silly, albeit] to draw attention to the fact that even the natural Tory constituency will experience the anvil of sensible, prudent government.

The Telegraph provides the rundown on the numbers, and the Tory led coalition seems to be winning the phony war on economic perception at the moment:

"However, the ICM poll showed that 53 per cent of voters backed the decision, well down on the 83 percent who supported it shortly after it was announced in a YouGov survey last week, but still a clear majority of voters. Some 37 per cent told ICM they opposed the move.

Offered the choice between three areas of large government spending to bear the brunt of future cutbacks, voters chose welfare (42 per cent), over defence (31 per cent) and education (11 per cent).

Overall the poll saw the Conservatives record a "bounce" to end the party conference season four points ahead of Labour.

The Tories were up three points on the previous ICM poll, taken after Labour's conference, on 38 per cent, while Labour went down three to 34 per cent and the Liberal Democrats were unchanged on 18 per cent.

There was more good news for Mr Cameron when voters were asked which party leader is "most likely to understand the financial situation of you and your family".

The Prime Minister came top with 29 per cent, ahead of Mr Miliband on 24 per cent and Mr Clegg on 15 per cent."

The question which will be asked, but can't be answered is, will a plural majority still be in favour of cutting the deficit, and welfare once the spending review is announced - and the fiscal tightening starts to squeeze?

Reforming pensions - interim report

John Hutton is heading up the most pensions reform since 1945 - so what is the rundown on the interim report?

Hutton is correct, when he began to set out his case for reform by praising the fact that 85% of those working in the public sector are actively saving for retirement. Key in any reform must be to acknowledge the successes in the public sector pensions system; before grappling with sustainability issues. For, another critical problem needing reform, beyond sustainability questions surrounding public pensions schemes, is private sector preparations. Only 35% [according to the FT] actually are saving for retirement.

This is a ticking timebomb waiting to explode, and John Hutton in his interim report acknowledges this problem;

"We should celebrate the fact that more than 85 per cent of those in the public sector are saving for their retirement in an employer-sponsored pension scheme. This contrasts with only 35 per cent in the private sector."

But, as the coalition reviews are making abundantly clear, there are very real problems with the public sector pensions schemes too. It isn't all a question of securing more private sector savings schemes for retirement preparation.

"...the costs of providing these pensions are rising – up by a third in recent years – and these extra costs have fallen almost entirely on the shoulders of taxpayers. This is not sustainable"

Indeed with many now living decades after retirement, sustainability is a challenging second issue. Hutton's interim report is reassuring, again because he explicitly discusses this problem; adeptly and intellgently setting out where we are now, and what the problems are caused by. In the case of sustainability in state pension arrangements, and indeed in many private sector pension schemes - the problem is our rising standards of living. Now, like Charles Clarke on QT, I love the fact that we are all getting the chance to live longer, that people can enjoy retirement after a lifetime of work and labour. However, in 1970 people on average lived 18 years after retirement, today it is 28 years.

Currently, someone retiring from the public sector now, can expect to spent 40% of their life in retirement. This is not the same situation faced for those in the private sector, where many are forced to work well beyond official retirement age bands [both within individual firms, and the UK 'official' retirement age]. Hutton explains that this asymmetrical situation developed mainly due to the fact that for those in the public sector, cozy retirement conditions made up for poorer pay during working life. Today however, as the interim report illustrates, isn't true. Today public sector workers enjoy better job security, unionisation of labour, and pay and conditions. On top of that they can expect safer, better provisioned pension schemes.

Hutton, in explaining the interim report and the general thrust wrote the following to the FT:

"Third, there is also a question mark over the total pensions contributions that are currently being paid and whether they actually reflect the costs of the benefits received. I do not believe contributions and benefits are in a sustainable balance.

Fourth, there is a growing gap between pensions in the public and private sector, which threatens to cast a negative shadow on labour market productivity and future reforms in the way we deliver public services.

These challenges cannot be brushed under the carpet. They need to be faced up to and sensible solutions found. I believe the case for reform is clear.

The emotiveness of pensions is not lost on me and it certainly is not lost on the British people. I recognise the importance of public service pensions to a large number of people in this country and I support the vital functions that the public sector performs and the people who work in it.

In looking to the future, I am clear that there is absolutely no point in penalising low-paid workers in the public sector, who have done the right thing and made financial provision for retirement, especially when to do so would only have the effect of pushing these individuals on to means-tested welfare benefits in their old age"

I am reassured that the cross-party nature of these reforms are being well thought out. Credit must go to the coalition for having the maturity in bringing in some of the brightest Labour minds into the reform programme. And, like Charles Clarke, Lord Prescott's talk of 'betrayal and Quisling' behaviour of Hutton and Field for being bi-partisan is "puerile". But then, Lord two-jags is an alleged two-faced hypocrite ...

Labour shadow cabinet: informative

The Labour shadow cabinet is very telling, most notibly for who is in and who is out...

Murphy and Alexander

It is exceptionally telling that these two Scots are in senior cabinet positions, given that they helped run David Miliband's election campaign for leadership! This is a perfect example of just how weak Red Ed's position vis-a-vis the PLP is, given that they voted with a clear majority for the elder, rather than younger Miliband.

On top of this, it also creates a worrying thought, that major cabinet positions like Defence is going to MPs like Murphy; not on an assessment of their talent; but on if the appointment shall stabilise a weak leadership. Given that the British system of confrontational parliamentary democracy dependents upon holding the government to account, this is concerning. Just how able is Jim Murphy to hold a man like Liam Fox to account? Especially given that Dr Fox is a master of his brief, having held onto it in opposition and now in government for years, whereas Murphy is coming out of the largely redundant Scotland Office in Westminster...

Silly positive-discrimination cut-off

Further is the noticeable impact of the absurd Ed Miliband-Harriet Har[person] policy of a minimum percentage of women in the shadow cabinet. This 'positive' discrimination [so called] has now left us with an opposition spokesperson like Yvette Cooper as Foreign Secretary ... Hague will wipe the floor with her. And Caroline Flint [you remember, the hypocrite who had a hissy fit and walked out on Brown after not getting her 'dream job'] as shadow for local government, communities... oht God!

But don't worry there is always Meg Hiller too ... who?!

This totally unknown, selected on the basis of her gender, is only responsible for the critically important field of energy and climate change.

These shadow cabinet selection illustrates naivety on a suffocating scale, and poor judgement that makes for an epic of foolishness. The only real danger is Allan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor, but again - does he have the experience to take on Osborne, another politician who has commanded his brief since opposition for literally years?

Red Ed also loses heavily for appointing Harriet Har[person] to any cabinet job. I cannot stand the shrill harpie. God she is actually in charge of shadow international development ... suppose this may shut her up about that militant, Stalinist feminism she represents and harps on about constantly!!

Vince Cable defends the cuts

Having just spoken at the Stirling Williamson memorial lecture, Dr Vince Cable defends the needs for cuts; but as a cross-party necessity rather than ideological obsession

Arriving, post crises

Dr Cable spoke charmingly well concerning how we arrived at the current budget deficit. He outlined the economic causes which lay underneath the financial market burst and the housing market bubble; without once mentioning Labour.

Focusing on the economics, at a global as opposed to UK level initially, he explained how years of lax thinking helped sow the seeds. At the heart of the entire speech was an attack on laissez-faire economics; a fair point to be made - as Dr Cable said during the lecture, "no serious economist" anymore can claim that markets regulate and correct themselves. Indeed the financial market failure, and the current failure of liquidity rather bolsters this claim.

Digging more deeply, in an interesting claim to be making as a Business Secretary for the coalition, he outlined an argument [well made] that part of the longer term solution is recognising a positive role for government. And here I'd like to partly agree with the broad thrust of some of the argument; as markets are a-moral, which is why they crave regulation by government. The only caveat I'd make; one which Dr Cable failed to sufficiently stress enough; is that over regulation is as much a threat to sensible economics as under-regulation.

Avoiding the blame game

Fundamentally however Dr Cable deliberately avoided the question of which political Party in the UK ought to carry more blame. Instead, he sought to emphasise how the subsequent debt burden from dealing with the banking crises; must be tackled. And, Cable showed much maturity in praising the Labour policy of nationalising the failing banking institutions - a sensible policy which they ought to have done quicker, instead of waiting three months.

Yet on this point, Cable is correct to emphasise the need to take the deficit seriously, unionist as well as nationalist. Not least since a substantial portion of UK plc debt is Scottish share, we must support a sensible and fair programme to attack the debt burden.

Cable argued that the austerity message is yet to really hit Scotland, and given the Conservative policy of Osborne to enable the SNP to delay austerity measures till after the 2011 Holyrood GE, this may be true.

However, I'd again like to note that Cable may have been advised to acknowledge the point that Scottish economic recovery has been less robust than England [which enjoys the S.E and London to perk it up] - and therefore Scotland is quite right to delay harmful cuts till a years time.

Conclusion

A well delivered, mature speech by a politician who clearly relishes the chance to make a difference in high office. Carefully written and eloquently delivered - the speech managed to avoid some of the worst of partisan politics, and instead outlined a sensible explanation of what must be done to push beyond the crisis. Some of the solutions outlined included; acknowledgement for a need to regulate markets [not overly so], the need for government to aid and encourage skills, apprenticeships in the 'knowledge economy'; and also rather interestingly the importance of the manufacturing and export industry to future UK balanced growth.

That latter point was a point I eagerly agree with personally, especially since manufacturing suffered a worse squeeze in the 13 years of the last Labour government than it actually did throughout the whole 1980s. Yet it is vital, for sustainable and balanced growth that the UK nurtures our very competitive manufacturing sector.

.

Finally, it was a pleasure to listen to him - time to return to my dissertation!

Conservative Conference: Law and Order Reform - "make 'em work!"

Ken Clarke is on the ball at conference with his call for prisoners in England and Wales to work a 40 hour week - time to make them repay their debt to society

The reform direction Clarke is proposing is to get companies, firms and industries to locate work into prisons, so that prisoners can not only repay their debt to the society the violated; but also gain practical working skills at the same time. The direction of travel has been welcomed enthusiastically by the Director of the Prisons Reform Trust, Juliet Lyon.

She explained to the BBC:

"In principle, the direction is absolutely the right one. If prisoners do gain skills for work, we know that people who leave prison with work to go to - that's only about a third of people at the moment - are far less likely to re offend, dramatically less likely, than people who go out homeless, jobless and unfortunately all too ready to get into trouble again."

Such a scheme outlined by Ken Clarke can make a real difference in the fight to re-integrate criminals back into society upon release for prison. We need to drive down the re-offending rates, and this new policy direction - coupled with the measures already announced against sentencing under 6 months - offers England and Wales a bold new era. An era free from Labour's failures on crime, law and order.

The coalition government is committed to cutting the prison population through fewer shorter sentences and improving the rehabilitation of offenders through better training.

The Ministry of Justice plans to enact dormant legislation, the 1996 Prisons Earnings Act, which would allow prisoners to be paid more than the average of £8 a week those that work currently receive but for deductions to be made from their wages.

At the moment they do not pay taxes and are paid in cash.

The Justice Secretary - Ken Clarke is proving an important lesson however, that you can indeed do more with less... not that any of us have much choice following 13 years of Labour tax & spend incompetence...

Revealed: Labour & the Council tax bombshell

Labour leader [in Holyrood] Iain Gray has confirmed to the Sunday Herald that households up and down the country face higher bills if he wins...

Iain Gray has announced that he considers the council tax freeze "unsustainable", and plans to end it if he wins power next year. Currently the SNP tax freeze, pushed through the parliament in collaboration with the Scots Tories, saves the average taxpayer £200. Maybe someone can tell me how Labour's opposition for opposition's sake has been representative of any kind of "sustainable"? They oppose every proposed measure for fiscal tightening, and unveil new policies, which add more fiscal burdens onto the taxpayers plate. If anything is unsustainable, it is surely the Labour Party policy manifestos!

Gray called for the "empowerment of local government", presumably to hike up taxes to ensure the Labour councillors don't need to tighten their belt alongside everyone else.

However in a worrying addition to this return to Labour tax & spend logic, councils are rushing out with demands for a 3% increase in council tax [above inflation]. If Labour wins, even as a minority governing Party, the poor had better be prepared for a huge squeeze on the marginal rates.

Despite the obvious foolishness of these new plans, Iain Gray confidently predicts Labour victory in Holyrood 2011; adding that a minority Labour regime would be more productive than the SNP. Now, Salmond may be a divisive individual in my book, but wee Iain doesn't even have the stature as a leader to feature on the pages of political commentary...that is unless it's a Labour rag like the Daily Record...

Although the SNP plans to replace council tax with LIT foundered after it failed to stack up financially, the freeze negotiated in conjunction with the Scots Tories has proved progressive, important and hugely popular. One Labour dividing line has been drawn up, Labour tax & spend versus SNP [and Tory] tax relief. I know which policy I prefer!

And if an SNP-Tory coalition can keep Labour & Iain Gray out, it is acceptable as a lesser evil.

Salmond and the Gathering U-turn

Pressure is growing on the erstwhile SNP leader following Telegraph revelations concerning just how deeply implicated the FM actually was...

The FM has finally dropped his refusal to testify before the Public Audit Committee in Holyrood, after months of refusal. In classic Salmond style, he immediately reached for the fall-guy, and Mike Russell was sent up instead. The only problem being the Telegraph Politics Editor did some ferreting, and proved Salmond's implication in the huge failure ran deeper than he has thus far admitted.

According to the Daily Telegraph:

"But new documents published by this newspaper showed Mr Salmond made a personal pledge to Edinburgh City Council to “work hand in hand” on organising a second event

This was followed up by an offer of at least £380,000 of taxpayers’ money if another clan reunion was staged, with the promise of even more funding if required, despite an admission it would probably also make a loss."

To the FM however, he tried to avoid being held to account over SNP involvement in the first Clan Gathering disaster - by agreeing to appear to answer questions on "only the second" Gathering. Nothing like open government with FM Alex and the dinner expenses!

The Gathering was the centrepiece of Mr Salmond's Homecoming festival last year, which was intended to attract people of Scottish heritage from around the world. It culminated with a clan parade on the Royal Mile to Edinburgh Castle.

Despite the good intentions it was a complete commercial failure, which saw more than 100 local suppliers left being owed £344,000, Mr Salmond has repeatedly claimed it generated £10.4 million for the economy.

However independent economists have since concluded its benefits were hugely exaggerated, but the documents show SNP ministers were intent on staging a second event before any assessment of the first had been conducted. Responsible? No - but then this is the lot that released the mass murdering terrorist from prison; you remember, the one that is still alive...

In all, Salmond and the SNP executive offered a further £380,000 with the likelihood of a “higher level of financial support” despite an admission the event’s cost would probably exceed its takings.

Time for the FM to face the music, and explain this shocking waste of the hard-pressed taxpayers money!