Death of the Celtic Tiger

The markets seem unsatisfied with the euro-bailout, and the Irish economy remain teetering on the brink of meltdown. It is clear that we are now seeing the death of the 'Celtic Tiger', now a distant dream of two years past

Back in the heydays of the Irish economic boom; speculators were warmly projecting years of lasting growth. The so-called 'masters of the universe' in Washington invested eager amounts into the Irish banks [mostly owned by foreign countries] - and companies like Google.com were relocating their corporate HQs to Dublin.

It was normal back then for your average transnational businessman to spend his morning in London, pack off to Dublin for a day of meetings in high-powered corporate meetings; and dash back off to the UK again for a late dinner. I bet none of these businessmen, spivs, speculators and other kinds of financial market-traders ever actually saw real Dublin - but hey-ho, they weren't going there for the tourist attractions were they?

Learning lessons

.

It suddenly became all clear, what was going wrong. With the downfall of the US giant Lehman Bros - there was a near Gotterdammerung shock wave splashing across the world like a tsunami. Ireland was caught completely out.

It was the bloated financial services, a hyper inflated property bubble that the Irish tax system was geared to depend on ... in was the light-touch regulation that no major politician seemed to criticise. But let us not excuse our own part, it was individual consumer debt and government debt that we were all encouraging. None of us, Irish, Brit, American, French or damn Korean can be excused. For the debt levels in rich countries should hold us all in shame; spending money we didn't have, on products we never needed, for people who probably chucked them out.

This is the context of what went wrong in Ireland, and unfortunately the Irish Republic has become what we will in the future see and regard as a model of future busts.

Ireland, for so long refusing a bailout, realised only too late that its economic key was built on the twin pillars of rampant, ridiculous speculation and lax, incompetent regulation. Now that they have been bailed out - there is little sign of a euro-bounce on the stock markets. And Ireland? Their deficit is now an unbelievable 32% of GDP - with the future bailout size potentially topping 200bn euros.

One thing is clear - the Irish banks shall all be more humble than before. For Ireland, the days of growth, high-flying financial sectors and a contempt for their traditional industry [agriculture] is over...a distant dream, the Celtic Tiger is dead. Thank God Scotland hadn't become independent and copied their example as Salmond wanted

Labour infighting as Red Ed flounders

The Labour leader 'Red Ed' (announced that he was "socialist") has begun the fightback to restore his failing leadership as divisions reopen in UK Labour

Leadership troubles...

In an attempt to get his leadership back on track Ed Miliband struggled to begin articulating his vision for Labour - post power. Having struggled to gain much resonance with the public, Ed needs to urgently seize upon a vision for his Party.

The Sunday Times Opinion Polls show his personal rating fall into negative territory; and while leaders ratings do vary over times and between polls, what makes this of interest here is Red Eddy's total failure to enjoy any honeymoon period with the public. The data shows a -9 personal rating with 28% thinking he is doing well, 37% doing badly.

So the NPF offered him just that opportunity. But more on that in a minute..

Pity he failed, and badly in his radio interview with Humphrey's. Indeed according to one Labour MP he was a "car crash" -- now that his harsh from your own damn side. Just think what the public will be saying when he announced that he remains committed to higher taxes [wants to keep the 50% tax on YOUR income] and on top of that described himself as a "socialist".

In the same 15 minute phone in questions section in the radio interview with John Humphrey; Red Ed indicated he may join future student marches; two of which have resulted in injury, violence and chaos...but he still wants to keep Labour's tuition fees legacy [I reckon he can't convince his own shadow chancellor to support him in changing Labour policy]. Weak weak weak seems to have been the Labour response to his weekend activities:

"I just sat there for about two minutes with my head in my hands," a Labour MP said. "I could barely believe what I was hearing. Ed was sending us further and further into the electoral abyss."

But back to the NPF speech ...

It has been branded his big relaunch, but it seems the Saturday speech failed to stop Labour backbenchers placing their comrade-leader into a 'not stepping up to the plate' category. But more interestingly, the Sunday Times has carried a report showing a growing number of Labour MPs are categorising ALL shadow ministers - those who have 'stepped up' and 'taken on' the Tories and those who haven't.

Red Eds speech sadly didn't show much public resonance as today's nation-wide poll showed a rather pathetic drop in Labour support; and now the Conservatives are level pegging again.

In the speech he seemed to do a heck of a lot of 'talking' and 'listening' to his Party, but surely his problem is that he is too busy 'engaging' with his already converted rather than showing any sign of actual leadership?

The Labour polls may still be holding up rather well, but the leadership ratings for the self-professed 'socialist' Red Ed remain bad-getting-worse. Labour needs to worry, remember the potent Ed-Yvette Balls axis in cabinet [surely they want the leadership for themselves!] and David Miliband [who refused to serve under his brother in the shadow cabinet].

Labour, a Party for government? Where? Even in Scotland the SNP executive is catching them up given the latest polls... but e-gad it is awful: Red Ed and his loyal side-kick Ian Gray...'ready for action'? LOL!

Sanderson calling ... and we need to pick up

One of the most comprehensive reports in our Scottish Party history is offering us a way through the pathetic shambles we currently dwell in - we must seize it with both hands

With the party performing worse now than 1997, you would have thought the lessons contained in the Lord Sanderson Report would have been learnt by now. But no. It has taken four - mark it, four - electoral drubbings at Westminster [not including all those European, and local and Holyrood failures] --the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party has finally got the message. Unless we radically change and reform; putting people first; we shall continue to languish in our corpse-like form. Disliked, mistrusted, hated even.

The Sanderson Reports' emphasis on people transcends all of the main proposals. The desire for a single leader for the Scottish Party - elected by a Scottish one member, one vote foundation, represents this most immediately. The post 1998 whitewash of a 'reform' gave us the disastrous tripartite system for 'leadership' [read: lack thereof]. This central proposal, where anyone can stand to lead, not just MSPs, but anyone at all -- will go a long way toward ending the infighting, the rival power bases and segregated interests. Sanderson however goes further than this, which was expected and long awaited proposal for change. He proposes that this new leader [to be elected after May ... Ms Goldie, get the flipping hint] should also have the final say over who becomes the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party chairperson. With Cameron's 'overall leadership role' being reduced to merely being consulted. This is truly excellent.

Let me explain why, that last point in particular is very important and urgently required. Under that new system of leadership, and control over who was chairperson; we could have a Scottish leadership accountable to ONLY the Scottish Conservative membership [not being second guessed from London every flipping minute] -- but also the new leadership could be .. well ... more fucking Scottish. Can I be that blunt? No one minds? I don't want to offend any old guard anti-devo types out there, but let me explain before rushing to condemn me for playing into any nationalist hands ...

We need a Scottish centre-right Party, and under these proposed leadership changes, we can have a Scottish members accountable leadership able to pursue an independent policy platform suitable for Scotland. More than a re-branding, actual hard policy changes to be more Scotland friendly. Scotland does after all have radically different policy needs to what is required in London.

However I need to also point out the intelligent and totally brilliant Sanderson call for a whole new way of selecting candidates. We in Stirling had the Scots Tories first ever open primary for our new candidate - and the Sanderson report does call for an end to the older system of selection that we Stirling Tories have already led the way in abolishing.

And new selection procedures we bloody well do need! Knowing some ex-candidates personally, I can tell you that they all, man and women of the lot of them - hated the whole process. Before, during and after. They felt they lacked support from Edinburgh HQ, that they didn't get the best training, and some even that resources [and even selections themselves!] operated in a manner best described as 'buggins turn'. High time we introduced new selection proceedings that put the membership first, put the candidates merits first, and ends the old guard stranglehold of vested interest rife in the Party.

Only if these things happen can we attract younger, energetic members. And we urgently need to see this happen. Our Scottish membership has fallen from 40,000 [as of 1992] to only 10,000 today. In short - and being direct - Lord Sanderson offers us a way to not only survive, but to become more than what we were; as a sum of our past; but a forward looking, totally democratised and Scottish Party.

I just hope that the incumbent leadership accepts the report in full ... and implement the recommendations for after May 2011

John Swinney misjudged Holyroods mood

His opening address differed in tone, and content from the closing - and the u-turn only just saved the finance secretary from an unusually complete-hammering

A storm in a teacup?

The accusation leveled against John Swinney at first disarmed me at the outset. I always considered him one of the more honest, direct and straightforward members of Salmonds A-team. Indeed, I put this down as playing no small a part in his horrid interim as leader years ago.
So here we are, and Swinney 'is it' as we approach the May elections next year.

At first this seemed to me to be an obvious attempt at causing the incumbent government problems as we run up on a GE - and I had no problem with it in that light. That comes as a matter of course. But after Swinney's less-than-solid performance as he attempted to explain away the issues in play; he clearly made matters worse for himself, the SNP and perhaps their poll ratings [On the latter point, we shall have to wait to find out].

Swinney made a real mistake with his tone in his opening address, and the silence on the SNP benches as Annabel Goldie put forward her case indicated that he was losing the debate. He should of shown more contrition, the exact same he finally adopted in his closing. His failure to do so at the beginning of the debate meant that some members of the Holyrood opposition were provoked into putting a boot in.

Let me explain my point - he didn't need to be so strident; and the fact that he did come across that way meant that many of my fellow Tories were provoked into getting angry. The majority of the current Tory intake of MSPs were against, or at the very least voted against devolution anyway. A more humble and lower key statement of his case would probably of taken much of the sting out of the attack - from the Tory benches at least.

As Cochrane put it in the Telegraph today, "While those of us who voted against it [devolution] — like this observer — may not have been able to see what all the fuss was about"

Swinney misjudged the mood of the opposition, and stimulated rather than watered down the passions of the enemies he faced. But that is for the original opponents. His tone also made his case less effective vis-a-vis 'devo-maxers'; who naturally felt betrayed by the surrendering of devolved pillars to Westminster.

Unarguably, to my mind, outwith any reference to the facts, details or arguments on either side - it seems to this blogger Swinney got his opening tone all wrong, why is why he had to dash for advice from Nicola Sturgeon [who even dash back into the chamber as the parliamentary mood got worse and worse; having left].

But what are the facts anyway?

Enough said about this choice of tone and wording in his speech - what were the arguments put against the SNP, and the finance secretary in particular?

At the heart of it would seem to be the fact that Swinney failed to inform Holyrood that the power to vary tax was being lost - or placed into 'abeyance'. In an interesting, if a tad melodramatic, display from Tavish Scott - there is clearly evidence that Swinney had ample opportunities to inform the chamber of this change in powers - 'no less than 110 chances' if we are to understand Tavish rantings.

The problem I had with Swinney's - important - response; that the mothballing was a hangover from the last Labour-Liberal coalition; is that it again missed the real issue. Why had he not informed parliament about what was going on?

Goldie may have had a point when she argued to the chamber that it may have had something to do with the SNP 2011 GE plan to fight for LIT as a policy. To do this, they could hardly admit surrendering the mechanisms needed to deliver the policy.

At the end of the day, Swinney only just avoided a vote of no confidence - when he rose at the end and apologised. I counted no less than two full apologies, several regrets and one "misjudgement". There was even a lonely "I have learned my lesson". The fact at the end of the day is that Swinney failed to address the issues which were at the heart of the debate, that he had failed to inform Holyrood about the goings-on and the fact that he had apparently violated the "democratic voice" of the Scots people who want Parliament to have tax varying powers.

I just want to emphasis my total surprise that of all the SNP ministers who could have landed themselves in such a mire; it was this one. Swinney, a man known for being a master of his many briefs, and a direct and above board operator could have mucked up his repost in the debate so totally. Ian Gray even had an unarguably excellent day, landing some real body blows which is why perhaps the stunned SNP backbenchers were busy shuffling papers, examining their shoe-wear, indeed anything except cheer or clap for their man in the dock.

Stop blaming the euro - it isn't the cause of Ireland's problems

Blaming the euro for Irish economic woes is wishful thinking by europhobes, and a deliberate attempt at turning it into the 'hate' figure ... by a weak and collapsing Fianna Fail

"Facts, lets look at them please"

It is simply inaccurate the place the euro in the role of Fagin, or Macbeth - the lieing manipulative chief cause of Irish problems. Let me be frank about it, it wasn't the euro that instigated the Irish property boom, nor was it the euro that caused the banks and economy to sink to the floor. No. Indeed Iceland show that even had they not been in the eurozone, the balloon would still have gone up; only difference being that they'd have been bankrupt a whole lot sooner - and been completely at the mercy of the Washington-based IMF.

To blame the euro for Irish woes is typical, irritating British euroscepticism mixed with schadenfreude. And I for one can do without it.

But let me go even further, it isn't even clear why Ireland will push the eurozone to the brink of collapse either.

The real danger and risk for these weak eurozone members would be to drop out of the single currency. If for example Greece opted to reintroduce the drachma, the subsequent speculation matched with the cripplingly huge interest levels demanded on Greek borrowing would kill them off all over again. Face facts - withdrawal from the eurozone simply isn't a credible economic option - nor has it ever been one.

After all one of the key challenges the Irish, like the Greeks face right now is the huge debts being owed to foreigner, and the risk of withdrawal would effectively be to devalue their currencies - which would INCREASE the value of those debts.

So no, lets quit this silly euro-bashing, the facts and cold light of reality do not back any of it up.

Schools Reform - fighting against exclusion?

An interesting White Paper has been revealed which aims among a plethora of changes - to fight against exclusion in English education

Exclusions and league tabling of schools

Michael Gove [a proud son of Aberdeen] has announced his intention to clamp down on a dirty habit which exists inside the misty half-dark of English educational establishments. His White Paper announced today aims to end a culture of exclusion of the less strong student performers. According to the Telegraph, it has been long suspected that poorer-performing pupils are excluded from schools; sometimes on extremely dubious grounds, so that their grades do not reflect on the league tabling results.

Naturally, if this is true, Gove has a moral duty to end a grubby practice. And he seems to be grasping the nettle, which is good:

"Education insiders believe that, currently, some schools "find excuses" to exclude poorly performing pupils at an early stage, knowing hat once they are off their hands, their results will not count on league tables."

But it again casts a spotlight on the negative impact that league tabling of schools can have. It is important therefore to find ways of mitigating these negative impacts; while not doing anything to undermine the access to information for parents searching for the ideal school for their youngsters. Thus I read with interest the White Paper - which seems to try and solve this by making governing bodies from a school which excludes a pupil will be responsible for finding him or her a place at a new school and for funding the pupil at their new school.

Seems to be a well meaning paper, but until it becomes subject to deeper scrutiny there remains a plethora of questions. Unfortunately, due to the absence of a capable opposition party in Westminster, the Labour Party has failed to make any responses available concerning these policy aspects of the White Paper. Instead all they seem to want to talk about is a supposed rift over sports spending --- as important as that debate is, the White Paper surely ought to be their chief priority? After all, this White Paper is radically overhauling the New Labour education legacy concerning exclusion, league tabling of results and teacher-empowerment.

.. oh well ..

At least Lord Mandelson has managed to make a statement in today's Telegraph ... only problem is that he is attacking his own leader Red Ed ... Labour - a total shower.

Funding reform

The White Paper also seems to seek to alter how the comprehensive system funds the schools. Gove is right, in my opinion, to seek to end the deathly grasping fingers of local government incompetence from the educational throats of the nations children. And the White Paper shall introduce a "new funding formula" which will reallocate around £5bn in funding, alongside reset budgets for primary and secondary schools.

Time to make local schools free schools. Free to be more autonomous, free to be more transparent, free to make local decisions based on local needs. I welcome the overall gist of this White Paper.

Tories ARE prioritising the fight against tax dodgers

Isn't it time to set the record straight, and encourage anti-Tory ideologues to grow up and stop pretending?

£900m fund

"Speaking at the Liberal Democrat party conference in Liverpool, Mr Alexander said that £900m had been earmarked by the government to target high earners using loopholes to lower their tax bills."

The F.T reporting on the policy from September 23rd this year.

The date is important to note, as a common criticism from the cynical anti-Tory ideologues is the idea that any attempt to target tax dodgers is somehow a very new idea. But as is clear to anyone familiar with the facts [or indeed a regular reader of the Financial Times], that since the coalition agenda was finalised and agreed upon; this has been a main focus.

The £900m new investment into targeting the tax dodgers is projected to introduce a whopping £7bn each year to the treasury. So this also would draw attention to the fact that coalition spending cuts and savings have revenue-raised from this kind of targeting hardwired into it. Osborne specifically drew out in some detail his hopes to minimise cuts across departments if enough could be raised by this policy of making the rich pay their fair share.

But let us notice with this F.T piece that the plan includes targeting tax avoidance as well as tax evasion - as they are both as morally disgusting as one another. And the Conservative-led coalition clearly recognises this. Let me quote a senior coalition member, Danny Alexander: ""Tax avoidance and evasion are unacceptable in the best of times but in today’s circumstances it is morally indefensible.""

Offshore tax evasion

Here is more, Osborne has often been accused of failing to tackle offshore tax evasion - naturally this isn't much true either!

"A government crackdown on tax evasion in overseas havens is expected to raise £10bn in this parliament, far more than previous forecasts"

That quotation isn't from the so-called 'Torygraph', nor the Conservative-supporting Sun. Oh no - it is from the daily mail of the left, the Guardian newspaper. So let us get real, even the home of Polly bloody Toynbee recognises that this commonly put accusation against the Tories is about as true as pink unicorns flying over the Scottish moors.

Indeed Osborne, in a much under-covered news item revealed that he has even managed to get the Swiss to agree to be apart of the offshore clampdown. The Guardian reporting on it on November 13th:

"Officials said a further £3bn was expected to be raised from Swiss bank accounts after an agreement with tax authorities there, signed 10 days ago, to push forward on a deal. There is thought to be up to £125bn stashed away in Swiss bank accounts by British citizens."

I could go on and on with this subject, but suffice to say - it is bunkum to even suggest that Tories like myself, or this Conservative-led coalition is failing to go after the tax dodgers!

Can the UK afford to bail out Ireland?

Questions are now being raised, and in policy cycles urgently discussed, if the UK can afford to bail out Ireland

The argument running through my mind

Senior Tory backbencher and economic policy wizard John Redwood has written an excellent blog piece arguing that the UK cannot afford to bail out the Irish republic. Before reading it, I was of the traditional pro-European mindset that we couldn't afford not to, but now I am back on the fence.

Outlining a solid case for fiscal conservatism, Redwood points out that in the last five months the UK coalition has conceded to raising a further £15.6bn of spending from lending - and a whopping £7bn of that additional 15.6bn of lent money is reserved just for the Irish bailout. In an ideal world, if Gordon Brown hadn't turned out to be a bad a chancellor, and we never had any busts [i.e. recessions] - perhaps this could be more affordable.

Yet let us stop at this point. Despite the totally sensible argument made by Redwood that any fiscal conservative worthy of the name would surely blush and blanch and borrowing £7bn of money to lend to someone else country; isn't there another point?

This won't be a free handout! This is likely to be a UK loan, with interest taboot. So, not so bad if you factor that in. Additionally, Ireland is acutely necessary for any UK recovery. With huge UK banking exposure to Irish bad debt, and the fact that if Ireland does go belly up it is our taxpayers being forced to pay the tab - value for UK taxpayers money would suggest the need to bail out. Or at least, as is proposed right now, contribute to a German-French package.

This issue is more complicated still, if we remember that the UK trades more with Ireland than with any of the BRIC countries! [That is Brazil, Russia, India, China!!]. Ireland represents 6% of UK trade! This beings me on to my next point; namely that Redwood seems to ignore [perhaps deliberately] that the UK is dependent on eurozone countries for our hopes of trading our way out of recession. Britain needs a stable Ireland, just as it needs a stable eurozone more generally for our own economic well being and future growth.

But, again, the issue is complicated. And it surely is not destined to be a popular proposal - but as they say, government is there to lead. Now, perhaps we must support a bailout - and the Conservative coalition's leadership to do it

Budget day for Scotland

The journalists have fired their engines, and with today's postings - the race for assessment has begun. The question is simple, is John Swinney's budget really a budget - or a re-election tool?

'Smoke and mirrors'

Conservative 'young turk' Derek Brownlee; credited with pulling out excellent Tory deals during the previous budget negotiations with the SNP minority executive; has accused the SNP finance secretary of seeking to 'hide billions of cuts' inside efficiency savings. He informed the Telegraph:
.
"Mr Swinney can do it for one year through smoke and mirrors using a combination of soft options and increasing efficiency targets without saying how they will be achieved. That’s why he is producing a budget for only one year,"
.
Far be it for me to douse some sobering thoughts on what many of my fellow unionists may consider a 'good story' - this isn't. I was among those who defended Osborne's budgets, and last time I recalled Westminster believed that large scale real terms cuts could be made through efficiency. Why would Scotland be any different? But more importantly, what is wrong with a little efficiency in the Scottish civil service and public sector more widely?
.
As for the one-year bill - that is open to speculation as to the motives. Was it naked politicking? Well, given the SNP leader's track record for grandstanding I wouldn't put it past Alex, but let us be fair here - unless anyone has an executive memorandum to leak, or can mind read - let us face it. We don't know. Which of us lay bloggers can honestly do anything other than speculate as to the motives of a one-year only bill. Suspicious yes, evidence of damning politicking with the national finances? Perhaps - but we cannot know Swinney's motives until he articulates them. He is yet to do so, he is yet to justify his decision to hold a one-year only finance bill.

What is in the budget?

There are some positive elements to the Swinney budget, so let us start with praise where it is due. [shock horror - I can here hard line unionists keeling over as I type]

The Scottish parliament chiefs have announced that due to the budget, they are cutting their annual budgets by 12% over the next four years. This amounts to a total net saving of £9.5m. Not as much as could be hoped, but the symbolism is right.

Beyond this, a two year pay freeze for Holyrood staff has been announced - on top of previous ones:

"A two-year pay freeze for Holyrood staff will save £1 million on top of £1.5 million from a freeze previously announced for MSPs"

These measures are right, though the SNP could have went further. The problem for many is the decision to ring fence health spending. Nicola Sturgeon's backyard department. While I do not share those criticisms of this particular SNP decision, it is an uncomfortable reality that Swinney has vowed to avoid making any savings or deeper cuts in the largest single department on Holyrood's expenses sheet. All I hope is that Swinney justifies and defends this decision - just as Cameron has successfully done in England & Wales - protecting their NHS from Labour's cuts.
.
On the negative side, there is to be a cut to the number of parliamentary watchdogs. And the no compulsory redundancy pledge will come back to haunt them...or would have done had this budget been longer than just one year. It is unrealistic to avoid the tough decisions, and the hard reality of Scotland's state after 13 years of misrule from Labour in Westminster, and 8 years of misrule by Labour from Holyrood. A leader must lead, a pledge of no compulsory redundancy smacks of electioneering for next May.

Having read through the measures, it is also clear that the SNP have missed a good opportunity to radically re balance the national books. Inevitably with a one-year only bill, there is an absence of long term re balancing of the economy, of public spending. Brownlee was right to criticise this aspect of the budget - as at its very nature this is incredibly cautious:

"Wages for higher paid state employees are to be frozen but Mr Brownlee predicted the Finance Minister will announce a “political fix” instead of any major public sector reform to balance Scotland’s books in the longer term."

The weakness of the absence of longer term planning in the budget to me creates a feeling of reaction, rather than being in any real control of events. The question is now raised - what comes after the next 6/7 months? Labour's job if the sneak office shall be made easier if they are not restricted by long term [and fully under way] SNP savings and cuts...

The result is that it leaves the budget open to accusations of politicking, and the only reason I do not participate in this accusation [oh, so easy it would be] is because John Swinney does not smack me as that kind of politician. Salmond? Oh yes, but this is not his budget, and the only Alex paw prints is the short term life of the budget frankly.

According to Alan Cochrane however, politicking and opportunism there is:

"In normal circumstances, budget statements set out spending plans – or at least spending hopes – for the next three years. That will not be the case when John Swinney gets to his feet at Holyrood this afternoon.

He will deliver a financial package whose life expectancy is about seven months … sufficient to get the SNP administration through to the May 5 elections to the Scottish Parliament.

It is not so much that Mr Swinney is the complete political opportunist – or at least he's not just that sort of animal. But he will be fully aware that the future of the administration in which he plays such a key role will depend on what he says and does today."


Conclusion - a budget full of missed opportunities. An absence of radicalism, a cautious budget aimed at keeping chances alive for re-election. Disappointing.

A disgrace

Prince William to marry Kate Middleclass, what a disgrace

"Clarence House this morning confirmed that Prince William proposed while the couple were on holiday in Kenya last month. They will marry in spring or summer 2011, before Miss Middleton moves in with her husband in Wales.

The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh are said to be "absolutely delighted" by the news, while the Prince of Wales said he was "thrilled". " - Telegraph

In what can only be seen as a failure of royal duty William of Windsor is to marry a woman he thinks he loves, Kate Middleclass - and apparently everyone in the institution of the monarchy feels it fine to renege on royal duty.

I ask one thing only: if you have a royal family who refuse to act like on, behave like one and adhere to the conventions of office, what the heck is the point of having them?

Labour's Neeanderthal tendencies

In the 1964 General Election, the Conservative candidate in Smethwick, Peter Griffiths, plastered the most offensive slogan of the modern era across his campaign literature: "If you want a ni**er neighbour, vote Labour". He won the seat- but when the new Commons assembled the Labour PM Harold Wilson said Griffiths ought be treated like a "political leper" ...

Delayed reactions

The delayed reactions from among the Labour, indeed most of the, political classes toward the Phil Woolas scandal is saddening. In his headline articles, and campaign literature for Oldham East, the former immigration minister issued "Targeted: militant extremists go for Phil Woolas", "LibDems in mosque planning permission stitch-up", "Straight talking Phil Woolas too fair for militant Muslims", "LibDems in pact with the devil".

And behind the scenes, the Woolas staff and advisers circulated an email which discussed the need to "...explain to the white community how Asians will take them out...If we don't get the white vote angry, he's gone".

All of that, in Oldham East & Saddleworth. The scene of some of the worst race riots in 2001 - and Phil Woolas was far from condemned as a political leper, welcomed back into the now shadow cabinet. Resuming his dodgy role as immigration minister.

Ed Miliband, the new era, new candidate man? He was quick to defend his mates in the last New Labour regime like Nick Brown - where was he regarding Phil Woolas and his incendiary campaign? According to the New Statesman, an anonymous spokesperson for the shadow PM "we couldn't pre-empt the outcome of the court case. Ed is in an impossible position - it was Harriet Harman who kept Phil on as a shadow minister". Pathetic, nothing like new leadership, actually leading and being held account for his decisions. That cop-out 'no me gov'nor' reply through an unnamed source smacks of Gordo 'McCavity cat' Broon - Ed Mili's mentor-in-chief.

But let us consider the facts. The political literature has been in the public domain long before the trial began. Miliband could have made an example of the odious Phil Woolas, in the same way he stood up for Nick Brown in the past. He did after all call for "a fresh start" -- well let us be having some.

Woolas represents nothing other than the cynical populism and dodgy authoritarianism of the New Labour-era regime. The party of David Blunkett, who blamed refugee children for "swamping" schools, and Gordon Brown, who promised "British jobs for British workers". Their government, and their Labour Party locked up the children of immigrants, and Woolas authorised security guards to employ 'private contractors' to employ "physical control in care" on them. CHILDREN.

They represent the neanderthal tendencies within Labour. And the MPs like David Winnick and the others in the Labour PLP need to examine their consciences as they defend Phil. Michael Connarty Labour MP, demanded that Harriet Harman "examine her conscience" for suspending Phil - but perhaps someone ought to tell Connarty, it is him and his so-called conscience that needs exploring.

This anarchy must be stopped

The recent violence, anarchy and destruction in London signals the need to strengthen the resolve of the democratic government against the threats of chaos

The violence from the protesting left wing students saw chaos ranging from setting fires to invading the HQ of a legitimate [and democratically elected] political party. According to sources, Baroness Warsi and her staff had to flee the building - as invading students attacked. It can only be regarded as shameful the day thugs threaten and force to flee the UK's first ever Muslim female cabinet minister. A sad day for democracy, tolerance, civil liberties and good old fashoned decency - all have now died a death in Britain.

The police officers, too few of them on duty, were attacked too - some requiring medical attention. And this is caused by those who claim to represent the weak? The 'moral voices' of the left who instigated this violent anarchy on the streets of the capital must be utterly and truly ashamed of themselves. And the chief guilty man is the NUS president, and all the minions who supported this assault on UK democracy.

It is time for Boris Johnson to stop defending the incompetence and failure of the police forces, and to demand independent investigation into their total and complete shambles of a security operation. And once the guilty others have been found, fired with absolutely no pension rights, or golden handshake. Britain must rise above, and fight back against the forces of violence, chaos, anarchy and lawlessness. Tighten the resolve on the reform agenda. No compromises, no retreat.

To protect or not to protect

John Swinney wants to enact cuts across all departments; Nicola Sturgeon is seeking to ringfence health spending - who is right?

The Sunday press moguls lost no time in pressing the disagreement over how to initiate budget savings; with the Sunday Herald screaming about "SNP divisions" and the less reputable ones like the Daily Record bemoaning about SNP "disintegration at the top". But beyond the establishment media's hysteria, what exactly is the debate ongoing?

With an £11bn budget the health department is a big spender in the devolved budget, and combined with the jobs under Swinney's ministerial control - represents over 600,000 public sector employees. So the issue is this - should such a large section of the Holyrood budget be subject to cuts? Given that the £11bn budget is so large, there is talk by some that it could cope with some weight-loss "savings". But let us be realistic, given that the costs for sustaining high-class health standards are constantly rising, would it be fair to instigate 10% cuts in health?

In England, David Cameron has come to the view that the NHS in England & Wales is too important, and faces too many challenges to get anything less than 100% protection from cuts. Why should Scotland's wing of the service be any different? Is it not the case that the lottery-access to new drugs and treatment is a black mark on the reputation of the Scottish as much as English health service? In Scotland, as in England, the health budgets need protection from the cuts, not least given the rising costs of providing care, the administrative costs for administering free-at-point of need access and additional factors like doctors and nurses contracts - let us face it. This is no time to give the health of our nation anything less that 100% of what we can afford.

The trade off for this? 10% cuts in all other Scottish devolved departmental budgets. Accumulating in 20% overall by 2014/15.

In this case it is time to realise that seeking to institute cuts to health care on the grounds that some fiscal conservatives feel it may 'employ too many public sector workers' or on the other hand because some leftists want to reduce the scale of cuts overall aren't good enough. There is little prospect of successfully emerging from recession, and securing strong growth if we compromise the health of the nation.

Sturgeon is right to seek to protect her budget. And I hope that the SNP listen to her, and follow David Cameron's example and say with one loud voice that while cuts may be necessary due to Labour debt, it will not compromise the values, or the rights we hold dear and to be self evident. In this case, the right to access free at the point of need to highest quality health care.

Some interesting numbers

Some interesting polling numbers from the Sunday Papers ...

Full tables are up for the Sunday Times readers, and while the voting intentions are much the usual, the LibDems are on 12%, suggesting strongly that their 9% was just a polling blimp [being within 3% of the running poll of polls average - this seem incredibly likely].

However beyond the usual voting intentions, the government approval ratings have taken a knocking. According to UKPolling Report analysis:

"Up until Tuesday the government’s approval rating had been in the range -1 to -5, with around about 40% approving and 44% or so disapproving. In the three sets of results since then government approval has been minus 9 or minus 10, with 37-38% approving and 46-48% disapproving. Whether it was tuition fees, votes for prisoners or the European budget deal, something appears to have given the government a knock."

While I'd personally love to say that it was the Europe issue, and the British public were upset by Cameron's anti-European agenda, that would be too much of a ledge to be standing out on! What is interesting is that it seems either the prisoners ECHR ruling or the tuition fees deal has undermined approval of the coalition.

It seems to me to be more the ECHR and less the Tuition fees issue, given the independent polling data available on that issue alone.

For example 50% think the coalition got the balance right on tuition fees, with the remaining 50% thinking the decision was unavoidable [with 11% saying they should have implemented ALL of Browne's recommendations; including the one dropped which called for unlimited fees!].

It all seems that the prisoners issue may have been the dark horse sneaking up to do surprising damage to the coalition. But then, the ECHR ruling is completely misunderstood [even by me in my response posting earlier this week].

A] It didn't say we couldn't ban our prisoners from voting, it said if we do block their voting rights - it should be part of a judge's sentencing.

B] The ECHR has NOTHING to do with the EU

Perhaps Cameron should have spent a little more time explaining the European issue to the public, and less time doing his europhobic dance routine? After all, the eurosceptic 'never never' rhetoric is not worthy of a 21st C European leader.

Bush says Palin is "unqualified"

Mr Bush has allegedly told friends that Mrs Palin is not qualified to be president and criticises John McCain for picking her as his Running Mate in 2008.

"Naming Palin makes Bush think less of McCain as a man," a Republican official close to Mr Bush told the New York Daily News

George W. Bush has apparently launched his attack on Palin after the full impact of the mid terms became known. It is clear that the teabag influence; and Sarah Palin especially; cost the Republicans a chance at seizing control of the Senate; and Bush lost no time in making it known his opposition to teaparty influence in the Republican mainstream of policy.

According to the source at the New York Daily News, Bush put the heavy Republican hammering in the last Presidential race with Obama down to McCain signing up Palin. Bush seemed to find that this decision made McCain less electable, and illustrated poor judgement.

As a moderate, and Republican Party sympathiser I can totally agree with President Bush on that one. McCain made a terminal error during the campaign by singing up his 'big mama Grizzly'.

Her ignorance, blundering stupidity and irrational 'values' are enough to make former President George W Bush blush - and who am I do disagree with him on this one?

US elections provide mixed result

The teabagger threat has been exaggerated, the Democrats defy the swings in California and the GOP recovers -- but just how much of the recovery is actually a vote for the GOP?

California defies the GOP & Teabaggers

In California we have seen the Democrat establishment under Obama roar forth, and not only provide a metaphorical kicking to the GOP, but actually destroyed the Teabag insurgency. We have seen some amazing results from last night [UK time!] - with Harry Reid's success being announced in Las Vagas [a more garish place I cannot fathom].

But the California results are more important - because as of the end of the midterms, the 2012 presidential race now begins. And the Democrats can count a Democrat governor in the state as a huge plus on Obama's check list.

Yet the state also drew out a message that would echo across the whole US midterms last night; that the 'Palin babes' were near-universally regarded by the ordinary US voter as too extreme. It was only the male teabagger candidates who really held an insurgency-victory against the GOP establishment. California, among numerous other races and results, highlight this.

Not since 1914

All in all, it was a mixed bag, and not a great victory that either Teabagger or GOP had envisioned. For not since 1914 [yes, that long ago] has the House of Reps flipped, and the Senate not done so. Dramatic stuff. But not only did the Democrats hold the Senate majority [50 Senate seats], but they pushed past it - giving Obama some vital wriggle room when he begins 'Triangulating' with the GOP House of Reps.

The Republicans must be disappointed not to have secured control of both chambers, it reduces their scope for policy manoeuvre. They can now only hope to kick Republican legislation into a Democratic upper chamber. This spells out one thing, and it will be hard given the rancid influence of Teabaggers, compromise and cross-party cooperation.

Either that, or total gridlock. Remember that under Clinton? Both sides pulled back from the brink then, but would these new guys do the same today?

The GOP head man in the House of Reps, by record, is a tough but fair negotiator. He pushed the Bush stimulus through the Republican houses in the dieing days of that era; over objections from his own side. Back then, there weren't any teabaggers pushing the caucus to the right however. Time to face facts, the GOP leading establishment has been rattled by these midterms, and it will reduce their capacity or willingness to compromise with Obama's Whitehouse.

I smell two years of gridlock and triangulation. Back to the future with Hilary instead of Bill Clinton and a Democrat Whitehouse against a Republican insurgency.

But in way of an N.B, here is an interesting thought of mine - I reckon Obama will now triumph some new emphasis on radical technical reform. I think his Whitehouse will now talk about the need to end Gerrymandering of election boundaries. Time for him to shift the emphasis onto some radical reform issues; and Gods knows such a move would play well - Obama taking on the politicial establishment. I mean honestly --- US politicians decide their election boundaries?! WHAT THE HELL...

Prisoners should not get the vote

In the last months the Government’s lawyers have tried to find a way to avoid allowing 70,000 British inmates the right to take part in ballots - but Cameron has conceded that there is no scope to reverse the European Court ruling.

On Wednesday a representative for the Coalition will tell the Court of Appeal that the law will be changed following legal advice that the taxpayer could have to pay tens of millions of pounds in compensation. Surely the equity and scales of British justice is seriously undermined by this change?

However faced with no powers to block the EU-instigated change, and the threat of millions of pounds in litigation and proceedings damage to the UK government [thus the taxpayer], the coalition has had to examine ways of limiting the damage this shall do.

One option being proposed by coalition lawyers is giving judges the power to allocate the right or not to vote as part of sentencing. The basis of the idea being that it could be legally possible to set arbitrary cut offs; for example preventing repeat offenders from voting, or for serious sentenced criminals over 4 years from voting. However, naturally the legal problems this creates could mean mass criminal-appeals at the taxpayers expense. The coalition must consider the UK policy change options carefully, so as to prevent such legal attacks from happening after implementation.

According to the Telegraph, while the EU court ruling ruled that the total and arbitrary ban on 'all' criminals having no right to vote was counter to human rights, it did reiterate that individual countries should have the right to set a sliding scale; where certain legal offenses carry the ban on the right to vote, but not others:

"But the decision will please the Liberal Democrats, who have campaigned for the law to be changed.

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, is understood to have taken a personal interest in examining how the system could be altered.

Laws prohibiting the right of prisoners to vote were formalised in the 14th century, when the concept of “civic death” was established.

After the 1867 Reform Act gave working men the right to vote, the Forfeiture Act established the practice that those who were guilty of felonies could not vote.

In 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the blanket ban imposed by Britain on its prisoners’ right to vote was discriminatory following a legal challenge by John Hirst, who was jailed for killing his landlady with an axe.

The Strasbourg-based court said each country could decide which offences should carry restrictions on voting rights. Most other European nations allow some prisoners to take part in elections. But despite two separate public consultations, Jack Straw, Labour’s justice secretary, failed to implement any changes."

Unhappy myself, given that I approve of the legal idea of 'civic death' once you breach societies rules. But at least the coalition can prevent some of the worst offenders from voting...