Estonia to join Euro

Estonia has confirmed their intention to finally and irrevocably sign up to the euro in the new year, symbolising the continuing successes of the European Ideal

The changeover from the kroon to the euro starts at midnight (2200 GMT) in the small Baltic nation of 1.3m people. And this important step forward is set to happen despite market pressure on the eurozone. But thankfully the Estonians have managed to see beyond the corruption of s0-called self-regulating markets and major polling informs that most Estonians want the euro.

At the historic moment, Estonia's PM Andrus Ansip will withdraw euros from a cashpoint as 2011 arrives. The historic moment symbolises the continuing strength of the eurozone, despite local problems it is currently faced with. More than this it also shows that Estonians, 20 years after breaking away from the Soviet Union, have fully arrived in the West - and their signing up to the euro illustrates a more mature leadership than that currently inflicted upon us.

Indeed having had their Kroon pegged to the euro for the last 18 years, it is high time they take their place at the heart of our European Union.

Let us hope that all EU member-states still to join up follow Estonia, into ever closer peace, prosperity, hope and security. This is a fine way to end 2010, and enter 2011 - with the winds of integration, unity and harmony blowing high against the europhobic nutters.

Supermac stuck it to the Iron Maggie!

Margaret Thatcher was subjected to a lengthy 11-page lecture by Harold MacMillan in response to Thatchers economic vandalism

"The family silver"

On the 8th November 1985, in a speech to the Tory Reform Group (TRG) Harold MacMillan launched into a extremely memorable speech about the dangers of using revenues raised from mass privatisation as if it were income. It became known as the legendary "selling the family silver", and until now this was really some of the very little direct evidence we had that MacMillan vehemently opposed Thatcherist pseudonomic policy.

On that date in November Supermac explained "The sale of assets is common with individuals and states when they run into financial difficulties. First, all the Georgian silver goes, and then all that nice furniture that used to be in the saloon. Then the Canalettos go"[1]

But now we can add much more explicit criticism by MacMillan of Thatcher and her attempt at economics. In an 11 page lecture the then Earl Stockton (MacMillan, having finally accepted a title by 85') outlined why monetarists were wrong. And I know I am in total agreement with the Grand Old Man of moderate Toryism.

In the note, he warned that her radicalism may give a "sense of exhilaration" to her supporters, but they would create enormous economic hardship, undermine industry and divide the nation in two, the rich and poor (by 1980, even poorer thanks to her). But at the heart of his warnings was his repeated emphasis on the threat of unemployment, and it reinforces much of what we perhaps could guess at - MacMillan had thinly disguised contempt for Thatcher and the manic monetarist acolytes. When he wrote of the "dangerous" levels of unemployment, this echoed his earlier statement when he reflected on the Thatcher confrontation with the miners:

"It breaks my heart to see—and I cannot interfere—what is happening in our country today. This terrible strike, by the best men in the world, who beat the Kaiser's and Hitler's armies and never gave in. It is pointless and we cannot afford that kind of thing. Then there is the growing division of Conservative prosperity in the south and the ailing north and Midlands. We used to have battles and rows but they were quarrels. Now there is a new kind of wicked hatred that has been brought in by different types of people" [2]

Thatchers pseudonomic policies

''The so-called 'money supply' policy may be useful as a guide to what is happening just as a speedometer is in a car, but like a speedometer it cannot make the machine go faster or slower,'' he warned the Iron Lady. He said that her policies, combined with high interest rates - ''which would have been regarded as sheer usury in any other age'' - were undermining the competitiveness of British exporters without having any marked effect on inflation.

With hindsight, even the most idiotic and foolish Thatcher-lover in my Party can be unable to argue this point.

''What then can said to have been gained?'' he wrote.

''Certainly a shock has been given by the Government's policies to the nation as a whole, and even a sense of exhilaration amongst those who believe that steady continuance of these deflationary policies will achieve the desired result.''



And the importance of this lesson is vital, because just as then MacMillan was warning Thatcher that she was placing enormous responsibilities and hopes on the private sector alone, to maintain demand in the economy through the mythical free-market self-regulator, Cameron is doing the same today. MacMillan was right then, and his One Nation Tory Democracy heirs are still right today.
.
Cameron, and the Coalition need to stop their Thatcher revolution mark II! The social costs alone would outweigh any economic benefits, except ... there won't be any economic benefits from ideological cuts...will there!
.
*the picture, on the left, some crazy old extremist going by the name 'Maggie', and His Noble Lord, the late Earl Stockton, Tory PM, WW2 hero and Tory Democracy advocate

What Europeanists need to consider

The EU remains the most intelligent choice for Europe in the 21st Century, and like it or not, when one considers the Euro, EU and markets one thing is clear, all these problems are due to a lack of faster, smoother integration

Hold on a minute

Ask the markets what they think and of course they condemn any threat of supranational interference; their short-termist and outrageous behaviour notwithstanding, they maintain that they alone are capable of self regulating. This kind of arrogant, selfish, irresponsible mentality is only to be expected of the heirs of the once-called 'masters of the universe' both sides of the Atlantic. However, what is more unbelievable, is the eagerness to which their opposition to EU regulation has been taken up by eurosceptics. Eurosceptics, perhaps now ought to be called euroflagellants - for their rejection of the need for a central EU role is frankly bordering on a self-harm complex.

Think about it for a second. The eurozone for starters cannot be allowed to fail, no matter how badly these euroflagellants would like it to. It is simply not in the interests of any EU member-state; eurozone member or otherwise. In the era of economic coalescence, integration of markets and corporations, and the diminishing importance of borders thanks to new technologies, how on earth is it possible to pretend Europeans do not need supranational institutions like the EU to protect our common interests?

FACT: the world is a smaller place, and nation-states are little better
than conveyor belts for uncontrolled transnational capitalism.

We all agree (those worth listening to, that is) that the Thatcher-Regan approach to international markets, and pseudonomics failed. The answer clearly, in part, needs to be improved regulation of markets, financial and otherwise. Both how they operate, and how we propose to regulate them, in the interests of the people (anyone remember them in all this economic crisis?).

How? For a start let us realise that mere cooperation is not enough in regulation processes between nation-states. This argument saw all sorts of financial market information sharing and so forth, that still totally failed to ensure competent regulation for transnational (that is, cross border) banking firms. Let me be abundently blunt, the things we need to regulate properly; those who in major part caused our problems; are cross-border actors - ergo we need cross-border regulatory commonality. If regulation is as tough, comprehensive, coherent, and in major part the same in Spain, Germany, Greece, UK - all Europe indeed, we can move to really make sure this kind of bankers recklessness and political incompetence never again happens.

Why then does this not happen? Or at least why until now has EU integration and harmonisation not really made the desired impact in fiscal and regulatory fields? Because we listen too often to the euroflagellants. The ones who genuinely refuse to listen to the unarguable case for integration. Time for any good European, any good human being to realise one thing: European integration never caused these economic crises, the member-states did, and their refusal to allow faster, quicker and greater integration and ever closer union.

I have already revealed one critical area where more EU integration could have helped to if not avoid, but hugely minimise the trauma and suffering caused by the economic crises - financial sector regulation. But there are other areas, fiscal, monetary, political, democratic, security, military - all need urgent and faster harmonisation and more than this, integration.

Enough of the doubting

Europe could have saved itself the present confidence crisis by integrating more rapidly. It will now achieve this under pressure. This will be the best response to give to all of those who doubt what it is capable of.

Yet, let us also address one other point as we Europeans together enter 2011, a new year, with new hopes, dreams and ambitions - there is no room for any doubting Thomas' among us!

Why and on what basis do I say this? Three reasons, all of which are unarguably logical, and commonsensical:

1. Firstly it is totally clear that in this 21st Century globalised world, the European Council is better placed to make quicker decisions, to show greater clarity, courage, audacity and vision than mere nation-states who are unable to limit the dark spectre of unrestrained capitalist exploitation.

2. This one is for the Europeans, commentators, experts and all types of specialists: Let's stop spreading doubt about what we deem precious - the euro and the European Union. To undermine the key elements of EU integration and our EU is to forget what they have given us greater stability, wealth, jobs and protection.

3. Finally for the markets and euroflagellants: if you doubt the political determination of European leaders to defend the Euro and Europe you will lose a great deal of money - because the European project is still fundamentally a political formative choice that is inevitable and beyond the point of no return.

So my fellow pro-Europeans, get out of those armchairs and bloody sell our inevitable future to the people, for they would find salvation from ideological inhuman systems. Europe is for the people, for the weak, and in opposition to Thatcher-Reganism or in the UK context: 'Blatcherism'

Another 'Cast Iron' Pledge there Dave?

With the announcement by No10 that 2011 shall not see a revision of the fox hunting ban, call-me-Dave needs to urgently realise that if he is to ever become a successful PM, he must take his Party with him

Mission statement

Every memorable PM was made so through succeeding in changing things, not just the country but also the Party they inherit from predecessors. Harold Wilson succeeded in changing Labour, after years of opposition in the 1950s, and early 60s. He injected radically socially liberal programme for social political reform with a bold new use of technology such as image and television. After that, Labour changed, finally morphing beyond the stale brand of Atlee, long before. It was fit for competing in a new era, and it forced the Tories to change somewhat too. This general formula can be seen for any PM we may deign to label a 'success' and 'memorable'.

1. They change the country through their policies,

2. They change their own Party, and therefore the established political assumptions inherent within that political movement

3. This forces the opposition to change to adapt too

Cameron, I shall argue is failing to achieve this three stage process required to become a success.

Has he changed the country? Yes, with the coalition and the tough medicine the policies involve, he has unarguably changed the country. For better or worse, is up to you lot, I don't want to get into that tangent. But has he changed the Tory Party? Is it any less 'Thatcherite' than when he took it over 5 years ago?

No, so he hasn't even got to point three yet. And the reason for his failure to change the Tory party is central to why he shall fail as a PM. Unless and until he challenges the Thatcher economic consensus more, he cannot hope to alter any established dividing lines in our body politic. If anything can highlight Cameron's attitude toward his own Party it is his refusal to honour his personal pledge to end the fox hunting ban. Again whether you agree with this or not is separate from the point here that if you abuse your grassroots - treating them like fools, breaking personal commitments, you cannot change them. Or take them with you indeed.

Cameron needs to urgently analyse how he deals with the Tory Party, because people like myself shan't sit back forever waiting for him to turn his rhetoric of a progressive return to One Nation Toryism into reality forever.

Historic convictions for 'Gay crimes' to be expunged

Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone (LibDem) is to produce a new plan to expunge 'historic' convictions for committing 'Gay crimes' committed from before homosexuality was decriminalised

Why it is important

Many people alive today, many of them active have criminal records for being homosexual, falling fowl of Sodomy laws, many of which were only outlawed relatively recently.

While in England homosexuality was decriminalised in 1967, in Scotland this didn't happen until 1980. This represented an important victory for homosexual rights in a period where there was still a lack of behavioural change, or resonance among the general public or authorities. Today of course it is unbelievable that people such as myself should have been considered criminal for being bisexual, or others for being homosexual or transgendered, but the war itself still needs to be completed. It is in this light that this proposed reform is progressive, and needs all our support for the coalition to achieve it.

For fully grown adults to have criminal records for being gay is frankly absurd, silly and totally counter the kind of society we seek to sustain and more fully flesh-out and realise.

Lynne Featherstone has explained that this ambitious reform will probably feature as part of the 'freedom bill' planned; so shall be introduced to parliament alongside the plans to reverse ID cards and the Labour police-state apparatus.

According to Coalition Home Secretary Theresa May:

"It is not fair that a man can be branded a criminal because 30 years ago he had consensual sex with another man."

Everyone should welcome these plans, and I personally look forward to the Coalition Freedom Bill. It will hopefully reverse the dangerously authoritarian legacy of New Labour

The Papal Message & Queen Speech

Christmas is over, time to prepare for the New Year celebrations; a time designed to briefly recover and set for round two of rampant gluttony, greed, hunger and drink - but let us reflect on thev dual messages of yesterday, the Queen Speech and the Papal Address

Benedict XVI address

The Papal address begun with the retelling of the Christian tale of how the world began, and the espouced role of God in it and Jesus as the manifest of the realisable divine. It was eloquent, and betrayed a solid understanding of traditional Roman Catholic theological interpretation. But it was designed to be incredibly relevant to our current human sufferings too, it hinted at the importance of youthful innocence, perhaps at the end of a year when it has been so very much abused, whether by rogue priests, a sexualising popular culture and violent games and programmes. Benedict XVI also set to remind us of the troubles that for all too many shall be continuing into another new year:

"May the light of Christmas shine forth anew in the Land where Jesus was born, and inspire Israelis and Palestinians to strive for a just and peaceful coexistence. May the comforting message of the coming of Emmanuel ease the pain and bring consolation amid their trials to the beloved Christian communities in Iraq and throughout the Middle East; may it bring them comfort and hope for the future and bring the leaders of nations to show them effective solidarity. May it also be so for those in Haiti who still suffer in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake and the recent cholera epidemic. May the same hold true not only for those in Colombia and Venezuela, but also in Guatemala and Costa Rica, who recently suffered natural disasters."

The primary mention of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is surely deliberate, given the faltering peace process at work there. For too long the holyland has had its sands drenched in blood, for hundreds of years this has been the norm. Perhaps it is time for us all to ask ourselves, in our own lives, for those in the centre of disputes, maybe entire nations - ask ourselves 'who has claim'. Do we not all have claim? Humans, Europeans, Asians, Americans? Together we are not all that different, and the conflicts and natural disasters must surely be surmountable.

"Dear brothers and sisters, “the Word became flesh”; he came to dwell among us; he is Emmanuel, the God who became close to us. Together let us contemplate this great mystery of love; let our hearts be filled with the light which shines in the stable of Bethlehem! To everyone, a Merry Christmas!"

Benedict XVI argues that faith, belief must surely play a primary role in our striving to overcome. I rather feel inclined to agree with him, as tradition is the sacred inheritance, and our faith in the inherited wisdom of our ancestors coupled with an ambition for the future of our conventions is truly wisdom indeed.

Queen Speech

Much of it seemed to be a delicate hint at something else. When her majesty spoke of the importance of sport, was this a nod towards the increasingly unpopular and divisive Olympic Games that London won for England (for we Scots shall see precious little benefit from their victory). Was her incredibly religious tone a hint towards the divided and disunified Church that she stands defender of?

I got the feeling that underneath the seemingly quaint Queen Speech, verging on the slightly dull was layers of other meanings. The relentless focus on togetherness, was this an echo of 'We're all in this together', and was some of her appeals to share our share of burdens (rather like Archbishop Rowan Williams) a sly dig at the coalition?

It was a speech which was fascinating for what it didn't say, what it feel short of being explicit about. For sure the most obscure, calculated and deliberate speech Her Majesty has delivered for years. Little emphasis on the Commonwealth this year, there seemed to be a continuum of messages aimed directly at a divided British audience.

Unity, fairness, the importance of our sporting and cultural life. Is this really all she wanted us to take from the speech? I think not, this was among the most political for a long time.

Iranian support for Taleban

A member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been caught supplying weaponry to the Taleban intended to kill our boys, allies and civilians

Evidence of the link

We have always been informed of a link between Iran and the Islamist insurgency active in Afghanistan. Now there seems to be evidence of the link after a member of the Revolutionary Guard has been caught attempting to supply weapons to the Taleban.

Arrested in Kandahar providence, the Iranian soldier has been labelled a 'key facilitator' for the Taleban, and his capture represents an important coup in the struggle to clamp down on their supply of weapons.

This capture is the first reported instance of the capture of an al-Quds officer in Afghanistan. Several Iranian soldiers and operatives were caught in Iraq between 2006 and 2008, illustrating that one of they key instruments of death for our boys in both theatres has been the Iranian theocracy.

But more worrying still in is also known that the Iranian regime is also reportedly releasing al-Qaeda terrorists from prisons to join the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan. An intelligence official stated that three members of Osama bin Laden's family were also among those released.

If anymore evidence were ever required to install more sanctions against the rogue Iranian regime, the dossier is certainly building up.

Why it is important to avoid privatising Scottish Water

The recent behaviour of the energy companies reveal good reasons for Scotland to avoid privatisation of Scottish Water

Price freezes and price rises

Scottish Water (SW) announced that it is maintaining its price freeze for the third year running, while in England & Wales, the privatised industry is warning of future price hikes. What is the root of this stark difference? Is it that Scottish Water is behaving unsustainably within the golden nest of the public sector? Or is it that it is a shining example of what state-owned public services could, and indeed should be?

It is true that the charges to be levelled in England & Wales forthcoming year have yet to be announced, but what has been made public is that in the longer view (decades) prices will shoot up. Why the star difference? In Scotland, the publicly-owned body has managed to successfully combine a £2.5bn investment programme which has been underway with a charges price freeze for a third consecutive year. And no, it is not because SW is benefiting from huge taxpayer subsidy - it is actually a profit making entity during the boom years of economic plenty. Now it is behaving responsibly as a public utility. Isn't this what the water, and energy industries should be more like across the UK?

For evidence of SW profitable nature, and therefore its longer term prospects look no further than the 'audit Scotland' report for year 2009/10 which explains that:

"The approved Scottish Water budget for 2009/10 (including SWS but excluding all subsidiaries) anticipates total income of £1,062.7 million and a profit after taxation of £117.5 million.""

Now, during hard economic times, this public utility company is moving to make the lives of Scots folk easier by maintaining its charge price freeze; without compromising infrastructural overhaul. How? It is utilising profits from previous years. That is what profits are for isn't it? To be recycled into the industry whenever, and wherever needed? Profit is NOT an end in itself, and SW is proving that utilities should be publicly owned, and still be profitable, and not a taxpayers burden.

Now, compare this to the industry in England & Wales. They often talk about the need to massively up prices to pay for infrastructural improvements and at the same time show an privatised industrial profit average year on year which is less good compared to SW.

I know what I prefer, a continued public ownership of SW, it is in profit, it is investing in our infrastructure, it is helping customers by acting responsibly in the public interest. Compared to the train-wreck of a privatisation of prices down south, I see little reason to change the current situation at all. Well done SW!

Obituary: Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa

Every life is valuable, but with the passing of Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Europe has lost one of it's father-figures; a giant economist and politician. As a Europeanist I find one of my chief heroes dead, I offer this short Obituary of a little-known man whose loss shall reverberate in me as a heart-felt loss

Padoa-Schioppa was born of humble origins in the Veneto region of Italy, in July 1940, and never met his father until 1945 - with the ending of the war in Europe, he was one of the lucky boys whose father returned home. It perhaps isn't such a surprise that he was to become one of the chief intellectual forces in monetary policy circles; given that his was a family of intellectuals.

Even from an early age, Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa was fluent in French, Italian, German and English. Yet he never ceased to emphasise his preference for English for thinking or planning in. Apparently "because it is more concise, more precise, more concrete", and of that he did a lot of during his career.

Having served as Deputy Director General of the Italian national bank from 1984-1997 he went on during this time to also serve in the early 1980s on the Delors Committee which planned for the introduction of a single European currency. This process was a success which resulted in the Maastricht Treaty; which he later revealed resulted in his praising British negotiating strategy under Major:

"He professed not to be concerned by Britain’s decision to stay out of the euro, though he described the British long-term negotiating strategy as “masterful”, adding: “First they influenced the substance of the project so that it would be more suitable to them if they did want to sign up to it. Then they carve out a special status for themselves which means they don’t have to sign up to it."

His domestic career inside Italy saw him serve under Prodi, and attempt to reform the unfair Italian welfare system; which fails to support the young and unemployed adequately. Unfortunately, many of his progressive reforms designed to improve Italian welfare were scuppered with the collapse of the Prodi administration and the arrival of the EU court-jester Berlusconi. Tomasso Padoa-Schioppa, it is rumoured, refused to serve under Berlusconi and instead went on to serve in Europe chairing the impressive Paris-based think-tank Notre Europe, and the International Monetary Fund.

Never losing his admirable faith in the European Ideal, he was when he died serving as a senior advisor to the Greek Prime Minister for 'debt management issues'. When asked about the local difficulties troubling the Eurozone, Padoa-Schioppa explained that the single currency is the most noble historic endeavour ever to come into substance.

He reflected, "Our new currency unites not only economies, but also the people of Europe. This, I think, represents a profound change in human history."

As to those sceptics, mostly British unfortunately, who predict that the common currency will one day split asunder, he declared that he could see "nobody with authority who predicts anything like that ... On the contrary, I see a growing awareness of the fact that the euro is a common element of strength."

Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, who died from a heart attack, was divorced from his wife, Fiorella Kostoris, with whom he had three children.

Un père de l'Idéal européen

Obama (finally) steps up to the plate

A victory for homosexual rights has been scored after the Democrat controlled Senate forced President Obama's hand, and moved to abolish 'Don't ask, don't tell'

Senate leadership

It seems that following a substantial backlash from among the core Democrat leftwing base, the Democrat-controlled senate has secured a repeal of 'don't ask'. But the question becomes - why on earth was such an important - indeed seminal - moment for gay rights left to the Senate to move? Where was the Nobel prize winning Obama? Oh yes he will obviously sign this important reform, but the point is a simple one: it should of been him leading this reform, not being pushed into it by an angry base and Party machine.

Regardless of any criticism about how we arrived at this point, here we are. And not a moment too soon frankly. The repeal of the Clintonian cop-out policy opens the path for homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians to serve openly in their armed forces. It is a real victory for equal rights everywhere.

Rockefeller spirit continues

Equally worthy of mention is the eight Republicans who voted with the Democrats in the Senate. This symbolises that the Teabaggers have still not yet succeeded in killing the admirable Rockefeller legacy within the GOP. As a result of the moderate Republicans, the vote was passed comfortably enough in the Senate - 65-31 for repeal. It is now left to Obama to play catch-up and sight the legislation as it arrives before the Oval Office desk. Even the House of Representatives has already voted comfortably for repeal, the USA is left waiting ... for Obama the platitude...

A barefaced disgrace

The secret Anglo-French protocols which sought to stitch up a continuation of unreformed CAP & UK rebate is filthy, rancid, disgusting hypocrisy by two leaders supposedly self identifying as Europeans

Quid pro-quo

According to secret memos and other records, leaked to the Telegraph, it has been revealed that David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy conspired to undermine the European ideal; in an agreement aiming toward preventing meaningful reform of our EU institutions.

We all recognise, Europhobe or Pro-European that CAP and the UK rebate are two long term problems for the EU, undermining the internal workings, and completely unsustainable and inefficient. Cameron is on record calling for CAP reform - brandishing it an 'epic' waste of taxpayers money - and Sarkozy of France saying that the UK rebate is typical of a UK wanting to be in the EU, but playing by different rules from everyone else. When these two people said this time and again in the last few years, I agreed with them. Now however, they both secretly conspired to prevent any meaningful reform to CAP and the rebate.

The Daily Telegraph reveals that Sarkozy secretly proposed to 'call-me-Dave' that if the UK left the CAP alone during the planned EU budget freezes set to be implemented from 2011-2012, he would leave the UK rebate alone too. Quid pro-quo, one eagerly accepted by David Cameron.

So, at the most opportune time EVER to actually achieve meaningful budgetary reform and priority changes in the EU, both men seem to secretly want to block it. This is not only detrimental to the European ideal, for too long undermined by these two roadblocks to efficient operation; but it is bad for europhobes too. For they must now realise that Cameron and Sarkozy seem hell-bent on preventing anything from changing, this means no change from the EU's current projected course. I am sure you europhobes do not want more of the same either.

This pathetic stitch-up undermines the European ideal, something central to my politics, and it prevents any honest debate about the need for change in EU institutions and spending priorities, which europhobe and pro-European alike want to see.

.

If people should riot for anything, it should be to demand more loyalty to the European ideal, or at least bloody accept its failures openly!

US Army: Gays "too distracting" to serve openly

High ranking US army generals defend 'don't ask, don't tell' by arguing that homosexuals serving openly would constitute "a distraction" which could cost lives

Distraction?

Hasn't the US heard this kind of argument before? Well, maybe someone called 'President Obama' had better telephone the head of the US marines and let him know. During the civil war there, the US army found herself struggling to allow the entry of black African-Americans into the Unionist army. Back then, those resisting argued that black soldiers serving would represent a 'distraction', a diversion from the army purpose to defend, not represent. They were over ruled by a Republican president with gumption enough to institute equal access based on race.

Today it is 2010 - very nearly 2011, and the so-called 'leader of the Free World' refuses to stop discriminating based on sexual orientation. Pathetic, disgusting, sad. Pity we are finding yet another example of Mr Obama's character flaws, he has failed to even indicate a coherent policy to challenge the puerile Clintonian policy opt-out of 'don't ask, don't tell'.

Well ... Obama has been a total, bleating, canting travesty of a President thus far. Seeing a high ranking US general, the leader of the marines no less argue, without backlash from the commander-in-chief that gays being open and honest with their orientation would lead to deaths of soldiers in battle ... bloody pathetic. But then, that is Mr Obama all over isn't it?

....p.s. should someone catch him in between his fight for socialised medicine, and fighting in Afghanistan, remind him about closing Guantanamo .. eh?

Ken Clarke routs Tory backwoodsmen

Kenneth Clarke outlined an intelligent vision for Justice policy reform, explaining that reoffending is the critical failure of UK law and order policy to date

A masterclass by the big beast

It is fast becoming obvious why Ken Clarke has been thrust into the front line of Tory politics, as his careful, mature and sensible handling of the opposition to the vital Green Paper on Justice reform is a masterclass. Compare how Clarke has listened to, and slapped down in respectful and admirable form the opponents to his proposals; and how Michael Gove has managed to botch the introduction of eminently sensible educational reforms. Experience, something the young Gove can learn to be sure. But a natural instinct for Clarke.

In listening to the HoC debate on the Green Paper; which I have taken quite an interest in frankly; it is remarkable the absence of real opposition. When Sadiq Khan stood up, speaking for longer than Clarke did when introducing the bill - Khan merely managed to say what he informed the Telegraph last week - "I agree with the proposals". Good, but did it really require 8 minutes to say that Sadiq?

Khan seemed to be happy to draw attention to the fact that he didn't have much to contribute; a feeling not aided by the former New Labour ministers behind him. Straw, Blunkett and David Miliband - all seemed to put more opposition forward than the erstwhile Labour Justice shadow.

Instead, we all had to wait for the inevitable foolishness in an otherwise sensible[ish] debate to arrive from what I shall call; in Casablancan style; the "usual suspects". Sir Alun Beath attacked his own Party Justice Secretary to demand more "thieves go to prison, to give society a break". But, in masterclass fashion, Ken slapped him down by highlighting that no one was saying reoffending thieves should be spared the loss of liberty for their repeat criminality. Going on, he subtly poked at the fact that spending as we do exorbitant sums on, "giving society a break", the system Sir Alun seems to support is ... well ... a rather expensive way of doing it! [Perhaps the Right Hon Sir may be happy to pay more income tax, to fund this system -with ts 74% reoffending rates? No, thought not].

I could go on, but it was the usual rantings from the Tory right, thank God we are steadily removing them from any position of leadership within the Party. If the LibDems in coalition can offer to moderate the Party out again, I for one shall be eternally grateful to Camerclegg.

You can watch the Justice debate yourself here - on 'Democracy Live'

Peter Hitchens - 'prison works'

Peter Hitchens has put finger to keypad and issued one of his most laughable 'contributions' to the newsphere to date, claiming Ken Clarke is about to release "wide eyed" criminals into the streets of Britain ...

Prison does NOT work

You would have thought that with a reoffending rate of 74% for longer term sentences, and 59% for short term convictions, everyone with a brain would have woken up to the importance to find workable alternatives to this expensive, and failing process. But no - may I introduce you to Peter Hitchens?

"The parasites and bawling wreckers who invaded London on Thursday did David Cameron a favour. They helped to draw our eyes and minds away from a much more frightening event.
This was the Government’s surrender to lawlessness and disorder, bumptiously trumpeted by Kenneth Clarke last week"

I kid you not - that is just the start of his Mail ranting. While I, as Tris & Munguin et al appreciate, do not approve in any way of the violence shown by the rioters; nonetheless it is wrong to accuse Ken Clarke of letting criminals off Scot-free. He is not.

I have blogged on the law and order proposal earlier this week, so I won't rehearse all the arguments in favour of Clarke's bill again. Suffice to say, let us examine Hitchens alternative proposal of 'bang 'em all up'. Does it work?

Prison doesn't work

Ken Clarke has said recently that the current system of just locking people up, and throwing away the key is something you would find in 'Victorian England' not a 21st Century European democracy. And he would be correct, but let us examine more closely Clarke's claim that:

prison is "a costly and ineffectual approach that fails to turn criminals into law-abiding citizens"

The alternatives to short prison sentencing for example are indeed more favourable options than prison. Community sentences have shown to have a lower reoffending rate than short prison sentences, with community sentencing showing a 36% rate of reoffending; comparing well to the 59% reoffending rate with short sentences. The figures indicate that not only do you have a better chance of rehabilitating a convict if you place him or her in alternative sentencing to prison; but you save money from the reduced reoffending rates. Thus, we can indeed make people safer by ending the Victorian 'prison works' mentality, and it is more economic for the hard pressed taxpayer too.

It would appear that Ken is closer to the button than Hitchens sad rantings ...

Jon Collins of the Guardian sums up my attitude on this point: "crime can be reduced if community sentences are used instead of short, ineffectual spells in our overcrowded prison system."

Let us therefore offer support to Kenneth Clarke, may he have the courage of his convictions to take on the Daily Mail and the Peter Hitchens of this world.

Labour "inconsistency" means UK democracy falls short

Alan Johnson, shadow chancellor, has admitted that his U-turn regarding the workability of a 'graduate tax' is an "inconsistency" for Labour policy

A "very difficult" alternative?

Following the Westminster vote to raise tuition fees to an upper limit of potentially £9,000 per year; Alan Johnson has attempted to clarify Labour policy in this field.

Going into the 2010 General Election, official Labour policy was to implement the Browne Report, which recommended raising the tuition fees cap. However, following a week of accusations of dithering, Ed Miliband announced his, and Labour's belief in a graduate tax alternative...despite the fact that Ed had written the Labour 2010 manifesto pledging to implement Browne. But, politicians can change their views, this is fair enough - the real confusion set in when his shadow Chancellor Alan Johnson seemed to contradict the new Labour policy position. In an interview last week, Johnson said that the "problem" with a graduate tax was that it would be "very difficult to implement" fairly.

But, during the immediate fallout from the vote, Johnson has informed journalists that there is "a strong case" for a graduate tax alternative. So just what is the views of our shadow Chancellor? Is he really asking people to choose between supporting the coalitions implementation of Browne, and a Labour policy pledging to introduce a "strong" but "very difficult" to implement graduate tax of some type or form (as yet not clarified)?

The UK requires, by nature to Westminster FPTP system, a strong, coherent and capable opposition. The whole nature of democratic accountability within the UK system depends on the opposition holding the government to account. But what if our opposition seems to be more divided than the ruling coalition is? What happens then to the scrutiny parliament is supposed to give to government legislation?

Johnson, perhaps at the behest of Red Ed, has attempted to clarify his comments by conceding to the BBC that it does smack of "inconsistency". But then, that is Labour all over isn't it? From Iain Gray in Holyrood to Alan Johnson & Red in Westminster - inconsistency. All the while UK government legislation ticks through the 'yes' lobby chamber without proper scrutiny and opposition.

Tuition reform; England & Wales

Here is a breakdown of how the LibDems voted, and also the 6 Tory rebels who voted either against or abstained

For: 28

Danny Alexander
Norman Baker
Sir Alan Beith
Gordon Birtwistle
Tom Brake
Jeremy Browne
Malcolm Bruce
Paul Burstow
Vincent Cable
Alistair Carmichael
Nick Clegg
Edward Davey
Lynne Featherstone
Don Foster
Stephen Gilbert
Duncan Hames
Nick Harvey
David Heath
John Hemming
Norman Lamb
David Laws
Michael Moore
Andrew Stunell
Jo Swinson
Sarah Teather
David Ward
Steve Webb

Against: 21

Annette Brooke
Sir Menzies Campbell
Michael Crockart
Tim Farron
Andrew George
Mike Hancock
Julian Huppert
Charles Kennedy
John Leech
Stephen Lloyd
Greg Mulholland
John Pugh
Alan Reid
Dan Rogerson
Bob Russell
Adrian Sanders
Ian Swales
Mark Williams
Roger Williams
Jenny Willott
Simon Wright

Abstained [or didn't vote] : 8

Lorely Burt
Simon Hughes
Tessa Munt
Sir Robert Smith
John Thurso
Stephen Williams
Chris Huhne(at climate summit in Mexico)
Martin Horwood(at climate summit in Mexico)

The Tory rebels: 6

David Davis (against)
Julian Lewis (against)
Andrew Percy (against)
Jason McCartney(against)
Philip Davies(against)
Mark Reckless(against)
Lee Scott (abstained)
Tracey Couch(abstained)

Time for E-Bonds

The bailout crises which have been hitting the Eurozone indicate that the solution to the problem is further integration, not a economically disastrous fragmentation

E-bonds and bankruptcy

Nigel Farage was correct when he said that failing eurozone states must go bankrupt if they are caught out as behaving recklessly. There, I said something I never thought I'd utter. But think about it for a moment - a single currency should not be set up in such a way that member-states of it cannot go bankrupt. Indeed it is not the "death" of the eurozone to say that a member-state like Greece should default if they are truly that incompetent, this after all is what market forces are supposed to be all about, the competent are rewarded, the incompetent, punished.

Isn't the free market one of the EU's founding pillars?

In this context therefore, the answer then becomes how do we enable failing member-states like Greece, Ireland to go bankrupt without endangering eurozone stability? After all the numbers for a eurozone fragmentation; or even worse collapse; show serious economic harm even for non-eurozone member-states. We are after all an interlinked trading block.

For the answer we must look to the operation of the dollar inside the United States. Over there, states like California have suffered bankruptcy before, without endangering the dollar. Their model is one that Europe must copy today.

Like in the US, a single currency needs a common 'national debt', it needs a common borrowing and lending system - in short the ECB must have its powers enhanced.

What is to be done? The replacing of member-state bonds with a common eurozone E-bond. And the introduction of a common Eurozone 'national debt', to replace the individual debt capacities of the individual member-states. And if we see this happen, then member-states like Greece, which can continue to perhaps hold some degree of fiscal autonomy under this new harmonised system can go bankrupt without endangering the entire eurozone network. The problem are the member-states, not the eurozone institutions.

The only way to stabilise the eurozone is to create a genuine economic centre to the monetary union. After all, the only way to have a successful common currency and wider monetary union is to also have a political centre capable of acting like the US Federal reserve.

A justice revolution?

Ken Clarke's justice revolution is worth a go, it may even work better than the costly logic of short term prison sentencing

For the last two decades [at least] the United Kingdom has operated under what Michael Howard aptly described as a "prison works" mentality. But, if we examine the financial cost, and actual outcome from this 'lock 'em up' mentality in comparison to alternative justice processes; it is possible to realise that it is time to change course.

Compare the options

When I just last night was discussing the merits and demerits of prison as a law & order tool with a fellow chap of mine, I was startled by his emotional arguments, in place of facts. When talking about short prison sentences, he asked me if I had "forgotten whose side we are supposed to be on". Naturally, we must always be on the side of the victim of a crime - but, as I pointed out last night, this still does not remove our societal obligation to try and reform the perpetrator does it?

It is frankly the age old question: can a leopard change its spots? I'd argue, in almost all cases, yes. If only we could all stop and reconsider our approach to justice in this country.

For example, Ken Clarke has announced that IACO will be rolled out as a possible alternative to short term sentencing. The IACO [intensive alternative to custody order] is designed to offer people the chance to turn their lives around. And it can work - the figures are remarkable.

In Bradford, where the IACO has operated silently in a test-run, it has found that when we place; for example; abused women in the IACO programme instead of prison for short sentences we can see remarkable outcomes. Lucy [name changed, naturally] was one example of how the IACO saved her life from a downward spiral - it placed her in the Bradford 'Together Women Project' [TWP], and today she talks about starting a milkshake shop, and isn't drinking two bottles of wine a day and suffering under the abusive partner she ended up attacking after years of abuse. And the TWP has seen fewer than 10% of those treated by it re offend, under the IACO scheme, it is clear that lives can be turned around. Compare this to the wider logic still the norm, Lucy would have been sent to prison for assault; earned a short sentence; and went through a system of short term sentencing which has a disgusting 55% re offending rate.

Yes; if we provide the legal system with workable, coherent alternatives, yes - a leopard can change. A human can change, if only we provide them with the support needed.

Ken Clarke has proposed in his Justice Green Paper to roll the IACO out across England & Wales; and if the results can be as good as the Bradford test - it is genuinely the 'Justice Revolution' it is billed as.

Wider problems

My problem with the Clarke proposal is that it does not lance the 'Prison Works' mentality as comprehensively as it thinks it does. The IACO is excellent - yes - but this is dealing with a small part of the law & order agenda; short term sentencing is a good start. But what about longer term sentencing? Are we to continue to see people locked up for 6-10 years, disregarded, exposed to harder criminals and re offend with even more serious crimes when they come out?

Let us face facts for a moment: with a prison population of 85,000, Clarke needs to attack the Labour legacy of 'fire and brimstone' mass-incarceration, and clarify the plethora of ill-drafted new sentences they created. The public feel less safe than ever, in an era of declining crime, and the longer termed sentenced prisoner population has a rancid re offending rate of 74%.

Prison works does it? Pull the other one please, this is an approach we Brits cannot afford any longer.

Clarke, has back tracked slightly due to the Daily Mail and backbencher riot accusing the coalition of being 'soft on crime' ... today we find out that some of the medium termed sentences we had expected to see abolished and replaced with alternatives has been cancelled.

This Green Paper is excellent, no question, but it is far from perfect - it could have been even more radical. It could have killed the pathetic 'prison works' logic once and for all, if only the coalition had held a tad firmer.

The troubles continue for Red Ed

Despite level pegging in the polls, there are more worrying noises about Red Ed's capacity to lead the Labour opposition, as it becomes clear that Labour is perhaps even more factionalized than the coalition

Legitimacy gap

One of the key problems for Ed Miliband would seem to be, in effect, a credibility gap. Whereas even at the worst of times Clegg and Cameron can both point to their election as leaders by their own membership; Ed cannot do even this. Indeed, Ed has promised to reform the "outdated" system that produced him as leader, over and above the wishes of the rank and file of his own movement. This represents, from the core of his premiership, a legitimacy gap - perhaps explaining in part why he didn't benefit from a honeymoon period.

Unknown quantity

It would be unfair however not to emphasis that one of Red's key problems is face-recognition. This comes out of all polling data, put simply: the majority of people simply do not know him. Even those who do recognise him, fail to understand what his themes are as a politician; what he is all about.

From the latest polling information on leaders, Miliband's is among the worst, he is in negative territory; having never seen a honeymoon bounce. Part of this lack of strong numbers has to be the failure of himself, and the wider Labour team to get Ed out and into the high street as it were. They need to sort this out, as a leader that the public don't know, or recognise cannot win a by-election never mind a General Election

Economic figures

While a month ago the positive economic growth figures could be put down to the record of the last Labour government [fairly, to be honest]; the new projections cannot. The new projections on the economy, indicating that the UK may over the next couple of years grow faster than France, Germany, USA is testimony to the coalition.

Agree or disagree with the neo-liberal economic impulses, the fact remains, the sky hasn't fallen in as New Labour decreed it would of the 'inexperienced' took over. The final test of the last vestiges of Labour economic credibility shall be if we dip into double dip recession next year. If April next year is stronger growth rather than a double-dip, it is clear that the economic policy Labour has espoused for the last five years will be totally discredited. And their leader along with it (remember that Ed Miliband is so heavily responsible as a deputy of Brown in the economic department & now leader).

'Blairites'

By Blairites I mean the Centrists, those on the right of the Labour tent, rather than as an explicit reference to the older divisions between Blair and Brown.

Having seen his three most 'Blairite' cabinet ministers defy him over his policy judgements, Ed must force conformity on his own cabinet. The trouble is, if Ed can't convince his own cabinet to support and trust his judgement and leadership, what hope has he for the rest of us?

The scene of Alan Johnstone refusing to back Ed's policy of making the 50% tax rate permanent, then going on to say he'd happily step aside for David Miliband to return to front-bench politics ... it has seriously damaged the Labour leader.

.

And now with Chris Bryant and other 'rightie' members publicly rejecting aspects of the Red Ed policy platform, there is a clear attempt to erode his natural judgement and instincts and march the party back into New Labour ground.

The Balls axis

No, I am not being rude, nor am I about to 'crack a funny' ... I mean the husband-wife team in the cabinet, both feeling disinherited under Ed Miliband.

Both Yvette Balls [sorry, Cooper] and Ed Balls represent a traditional Labour economic instinct, and both have studied and read in economics (I know, listening to them, you'd be forgiven for thinking not) - yet neither hold an economic brief. Instead the increasingly disloyal Postman-Pat holds the position as Osborne's opposite number. Given that Osborne has to be the most unpopular man in Britain right now, or at least till the cuts bite more deeply into the flesh of the people, the failure of Ed's chosen shadow chancellor to land hard blows on boy-George must be a total embarrassment.

At the end of the day, these problems all need addressing if Ed is to survive as Labour leader. Otherwise, Sunday Stories like this and tabloid headlines like this, will become the norm - and the public perception of the so-called opposition.

We need an opposition

Westminster only works if you have an effective opposition; it is central to the UK's confrontational style of politics

Even the Economist...

When the Economist is asking "will the real leader of Britain's opposition please stand up?" and the Guardian is referring to David Davis and Bob Crowe as the "leaders of the opposition to the coalition cuts agenda", you realise something is wrong.

And while I'd like to accept that it is too early to write Ed Miliband off, the feeling is increasingly that he is a pathetic figure.

All Brown, no Miliband

Pathetic? That is rather strong...but yes, this is what I'd choose to use.

His response to the university-tuition fees debate and student protest was; at best; forgettable: "We'll see". Hrmph, pathetic-isn't it? And in our Westminster system, we need an effective, clear opposition - which doesn't dither; but can clearly espouse views, and policies - especially on current affairs.

It isn't as if there is no scope for Ed to divide this coalition! It isn't nearly so strong as the journalists are saying (the idea of coalition, consensus politics is still a new concept to the London-establishment-media!). Look at my own Conservative Party, in England - and the wider UK our policy platform is in favour of tuition fees, without cap limits. However, the Scottish Conservatives have a totally different platform on the very same issue; we oppose tuition fees outright. Divide and rule, but let me ask the question again: can the real leader of the Britain's opposition please stand up?

But sadly it seems young Ed has inherited another trait from his mentor; Gordon Brown; namely the inability to control his own cabinet or impose his views on them. For example, his shadow chancellor Allan Johnson has openly disagreed with him concerning the 50% rate of tax. And he is one of Ed's key deputies - vital for espousing leadership views, establishing that credibility and residual impact with the electorate.

Even his recent talk about "Britain's squeezed middle" is a throwback to Brown. It was first coined as an electioneering slogan by Gordon Brown in the May 2010 election.

It is all depressingly familiar isn't it? A government in Westminster, not being held effectively to account, by an opposition which is pathetic at its job. And in a Westminster style of confrontational democracy - this is fatal for the rest of us.

Has the National Conversation misfired?

'SUPPORT FOR UNION RISES' proclaims the Times paper today, but just what are the numbers actually saying? Is it really all that straight forward?

For the union?

The journalist for the headline piece is Angus 'Nats under the bed' Macleod, so naturally we must immediately appreciate that there is a bias underwritten in the report. But the opinion polls he is eagerly proclaiming as showing a positive vote for the Union, I'd like to argue - does nothing of the sort.

Yes, the percentage of Scots supporting independence is diminishing to new low at 23% in the ScotCen survey. But, the percentage of people opposing a change to the Unionist status quo isn't all that high either. The real story ought to have been the news that more Scots want more power for Holyrood, albeit within a Unionist framework. But still, the nuance is dramatically different and ought to have been appreciated by the Times.

For a survey, this one is valuable, but let us get the findings straight before any talk of methodology [a very important point to consider]:

• The number of Scots who feel that England benefits more from the Union than Scotland fell from an all-time recorded high of 43% in 2000 to just 23%.
• Yet at the same time, 62% of Scots now want Holyrood to make "the most important decisions" for welfare benefits
• And 57% say the same, but about taxes

From those numbers, it can hardly be read as a ringing endorsement for Westminster, nor indeed a ringing endorsement for the Independentist cause. What it does reveal, much to my personal delight, is that more Scots than ever before want fiscal autonomy, within a Unionist framework. It seems to be the way the public mood is drifting, as only 10% of Scots declared that they wanted an end to devolution [less than the numbers wanting independence].

Methodology

Concerning methodology [for those interested]:

The social attitudes survey appears to have a respectable enough sample size of 1,500 and was published the day after the Westminster bill aimed at enhancing the devolved powers for Holyrood. The timescale here is interesting, as it seems to suggest that these findings are not skewed by the Scotland devolution bill, aimed at enhancing powers...read into that what you will...

For a detailed breakdown about their exact methods, you can find it here on their website, but I do want to say a tad about the fact that the interviews are conducted in peoples homes, face to face. I think therefore the numbers can be read as more trustworthy than if it were an over-the-phone survey, a methodology I tend to dislike and mistrust.