clawsfour

An arresting attitude

It is certainly true that the Metropolitan police could have handled the investigation into the theft (why do we continue to use plumbing jargon? Leak?) of documents and information from the Home Office with a great deal more sensitivity. They may have been able to investigate the issues at hand without arresting a Conservative MP, they may not.

There are probably questions to be asked about why the Mayor of London was told of the decision to arrest and not the Home Secretary.

What is not in any doubt are two things. Firstly we are not living in a police state as claimed by the increasingly swivel-eyed Tony Benn.

Secondly the stomach churning hypocrisy of the Tory Party. The outrage that the police have arrested a Tory in the conduct of their investigations does not sit well with their attitude to arrest of Labour politicians and members of staff during the cash for honours investigation. This was summed up quite neatly at the time by Conservative MP Nigel Evans who said the arrests were a "seismic" development, adding: "It is important, we have to realise that the allegations are very serious indeed.

"Nobody is above the law, not the prime minister and not Lord Levy either, and this is something I think that we all have to learn."

Pity the Tories didn't learn it, then. Or, maybe nearer the truth, they didn't learn it because they still don't care. The age old truth of the Conservative Party is that it one rule for the common man and no rule for them. And that is the absolute dividing line when it come to the next general election. Recession or no, the Tories are, and always will be, in it for themselves alone. The class war, unfortunately, is still alive and well, but it's the Tories who keep breathing life into it.

Sound economics is always sound economics

Another quote for you. Gordon Brown? Alistair Darling? Some lefty economist after the Pre-Budget report?

Now what really gets me is this, that it is very ironic that those who are most critical of the extra tax are those who were most vociferous in demanding the extra expenditure. And what gets me even more is that having demanded that extra expenditure they are not prepared to face the consequences of their own action and stand by the necessity to get some of the tax to pay for it.

Actually, Margaret Thatcher being very old Labour in 1981, defending her budget (against the even more right wing or her Conservative Party) to the Guardian Young Businessman of the Year Award Ceremony. 

Labour can win

And if it's in the Torygraph it must be true.

Although to be fair, as they say in the best football commentaries, it was written by Douglas Alexander - sometimes in charge of Labour's election campaigns. Sometimes not. Even when he is.

Anyhow, I don't often read the Torygraph. And for those of the rest of the world who don't either here is what DA had to say.

Let's be honest, neither David Cameron nor Gordon Brown are instantly recognisable as a British Barack Obama. There haven't been goat herders in Surrey or Fife for a long time. Yet last week's victory was not simply a victory for an extraordinary individual; it was also a victory for a body of ideas. As the Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman observes: "This year's presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies - and the progressive philosophy won."
At the core of Obama's campaign was a belief that only progressive politics had the answers to the challenges of the time. Relentlessly, he made the case for government action in responding to the problems faced in the economy, in energy and environment policy, in education and in healthcare.

BBC off target again

The Today magazine programme (for it is surely no longer worthy of being part of the world respected News team) on the BBC has plumbed even more banal depths this morning.

A baby, Baby P, died 15 months ago whilst the baby boy and his home life were under the inspection of a local Social Services Department. The Today magazine programme, instead of dealing with the important issues surrounding this case - whether social care can ever take responsibility for the well-being of every person in the country - kept coming back to the same question "Who was responsible for the child's death?"

In a pointless interview with the head of the body which regulates individual social workers, about correspondence which he hadn't seen, from someone he didn't know, to people unidentified, the interviewer returned time and again to question of responsibility. The clear agenda was that someone, preferably a Government Department, or - even better - a government minister - should be responsible for the death of the child.

Clearly the Today magazine hadn't been watching the BBC's news broadcasts over the past few days of they would know that the boys mother, father and their lodger were found not only responsible but guilty in a court of law, convicted of "causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable person". They will be sentenced soon.

Of course, the inquiries that the government have established will identify whether there were any errors of systems or by individuals in the particular case. The BBC would do well to wait for those inquiries to report before rushing to comment.

In the meantime, perhaps a better question for them to peruse would be, "How many children are still alive thanks to the intervention of social services?"

No going back

The Labour Party needs to urgently fill the vacuum of not having a Labour candidate for Mayor of London.  

That vacuum is being, not filled, but highlighted by the launch of Livingstone's ludicrous campaign to be reselected. Having almost single-handedly lost the last election he now wants to ensure Boris has the easiest ride to a second term. 

Livingstone would do better to heed the tone and message of the defeated US candidate John McCain. If he doesn't stand aside gracefully to allow the considered selection of a new candidate, the Labour Party should once again sweep him aside and start the process now of selecting the best woman or man to take on Boris (and the bitteratti).

Cardinal sin

Another reason why religion should be kept to consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7696505.stm

I have nothing personally against people who have religious beliefs. I have friends who believe in the most extraordinary nonsense and that doesn't bother me. I don't feel the need to disinfect myself after visiting their homes. But they do at least keep their faith to themselves and don't presume to use it to prescribe and proscribe the actions of others.

God, I hate God. Even Tony Blair - enthusiastic believer - had the good sense to recognise that politicians 'don't do God' (or, at least Ali Campbell had the good sense for him). It's a pity that preachers don't recognise that God doesn't do politics.

Getting pumped up

The real scandal about George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor, is not that whether he did or didn't solicit a donation from an impermissible donor - although his own admissions seem to bring the decision down on the did rather than didn't side of the fence - but his scandalous economic policies.

George Osborne says "high petrol prices are a scandal". But what the Tory hypocrite in waiting doesn't say is that he wants to pump up the prices at the pump himself.

The real question Osborne and Cameron should be answering is not "Why are you touching up Russian oligarchs for cash? Has Lord Overseas Ashcroft run out of money?" but "WHY DO YOU WANT TO PUT 5P TAX ON UNLEADED PETROL TODAY?"

With BP anouncing profits of £70m PER HOUR, it is mind-blowing that the Tories want to squeeze the ordinary hard-working families with this new Tory Tax.

Cameron's (oil)slick PR machine thought a green tax would win headlines but it would in fact add millions of pounds to British families’ tax bills because of changing oil prices. If Mondeo man is still the person politicians want to win over to win elections, then Cameron and Osborne may want to explain why Mondeo Man will be paying £3.50 a tank more at the pump under the Tories.

As the Labour Party say, "When times are tough and people are worried about their cost of living, this just shows the risk of putting a headline-seeking novice in charge".

It's either inappropriate or it isn't...

The most important thing about the mega-yacht-gate affair that is engulfing soon-to-be-ex Shadow Chancellor Osborne, is not the fact that he didn't solicit a small donation from one of the world's wealthiest men. Or that he did. Neither scenario is particularly important.

The key thing, and the reason he is most likely to lose his job, is the spotlight Osborne has turned on Lord Ashcroft, the Tory Party's campaign bank-roller. Once again questions are being asked about whether Lord Ashcroft is a UK resident. The deputy chairman of the Conservatives is accused of using a chain of companies originating in his home country of Belize to donate nearly £5m to Conservative Party campaigns. Osborne has denounced such activity by his robust defence of his own position in recent days including......

"At the end of that conversation Mr Rothschild mentioned that Leyland Daf, a UK trading company owned by Mr Deripaska, was interested in making a donation to the party. Leyland Daf is well known to be a company recently purchased and owned by Mr Deripaska.

Mr Feldman said that he was not sure if such a donation was appropriate. He told Mr Rothschild that he would have to seek advice on the matter. Later that day it was decided after consultation with senior party officials that it would not be appropriate to accept such a donation. There was no futher contact from Mr Rothschild or Mr Deripaska and the matter was considered to be at an end."

Either it is inappropriate to channel money through UK registered companies - the reason Osborne says neither he nor the Conservative Party Chief Executive considered accepting a donation from a Russian Billionaire through his his UK registered and trading company - or it isn't. Which means either Lord Ashcoft's money is inappropriate - or it isn't.

Which means George Osborne is either Shadow Chancellor, or (as now seems increasingly likley) he isn't.

Maybe the decision of Lord Ascroft to bequest £900m to charity will also include the Tory Party - a charity case if ever there was one.

No nepotism please. We're British.

I must be just be feeling a little irritable this morning. Not enough caffeine.

Anyhow I've just seen that the blessed Harman is proposing that MPs should not be allowed to employ their own children. This is a direct response to a couple of minor scandals swirling around the Tory party - or rather scandals swirling around minor Tories.

A good plan. Closes the loophole, teaches the Tories a lesson. Win, win. NO IT'S NOT! For goodness sake.

Politicians are held in pretty low esteem - unfairly - we all know that. The way to recover esteem is not to introduce bonkers legislation (see post below for my views on that) as a sticking plaster but to have fair legislation which creates transparency around the activities of MPs.

Banning working age children from working for MPs is just mad. What about step-children or foster children. What about nieces and nephews, spouses, parents. The bloke you met in the pub last week. A long-lost mate from Friends Reunited.

There should be proper audit controls of expenditure of public money. Where a Member of Parliament chooses to employ a member of their own family, they (and their family member) will have to accept that there is likely to be scrutiny form quarters other than just the Audit Office. But to ban people employing a family member is just wrong.

Crikey, next Harman will be saying that the Monarchy shouldn't be hereditary. Hmm - now there's an idea.

A Doctor for the Apple

Apologies to non-Apple non-Mac users, but bear with me.

When Apple launched it's new (relaunched its old) online service MobileMe at the same time at launching the new 3G iPhone, there was, frankly, a complete shambles. The service didn't work, then it did, then it didn't then bits of it did. Over a period of about five days the Apple brand went from towering heights amongst its loyal core support to, "where can I buy Microsoft?"

Now Steve Jobs, Apple's MD, has responded with this internal memo - presumably designed to to placed in the appropriate media.

Team,

The launch of MobileMe was not our finest hour.  There are several things we could have done better:

– MobileMe was simply not up to Apple's standards – it clearly needed more time and testing.

– Rather than launch MobileMe as a monolithic service, we could have launched over-the-air syncing with iPhone to begin with, followed by the web applications one by one – Mail first, followed 30 days later (if things went well with Mail) by Calendar, then 30 days later by Contacts.

– It was a mistake to launch MobileMe at the same time as iPhone 3G, iPhone 2.0 software and the App Store.  We all had more than enough to do, and MobileMe could have been delayed without consequence.

We are taking many steps to learn from this experience so that we can grow MobileMe into a service that our customers will love.  One step that I can share with you today is that the MobileMe team will now report to Eddy Cue, who will lead all of our internet services – iTunes, the App Store and, starting today, MobileMe.  Eddy's new title will be Vice President, Internet Services and he will now report directly to me.

The MobileMe launch clearly demonstrates that we have more to learn about Internet services.  And learn we will.  The vision of MobileMe is both exciting and ambitious, and we will press on to make it a service we are all proud of by the end of this year.

Steve

Now who else do we know who would benefit from saying

The recent past has not been our finest hour.

10p tax rate, and car tax plans not up to usual standards of fairness - we needed to spend a bit more time with our calculators.

It is better to make sure things work right than launch new ideas.

And it is bonkers to launch so many new ideas at once. At least one will go wrong and obscure the rest.

I need someone to get a grip on this. Where is Alistair Campbell?

But the bottom line is when it comes to a free and fair society, there is only one choice. Labour.