Bully Boy Brown

I can’t remember the last time I bought a Sunday paper, but I don’t think it was in the last two years, probably longer. Anyway, much more fun to go trawling the internet on a Sunday afternoon and pick up on the what others have been saying… much better to read when a few commenter’s have left their opinions also.

The story that caught my attention yesterday, but not seemingly a terribly wide audience was the not unsurprising revelations in the Sunday Mail that Gordon Brown is a physical bully… yes, we kinda knew that anyway. However, the story which is being tied back to a soon to be published book by Andrew Rawnsley and may be a taste of more revelations to come about The Prime Ministers capacity to cope with his job and yesterdays article is clearly a retelling of some pretty reprehensible behaviour that would not be tolerated in any other office in the land.

Here’s the charge sheet:

• Brown hit a senior aide who got in his way as he rushed to a Number 10 reception.
• Physically pulled a secretary out of her chair as he dictated a memo to her.
• Hurled foul-mouthed abuse at two aides in his hotel room in America in a state of semi-undress after reports that he had been snubbed by President Obama.

These stories will not go away, but instead seem to be growing in number and are not being convincingly denied by no. 10 nor Gordon Brown. He is clearly someone who is failing to psychologically cope with the pressure of being Prime Minister, things will surely only get worse as the pressure of the election ramps up. The laws of this land rightly protect workers from abusive behaviour, and yet again Brown lives down what we all seem to know about the dark side of his personality. How is a government supposed to function effectively if the head of that government cannot himself function effectively?  What kind of example could Brown possibly hold himself to be when the cracks are so evident.

The image of the Prime Minister was already that of a Nokia throwing, quick tempered depressive, and that is perhaps the polite version - but now we can add to the caricature the notion of him pulling secretaries from their chairs when they cannot keep up with dictation; swinging his clunking fist at those who seek to help his Government for daring to talk to him in the corridor and of a sad man who’s anger at not being able to court Obama’s inner circle left him flailing and shouting in a US hotel, Donkey Kong like, whilst only partially dressed. Hardly statesman like is he?  True or not, the image is sticking, like John Major tucking his shirt into his pants, Brown is a buffoon in the mind of the wider public.

And yet the time has passed when the Labour Party could have and should have put the Country above Party and seen Brown out of the door in an orderly fashion. They gambled that their impending defeat would be worse if a transition is made before the election, and now it is too late to change the leader. This year’s General Election must serve as a reminder to all in the future about the importance of public scrutiny and of election on Party Leaders; Brown will forever be referred to as the example of what you will get if you circumvent such conventions.

For those harmed by Gordon Brown, or fearing his wrath, I took the time to have a look and would recommend a read of this website on bullying; but don't let the boss reading it from your desk as he may come along and put you in headlock or something.

The Recession Is Not Over, And I Don't Think It Will Be For Some Time Yet

I see in the news the announcement that the recession is not over. The surprise for me is that there is surprise at this particular announcement.

I am no economist, and every post when I talk anything approaching economics I still feel the need to warn of this, but my analysis and predictions have so far been pretty accurate. My thinking going back to early Q2 that we would not emerge until at least early 2010, and possibly not until Q3 2010. If 6 quarters is the worst recession for 54 years, I do wonder where 9 or 10 qtrs will sit?

Why do I think this? Because the Government and the Bank of England have taken measures to ensure that economic corrections are kept to a minimum. 
 
Now I can understand the politics of this, and they two-fold.

Firstly, it is one of the biggest dividing lines in the minds of Conservative and Labour voters over aged 30. During the 80’s and the 90’s when the UK went into recession the Conservatives allowed the market to contract before recovery with little or no intervention. This allowed for a quicker recovery (in theory) but meant the economy dipped faster and deeper causing many people to lose houses, their livelihoods, their businesses. The Conservative argument would be that the UK economy leading into the 80’s was in need of modernisation and was still built very much in the image of post-war Britain and overly reliant on dying industries. The crashes took a lot of older businesses out, but in the booms allowed for the creation of future industries which we rely upon today. It is an argument that will never probably be settled in broad public opinion. Labour stuck very much then to the politics they have followed during this recession; that Government(s) should intervene to prevent the recession getting too deep at any one point. The argument again would be that (in theory) this will draw out the recession for longer and also that the necessary “corrections” which our future economy may benefit have not had a chance to come into place. Now, I say this not to advocate either position, but, the current path undertaken was one that was known and one of general intervention rather than of allowing market forces to work unfettered.

The second point is as political as it is economic. It was and is a very big gamble. To my mind the Quantitative Easing programme has been a stealth effort in devaluing sterling, which has had some results, not necessarily completely positive, but not disastrous (yet). Of the big economies only Japan and the EURO zone have not followed with similar measures and China’s decision to fix against the Dollar is looking to have been very profitable. The EURO zone may still need to devalue, as it is hard to see it continuing for long at $1.50 to €1.00. The EU including the UK needs grow its Exports, and with the EURO so strong that is not looking likely. The danger of QE is hyperinflation, and clearly the extra money is not being leant as it was supposed to have been, but the UK seems to have been able to leverage its independence from the EURO to keep Sterling attractive and as exports may not have suffered as much as they could have, and we have an advantage, for now, on the EURO zone countries.

On point two however, I think we have our economic independence to thank, as we have been able to make decisions independent of the EU. It could however very quickly turn to be a disadvantage and I would like to see an end to QE and an immediate cut in Government borrowing. As long as we have QE we risk adding hyperinflation to an increasing unserviceable debt mountain. That would be like the perfect storm of recessions.

I really do not see any long standing positivity until Government and personal debt is slashed. I think individuals have responded and in 2009 are directing income into repaying debt rather than spending. This trend will continue. The Government needs to do the same. Though it will probably not do so and it will fall to an incoming Conservative Government to undo the damage. The sooner it is reigned in the less the UK will need to repay, and the quicker we can head to recovery. Individuals need to start spending, but day to day spending needs to not be linked to personal debt such as credit cards. As the nation’s credit rating improves, sensible borrowing for houses and big items like cars will aid recovery further.

Anyway, that’s my take, and that is what I am basing my personal economic decisions on. Recessions are ugly, and unfortunately I think until we can point to “corrections” all we have is the same struggling economy, the pain will have to be felt a lot more harshly somewhere – and I am not sure where; my guess a year ago was on homeowners, but this looks slightly less likely to be the case now. I am sure there are those of you who will disagree and that’s fine, but if you are rebutting in the comments, please keep it in layman’s terms as much as possible as like I said, I am not an economist. [So, don’t bet your house on my economic predictions!]

No surprises from me that we are still in recession. I still think there is one thing that Gordon Brown can do to bring about confidence in the markets and in the public and that would be to call a General Election.

My very final thought is again political. John Major complained of bringing about a “voteless recovery” and reports from Gordon’s bunker were in the same vein. I wonder what will be his cry if there is no recovery to link his lack of votes to?

The Price At The Pump

Petrol at the pump has hit 105.9p per litre at my local filling station, yet despite the high price and the fact that oil prices are expected to rise for the rest of this year the Government is adding a further 2p per litre in duty from midnight tonight (2.3p including VAT).

At a time when families are feeling the pinch, and considering the already high levels of duty already collected on fuel, why is the Government pressing ahead with this raise? With the increases in oil price in the last two years prices are up about 40p in a litre already, and that includes additional VAT being collected. If the Conservatives have opposed this move they have not been vocal enough about it, as I haven’t heard any protest from anyone.

If the government really wants to help poor people it should reverse immediately the increase in fuel duty and let everyone of us know what they are doing to help reduce the price of petrol to UK consumers; excluding of course their recently uncovered policy of trading convicted terrorists for oil contracts.



Update 01-Sep-09: Tarquin helpfully provides the below graph which he rightly mentions makes the point much better than words can:

The Government Is About To Fall

There will be wide support from the opposition parties next week for the mooted debate on whether to dissolve Parliament, should Gordon Brown survive so long. But as I said yesterday, on full attendance there needs to be a mid-30 swing if all MPs attend, and all non-Labour MPs all vote for dissolution.

The BBC has reported today that there is a letter circling abound the backbenchers, and Iain Dales suggests that has already been signed by around 40 MPs. Although 72 is the magic number there, it is clear that should a dissolution vote take place there are already enough Labour MPs in the bag to make it happen already, before the debate has begun. This situation absolutely makes Gordon Browns Position as Prime Minister untenable in my opinion and I think as the day goes on and more is heard from current and potential ex-cabinet members this situation will progress.

So, Mr Johnson it is time to step forward from the shadows and in to the daylight so as to seize your moment. We do not want a reluctant leader, nor do we need someone who is unsure of the task at hand or their own abilities. If it is you who is to steer the ship in the interim you need to do it with conviction.

I also say again what I have said here before, the only acceptable course of action, and the only acceptable way to reform our system is to call for and deliver a General Election.

If The Labour Party cannot sort this out for themselves then it is worth remembering that the Queen is within her powers to dissolve Parliament herself and appoint an interim Prime Minister. This is the nuclear option and things should not be allowed to get that far. However, considering Mr Browns failure to stand for a leadership election of his party, and the absence of a General Election victory with him as leader gives him little mandate. The argument for continuity in government is lost with the massive deviations from the last Labour Manifesto and what has been provided from HMG; her Majesty herself would be better serving democracy by triggering the election in which the overwhelming majority of her subjects desire.... Like I said before, it is time for Alan Johnson to step forward.

London MP's To Lose Second House Allowance

Story from here.

Axing second home allowance:
For - 355
Against - 39

Registering all outside financial interests:
For - 305
Against - 31

All staff employed by The Commons:
For - 280
Against - 100

Publish all receipts:
For - 348
Against - 22

Harriet Harman did try to get an amendment postponing any amendment on the second home allowance but failed. This is being talked up by the Opposition Parties as and David Cameron has reported said that authority is "ebbing away" from Gordon Brown.

Now that you have read this, let me nudge you gently in this direction... Alex Hilton, the main man on LabourHome today says that there is a "Stalking Horse" waiting in the wings to challenge Gordon Brown should the government be defeated - he says he made a call and is waiting to hear back. I wonder if Alex's is on the phone to his horse now?

Personally I don't think Browns authority is ebbing away I think it is long gone, all that remains is some smoke and a few shards of mirror. I know no-one, who is prepared to back Brown - even die hard Labour supporters that I know want him gone, the sooner the better.

Of course, I do not live in Westminster, but, I bet there are a lot of other people reading this that live no where near Westminster who think the same. There is an under current, an unspoken knowledge shared by most throughout England (the South at least)... We are all looking around and wondering who it will be that will pull the trigger and end browns malaised stewardship; answer the question of "who", and the question of "when" will simply be a demand for expediency.

The most popular man in the Labour Party will be the first one to throw their hat into the ring - calling time on Mr Browns shambolic time as PM. According to Iain Dale, even Brown seems to want it now.

Plan E

Let me ask a question…

When did we stop being a nation of shop keepers?

The famous quote “L’Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers” was uttered by Napoleon and was intended to disparage, I guess in the same way De Gaulle was actually quite apt when he described the British relationship with Europe. However, (thanks Wikipedia…) Napoleons’ was not an original quote, as Adam Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations…

"To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers."

And therein lies part of the problem. It is my contention that The UK is suffering from not having a strong base of local, independent and entrepreneurial business activity. Part of our problem is that we no longer have shopkeepers influencing government, that role is now filled by multinationals and lobbyists. Don’t get me wrong, we need multinationals but there are weaknesses in other areas of our economy and these need to be addressed.

There are two things that we need to target to turn our economy around, firstly we should target help in this week’s budget to entrepreneurs and small businesses, for there lies the holes in our economy. The problems at the root are that apprenticeships and training are at an all time low, as we target too high a rate of higher education and university placement. There are aspects of apprenticeships that cannot be taught in a classroom, the tricks of the trade as such. We risk losing much.

Secondly, we need people with trade skills, and we need people who can innovate in engineering and sciences. We need to be manufacturing items here that can be sold abroad for a profit, this bringing into this country much needed cash. We will not be able to compete with Asia and possibly in the future Africa on mass production techniques as we will never be able to produce volume products as cheaply. But there is an abundance of opportunity for manufacturing jobs still.

We do not seem able to hold together big manufacturing works in the UK, but I bet if we supported our smaller engineering and manufacturing firms that target solutions, and can offer multiple products and/or seek to further technological advancements we could nurture new industries and thus new jobs. Most of all, we know that in the UK large manufacturing is on life support. Where a though leader is needed we can prevail.

We need products to export to bring some cash into the country, we can’t just magic up a profitable car factory or reinvent an aerospace industry. We require skilled jobs to manufacture things that are demanded in the emerging markets AND in the developed markets of the EU and the USA. Eventually, some of these small businesses will grow and that can in the long run help replace industries that have already been lost.

So I hope that either in this budget, or perhaps more likely with an upcoming Conservative Government we can move the discussion along to how we can help entrepreneurs and raise the number skills based and manufacturing jobs. It is they who will seek out new markets and new opportunities, it is also they, that if supported will be best placed and most willing to hire workers at varying skills levels and help our economy back on track.

Here is where and how I think Government can help.

1. We need to kill the idea of 50% university placement. We do not want people leaving school without education or skills (or ambition), but we should allow apprenticeships and vocational training to those who at 13 and 14 know what they want to do. I am not advocating we neglect core education like Maths and English, but will (I feel) help target ambition and by doing that can help them to understand what they need to do to achieve their goals. We have to accept that the individuals choice will be better than providing the same for all.

2. We need to cut red-tape and taxes to the productive part of the economy, so as to let them trade and innovate. It is they who will then pick up and place our skilled workers with jobs in technology and science. (Those businesses will also need clerical and manual workers and with success with require the financial services to help manage their profits.) Business rates should be reduced on small companies and traders, and employment legislation needs to be drastically simplified. In some industries, Health & Safety is unnecessarily strangling industry. We need to have parliament debate on all legislation that concerns business, not just enact all directives sent over from Brussels.

3. We need Government recognise that Small business and Entrepreneurialism is as important to our economic success as the large corporations are. Small businesses sometimes have a shorter lifecycle than larger companies but sometimes that is a result of success. What we need is to always help new businesses get started, and recognise and reward those who are prepared to take calculated risk to get started. We should recognise more entrepreneurs who have excelled more often. The achievements of so called “Fat Cats” who were schooled up to Director level, then spend a few years in the board room do not compare to those of Richard Branson or James Dyson.

4. It is entrepreneurial spirit that can help innovate. If like individuals cannot afford in cost of money or time to get started we will lose a generation of invention. Though some ideas can be realised via selling onto established corporations it is fresh intellectual property and ideas that will be the cornerstone of a rejuvenated market. As the so called bail-outs have shown, corporations are too risk averse. Give 50 local Joe Bloggs the freedom to start a business, and to make personal wealth then they can eventually hire more additional people than all the local bank branches that were supposed to have benefitted from a costly bail-out.

5. Forget bank bail-outs. Business needs to be reminded that if it fails it will fold. Target grants instead at small UK businesses that are trying to get a foothold in Asia, if they succeed those companies will be bringing home much needed foreign cash and will be paying taxes at home. It needs to be a grant system, rather than a subsidy system. Accept that not all companies will be successful, but hold up as an example those which excel.

6. Support the business we have now. We have tough trading now, but Government should not extend it's reach beyond what is required. When it choses to reach or regulate, it is the level of type and effectivity which is important, not the volume of legislation.

As a nation we have very quickly moved away from a culture which encourages an independent entrepreneurial spirit to one where the cost of failed risks is so high we are no longer prepared to take them. We have in short moved from being a nation of shop keepers to being a nation of shop workers, as can be evidenced now on most High Streets.

I say we cannot borrow our way out of debt and recession, we need to trade our way out. And Government can help by encouraging training and education in the right areas and by reducing the reach of Government in others.

The next Google could very likely be conceived in the bedroom of a teenager, and the next online media craze could be conceived in the free time of an inspired software programmer. The next great mechanical invention, like so many before could be put together in a shed in Scotland. But it will count for nothing if the potential for those great idea’s and inventions cannot or will not be harnessed.

In targeting our sectors and people, we also need to target our markets. Our focus today should be on where the cash is now (China, India and the Tiger nations). The UK cannot do this alone as it has now no control over external trade agreements. Personally I would like out of the EU, but that being unlikely (for now), trade at EU level needs to be completely re-thought and a whole new decision making process implemented. (That is perhaps another, longer blog post)

In effect, we need to a budget and a long-term direction that will actually help White Van Man and also help a new generation of Branson’s and Dyson’s get going. If we can help them target their ambitions, our economy can get going again. If we cannot do this, or if a corporatist/Statist outlook prevails then I fear we will not be seeing any green shoots for a long time.

GCSE Physics Question

Courtesy of Christopher Booker

Question 1.

A. Acid Rain

B. Global Warming

C. Noise Pollution

D. Radioactive Waste

Now Complete the below questions using each of the above once.

1. Nuclear power stations produce.....

2. Wind farms produce.....

3. Coal-fired power stations produce sulphur dioxide which causes.....

4. All fossil fuel power stations produce carbon dioxide which causes.....

As Christopher Booker states, if you agree with the government on these matters you will score 100%. The link between CO2 and Global Warming has not yet been proved, and there is an increasing number of scientists prepared to say openly that they do not concur. The Climate Science Blog recently linked to this article claiming that it kills the CO2 argument.

You may not agree with that, and feel that all scientists agree, but that is not the case. Now, I am a little old fashioned but I think we should teach and assess our children in Science, and I think we should teach scientific theories, along side scientific fact, but I think we should be explicitly teaching the difference between the two. No. 4 on the above exam seems like a not so subtle indicator that this is not happening.

If and when the link between CO2 and man made global warming can be linked to actual science, which can be demonstrated in a laboratory and using scientific models then at that point it should be taught as such. Right now it is Politics masquerading as science, and that is never a good thing.

Pass The Custard

When were the following things debated in the House of Commons?

When was the decision to print £150bn of money debated by MP's?
When was the bank bailouts, and tax payer funding of bonuses and pensions debated by MP's?
When was our continued membership of the EU last debated by MP's?
When was the "Buy European" defence spending policy debated by MP's?

Why is it that the people we are voting for are not debating the big issues of the day? What are people who are over taxed and under represented supposed to do?

The young lady who covered Peter Mandleson in green custard today was protesting the third runway. This is something that was debated in Parliament. She has been widely written and commented on today, and considered opinion has generally accepted she was wrong in her protest (with a compelling argument to both sides).

But what are people supposed to do when they do not agree with the Government and their MP is not getting a say on important issues?

The EU makes in excess of 75% of all laws in the EU, we as people have very, very little say over those decisions. Then on the few matters the EU has no authority over, our MPs are not even consulted on historic events such as printing £150bn. Gordon Brown, who needed Tony Blair to win an election for him is making decisions that could potentially ruin this country for decades, and no one has voted him to be PM.

And they pretend to be disturbed at low voter turn-out at elections.

Peter Mandleson is probably the second or third most politically influential person in the UK today. He was elected to his position in the Lords by no one. He is not being shadowed in the House by anyone who has been elected. How exactly are people able to hold him and his decisions to account. To make things even murkier, he is still paid a massive salary by the EU. How is this not a conflict of interest?

So yes, the young ladies who covered Mandy in custard was probably wrong, and yes it is surprising that such an influential person has such lapsed security. But aren't we all missing the bigger point? In the history of the world there are certain things that we know will always happen. When a people are suppressed and ignored they eventually rise up; when they do they are unforgiving. I asked some time ago where the public protest and outrage is, and in recent weeks I am seeing and reading an undercurrent of discontent. It seems the Government feels it too, judging by this, this, this, this, this, and this. They know they have messed up our lives and our country instead of holding themselves to account, they stock up on riot gear, tear gas and line up the armed forces.

If you are a member of Government you are supposed to be accountable, it is how people stay free from tyranny. We have gone soft by not holding to account a long succession of gaffe prone government officials, and for letting newspaper editors decide who to be outraged with and by how much. A twice disgraced MP should not now be wielding such power from the Lords. Some wolves no longer wear sheep's clothing, they now prefer miniver.

If Democracy no longer works, what else are people supposed to do?

Brown vs Harman

The political story of the week could be from another little nugget carried in the Mail on Sunday, here.

The MoS say that Brown has threatened to sack Harriet Harman over claims that she is plotting to succeed him as Labour Leader. The Spectator has also picked up on their report, here.

This could be the leadership battle that David Miliband did not have the stomach for, as Harman seemingly has the will and ambition to front the Labour Party. The reporting of this may now back Gordon into a corner. He had been planning a mini reshuffle after the EU elections, but if he acts now it will be a sign he considers Harman a threat. If he does not, the rumours may gain ground, and a bad result in the local and EU elections could prompt calls for Brown to go and an early election.

Be-Wildering

There is not much that you can be absolutely certain on, especially in politics.

But I would almost be tempted to bet the house that Geert Wilders will arrive in the UK and be allowed to leave the airport unmolested.

Just about the only thing that we can be certain of, is that when the EU makes a law, The UK Government will never, ever, act in contradiction to it. Free movement of citizens within the EU is one of their crowning diktats. There is no way, at all the UK Government will be standing in Geert Wilders way tomorrow.

UK laws, they have no problem ignoring. EU ones are a different matter.

Update: 12-Feb-09: I stand corrected. Today is a very bad day for free speech in the UK