Crossfire

Great Grandpa's Gift

2012-01-21T16:12:00.000Z

A retirement gift presented to my Great Grandfather Arnold Holden on his retirement from the Daily Mail, where he worked as a journalist and editor, in 1945.

The Fourth Science

2012-01-19T11:22:00.004Z

A couple of months ago I woke up, as is often the case, to the sound of someone on Radio 4 moaning. This particularly fella was from a campaign group called CASE who were campaigning for Computer Science to be taught in schools.

The item immediately caught my attention because it highlighted a huge problem that has long gone unrectified - the absence of any real serious efforts to provide kids with a basic knowledge and understanding of Computer Science - how computers operate and how to programme them.

When I was 12 years old my father had installed a ground-breaking computer system at the Architectural practice he worked for. It was leading edge - a huge investment made to help them design Terminal 4 airport at Heathrow. His early grasp of the importance of computer automation led him to make an equally fateful, at least for me, investment. My Dad bought one of Sir Clive Sinclair's ZX81 computers for home.

The ZX81 was a horrible little lump of plastic encased electronics with a nasty, flat, barely touch-sensitive keyboard that was absolutely hopeless to use. It had a tiny 1k of memory (less than a billionth of the memory in my current mobile phone) and stored computer programmes by connecting to an audio tape recorder and stored them by recording bizarre, unforgettable screaming noises on the tape.

I absolutely loved it.

The ZX81 was a strange computer by today's standards - because it didn't actually do anything. Instead it was equipped with the computer programming language BASIC which consisted of 20 or 30 commands that were combined in lines of code to create computer programmes.

I was fascinated with the challenge that this new device represented - I.e. making this unbroken device work for some useful purpose. I spent every penny I got on computer magazines and books and learned to programme it. I was utterly captivated with the extraordinary power that now rested in my hands to create a computer programme to do absolutely anything! It was staggering and truly breathtaking.

I wrote computer programmes for everything. My first commissions included a programme for calculating damp penetration through different materials, a bus time tabling programme and a raft of original games and copies of the first arcade games - space invaders, pacman, defender, donkey kong, etc. the list was endless. I wrote programmes for computer magazines and had them published and a friend of my father paid me to fill an audio tape with programmes because he had bought a ZX81 but couldn't be bothered to learn how to programme it.

The future potential for what I was doing was limitless.

One day when I was 15 I went into school and told a teacher I wanted to do an O level in Computer Science. He laughed, literally. The school despite having over 2000 pupils only had one dusty BBC microcomputer that was mainly kept on a trolley locked in a cupboard because no-one knew how to use it.

I was told that my idea of doing Computer Science was impossible largely because the final O level consisted not just of written exams and submission of some computer programmes but also some coursework which I would be unable to complete - because the school didn't have a teacher who could provide the course..

I asked if it were possible to pass the O level without doing any course work.Laughing boy tittered that it was technically but only if someone managed to get close to 100% in the exams and from their submitted programmes... A task that was insurmountable. I gave him my hardest Paddington stare and accepted the deal. To cut a long story short he finally agreed to enter me for the exam some time later.

I went home, typed out some of my computer programmes on a type-writer (I didn't own a printer!) and sent them to the examining board with some notes to explain how they worked.

On the day of the exam, I turned over the exam paper with some trepidation. For one reason or another I hadn't got around to revising. In fact, I didn't actually know what was on the syllabus. Having managed to talk my way into the exam, I was now taking a bit of a flyer. I was slightly concerned in case the exam would require me to illustrate a level of knowledge usually only possessed by mad professors not nerdy gobby schoolboys.

It was my turn to laugh. I still remember the first question. It was - 'What is a BIT?'. Ask anyone who knows anything about computer science and they will tell you, it's the equivalent of asking a student taking an English O level what the first letter of the alphabet is..

Anyway. Back to Radio 4. As I slowly gained consciousness I realised I was listening to someone describing the same problem I had encountered at school but it still existed nearly 30 years later!

Today schools are teaching ICT. ICT basically teaches kids how to use computers. They mainly fiddle about with Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint. Rather than using these sort of tools in every other lesson as tools for writing, managing information and presenting it as they will do later in the workplace, they have a discrete 'lesson' for learning how to use tools and acquire very basic skills that they have NO opportunity to use and develop in the rest of their learning time at school.. Madness.

There is still a complete absence of Computer Science teaching in schools. As someone observed recently it's like teaching people to read but not to write or perhaps more simply it's like learning how to drive a car but without having any understanding of how a car works.

But so what? Why do you need to know how a car works?

You don't If you only want to drive cars with engines and thousands of othe components that others design and make. But if you want to build future industries based on technology then you better at least gives kids the basic ABC building blocks at school and ignite their minds to the limitless possibilities that harnessing the enormous power of computing represents. I would never have gone on to build an IT company, an Internet business or been able to conceive the IT based projects I am currently working on if it had not have been for the ZX81.

So to say I am in support of Michael Gove's recent announcements that he is overhauling the teaching of a computer Science in schools would be a huge understatement. It is absolutely vital.

But to really understand where we, as a nation, went wrong with failing (so far) to harness Computer Science for the betterment of our Country, you have to take a visit to Bletchley Park the home of the first computers developed by the extraordinary Alan Turing - the subject of a future post. Ever since the 1940s we have failed to exploit the fruits of this genius. But I am convinced, it's not too late.

P.S. A bit is a Binary dIgiT. B.I.T simple as ABC.

The Solution to the Financial Crisis

2011-11-28T19:28:00.001Z

Just chanced upon this rather fascinating interview on BBC Hard Talk with an Economist called Steve Keen. I know that's a fairly unlikely sounding statement, the words 'fascinating' and 'economist' don't normally co-exist in the same sentence. But for once I think it is justifiable.

Steve is an Australian economist who predicted the financial crash and, in economic circles, shouted quite loudly about what was about to happen - before it actually did. In a world full of people who were wise after the event Steve deserves some credit and also deserves to be listened to.

When asked if we are in danger of a depression, Steve calmly explains that we have already entered one, it's just that people don't tend to recognise these sort of things until afterwards - hmm. He then goes on to talk of the economic miracle that Hitler achieved in the 1930's following the Great Depression. Again..hmm.

Steve then touches on a solution to the financial crisis that involves quite a radical rethink. He explains that the Bank bailouts were a complete mistake - 'Governments bailed out Banks and then expected them to lend to people and businesses. Instead they should have bailed out the debtors not the lenders'.. It's a stunningly simple point.

Steve basically points out that the debt crisis was created by banks lending ludicrous amounts of money to people based on raising asset prices - it was basically a dodgy 'ponzi' scheme. E.G. Property prices increase because banks start lending more money to people who buy property, which in turn leads them to lend more money as prices rise etc etc and the cycle continues. The banks created their own destruction and innocent people got caught up in it.

Steve's conclusion is that debts that were unreasonably imposed should not be paid off. His solution is mass default causing the banks to collapse. Then, the government takes over all the banks (temporarily) nationalising the whole system and then gives everyone a big bag of money.

Yes really, I am absolutely serious. That's what he proposes. Basically everyone gets a load of cash. Those people in debt have to use it to pay off debt and those who don't get to keep it and spend it on whatever they fancy..

~~I am no Economics Expert but...~~

Actually I have just thought. Given that I did an A-level economics course 20 odd years ago and I guess probably less than 5% of the population have ever done an economics course, I probably am, relatively speaking to 95% of the population, an economics expert! (That's a very scary thought) So, in my now 'expert' opinion I reckon Steve is on to something.

But bizarelly, the major stumbling block that Steve has come up against is that he doesn't think there are any politicians around who have the balls to do what he suggests.

Eh?

I really cannot imagine a more electable manifesto pledge than 'We will give everyone a free bag of money'. It's an absolute guaranteed vote winner. Any politician would love it!

You really should watch the video.

Steve also has a blog here (a bit technical - I didn't understand a lot of it and I am an expert remember).

Murdoch Offloads

2011-11-22T15:23:00.000Z

Rupert Murdoch sold 4.5 million shares in News International on Wednesday last week and then another 1 million on Thursday - yeilding him a total of in excess of $58,000,000.

Why would he would have done that I wonder?

The Absence of Outrage

2011-11-19T20:33:00.000Z

Sometimes it's truly shocking how little outrage there is when something truly horrifying occurs.

In the last two weeks, the leaders of Europe's most historic democracies have been forced out of office and both been replaced by illegitimate, unelected leaders. Greece, the cradle of democracy, has seen democratic process destroyed. The will of it's people has not simply been ignored, they were not even consulted.

Similarly in Italy, where many of the central founding concepts and principles of democracy were developed, democratic process has been violated. The EU has replaced National Leaders with it's own puppets, for the furtherance of it's political objectives

But do we feel a sense of shock and outrage? - A national outpouring of stunned shock, dismay, anger, fury?

Why, when for generations our people have given their lives for the ideal of democracy, do we feel so little sense of anger at what is unfolding in Europe - all for the sake of continuing down the road of yet another failed European political project.

I shudder to think what those who died for their independent European nations in the 1940's would feel today, not just to see Europe again in turmoil as the result of another set of expansionist ambitions, but at the tragic apathy of so many of it's people.

There was a period in the 1930s when 'concensus' government and public disaffection for politics lead many to ignore the growing threat of fascism in Germany. Similar to today, most people failed to make sense of the sequence of events that was unfolding. If it hadn't of been for that incomprehension, apathy and inaction perhaps many of the horrors of the early 1940's and the millions of deaths would have been avoided.

The moment of realisation came when a great force was assembled with territorial ambitions to unify Europe and began the process by invading the weaker nations and replacing their governments with their own. But this realisation was made real by the images of war - soldiers, tragic scenes of war-torn civilians, death and destruction.

Today a similar process is sanitised because, barring a bit of civil unrest in Greece, there have been no scenes of violence. There has been no shocking event that has woken people up and forced them to question exactly what is going on. Thus the insidious creep of the destruction of democracy continues unabated.

In the 1930s, one politician sounded constant warnings about the rise of a forceful political group with ambitions to dominate and control all of Europe. Churchill was derided as an extremist lunatic by many - but his warnings of the dangers that were unfolding proved prescient.

Here another individual from our time provides similar warnings:

Farage is regularly derided as an extremist. So complacent are we that many dismiss him as a misguided ranting fool.

Is he? Or is he simply pointing out the obvious truth that we as yet fail to fully recognise?

A Successful Armed Robbery in Windlesham - Advice from Razor Smith

2011-11-03T09:26:00.000Z

Yesterday morning there was a dramatic attempted armed robbery at Windlesham Post office. Apparently, at around 9.40am a man wearing a balaclava and brandishing a hand-gun attempted to demand money, one of the post-office workers hit an alarm and the man ran-off. No doubt the post-office workers were deeply traumatised by this.

Without wanting to add myself to the suspects list...I confess to having some insight into the business of armed robbery.

In fact, in the last 20 years I have got to know three armed robbers quite well.

The last one I met was a guy called Razor Smith who I interviewed when researching a book that I was working on last year. Razor was a career criminal. He grew up in a rough part of London, got involved in crime when just a child and carved out a career and fearsome reputation as an armed robber - mainly bank jobs.

Razor was rewarded with 58 criminal convictions (including a life-sentence) and whilst inside educated himself, starting writing about his life and has to date published four books. They provide a fascinating insight into the criminal mind, life in prison and the keys to reducing re-offending.

When I met Razor he very kindly took the time to explain to me how best to go about the business of doing an armed robbery. I stress that this is not career development advice I asked for but I was perversely fascinated to listen to him describing a skill that he had honed over a life-time and at great personal cost to himself and others.

One key point Razor made was that a successful armed robbery is all about fear. Razor's 'winning formula' was to approach each robbery with as much aggression as possible - to paralyse the victims with fear and make them compliant to his demands. The approach was all about achieving this - preventing the victims from thinking of raising an alarm or even considering if the armed robber before them would think twice about shooting them.

And herein lies the key weakness in armed robbery - it's essentially about bluff. As Razor explained, he was never prepared to shoot his victims to achieve his financial aims. So he had to confront his victims with a vision of a mad, demented, weapon totting lunatic to achieve compliance.

It's time for a top tip for would-be armed robbers:

Always, always fire the gun! You can shout and scream and pull crazy faces but if you really want to scare the living daylights out of someone instantly then fire the gun. But be careful - just don't, whatever you do, look careful! Fire it at a side wall so that if the bullet goes through it will fly off harmlessly into the air. Don't fire it at the ceiling. You might hit someone or even, god forbid, get really unlucky and kill someone. The police will expend vastly more time and effort finding a murderer than a robber - so make sure you don't physically hurt anyone! - that would be just silly.

Razor would no doubt laugh at the ineptitude displayed in the armed robbery in Windlesham. On the face of it, it looks like the effort of a complete amateur. I guess he would immediately question if there was much cash there at 9.40am on a Wednesday morning. Did the time of the robbery coincide with a regular cash delivery or was the timing just random? If it was random then it indicates a probable first-timer.

He would also question the choice of weapon. How much fear can you create with a handgun? The sawn-off shotgun is the weapon of choice for your Pro-armed-robber not because of it's finely balancing handling profile or its high performance ballistics but because it will, sometimes quite literally, scare the shit out of anyone when pulled out of a trench coat, waggled around threateningly and then fired at a wall.

The only drawback to the weapon is that when fired at close quarters the sound is so deafening it can make communication a little difficult. One particular robbery was very nearly thwarted when an old lady working in a small bank branch, became quite disorientated, deafened and confused when confronted with an armed robber who fired his sawn-off. 'Oh dear. I don't think I even know your mother' she said in bewildering response to the demand 'where's the money'.

So, I doubt that Razor would have any admiration for the armed-robber who struck in Windlesham yesterday. But he would probably, like me, would have a considerable amount of admiration for the victims.

Why?

Because even if the robber was waving a hand gun around and didn't deliver a full theatrical aggressive armed-robber performance it takes real guts to be confronted with a gun and then, rather than cowering with fear, hit a panic alarm. It is a seriously brave judgement call to make.

It took Razor a long time to realise the true impact that his acts were having on others. He had been brutalised as a child and by his early life of crime. As a result it was only in later life when he had children and started to experience the sensitivities and emotions that others feel every day that he started to empathise with other people's feelings and realise what he was doing.

The incident in Windlesham yesterday was a success. It was as successful as an armed robbery can be - no one was physically hurt and no money was taken.

But the psychological impact may have been huge. Such incidents can deeply affect people - turn normal people into quiet recluses who cannot overcome the trauma they have suffered. Their sense of well-being, their relationships - everything can be destroyed by unexpected violent crime.

I hope that local people, politicians and press will take the time to support the victims, congratulate them and herald their bravery - In other words help them to take the positive from a very bad situation. They might need it.

'Le Crunch' - The European Endgame

2011-10-29T00:32:00.000+01:00

I may be wrong but I get the feeling that the mists are starting to lift on the whole European issue this week and the picture about what is going to happen to the whole European project and debt crisis is starting to take shape.

President Sarkozy's comment that Greece should never have entered the Euro was the first open acknowledgement that the Euro just is not going to work with countries that have very differently structured economies. Seeing as nothing much has changed with Greece since it joined the Euro, other than that their debt has grown, it must follow that Sarkozy is implying that Greece should not be in the Euro now.

In the last week or so, there was also the spectacle of Sarkozy and Merkel grinning at each other when they were asked if they trusted Berlesconi. They are now openly showing and sharing contempt.

And then there was the story about Sarkozy getting angry with Cameron and saying, 'We are sick of you telling us what to do'.. Which must mean that Sarkozy is irritated that whatever it is that Cameron and others have been saying has now been shown to be right. Simple logic - people don't often get angry with people giving them ludicrous, illogical incorrect advice - they get treated with wry amusement or perhaps withering distain not anger. Anger is reserved for people who are annoyingly right.

My guess is that Merkel and Sarkozy have finally accepted what many financial experts have been saying for a very long time. They now finally accept that talks of more bailouts for Greece today and Spain, Portugal, Italy etc etc in the future are all just pointless temporary sticking plaster ultimately leading to more miserable conclusions. And they realise that politically they cannot be seen to throw more of their taxpayers cash at countries that simply don't have the productivity to pay it back and the political will to restructure their economies to be competitive inside the Euro. Countries like Greece are a million miles from being able to compete with Germany with currency parity.

So basically the deal is this. Each country is going to have to make a decision. They either stay-in the Euro and accept that a far stronger federal Europe will dictate their economic decisions i.e. effectively they cede sovereignty and become part of the Federal Superstate or they stay out and leave the Euro (if they are already in it).

There are no entirely painless ways to unravel the Euro but there are fairly simple ways of doing it. As one financial expert puts it:

Simply convert Greek euro debt into Greek drachma debt. One for one and then let the new currency float.

See how much the currency devalues – and that’s the haircut bondholders take. No need for complicated negotiations.

Put the new drachma into circulation. One for one, remember – so Greek wages stay the same. Only now, they get drachmas for every euro they used to get.

Sure Greek imports will suffer a nasty bout of inflation. The public will get squeezed. But hey – that’s what needs to happen. BMW and Mercedez-Benz imports get expensive… but at least they can sell their stock of second-hand Mercs back to rich Germans and pocket any currency gain.

And with Greek holidays costing less, tourism will bounce back, and Greek olive sales too.

Should Greece exit the euro club, then businesses and individuals with Greek euro debt may profit. If the debt gets written down into devalued drachmas, then there could be a one-off gain. It would be particularly handsome for anyone with Greek debt but foreign income.

And for Britain, rather than our government being continually pressured for a referendum to decide if we want to leave the EU, the Europhiles will be lobbying for us to join the Federal EU.

That's my bet. 'Le Crunch' is coming and it's coming soon.

Europe and All That

2011-10-28T11:14:00.002+01:00

Apparently the European debate was a disaster for David Cameron. It arose at exactly the wrong time and has riven deep splits in the Conservative party. Dave is caught between his largely euro-sceptic party and the need to keep his coalition partners on board.. and when it really came to it had no choice but to expose the truth – he is in fact conclusively a closet rampant Euro federalist!

There’s only one small problem with that narrative of course. It’s total bollocks.

The reality is that the European e-petition and subsequent ‘debate’ was a potential headache. It was on-the-face-of-it highly undesirable to crush the notion of e-petitions being a way for people to engage with the democratic process by having a whipped vote. But actually, far from suppressing the debate, the overall impact was to promote it more widely.

Instead of suppressing the debate as Nigel Farage claimed on Questiontime last night, the rebellion of the 81 Tories guaranteed that the issue got the media’s undivided attention and therefore, the central issues got a lot more consideration, debate and discussion than they otherwise would have. It also, very helpfully, reminded our European ‘partners’ that anti Federalism runs very, very deep in the UK and our political leaders reluctance to ‘integrate’ is not simply them being bolshie – they are just dealing with a political reality.

On balance, I accept the argument that to have timetabled an In/Out referendum at this point would be foolish. It seems that Europe is going to be substantially re-cast shortly anyway, so until that happens we wouldn’t know what we were voting for anyway..

And more so, unless the direction of travel changes radically, it would seem that there will be a central EU with France and Germany at it’s core, the Euro and a far greater integration between member states – essentially a far more federal Europe. And Britain will be outside.

So, the result will be that we wind up with a Federal European Union and a European Free Trade area with knobs on.

I guess the question now is what kind of knobs we want..

Power to the People - It's Time for WebCameron II

2011-10-20T10:33:00.001+01:00

I have not followed the Political scene in the level of depth, over the last few months, as I have in the past. So I guess my impression of what people think of the government is fairly realistic being based on news reports and a few snatches of episodes of political tv programmes.

It seems to me that the news about what the government is doing is very largely negative.

The general sense of the current situation can be summed-up as:

The health service reforms have been bungled. The reforms are possibly unnecessary and there seems to be some kind of problem with accountability.
The economy is in a mess. There is no growth. Everyone is skint and the government should be doing more to create jobs and growth but isn't. They just keep banging on about 'the deficit'.
This government is just as dodgy as the last one. Liam Fox was basically bent because he employed a friend as an advisor and had him paid by some other people who wanted to influence his actions.. and David Cameron didn't seem to mind until he was caught and even then said what a good bloke he was..

Is this the real state of the government's position? Does it really it explain what is going on or provide a sensible balanced view of the state of the government's progress?

Almost certainly not. But it is roughly the perception of the average person 'on the street' because their news is delivered almost entirely through the filter of the mass media. And the mass media generally don't engage in telling the world what great people politicians are until they are dead.

So, what to do?

For the first time in history it's possible for politicians to communicate their message direct to the masses - unfettered by the negative interpretation of the media. David Cameron's 'Web Cameron' was a very useful pilot project - it successfully enabled Dave to deliver direct communication to his political supporters, commentators and party members - I doubt many others watched it but it proved it's viability and potential.

I propose that he should now take it to the next level by launching a regular web-based communication to explain what the government is doing and why it is doing it.

Some key points:

1) A Regular 'Snappy Broadcast' - It needs to be done at least monthly, be compelling and watchable.

2) Informal but Serious - Informality is key - it needs to be in the style of a 'one-to-one' conversation (albeit one-sided) interspersed with footage of events. It must be serious but avoid looking like state-sponsored propaganda.

3) News Breaking - There need to be new newsworthy announcements made via this 'channel' to ensure that people value it and keep coming back - and so the mainstream media watch it and report on it - thus ensuring more traffic.

4) New Insight - Easy to achieve by picking locations such as No.10 flat, The Cabinet room etc and by giving different perspectives on key current events.Essentially it needs to deliver something that cannot be got elsewhere.

5) A Gateway - To more in-depth info. For example Dave might talk about the success of the Academies programme and then provide a link to more info on the D of E site - perhaps a video etc there with Mr Gove talking about what he is working on, why and the current state of play.

A vibrant and independent media is an essential component of an effective democracy. But it has an essential weakness. Competition forces it to be sensationalist. It's currency is scandal, failure, protest, outrage. It exposes wrongdoing and badness. It espouses cynicism. The supposed 'balance' provided often merely degenerates into providing two different views about what the government is doing wrong..

So it does make sense for the key people in government to communicate directly to the electorate - In other words 'Power to the People'.

A Visionary has Gone

2011-10-06T09:51:00.001+01:00

This is the picture on Apple's website this morning.

Steve Jobs was an extraordinary man. He was a revolutionary, and a visionary whose efforts affected millions of people.

I was first involved with Apple in the early 1990s when I joined the UK's largest Apple supplier. When I joined the company Steve Jobs had just been fired. The man he brought in, John Sculley, to run Apple had removed him from the company.

But Steve Job's presence was still felt in the company. The atmosphere of excitement, innovation and limitless possibilities still pervaded. But over the next few years Apple slowly declined and became a corporation.

When Steve Jobs returned, some years later, the company was turned around. Again, this extraordinary innovative genius injected new life into the company - first there was the iMac, then Ipod, the Iphone and then the iPad.

The question now is if Steve Jobs, before he died, worked out how to implant the creative genius in the business in such a way that even greater achievements in the future will be his legacy?

It is testimony to his enormous achievements that it seems unlikely..

Conservative Conference Review

2011-10-04T22:29:00.000+01:00

I have been watching the Conservative Conference on and off for the last few days. First thing to say is what a relief that they have gone back to the Conservative blue. The last conference looked like a 1970's Labour conference hall with tired looking red seats. It looked like Neil Kinnock had been on the organising committee.

This year's conference looks slick. This hasn't stopped the media having a bit of a moan about the lack of 'debating' and voting. What a load of nonsense. A conference hall is no place for a vibrant debate on anything - there isn't the time. That's where the fringe events come in. The voting at Labour and Lib Dem conferences have all the legitimacy of a Soviet show trial..

Anyway. On to the individual speeches I have managed to catch:

William Hague - 8/10 - A classic Hague delivery - authoritative, straightforward - excellent.

Ian Duncan Smith - 7/10 - Again authoritative and with the kind of genuine passion that he never managed to fake anything like as well as leader.

Tim Loughton - 8/10 - A star in the making. Self-assured, humorous, solid.

Ken Clarke - 3/10 - Basically Ken had a rant. He was lecturing and looked like he had just wandered in from the pub without any preparation. Didn't help when he made some commitment and the camera caught Crispin Blunt wincing at what he had said! I am a Ken fan but this was dire..

Greg Clarke - 2/10 - I am not a Greg Clarke fan. He made a pathetic attempt to crack a 30 year old Margaret Thatcher joke involving the hilarious word (in his mind) 'willy'. Really appalling performance - If I had been there I would have shouted 'Get Off!!'.

Andrew Landsley - 5/10 - I have never been a Landsley fan but he does ok. Except he started spouting long list of meaningless statistics - dull. Unfortunately his chosen 'real people' speakers spouted lots of impenetrable Health Service jargon that meant absolutely nothing to me or anyone in the hall by the looks of it.

Boris 6/10 - Humorous to an extent. But Boris is clearly trying to position himself as a more serious fella. His bumptious bungling persona worked in London but needs to be tempered if he is going to go further and clearly he wants Dave's job eventually (but preferably tomorrow!). Not a good Boris performance at all.

George Osborne - 8/10 - A great speech. I loved it. It's the subtleties that I enjoy about George's speeches. 'The fixing the roof even though it's now pouring with rain' was a great way of subtly reminding people that he did warn, some years ago, that what Labour were doing was going to end in disaster. Essentially it was a speech about cementing his own credibility - extremely well done. He also did a good job of explaining to the party faithful why it would be utterly stupid to u-turn and start increasing govt spending to try and ward off recession. His tribute to William Hague was basically George's way of saying 'See - I woz right weren't I! And even me mate Billy agrees wiv me dun eeee..' On a more serious note I loved the way he he picked up on the booing of Tony Blair's name at the Labour conference - I was hoping someone was going to get some mileage out of that staggering illustration of Labour stupidity..

Michael Gove - 9.2/10 - I am not sure how much credit for this should go to Quddus Akinwale rather than Michael. His speech had a similar impact to that of Katherine Birbalsingh - Michael has found a winning formula and is wisely sticking to it. A really excellent speech. Michael looked and sounded self-assured, friendly, approachable and towards the end of his speech passionate, almost angry.. deserved the standing ovation he got.

Frankly there's not much to improve on. Michael has stopped waiting for applause (a criticism before) - perhaps just watch out for the slightly wild hand clapping motions - makes you look a bit strange Michael. And maybe worth reading your 'real people' speeches first to delete jargon and stop them rambling off into their own life stories.

But it's churlish to criticise. This was Michael's best speech yet - he just gets steadily better and better and better. Brilliant.

There was more than one person who got to the end of Quddus's speech with tears in their eyes. He was quite an act to follow but Michael did it and again people got to their feet - many still looking tearful having caught his passion..

But my favourite bit was when Michael explained that he was going to connect to his 'roving reporter', everyone looked at the screen and the Prime Minister appeared!

I can't remember exactly what Michael said next but it was something like 'Go on Dave. Tell all the nice people how bloody brilliant I am.' And Dave did!

Excellent.

There was Violence in London Last Night...

2011-08-10T10:53:00.000+01:00

Michael Gove had a fabulous spat with Harriet Harperson on Newsnight last night - see here:

All good fun. But it illustrated the depth of frustration that must exist in the government currently - Being blamed for cuts that they don't want to make but have to make to avoid spiralling borrowing costs and subsequently huge economic damage. Taking over from Labour after 13 years was always going to be a poisoned chalice.

Michael gave Harriet a real roasting. Many will probably think he went too far. But perhaps he didn't go far enough. Clearly Harman like Ken Livingstone earlier this week was trying to link 'Cuts' with violence not to explore some philosophical point but to attempt to gain political advantage.

Personally I don't think it is wrong for me, or any other member of the public, to make a link between poor governance and these outbreaks of violence and criminality. In my opinion, Harperson is deeply guilty and highly responsible for this. She was at the very centre of the Labour movement of the last 30 years that replaced individual and social responsibility with an overbearing State that stripped many people of any sense or need to take control of their own destiny or rationalise their own behaviour.

But it is entirely wrong for the Labour party to seek political advantage from this because in so doing they legitimise the behaviour and therefore encourage it.

Michael was right to attack Harperson and I hope we see more ruthless attacks on any Labour politicians who attempt the same sort of nonsense. The must be branded and shamed as 'Inciters of Violence' - people whose sense of right and wrong is so lacking that they like the looters just do it for their own gain without thought for the consequences for others.

Miliband played a slightly cleverer game yesterday. He was pictured 'listening'. Nodding his head and listening to people ranting on the streets. He hopes to be seen as thoughtful, calm, balanced.

I hope instead his 'nodding dog' act is portrayed as him being bewildered, unsure of himself and realising he is complicit.

Example quote - 'Perhaps the reason Ed Miliband was so quiet yesterday was that as he watches the stock and financial markets collapse and watches violence erupt on the street, he realises with mounting horror that this is the consequence of the failed policies, philosophy and governance that he played a prominent part in until last year.'

The government need to use most of their resources for running the country but also need to keep some of their focus on fighting the Labour party. And remember that the best form of defence is attack.

I Do Not Predict a Riot

2011-08-09T20:56:00.001+01:00

As I write this, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Londoners are watching the sun slowly go down and wondering if tonight their neighbourhood will erupt in flames. People who live in the poorer areas where there are large council estates and large numbers of unemployed youths will inevitably feel particularly at risk.

Today, whilst reporting the outbreaks of violence last night, the media have started to ask why? A lot of people seem highly bewilderment by it all.

Yesterday and this morning there were calls from senior police officers, supported by politicians for ‘parents to keep their children off the streets’.

This afternoon there was a steady stream of people ‘from the street’ lining up to complain that due to cuts there is nothing for kids to do. Apparently youth clubs and activities have been cut back and this is the consequence.

In my opinion both of these reactions, whilst completely inadequate, are great indicators to the cause of this problem.

In this country a huge divide has opened up between the expanded middle class and the underclass. The underclass are the large number of people (3 million+) who are unemployed plus those who live and work in the wider black economy – i.e. those who either do legal work but pay no tax or live from illegal earnings – drugs, prostitution etc . etc.

This group has grown hugely over the last 50 years and now consists of many generations who do not share the same moral or social codes that others live by. This divide now creates a gulf in understanding between people who share the same country but who have completely different sets of motives and values.

To call for ‘parents to keep their children off the streets’ (if that is actually what happened) illustrates quite staggering naivety. Largely, the kids and young adults who were on the streets last night and before come from the sort of families and the sort of places where there is no family structure that governs behaviour. If your mother or father has been on the dole for 10 years, or lives on illegal earnings or is on drugs are they likely to have the authority to guide their offspring? Of course not.

People who have grown up these social structures don’t have a moral code or a firm set of values that guide them to attempt to distinguish right from wrong. The live in a society where the state provides them with money and housing and anything else they can get is a bonus, constrained only by the law’s most severe consequences – and sometimes not even by them. Morality just does not come into it. They don’t have pride – they just demand ‘respect as a social transaction between them and their peers.

The fact that people are lining up to blame cuts in youth services (youth clubs and activities etc) illustrates how pathetically dependant this section of society is on the state. What these commentators say is sadly correct. The inevitable effect of withdrawing youth services is that recipients will turn to crime.

The sad conclusion is that this violence and criminality is an inevitable long-term consequence of the welfare state..

But this is not Rioting.

This is not a coherent protest against anything. It is just opportunism combined with a bit of clever organisation. Simply by using some basic ‘social networking’ tools (Blackberry messenger) groups have managed to co-ordinate activity and overwhelm the police.

Over the next few days, the police and security services should be able to pin-point the organisers and close them down. Without co-ordination the ‘riots’ will eventually cease, or to be more accurate the actions of this segment of society will be suppressed. The headlines will change and the issues will be forgotten. At least until next time.

But let’s hope that the politicians really put some thought into this. These extraordinary events illustrate the depth of the problem - the sickness in our society.

And before politicians and others leap to condemn people for their actions or adopt superior morale positions they should remember that their own group was recently mired in it’s own widespread thieving and corruption.

This is a call to action – to solve the social problems that a bloated state has caused. The same bloated state that has caused our entire financial system to teeter on the edge of the abyss.

Radical solutions are needed.

Mum

2011-07-08T10:25:00.000+01:00

My Mum died last week.

I haven't been able to face writing about it until now - but thought you should know.

18 years ago my Mum was diagnosed with Breast Cancer. For many that would be the beginning of the end.

For Mum it marked the start of a period of great happiness in her life. She threw herself into her music - the first love of her life.

My Mum was born in the middle of the war on Christmas Eve, December 1943. She was born at home in Yeadon (near Leeds) and lived for most of her childhood in the home in Chapel Allerton, Leeds that my brother and I remember so well from our own early childhoods in the 1970s. Her father worked in various factories and my grandmother was a school-teacher - she taught French like her father before her.Teaching was really the family business.

In the 1950s my Mum won a place at Grammar School. She did well, combining academic studies with developing her musical talent. In the mid 1960s she made, what must have been, the thrilling move to London, arguably the centre of the universe in that period, to study for a Maths degree at University College.

She combined this with studying at the Royal College of Music - maths in the morning, music in the afternoons. She quickly became a well-known figure at University, organising and performing many concerts.

It was during this period she met my father, when (as I recently discovered) she snatched him away from another girl who had been caught snogging Harold Wilson's son Giles! (Now I know why I could never be Labour!). They married before my Dad had finished his final exams and lived together in a flat - blissfully happy.

Following my birth in May 1969, we moved to Hertford. This was a difficult time for my Mum. After my birth, she suffered a very severe bout of post-natal depression and battled this demon for the next 20 years or so. In 1976, we moved to Guildford and my Mum started her involvement with many local choirs and taught music at local schools.

Her grandchildren Danielle and Nicky were born in 1996 and 1999 respectively - she fell deeply in love with them both and made a huge contribution towards helping them develop their talents and personalities.

In 2009, the cancer came back. Undiagnosed, a large tumour had formed on her spine and wrapped itself around her spinal cord. The tumour had grown to such an extent that the pressure it exerted fractured a vertebrae - causing intense pain and finally alerting the doctors to the real reason for her decline in health over the previous few months.

Things looked hopeless. The tumour was inoperable. The treatment, an intense course of radiotherapy, was a 'last ditch' attempt with limited hope of success. Even if successful, her Consultant confessed that she was only likely to live for 18 months, not from October 2009, but from whenever it was that the Cancer has first presented itself, perhaps many months earlier.

But. Bolstered by the sheer dedication of my father, the love and support of her close family and the kind and motivational words of our large family in Australia she turned her formidable strength of mind to the task of fighting back from the brink. We all supported her by focussing on giving her as much love and support as possible - all we could help give her was our love and the will to live.

Last July I found a villa in the hills above Nice in the South of France and invited my Mum and Dad to join us for an idyllic two weeks of family meals, talk and relaxation in the sultry heat of a beautiful part of France.

This photograph captures this time perfectly. When we arrived at the villa we discovered that the only access to the cottage was a long steep pathway. As she negotiated the steps, she glanced at the seemingly inaccessible swimming pool and said 'I will never get in there'.

Of course she was in the pool every day. The lure of the wafts of laughter and happiness from her two granddaughters overcame all.

And there she stands gazed at, surrounded and literally enveloped by those who loved her - completely.

Quality Social Care and the Profit Motive

2011-06-02T23:24:00.000+01:00

I am watching Questiontime. Simon Jenkins has just waded into the debate about the appalling abuse of mentally disabled patients in a social care home in Bristol, as exposed by Panorama this week, by stating that the problem is caused by the profit motive..

Oh. dear. What a shockingly ridiculous assessment.

But he is not the only one. Someone in the audience has just said, 'Every time you put the profit motive into anything the quality of service goes down.'

Staggering ignorance.

To pretend that this problem is caused by capitalism or can be cured by socialism is totally naive. It is shocking that people are still trotting out these ridiculous arguments in 2011. These are the arguments of the 1970s.

Some of these problems are caused by essentially socialist organisations trying to implement capitalist solutions and expecting magic results. When local authorities commission services from the private sector and expect the fact that they make profits to ensure quality of service they miss the point.

Commercial competition will drive value and quality of service only if the consumer has choice or if the provider is paid for the level of quality of service they provide.

The answer is not just proper 'oversight' - i.e. ensuring that 'acceptable' standards are met by payment by results - preferably on a sliding scale.

A Triumph for Gove!

2011-05-27T23:48:00.001+01:00

This week has been an absolute triumph for Michael Gove. Not simply because he has finally given head teachers the power to get rid of useless teachers, or because he is finally getting credit for the huge numbers of schools moving to academy status.

Nor is it simply because he managed to avoid falling asleep while President I am everyone's best mate O'Bama rambled on about how much he loves the good ole U of K.

Nah. It's mainly because Michael is currently voted as 111th sexiest mp on new website www.sexymp.co.uk

I can only assume that the reason he hasn't been on telly much lately is he has been busy voting for himself.

George Osborne is currently, as a result of spending too much time worrying about economics n stuff, languishing at no.117. This is bound to cause friction at Cabinet.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Future for Retail

2011-05-21T12:25:00.000+01:00

A couple of weeks ago David Cameron employed 'Queen of Shops' Mary Portas to help work out a way forward for the 'British High Street' and the future of retailing.

What a waste of time. If only he had taken a quick trip down the motorway to Education Secretary Michael Gove's Surrey Heath constituency he could have spent a couple of hours seeing both the future of British retailing and the limits to Portas's vision (the subject of a future post).

Camberley, the main town in Surrey Heath, has recently seen a major redevelopment of one of the two main streets which had fallen into a poor state as retail stores declined over the last few years.

The main street was pedestrianised and a large shopping centre style development with a large volume of housing (mainly flats) was built in place of the old shops and car park area.

The main retail development exemplifies the story of the future. It contains around 20 outlets but not a single one is a shop. The development consists entirely of cafe's, restaurants and bars surrounding a bowling alley and multiscreen cinema complex. The adjoining street has a limited number of major brand stores while the main shopping area is in the old adjacent shopping centre. The new complex is a leisure destination, rather than a shopping centre - a crucial key to the future.

20 years ago I worked for the UK's largest Apple franchise. At the time, Apple sold via mail order via a large number of resellers and via retail. The retailers played a crucial role in Apple's marketing strategy as they provided a location based opportunity for potential customers to come to try and learn about products before they bought. The company I worked for had multiple retail outlets 'Applecentres' and office based sales teams, including the one I ran, who sold direct to businesses and used the 'Applecentres' as 'demonstration' facilities.

But there was a problem. Apple resellers who did not have the high overheads that were borne by Resellers who operated 'Applecentres' were able to undercut the prices of the high overhead resellers - they operated from low cost premises and didn't need to employ retail staff. Applecentre based resellers complained that they were doing the selling and the then low overhead resellers were fulfilling the business.. The apple centres were doing the work and then the others were taking the profits.. Not good.

Apple centres started to close and fewer people got the chance to see, touch and try Apple products and so eventually fewer later bought them.

Apple finally got the message and realised what was happening. It forced them to evaluate the benefits of having retail stores and to understand that their products needed to have retail exposure - a crucial part of the buying process was the customer visiting a store and touching, trying, feeling and connecting with the product. The mail-order outlets and later Internet outlets didn't generate demand, they merely fulfilled it.

Apple responded by increasing the margins of Applecentre based resellers and reducing the margins of mail-order or Internet based resellers. In other words, Applecentre based resellers could buy products from Apple at lower prices (3-6%) than other resellers. It worked.

20 years later, Apple have made a fine art of retailing. Apple Stores are retailing phenomena and they look fabulous (no pile em high sell em cheap, fab bargain signage here) yet only a small proportion of the products that Apple sell are actually bought in an Apple store.

But who cares. The purpose of the Apple Store is a location in which to showcase a product as much as to actually sell it.

And that, I suspect, is the key to understanding the future of retail. Large towns need to do what Camberley has started to do, and embark upon plans to develop their retail centres as 'destinations' where people come to enjoy their leisure time - have a meal, watch a movie, look at some new products, and perhaps, but not always, buy them.

Retailers who understand the value of showcasing their product in such places will populate these retail centres. The Internet need not destroy the British high street but it will mean it needs to be remodelled to take account of the future purpose of retail.

So that is a simple vision for the future of retail in Britains towns but what of the larger villages that are to small for this kind of development. Again, Surrey Heath provides an example of the future - the subject of a future post.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Behind the Seductive Veneer of the NHS

2011-05-16T20:59:00.000+01:00

Think about the NHS and what do you think of first? Chances are that if they are not the first thing you think of then they are the second or third.. What am I talking about?

Nurses of course.

Nurses (other than this one) are lovely. They are often young and attractive. They wear nice clean white and blue uniforms, they smile sweetly and sympathetically as they glance at their upside-down pinned on watches and they care. How could anyone ever have any negative thoughts about these lovely people?

They couldn't. And that fact gets in the way of people realistically appraising the performance of the NHS. When people think about the NHS they think about nurses and their critical faculties fail.

When was the last time you heard a politician evoke a round of applause when he or she talked about our 'wonderful nurses' often referring to our 'beloved NHS' in the same breadth.

Let me tell you. Smiley, happy nurses are about the only thing that the NHS has got going for it. Over the last 18 months or so, I have plenty of opportunity to observe the NHS at close quarters. Beneath the smiley nursey veneer it's a diabolical mess.

I can't go into all the obvious failings in this blog post but here's just one to start with. GPs failing to diagnose cancer (and other things) correctly.

In early 2009 my Mother started complaining of pain in her arm and shoulder. Her physical health declined over the next few months. She was suffering a lot of pain and her general well-being declined to the extent that it became obvious to anyone who knew her. It started to cause us all (her family) a lot of concern.

Throughout this period she visited her GP who, for some strange reason, didn't connect the fact that she had been treated for Breast cancer 12 years later with the problem. In retrospect the possible connection should have been obvious; the secondary cancer that develops from breast cancer occurs in four main areas of the body; brain, lungs, liver and bones. He should have noted her history from her file and investigated this possibility by referring her to the local hospital for a simple scan.

Instead from some unknown reason he decided that there was no underlying major physical problem and prescribed some physiotherapy.. This went on for some time and she got steadily worse. All the time she was visiting the GP and he still failed to make the connection. Trusting in his abilities and seduced by his reassuring manner my parents went along with his prescribed treatment.

In October 2009 my Mum was suddenly in so much pain that she went to bed one day and was unable to get out of bed. The pain had become excruciating. My father called the surgery and tried to arrange for a doctor to come and see her.

A whole series of phone calls over the next 2 days resulted in lots of fobbing off and no doctor. Returning from a wedding on the Sunday I got involved, raised the temperature a little and demanded a doctor come out. Still no doctor. My mother was by this time in bed, in severe pain and had no way of getting to the toilet as it was too painful to move.

Eventually the next day, quite some hours after he had finally agreed to visit, my mothers GP arrived. I asked him where he had been - with some annoyance as my mother had been in bed for some days without any serious pain-relief and with no understanding of what had happened to her.

He retorted that unless I was going to speak to him more respectfully he was going to go away again without seeing my mother.. I then briefly manipulated his enormous ego and he finally agreed to see my mother and made his way to her bedroom. Frankly I should have punched him and called an ambulance - for my mother not for him.

At some point he must have realised his error. The agony that my mother was suffering finally got through to him and he finally realised that she and we were not making it up. She wasn't making an unnecessary fuss and unnecessary demands as he had foolishly assumed.

So finally he gave her some pain relief and she slept. A day or so later she was taken into hospital in an ambulance and assessed. A scan revealed that she had a cancer tumour wrapped around her spine and her spinal cord. The tumour had grown untreated for so long that it had snapped a vertebra - the cause of the sudden vast increase in agonising pain.

It should never have happened. By the time the cancer was diagnosed it was inoperable - too dangerous to operate. Her chances of short-term survival were very, very slim. The oncologist acted quickly and she had an intensive course of radiotherapy - the only option open.

Miraculously, and beyond realistic expectations it shrank the tumour and she was able to walk again. She was home for Christmas 2009 and we had a great year in 2010 - we went to France together in the summer and she spent 2 idyllic weeks in the hills above Nice with her two loving granddaughters.

This year the cancer has come back. We knew it would. So now my Mum and we are faced with a whole series of new challenges.

Her GP has become indignant. I very politely questioned some of the things he was saying today which conflict with some of the things the specialists have said and he loudly and in a staggeringly unprofessional way (I will not go into it here) complained that he was affronted at being questioned. He really must be deluded if he thinks that is going to inhibit me from pursuing my questioning and checking - particularly given his track record.

So next time your GP offers a diagnosis. Question it. And if the doctor gets indignant, ignor it and keep questioning anyway. The NHS simply is not a miracle cure. The GPs and every one else makes mistakes, and some of them don't even learn from them.

If you abdicate your responsibility for looking out for your family to those who you believe are all knowing professionals you may wind up regretting it - long after the shortened life of your loved one.

There's an article in the Telegraph here that reports that GPs miss 1 in 3 cancer cases. If you don't stay vigilant and ask questions you might be one of those 1 in 3 and by the time you find out it may be too late to do anything.

How Royal Mail Ruined America's Christmas

2011-05-16T18:47:00.000+01:00

Do you remember when, back before Christmas, some bright spark suddenly realised that if Al-Qaeda wanted to blow up a few more passengers planes they could simply send some small parcels of explosive with some timers attached and the planes could be blown out of the sky?

The staggering realisation was that, despite having spent billions on security measures, no-one had thought about the fact that passengers airliners typically carry lots of transatlantic mail - letters and small parcels. And these parcels are not particularly rigorously checked.

When this hit the headlines, US Homeland Security understandably put a ban on passenger aircraft carrying parcels into the USA. Unfortunately this was just before the busiest time of year.

So Royal Mail, rather than finding an alternative way of sending items by air, decided to send a lot of stuff by sea.

Trouble is they didn't tell anyone what was going on. (This story about them sending vast amounts of stuff by sea only emerged much later). Consequently, vast numbers of people ordered items from companies via the Internet as Christmas presents expecting them to arrive in time to be excitedly unwrapped on Christmas day. Thousands of companies, like mine, happily sent things off using Royal Mail Airmail expecting them to arrive as usual, in plenty of time.

Unfortunately ships are quite a bit slower than planes so they never did. A deluge of unhappy customers panicking a few days before Xmas resulted and then a huge number of very expensive refunds.. It must have cost the UK economy millions and the tears of poor American children without their Christmas presents must have caused rivers to overflow all across the good ole US of A.

I have been meaning to blog about this staggering complete incompetence for some time because for some reason it never made the news headlines.. so probably this little footnote will have to do.

Royal Mail - You are incompetent gits who ruined America's Christmas.

I was prompted to write this by a customer who contacted me today to tell me he had finally received the item he ordered in late November today..

Nice one Royal Mail. Oh and before I forget thanks for putting your prices up by about 10% again in April - you really deserve the extra cash not.. Gits.

Could You Be a Prison Officer?

2011-05-14T11:31:00.000+01:00

Someone recently asked if I thought I could work as a prison officer

Could you lock a man in a cell? What does that take, to carefully, regularly, routinely, inflict that punishment on another human being?

The simple answer is no but the question prompts more thought:

A few weeks ago, I participated in a radio phone in show with Crispin Blunt (prisons minister) answering questions. One of the callers was a prison officer who illustrated his approach and in so doing explained how he was able to work in a prison.

He explained that his simple rationale was that prisoners 'must have done something really bad' to have wound up in prison and therefore he was doing society a service by locking them up and punishing them. His contempt for the Cons was clear. When talking to Crispin Blunt, he was objecting to the fact that in his prison he, and the other officers, had recently been asked to call all the cons by their first names. He objected to the humanising approach.

I think he may have illustrated the simplistic logic with which many prison officers operate and in doing so provided an insight into the culture that prison officers operate within. They de-humanise prisoners with the rationale that they are just 'bad people' in a very similar way that other people behave with prejudice towards entire religious groups or people with a particular sexuality or race. They deal with the problem that others would have with the idea of 'regularly and routinely inflicting punishments on another human being' by detaching themselves from any sense of empathy with the group - they apply prejudice.

In wartime, we apply the same approach on a mass scale. The enemy is denigrated and de-humanised to the extent where the individual soldier ceases to be a living, breathing, valuable human being, but instead just becomes a single element of a larger evil. 70 years ago, tearing a man's guts out with a jagged knife would have been a good thing to do - provided he was wearing a Nazi uniform of course.

It seems to me that the prison system needs to be turned on it's head. Instead of it being a culture where people adopt a prejudicial approach, instead we need prison officers who do see prisoners as individually different people each with unique circumstances. And we need them to see their job as working with people who have done bad things (rather than just as 'bad people') to reduce the chances of them doing bad things again. A major cultural and organisational shift is needed.

The punishment is the term of imprisonment, the period for which liberty is denied. It should not be the role of prison officers to inflict punishment. Instead their role should be to rehabilitate and simply and evenly enforce rules. Because, as a society, that's what we want. We want people coming out of prison who are no more likely to commit a crime than anyone else - whereas, as it stands, for most crimes there is more than a 50% chance they will be back in prison within 2 years.

If prisoners come out of prison feeling like they are part of the 'criminals' group of a 'them and us' culture, it's not surprising if they continue to act as criminals.

Unfortunately, at the end of the prison officer's telephone call, Crispin Blunt congratulated the man for doing a valuable job. Perhaps this was just the usual politician's response to communicating with anyone - perhaps Crispin was just being polite and didn't really mean it..

I just hope he was not genuinely endorsing the prison officer's approach because if so, the chances of being able to say that 'prison works' in a few years time are very, very slim indeed.

AV - What's in it for Me?

2011-05-09T22:55:00.001+01:00

Today's press and blogs are full of analysis on why the No campaign won and why the Yes campaign failed. There's lot of good logical analysis but I think some basic points are being missed.

WIIFM - or What's In It For Me? is a basic test that needs to be applied when any proposition is being presented. If the punter doesn't have a clear idea of the answer to this question then the proposition is not going to sell.

People do things primarily for self interest and this is where the Yes campaign failed so appallingly.

'What is the benefit for me in voting for AV?' was a question that few could answer. The Yes campaign came up with some flimsy idea that voting Yes would somehow make MPs more accountable and harder working but it simply didn't hang together or make sense to anyone.

But did the No campaign come up with really compelling answers to this question - i.e. what's in it for me to vote no to Av?

I would contend that they didn't. There were no really compelling arguments on either side.

So. As a result it became an argument centred on political loyalties. The No campaign successfully split the left vote by drawing in Labour politicians to the campaign - eg John Reid. Then in the later stages David Cameron took centre stage and secured the Conservative vote.

The Yes campaign threw this one away. If they had have delivered a range of benefits for voting for AV then they could have won it.

Some of the analysis concludes that the the idea of positioning AV as an expensive option was critical. Nonsense. The fact that this factor had any impact was simply a reflection of the fact that the Yes campaign failed to establish any tangible benefits for AV. In other words, there was so little value established that even a small price was too much.

As they say 'Price is not an objection' it simply reflects a lack of perceived value. And that's what killed the Yes campaign - they failed to establish any value for their proposition.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Scottish Question and Answer

2011-05-07T11:43:00.010+01:00

You have got to admire Alex Salmond. Just over ten years ago he resigned as the leader of the Scottish National Party and went fishing. Then his successor made a complete mess of things and he reluctantly tossed aside the fishing rod and re-entered the fray. The results since prove the rejuvenative benefits of a brief holiday.

Yesterday the SNP achieved a huge result. They increased their vote by 12.5% to 45.4%. Labour held their vote (approx 32%) and the Conservatives were down to 14% and the Lib Dems down to just under 8% of the vote.

David Cameron immediately stated that he was completely and wholly in support of the United Kingdom staying as it is - i.e. no independant Scotland. Hmm,.

Alex Salmond's next job is to convince the Scottish Electorate that they will be better off out of the UK and can stand alone as an independent nation. Currently the polling shows only minority support for such a move. It's another mountain to climb. If only Mel Gibson had stayed off the drink things would be that bit easier.

But nevertheless, I wouldn't mind betting that Salmond can do it. Unless Dave should choose to buy off Scottish voters by exempting Scotland from the spending cuts, Alex is going to have lots of ammunition available to make that case that Scotland are better off on their own.

This must be a difficult one for Dave - he must be torn. England is overwhelmingly Conservative. If Scotland were independent, we would inevitably have a strong Conservative government with a decent majority. The Conservative result in the elections this week in Scotland show just how little presence they have there - their vote was down another 3%.

So why bother fighting this battle? Why not just let Alex climb his next mountain and reach the summit?

There are of course implications. Would it be possible for Scottish MPs to stand for constituencies in England for example? Would we need to get rid of the Scots that stand for Parliament in England?

I don't see why. We are an inclusive multi-cultural society aren't we?

If, for example, there was a Scottish MP who represented a solid Conservative Home Counties seat who was married to an English woman and who had two English children should we throw him and his half-cast offspring out?

It would seem wrong to do so.

I think we merely need him to swear loyalty to England in all future games of Football and Rugby and make a few modest sartorial modifications to indicate his loyalty to our great nation. That's the answer.

What Next for the Lib Dems?

2011-05-07T09:25:00.000+01:00

As the election results rolled in yesterday, the next battle started - to spin the results. Michael Gove, on the BBC's Election 2011 program, tried to spin the results as a disaster for Labour and did a fairly convincing job. He managed to pull talk away from the Lib Dem failure and towards the supposed Labour failure.

But of course the reality is that the results for Labour were not bad considering the position that they are in - i.e a year after the end of a long period in government and before any real policy development has taken place. Considering how weak their leader looks I think frankly they did fairly well.

In Wales their vote advanced. In England they gained around 800 councillors and 26 councils (mainly at the expense of the LibDems who lost nearly 700 councillors) and in Scotland, the news behind the headlines was that the Labour vote was roughly the same as four years ago. The SNP won their votes from the Conservatives and the Lib Dems.

It was the Liberal Democrats that have had a set of shocking results. The lost everywhere - heavily.

Back in May, the Liberal Democrats negotiated a coalition agreement and put everything into gaining agreement for a referendum on the voting system - and then lost it. Disaster.

The Liberal Democrats had become absolutely obsessed with the idea that our voting system was a wrong that simply had to be righted at all costs.Then, failing to win agreement for a referendum on PR (which they would also have lost - who would have voted for the nonsensical system we use to vote for MEPs?), they convinced themselves that a move to AV would be a major step in the right direction.

Absolute nonsense.

The Lib Dems deluded themselves even further when they then crowed that they had out-negotiated the Conservatives in May and had won massive concessions. They didn't. They gave away the opportunity to keep some of their vote retaining election promises on a gamble that they could convince the electorate to change to another voting system.

Then. They failed completely to put together a convincing argument - the Yes campaign had all the advantages but simply didn't make it happen. The results weren't even marginal. They lost spectacularly.

So where do they go from here?

A year ago the Lib Dem Party was looking like a good home for disaffected Labour members embarrassed by the appalling failure (again!) of Labour's economic policy and record.

Today, the Labour Party looks like a good home for disaffected Liberal Democrats.. And to an extent this is inevitable.

But. If Clegg shows some mettle then all is not lost. The Lib Dems need to get the wastage out of the way as quickly as possible and then be united, credible and effective. Otherwise the coalition may not last and the Lib Dems may crumble to nothing.

Chris Huhne was a credible Liberal Democrat some time ago, but now he just looks like the nasty boy. Likewise Saint Vince has reincarnated into a bumbling then angry nasty boy too.

If Clegg got rid of them and replaced them with David Laws and some one else with some credibility (another Danny Alexander type) then the Lib Dems would start to look credible again. Clegg would look decisive and leaderlike and the biggest electoral embarrassments would be consigned to their rightful places on the back benches.

The argument for not doing so would be that they might be a threat from the back-benches. Which, in this scenario, is an argument for doing it - because it would show bravery.

All the pictures of Clegg over the last few weeks have showed a weak, simpering misery on the edge of despair. If he can pull this round and demonstrate leadership then he can re-emerge.

If not, he might as well resign now.

Weapons of Mass Distraction - Its All About Oil!

2011-04-21T07:55:00.002+01:00

The excellent Phil Hedron at the Dizzy Thinks blog here takes the lid off the oil motivation issue:

http://dizzythinks.net/2011/04/oil-interests-iraq-and-reality.html

Phil refers to a supposedly revelatory story in The Independant that 'exposes' a series of meetings between major oil companies and the Govt before the Iraq war - supposedly they illustrate that the war was not about democracy or weapons but oil.

No surprise there then.

What is surprising, is how many people do still believe that the foreign wars that we have recently got involved with are about anything other than serving our national interests. There are still plenty of people around who really believe that the entire Iraq escapade was launched just because of some mistaken intelligence about weaponry.

Politicians continue to fight shy of coming clean about the true motives for war in Iraq and now Libya.

Somewhere, somehow it was decided that it was better to create and perpetuate lies about humanitarian motives, or desires to get rid of dangerous dictators or dangerous weapons than it would be to tell the people the truth.

And perhaps that was the right decision.

Imagine if Dave just said the following one day:

"It's time that this government was honest with it's people. Everyone needs to think about how completely dependant all our lives are on oil and gas. Think about how we generate our electricity, power our vehicles, live our lives.

And then everyone must imagine how our lives would be affected if the oil ran out. If suddenly the lights went off, we couldn't fill up our cars or keep ourselves warm in winter or grow and harvest crops using powered machinery. Our economy and our way of life would collapse - totally.

Which is why this government must deal with what Tony Blair described as the most pressing issue of our time - energy security.

But instead of making up stories about how awful dictators are or how we want to democratise countries or prevent the spread of Islamist terrorism, we are just going to be honest and tell you it's all about the oil.

We are not going to mess around any longer trying to tell you that the motivations behind coming up with natural energy sources such as wind, wave and nuclear are because of some dodgy scientific claims that the earth is getting too hot..

Many of you have known for a long time that this is just a ruse. Really it's all because we need to try and reduce our dependancy on oil - not because of some supposed damage it does to the environment but because unfortunately, the oil is in other people's countries.

So here we are telling you it straight. We are hooked on oil, you are hooked on oil, we and you cannot live without it so let's just be honest about it. Accept that we have to keep sending our soldiers to die in foreign countries to make sure we get our, or rather their, oil."

What would be the outcome of a burst of honesty such as this from our PM?

Would we rally behind our leaders when they called for war or would public opinion degenerate into moral outrage about the idea that we would invade countries or assist the overthrow of other governments just to get access to their natural resources.

Probably.

The lesson of history is that if you want to motivate people to go to, or support going to war, then you need to come up with some higher moral purpose than just personal or national gain.

Essentially you need to wrap up what people would generally think of as being bad to look like it is doing good. Think back to The Crusades and virtually every conflict since.

So. Is it right that the government continues to lie to the people? Is it actually better to lie to people than tell them the truth if, in so doing, you protect them from the consequences of their realisation?

Leaving the Party in Style

2011-04-17T10:08:00.000+01:00

I stumbled across this rather brilliant blog-post the other day from someone called Jon Wright who has become so disillusioned with the Labour party that he has decided to leave after quite a few years:

Fuck it, this does it. The final straw. I’ve been a Labour member for eight-odd years, I’ve trodden pavements, knocked on doors, phoned people – and all this time I’ve been waiting for the party to start reflecting at least a shift towards the sort of socialist view that I know many members still hold. I’ve carried on deluding myself that maybe, just maybe, things might start looking up – maybe Brown’d be better than Blair, maybe Miliband’d be better than Brown, maybe for once in its pathetically supine post-Blair existence the party might actually stand up for something rather than indulging in politicking over politics – maybe it would start to try once more to shape public opinion rather than just be led helplessly by whatever bollocks most recently came out of the focus-groups, the opinion polls, the sordid mass of the right-wing media. Goodness knows I’ve gritted my teeth for longer than I should have done, and I’m frankly ashamed that I didn’t allow myself to see the futility of this pointless naive optimism before (there have been more than enough opportunities, after all).

But this does it, once and for all – David Cameron gives a fucking despicable speech on race and immigration, and all Labour can do is say that Vince Cable’s voicing of principled opposition makes the government “look chaotic”? Strap on some fucking principles, you spineless bunch of wankers. I’m off. Goodbye, and fuck you very much.

As rants go, it's a medal winner. Almost anyone who has ever been a member of a political party can understand his frustration - but particularly people who are looking for idealogical solutions to politics. I am not one of them but I can still feel this guy's pain and sympathise.

Still. He is a socialist loony so let's not get too worked-up about it eh!!

Jon's post can be read in it's original form here:
http://thethirdestate.net/2011/04/so-farewell-then-my-labour-party-membership-card/

Fast Forward to the Coming Revolution in Education

2011-04-16T09:52:00.001+01:00

About 15 years ago an old friend and I had a telephone conversation after not having spoken for a few years. At the time I was working in IT and he in Educational Publishing. I can distinctly remember having a bit of a mini rant on the subject of the lack of adoption of simple technology in education. At the time I was talking about using low cost video-production equipment for creating course-material.

I said something much like this:

'Why is it that every day thousands of teachers around the country stand up in front of a class-room of school kids and deliver a 'lecture' about some subject they are teaching?. It's the same 'lecture' they delivered last year, the year before and the year before that - so often they don't do it with any great enthusiasm. Occasionally a great teacher gives a great 'lecture', does a brilliant job of explaining and ignites a kid's mind. But. Most of the time the teachers cranks out another lesson and the kids sit there uninspired and bored waiting for the end of the lesson... Why doesn't the education system just find the best teachers in the country for that piece of information, stick em in a room until they come up with a superb way of delivering it and then video it?'

It was a very simple idea.

As it turns out a few years later a guy in the USA called Salman Khan stumbled across the same thing and started creating video pieces and posting them on the Internet - he did it to help his cousins learn various academic things.

Fast forward a few years and the Khan Academy now has over 2,000 video pieces and whole range of tools to help students and teachers use them in the most effective way. Here's a video of Salman Khan explaining how the whole thing works and the extraordinary results it is achieving:

If you ever thought about the challenges in education then I don't think you can watch this video without thinking ' Wow! at Last!!'

As Sal explains, essentially this approach flips the work that would conventionally be done in the classroom and the work that would be done at home. Instead of teachers spending lots of time 'lecturing' and marking tests, instead the kids watch the videos at home (or in designated places in school) and then spend the lessons actually being taught. i.e. the teachers can spend time walking around helping individual kids understand things that they are 'stuck' on.

Teachers cease to become broadcasters and test markers and can actually teach, and kids can learn at their own pace - because if they don't understanding something they can just watch the video piece again. And because with this model every kid can learn at their own pace, and be at a different stage if necessary, they don't hold up the whole class...

But surely this means that a huge gap opens up between the slow learners and the fast learners? i.e. some kids wind up having a mass of knowledge and others very little...

No.

The fallacy in that thinking lies in the idea that some kids are simply 'slow learners' and others are 'fast learners' - as though they are genetically programmed like this or have superior or inferior brains. And this is the piece I really love because it overturns what I think is the most horrendous self-limiting belief and repulsive prejudice in the education system currently.

I absolutely detest hearing teachers refer to kids as slow learners as though they were mentally disabled - that's just so unfair to kids and if they get told it enough, they believe it and thus it becomes true.. they stop trying to be good at some 'thing' they are told they can't be good at. The consequences can be devastating if that 'thing' is 'learning' itself.

Here, the evidence overturns the prejudice.

As Sal explains in his video, what they discovered with this way of learning, is simply that kids who had been discarded as 'slow-learners' just spent a little more time in the initial stages and then zoomed ahead. In other words the thing that made them slow-learners was not some inbuilt limitation but instead just missing building blocks in the learning process.

With Sal's material the kids could just go back, watch the relevant video tutorial and grasp the foundation concept and then be back on track and start blasting ahead.

This is now in the early stages of being rolled out in schools in the US and, I suspect, is set to have a massive impact.

Someone needs to start generating UK content for a similar system fast...

Is it Labour Policy to lie about the Deficit?

2011-04-08T00:01:00.004+01:00

Watching Questiontime tonight I yet again saw a Labour politician telling blatant lies about the state of the nation's finances.

Caroline Flint was the latest Labour politician to prostitute her integrity when she said 'Before the recession hit we had a lower debt and deficit than in 1997'.

Of course that is a total lie. Debt has ballooned under Labour to astronomical levels.

But. The more often a lie is repeated, the more believed it becomes by the general public who simply don't have the time to do the few minutes of research it takes to discover what a whopper it is.

And so people do believe that perhaps cuts are not inevitable - perhaps it's all just a horrible Conservative/Lib Dem conspiracy to steal millions from working people by hacking up their public services.

You can see the frustration on the faces of Conservative and LibDem politicians when their Labour tormentors wheel out another pack of lies about the deficit.

So what to do?

Well. My conclusion is that it must be, quite literally, Labour policy to lie about the debt and the deficit.

Evidence is needed. An email or a text between senior Labour politicians would do it. Something that instructs or encourages Labour MPs to lie about the financial position would be ideal. There's no doubt in my mind that many such things exist.

Exposure of such a thing would be a devastating blow to Labour and would kill off this whole ball and chain problem of deficit and debt denial which seems to be making the task of running government like wading through treacle.

And of course it would be right, fair and just.

Would AV be Legitimate?

2011-04-04T21:46:00.000+01:00

David Cameron has made a rather belated and, I thought, rather panicked outburst regarding the forthcoming Alternative Vote referendum today - see here.

Dave said, 'The danger is Britain sleepwalking into a Yes vote. At the moment it’s close. I don’t want us sleepwalking into a voting system that will make our democracy less strong.'

I quite agree. There is a real danger that we may well throw away our voting system on May 5th and will reap a whirlwind of political consequences for years to come as a result. It's the consequence of a rushed compromise cobbled together by the Coalition in the frantic days of May 2010. In trying to save the day they may have damned the future.

I suspect that the No campaign are fighting an uphill battle.

First they are having to argue positively for a No... This was a massive mistake. Any advertising or marketing person worth their salt could have pointed out that trying to convince people to do something negative is far more difficult than to ask them to take a positive action. The Anti-Abortionists never really got going until they re-branded as 'Pro-Life'.

And second asking people to take an action (vote No) to maintain the political status quo is very difficult indeed. All the Yes campaign have to do is to connect the desire to see change in the discredited political system with a Yes vote - almost everyone wants to see change in politics.

But the thing that really concerns me about the whole thing, not just the campaign, but the entire referendum, is that I don't feel that it has the degree of democratic legitimacy that it should have.

Typically, local elections turn-outs are around 35% so it's likely that only this number of people will vote in the referendum. If either the Yes or the No campaign won with say, 60% of the vote, that would mean that a vote by only 21% of voters would decide to either stick with the current system or cast away a system that has been used for hundreds of years.. Surely not enough to justify a wholesale change or to satisfy a serious question about retaining the system.

Australia is often cited as being one of the successful countries that use AV for General Elections (very few do) yet what is not mentioned is that voting is compulsory. In Australia voting is not just your right, but also your obligation.

Seems like a good idea to me, particularly when voting on issues that affect the entire way in which democracy is exercised.

A Perfect Day (The Ribbon - 1)

2011-03-15T10:17:00.001Z

A few weeks ago I was looking through a box of old photographs and found this one. It was taken in the 1930s. As you can see, it's a beach scene. The four figures in the picture are looking intently at the camera - if you stare back you can almost communicate with them and imagine the wonderful day they are having. In the background there are groups of people sitting on deckchairs enjoying the sun. It looks like the perfect day.

The beautiful girl with the dark ribbon tied around her neck is being held up by a young man and is supported by her friend - I think the friends name is Betty. Who the two young men are is a mystery.

But I know who the beautiful girl is. Her name is Edith, she is a young schoolteacher. Her father is an author, he writes school books to teach English children French. Edith speaks French well herself and teaches children the language in school.

I have spent a long time staring at this picture, looking deep into Edith's eyes, as she stares back into mine. And then, in my mind, the camera clicks and we break eye contact. The four friends relax their pose and run off laughing and joking. Splashing in the sea, laughing, teasing, embracing, enjoying the warm and carefree day.

And I sit watching through the window of this photograph as Edith's life, and the extraordinary events that surround it, unfold from the sunshine and clear skies of this happy day on the beach in the late 1930s, on into the future.

Just over the clear horizon the storm clouds of war are gathering, the lives of everyone will soon be changed forever and this incredible story will unfold.

The reason I want to tell this story is simple.

Edith was my grandmother.

Tim Montgomerie is Mad

2011-02-13T10:30:00.000Z

I like Tim Montgomerie. Having read his stuff for years, I met him a few months ago and immediately warmed to him. He is a genuine, honest and brilliant guy. I like him enormously.

Which is why it is so sad that he has gone mad.

And he has gone completely mad.

Having spent years working with Ian Duncan Smith on mind broadening social issues with a sensible liberal approach he has suddenly and inexplicably launched a huge attack on Ken Clarke here.

Despite the fact that Ken is really getting to grips with the unsolved problems in the Criminal Justice system, Tim has decided to launch a huge broadside on Ken because of his well known views on Europe. Tim claims that Ken is stopping Dave from doing the right thing on Europe.

Doesn't make any sense to me. I would have thought being in coalition with the Lib Dems, the only mainstream pro-European party might have more to do with Dave not going down Tim's (and mine to an extent) non federal European route.

So is Tim mad or is it me?

The Big Society - Not Another Government Initiative

2011-02-13T10:10:00.000Z

Watching the Big Society idea roll-out is causing endless fun as people slowly struggle to grasp it.

On Questiontime this week Jacqui Smith was complaining about the Government cuts and screeched that 'the government have announced more cuts this week and they have now cut funding to voluntary organisations - so they are cutting the Big Society!'.

Eh? Hang on a second Jacqui. If a 'voluntary organisation' is being cut then it can't really be a voluntary organisation can it? It must be a government organisation that uses a partly volunteer workforce mustn't it?

Now that might seem like a small distinction but it's isn't.
Because it's the very crux of this issue:

The Big Society is all about social responsibility. It's not about simply joining a government organisation to do some volunteering its about working out what the problems are in your own community or wider society, finding solutions and, where necessary, organising people to do the work. Why should all good work flow from government? Are the vast majority of charities government run organisations? Of course not.

As I write this someone on the Andrew Marr sofa is wittering about the Big Society being too vague. 'Where do I volunteer ?' she moans.

Perhaps she has illustrates a problem.

David Cameron says in his piece in the Guardian about the Big Society today that 'more active society involves something of a revolt against the top-down, statist approach of recent years.'

The only bit I would quibble with is the 'recent years' bit. Actually I think since the Second World War would be more factually correct.

The reality is that really grasping 'social responsibility' is completely alien to people. After nearly 70 years of an ever increasingly Big State, people are completely conditioned to think that any kind of voluntary organisation must be a government organisation. They don't think 'what can I do?', they think 'Who will organise me?' To take social responsibility, they must first take personal responsibility but they really don't know how to.

We live in a society where everything is provided for people. An education, a job, pre-washed pre-packed food from supermarkets, pre-built houses in identikit housing estates etc etc. The 'choices' that most people make are limited. Which nearly identical supermarket to shop at. Where to get married. Which flat to rent or buy, which 2 or 3 bed house to move up to next.. etc etc. Social Conditioning.

I can just remember being a little kid and seeing old people picking up litter in the street. Now no-one does it. It's the council's job. Those with a sense of social responsibility in a community wouldn't be the ones to pick up the litter, they would be the ones to call the council to complain about the litter in the streets or to phone the 'pot holes' helpline. People are removed from the problem, the only responsibility they take is to remind those who are responsible to do their job.

But what if no-one is responsible? What if the government funded voluntary organisation no longer exists?

Well basically what happens first is people moan. They moan because 1) They like moaning and 2) More rationally they think that if everyone moans a lot that eventually the government or someone will organise a solution.

Thing is the government will not organise a solution in every instance (Labour spent all the money and left a note in the Treasury to tell us so remember) and therefore after a bit of self gratifying moaning people will have to grasp that they need to move onto the third option: 3) Do something about it themselves.

For most people this is a huge step out of an extremely well established comfort zone. But it's one that they are going to have to take and which they are going to have to be slowly coaxed into.

I welcome David Cameron's announcement of 5,000 community organisers. Perhaps they will help provide the stepping-stone to people realising that making an unpaid voluntary contribution is not something awful they have to do because their local or national government can't or won't it's actually a rewarding and enriching experience - just not in cash terms.

And then perhaps people will finally grasp that the Big Society is not another Government Initiative - it's a personal initiative. That's exactly the point of it.

The Benefits of Offender Rehabilitation - At a Glance

2011-02-01T10:04:00.000Z

Yesterday I went to Basingstoke for a 'Driver Awareness Course'.

In the old days committing driving offences meant accumulating points on your license until you reached 12 points and then you would lose it - you were off the road. So, the consequences were harsh but you got plenty of chances first.

I am ashamed to say that I managed to accumulate 11 points by the age of 17 - I really did take my chances. Clearly I took unnecessary risks with my life, and other innocent people's lives too.

But in these enlightened times instead of simply doling out fines and points drivers, in certain instances, get the opportunity for a bit of rehabilitation and learning - the hope being that the result will be less deaths on our roads.

Yesterday Nick and JP from Hampshire Police did an outstanding job of exploring the consequences of our actions if we choose to re-offend. We (thats me and 20 others) listened to what they had to say, did some interactive tests, saw some shocking pictures and video clips and understood exactly what the consequences could be if we choose to re-offend in the future.

Here's one of them:

Nick is an experienced copper. He told me after the course that when he started teaching this course 6 months ago that he expected everyone who attended it to be aggressive and ungrateful. He explained he couldn't have been more wrong. Instead people listen and they learn. Not everyone, but most people get it. They realise that speeding can and statistically will have horrific consequences for innocent people.

It also harms the driver. As JP explained towards the end of this video. The little boy looks up as the car hits him and looks straight into the driver's eyes. Apparently they call it 'the glance' - the look of the innocent as, for a fleeting second when the deed is done, they lock eyes with their murderer as they prepare to depart.

It's that glance that stays with people. It's that micro-second that stays with people for the rest of their lives - a look they have shared but a memory that only they can carry forward alone.

I am even more ashamed to say, that until yesterday at least, I am still a serial offender.

Yesterday was the second course I have attended - I attended one in Berkshire around 3 years ago. There was no comparison between the two. Nick and JP are true professionals. At the end of the course (just 3 hrs long), I could see they were tired. They had given their all - trying to save lives of both drivers and victims.

I am convinced that the work they are doing is extraordinarily effective. These type of courses have only been in operation for a few years but Britain has climbed up the international league tables and is now the safest country to drive in Europe and now the World. Across the country road deaths have fallen from around 3,500 in 2003 to approximately 2,200 in 2009. - so reduced by about 30% in 6 years.

But Nick and JP are part of a team that have been blazing an even more impressive trail than that. In Hampshire road deaths in 2007 were 97. In 1998 they were around 70. In 2009 they were down to 41. That's a staggering 60% reduction in just 2 years.

Statistical anomaly? Other factors involved? - maybe some. Insufficient data to plot a reliable trend - perhaps. But having compared 2 organisations doing the same job (albeit 3yrs apart) I know which one is delivering outstanding results.

Bizarrely at the end of the course there was no 'feedback' form to fill-in, like you usually get on a commercial training course, to let the trainers know what you thought about the course.

So here it is instead. Thanks Nick and JP. I will try not to kill anyone.

Old War Stories

2011-01-22T09:37:00.001Z

I got into a bit of a conversation with my cousin Rose's daughter Sarah this morning on Facebook (she is in Australia). She mentioned some facts about Hitler and I volunteered some more info. She seemed quite interested...

It inspired me to pass on some family history. So I sent her and my kids an email:

Ok. So Children. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I will begin...

Your Great Grandparents lived in various places near Leeds in the North of England during the War (Look for it on Google Maps).

They had 3 kids, Peter (Your Grandad Sarah), Sheila (Dani and Nicky's Grandma) and John (Who I guess you last saw a couple of months ago - Sarah).

Gma (Short for Great Grandma) was a teacher and Gpa (Short for Great Grandpa) worked in different factories.

Leeds was bombed during the war quite heavily by the Germans who were trying to destroy our industry by bombing factories. A lot of homes were destroyed and many people were killed.

Gpa never joined the army. He was a little too old to be conscripted (forced to join) as he was over 30 by the time the war started in 1939.

But. As a result of the bombing, schools were closed - either because they were bombed or because people were scared that if a bomb dropped on a school everyone's children in the local area would be wiped out.. terrifying.

But Gma set up her own school. Every day Gpa would go off to work in a factory and Gma would turn the front room into a school room. The 3 kids and lots of other local kids would come round and be schooled by Gma.

I think she felt that learning was so important that it couldn't be stopped by a few bombs! Her father had been a teacher too. I remember he wrote some teaching books (to teach kids the French language) and Gma was still getting royalties (payments for sales of the books) until quite late in life...

Gpa working in various factories but got his chance to fight back when he got a job in a place called Yeadon. The factory made Lancaster bombers - the main bombers that we used to bomb Germany.

He was ingenious and had the job of doing special modifications to aeroplanes to suit them for different purposes.

He signed the 'Official Secrets Act'. This was a contract with government that meant you agreed never to talk about what you were doing as if you did the enemy might gain an advantage.

After the War many people did talk But Gpa never uttered a word.

Except. One day when I (like you today Sarah) showed a random interest in the War he told me that he did some changes to the bombers for 'The Bouncing Bomb'.

The Bouncing Bomb was a bomb developed by a guy called Barnes Wallace - see here:

http://www.solarnavigator.net/aviation_and_space_travel/avro_lancaster.htm

This bomber and bomb were responsible for destroying some huge Damns in the Ruhr Valley in Germany. The millions of tons of water behind the damns flooded the valleys and wiped out hundreds of factories. It was a devastating blow...

And just one more story..

When I was 12 we flew to Australia. Me, my brother (Pete), My Mum and Dad, and Gma and Gpa.

As we made the long journey to Perth Gpa couldn't stay in his seat. He was so excited. I don't think he had ever been on an aeroplane before. Despite having spent so much time building them.

He and I spent lots of time at the back of the plane looking down on the amazing places that we were flying over. Europe, The Middle East, India etc etc.

He was fascinated at what the world looked like looking down on it from a plane and he told me about how they had camouflaged his factory during the War to stop the Germans bombing it.

They covered the roof in grass and made it look like a field - so passing planes wouldn't see there was a factory there at all.

And just to make sure. Right in the middle they put a duckpond...

So if Hitler had hated Ducks instead of Jews Gma's life would have been very different. And chances are none of us younger generations would exist.

R

I hope she passes it on to everyone else in Oz.

Lets Hear it For the Girls

2010-11-26T10:45:00.000Z

Sophie (my wife) attended the National Conservative Women's conference yesterday. She and a group of girls (well 'Ladies') got on the train yesterday and went to London for this key event in their political calendar.

It's a fun day out. They get to hear from, and occasionally meet, some of the key political people (and women) of the day in the historic seat of western democracy.

Yesterday, she particularly enjoyed hearing Teresa May and Sayeeda Warsi share their thoughts on a range of issues - not just women's issues, but issues that affect women (and men). Previously she has been impressed by William Hague and memorably she texted me when David Cameron turned up to speak at a previous event - 'He's arrived!! - I am about 3 metres away from him!!!'. Oh Dave turn it off, I am losing her to you.

Women are a powerful majority group.

In California every year they hold a women's conference. Here's a picture from one of their recent conferences held at Long Beach:

And here's one from the UK National Women's Conference 2010 - yesterday.

See my point?

Apparently there was an awkward moment when the Conservative Party Chairman (Chairman? - I think that's right) Sayeeda Warsi turned up to speak. 'In real life' she is not very tall and someone had mounted the speaker at the lectern quite high.

Sayeeda gazed out her audience with the microphone incongruously craning over her head whilst fighting back a serious bout of flu.

Sophie was impressed. 'She obviously felt awful but she didn't let us down, she spoke brilliantly'.

It's a tall order turning the Conservative party round, whilst dealing with the minor distraction of running the country, and I guess, without the best tools to do the job and starting from.. well.. not the place anyone would choose to start from. But that's what she has to do - Sayeeda not Sophie that is (although she and all the girls are happy to help!).

And the reason she has to do it is not just because this party of government needs grass roots support as it's lifeblood. It's not just because if the Conservative Party is going to develop the policy agenda for the future it needs to be spawned not just from a small group of 'intellectuals' but from the experience and skilled base of a vibrant 'bought-in' and active party base.

But also because, the bigger the conferences halls get and as the small groups swell into crowds, the chances of my wife getting that kind of proximity to other better looking powerful men diminishes.

So Sayeeda. For all the right reasons - Go Girl!

Its Soooo True.

2010-11-17T20:49:00.001Z

'No Incarceration without Representation'

2010-11-17T00:05:00.000Z

Now the dust has settled on the Prisoner Votes issue I think I will have a stab at this one.

I have thought about this one a lot lately and come to the conclusion that generally I am in favour of prisoners having the vote.

It’s very, very easy to take a reactionary view on this issue. It immediately seems objectionable that nasty horrible murderers or rapists or paedophiles should be given the vote. But this needs more thought..

The general reactionary ‘logic’ goes something like this.. ‘When someone commits a crime they lose their rights...and that’s what they deserve. They weren’t thinking about their victim’s rights when they committed the crime – so why should they keep their rights?’

At first glance it seems logical. But under a bit of scrutiny it starts to fall apart.

‘When someone commits a crime they lose their rights...’ Er. That doesn’t sound right. When someone is convicted of a crime they don’t lose their rights at all. They might lose their liberty but not their rights. They are not outlawed Robin Hood style at all. We don’t cast them out of our society. On the contrary we dedicate a lot of the time and resources of our society to incarcerating them.

We don’t starve them, or torture them – we don’t resort to barbarism. We very specifically do not deny someone their basic rights because they have committed a crime. And to suggest that we should is a crude and frankly daft ‘eye for an eye’ argument – back to the stone-age...

Just because someone does commit a crime, it doesn’t mean that our society should suddenly abandon it’s commitment to basic human rights and suddenly treat a convicted prisoner as some worthless sub-human that can be treated to any indignity...

But hang on a bit. Aren’t I getting a bit carried away here? People are only suggesting that Prisoners shouldn’t get the vote here, not that they should be chained to a wall and flogged with barbed-wire...

Sure. But actually learning from history and not resorting to the folly of crude ‘eye for an eye’ justice is what this is all about. It is about basic human rights and some simple principles.

As things stand, the right to vote is, as defined by the European Court of Human Rights, a basic human right.

Why?

Well. The basic logic is that governments should be constrained from being able to imprison people who disagree with them, and in so doing, silence the voting power of their political opponents. The basic principle is that governments should not be able to pervert democracy for their own benefit.

Clearly that makes sense. If you isolate this from the reactionary idea of giving paedophiles the vote then it just sounds logical, sensible and mature. And given what happened in Germany not many years ago, or happens today in Iran, or Iraq (until recently) or any number of countries where dissent is an imprisonable offence, it seems to make perfect sense.

It’s just has the consequence that even those convicted of the most heinous crimes are entitled to vote..

But actually that doesn’t seem a massive price to maintain an important inalienable principle does it?

Because fully functioning, legitimate democracy really is important. And the consequence of prisoners not having the vote is that they don’t have any political representation. For me that’s quite an important point.

If you or I have a problem we can go and see our Member of Parliament about it and they are obliged to help and advise – as a well known political website is titled – ‘They Work for You’.

But right now a convicted prisoner can’t do that. No vote = no representation. In practice an MP is under no obligation to help a prisoner.

I find that wrong. Injustices do happen. The system is not perfect, or even close to perfect. There are people who have little or no outside support, who are thrown into prison sometimes for a crime they didn’t commit, who languish for many years and who need someone on their side. Not just someone who can make a legal case, but someone who can help them get the support they need – someone who is accountable to them.

So I support the basic principles of human rights and their practical application. Let’s not waste time and energy in trying to come up with some complex set of rules for which kinds of prisoners can vote and which can’t.

Let’s just accept that the right to vote is, for very good reasons, a basic human right.

Education, Education, Protestation

2010-11-11T23:15:00.000Z

No sooner have the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education gone off on 'a jolly boys' trip to China than all hell breaks lose.

The festering sore of the changes to University educational funding has finally gone septic and people have finally taken to the streets. The mob have been to Millbank and, under the passive, watchful gaze of the Metropolitan police, have smashed the place up.

Politicians and the media have been sanctimoniously telling us that this is whipped up by 'organised anarchist groups' (surely a contradiction in terms) and that students who feel strongly about things such as this should demonstrate non-violently and quietly, unobtrusively and politely.

I assume they are trying to provoke more direct-action from students because there is nothing more likely to wind students up than this kind of patronising approach.

When the top team do return home and have finished handing out their gifts of silk Chinese pajamas, they need to give this some serious focus. This could be just the first instance of serious civil unrest. The violence was not an isolated aberration. There is a simmering undercurrent of deep unrest which will continue to boil over into direct, violent action.

This is not political demonstration, this is anti-government protest.

The cycle is simple. The Conservative/Lib Dem government announces a change to something, the discredited Labour opposes it.. Where do people focus their energy? Into supporting the opposition to the government, who, one beautiful day will form a government and change things?

Clearly not. There is no political outlet for people's frustrations. Two of the main parties are in government and the other major party was basically responsible for the problems that the current changes are a response to, and is therefore complicit in everything that the current government are doing.

So what do people do? How do they protest without a sense of complete futility?

Do they form another political movement with a set of aims and objectives, and then through meticulous organisation across the nation, form a new political force that can win an election and become the government?

Er no - far too complicated, not immediate enough, no instantaneous gratification.

But smashing a window or hurling a stone or fighting the police - that really registers a protest and provides immediate gratification.

Expect more of this. Right now it's the only outlet for people's growing frustrations.

The Conservative Party is Dead

2010-10-29T23:40:00.000+01:00

A few weeks ago, Conservative Home revealed that Conservative membership has fallen by around a third in the last four to five years.

That is a shocking figure.

Particularly when you consider that this ‘falling off the edge of a cliff’ statistic was during a period when the Conservatives, in electoral terms, were in the most meteoric period of ascendancy for an entire generation, or more.

Why was there this massive exodus of party membership? Why have the numbers of people who are no longer members of the Conservative party not been replaced by a new generation?

Because the Conservative party, in the last 5 years, has quite literally died.

The vast majority of Conservative members are old age pensioners. Not just pensioners but old, age, pensioners. The majority of those people who form the active Conservative membership of today are, in the overwhelming majority, well beyond retirement and they too, inevitably, will die in the next few years.

Many of this group would romanticise that they, this last generation of old age pensioners, are a valiant ‘forlorn-hope’ still planning to charge the barricades as they prepare for the next battle in the form of next year’s local elections.

But why are these last battered regiments of what is in reality the last rearguard not being replaced by new battalions of fresh, youthful, eager, replacements?

Because party politics is discredited. The rising generations, in the overwhelming majority, don’t believe in it. They think politics itself is discredited. They think that political participation, in terms of joining a political party, is pointless or irrelevant or unpalatable.

It’s not simply that the Conservative brand is ‘tarnished’. The colours, whilst still being held aloft, are in reality in complete tatters. Why would anyone new rally to their cause..?

But a few do. And when these young, energetic, idealists do engage with their local party organisation they don’t find many other young and enthusiastic volunteers. Instead they encounter the last reserves of an old age army of volunteers in disarray. And after an initial burst of activity and effort, they realise they are only helping to fight a losing battle, and quietly slink away.

Last night I attended a meeting of my local Conservative association – historically, and still today, comparatively one of the most successful associations in the country.

The room was full (it’s not a big room) of pensioners. I was the youngest in the room (41). Two of the attendees, in their mid 80’s were again putting themselves forward to ‘enter the breach’ and run as candidates to be Councillors next year. Their ages already exceed average life expectancy in the country but this is not exceptional.

Still they battle on. But why?

Some need the money, a few quid for being a Councillor is a valuable addition to a shrinking, inflation-busted pension. But for most, to a large extent, they do it because they feel that someone has to try and make a difference and they know that if they don’t do it, the chances are, no-one else will.

Anyway. That’s that. Just thought I would cheer you up!

How Mighty Nations Fall

2010-10-27T10:15:00.000+01:00

Superb video here:

Can Social Mobility Go Too Far?

2010-10-20T14:07:00.000+01:00

Should a postman ever become a Chancellor of the Exchequer?

It certainly should be possible but, on the basis of Alan Johnson's performance in the House of Commons today, this particular postman doesn't stand a chance of ever becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let's hope not anyway.

His response to George Osborne's announcements was rambling and, in parts, completely nonsensical. He appeared to have missed a lot of the detail - he obviously completed missed the announcement that SureStart will continue.

Not only does he lack experience but he also seems incapable of grasping the basics. He advocated cutting the deficit but, in practically the same sentence, was then against cuts. Which is it? You think cuts are necessary but are against them? A classic example of what I call 'Labour Denial' - a phrase I would advocate the govt adopting to encapsulate the contradictions of the Labour position.

As Johnson rambled on, Ed Miliband looked uncomfortable and embarrassed. Ed Balls looked on with a slight smirk - no doubt thinking of the future. Yvette Cooper, wedged in next to Harriet Harperson seemed caught up in the tragedy of watching a previous skilled parliamentary operator badly out of his depth and struggling to stay afloat.

I don't share her feeling of sympathy.

Anyone For The Conservative Home Party?

2010-10-15T16:55:00.001+01:00

Tim Montgomerie, founder and editor of Conservative Home has done an astounding job in building the incredibly successful Conservative Home website since he started it in 2005.

Tim's latest innovation is Conservative Home Gold - A premium subscription service which for £49 per year gets you a quarterly magazine, a ticket to the annual lecture (speaker George Osborne), an invite to the Conservative Home Briefing event - 'what's going on inside the Conservative party', a calendar (er ok) and access to an on-line 'debate club' (definitely one to watch).

In other words Tim is doing EXACTLY what the Conservative party should have done years ago to revitalise the membership and monetise Conservative activism.

Incidentally, as it happens I suggested to Iain Dale about 6 months ago that he did a similar thing - i.e. offered a premium service to his blog readers for a modest sum - he rejected it as the mad ramblings of a loony..no hard feelings Iain.

I now find myself deliberating over where to spend my cash.. My Conservative membership fees must be due soon but why bother? I am not sure I really get anything for my money but the Conservative Home Gold thing gives me some really tangible benefits for a reasonable price.

He is a clever fella that Tim Montgomerie.

I am mindful of the fact that:

1) Tim became Iain Duncan Smith's chief of staff just 2 months before IDS lost the leadership - so I guess he got a tantalising taste of what it was like to be the main mover and shaker behind the scenes before it was cruelly snatched away. I guess leaving him wanting more.

2) Tim has long predicted that someone will one day utilise the power of the Internet to take the political world by storm and start a new political movement.

Sounds very like a self-fulfilling prophecy in the making to me.

Good luck to him. I hope the Conservative leadership have really understood that the power of Conservative support is ever increasingly lined up in force, not behind the Conservative Party, but behind Conservative Home.

I am looking forward to meeting Tim Montgomerie on November 7th. He has agreed to speak at an event I am organising (Curzon Supper Club - event details and tickets available here).

It took a bit of persuading to get him to attend but he finally agreed. It was a great relief. I really wanted to secure a speaker who will be an absolutely key player in the future of UK politics. If he hadn't have agreed I would have had to have 'fallen-back' to a second choice like... er David Cameron perhaps ;-)

What Exactly is The Big Society All About?

2010-10-14T11:24:00.000+01:00

A lot of people don't seem to understand the concept of the Big Society. This also includes lots of members of the Conservative party.

Some assume this is a bad thing - i.e. that people don't understand what the Big Society thing is all about.

It's not.

It's good because the media, politicians and pundits keep returning to it - and in so doing the ideas surrounding personal, social and civic responsibility are widely discussed, become understood, their importance appreciated and then slowly become more widely adopted. It's an itch that people cannot stop scratching.

But why don't people understand immediately what the Big Society is all about?

The reason many Conservative members don't understand what it's all about is that they completely understand the concepts and find it all rather obvious so keep grasping for something more profound - assuming that there must be more to it. There really isn't. It's actually quite simple. It's just that members of the Conservative party are usually people who do take responsibility for their lives, their actions and play an active and positive role in society. And becoming a member of the Conservative party is very often a stepping stone on the way to fulfilling a civic duty.

But for others who don't get it, the whole concept of the Big Society is quite perplexing. Having grown up with rights rather than responsibilities the whole idea of contributing to society is rather alien. For those people, the state is the provider and the controller - so society just isn't really relevant - so how on earth can it be 'Big'!

At the extremes are those who rely completely on the state. There have been examples in the last week of various people popping up on TV who have lots of children, don't work and have little real intention of ever working but who take it for granted that it is their 'right' that they can claim money from the state for their home, for their food and luxuries, for being unemployed and for each of their children. They will probably be the last to get it.

But lack of understanding personal, social and civic responsibility is not just confined to the extremes. The silent majority are also, to some degree, confused and perplexed by the Big Society. To them the state takes taxes and then it provides services and benefits - surely we shouldn't move away from this model in the direction of some basis upon which individuals work together to provide some of the help and support that others need, instead of the all powerful state?

If the State were a success then it would be a difficult thing to propose. But the reality is that the state system has failed. It has taxed us hugely, taking away the incentive to work for many, then given widely to others thus creating dependency and further disincentive to work. And then when as a consequence demands grew ever greater, the state has borrowed to the hilt and ploughed billions into inefficiently and ineffectively providing services and often pointless employment to millions.

So the process of re-engineering our nation requires more than simply creating the opportunities for business and social enterprises to prosper and flourish - it needs a change in our national mind-set.

The Big Society is a vindication for some, a revelation for others and if you still don't get it then don't get upset, stamp your feet and whimper 'but I don't get it!!!'. Don't worry. That's fine because as you work it out, millions are doing so at the same time and being part of this realisation process is you taking part in a timely and worthwhile social revolution that will benefit you, your family, the people you interact with and the nation as a whole - perhaps even the wider world in time.

Wanna slogan - here's one.

The Big Society - Have You Got it Yet?

International Society for Human Rights - Advertisements.

2010-10-11T20:13:00.000+01:00

Some great ads-

Are The Bankers Going to Get Away With It?

2010-10-08T10:39:00.002+01:00

'The Bankers' have taken a pounding in the last year or so. But are they really going to take full responsibility for the state of the nation's finances?

I hope not.

It wasn't the extraordinary 'profits' made by the bankers that caused the current debt problems. It was the fact that the government taxed those profits and then spent every penny - they just racked up spending and as George put it 'didn't fix the roof while the sun was shining.'

The Labour party will inevitably try and blame the bankers but it makes absolutely no sense for Conservative politicians to allow them to avoid the blame.

Sayeeda Warsi did a great job on Questiontime last night. Having been roughed up earlier in the week by Andrew Neil, she started weakly and was on the ropes within the first few minutes. But as the Conservative Party's answer to a Female Muslim Rocky Bilbao (hmmm) she stormed back into contention and delivered some knockout blows in the last rounds.

So perhaps it's a bit churlish to point out but unfortunately the biggest clap of the night she got was when she slammed the bankers and in so doing validated Labour's claim that 'it weren't us guv it was them nasty bankers...'

The Big Society - Don't Ask What Your Country Can Do for You...

2010-10-06T20:59:00.000+01:00

David Cameron delivered a great speech this afternoon. It was great because it avoided the usual gimmicks - it wasn't all eye-catching initiatives and prepared sound-bytes - well not new ones. And that was the best thing about it. It was a speech that learned the lesson of hastily prepared initiatives that backfire (e.g. child tax credits) and just delivered some reality.

But. Cameron described it as 'A Call to Arms' which all sounds great - We have a major problem - We all need to pull together and do....what exactly?

And that's the question. Was he just saying that we should all pull together by not complaining too much if we lose our jobs and not complaining too much if our incomes don't rise but, in real terms, fall? Or was he proposing something positive that we can all do?

So whilst it was a great speech and it was a 'Call to Arms' there is no obvious way for people to participate...

In 1940 when Churchill came to power he similarly called people to arms - in defence of our nation. The difference was that he offered a way in which people could actually do it. He formed the LDV, the Local Defence Volunteer which later became known as the Home Guard.

And that's exactly what Cameron needs to do now - create a mass participation scheme of people prepared to volunteer - to pledge a few hours of their time per week to doing the kind of things that the state has to stop doing because it can't afford to any more.

But in the absence of such a scheme I have decided to try and get selected as a local councillor and run for election in next year's local elections.

Conference Review - Michael Gove

2010-10-05T20:11:00.000+01:00

This is really a review, not just of Michael's speech but, of the whole education piece.

One word - outstanding. It started steadily with two good speakers and then burst into life with the amazing Katharine, a head teacher who just oozed passion for education and explained how she had challenged her own left-leaning pre-conceptions and realised that the education orthodoxy of the left had failed generations of children.

Katharine got a standing ovation when she finished her speech - prompted, I feel, by a sense of real vindication for many in the conference hall who are so sick and tired of the failed policies and dogma of the left in education and who were finally listening to one of the left's own preaching not to the converted, but as one of the converted.. The huge clap was half for her and half a relieved, self congratulatory expression!

Katharine was followed by another speaker Dan (I think that's right?) who had the impossible task of following but managed to pull it off with another dazzling display of passion and forthrightness. He made a brilliant point:

'If I said I were going off to Brazil to set up a new free school everyone would slap me on the back - but here we are treated with distrust......'

Absolutely.

Then an American, confusingly named 'Canada' or Geoff Canada to give him his full name spent a long time debunking the myths of education and explaining why it is so important. He did go on a bit. I think he slightly misunderstood the purpose of the conference and thought it was an event designed primarily around him.. I guess that the reason the Q and A session was cancelled was largely due to him over-running.

The session was rounded off by an excellent speech by Michael which brought everything together. My only criticism would be the rather contrived way in which he raised his voice at sets points in his speech to indicate to the audience when to clap. He should have had more confidence in the power of his words - people would have clapped anyway.

Michael explained his new 'Martini Principal' (My name not his)- that Head Teachers will be given a new power to discipline kids on their way to or from school - anytime, anyplace and anywhere as he put it.

To emphasise his point, Michael hitched up his trousers to reveal a sparkling pair of rollerboots and skated elegantly off the stage to a roar of approval from the crowd..

Ok I made that last bit up.

Content 9.5/10

Delivery 9/10

Conference Review - George Osborne

2010-10-04T13:09:00.000+01:00

I am a huge Osborne fan. Many pundits have, in the past, said that George is not a great speaker and doesn't have the gravitas to deliver at the top level of politics.

I have always thought they were utterly wrong and George proved it again today. He delivered a brilliantly crafted speech, stuffed full of facts and no-nonsense reality.

But it also was visionary. Talking about the Britain of the future 'over the horizon' was superb. He flattened the Labour parties approach to continuing to pile up the debts and damned their failed record.

The master-stroke was the 'no family on benefits should have more money in benefits than the average working family gets'. That will send all the media commentators into a spin and create huge coverage to pave the way for the coming news on welfare.

George has clearly done his numbers. The immediate reaction will be surely that no family on benefits should get more than the lowest paid working family not the average working family. Who could possibly disagree that no-one on benefits should get more than 50% of the nation's working families get... thus making it possible to make some pretty substantial savings I guess.

Superb. George you played a blinder - as usual in my 'umble opinion guv.

Content - 9.5/10
Delivery - 9.7/10

Conference Review - The Band

2010-10-04T11:44:00.000+01:00

They should be.

As should using a conference hall with a Labour Red Colour Scheme.

And whoever came up with the conference graphics and wishy washy colour scheme and wierd lopsided Union Jack tree should be invited to a meeting to discuss their future. It shouldn't be a long meeting...

The speakers can deliver well and the content of what they say can be fabulous but this location makes the whole thing look very old fashioned and tired... a bit like a Labour conference of the 1970s.

Hopeless - lets the whole thing down.

And the bleedin band have just started another little number that evokes thoughts of a 1980's pit villages, striking workers and civil unrest.

Conference Review - Boris

2010-10-04T11:26:00.000+01:00

Brilliant. Started off quite low key and then built to a shuddering crescendo!

The audience participation got everyone going.

Content 8/10
Delivery 9/10

Conference Review - David Willets

2010-10-04T11:06:00.001+01:00

I like Willets. His approach is thoughtful and well communicated. But. I thought he came out with a very ill-advised sound bite - 'We are the party of the wealth creators'. Not clever really.

I think he probably meant to communicate the idea that the Conservatives are going to create the circumstances in which private enterprise can flourish but instead picked a sound bite that more readily lends itself to the impression that the Conservatives are a party for the minority of 'The Bosses' leaving the Labour party to oppose as the party of 'The Workers' - not numerically a good idea.

Content 5/10
Delivery 4/10.

Harsh but fair.

Conference Review - Philip Hammond

2010-10-04T10:28:00.000+01:00

A good start to the morning. Phillip (Danny's got my job) Hammond started off talking about the wider issues outside his brief of Transport and came up with a good summary of the current political position.

Not a massive amount of content in his brief speech but good delivery.

Content - 6/10
Delivery - 7/10

What No Conference?

2010-10-03T16:15:00.000+01:00

Just got back from lunch and sat down to watch the Conservative Conference on the Parliamentary channel. What happened?

All I can see is a conference stage and some Asian ladies spinning around and around and around?? What on earth is this all about?

They are still spinning away. I am a bit worried that one of them is going to get a bit dizzy and career off the stage and go crashing into the audience.

Now Jeremy Hunt has appeared grinning and looking a bit embarrased. The cameras keep cutting away to the audience who all look confused or bored. I know how they feel..

Phew. Francis Maude has just appeared. Sanity restored.

Let's hope there is no more of that nonsense.

Why Do in 13 What You Can Do in 5?

2010-10-02T10:25:00.000+01:00

The coalition government are hurtling along at breakneck speed reforming education, welfare, the health service to name just a few areas. Much of the inspiration to do so seems to stem from, of all people, Tony Blair. Blair has widely put it on record that his governments did not do enough in the time available to them - they moved too slowly and didn't drive reform anywhere near as far as they should have done.

There's an interesting article in the Guardian here, regarding Michael Gove and his sweeping education reforms. It forms the impression that Michael's reforming zeal is in large part inspired by the hated and discredited leader - Blair.

Michael is quoted as saying 'I love A Journey (Blair's recent book). I have never read a book like it'..

I suspect mischief from the Guardian in trying to position Michael as an unreformed, reforming Blairite as it were.

I too am reading 'A Journey' and one very key reason that Blair gives for the slow progress for government is that they didn't have a plan for reform when they arrived in government. As Blair explained, the Labour party in the mid 1990s had built a formidable vote-winning machine but they simply had not developed a detailed policy and reform process - so had to do it belatedly in government. They won the election in 1997 on what Blair describes as fairly vague ideas.

And, there's a very crucial lesson to be learned or to be more accurate, observed, from Blair's book. One of the really crazy errors that Blair made was a classic failure of leadership and 'management'. I will explain:

Time and again in 'A Journey', Blair recounts instances where he personally is doing the detailed policy work himself: As he says:

'I was working flat-out devising the direction of structural reform for schools, the NHS, criminal justice, welfare and the Civil Service'

Seems perfectly reasonable that the PM should be working out 'direction'. But then he goes on to quote examples of him working on a one-to-one basis with ministers such as Alan Milburn (on Health) spending days and days in closed meetings at Number 10 devising detailed policy.

It's a classic error of management. Blair was trying to do everything himself. He was undermining his ministers by doing their jobs for them. The inevitable consequence was a huge capacity constraint. Because every significant reform could only occur after Blair had done the detailed work on it himself very little could be done because he, like anyone, had only so many hours available per day..

To be successful, Prime Ministers and Ministers, (just like senior executives and managers) need to set direction and objectives and then delegate. If they try and do everything themselves they will fail to achieve their objectives, and worse, take their eye off the political ball. This was where Blair failed monumentally.

He failed to reform health and welfare education because he started too late without a plan and then he tried to do too much of it himself. But. He failed as a politician because he got so involved in detail that he failed to communicate what his government was doing and why. In fact, he got so engrossed in planning a war in Iraq he completely forgot the necessity of taking the public with him. He stopped winning the political argument and just carried on regardless.

Self-delusion crept-in. Because Blair failed to stress test his ideas properly and dismissed opposition to his plans as the foolish meanderings of the ill-informed or as inevitable barbs from political opponents he just believed in his own brilliance. He thought he had come up with revolutionary plans and ideas that no-one else was capable of forming and ignored the well meant warnings of others.

One of Blair's aids described this as his 'Messiah Complex' lending it a an air of acceptability (for a Christian) that was undeserved. And that irrational belief that only he was capable of doing it was what undid Blair so completely.

That is why Blair will never be remembered as the reforming politician who, with a huge majority, drove through massive public-sector reform. Because he didn't.

Instead he is remembered as the politician who took our country to war without taking the nation with him.

Which is why it is very dangerous for any politician to make the same mistakes he did, or allow themselves to be associated with Blair today.

Nuff sed.

Beware The People's Party..

2010-10-01T09:15:00.000+01:00

Being in power can be horribly time-consuming for politicians. Being in power with coalition 'partners' can be even more so - constantly doing, while watching them, at the same time. Gone are the easy days of opposition when the larger part of time and resources could be lavished on developing strategies and tactics for beating the opposition.

The Labour party have reacted quickly and effectively to opposition. They have elected a new leader (well the unions have..) and are doing a remarkably effective job at changing their positioning (Iraq was now a mistake) and hitting back at the coalition.

Ed Miliband didn't deliver a fabulous conference speech by any stretch of the imagination, but it was enough to reassure the Labour party and to galvanise them as one relatively united force. This spells big danger for the Conservatives.

The defeat of David Miliband has neatly allowed the Labour party to 'demonstrate' that it has moved on from 'New Labour' and is now something else and Ed Miliband has a 'clean sheet' on which to define what Labour is now.

The Labour party have adapted to circumstance very, very quickly. Similarly, the Conservatives need to recognise the realities of victory. They didn't win a majority because they didn't re-invent the Conservative brand - the job was only partly done.

The old prejudices are already resurfacing. The Labour party have developed a neatly effective trick of defending their economic record by blaming it 'on the bankers' and are using the old prejudices to make it a good old fashioned poor vs rich argument. Labour representing the poor and the Conservatives representing the rich. The Conservatives are being associated with the rich despite the truth of the thing.

And this is a superb strategy. Because on 20th October the Conservative 'coalition' government is going to announce to the country that we are all poor. Which means that our natural party of government will be the party who represents the poor - the Labour party...

So what should the Conservatives do?

Well first things first. Fix the communication problem that was never fixed in opposition. There needs to be a far more effective team of people who work out the political arguments and feed the politicians with timely prepared lines of attack (and defence) to be delivered via the media to the people.

Questiontime last night proved that this is still woefully lacking. Grant Chapps trotted out the well prepared 'Line to Take' on the economy and 'cuts' etc. But, they were the same lines as last week and the week before. So the Labour party have had plenty of time to prepare their defences for the attacks and probe the Conservative's defences for weaknesses - so when they deliver their attacks they hit home and there is little effective resistance.

In other words, the Labour party are fighting a running battle with constantly evolving lines of attack and defence while the Conservatives are being bombarded and their pre-prepared positions are being destroyed.

I was speaking to an MP of the 'new intake' the other day and asked him about his ambitions for government. He explained that with so many Lib Dem ministers there are many more senior Conservatives looking for jobs in government - so he wasn't expecting an opportunity any time soon.

And this is quite possibly the resource the Conservatives should be using. Take the sharpest, most 'campaigning effective' MPs that don't have jobs in government (with some leadership from a few experienced hands) and form them into a fighting force that can work out how to defeat Labour.

If Conservatives can start pushing the arguments they can beat Labour back. When government ministers do big media appearances (i.e. QT) they need to be unleashing new lines of attack that bewilder and defeat the Labour party - not rehearsing the same old tired lines.

Conservative ministers need a constant supply line of new ideas, tactics and arguments to defeat the attackers.

Otherwise, the Labour Party and it's 250 MPs will unhinge the Government in power and eventually charge back into power as 'The People's Party', and that would be a complete disaster. Because whilst Labour have this week convinced themselves that for the last 13 years they almost got it right and that with a less 'New Labour' leader (who wouldn't have gone to war) they would have done brilliantly, the truth is, they are still ignoring the problems they have caused and haven't got any of the solutions.

Again, trouble is, the nation don't know that.

Best tell em eh?

A Nightmare Scenario?

2010-09-28T20:24:00.000+01:00

I imagine David Miliband awoke this morning in a cold sweat. As he drifted into conciousness a nightmare scenario must have floated through his mind.

All his efforts, over many years, to time his ascendency, had failed. Having carefully avoided pitching all his efforts into a risky fight with Gordon he had bided his time and waited for the inevitable opportunity. He then entered the fight as the most credible candidate, with the support of his party and his colleagues behind him... and then that annoying little brother YET AGAIN copied him! and at the last turn... managed to steal it from him.

When he finally awoke and realised that far from being a horrible nightmare, it was reality, it must have been a crushing realisation.

Conversely, David Cameron must have woken to the happy realisation that Labour, rather than picking someone who could win elections and, in the future, keep the Conservatives out of power for a generation, had just elected someone who, unless he goes through a near total personality transformation, may well keep the Conservatives in power for a generation.

And Nick Clegg must have woken feeling energised. The game is back on. The alternative to the Conservative party does not now need to default to Labour. Ed Miliband represents an opportunity for the Liberal Democrats. If Miliband fails, as he almost certainly will, to transform himself from someone who simply does not look like an alternative PM, into someone who does - then a vacancy, and a party opportunity exists.

I almost felt sorry for David Miliband today. He just couldn't disguise his true feelings during his brother's speech. When Ed Miliband started talking about the nick-names that he had been labelled with, the look of utter contempt was intense..

What a nightmare.. or not.

The Honeymoon is Over

2010-09-26T09:34:00.003+01:00

I have been busy with other things for the last couple of months, so blogging has taken a back seat.

But now the dullest political contest of recent years is finally over and the labour party have made their choice of leader, with the least worse haircut available, is the game on again?

Well. If little Eddie were the answer to the Labour party's problems, then he would use his own honeymoon period to do the structural work behind the scenes that is needed.

But I suspect he will not. Because although he talks about 'change' I suspect he really only really means it at a very superficial level. So he will probably come out fighting fairly quickly, believing that the only change the Labour party needed was a different leader.

And this will be key for the Conservatives; Recognising that their honeymoon period is over and ensuring that Ed milliboy doesn't get one.

Update - just watched Milliboy on Marr saying 'I am the change Labour needs'. I rest my case.

The Airs of Blair

2010-09-02T08:22:00.001+01:00

The Blair interview with Andrew Marr last night was excrutiating.

Blair continues to come across as a self-deluding lunatic with no remorse for the disaster he made of government. I have always thought that he felt that becoming Prime Minister was unexpectedly easy. I suspect the former lead singer of the 70's band 'Ugly Rumours' always found it rather surprising that he had become PM.

Certainly he followed a path that was likely to lead him to government; law at Oxford, working as a barrister, fought an unwinnable seat and then managed to talk himself into a safe one.. But to have reached No 10, and for such a long time was extraordinary - and when all the time he had only really being going through the motions.

I think you find a commonality between people who substantially exceed their own expectations - they become ego centric, self serving, have trouble taking responsibility for things and basically go a bit mad.

I guess it works like this.. In the beginning they are constantly hounded by the thought that they really shouldn't 'be here'. At a deep level they know that their own talents, efforts and skills are not adequate to justify them being in the position that they are in so they 'decide' they must be a bit 'special', that they are different. This ego trick protects them from their own insecurity but it also insulates them from the consequences of their own decisions. As their own life becomes ever more surreal the sharp impact of poor decisions is blunted - they don't feel it and don't even take responsibility for them. It's a self-created delusion.

There was one particulat instance that illustrated this last night:

At one point Blair was talking about the period before John Smith's death and said suddenly 'he knew' that he was going to become leader of the Labour party (and therefore in all likelihood PM). A fairly extraordinary claim given that John Smith was not expected to suddenly die a month later by anyone. He defensively told Marr that it wasn't a premonition or 'anything silly like that'... So what was it then? I don't think it was Blair admitting murder, so he must have been saying that he has developed the ability to look into the future - a fairly 'special' quality.

And he then went on to explain the total mess he had made of the Fox Hunting legislation and really illustrated his true incompetence. He said that he really should have looked into the whole thing a bit more first and that there was "more to it than a bunch of toffs running around killing foxes'..

Quite. And similarly Blair there's a bit more to going off to war in the middle east than shouting 'Yeehar' - there are mothers and fathers who lose sons, children maimed and killed etc. But fortunately you, unlike them, are insulated from that.

Extraordinary Pictures of WW1

2010-07-25T10:33:00.000+01:00

Just released into the public domain by the National Library of Scotland. Some really incredible pictures - see here.

Has Guido (and others) Lost the Plot?

2010-07-02T10:13:00.001+01:00

The famous blogger Guido Fawkes blogged a recommendation yesterday that MPs who need to work late in Parliament and therefore don't wish to make a journey home should stay in a Backpacker's Hostel.

Guido lists the benefits here as being the availability of free showers, 24 hour security, breakfast and an Internet cafe all for the modest sum of £12 per night.

Surely this must mark the low point at which the tide must turn on the completely unreasonable demands being made of our elected parliamentary representatives?

Clearly the expenses scandal last year exposed some crazy abuses which needed dealing with. But since then it has lead to some really absurd ideas about how Members of Parliament should operate. The pendulum has swung way too far and to an extent which is now directly against the public interest.

My local MP Michael Gove, now a Secretary of State, is quite rightly been provided with a ministerial car and driver for his work in London at the Ministry of Education. This enables him to work on the move - an essential feature that enables us, the taxpayers, to benefit from Michael having the maximum possible working time available to him to deal with a huge and very important workload and to deal with the 6,500 people employed directly by his ministry.

However, when he visits his constituency here in Surrey Heath the car and driver is not now available and he is expected to make his own arrangements.

As many of the residents of Surrey Heath are aware, Michael is famously one of the least coordinated people on the planet. A few years ago Michael invested in a gleaming new Skoda car and in the last few years has merrily scuffed and crashed it around the constituency, mercifully avoiding inflicting any personal damage on any of his constituents.

When I last saw it some weeks ago it resembled a vehicle that might well have been used in a local demolition derby rather than the mode of transport favoured by our much respected MP. If you recall a Peugeot television advertisement of a few years ago in which the owner of a car attempted to smash and dent it in order to make it look like a new and desirable vehicle then you have an idea of the state that Michael's car is now in (just delete the desirability element).

Given the added demands on Michael's time since his elevation to Rt Hon MP and Sec of State, local people have responded by giving up their own time, and vehicles, to drive Michael between constituency events, in order that he can continue his Ministerial business whilst on the move - it's much for safer for everyone that way.

However, given the still impending impact of the International Global Recession (as our Labour friends would have it) I fear that financial constraints may mean that this workaround may at some point in the future fail.

With this potential problem in mind, perhaps Guido can suggest a suitable solution? Perhaps he knows of a local and cost-effective rickshaw or tuk-tuk company who could help?

N.B. The picture of the Skoda used in this blog post is not Michael Gove's car. Despite being over 20years older than Michael's car it is in much better nick.

Lies, Damn Lies and Politics

2010-06-17T08:50:00.001+01:00

Daniel Finkelstein wrote an interesting piece here in the Times the other day about how politicians are, by convention, forced to lie.

Finkelstein quotes the example of political parties in government operating under 'Collective Responsibility' where members of the government must publicly support all decisions made by Cabinet. He goes on to make the point that governments (and opposition parties) go way beyond this and require all politicians of their party to 'express the same opinion about every issue in the same way'.

It's a very good point - but one that needs further exploration. It's inevitable consequence is that politicians who disagree with a particular political issue are forced to lie and cheat and say they agree (or vice versa – say they disagree when actually agree) which is why we constantly witness elected representatives saying things they do not believe or do not believe to be true and we rightly view politicians as being insincere and dishonest.

When a political question arises, a Member of Parliament is not required to search their conscience, to weigh up the pro's and con's of a particular issue, but instead is merely required to hunt out their Blackberry. There, they will find the prescribed 'Line to Take' delivered to them centrally by their political party.

Even if there is no prescribed party line, the politician does not need to apply their own judgement to a given issue, (because if they did they might contradict a later 'Line to Take' email) they simply enter a holding pattern and say something like, 'this is a very complicated issue and until the facts of this become clear I think we should all carefully consider the position on this'. In other words no email from on-high = no position.

So there is a huge mismatch between what we expect our representatives to be - honest, principled and forthright individuals and what they have to be to conform to their own political party machine's requirements - insincere and dishonest apparatchiks.

This time last year, in the middle of the expenses storm, Finklestein described the moment as a 'Gotcha moment'. He put his finger directly on the issue. The entire furore wasn't essentially just about the public making objective, reasoned judgements about whether or not certain politicians had made reasonable expense claims or not, it was more a chance to finally point the finger at politicians and prove, without doubt that they are liars and cheats – rather like Al Capone being finally convicted, not for his infamous racketeering crimes, but instead for tax evasion. Justice was done even if the conviction was not, in fact, for the major crimes committed.

Since the expenses scandal the business of politics has, more or less, continued as usual. The expenses issue has been cleared up a bit but the underlying fundamental issue has not, at all. Politicians still behave in exactly the same way.

Right now, the new government is going through it's honeymoon period. The media is still in the early stages of getting to grips with the new beast that the electorate has created and the opposition are looking inwardly and trying to find a leader.

But, in the not too distant future, the natural divisions in a coalition government will make the disagreements between members of the government obvious. The media will bang wedges into the inevitable cracks that appear and expose them to us all and then we will watch with bemused detached distaste as a steady progression of politicians appear on television prostituting their own rapidly diminishing credibility for the ignoble cause of yet more ‘Collective Responsibility’.

They will deny division and disagreement. They will pedal the same lies and once more the electorate will file away yet more evidence of their unsuitability to govern and coalition government will become, for politicians, like wading uphill, through particularly thick and sticky treacle with concrete boots on...

Or.

They can start doing things differently.

They can stop insulting everyone’s intelligence. They can acknowledge publicly that people in government have different views. Politicians can talk about their party’s position on an issue but be sincere about their own position on something. In so doing, they will draw respect for their honesty and understanding about the inevitable compromises that democratic politics entails.

There is nothing for politicians to be scared of in being honest with those people who elect them and who they are paid to represent. We have reached a point where a great watershed moment is possible.
But there is one big question for me..

Is it possible for the current generation of political leaders to really clean up politics?

As anyone who has been involved in politics at a grass-roots level knows, there are many honest, principled and forthright people involved in politics. But these people rarely progress far. As a senior politician put it to me. ‘To succeed in politics, you need to be nice to everyone’.

Now you might think that being nice to everyone is not inconsistent with retaining integrity and honesty. But in the long journey from initial involvement in politics to the Cabinet there are thousands of points at which the aspiring cabinet member will find themselves in a position where they will be asked to support something or take a position on something they disagree with or which conflicts with their own ideas.

And each time they choose not to declare themselves against a particular idea or position, a small chip is knocked off their personal block of honesty. Being ‘nice’ in many instances costs nothing but inevitably in others it has a small incremental cost because it also entails being insincere. Every instance in which the aspirant politician does not stand up for what they believe in or say what they really think, contributes to a tiny but heavily cumulative debasement of their own honesty.

So perhaps it is logical to assume that by the time anyone completes the long journey to the Cabinet table, their own integrity will be completely gone. They will have made so many compromises and bitten their lip so many times that their inner soul will just be a hollow worthless husk. Every decision they make or position they adopt will not be one taken on the basis of fact and principles but merely a political calculation dressed up to look vaguely and unconvincingly like a reasoned judgement.

Now call me a dreamer, but I do have a hope that within this current government there are a sufficient number of senior politicians who have now finally ‘infiltrated’ the upper echelons of power who do retain their integrity. They have bitten their lips and held their tongues for years making a long-term calculation that in order to make a real difference they have had to smile, and be nice to everyone just waiting for the day when they have sufficient power to really change things.

In other words, they have compromised their honesty but ultimately not their integrity.

And perhaps now these ‘sleepers’ will awake and re-cast politics in a way that will avoid it being the preserve of those who are prepared to be dishonest (or those without integrity) and instead be a vocation which demands and delivers honesty, integrity and respect.

The changes needed are quite small but have huge ramifications. It doesn’t mean abandoning cohesive party politics or even a proper kind of shared responsibility for decisions made that take account of different views. It just means that politicians should take real personal responsibility for saying what they mean and meaning what they say.

There’s no need to throw the Blackberrys away but they should remember what they are for – a useful aid to communication. Not a substitute for conscience.

Satisfied Customers?

2010-06-10T23:53:00.000+01:00

Blogging has been light lately - mainly because I really don't have much to moan about.

After a disappointing (but predictable) election result David Cameron quickly pulled things together and has managed to deliver a very credible and professional looking government. He looks relaxed and assured and the Conservative team have wasted no time delivering the change they promised. The constant policy announcements give an impression of effectiveness and delivery and energy..

On the face of it, having had to form a government in coalition seems to have been only a minor inconvenience. As soon as David Laws disappeared, this government started to look like the Conservative government that I and all Conservatives really wanted.

Nick Clegg appears sitting at PMQs next to DC looking like a loyal assistant (rather like a male secretary) and occasionally little Danny Alexander pops up in front of a TV camera whilst he is out buying a sandwich or running errands for his boss George Osborne - I imagine George sends him out to buy 'striped paint' for the treasury walls - just for a bit of a laugh.

The Conservatives seem to be so in control now, that I imagine most of the population have now completely forgotten that there used to be a political party called the erm.. Liberalised Demonstrators...or whatever they used to call themselves before they became the Conservative's errand boys.

So perhaps herein lies the peril. Unless the Lib Dems do look like a significant part of the government their left-wing base is going to start agitating badly and they are going to start realising that this tiny bit of power has a huge price - neutralising their 'presence' on the UK political stage.

But congratulations are not just due to the Conservatives. The Labour party have slipped into opposition quickly and effectively and are successfully managing to get a very large proportion of the population to believe that the nasty old Conservatives are just reverting to type and planning to slash spending because they are horrid nasty people who just love cutting things.

David Cameron's weakness tends to be that when things go well he rests on his laurels and doesn't see the threats approaching. The two major emerging threats are:

1) The Liberal Democrats not getting enough stage presence - i.e they need at least one credible individual who sets an agenda and achieves some results - to avoid collapse of the coalition.

2) The Labour Party are convincing too many people that 'the debt' problem is just an excuse that the nasty ole Tories are using to justifying their usual cuts agenda (remember what nasty old Maggie did...).

Good result so far - now address the threats and head em off quick before they start causing major pain.

Witnessing a Horrifying Event

2010-06-04T21:45:00.002+01:00

At approximately 12.30pm today my family I were sitting on the beach at Shell Bay at the entrance to Poole Harbour in Dorset.

The tranquillity of the day was horrifyingly shattered when a young family, returning from a fishing trip in their small boat, were attacked by a shark.

It appeared suddenly and without warning. Many people didn't notice the drama unfolding as the Shark slowly but inexorably closed the distance between itself and the small rubber boat. It's deadly, silvery body seemed to glide on top of the water as it closed in on it's prey.

The children screamed as they turned and saw it just inches from them.

This tragic and horrifying event stands as a reminder to us all of the terrible risks and tragic consequences that sometimes befall our nation's brave fisherpeople.

The Tragedy of Abuse and Self Abuse

2010-06-01T21:33:00.000+01:00

I just spent a great weekend with friends in Dorset. Driving back from dinner on Saturday night I was chatting to our friend's 12 year old daughter about her recent experiences at school.

She has just moved schools having had a series of bad experiences with a group of girls at her previous school - bullying, stealing etc. One of the girls she left to avoid was a relative of a highly notorious child-abusing criminal.

Having arrived at her new school, things are a lot better. She has found a new group of friends in the best school in the area.

But even in the happy new school, all is not well. She started telling me about a girl that she has met who she feels desperately sorry for.

This girl, let's call her 'Child P', comes into school with bruises and cuts on her body which she conceals from everyone but her closest friends. Her mother regularly hits her and abuses her and this girl has now started harming herself - she regularly sits in lessons scratching her arms with the sharp point of a compass.

Life at home for her is hell. Her mother constantly takes out her frustrations on her daughter and constantly argues violently with her step-father.

Why this leads her daughter to add to the miseries of her existence by harming herself is not clear. Perhaps at least the intensity of feeling, when she inflicts pain on herself, is at least in her control - rather than being imposed by others? - something a self-abuser once tried to explain to me before but which I can't claim to fully comprehend.

This girl begs her friends not to say anything that might lead to social services putting her in care. She would rather be regularly beaten, hit and abused than run the risk of being taken away from a mother that she loves despite the pain she causes her. She lives in desperate hope that her mother will leave her step-father and that life will return to it's previous happier state.

And perhaps it will.

Or perhaps her mother will go too far one day and her sad, bruised and battered body will be found dead.

Inadvertently 'Striking a Chord'.

2010-05-26T21:42:00.000+01:00

My previous post entitled 'Take the Axeman to Paxman' seems to have caused a bit of a stir! Nearly 2,000 people have read it - a record for an individual post!

Iain Dale featured it in his list 'Daily Half Dozen' yesterday and I emailed a link to the ~~Abusenight~~ Newsnight team yesterday - so I guess that also generated a bit of traffic.

It seems my thoughts on Paxman are shared by many. Newsnight take note!

Take the Axeman to Paxman

2010-05-25T20:06:00.001+01:00

I am absolutely sick of Jeremy Bleedin' Paxman.

Last night's episode of Newsnight was another example of this useless overpaid idiot needlessly and pointless just abusing and interrupting another politician - the result being that the viewer was not enlightened one bit about the days events.

Now I am no fan of Vince (questionable reputation) Cable. But to invite him on Newsnight following the announcement of the detailed breakdown of the governments initial £6 Billion cuts and simply deriding him for ten minutes for 'changing his mind' about the need for cuts now, rather than later, was just ludicrous. We learn't nothing of substance about the cuts and the economic circumstances - a total waste of everyone's time.

If this was an isolated event for this mindless moron, it might be forgiveable as a temporary lapse of judgement. But it wasn't was it? Paxman's 'stock in trade' is just mindless, repetitive abuse.

The pattern is predictable and dull:

First he thinks of the most awkward, vindictive and poisonous question he can muster and then about 3 seconds into the answer he interrupts the start of the answer and starts badgering with more and more pointless follow-up questions trying to box the interviewee into a corner, all the while interrupting them and speaking to them in the most ridiculous and derisory way that none of us would ever dream of speaking to another person unless.. well they had at least mutilated or murdered a fairly large proportion of our family.

Now there are extreme cases. Where individuals or elected representatives have behaved in a completely intolerable way and in this instance, the sort of derision that Paxman heaps on almost all of his 'guests' is perhaps appropriate.

But to do it almost daily to every politician he interviews is just indiscriminate, mindless and ludicrous.

Ironically, it was on Newsnight that Michael Howard memorably attacked Alastair Campbell for having devalued and debased politics. But he could just as easily have turned his fire on Paxman.

Now Alastair Campbell has finally been sent to rot in hell it's about time someone did the same for Paxman.

His attitude is intolerable. There is absolutely no excuse for abusing people in this way. If politicians are going to be expected to behave in ways that command, if not respect, then at least reasonable acceptance, treating them like something on the bottom of your shoe is not the way to go about it.

Just as Campbell denigrated politics by making it acceptable to lie and deceive and be completely dishonest with the electorate - so Paxman continues to denigrate politics by making political discourse an arena in which he displays complete contempt for politicians of all parties.

The relevance and importance of politics, and the standing of politicians will only improve when extremist media lunatics like Paxman are consigned to the scrapheap.

Scepticism, or even a degree of cynicism is acceptable, but repetitive, mindless abuse of politicians - constant attempts to make them look stupid rather than discussing the issues is as much of a destructive force in this democracy as was the era of spin.

Boris Johnson was the only one to have ever have comprehensively beaten Paxman. Facing one of Paxman's tirades of abuse, Boris hit back with an attack. He pointed out that Paxman is a crazily overpaid public servant - reputed to 'earn' a million a year. Boris badgered him back and kept on questioning him on this point in exactly the same way that Paxman repeatedly badgers his interviewees and tries to make them look stupid.

And Paxman really did look stupid. The response from the BBC was to delete the exchange from it's later published programme on i-Player...

So. If you are looking for cuts George then just get the BBC to sack that idiot Paxman and lets start having some sensible political conversations. oh and save a million quid a year at the same time!

And Crick. Don't think I haven't noticed. I am watching you too.

First Past the Proportional Post Anyone?

2010-05-23T23:13:00.000+01:00

At some point in the future we are promised a vote on changing the electoral system from the current First Past the Post system to an AV (Alternative Vote) system - such as was used to elect the London Mayor.

This is something that the Liberal Democrats get very excited about. They have for years and years lamented the fact that their share of the vote in parliamentary elections only translates into a relatively smaller number of seats in Parliament. And whilst AV would not create proportional representation they generally feel it would be 'a step in the right direction' before going to full PR.. I am not sure it necessarily follows but they seem convinced.

It's not difficult to appreciate the frustration that the Lib-Dems feel. It's the same kind of frustration that anyone would feel if they kept running races and wound up almost always coming second or third, and hardly ever winning.. it's just a bit demoralising. In fact it's so demoralising that they seem to have half given up the possibility of ever winning much more so they instead want to change the rules so that the losers get more credit - perhaps they should just concentrate on winning races?

I think this is a component of a wider confusion in the current Lib Dem approach.

The Lib Dems should be the champions of 'democracy' - it's even in the name! And they should be all about accountability but we know that they are very pro-Europe, which we all know is not very democratic or accountable.

The impact that the current PR system that we use for electing Members of the European Parliament has on the electorate is significant. It's partly responsible for the general lack of interest in Europe. Because when we vote in European elections, we vote for a party and then the people who get elected are taken from a party list in proportion to the number of votes their party gets.. so no-one focusses on individual MEPs and therefore no-one really makes any kind of personal decision about who they want to be represented by. Which is partly why turnout in European elections is so low. The who am I voting for? and why am I voting for them? questions are difficult to ask - let alone answer.

Until Dan Hannan started beating Gordon Brown up in Europe and Nigel Farage started abusing johnny foreigner and crashing light aircraft most people never knew what an MEP looked like - or cared.

So why does this party with it's great traditions and achievements (albeit limited recently) not just focus itself on the achieving what is now within it's grasp.

The 2010 General Election has handed the Liberal Democrats a huge opportunity to change the way the electorate vote.

If they can do two things right then there is no reason why they can't start regularly winning races:

1) Prove they are capable of governing - by achieving results.

2) Exposing the failure, deceit and incompetence of Labour and it's betrayal of it's supporters.

I hope the Lib-Dems start developing a bit more ambition. They should cast aside thoughts of trying to change the system to suit their inability to win and instead just do what is necessary to win.

Which simply means again becoming the second great party of British politics and beating back Labour into third place and, in the fullness of time, into oblivion.

There's no logical reason why, in historical terms, the Labour party should be remembered as anything other than a force in 20th century politics, that fizzled out when it's ideologies were finally proved to be fatally flawed and corrupt.

The Big Spending Cuts Challenge.

2010-05-14T10:35:00.000+01:00

The new Cameron government has now looked at the books, gulped, and is now going to spend the next few weeks trying to work out exactly how to reduce spending in the quickest but least painful way possible - without putting lots of people out of work and without slashing public services. In other words trying to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater..

A couple of years ago I spent a year working as a consultant to a small group of management consultants who specialised in exactly this area - working with local government and large and medium sized businesses. My job was to help them sell and market their capabilities - so I spent a lot of time understanding their methodologies and getting hands-on-experience:

The first and most obvious way to save money, is to look at reducing external spending - i.e. the money that is not spent internally on salaries and people but on buying goods and services externally. These savings tend to be easier and faster to achieve than 're-deploying' or making internal staff redundant but when major cuts are needed can be a very useful complement to this.

There are four key levers as follows - these apply to both external procurement and internal cost cutting.

Consolidation - Essentially consolidating purchases of same or like items in order to buy them more competitively (i.e. leveraging volume). The same applies to like or similar functions in an organisation - e.g. consolidating functions to reduce management costs.

Negotiation - Essentially getting better deals for goods or services by going out to the market and re-negotiating. Most organisations buy habitually from a limited number of suppliers - there is almost always scope to reduce costs simply by going out to the market. It follows that you first consolidate volume and then negotiate to achieve better value based on volume.

Specification - Essentially analysing the key needs and requirements for any given product, service or organisational function and stripping it down to the essential outcomes or outputs it must deliver. This can very often deliver surprisingly significant savings - over-specification is a classic scenario particularly following periods when plenty of cash has been available.

Structure - Essentially re-structuring the way in which functions are performed to make them more efficient, less labour intensive and less costly to resource.

These four levers are described in order - i.e. the first levers are the easiest to use but are less likely to result in dramatic savings than the later levers.

In practice, most time is usually spent on specification and structure - i.e. working out how to re-configure functions in order to deliver the essential requirements in the most effective way possible...

A Message for Melanie

2010-05-13T10:16:00.001+01:00

An old friend, Melanie sent me the following message last night. She is a single Mum with two young girls. She lives in Petersfield in Hampshire with her partner Jules:

Rob, I've followed this as much as I can...Cameron and Clegg are working together...can you please explain really quickly how I'll benefit from this new coalition? or a Conservative government? I'll be honest i didn't read the tory manifesto ? tell me? what good will happen..how can this man possibly put the country back on track? Ok labour screwed up...? on many occassions? but is it all their fault? and how can DC put it right?

So here is my reply - not sure I can do 'really quickly' as your question is quick to ask but not to answer - but this is my best shot:

Mel,

Here is my take. Yes largely the problem that needs solving has been caused by Labour. In 1997, at the end of the last Conservative government, the economy was in a good state - no big debts (comparatively) and very competitive compared to other nations and we had comparatively efficient public services. And then in 1999 Labour started spending like crazy. In 1997 government spending was approx £320 Billion per year and if it had risen by the rate of inflation, by 2009 it would have been around £430billion. Instead in 2009 it was £638billion.

Now. This would not have been a problem if the amount of tax coming in had covered it and for a while it did. But one major reason that the amount of tax coming increased for a while was that Gordon Brown allowed the UK banks to start lending vastly increased amounts of money - effectively just printing money (really it's pretty much that simple), then taking a proportion of it as profit - which in turn was then taxed - creating bigger tax receipts in total which made it look okay for government spending to increase..

But this house of cards was always going to collapse and it did in 2008 with the banking crisis.

So where are we now?

Well we have a huge number of people employed in the public sector (i.e. working for the government or in the health service, education etc etc) and the Labour government have left us with a big spending problem. Currently the government is spending approx £500million per DAY more than it gets in tax..

So what needs to happen?

The simple answer is cut spending. But it has to be done sensibly. Just cutting spending by massive amounts instantly would just put lots of people on the dole - costing the government even more money because they would be claiming benefits and not paying tax. But basically the economy needs to be 're-balanced' - we need to decrease the number of people employed in the public sector and increase the number of people in the private (business) sector. To avoid doing this too quickly taxes will have to rise a bit in the short - but not really for the lower income earners.

The Labour party will no doubt start shrieking about reductions in public expenditure as they happen, but the reality is that public services didn't improve when Labour increased spending - schools didn't get better and hospitals weren't even clean! So, there is plenty of inefficiency and waste that can be cut-out.

It's going to take innovation - 'getting more for less' in simple terms in the public sector, but also in the private sector. The government needs to create an environment where British businesses can succeed by providing incentives and make sure investment is available for UK businesses - and of course making the labour (people) available rather than just employing them in the public sector.

Things are not hopeless. Fortunately, in part thanks to the running battle that the Conservatives fought over the last 13 years, we never did join the Euro so as the pound has reduced in value, compared to other currencies, it gets cheaper for people other countries to buy goods and services from the UK - creating profits and taxes.

The 5 year deal that the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have done makes a lot of sense. If they were constantly anticipating another election they would find it very difficult to work together because they would be wanting to criticise each other openly to illustrate differences in approach - so that come election day people would be able to choose which of them to vote for. But now we know they can work together for a good 3-4 years before they start having to think about the next election.

So how quickly will you benefit?

Well the major 'benefit' you will get is the country avoiding financial disaster - and that is an immediate benefit. We have huge debts left behind by Labour and they need paying off at sensible rates - currently the interest on government debt is roughly the same per year as total spending on education (it's big!). The financial markets are confident in the new government and so the amount of interest to be paid will probably not increase much.

But your kids will benefit positively. The changes in education that are planned will drive up the quality of education by introducing competition and driving up standards of teaching. My MP, Michael Gove is the man leading this. He is deeply passionate about it. I can't explain it all here but you can watch thise video below for a flavour of it.

Realistically, my kids are too old to benefit from the changes. By the time the major impact feeds thro' they will be at the end of their education. But yours will and if Michael is successful there will be far less of a difference between 'private' education and 'public' (state) education.

And this is really something worth working for. It is not going to be a Labour government who create equality of opportunity for children (despite weight of expectation and 13 long years to do it - they didn't even get started), its going to be a Conservative one in coalition.

I am positive about it. Look forward with well grounded hope and expectation. That's my advice.

Lots of love to you, the girls and Jules.

R

Is the Right Right or is the Right Wrong?

2010-05-12T19:22:00.000+01:00

I have been scanning the Conservative blogs today to see the reactions to the newly formed Conservative / Liberal Democrat Government.

There is a bit of a Marmite factor developing out there. Some Conservatives love it and others hate it. One of my local Conservative Councillors absolutely hates it! - see here.

Those who are looking at it negatively are being grouped as being 'on the right' and those who look at it positively are being defined as being 'on the left'.

So does that mean because I am looking at it positively that I am on the left?

Nah. I can't define my views in that simplistic way.

I just think it is the only practical answer and if you can't apply yourself positively to something new and largely unknown then there's not much point in moaning and being destructive. It's not like anyone knows for sure if this government will work or not - but we all know it must if this country is to succeed in the short-mid term.

Its also worth remembering that whilst we have adversarial politics in the UK, it is only a device for scrutiny and competition. Politics gets too tribal when it reaches the point of hatred. It becomes dogmatic and thoughtless. Good politics happens when ideas are shared and the creative sparks fly.. that's when the best solutions are sought and found.

There's a chance that this new and highly experimental form of government could just create a new kind of approach to politics that the electorate have been yearning for, for years and years..

We are going to have competition not just in the political forum but also in the governmental forum - in other words, I hope, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats with a wealth of different ideas, viewpoints and perspectives are going to be competing in government to deliver the very best performance.

So lets all give it a chance of flying.

The Cherry on the Cake

2010-05-12T14:51:00.000+01:00

Another birthday present arrives!:

Michael Gove confirmed as Secretary of State for Education.

Excellent News!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is what Michael has worked for, for the last 3 years - for him it's a day of destiny and a prize and an opportunity he greatly, greatly deserves.

It's emotional.

What About Michael?

2010-05-12T10:08:00.000+01:00

The blogosphere has been alive with speculation about Michael Gove's future.

Here's my guess.

David Cameron values and rewards loyalty and knowing how loyal and honest Michael is, I suspect Cameron will be doing everything he can to get the job for Michael that he wants.

There has been lots of speculation that Michael will become Home Secretary leaving Laws to do Education. But the No2 slot at the Treasury is also free assuming that Vince Cable's position will not be No2 but will be a role involved with the banks and business. It appears that Phillip Hammond (Shadow Treasury No2) has gone to work and pensions.

So. The possible scenario is Laws becomes No2 at the Treasury (I'm not sure George would want Vince looking over his shoulder but Laws would be ok) making it possible for Michael to do the job he is so passionate about..

But I reckon it's down to negotiations with Nick Clegg this morning and there may be other factors involved..

A Perfect Day

2010-05-12T09:10:00.000+01:00

The sun is shining.

I awoke this morning with a Conservative Prime Minister in charge.

and it's my birthday!

Does it get any better than this?

At Last

2010-05-11T21:42:00.001+01:00

I feel like I have been holding my breath for 13 years. At last we have a Conservative Prime Minister!

But it is a 'bitter-sweet' victory.

Why?

Because early reports are saying that David Laws (LibDem) has the job of Sec of State for Children Schools and Families - which means Michael Gove does not..

That hurts. A lot.

But. Michael is a star with a long political career ahead - if he wants it. And this setback need only be a minor bump in the road in the context of his future achievements in government.

Are Labour Withdrawing their Deal?

2010-05-11T11:12:00.002+01:00

Peter Hain has just been on Sky saying that Labour's offer to the LibDems is not automatic AV it's a referendum on it.

This has changed or Hain is wrong.

A Little History Lesson

2010-05-11T10:07:00.002+01:00

Exactly 70 years ago our forces were in full battle with the enemy (in France and the low Countries as it happens).

The enemy strategy consisted of two major operations:

Fall Gelb (Translation: Case Yellow): An operation to cut off our forces

Fall Rot (Translation: Case Red): A broader and wider outflanking operation against us.

The result could easily have been the wholesale destruction of our forces. But despite the onslaught from the enemy the majority of our forces fought a fighting retreat and were evacuated in the famous operation Dynamo (at Dunkirk).

It was a situation in which we desperately wanted victory but took the judgement that defeat of the enemy was unlikely and if we staked everything on this battle then our forces, and our future war making capacity, might be completely wiped out. So we retreated..

But let's not confuse past history with now. We cannot retreat now from this onslaught.

Our forces have to stand and fight from where they are. We need victory now. Not a nation starving for 4-5 years with the frail hope of a future victory.

Its time to make history, not read it.

But there is one parallel worth noting. The retreat from Dunkirk was only possible by galvanising the forces of the public. The 'little ships' operation in which our political leaders rallied the people to come out was a decisive factor.

This could be the key again. If our Conservative political leaders can galvanise the efforts of the public to demonstrate against another illegitimate Labour government - the whole thing could swing back in their favour.

But. Like Dunkirk, time is of the essence.

A Birthday Gift Suggestion

2010-05-11T08:56:00.000+01:00

It is my birthday tomorrow.

But what do I wish for?

HOW ABOUT A NEW PRIME MINISTER!!! £42RF£$&*&

Come on David. Sort it out. NOW.

Balls Up?

2010-05-10T19:41:00.000+01:00

They used to say that a week is a long time in Politics. I think that needs a reassessment.

I reckon it's now '4 days is an eternity in Politics'.

At this time 4 days ago (Thursday night) people were speculating that Ed Balls would lose his parliamentary seat and be out of national politics.

4 days later people are speculating that he could be Labour's second unelected PM.

I want to emigrate. Now.

Conservative Electoral Reform?

2010-05-10T18:04:00.001+01:00

How about a Conservative led Campaign for Electoral Reform?

The campaign would have the objective of enshrining one simple principle in our system:

Whoever wins the race gets the 1st prize: provides the Prime Minister and forms a government.

The idea that, as now, the losers can try and form a government of the losers is disgusting.

Is Clegg Driving the Nation off the Edge of the Cliff?

2010-05-10T17:36:00.000+01:00

Ok. So Brown has now broken his silence - signalling that it's now the Labour party's turn to open negotiations - which in turn signals that a Conservative / Lib Dem deal is looking very unlikely.

Sounds like naive ultra hard-ball to me. Clegg is trying to call Cameron's bluff and is prepared to cause fear and possibly panic in the markets to add power to his elbow - as it were.

Trouble is, any possible future Conservative / Lib-Dem Coalition or alliance will need good-will to work. And if Clegg behaves in a way that the Conservatives or the wider electorate find intolerable then that goodwill will evaporate - not just for a Conservative Lib Dem deal but for any deal. If he lets things slide for a day or two then there will be no going back for him, no future for the Lib Dems as a credible partner in anyone's government, and people will take to the streets.

For Clegg even to be considering a deal in which Brown is PM for one more minute than is absolutely necessary, let alone for months is absolutely abhorrent. He needs to turn back from this path very, very quick.

I will have absolutely no hesitation to take to the streets. We have had an election. We have had a clear winner, we only lack a majority for a government. So if the Lib Dem's have blown the chance they have been given to work as part of a government then there is no second option. For them to be complicit in allowing Brown to remain in government would be intolerable.

We have just had an election - NOT a referendum on PR.

I think minds need to be focussed. Perhaps a prominent Conservative with a big voice should call for us to take to the streets. A couple of hundred thousand people chanting 'Out, Out, Out' in Downing Street tomorrow or the next day should do it.

Touching a Raw Nerve

2010-05-08T23:55:00.002+01:00

Earlier this evening I was chatting to an expensive dental surgeon, who works in the M4 corridor area, about the General Election result. He said he was shell-shocked by the result - couldn't believe it had worked out as a hung parliament.

But he also said that he had been talking to clients in the last couple of days since, who described themselves as being typically Conservative voters - but many had voted Labour because they had bought the idea that voting for Gordon meant stability and avoiding a slip into a worse recession.. They are now realising their mistake.

Ouch.

1000 Labour Supporters Have Spoken

2010-05-08T15:49:00.000+01:00

Billy Bragg (Highly Tribal Labour Supporter) has just turned up with 999 mates outside the Lib Dem meeting and demanded that Nick Clegg comes out and speak to them.

They are demanding 'Fair Votes' - PR basically.

And now Clegg has come out to speak to them.

Nick. Just ignore the Labour party willya - they are the past not the future.

What Will the Books Say?

2010-05-07T19:14:00.000+01:00

Yesterday and today were historic days. As I write this, we are finally on the cusp of getting rid of what I suspect will go down as the most disastrous Labour government ever – and possibly the last.

I so clearly recall John Major’s defeat in 1997. He went off to the Cricket while Labour posed and preened themselves in front of the cameras and created an almost convincing atmosphere of renewal, hope and expectation.

But Labour supporter’s and voter’s hopes were dashed. The vision proved to be an illusion. Blair looked the part, walked the walk, sounded the part but couldn’t deliver. It was a high profile ego trip that concealed the beavering efforts of the manic Gordon Brown who hid in the shadows deluding himself and others that he was doing the rights things with our economy – when really his actions were leading to its near destruction and he was playing a major role in unhinging the entire global financial system.

Despite the Conservative’s warning in 2005 ‘Vote Blair get Brown’, Blair won his third term and then, as predicted, and despite his previous commitments promptly handed over to Brown in 2007 who had managed to extend his own delusions of his own capability to his entire political party – who chose to let him take charge without a leadership election.

But he was never going to win a General Election. Even surrounded by the most cunning and clever vote winning team in UK political history his inadequacy came through...

But so convincing and pervasive are many of the illusions that they created for him that today they still persist.

Yesterday, the overwhelming majority of the electorate had absolutely no idea of the horrific state of our public finances and so many of them voted Labour still in thrall to the idea of Gordon the economic genius.

But as soon as Cameron ‘Seals the Deal’, not with the electorate, but with Nick (oh God I hope he does) I assume one of the very next jobs will be to ‘open the books’ and reveal the true economic picture.

And as the awful truth sinks in, the act of opening the Financial Books will re-write the History books.

Finally we will all know the truth and will all be able to start working on the solution.

But it’s going to seem strange having over 250 Labour MPs in parliament – what will be the point of them?

A New Perspective - The Clouds Lift.

2010-05-07T16:13:00.001+01:00

Disgruntled. Sophie and I went to the Half Moon pub in Windlesham for a drink and a bit of lunch as soon as I had got my thoughts 'off my chest' with my last blog-post.

As we drove to the pub through the village the clouds hung heavily over the village and us. We found the Surrey Heath Conservative HQ team in the pub looking similarly miffed. It was a low point.

We mulled over the result, aware that as the clock ticked towards 2.30 we were going to miss David Cameron's scheduled statement regarding the outcome of the election.

Helga, the Half Moon's landlady, unexpectedly and very kindly invited Sophie and I to come into her private living room and watch Cameron's statement - we felt very honoured! Having spent so many hours on one side of the bar it was a strange experience being on the other side of it - a new and strangely refreshing perspective.

We sat with Helga by a large window in a slightly gloomy room and watched without great expectation...

And then Cameron appeared looking strong, refreshed and Prime Ministerial and laid out the situation and... put deal on the table for the Lib Dems - a deal they can accept and deal that, with a bit of negotiation, can be done..

It was a very welcome surprise and as it dawned on me that the only positive way forward that I could see was also being outlined by David Cameron, my mood lifted.

Fittingly at this moment, sunlight flooded into the room - as the sun finally came out.

From the bar the distant sound of D'ream's inappropriately named 'Things can only get better' track wafted in the air. Then a distant shout and it abruptly stopped.

Silence. And the sunlight kept filtering through the clouds.

P.S. Ok I admit it - the D'ream thing was a bit of poetic license. But the sunshine is for real.

Where Did it all Go Wrong?

2010-05-07T13:20:00.000+01:00

What a shockingly disappointing night. How I wish my last 'The Final Cut' post had proved to be wrong. But today I am in the same position as a large proportion of the Conservative membership - I have had serious misgivings about the approach taken to this campaign but was living in the futile hope that the Conservative leadership team knew better..

They didn't.

If the Conservatives wanted a clear majority then they needed to communicate with the electorate honestly and openly about the key issues - the real state of the economy being the biggest of these. But the moment they started talking about the problem, they looked at the polling and ran scared from telling the electorate the truth about the horrifying state of the public finances. This was the wrong reaction. They massively under-invested in this winning strategy and then, when they unsurprisingly didn't get a massive early return, shied away from the honest truth. It was a failure of vision and leadership.

The simple underlying truth here is that 'honesty is the best policy' and the Conservatives didn't adopt it.

The leadership got wrapped up in this over simplification that they had to be 'positive' rather than 'negative' and they allowed themselves to interpret the idea of being honest with the electorate about the scale of the problem as being 'negative' - daft.

The result is that the wider electorate have been asked to make a decision without having the facts and worse, they know they haven't had the facts because the media have made it clear to everyone that they haven't. So people have been asked to be decisive without the facts needed to be so - and low and behold - the electorate have been indecisive!

So what now?

Do a deal with the Lib Dems.

If the Lib Dems think that governments can operate without clear majorities then let them prove that by demonstrating that strong government is possible as a result of collaboration between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. And then, when the electorate is better informed, let's have a referendum on a range of possible electoral systems.

What we need now is a strong, honest government. So let's form a coalition or an alliance and put the ball in the Lib Dem's court to prove that this can work.

If they had won 30 plus percent of the vote then they could have argued for a plunge into PR. But they didn't. So from their minority position let them demonstrate that strong governments are possible without clear majorities such as those most usually produced by first-past-the-post.

And use this as the glue to create the strong government that we have to have now to work in the national interest.

The Conservative membership will moan and grumble but tough. We held our tongues in the hope that DC knew what he was doing it. He didn't - but he still has the responsibility to lead the nation out of this.

Cameron. Get on with it. You have created this mess. Start leading us out of it.. or resign today.

The Final Cut

2010-05-05T22:49:00.000+01:00

This afternoon I nipped into the local hairdressers for a quick haircut.

I was the only customer there and so I fell into uninterrupted conversation with the three girls working there about tomorrow's General Election.

I asked one of them how she would be voting. She confidently responded with 'Conservative'. I asked her why and she said "Dunno really. I suppose it's a Conservative area isn't it? and that David Cameron - he seems quite nice".

As we talked about politics and various issues the girls started asking me questions about various things. One of them called Skye asked me:

"You know this debt thing they keep going on about. What's that all about then?"

"Well there are 2 issues. The first is that the Labour government have run up a massive debt - bigger than we have ever had. And the second is that they are spending way more every year than they get in tax - so the debt just keeps getting bigger and bigger."

"So how much more are they spending", Skye asked.

"About £500 Million" I said.

"500 Million Pounds!!!!", Skye exclaimed - completely shocked at my answer.

"Yes", I said, "They are overspending by about £500 million per day".

"Per DAY!!!" Skye screamed. "Right that's it then. I am definitely voting Conservative tomorrow!!".

And that just about sums it up for me. Tomorrow we have a General Election. It's the most important election for a generation and we have a solid Conservative team who could form a strong and highly capable government.

But the electorate really don't understand the problem - which is why they are not predisposed, in anything like the numbers needed for a decent working majority, to vote for the only viable solution...

It's a complete travesty and a tragedy.

Quote of the Day!

2010-05-05T09:56:00.000+01:00

I suppose I should wait for the end of the day to make this judgement but I don't think anyone will better it..

"PR! If that is Democracy then I am a Banana!"

Michael Gove, Today Programme around 8am this morning.

Looking for an alternative to 'Hung Parliament''

2010-05-04T21:22:00.000+01:00

There's an idea around that a 'Hung Parliament' would be a good thing.

Perhaps that is not surprising given how most people feel about Members of Parliament since the expenses scandal. The terms 'Politician' and 'Hung' seem to go together somehow.

Those in favour of a 'Hung Parliament' often refer to it as a 'Balanced Parliament' because it sounds somehow fairer, more even that way.

But those against don't seem to have managed to work out how to explain why a 'Hung Parliament' would not be fair or balanced or good. They seem to resort to just repeating that it would be a disaster - and are then accused of needlessly scaring people. Until they do explain why it would be a bad thing, it is unlikely that people will be moved to do much to avoid it.

So why would a 'Hung' or 'Balanced' Parliament be a bad thing?

Well. Imagine two organisations.

The first is run by a strong leader. The management team share a single vision that they have developed together over many years. They all know where they are going, they have a good idea how to get there and they have a clear plan to do it. When they hit a hurdle they work together to find a way around it. The atmosphere is positive, focussed and energetic.

The second has more than one person constantly vying to lead it. The management team have been thrown together as a result of compromise. There is no clear plan because there is more than one agenda and every time they hit a hurdle the organisation collapses into recriminations and in-fighting. The atmosphere is strained at best and everyone involves is constantly wishing they were somewhere else, part of another organisation, like for example - organisation 1!

Sounds pretty awful already doesn't it. But imagine you are a major investor who is already invested in UK PLC but in a few days time the organisation will become either a Type 1 organisation, or a Type 2 organisation.

If it becomes a Type 1 Organisation, you are likely to stay invested and to keep making your cash available to invest. You know the organisation has a huge debt burden but you also know that whilst the hurdles ahead are huge, the team will work together and do what needs to be done to eventually achieve the success that everyone wants. Whilst you will need to extend more credit before the team turn things around, you are confident that you will get your money back in the future.

But if it becomes a Type 2 Organisation you will run for the hills. You know that a divided team cannot succeed - you know teams that don't work together are not teams - just groups of individuals pulling in different directions with little hope of achieving what needs to be done - because they can't even agree on that. You will be looking to get out as fast as possible.

And that is exactly where we are at. The major investors in our economy, those who have lent our failed Labour Government vast amounts of cash and are currently lending us an additional £470million every day will, quite sensibly, just walk away, close down our lines of credit and go elsewhere and ask us to pay hugely increased interest on our existing debt mountain - crippling us in the process.

So the message is: Don't take voting lightly. If you want to create an 'Unholy Alliance' then vote Liberal Democrat or Labour.

Go on. Give Britain a fighting chance. Vote Conservative.

RE: A contract between the Conservative Party and Robin Horsley

2010-04-30T15:19:00.000+01:00

Just received an email from David Cameron offering me a contract with the Conservative Party!

See here.

I guess Dave is trying to 'Seal the Deal' so I have written back to explain my terms:

David,

Happy to enter into this contract with you but you mustunderstand that unless you give me the full detail of the spending cuts and/ortax rises that you plan after the election then I can’t vote for you or‘contract’ with you.

In other words, no terms of business, no contract.

Simple really isn’t it. Unless you really prove that you meanwhat you say below – e.g. that you really understand the feeling thatpoliticians have become too remote from the people and are prepared to startbeing honest now then I, and probably many thousands like me, are not going togive you the mandate you want.

I remind you, your colleague George Osborne told us a few monthsago that this election would be about a choice between ‘truth’ and ‘lies’.Instead it is a choice between lies and deceit. When everyone knows that thenational debt is horrific you have to make a choice between continuing to holdback on telling it like it is and giving everyone a solution to vote for.

As George Bush might have put it - I hope you have the cojonesto do it. Because unless you do, then not enough people will vote for you andthe best you could possibly hope for is a small majority and a mandate to dowhat you have pledged – i.e. nothing. The reality is you will probably justspend all your time arguing about the ‘balance’ in a hung parliament.

So, grab the moment David and prove you are a leader and make usan offer we can’t refuse.

Kind Regards.

Robin

Should Cameron Seal the Deal..with Clegg?

2010-04-30T09:09:00.000+01:00

In the final Leaders Debate last night, Nick Clegg said that regardless of the result of the election he proposed that all the three main parties get together afterwards and form a 'Council of Economic Stability'.

My immediate reaction was to laugh. What on earth would be the point of involving Gordon Brown in such a thing? Why on earth would anyone want the individual who destroyed the economy to pontificate about how to ensure it's stability!

But thinking about it I can see why Clegg proposes it. He knows from his own polling and focus groups that people don't see him as a potential PM, but a lot of people do want him to have a part in the future.

So perhaps David Cameron should agree - well sort of:

Perhaps he should say that if the Conservatives win an outright majority, they will involve the main opposition party (only the main opposition) in discussing economic policy - for the following reason.

1) Those people who want to give the Lib Dems some credit but don't think Clegg should be leader are more likely to vote Conservative knowing that he will have some kind of role.

2) Potential new voters or non-voters who want to register a protest and vote Lib Dem are less likely to vote for them (or probably anyone) if they think Clegg will get a role anyway.

3) DC can rightly point out that allowing the opposition to have access to economic data in the future would prevent the problem we have now - i.e. that whilst everyone knows that big spending cuts will be needed in the future, neither the Lib Dems or the Conservatives can tell us exactly how much and where because the Labour Government are keeping all the figures secret and are refusing to tell the political parties or the electorate. So it's a positive move towards honest and open government.

Probably worth some consideration.

The Gordon Brown Gaffe The Media Missed!

2010-04-29T09:59:00.001+01:00

This morning's newspapers are full of the story about Gordon Brown's gaffe of yesterday when, unaware that his microphone was still on, he privately called the now famous Mrs Duffy a 'bigot'.

But it was his public words which I think are more important, particularly bearing in mind tonight's Leaders Debate. When Gordon Brown was speaking (on camera - the BBC coverage) to Mrs Duffy and she started talking about the debt that Labour had created he responded to her by saying:

"We are going to cut the debt by half in 4 years."

Wasn't this public statement, particularly given tonight's Leaders Debate on the economy, the most newsworthy thing he said?

Why? Because it was the lie that Labour have continually been punting to the British public, but which Gordon Brown, until this point, has avoided repeating himself.

See clip here at approx 2:05:

Labour have no plans to reduce the debt whatsoever. They have a plan to reduce the annual overspend (the difference between the total taxation coming in and total government spending), also known as the annual deficit, but have absolutely no plan whatsoever to reduce the debt. In fact, as John Redwood point out here (see point 8), the fact is that they have a specific plan to DOUBLE the national debt in the next Parliament! And even after the next the end of the next Parliament they still plan to go on increasing the debt!

Labour have no plan to balance the books at all. And now even Gordon is lying to the electorate about it - even when he knows the Cameras and Microphones are on!

I think this issue encapsulates exactly where Cameron needs to hit Gordon hard tonight..

He needs to hit Labour hard on the two most vulnerable points:

1) Lies - 'They lied and spun their way into Government, the lied and spun in Government, and now they lie and spin about..'

2) Their Economic Disaster Story. A massive debt and NO PLAN TO REDUCE THE DEBT - just a plan to double it again.

It is vital that Cameron does not avoid attacking Brown through fear of the accusation that he also has no plans to reduce the debt. He simply needs to remind people of his Conservative Conference Speech in which he made it absolutely clear that Britain needs to pay off it's debt as soon as possible and explain that he has pledged an emergency budget immediately on taking office.

He can also simply remind the electorate that the reason he can't, other than talk about the areas in which he does not want to reduce spending, provide a detailed list of spending cuts until they have had an immediate spending review - something the Labour Government refused to do..

It's not 'positive' to avoid the subject of the national debt - it's 'negative'. It is however 'positive' to recognise the problem that everyone knows is there and recognise the need for a solution.

And anyway, you really can't turn up to a Leader's Debate on the subject of the economy and not talk about it - so you better have an angle. Mrs Duffy has provided not one, but two!

Waking to the Sound of...

2010-04-26T08:48:00.000+01:00

There are some wonderful sounds to awake to on a spring morning..

The sound of birdsong.

Waves gently lapping on an ocean shore

or my personal favourite..

The sound of Michael Gove on Radio 4 battering John Humphreys for creating a bogus story attacking Conservative Education policy.

Thanks Michael - a great start to the day!

The 2nd Debate

2010-04-22T21:53:00.000+01:00

David Cameron did the business. He looked credible, he delivered the detail and neutralised Clegg by turning the tables at crucial moments.

But his success was probably a story shared with Gordon's failure. Gordy made a mess of it. He did look desperate at certain points and he notably wandered into some really bizarre commitments:

1) The Death Sentence for Cheating MPs - Apparently according to Gordy 'no sentence is too great' for MPs who cheat the system. Really bizarre!

2) No 2nd Jobs for MPs - Apparently no Labour MPs can have second jobs now! - a big commitment.

Increasingly it now looks like a 2 horse race. I now think it is realistic that Cameron may be able to hold Clegg to a peak of 38-40 as his maximum polling figure before the election.

A good performance from DC and from Clegg - It's all to play for in the final furlong..

The Politics Shop

2010-04-22T12:21:00.000+01:00

Imagine you wander into a shop one day and find yourself confronted with three sales-assistants.

The First Sales Attempt

The first sales-assistant, wearing a red tie and a crumpled ill-fitting suit, approaches you from the depths of shop and asks you to look at the product he is promoting. You examine it and realise immediately it is a product that looks something like one you have used for many years and found to be expensive to maintain and largely unreliable. At times it has been so unreliable that you have been concerned that it will stop working completely but it has still managed to stagger on.

The sales-assistant implores you not to be put off buying his lovely new, updated product and is very keen to tell you that it will provide much better performance. But as he describes the new features in very vague terms you realise they amount to relatively little and the sales-assistant, as well as using strange hand-gestures and leering at you in a rather upsetting way, seems incapable of answering any searching questions. He simply waffles incoherently and avoids direct questions. You feel uncertain about what he is offering and he clearly doesn't want to describe it in detail.

As you wander away - he rounds on you and sneers. 'Watch out for the guy with the Blue Tie - don't believe a word he says!'

The Second Sales Attempt

A few minutes later the second sales-assistant, wearing a blue tie and looking generally well turned-out approaches. "Hi. Good to meet you" he says grabbing your hand, "Thanks for coming. Let me show you my product".

He glosses over the main capabilities and spends quite a lot of time talking about some gimicky features and shows you some flashing lights that he clearly thinks are quite impressive. As he speaks you notice a logo on the product and recall mixed reviews - some people have raved about the product and others say it was an absolute disaster. But the shiny-faced sales-assistant seems very friendly (if a little plumby) and so you decide to give his product a chance.

You start asking searching questions but rather than answer them, this guy starts repeating exactly what he has already said to you. He seems completely unprepared to answer your questions. He also starts using strange hand gestures and then looks at you pensively. You wonder why he is unprepared to make any detailed representations about the product (other than his pet gimmicky features)?

So you try a different tack. You ask him if his product is very different to the product sold by the red-tie-guy. His face immediately brightens. "Ah yes!" he says. "It is very different. A real..". he pauses for effect, "CHANGE" he announces, beaming. He seems to like the word "Change" and keeps repeating it in rather a strange way. But when you ask him to explain the differences, to justify the 'CHANGE', he smiles, repeats himself again and again starts making weird hand gestures. Although he is quite prepared to describe his favourite gimmick features to you again (all of which seem rather irrelevant) he just will not be drawn into discussion about the things you feel are important.

You walk away a little disappointed that a possible alternative to the red-guy's product (a similar version of which you already have) doesn't seem to be buy-able. As you leave, the blue-tie-guy warns you to watch out for the red-tie-guy. "He will say anything to make you believe in his product", he warns.

The Third Sales Attempt

A few minutes later you look around for the third sales-assistant. You notice him by the entrance to the shop where he is busily talking to passers-by and inviting them in to the shop. Some do walk in, and some are pounced on by the leering red-tie-guy. Quite a few of these people rapidly leave but others stay and walk around the shop.

The yellow-tie-guy turns around and sees you looking at him. He smiles warmly and, hand in pocket saunters over. "Hi, what are you looking for?" he asks. You notice he looks younger than his colleagues.

You explain that you just wandered into the shop out of curiosity to see what was on offer really.

"Ah I see", he says, "So have you found anything you like the look of?".

"Well", you summarise, "I have seen one product I already have but is coming to the end of it's life and the newer model doesn't seem to offer anything more and probably has a lot of the old disadvantages. And I have seen an alternative product that has some flashing lights..."

"So when you weigh up the features of those two products which do you prefer?", he asks.

"Hmm. The thing is I really don't know because neither of the other 2 guys are prepared to explain their product's features in any detail".

"I thought you might say that", the yellow-tie-guy says knowingly. "Let me show you my product..".

He proceeds to speak knowledgeably about his product. Some of the features look good and some look poor. Having answered all of your probing questions (some not absolutely completely - but hey he's young!) he turns to you and asks the ultimate question..

"So. Having looked at all the available alternatives which would you like to buy?"

You ponder for a moment and then say firmly, "I am not going to make a decision today. But my old product has reached the end of it's life and I have to make a decision about a new one in the next couple of weeks".

"And how are things looking for my product as things stand?" he asks as you both walk to the door.

You answer. "It's like this. You seem like a nice guy, you've told me about your product, you've answered all my questions and your colleagues just don't seem interested in explaining what they are offering. So things look pretty good for you right now". You notice the red-tie-guy and the blue-tie-guy at the back of the shop arguing with each other about something.

"But of course there is an alternative" you say feeling slightly harsh. "I could just not buy anything."

"Oh yes I know", the yellow tie guy says, "That's what the red-tie-guy and the blue-tie-guy have been banking on for years. You either buy nothing (in which case neither loses to the other) or when you really need to buy something you will buy from one of them. Which, to be fair, in the past most people have. They just spend most of their time trying to outdo each other."

"So what are you up to then?" you ask.

"Well as you may have noticed. This shop has seen better days. The number of people coming in has fallen. So the reason I am walking towards the door with you is because I am going out on to the street again looking for new customers that I can entice into the shop".

"But aren't you concerned that if you pull in the customers. They will just buy from the red-tie-guy or the blue-tie-guy? and they will just benefit from all your hard work."

"Not really" he says and then pauses and says thoughtfully...

"But if they did start explaining exactly what their products do I would be in trouble..."

A Critical Line of Attack for Cameron

2010-04-19T12:03:00.001+01:00

Over the last few days, I have been watching the unfolding hype and drama surrounding Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats looking for a major flaw in their approach.

Watching the media reports it has become clear that one of the Lib Dem 'Lines to Take' is to refer to the Conservatives and Labour as 'The Old Partys'. Clegg keeps saying it. His spokesperson team keep saying it on Sky, the BBC, ITV, everywhere, repeatedly. This positioning is now firmly embedded in the minds of the electorate. It infers that the Lib Dems are new and therefore represent a big change.

It's a lie. A great big whopper.

The Liberal party was established in the mid 1800's from the The British Whig Party of the late 1600's! The Liberal Democrats were formed from an amalgamation of the Liberals and a breakaway faction of Socialists from the Labour party!

So to infer that the Conservatives and Labour are the 'Old Partys' when the Liberals are so clearly formed from a party that first emerged in the late 1600s, and from a group of people from one of the so called 'Old Partys is patently absurd!

It might sound strange, but to the country at large who believe the Lib Dems really are a new 'breath of fresh air' this news will shatter that impression. Start thinking outside the Westminster village and this will start to make sense. Stick this in your focus group pipe and smoke it!

The lie represents an opportunity to:

1) Show Clegg up to be a liar. Someone who is deliberately positioning himself as the 'Change' guy on a false basis.

2) Drive the Labour leaning swing voters to the Lib Dems

3) Drive the Conservative leaning swing voters to the Conservatives.

I would suggest that DC says exactly the following in the next debate:

'I am sorry Nick, but I have seen and heard you and your team repeatedly referring to Conservatives and Labour as the 'Old Partys'. It is simply untrue. As we all know the Liberal Democrats was formed from the old Liberal Party, that goes back to the Whigs in the 1600's, and a small group of breakaway SOCIALIST Labour politicians!'

'So for you to pretend.... that your policy for blah blah blah is a new idea when it was something that failed in the 1950's or pretend that.....'

DC needs to re-establish himself as the genuine 'Change' option but to simply repeat it will not make them believe it. He needs to justify it and to take down the 'Young Pretender'.

So, to take down the Young Pretender, the critical Line to Take is to blow apart this 'Old Party's' line that the Lib Dems are punting to expose their dishonesty. Cameron will NOT get ahead with this but he will neutralise the threat, arrest it's development and can then go on to start winning the ground back.

By associating the Lib Dems accurately and honestly (and therefore sustainably) with 'Socialism' the left leaning undecided voters who don't object to the Clegg lie will vote Lib Dem. i.e. the Lab vote gets split.

But the right leaning people will have two good reasons to go Conservative - 1) Clegg is another liar politician who is trying to look like the new clean guy. 2) The Lib Dems are..... dreaded word.... 'Socialists!!!' yuk - this word still resonates negatively (remember how Blair used to try and sheepishly explain it away..)

The key word to repeatedly use is 'pretend'. Every Conservative who speaks about this issue and refers to the Lib Dems and their policies should embed the word 'pretend' or 'pretence' or 'pretender' in sentences about Lib Dems and their policies because Clegg and the Lib Dems are just that.

Expose the lie. The reason Clegg is doing well is because people really do want change and are prepared to believe in it.. Cameron hasn't described change properly, and seems like part of the problem, so he must unseat the pretend 'Change Guy' first and then start building the change message properly.

Perhaps the Lib Dem Obamaesque slogan should be 'Change you Really Want to Believe In but Can't Because You Know we are Lying to You'.

Catchy init.. not.

The Sky is the Limit?

2010-04-18T19:29:00.006+01:00

I went into Camberley this morning and found myself in conversation with a very engaging Sky TV salesman with a shocking hangover but who was full of the joys of spring nevertheless!

As I upgraded my Sky subscription with him to HD (High Definition) I asked him how business was. He told me that business was absolutely outstanding! He explained that his sales target is 25 'sign-ups' per month and that this weekend he had sold a staggering 24 by 11.00 o'clock on Sunday morning!

He didn't seem able to explain this sudden, hugely unexpected bounce in demand other than some technical difficulty that some local people were having with their Virgin TV boxes, but was clearly enjoying it immensely. He explained he was going for what he called 'A Big Fat Barbeque' after work and was going to get horribly drunk to celebrate!

It took me a while to work it out but then I realised.. Of course.. The Leader's TV debate on Thursday is on Sky.. and the hype surrounding the last debate is driving people to sign-up for Sky TV so they can watch the next one..

David Cameron needs to ensure that this debate is Nick Clegg's high-point and then really turn things around in the last debate.. If I recall it correctly, this debate is based on world-affairs. So, Nick is going to have a huge audience and he is going to be able to play his Wild Card - 'The Iraq' factor. (i.e. only his party opposed it). Unless he loses the plot, he cannot fail to win a huge amount of support. I would be very surprised if the polling figures next weekend don't show him in the low to mid 40s.

But Cameron must not attack Clegg personally.. he will just set people against him. Instead he must be moderately kindly in his approach to him. But, he must also spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about his party and it's policies.

Rather than lashing out at Clegg. He must say 'I am sorry Nick but' when attacking Clegg's policies or approach as if to say 'I like your enthusiasm but it really just will not work..' DC needs to build on the foundation he built in the last debate as a statesman not confuse everyone by changing his approach.

The temptation in this kind of 'sales scenario' (when suddenly a competitor manages to put themselves unexpectedly in 'pole-position') is to lash out and start blustering.. it never works. You just lose credibility. Instead, you should listen attentively to understand what it is that the competitor has offered to cause the reaction and then start breaking the view down with FUD - basically start disassembling the competitor's arguments and show the punter that you understand what they want and that what YOU have to offer is the best way of achieving it..

One clip that keeps being replayed from the TV debate is the one where DC says something like:

'I hope to help lead this country'.. Horribly weak language - you may get what you wish for and only 'help' lead! DC should be saying 'I will lead'. If DC leaves a vacuum then Clegg will fill it...

It's not just the Lib-Dems who are benefiting from the Leader's Debates is it?

Many are wondering why Cameron agreed to the debates. Perhaps there is a connection between Cameron agreeing to Sky's debate proposal and the Murdoch empire's support for the Conservatives. Without DC's support the debates could not have gone ahead - because he was the only one with something to lose.

Did Cameron get hoodwinked by Sky?

By the way, the name of the Sky TV Salesman was coincidentally..

Yes you guessed it.

Nick.

The Leader's Debate - Performance Improvement Tips

2010-04-15T22:56:00.002+01:00

Advice for DC.

What to keep doing. What to stop doing. 3 simple points in order of priority.

Keep Doing:

Avoid watching other questioners answering questions - it made Clegg look like he was looking to DC for answers at one point.

Look statesmanlike. Stance and Poise was Great.

Address Audience directly.

Stop Doing:

Drop the 'we' when talking about what the government has being doing. Use 'they'! Very important not to sound like the mistakes of government are your fault! - this was a repeated issue throughout. (No1 criticism).

Long pre-amble when answering question. Good for empathy but cut down a little otherwise insufficient time to deliver a real answer.

Letting Clegg get away with hijacking 'Change' positioning. Exploit Cleggs inexperienced look.

General Observations.

DC did well. Ran Clegg reasonably close. The horse has bolted as far as Clegg is concerned. He now has the exposure. DC notably did not interrupt or talk-over anyone in the debate. He was courteous. I am in 2 minds about this? Should he challenge more?

It's now a 3 party system. So DC needs to really rise above the other 2 in a much bigger way or a majority looks unlikely.

Why not use the debates to announce some new policy? That would really throw the opposition and knock them sideways. Perhaps a tactic to save for the last debate?

From the Mouth of a Babe - The Conclusion from the Debate

2010-04-15T22:32:00.000+01:00

I have just watched the 1st Leader's Debate with Dani my 13 year old daughter.

She watched the whole thing but did get a bit bored during the economy section.

Here is her verdict:

Gordon Brown - Acting. Tried to make jokes to make himself popular but not funny. Looked weird trying to agree with Clegg.

Nick Clegg - Young and kind of new to it. Good ideas. Enthusiastic. Good Sense of Humour. Didn't hesitate when answering. Some ideas a bit outrageous and not practical.

David Cameron - Communicated to the audience, good ideas and described them well. Practical ideas. But copied with Nick Clegg did when trying to see who questioner was - bit pathetic.

Dani had an interesting reaction to the ties. She described Cleggs as 'Gold' (good point - not yellow!), DC's as strong colour and GB's as weak pinky colour!

Her final verdict out of 10:

David Cameron - 8.5
Nick Clegg - 8.5
Gordon Brown - 2!

So, being on the fence if you had to decide on who should be the next PM??

The answer?

Nick Clegg.

Hmm.

Gordon Finally Admits Catastrophic Error

2010-04-14T10:01:00.000+01:00

The big news this morning is that finally after years of denial, Gordy Broontroosers has finally admitted he failed to regulate UK banks properly. He says he was seduced by the argument from the banks that they needed less regulation and he ignored wider interests.

This is potentially a hugely damaging admission.

So why do it?

Well I guess he was advised that as most people think he did make mistakes, it was better to admit them in the hope that at least by being honest he would regain some credibility.

It's possible that this could be good advice - It's up to the Conservatives to ensure that it was bad advice.

In others words, the Conservatives need to demolish Brown over this. They need to point out the horrifying ramifications of this failure. They need to ram home the dishonesty of not admitting it until, curiously, now. They need to point out that Brown's failure was a critical causal failure in the worldwide banking crisis.

The reality is that whilst the US may have been trying to flog dodgy mortgage debt to the world it would not have been possible unless the City of London had relaxed the rules enough to allow them to 'print' vast amounts of money on the flimsy pretext that their lending was supported by assets (the now worthless US properties that have fallen in value by such a huge extent).

Gordy Madoff needs to be exposed for what he is. Because this is the reality of what happened. Rather than running as a future PM, Gordy should now be following up his admission of guilt with deep and sincere apologies to all those European Countries that are in such trouble now. He should be hounded out of office...

But who wins?

Is it the Conservatives? Well. Despite George Osborne's great performance in the recent debate there are still substantial concerns about Conservative economic competence. They have diminished though. So if the Conservative team, whilst attacking Gordon, can point to warnings they gave (Ken Clarke did warn against the FSA setup) they should be able to position themselves as the solution to this problem.

Isn't it curious that Brown has made this admission immediately before the Lib Dem manifesto launch?

Just as the camera is directed on the Lib Dems they have the opportunity to position themselves as the solution to the problem.. you couldn't make it up.

Winning the Efficiency Debate

2010-04-13T23:57:00.000+01:00

Today's disappointing news is that the polls have narrowed - one shows the Conservatives with only a 3% lead. Hopefully today's Conservative manifesto launch will play positively and push things in the right direction...

One of the widespread concerns about any future government is how they will deal with the deficit (the annual overspend). Everyone knows that whoever is in government, reductions in spending will be neccesary.

Over many years the Labour party have consistently characterised the Conservative party as being hard and heartless. The constantly repeated mantra's such as 'unemployment is price worth paying' (a Norman Lamont quote) have fairly firmly positioned the Conservatives in this way.

This creates a fear that in government, the Conservatives would cut spending and in so doing would create misery and mass unemployment, and the Labour party are not missing any opportunity to drive this point home. Again today, Gordon Brown rammed this home in his reaction to the Conservative manifesto. It works. It creates fear of recession, unemployment and misery.

So how should the Conservatives deal with this?

Should they ignor (like Labour are) the 'elephant in the room'. Should they try and get thro this entire campaign without really talking about reducing spending or should they address the issue?

My argument is that they should address it because unless they do, and address the pre-conceptions that Labour have positioned they will not be able to overcome the electorate's reservations.

But how should they do this?

Well here's my attempt to change the basis of the debate:

The first thing to really properly challenge is the idea that a reduction in spending means a reduction in public services.

Eh? But how could you possibly make an argument that you can reduce spending without cutting services? Surely if you cut spending you cut services exactly as when you increase spending you improve services?

Herein lies the key.

Let's look at the last 13 years. Bear with me on this...

In 1997 we had a booming economy. The dilapidated buildings, shabby streets and poor public services of the late 1970's and the early 1980's (the legacy of Labour's Winter of Discontent) had been finally eradicated after some turbulent and difficult years. By every major economic indicator the UK had been turned around from being 'the sick man of Europe' to a stable, highly competitive economy. Government spending in 1997 was £318 Billion.

From 1999, after Labour came to power in 1997 and abandoned the balanced approach to Government spending established by the Conservatives, spending shot up. Not just a bit, but massively.

If government spending had simply kept pace with inflation since 1997 by 2009 it would have stood at around £430 Billion. But in fact by 2009 government spending stood at a staggering £638 Billion. So, even allowing for inflation, government spending increased by around 50%!

And so, presumably having increased spending by 50%, public services have improved by 50%? Because in exactly the same way as when you reduce spending services are cut, when you increase it the quality of services increases?

Ahh. This is where the preconception falls apart. Because we all know that a staggering increase in spending has not resulted in a staggering increase in public services. In fact, in many instances the opposite is true. Education standards have fallen, violent crime has risen, measures to improve social mobility have failed and gone backwards, and people are still dying in hospitals, not from disease but because the hospitals STILL are not clean despite huge increases in public spending.

So where did the money go?

Well, rather than the quality of public services being driven up by demands to increase efficiency and outcomes by striving for the development of increasingly better ways of doing things - the Labour government niaively threw money at them.

So how did this help people deliver better outcomes?

It didn't - obviously. Labour belatedly tried to impose a lot of crude top-down targets but the reality was that with more money to spend, public services didn't improve in quality. No-one was motivated to continue to drive efficiencies or plan improvements - they just didn't need to..

It's simple stuff really. If you want people to do more, you don't just give them more money and hope they will deliver. You explain what you want, you ask them to create a plan for acheiving the goals and then having stress tested the plan, you supply the resources needed to achieve the plan.. you don't just give them the cash and hope and then try and measure how much they are failing to achieve the results established in a plan that never existed!

So. Are our public services bloated and inefficient? Yes. But this doesn't mean that people working as public servants are lazy. Far from it. Many work incredibly hard but spend a massive amount of time dealing with imposed procedures, time-wasting process, box ticking, reporting and analysis rather than just delivering the required outcomes.

But surely it can't be true. Surely we can't just save money by changing the way things are done in the public sector?

Yes absolutely.

Public sector spending has increased by 50% in a little over 10 years in real terms but without any appreciable increase in output - so 'relative waste' must exist.

If you can increase spending and get no change in output then why can't you, following this, reduce spending without substantially changing the outputs?

If the last 13 years had been highly efficient years in which every penny had been pinched and every efficiency had been driven, every wasteful cost cut then it would be very difficult... but the last 13 years have been ones in which the oppositive has been true.

But does it represent a challenge?

Yes. Of course. It will not be easy but clearly, with the right team, it is acheivable.

We need a government with some pedigree and capability to drive this change. We need a government made up of a broad range of high acheiving (and well educated) people with a good mix of public sector and private sector experience. People who have acheived organisational success before...

Not people who know how to throw money at problems but people who have the vision and understanding to do things better. People who are not constrained by the beleif that if you simply throw money at things they will improve.

And with that team, and that approach, people can migrate from the public sector to the private sector and fuel the next period of growth. There's no need to be fearful of unemployment. The last thing a Conservative government wants to do is create costly unemployment - currently there is a shortage of people in the private sector. We need to get people from the public into the private sector to fuel the growth and prosperity we need.

Nuff sed.

The Battle Between Good Sense and Prejudice

2010-04-12T21:20:00.000+01:00

I just watched David Cameron's interview with Mark Austin on ITV.

It was moving.

Having seen 'teary eyed' pictures of David Cameron on the front on newspapers today I was half-expecting something a bit cringe-worthy. But the reality was that he came across with a depth of honesty and feeling that is completely unmatched by anyone else who has been exposed to, or by, the media in politics for... well maybe almost for ever.

Anyone who watched him talking about the life and death of his son Ivan and felt cynical about his words then they really must be suffering from a deep and perverse degree of cynicism or a heart of stone.

Many people express the view that these kind of interviews are undesirable. They are intrusive and even corny - we don't need to delve into the inner-most psyche of politicians. To do so is strange, perverse and distasteful. And those politicians who expose themselves in this way are simply prostituting themselves for power..

Nonsense.

The level of general and justifiable public scepticism, as a direct result of the broken promises, 'sleaze', spin, total insincerity and corruption of politicians, political parties and the political system means that we can no longer make sound judgements on the basis of policy or presentation.

A politician's word is worthless. Policy pronouncements are virtually meaningless. We really don't believe that policies are anything more than the loosest, insincere, untrustworthy advertising messages from highly discredited brands.

So to make our decisions about the people, from the realistically limited options available, that we think should run our country, we have to plumb greater depths than simply looking at policy or listening to spin..

So it is necessary for those who wish to be elected to really expose themselves - to put themselves in situations where we see them discussing their inner thoughts or in situations where their guards slips and we see the inner person.

Because we are no longer making judgements on who has the best message. Messaging is meaningless.

Almost all of us bought Blair to one extent or another. So we now know exactly how pointless, disappointing and tragic it is to be seduced by faked sincerity and superficial charm.

The decision we are making at this tightly fought General Election is largely about who is the best person to run this Country and we need to really know them to make a worthwhile decision.

I don't think we are expecting perfection from an individual and if we see polished (or apparently airbrushed!) images we don't buy them. We want raw, unvarnished honesty more than anything. More than good news, far more than good policy and way, way more than mindless platitudes or sound-bites.

So now ask yourself this.

Does Cameron look like, sound like, feel like he is the best of this generation.. or is there someone else?

I think it is becoming increasingly clear that even given people's prejudices towards his background, the history of the Conservative party and politics in general anyone who is asked this question will have to answer, no matter how reluctantly...erm .. well... Yes, of course, he is.

The best of his generation - the best option.. and frankly given that the only viable alternative is the unelected second best (well maybe) of the previous generation..

The only worthwhile option.

So keep on giving of yourself David (or Dave if you prefer!) because you will get it all back in spades. Not just the reluctant votes or those of hopeless optimists but the considered decision of the broader electorate.