I'm delighted that the gurkhas have won their court case and all will have the right to remain in the UK when they finish their service, including those who left the army before 1997.
I have been present at a number of events (sadly not outside the court today) where the gurkhas have sought to highlight their plight. Fundamentally it is about this country doing the right thing for those who serve it.
Credit must go as well to Nick Clegg and Ming Campbell before him who have backed the gurkhas to the hilt. Whilst some saw this as a fringe issue and not one to be bothering with, but Ming and Nick have given up a lot of time (including at PMQs) for a cause that they believe is so obviously one of justice.
Congratulations too the Peter Carroll, Lib Dem PPC for Maidstone (and Folkestone before that) who has been behind this campaign and has helped the gurkhas to this magnificent victory.
But what a humiliation for Gordon Brown. He refused point blank to meet the gurkhas and refused to even accept a token medal when they wanted to hand them back in protest. Why on earth he thought it was the right decision to deny the right of about 2000 former British Army soldiers to settle here I do not know. Well he has got his comeuppance.
Selasa, 30 September 2008
Post Office admits consultation failings, but there's nothing anyone can do to stop closures
The Post Office will get away with its sham consultation on the closure of 48 branches in Cornwall, the downgrading of others and the ending of a number of mobile services.
Cornwall County Council has had to withdraw its judicial review application after lawyers told them they had little chance of winning in court.
This is in spite of admissions by the Post Office that:
- they got Cornwall's population wrong in their consultation document;
- they have no idea how their plan for an outreach service in Altarnun will work;
- their facts and figures for the mobile service serving villages in East Cornwall are based on a period when it was not able to offer anything like the full range of services;
- representatives at meetings with residents had no idea about local services and situations.
If the Post Office can get away with such a sham consultation, quite frankly, what is the point?
Cornwall County Council has had to withdraw its judicial review application after lawyers told them they had little chance of winning in court.
This is in spite of admissions by the Post Office that:
- they got Cornwall's population wrong in their consultation document;
- they have no idea how their plan for an outreach service in Altarnun will work;
- their facts and figures for the mobile service serving villages in East Cornwall are based on a period when it was not able to offer anything like the full range of services;
- representatives at meetings with residents had no idea about local services and situations.
If the Post Office can get away with such a sham consultation, quite frankly, what is the point?
Europe - saving the UK from over-regulation
A little known ruling from Europe is actually cutting the amount of pointless regulation in the UK.
Ever wondered why bread only comes in loaves of 400 or 800 grammes? It's because the 'Assize of Bread and Ale Act' of 1266 stipulated that all bread other than 'small buns and morning pastries' must be sold in weights of 400gm or multiples thereof (I'm guessing that it wasn't grammes when the law was originally passed).
So every bakery and supermarket you ever go to will sell loaves in these weights and nothing else.
Until now. The European Commission - that bastion of zealous regulation - has told the UK to repeal this Act and allow bakers to sell their wares in whatever weights they want.
Hooray for liberal Europe and a bit of a dilemma for the anti-Europeans.
Ever wondered why bread only comes in loaves of 400 or 800 grammes? It's because the 'Assize of Bread and Ale Act' of 1266 stipulated that all bread other than 'small buns and morning pastries' must be sold in weights of 400gm or multiples thereof (I'm guessing that it wasn't grammes when the law was originally passed).
So every bakery and supermarket you ever go to will sell loaves in these weights and nothing else.
Until now. The European Commission - that bastion of zealous regulation - has told the UK to repeal this Act and allow bakers to sell their wares in whatever weights they want.
Hooray for liberal Europe and a bit of a dilemma for the anti-Europeans.
The Cameron gambit
Step one: Offer to work on a cross-party basis with the Government to help turn round the economy. Gain credit from public for such selflessness when in fact you don't have a clue what you are doing.
Step two: Work with Government but establish clear dividing line so that they will not sign up to 'your rescue idea'.
Step three: Pull the plug at the last minute claiming that Labour are a bunch of incompetents.
Step two: Work with Government but establish clear dividing line so that they will not sign up to 'your rescue idea'.
Step three: Pull the plug at the last minute claiming that Labour are a bunch of incompetents.
Minggu, 28 September 2008
Nationalisation of failing businesses
A private business which is part of the community and on which many tens or hundreds of thousands of people rely is suffering a very poor run. The people are concerned. If this business fails then, apart from the job losses, there will be a loss of confidence in the rest of the industry. The owners and directors, who have been accused of mismanagement by some, are keen to sell. But there is no white knight willing to ride to the rescue. Potential suitors are worried about what they might uncover when they arrive and what the costs of turning around the operation might be.
So is the answer to nationalise Newcastle United?
So is the answer to nationalise Newcastle United?
Rabu, 24 September 2008
The perils of settling for AV
Next Left, via Jonathan Calder reports a fringe meting at the Labour conference at which Norman Lamb said that the Lib Dems would settle for AV if offered by Labour.
Here is why Norman, and anyone else who takes the same view is wrong.
Let's face it, the Lib Dems are unlikely to be in a position of overall majority after the next election. So any electoral reform is going to come about either because of Labour deciding to do the right thing or because they are forced to do so as the price of co-operation with the Lib Dems after the next election.
We might, of course, be in the same position with David Cameron in which case I think we can rule out the principled decision option.
But I think we can also rule out the principled route with Labour as well. There is enough visceral hatred of both electoral reform and the Lib Dems within the Labour ranks that the likes of Peter Hain (who genuinely wants AV) will not rule the day. So change will only happen as a result of the Lib Dems setting it as a pre-condition of co-operation.
As the Scottish Lib Dems discovered when doing a deal in 1999, the junior partner has the right to make 3-4 demands. They must accept the manifesto of the larger party on all other matters. And the larger party can expect to get its way on most things, but has to give ground on three to four key issues. Labour will force the Lib Dems to use up one of these bargaining points on electoral reform. We cannot expect them to throw it in for free both because enough are opposed to change and because they would like, for tactical reasons, to restrict the number of other demands that the Lib Dems can make.
I have long argued that such demands as the Lib Dems might be able to make should be focussed more on systemic change rather than policies. That is because once made, constitutional changes such as the voting system are far harder to unpick. They result in a genuine change of culture which, in turn, results in it being easier to produce sensible policies. Policy changes in themselves may result in fairer and better services, but time moves on and there will be a need for new legislation in these same areas within the a few years and so it is easy to unpick any advances that have been made. If you want to have lasting impact as a junior partner then the changes you demand must be far-reaching. (Having said that, if I were involved in coalition talks then scrapping ID cards would have to be on my shopping list.)
Based solely on history, the UK only experiences a period of minority or coalition government once every thirty or so years. So those who argue for the incremental change model (take AV now and people will soon realise that proper reform - STV - is a logical step), are accepting that it will be another generation before we get where we want to be.
So if the Lib Dems find themselves in a position of strength, it would be lunacy for any who genuinely want fairer votes to accept the compromise of AV.
But there is another reason why neither Norman Lamb nor anyone else should not be seeking to make agreement on AV now. That is the tactical one. Labour has a history of reneging on deals over PR. The Cook Maclennan talks in the mid 90s produced an agreement over a referendum on PR. Labour carried this into their 97 manifesto. The Jenkins Commission duly reported recommending a complete mish mash of a system. Labour forgot to hold the promised referendum on change. They again made a promise in their 2001 manifesto but again failed to deliver. So the Lib Dems need to go into any talks with as strong a bargaining hand as possible. If you have strength you do not concede any advantage. If the only deal that can be done is for AV then we would have to take that, but as a straight change within a 5 year Parliament announced in the first Queen's Speech. Giving any sort of ground now would mean having to concede in talks to a referendum and to delay that would mean that change did not happen until after the next election (and therefore possibly never).
If, like Lembit and others, you genuinely favour AV, then feel free to discuss it. But bear in mind that you do not represent the Party or the majority of its members and that you are talking yourself into a weaker negotiating position even for that which you want.
Here is why Norman, and anyone else who takes the same view is wrong.
Let's face it, the Lib Dems are unlikely to be in a position of overall majority after the next election. So any electoral reform is going to come about either because of Labour deciding to do the right thing or because they are forced to do so as the price of co-operation with the Lib Dems after the next election.
We might, of course, be in the same position with David Cameron in which case I think we can rule out the principled decision option.
But I think we can also rule out the principled route with Labour as well. There is enough visceral hatred of both electoral reform and the Lib Dems within the Labour ranks that the likes of Peter Hain (who genuinely wants AV) will not rule the day. So change will only happen as a result of the Lib Dems setting it as a pre-condition of co-operation.
As the Scottish Lib Dems discovered when doing a deal in 1999, the junior partner has the right to make 3-4 demands. They must accept the manifesto of the larger party on all other matters. And the larger party can expect to get its way on most things, but has to give ground on three to four key issues. Labour will force the Lib Dems to use up one of these bargaining points on electoral reform. We cannot expect them to throw it in for free both because enough are opposed to change and because they would like, for tactical reasons, to restrict the number of other demands that the Lib Dems can make.
I have long argued that such demands as the Lib Dems might be able to make should be focussed more on systemic change rather than policies. That is because once made, constitutional changes such as the voting system are far harder to unpick. They result in a genuine change of culture which, in turn, results in it being easier to produce sensible policies. Policy changes in themselves may result in fairer and better services, but time moves on and there will be a need for new legislation in these same areas within the a few years and so it is easy to unpick any advances that have been made. If you want to have lasting impact as a junior partner then the changes you demand must be far-reaching. (Having said that, if I were involved in coalition talks then scrapping ID cards would have to be on my shopping list.)
Based solely on history, the UK only experiences a period of minority or coalition government once every thirty or so years. So those who argue for the incremental change model (take AV now and people will soon realise that proper reform - STV - is a logical step), are accepting that it will be another generation before we get where we want to be.
So if the Lib Dems find themselves in a position of strength, it would be lunacy for any who genuinely want fairer votes to accept the compromise of AV.
But there is another reason why neither Norman Lamb nor anyone else should not be seeking to make agreement on AV now. That is the tactical one. Labour has a history of reneging on deals over PR. The Cook Maclennan talks in the mid 90s produced an agreement over a referendum on PR. Labour carried this into their 97 manifesto. The Jenkins Commission duly reported recommending a complete mish mash of a system. Labour forgot to hold the promised referendum on change. They again made a promise in their 2001 manifesto but again failed to deliver. So the Lib Dems need to go into any talks with as strong a bargaining hand as possible. If you have strength you do not concede any advantage. If the only deal that can be done is for AV then we would have to take that, but as a straight change within a 5 year Parliament announced in the first Queen's Speech. Giving any sort of ground now would mean having to concede in talks to a referendum and to delay that would mean that change did not happen until after the next election (and therefore possibly never).
If, like Lembit and others, you genuinely favour AV, then feel free to discuss it. But bear in mind that you do not represent the Party or the majority of its members and that you are talking yourself into a weaker negotiating position even for that which you want.
Brown - no boom, no bust
Just listened to the PM being interviewed by James Naughtie on the Today Programme. Put to him that Labour's (his) promise of ending the cycle of boom and but, Brown denied that we were in such a situation. The guy is clearly either in denial or lying through his teeth.
His answer included the claim that the UK had enjoyed periods of high growth despite recession in other countries.
Does he not understand that massive growth is part and parcel of the culture of boom and bust? If you truly want to end boom and bust then you need to accept as a consequence that growth will be severely limited.
Oh and he also claimed that Ruth Kelly had resigned for purely family reasons. So that cannot be the real reason then.
His answer included the claim that the UK had enjoyed periods of high growth despite recession in other countries.
Does he not understand that massive growth is part and parcel of the culture of boom and bust? If you truly want to end boom and bust then you need to accept as a consequence that growth will be severely limited.
Oh and he also claimed that Ruth Kelly had resigned for purely family reasons. So that cannot be the real reason then.
Langganan:
Postingan
(
Atom
)