Evidence-based policy-making?

The new schools minister is getting his feet under the table.  The Telegraph reports:

David Laws attacked the “depressingly low expectations” that he said are holding back children in many parts of the country and preventing them from getting ahead in life.

Even in relatively affluent parts of the country, schools and careers advisers are failing to encourage children to “reach for the stars,” instead pushing them to settle for middling exam results and careers with “medium-ranked” local employers, he said.

What justification does Mr Laws offer for this sweeping attack on schools and teachers?

Mr Laws suggested that some teachers in state schools are still discouraging pupils from targeting places at Oxbridge and other top-ranked universities.

“I still find, talking to youngsters across the country, the same depressing low expectations I found when I went to university in the 1980s,” he added.

“The students you met, who were often the first students from their school who had been to Oxbridge, said they were often encouraged by teachers and others to think that Oxford or Cambridge were not the places for them and they should think of somewhere more modest.”

Accordingly, on distinctly anecdotal evidence, based on his experiences in the 1980s, he presumes to lecture those with years of experience in the field.  Apparently, Mr Laws used to be a merchant banker; to me, he sounds like a pub bore.

 

Quote of the day

Nicola indulges herself with some clever semantics.  Pick the bones out of this:

Sturgeon told BBC Radio Scotland: "Given the fact that previously the impression had been created that we had legal advice, that we were not prepared to reveal because somehow it didn't suit our purposes, I think was an unfortunate one."

Is she saying "sorry" or is she trying to avoid saying sorry?

   

Bad karma

Do you believe in luck?  Or, more specifically, bad luck?  Until now, I have been inclined to put the Government's troubles down to incompetence, in particular to a failure to think through implications or to a premature response to newspaper headlines, as well as an arrogant assumption as to their own abilities.  There are numerous examples, from selling off forests to imposing top-down radical change on the NHS (not to mention badgericide).

But yesterday, when the Government arguably might have had one of its better days with the apparent recovery of the economy from recession, Ford had to spoil the party by announcing the closure of two UK plants.  Hard to blame the coalition for such misfortune as, by all accounts, Ford's actions are a reflection of the Europe-wide downturn in demand for motor vehicles.

But, if even the gods have chosen to throw their tuppenceworth in the scales weighing against Cameron and his chums, what future for the administration of the posh boys?

Always look on the bright side

There is little more depressing than to be in a holiday resort when the skies are grey and it is chucking it down.  And it is expected to continue like this through to the weekend.  The bars over here are really not designed for wet weather, with their minimalist interiors and their unfortunate adoption of the smoking prohibition.  Nor am I cheered up by the somewhat pathetic GDP increase, meaning that the UK economy has only managed to recover to where it was a year ago.  Better than a further decrease, I suppose.

Still.  I have been able to keep up with the ironing.  Furthermore, taking a beer from the fridge is not exactly a hardship.  I have a nice wee Spanish chicken roasting happily in the oven and I'm about to put the roast potatoes in.  And I can look forward to a double ration of Euro football this evening.  It can't be too bad.



 

Wayne plays on the left wing

So Wayne Rooney has revealed hidden depths:

They think Mitt’s all over... he is now, says Wayne Rooney.

The Manchester United striker – known more for his love of hair gel than politics – has revealed he is hooked on the US presidential election.

And after watching all three late night TV debates between Republican Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, the England ace has put his full support behind the Democrat to regain the White House.

I have to wonder, however, what a professional athlete thinks he is doing by staying up in the middle of the night to watch the telly.  Does Sir Alex know?

Do I feel guilty?

Well not really.  But some lord thinks that maybe I should.  The Independent reports:

The former head of the benefits agency provoked uproar today by suggesting the retired should be encouraged to undertake community service – or have their pensions docked.

Lord Bichard said older people had to make “a more positive contribution” to reduce the burden they place on the state.He made the comments during a session of committee investigating the impact on public services of an ageing population.

Lord Bichard, 65, asked fellow members: “Are there ways in which we could use incentives to encourage older people, if not to be in full time work, to be making a contribution?”

He argued that the pension system should incentivise recipients to do more to help look after the “very old”.

Do I place a heavy burden on the state?  Doubtful.  I have a bus pass, but I don't use it more than once a month on average.  My prescriptions?  I don't get on with doctors, so tend to buy my drugs over the internet.  And I don't qualify for an old age pension until 2014.

Over the years, I paid my income tax and my NI contributions.  Indeed I am still paying income tax on my occupational pension.

So Lord Bichard may wish to stick his suggestions where the sun don't shine.

Climbdown alert

It's a quandary, or a dilemma, or maybe just another car crash.  The Guardian reports:

David Cameron appeared to slap down his senior law officer in the House of Commons over voting rights for prisoners as he told MPs that prisoners would never get the vote under his government.

Just two hours earlier, Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, had told a parliamentary committee Britain could be thrown out of the Council of Europe and be subject to large compensation claims if it ignored a European court of human rights (ECHR) ruling that prisoners should be allowed to vote.

But Cameron told prime minister's questions he was prepared, if necessary, to put the issue beyond doubt by staging another Commons vote to reject the court's ruling that British prisoners should be given a limited right to vote.

The prime minister told the Commons: "No one should be in any doubt. Prisoners are not getting the vote under this government." 

We'll see.  Staging another vote in the Commons will no more resolve the issue than the first vote did.

Besides, why die in a ditch over the matter?  It is not as if ECHR is demanding that the franchise is extended to all prisoners.  Would it really damage democracy so badly if some lower category prisoners were allowed to vote?

   

The red mist descends again

With friends like The Spectator, the Conservatives have no need of enemies.

No PMQs would be complete without Cameron losing his rag. Keen to whip his backbenchers into a righteous frenzy, he began to honk out a list of statistics that are moving in the right direction. ‘Crime down!’ he bellowed. ‘Inflation down! Unemployment, down! Waiting lists down!’ But instead of relishing these figures he allowed his cheeks to flush purple with indignation and excitement. ‘The opposition leader can’t talk about the real issues,’ he thundered, ‘because he’s not up to the job.

’‘Good to see the crimson tide is back,’ said Miliband coolly.

Not content with booting the Tories, the magazine has time for a glancing blow in the direction of Fat Eck:

The session ended on a harmonious as note as the three parties came together to gloat over the hallucinations of Alec [sic] Salmond. The SNP leader has been caught talking to imaginary lawyers about Scotland’s future within the EU. Like all paranoiacs, he believes he was talking to real human beings and not to figments of his fevered brain.

 

An everyday story of country folk

You might have assumed that, if you were planning a cull of badgers that incorporated a payment of a certain amount for each badger killed, it would be important to establish clearly from the outset how many badgers there were, especially where the overall number of badgers to be killed had to reach a target percentage.  Not this government.  The Guardian reports:

As the final preparations for the cull were made, a census showed there could be twice as many badgers as were originally thought. Farmers complained this would increase the cost of the cull and they could not afford to foot the bill if required to kill at least 70% – the proportion that scientists say must be achieved for the cull to succeed because escaping badgers would spread TB more widely and increase, not decrease, cattle infections.

So the government will announce today that Mr Brock is to be spared, at least for a while.  So good news if you are a badger, but bad news for our incompetent government.  How many u-turns is that?


     

Music of the week

Nostalgia is not quite what it used to be:

Auntie messes up

Some thoughts about the Savile affair:

1.  The BBC appears to have slipped up in its editorial judgements, particularly as regards the Newsnight programme.  But such things happen in all media organisations.  Indeed, if Savile’s proclivities were widely known, as seems to have been the case, one wonders why it was left to the BBC and ITV to pursue the matter.  What were all those bold, investigative journalists on the newspapers doing?

2.  The BBC is now going through an agonising process of publicly questioning itself.  Doubtless, this will blacken its reputation.  But it is essentially a healthy process; reporters, producers and management will get to argue their corners, and there is every indication that the truths will come out.  Compare and contrast a certain other media organisation which moved heaven and earth to conceal its misdoings and which, to this day, is seeking to assign responsibility to so-called “rogue” individuals.

3.  I came across Savile on several occasion when I used to run marathons and half marathons.  Savile used to start at the front of the race and, although I never even attained club runner status, I would catch up and pass him after a couple of miles.  He was unmistakable, given his attire and the fact that he would be surrounded by heavies.  I would never see him again during the race.  But, when I reached the finish, I would learn that he had completed the race some half an hour earlier.  Did I complain?  It never occurred to me;  I assumed he was running for charity and, if he cheated a little, it was no skin off my nose.

4.  With the benefit of hindsight, that wonderful facility, we can all throw stones at those who turned a blind eyes to crimes and misdemeanors.  How much easier to let sleeping dogs lie.  There can be no excuses, however, and we must all share our portion of guilt over failing to expose this nasty little man.   

Homage - of a sort

Catalonia - "like Scotland but with a better football team"  (here)

No argument from me, though the weather is also a bit better.


 

It's all so predictable

What is the next fiasco to befall our coalition government?  Well, you can take your pick:

1.  There's the latest bright idea from Cameron on crime:  "tough but intelligent" we are told.  "Weak and dumb" seems more appropriate, as the Great Leader would not appear to have thought through the financial implications.

2.  The child benefit changes are always worth a shot, as HMRC do not appear to have got to grips with how to implement the changes to the system.  And as this is an Osborne initiative, it is bound to end up in a mess.

3.  Meanwhile the proposed universal credit sinks deeper and deeper into the mire.  Leave aside the monthly   payments, the ill-fated computer system and the requirement for HMRC - DWP live updating.  Now it appears that the new system will penalise the disabled.  Oh dear ...

4.  Can anyone explain what the Prime Minister's policy is towards the EU?  Does he want the UK to leave?  If not, why does he keep half-promising a referendum?  And is Angie about to kick him in the nuts?

All this pre-supposes that Ministers will manage to keep their noses clean in the interim.  No more ranting at policemen, no revelations of illicit relations with flame-haired newspaper editors, no more fare-dodging on trains.

"Dysfunctional" is the word I'm looking for.


 

Catherine Tekakwitha, who are you?

It is not like me to know the names of Catholic saints, but the references to Catherine Tekakwitha rang a faint bell.

The wonders of Google reminded me of the link to Leonard Cohen and his second novel Beautiful Losers, a book that has sat neglected on my bookshelf for at least 40 years.  I vaguely remember reading it and thinking it quite raunchy for its day.  You can still buy it here.


 

Retribution

Seems a bit harsh.  The guy who messed up the Boat Race by jumping in the Thames gets a six month prison sentence.  Would community service not have sufficed?

I might have suggested that the judge was an Oxbridge man, but I understand that he was a she.

   

Brief encounter

And as the curtain goes down on one minor scandal, yet another erupts.  This time, it concerns Slasher's preference to sit in a first class seat on the train while paying a second class fare.

Yes, the Tories will go to extraordinary lengths to remind us that they are a bunch of posh boys who will do anything to ensure that they do not have to sit next to the peasants.


   

On his bike

So cheerio to Thrasher.  He might have thought that he could have hung on but - alas - politicians can no longer get away with berating the lower orders.

A victory for us plebs?  Well hardly:  Thrasher has been replaced by yet another Old Etonian and a baronet to boot ...

And so ends Gate-gate, with a lament for a man who apparently does not know what he said.


 

Muddled thinking?

The Attorney General has vetoed the publication of Prince Charles' "black spider memos".  The Independent reports:

The letters, thirty of them, written between September 1st 2004 and April 1st 2005 represent, according to Mr Grieve, the Prince’s “most deeply held personal views and beliefs” and “are in many cases particularly frank.” Consequently, their publication could “damage … the Prince of Wales’ political neutrality” and “seriously undermine the Prince’s ability to fulfil his duties when he becomes King.”

“The Sovereign cannot be seen to favour one political party above another, or to engage in political controversy,” Mr Grieve said, in a ten page document explaining his decision. “Any such perception would be seriously damaging to his role as future Monarch, because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is King.

Would the damage to the position of Prince Charles arise from the publication of the memos?  Or does it arise from the fact that he wrote them in the first place?  Even if we do not know the actual contents, the fact that the senior law officer of the government thinks they might "damage" the Prince's neutrality and "undermine" his ability to reign as king suggests to me that the ball is on the slates.

Can no-one save us from this meddlesome prince?  Or at least tell him to keep his political views to himself?

We're not alone

I see that the proposed referendum in Scotland has not gone unnoticed elsewhere in Europe.  The Guardian reports:

Catalonia in north-east Spain will issue a challenge to Brussels when its voters are asked to declare whether they want an independent state within the EU.

Regional leader Artur Mas said on Monday he planned to ask the question, including the reference to the EU, during a four-year term that starts after regional elections on 25 November – even though Spain's prime minister,Mariano Rajoy, has threatened to block a referendum.

A yes vote in the referendum would not just create a constitutional crisis for Spain, which has no mechanism for allowing the independence of one of its regions, but would also issue a clear challenge to the EU, which has no system for the breakup of a member state. A new entity could have future membership blocked by just one member country.

The Catalan referendum would take place around the time of a similar vote in Scotland in 2014 and could be followed by an independence vote in the Basque country, where nationalists and separatists are expected to win elections this weekend. Basque nationalists have long pursued the dream of joining the EU as a separate state on an equal footing with Spain.

"Do you want Catalonia to become a new state within the European Union?" is Mas's preferred wording for the referendum.

He told the newspaper La Vanguardia that a definitive question would be agreed by the Catalan parliament, where he can expect to renew his majority on 25 November. He said he would like to follow the Scottish example and negotiate a referendum with central government, but Rajoy's conservative People's party (PP) government has vowed to use Spain's constitutional court to declare any referendum illegal.

Life may be about to become complicated for our European overlords in Brussels.  It is not just Scotland in the frame; Catalunya and the Basque country might be heading in a similar direction.  And it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Belgium might be inspired to take a final step towards disintegration.  Nor are certain parts of Italy immune to centrifugal forces.  In these circumstances, the EU may have to move away from its present policy of sticking its head in the sand and pretending that nothing will ever change.

The known unknowns

In two years time, we shall have the opportunity to vote for Scottish independence.  Will it be an informed choice?  I doubt it.

Essentially, we shall be deciding whether the SNP should be allowed to begin the process of negotiations leading to independence.  Both sides will tell us their version of what is likely to happen if we choose to go down the road of independence but there are likely to be huge differences in the scenarios that they put before us.

Would an independent Scotland be an automatic member of the EU or would we have to submit a formal application?  Either way, there would have to be Treaty changes, so that the outcome would be dependent upon the agreement of all the Member States.  Both sides of the independence debate will produce legal and political arguments for and against but the issues will not be resolved before the referendum.

What currency would we use?  Again, nationalists will say one thing while unionists will say another.  There might be some form of tentative agreement between the sides on the way forward but don’t bet on it.

How much of the UK’s national debt would Scotland inherit?  How much of the oil?  How much of the defence establishment?  Would Scotland be able to get rid of trident submarines?  You may ask politicians on both sides but don’t expect a clear-cut answer.

If Scotland were to remain part of the UK, would we be offered more devolution?  If so, how much more and how soon?  Would it be a UK led by a Tory or a Labour government?  Would it be a UK playing a full part in the EU or standing on the sidelines?

So, should we or should we not vote for independence?  How can we tell?

Prejudice rules

As a quintessentially urban bloke, I know next to nothing about the countryside.  But I doubt if you will find a better example of how evidence-based policy making is a stranger to this government:

Britain's top animal disease scientists have launched a devastating attack on the government's "mindless" badger cull, accusing ministers of failing to tell the truth and demanding the immediate abandonment of the killings.

The intervention by dozens of the nation's most senior experts, in a letter in the Observer, comes as farmers prepare to begin the cull in Gloucestershire and Somerset, possibly as early as tomorrow. The government's own chief scientist has refused to back the killings.

More than 30 eminent animal disease experts describe the cull as a "costly distraction" that risks making the problem of tuberculosis in cattle worse and that will cost far more than it saves.

It used to be said that MAFF had been captured by the farmers.  It seems that DEFRA, its successor, may also be regarded as the political wing of the NFU.

The kids are alright

The principle that those who are 16 and 17 should be allowed to vote is to be welcomed.  Even if there are technical problems:

The Electoral Commission has warned that the current system excludes nearly all 16-year-olds. They can only put themselves on the voters' roll one year in advance if their 18th birthday falls in the year after 1 December. Because registration ends each October, that means only teenagers who are older than 16 years and 10 months can do so.

Most teenagers eligible to register in advance – a group known as "attainers" – are already missing. The Guardian has established that only about a third (44,000) of Scotland's 123,000 16- and 17-year-olds are included in the current local council roll.

Niall McCluskey, a Scottish advocate expert in human rights, said failing to include every 16-year-old would leave Holyrood open to legal challenge: "It's potentially discriminatory. If your general principle is that 16- and 17-year-olds ought to be able to vote, these rights have to be practical and effective. If they're not, you can fall foul of human rights law."

With goodwill and not a little money, these can be resolved.  But on the practical basis that the younger you are the less likely you are to exercise your ballot, the far greater problem will be persuading this new electorate to turn up in the polling station.

Heresy

How dare they?

Explanation here.


 

Cameron channels Talking Heads

Don't worry about the mixed metaphors, feel the vibe, man.  The Prime Minister goes metaphysical:

"Britain may not be in the future what it was in the past because the truth is that we are in a global race today and that means an hour of reckoning for countries like ours – sink or swim, do or decline," he will argue.

It reminds me of that song by Talking Heads:

Well we know where we're goin'  But we don't know where we've been

And we know what we're knowin'  But we can't say what we've seen

And we're not little children  And we know what we want

And the future is certain  Give us time to work it out

The name of the song?  'Road to Nowhere'.  Appropriate enough, really ...

    

Lookalikes

Secretary of State for Education:

Comedian:

 

Quote of the day

Here:

David Cameron branded burglary a 'crime of violence' today as he backed plans to give householders more powers against intruders.

"When that burglar crosses your threshold, invades your home, threatens your family, they give up their rights," he said.

Actually, they don't.  But perhaps Mr Cameron does not know the meaning of "inalienable".


 

Beating up burglars

It's the latest attempt to tickle the Tory Party's erogenous zones.  Unfortunately, it will become enmeshed in a semantic quagmire.  The Guardian reports:

The justice secretary will say: "Being confronted by an intruder in your own home is terrifying, and the public should be in no doubt that the law is on their side. That is why I am strengthening the current law.

"Householders who act instinctively and honestly in self-defence are victims of crime and should be treated that way. We need to dispel doubts in this area once and for all, and I am very pleased to be today delivering on the pledge that we made in opposition."

The change to the law, which is likely to be signalled in the next Queen's speech, will for the first time mean that householders can use "disproportionate" force in exceptional circumstances. Under the current law, homeowners are allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend themselves in their home or on the street to protect others, to prevent crime or to protect property. But the force cannot be disproportionate.

Grayling's change will mean that if a householder uses force which he or she believed was reasonable at the time, but was in fact disproportionate, then that could be deemed to be lawful.

Synonyms for "disproportionate" include such words as "excessive" or "more than necessary".  By definition, what is disproportionate cannot at the same time (or even at a later time) be considered reasonable.  If a householder goes beyond reasonable force, then also by definition it must be disproportionate.  If Mr Grayling can come up with an explanation which will meet legal requirements, then he will be a rather better linguistic philosopher than I think he is.

In any case, with overcrowded prisons and overloaded courts, has the Justice Secretary nothing better to do?

 

Lazy sods of the world should unite

Well we would, if we could be bothered.  The Independent reports:

The Tory leadership is attempting to use the conference to reach out to middle-income "strivers", announcing that council tax would be frozen for the third year and rail fare increases capped at 1 per cent above inflation.

Are you a striver?  I'm not.  Nor am I a "hard-working family", which was the desirable thing to be under the previous government.

So which party cares about the lazy sods?  We have a vote too, you know, even if we frequently can't be arsed to use it ...

Playing to the gallery

It must be a sign of desperation: to advocate a policy which has absolutely no hope of being implemented.

THE GOVERNMENT yesterday indicated that it could introduce visa restrictions for some EU citizens in an attempt to net reduce immigration into the UK.

Both David Cameron and home secretary Theresa May indicated their support for the plan, which has been added to a wide-ranging Whitehall review of Britain’s relationship with Europe.

“I believe in free movement, but two weeks ago, I visited two factories in a week, and I asked the question: how many people do you employ from other EU countries? In one it was 60 per cent, in the other it was 50 per cent,” Cameron told the BBC. “Heavens above, we have got so many unemployed people in our country that we want to train and educate and give apprenticeships to and get back into work...we’ve already capped immigration from outside the EU on economic grounds.”

Both Cameron and May must be well aware that there is no possibility of securing any further limitation on the right of EU citizens to move to the UK.  They may not like it but free movement of labour is a cardinal principle of the EU Treaties and could not be moderated unless the UK were to leave the EU altogether.  So why raise the issue?

   

Music of the week

Compare and contrast

Ah yes, Maria Miller, the new equalities minister, opts out of the page 3 controversy:

Asked if she thought topless pictures degraded women, a cause recently reignited by the nomorepage3 petition, she sidestepped. "It is for newspapers to decide what they print and it is for consumers to decide what they buy.

"That is the way it should be, and I don't think it is right for ministers to dictate what goes on any page of a newspaper, whether it is page 3 or not."

And yet, this same minister, apparently regardless of medical evidence, is more than willing to dictate when a woman may have an abortion.

As they say, go figure ...


 

Putting the boot in

You might wish to see the latest Labour poster:

Choo-choos a gogo?

So all those politicians and journalists blaming the civil service for the west coast trains fiasco may have jumped the gun.  The Independent reports:

A former Goldman Sachs banker in charge of private contracts for the Department for Transport was named yesterday as one of the officials suspended for their alleged role in the West Coast rail franchise fiasco. Kate Mingay, head of commercial at the DfT, is believed to be the most senior of three staff suspended on Wednesday.

She ran a team responsible for the finance model in the bidding for the West Coast Main Line franchise. The decision to strip Sir Richard Branson's company, Virgin Trains, of the multibillion-pound contract and award it to FirstGroup instead was scrapped after the Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, said there were "significant technical flaws" in the bidding process because of the DfT's mistakes.

It is easy to label civil servants as obstructive incompetent bureaucrats and this has resulted in the increasing appointment of outsiders to senior posts in various departments.  Unfortunately, these thrusting, decisive individuals have not been brought up in the cautious ethos of the service where it is important to have all the i's dotted and the t's crossed, with decisions and recommendations to Ministers subject to proper investigation and consultation.  Instead, it is in the nature of these privateers to cut corners and disregard the fuddie-duddies insisting on due process.  And, indeed, that is why Ministers have encouraged their recruitment.

The results are now becoming apparent.

Oh and yes, I may be biased as, some years ago now, I was one of the fuddy-duddies ...

Quote of the day

By Ed Miliband:

"Have you ever seen a more incompetent, hopeless, out-of-touch, U-turning, pledge-breaking, make-it-up-as-you-go-along, back-of-the-envelope, miserable shower than this Prime Minister and this Government?"

   

No way to run a railway

If I were a FirstGroup shareholder (which, thank the Lord, I'm not sir), I would be seriously annoyed with the Department of Transport.  The Guardian reports:

The future running of one of Britain's most prestigious and lucrative rail services, the West Coast main line, was thrown wide open after the transport secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, announced that the competition had been cancelled following the discovery of significant technical flaws in the franchise process.

The news could potentially put other franchises due to be settled in the next two years on hold and will raise questions over the whole system, with unions and Labour considering calling for renationalisation.

The shock move means that the Department for Transport will no longer be awarding a franchise contract when Virgin's current one expires on 9 December, and will not contest the judicial review that Sir Richard Branson's firm sought in the high court.

In a climbdown that appears to vindicate Virgin's angry reaction to losing the franchise on 15 August, the DfT has indicated key staff will be suspended, apparently for incorrectly calculating the risk involved in the winning bid.

A spokesman for FirstGroup, which had been awarded the franchise, said: "We are extremely disappointed to learn this news and await the outcome of the DfT's inquiries. The DfT have made it clear to us that we are in no way at fault, having followed the due process correctly. We submitted a strong bid, in good faith and in strict accordance with the DfT's terms."Our bid would have delivered a better deal for West Coast passengers, the taxpayer and an appropriate return for shareholders."

A surprisingly mild reaction from FirstGroup.  All the bidders will have to be compensated and, given the costs of putting the bids together, that is likely to cost the taxpayer more than a pretty penny.  But for the DoT to discover errors after the contract has been awarded is quite extraordinary.  And who can have any faith that they will get it right next time?

     

Where do you find an ark when you need one?

Rain, rain, rain.  The Independent reports:

Seven people were killed and hundreds evacuated after flash floods caused by torrential rain swept through the southern Spanish regions of Andalucia and Murcia, emergency services said yesterday.

Roads were closed and some public transport was disrupted after heavy rains that started early yesterday, flooding streets and homes after months of drought.Four of the victims were in the coastal provinces of Malaga and Almeria, which are both popular tourist destinations.

And today it's been chucking it down all morning.

I don't expect much sympathy from my UK readers (who have apparently been experiencing their own deluges).  But it's a bit of a shock, having to wear long trousers.  But, according to the forecast, it'll be back to shorts by Tuesday.

 

Night fever?

Is it John Travolta, strutting his stuff to the BeeGees?

Nah, it's only Nick Clegg ...

Quote of the day

From The Independent (here):

It is seldom easy choosing between contradictory accounts of the same conversation, but can anyone doubt Andrew Mitchell, the mannerly Chief Whip, when he denies calling a policeman a “pleb”? This is exactly the kind of archaic, public-school insult that would flash into a copper’s mind. I mean, how often did The Sweeney’s Jack Regan yell, “Shut it, you pleb,” as he banged a villain against a wall?

Re-inventing the wheel

The Government is already the majority shareholder in one of the big four banks, RBS.  And it has what amounts to a controlling stake in another, Lloyds.  Each of these has offices all over the UK; each of them the staff and the resources to do whatever the Government tells them to do.  So why go to the trouble of setting up a new bank from scratch, which is what the blessed Vince wants to do?  Think staff recruitment, think offices, think computer systems, think loan procedures.  Crazy, isn't it?


 

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

The Flashman tendency

Apparently, he was known as 'Thrasher' at his (public) school, ostensibly for his love of discipline.  Quite appropriate for a Chief Whip, I would have thought.  But he might want to be more careful about when he loses his temper:

The recently-appointed Tory chief whip Andrew Mitchell has been forced to apologise after an altercation with armed police in Downing Street that is alleged to have involved foul language.Mitchell issued the apology following claims he was threatened with arrest for ranting at officers who prevented him leaving on his bicycle.

The Sun newspaper reported that Mitchell demanded: "Open this gate, I'm the chief whip. I'm telling you – I'm the chief whip and I'm coming through these gates." [Actually, The Sun suggested a rather more ribald version.]  Tourists and other members of the public were said to have been within earshot. The alleged incident, which happened just days after two police officers, Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone, were shot dead near Manchester, is likely to cause embarrassment for David Cameron. The prime minister entrusted Mitchell with enforcing party discipline in this month's cabinet reshuffle.

Mitchell, a keen cyclist, denied using offensive language but admitted he had behaved badly after he was barred from leaving Downing Street via his usual route through the main gates.

Is bullying inherent in the Conservative philosophy?  Or does it only affect most of the Cabinet?  I suppose that it must be the influence of these public schools ...

The biter bit ...

... or it's not the same when you're the one being harassed:

Quote of the day

More foot in mouth from Mitt Romney, the candidate who keeps on giving:

Speaking in what appeared to be a hotel function room, Romney claimed that the overwhelming majority of voters who support Barack Obama's do so because they are "dependent" on government and "believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing".

"There are 47 per cent of the people who will vote for the President no matter what, all right?" he said. "There are 47 per cent who are with him, who are dependant upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."

"They will vote for this President no matter what," he continued. "These are people who pay no income tax... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

  

Music of the week

Yeah, it's bubblegum pop, but it's good bubblegum pop.  (Better than tractors, anyway.)

You learn something every day

You may not find this terribly exciting.  Indeed, it may not be the most useful addition to the sum of human knowledge.  Nevertheless, who can fail to be thrilled to learn that Iceland has more tractors per hectare of arable land than anyone else in the world?

Now calm down and go back to sleep.

    

A disaster waiting to happen

There are some who say that Iain Duncan Smith means well.  But, when it comes to reforming social security, good intentions are far from enough.  The nearer we get to the introduction of the universal credit, the more problems emerge.  The Independent reports:

Welfare reforms being pushed through by the Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, will cut into the household budgets of hundreds of thousands of low income families, according to new research.

In total, the switch from tax credits and other benefits introduced by Gordon Brown to the "universal credit" system being pioneered by Mr Duncan Smith is expected to cut the annual welfare bill by £500m. Labour says that is money taken from families in the "squeezed middle".

It has been calculated that 300,000 families where both partners are in low-paid work will be worse off, because they will lose 65p in benefits for every extra £1 they earn, which is 60 per cent higher than under the present system. Up to 100,000 low-incomes families will see the help they get towards the cost of childcare reduced by up to £3,980 a year, taking away much of the incentive to look for work.

Then there is DWP's insistence on an on-line system, ignoring the needs of those without access to the internet.  In addition, the move to monthly payments will add its own complications.  It is of course possible in certain circumstances to mitigate the effect of these problems but it all adds to the complexity.

The biggest bugbear, however, is the need to underpin the whole arrangement with a new computer system.  Is it likely to be ready in time?  Has any big government computer system ever been ready on time?

 

The demagogue awakes

Is there anything that Boris won't do to get his name in the papers?  City AM reports:

BORIS Johnson yesterday launched a hard-hitting attack on the power of trade unions in a move that revived suggestions that he is positioning himself to run for leadership of the Conservative party.

Setting out his proposals to combat hard-line union activism, the Mayor of London called for a clampdown on the ability of organised labour to cause "endless disruption and buggeration".

In a move sure to please many in the Conservative party he called for legislation that would limit the ability to strike by forcing key public sector workers - including firefighters, paramedics and London Underground staff - to maintain a minimum level of service at all times.

Hard to believe that this is the same man who gave in so weakly to pre-Olympic threats of industrial action by transport workers.  Yet now he's pandering to the Tory neanderthals.

Reasons to be cheerful (on a Monday morning)

1.  Edinburgh lying third in the RaboDirect Pro12.

2.  Hibs lying second to Motherwell in the SPL.  (Who said Celtic would run away with it?)

3.  The mighty Malaga lying second in La Liga.

(Incidentally, we refuse to gloat over the travails of a certain Scottish Third Division side.)


 

Is this meant to be an apology?

The Independent on Sunday sees the error of its ways:

Earlier editions of the London-based national press may have given the impression over the past few years that Andy Murray is an immature sour-faced, slovenly, Scottish choker who could not win a Grand Slam title even if his opponent were a one-legged, short-sighted octogenarian equipped with a banjo.

We now accept that, on the contrary, Sir Andy (as we hope you may style him come the New Year's Honours list, Ma'am) is a true-born British world-beater in the tradition of Sir Francis Drake and the Duke of Wellington.
...
Furthermore, it is possible that some readers may have formed the idea from our coverage of major tennis tournaments that his mother was a shrieking, coarse-voiced, hatchet-faced harridan who, having given birth to a loser, unwisely invested much of her time and money in the fruitless task of trying to turn him into a player capable of winning something. We now realise she is in fact an attractive, vivacious, sweet-toned shining example to the country's mothers, having recognised her son's unique talents and made many sacrifices to ensure they are fulfilled. We salute you.

Aye weel, you're still not forgiven.


 

Deep waters

Here we go again.  The Independent reports:

The President of the European Commission has stepped into the row about an independent Scotland's place in the European Union by saying all new states will have to apply to join.

José Manuel Barroso's comments contrast with the SNP's claim that Scotland would automatically become a member state if voters back independence in 2014. Mr Barroso told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme that he couldn't comment on specific cases, but he added: "A new state, if it wants to join the EU, has to apply to become a member, like any state."

If an independent Scotland has to apply for membership, should that not mean that the UK rump should also be obliged to apply?  If not, why not?

Conversation of the week

From The Guardian (here):

Cameron: Why does everyone love Bozza so much?

Osborne: They don't know him.

Cameron: Well, I think serious times call for serious politicians.

Everyone: So do we. Unfortunately we've got you and Osborne.

Clegg: And me!

Everyone: In your dreams, loser.

   

Is bigger always better?

How big should a company be?  Is there a stage when economies of scale cease to deliver benefits?  And where governments are involved in defence-related companies, is there any real sense of competition?

The Guardian reports:

BAE Systems, Britain's largest manufacturing employer, and EADS, the owner of Airbus, have announced plans for a $48bn (£29.8bn) merger. The deal creates the world's largest defence, security and aerospace group, while giving France and Germany an interest in the UK's main defence contractor.

The new business would generate annual revenues of £60bn and employ 220,000 people worldwide, including 48,000 in the UK, producing a staggering array of state-of-the-art civil and defence equipment under one roof, from Britain's nuclear submarine fleet to the A380 superjumbo.

...

Under the terms of the British government's golden share – worth a symbolic £1 – BAE must have a British chief executive and a majority of its board members must be British, while non-UK shareholders can own no more than 15% of the business.

EADS is 22.35% owned by a combination of the French state and the French conglomerate Lagardère, while German carmaker Daimler controls a further 22.35% – part of which is being bought by a German state-owned bank. The Spanish state also owns 5.45% of EADS, which was formed by the combination of Daimler's aerospace unit with France's Aerospatiale Matra and Construcciones Aeronáuticas of Spain. The companies are not corporate strangers to each other – BAE owned 20% of EADS's largest business, Airbus, until 2006.

I am not saying that this is a bad idea but if I were a shareholder in either company (which I'm not) I would like to see the economic rationale for such a merger.

Practising what they preach

How the TUC has changed.  No more beer and sandwiches:

Women make up 30 per cent of union general secretaries and 40 per cent of the TUC General Council. That compares with 18 per cent of David Cameron's Cabinet, 17 per cent of directors of FTSE companies, and less than 16 per cent of Conservative MPs.

Good for the TUC.  

Not all the perfumes of Arabia ...

Just because he's the richest man in France and he wants to take Belgian nationality, there's no excuse for vulgarity - or, at least, maybe in this instance, there might be ...

(He is Bernard Arnault, boss of LVMH, the company that makes Moet & Chandon, Glen Morangie, Christian Dior perfumes and Louis Vuitton luggage.)

    

The euro soap opera continues

The story so far:

Super Mario has promised to buy up the debts of Mariano and Mario (the other Mario) and Angie has gone along with it, somewhat reluctantly.  But there are conditions; before Super Mario can do anything, Mariano and/or the other Mario need to ask nicely for help.  Mariano and the other Mario are a bit worried about this, because that would bring Christine and Jose into play and they would insist on more austerity.  All very difficult.

Meanwhile Angie has problems with the law.  The Judges will decide on Wednesday if Angie has bitten off more than she can chew.  In which case the whole shooting match might be back to square one.

Francois is watching all this from the sidelines, trying to achieve the impossible by staying friends with Angie, as well as with Mariano and the other Mario.

Confused?  You will be ...

   

Oh yes - the reshuffle

The Sunday Telegraph explains how it really happened:

Treating himself to glass after glass of Merlot. Calling in minister after minister. Feet on the desk, feeling utterly chillaxed. Waving the bottle expansively at Cheryl, telling her he didn’t see why the Welsh needed a Secretary anyway. Telling Caroline that he was axing her from Environment before the crow’s feet got any deeper. Deciding, on the spur of the moment, that Jeremy’s cheerful little face would be much more suited to Health than grumpy old Andrew’s.

Justine had been a particular low point. She’d sat there, on the verge of tears, pointing out that she hated flying, and didn’t much like foreigners, and that International Development wasn’t the job for someone whose idea of exotic was the Isle of Wight. And hadn’t she only been keeping to the manifesto over Heathrow?

Tough, Dave had replied, warmed by the glow of a particularly fine Burgundy. It was, he’d told her, sky way or the highway. And anyway, he didn’t have time to listen to her snivelling.

Music of the week

If you've never heard of Paul Robeson or Joe Hill, you should be ashamed.

High finance as you like it

I do hope that you have been following the Glencore/Xstrata affair.  It’s straight out of the movies.  This guy, Ivan Glasenberg (obviously a baddy - think Michael Douglas with a South African accent), the boss of Glencore, wants to take over Xstrata, led by Mick Davis (Matt Damon wearing a white hat - well maybe one that’s turned a bit grayish).  Ivan made an offer Mick could not refuse:  2.8 Glencore shares for every Xstrata share, oodles of dosh for Mick and a position as chief exec of the merged company.  But the Xstrata shareholders were not entirely happy - some of them thought that they being were sold down the river, notably the Arabs (in the form of the Qatar Sovereign Fund), the Vikings (yes the Norse oil fund was also involved) and dear old Standard Life.

It was expected to come to a head yesterday when the Xstrata shareholders were to vote on the merger/takeover.  (In Switzerland, of course).  At the last minute, Tony Blair (yes, he’s also up to his neck in this) managed to get Ivan together with the Qatari prime minister.  As a result, Ivan upped the bid to 3.05 Glencote shares per Xstrata share and apparently dumped poor old Mick by suggesting that he, Ivan, would be in charge of the merged company and that Mick could whistle for his expected dosh.

The amazing thing is that nobody seems to know where this leaves anybody.  Will the merger/takeover go through?  What will Mick do?  Does Ivan really want to get into bed with the Qataris?  And what about the Norwegians?  And will Tony make another intervention?  It’s all a bit of a mystery

This is an over-simplified version of the soap opera so far, but you have to admit that it's great entertainment ...

The plonker's plonk

The newspapers never tell you the interesting stuff.  Take wine-gate. for example:

As scandals go, the claim (wanly denied by Downing Street) that David Cameron took wine while ending Cheryl Gillan’s term as Welsh Secretary may appear trifling. Yet our MPs and political commentators lead admirably sheltered lives when it comes to alcohol, and inevitably wine-gate has outraged some Tory backbenchers and hostile hacks. The Daily Mirror, for instance, accuses Mr Cameron not of drinking the wine (a red, so it insists, though no word on chateau or vintage), but of “swilling” it.

In truth, swilling would be an indelicate mode of imbibing in the context, especially when Ms Gillan wasn’t offered a glass from which to take so much as a ladylike sip. It would have been worse, of course, had he sat there swirling, now and again dipping his nose to catch the bouquet, and punctuating her sobs with reflections on its ribald insouciance.

Was it a Tesco Lambrusco?  Or a Waitrose Fleurie?  We'll never know ...

Headline of the day

Not the sort of thing one might expect from The Economist (here):

The ECB and OMT: OTT, OMG or WTF?

What does it mean?  Don't ask me - I can't keep up with the twists and turns of the everlasting euro-crisis.

But that's no excuse for vulgarity.

    

   

Building the new British economy

Not that different from the old British economy, it seems.  The Independent reports:

Yesterday, the Government unveiled its new, big plan for rescuing the moribund economy. Lips were wet in anticipation. There were drum rolls.
And here it comes. The Government is to "consult" – so it may not even happen anyway – on a three-year relaxation of planning rules on extending homes and business premises.
At present you can extend your home by three metres without planning permission, but under the exciting new plans (if approved) you shall be able to extend it by six metres.
Satirical-wise, this is hard to extend by even one metre.

Not much use for me, as I live three floors up.  But then I don't suppose that the Tories ever think about people like me.  And anyway it probably won't apply in Scotland.

Nostalgia - stuff it

This morning, I had to do something I have not done in twenty years:  I had to change an electric plug.  Men of my vintage used to do this regularly.  For reasons which escape me, this was a man's job.  (I imagine that single women lived wholly in the dark.)  But some EU regulation or other in the 1980s insisted that all electrical appliances came with plugs already attached.  I therefore suppose that this is a mystery to you youngsters.

Changing a plug is not difficult, but it is fiddly.  It was a Spanish plug, but the principle is the same: blue to the left, brown to the right and earth up the middle.  Get it wrong and you'll set the house on fire or electrocute yourself.

But there must be an easier way to supply electricity to appliances.

To hell in a handcart

What's the world coming to, when the BBC can let go such luminaries of clear diction as Charlotte and Harriet?  Maybe I'm getting a little deaf, but I can hear every word when Charlotte speaks.

Not so for the Today presenters (Humphreys, I'm talking about you!) who have the alarming habit of letting their voice fall away as they move towards the end of the sentence.  And the newsreaders on Radio 5 are - literally - unspeakable, especially the wee girls who have to do the 5 am morning reports shift.

Sirs a plenty

Remember the fuss about honours for Olympic athletes and how the responsible Whitehall committee could only recommend one knighthood per year for gold medal winners?

Well, surprise, surprise.  Cameron managed to find four knighthoods at once.  The Independent reports:

Knighthoods have been handed to four MPs who lost their jobs, –Nick Harvey (formerly Defence minister), Jim Paice (Defra minister of state), Edward Garnier (Solicitor General) and Gerald Howarth (Defence minister).

What was all that about honours only going to those who had done something above and beyond their normal duties?

Always look on the bright side

They say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.   The Independent plunges to the bottom:

...  here's something that should cheer everyone up. The Prime Minister has just completed his reshuffle. And it's not had any impact on the Treasury. So all the people who have done such a marvellous job with the economy over the past couple of years are still in place. Praise be for small mercies.

The customer is always right

How to win friends and influence people:

Ryanair's chief executive has lambasted a passenger who took to Facebook to complain about being charged for printing out five boarding passes, branding her "an idiot".

After a flight last month from Alicante to Bristol, Suzy McLeod of Newbury took to Facebook to vent her anger at paying €60 each for boarding passes for herself, her parents and her two children. "I had to pay €300 for them to print out a piece of paper," she wrote.

 ...

Mr O'Leary said that 99.98 per cent of Ryanair passengers print their boarding passes in advance: "To those who don't, we say quite politely: 'Bugger off' ". He added that Ms McLeod had written to him requesting compensation and "a gesture of goodwill", and he had responded by saying: "It was your fuck-up".

Utterly charming.

Shock! Horror! Nobody sacked ...

The night of the long knives, it's not.  Is Cameron a mouse or a man?  I think we now know the answer ...


 

Slasher gets the bird

No, I don't feel any sympathy:

Shock! Horror! Calamity!

The price of a pint of Mahou in my favourite bar has increased from €1.50 to €1.80.  (Anguished wailing.)

All due to the VAT increase from 18% to 21%.  Not entirely clear why a 12.5% increase in VAT, accounting for a fifth of the total, should lead to a 20% increase in the price to the consumer.  But mustn't grumble - the price of a pint in the UK is slightly higher.


   

Back in the old routine

Finally arrived in Spain.  Flat not burned down; fridge still working, so a cold beer was most welcome.  Temperature of 75 degrees at 9 pm, though it feels hotter.

 

Music of the week

 

Please don't sack me, please!

How humiliating.  Does she have no self-respect?  Here:

Tory Party chairman Baroness Warsi has issued an appeal to David Cameron to keep her in her post when he carries out his forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle.

Lady Warsi has been criticised for her performance in the key party role by some Tories who say the job should be done by an MP sitting in the House of Commons.

But in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the first female Muslim Cabinet minister urged Mr Cameron let her carry on so that she could help the party attract a new generation of women, working class and ethnic minority voters.

   

Wasting time

Office getting boring?  Need something to while away the endless hours?

http://www.imepilt.com/angry-kremlins/

Mr Fifty Shades

Splendid piece in The Guardian by the husband of the author of that novel.  This is just a taste but it is well worth reading the whole thing:

Whenever Erika encountered a story problem, she'd describe it, and I – being a bloke – would come up with a simple solution that was clear, elegant and always so utterly wrong she'd immediately devise her own. I don't think she once followed a suggestion of mine.

And no, I have yet to read Fifty Shades.  Not really my cup of tea.

Quote of the day

It's a funny old world (and a remunerative one if you are a lawyer):

Forty minutes into the judgment, it was clear Abramovich had won game, set and match. The judge dismissed in "its entirety" Berezovsky's claim that he had been a partner in Sibneft, set up in the mid-1990s when Russia's then president, Boris Yeltsin, practically gifted state assets to a small group of well-connected businessmen: the oligarchs. (In return they helped him dubiously win Russia's 1996 election.) She also rejected a second Berezovsky claim for $564m, his alleged share of a joint interest with Abramovich in the aluminium group Rusal.

Instead, Gloster accepted Abramovich's version of history: that he had been compelled to hire Berezovsky for his political connections. Back in 1994 Berezovsky was Yeltsin's occasional tennis-partner and a powerful figure in the corridors of the Kremlin. Abramovich was a young and ambitious oil trader. Gloster accepted the relationship had been one of "krysha" – the Russian word for roof – with Berezovsky giving Abramovich physical and political protection, indispensable in the murky world of Russian business. (The judge prounounced "krysha" to rhyme with Trisha, rather than the Russian way, "kreesha".)

The judge even ruled that Putin hadn't tried to intimidate Berezovsky into selling his TV channel ORT, during an uncomfortable Kremlin showdown in 2000, shortly before Berezovsky fled. Her finding prompted seasoned Russian watchers to guffaw. Afterwards, a stunned Berezovsky emerged into the corridor. The judge had tried to rewrite Russian history, he said, adding that his faith in British justice had now been badly shaken. Had he expected to win? "Absolutely."