Labour blames civil servant for Hazel's blunder

Mark Wadsworth ("accountant with attitude" according to City Unslicker) picked up on this story of the incompetence of Hazel Blears as being one of amusement:

A personal computer holding sensitive documents relating to defence andextremism has been stolen from Hazel Blears' constituency office in Salford. The machine contained a combination of constituency and government information which should not have been held on it. The theft may mean the communities secretary has broken rules on the handling of restricted government information, the BBC has learned.

which it is, but reading on its is also quite sinister as it shows Labour's contempt for the civil service:

After Gordon Brown was informed of the theft from Ms Blears' office, he told cabinet ministers to ask their civil servants to remind staff of the importance of enforcing procedures on the treatment of sensitive information

Lets just get this straight - a Minister of the Crown puts sensitive material on a personal laptop she uses for constituency business, takes laptop to constituency office and it gets nicked. Now I know that Labour has pushed the politicisation of the civil to the limits, but surely the haven't corrupted the independence of the civil service to the point where they are responsible for Labour Party offices?

Whats more, this is one of the worst kinds of bad leadership - my mistake, your fault.

There's no wonder the went after civil serf with a vengeance if this is typical of they kind of stunt they pull and the way they treat the civil service. Bastards, the lot of 'em.

Gordon Brown, The Great Traditionalist

I was listening to Today In Parliament on my drive in and couldn't believe it when, during PMQ's, he claimed that he wasn't going to Crewe and Nantwich because there is a tradition that PM's don't attend by elections.

Leaving aside that his predecessor had already broken this tradition, this came from the man who has just announced what will be in the Queen's Speech to the next Parliament 6 months before it opens and before this one has finished. I'll bet that has happened before.

I am sure readers can name a few more examples of him trampling over tradition when it suits his selfish needs. The man has no shame.

1978, 30 years on for Labour and Gordon

At first it was background noise, then it became a slight irritant and now its really winding me up - Gordon's ad nausea references to "hard working families". There's hardly a sentence goes by without this reference and as well as winding me up it was also perplexing. Why does he bang on about hard working families so much when they are such a relatively small part of the voter base? Surely what he should be worrying about just as equally are the baby boomers who are just about to retire?

Listening to a vox pop on BBC news today the penny dropped. Despite Gordon's efforts to undo the damage of the 10p cock up (and all the other failed policies) and promises to listen and learn those interviewed were implacably against Labour in general and Gordon in particular. I know it was a small sample and self selecting but there was real venom in the comments from young mothers and fathers and many others who I guess Gordon knows are supposed to be his core vote.

I remember the talk in the pubs when I was back on leave in 78 and 79 being one of contempt for Labour, and these were "working man's pubs"*. I got the impression then that no matter what Jim Callaghan did Labour was doomed. Gordon was around at that time and must also remember them well and I am sure they haunt him even now. Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Labour's internal polls are telling a similar story and Gordon knows he has to get the core vote going again.

Now, as I said above "hard working families" probably aren't enough on their own but the baby boomers are seeing their children and grand children suffering and though probably not natural Labours supporters they will be even more incensed and less likely to vote Labour. Furthermore, those baby boomers are likely to have voten Labour in 1997 and will be feeling a sense of betrayal that their off spring have been let down and could even be influencing their children's voting intentions.

I see it all now - Gordon knows he's stuffed and the only thing he can think of is to con hard working families in to believing he is the only one to look after them, despite raping them for the past 10 years. But I suspect that like Jim Callaghan in 1979 he knows that there is a sea change and his time is up.

Is there or isn't there a terrorism problem?

If there is terrorism problem why is the Home Office wasting everyone's time by changing Cannabis from class C to Class B?

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has said cannabis is to be reclassified as a Class B drug against officials' advice.

If Cannabis really is a serious problem then the police need to take it seriously and start arresting more people, get them through the courts and safely stuffed in to our glorious jails - where no doubt where the can continue to feed their habit or progress to harder drugs. During all this they won't have time to hunt terrorists, will they?

So if there isn't a problem with terrorism why are they still banging on about 42 days precharge detention?

In case you are wondering I'm in the legalise it camp, despite never taking drugs, other than alcohol and tobacco

Hasn't Brown learned that using rising house prices is an illusion?

According to to today's Telegraph Brown is going to make a few eye catching policies to resurrect his fortunes. One of those will be:

A big expansion of shared-equity deals in a move to attract more first-time buyers back to the struggling housing market. The range of organisations that can "share" mortgages with homeowners, currently restricted to the Government, housing associations and estate agents, will be expanded to include other businesses. This is expected to give the market a big cash injection.

All this will do is keep prices artificially high. FFS, haven't our politicians learned that rising house prices as a proxy for wealth is nothing more than an illusion that eventually leads to tears? If Brown really had balls he would take the pain and let house prices slide to the point where they become truly affordable to first time buyers. Only then can we start to think about growing real wealth.

Sadly Brown doesn't have the courage of those he writes about; sadly I suspect very few politicians would when it comes to housing.

A clear message for Labour

The polls have spoken and although it is only a local government election it is as clear a message as it was to the Tories in 1995. But I think this message goes even deeper and is morew meaningful.

Up to 1997 Labour had always complained that they hadn't really had a chance to prove themselves. In 1945-50 they were picking up after a war, from 64-70 Wilson was following "13 years of Tory misrule", in the 70's they were short governments and picking up after Tories had "screwed the economy", they claimed.

Well, in 1997 they took over a growing UK economy which had had most of its structural weaknesses fixed. What's more their own Party had been able to regenerate and get rid of Clause 4 and their perceived reliance on the Unions. They even agreed to Tory spending plans and that gave them an even more secure financial base.

So now they have had 11 years with a world economy that was expanding, especially China and India. They have had every opportunity to implement their socialist policies that will give us the dream state that they claim socialism will deliver. They've thrown money at Health, Education and Social Security as if their lives depended on it. There have been some improvements in Health, but it is arguable that these don't reflect the value for money that our taxes deserve.

Now we have the first down turn and the public have realised that NuLab have been a sham and that they have been conned. The cupboard is bare despite an expanding economy and an ever increasing rate of taxation in real terms, just when people are likely to need support and releif from high taxes. To add insult to injury we still have the same proportion of children in poverty despite all the promises despite the ludicrous tax cfedits. I could go on but have a life to lead.

The message is loud and clear to Labour, you've had you chance and screwed up, no excuse this time its all your own fault. Now fuck off and and don't ever darken our ballot papers you incompetent socialist windbags.

ACPO to defy Brown on Cannabis

According to the Telegraph:

Police will not toughen their approach to cannabis when ministers upgrade the legal status of the drug to class B, it has been disclosed.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has confirmed that the current policy of “confiscate and warn” will continue, despite Gordon Brown’s wish to send out a “tough message” on cannabis use.

Good. There is nothing so unedifying as a Labour politician, or inded ay politician, pandering to the social authoritarians at the Daily Mail.

A spokesman for Acpo said: “The key will be the discretion for officers to strike the right balance.

“We do not want to criminalise young people who are experimenting.”

Why criminalise anyone who is just using and not offending anone else?

Gordon's new distraction - a new telecoms/broadband policy?

Rumor has it that Stephen Carter, Gordon's SpAd and ex-Ofcom supremo, summonsed all the big hitters in the telecoms industry to meet Gordon last week. Apparently the "invite" went out at 7pm on Thursday for a 7am meeting on Friday. The subject of the discussions still hasn't filtered out on the subject of the meeting to this humble telecoms engineer so I can only speculate.

So why would a beleaguered PM want to meet senior telecoms managers, and I mean senior, at such short notice when he is facing a meltdown in the local elections, the loss of the London Mayor, disquiet and almost rebellion over his own tax policies when he was Chancellor and now a possible rebellion over 42 days detention? Could it be free internet for the poor? More Internet? Cheaper calls?

Whatever it is he isn't going to get much joy out of the telecoms industry:

Mobile operators are pissed off that there is going to be another auction for spectrum is the so called 3G expansion band which they don't need yet. They are also pissed off with the EU because they are getting another kicking over roaming, this time SMS

ISP's are pissed off they are expected to find the Capex to support the growth in Internet usage caused by BBC's iPlayer

The large ISP's are bleeding because of the land grab for more customers, and this means the MNO's as well, and through their own stupidity of the race to the bottom over "free" Internet.

No, the telecom's industry isn't really the place for Gordon to be looking for some sort of pancea to his unpopularity.

Anyway, telecoms is such a long term game that he will be lucky for there to be any noticeable difference by the next election, let alone after the (hopeful) debacle that is going to happen to him in the polls tomorrow.

Comment of the year winner already?

Prodicus has picked up on this excellent comment on a Political betting post about a Comres poll giving the Tories a 14% lead:

I mean: WTF are Labour for? Are they for liberty - then why ID cards? Are they meant to help the poor? Then why abolish 10p tax rates? Are they for clean politics? Why cash-for-peerages?

Do they represent the working classes? Then why mass immigration, repressing low-skilled wages? Maybe they are the capitalist party? But then, why bail out Northern Rock?

Are they the europhile party? But why didn’t they join the euro? Maybe they are the democratic party. In which case, why didn’t they give us the referendum they promised on Europe? Perhaps they are the British party - yet they promoted Devolution. Could be they are the pacifist internationalist party - er, hold on, no, they invaded Iraq illegally and killed half a million.

Ah, I know, they believe in racial equality. Whoops, wait a minute - “British jobs for British workers”. Who said that?

Labour are a nothing party. They believe, literally, in nothing but their own careers. They are a busload of ugly, self-serving, slimy-faced shysters, they are a dish of cold sick in the canteen of Hell. They are moral bacteria.

Enough. We need a new lefty opposition. Time to give the Lib Dems a go, while the rightwing gets on with government.

Brilliant. Sean T, whoever you are mark the political awards date in your diary and if you don't get first prize you've been robbed.

The real reson why Gordon removed the 10p limit

There has been a lot of noise about why Gordon really removed the 10p tax threshold and reduced the 22p one to 20p, most of it revolving around his need to grandstand. This explanation by Phil A of Critical Faculty Dojo is by far the most plausible as it involves our old friend "relative" poverty and what's more he spotted what would happen nearly a year ago:

Before Gordon's last budget there was much rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth over ‘Child Poverty’. New Labour had foolishly promised (though why breaking some promises should bother them more than others is not clear) to halve child poverty in Britain by 2010 - and there was no way they were going to meet that target.

That NuLab, especially TB, love making headline catching promises without having a clue how to deliver is nothing new, but when it comes to children there really is nowhere to hide in the modern world. The problem with this one was that for some reason we only talk about relative poverty:

Now New-labour were presumably too stupid to realise this is effectively impossible when they set this target. But because of the way the formula is calculated ‘Child Poverty’ is defined by a moving set of goalposts. If you were to somehow magically increase the household incomes of all families, every single one, who fall within the definition at midnight on Sunday - and then re run the figures the poverty line would have increased and you would still have children living in ‘poverty’. You can do the sums for yourself if you care to.

I think most people with half a brain cell had worked that one out and bloggers have been ripping in to it for some time.

So now comes the old sleight of hand:

So what has this to do with the abolition of the 10p tax band? Well there is one way of getting a temporary boost to the child poverty figures. It is a matter of percentages. If you take from the really poor who it would take a lot of cash to lift out of actual poverty and give that to those who are not so badly off just below the ‘poverty’ line and only need a little to lift them out, then you can keep the goal posts more-or-less where they are and improve the figures no end. It works especially well if you mostly just take from those poor who have no children.

Gordon may be many things, mendacious, cowardly, traitorous, venal, pick your favourite, but he isn't stupid and I think there is more than a kernel of truth in Phil's next comment:

One suspects it is far from a coincidence that Gordon Brown, knowing he would be judged on New Labour's rash promises on ‘Child Poverty’ decided to do the one thing that could easily improve his figures and might be made to look like a tax cut. Rather like a magician drawing your attention to his right hand whist his left does the real trick.

So it looks suspiciously like just another, albeit particularly dodgy, case of New Labour manipulating figures to pretend to be accomplishing something.

I think I can agree with Phil's analysis and until someone comes up with a better motive then this one works for me.

Hunt down these deluded fools

The Guardian is reporting a YouGov poll carried out by the Telegraph:

The YouGov poll asked voters who they would choose from a list of politicians "at the peak of their powers" to be prime minister. Only 5% chose Brown

Who are these deluded fools, have they no brain?

Maybe this is why Brown is talking of constinutional changes - the new voting system will be limited to these idiots.

H/T Guido

Poor Darren Minnikin

I made the point about the first Rocker to be evicted yesterday would cause a bit of a stir and now Guido is reporting that a Mr Minnikin is going to get his 15 mins of fame in a way that he probably wasn't expecting:

Government to Make Darren Minnikins Homeless

In Bishop Auckland right now the "People's Bank" is attempting to make Darren Minnikin homeless.

Claim 8PA12900:
Northern Rock plc versus Mr Darren Minnikin

Congratulations Mr Minnikin. You are the first victim of socialist economics today...

If this gets stopped you can expect the loan book to look a lot worse very soon now as the rest of the mortgage holders start to miss payments

At last some General competence

Following the concerted attack on the Government in general and the PM in particular by 5 former chiefs of the defence staff, the Government complains it was a planned attack. Fucking hell, these were some of the best military strategists of the past 20 years or so, what the fuck did they expect when they continually ignored warnings that the Armed Forces were close to breaking point?

Instead of whingeing, perhaps the incompetent bunch of wankers that claim to be Governing us should be asking the form CDS's to teach them how to implement policy in an effective and competent way, then we might not get as many fuck ups like the HMRC debacle.

Government's duty on Northern Rock

I have read and heard some real bollocks this weekend. Two particular pieces spring to mind:

This morning in an interview on the radio I heard a Labour MP (unfortunately I didn't catch his name as I was driving) say that the Government's priority was to protect jobs. No, no, no and no again. Haven't you fucking idiots learnt anything from the history books, you fucking dimwits? Its only as recent as the 1960's and 70's that Governments poured good money after bad in the pursuit of "protecting jobs" and look where that got us!

I know its harsh and nobody likes seeing people lose their jobs but this institution is well and truly fucked and the Government has one priority and one priority only: to get our tax payers money back as quickly as possible, preferably with the interest paid, but I'll settle for capital only at this stage.

Which brings me to my next point, what the fuck is the Government doing worrying about shareholders, as reported in this article:

"If he (the Chancellor) is prepared to leave the financial prop in place for three years - subject to not falling foul of EU state-aid rules - existing shareholders might recoup some of the losses they've incurred," said Robert Peston, the BBC's business editor.

No, no and thrice no. The shareholders were laughing all the way to the bank when the share price was £12 and good luck to them. But if they were so fucking greedy that they allowed the management to continue with its obviously flawed plan thinking they would make even more money then that's there fault and not mine.

I find myself hoping the EU steps in and forces the Goverment's hand under Competition rules - how desperate is that FFS!