A DESPERATE NEED...

A desperate need for News International

Much has been made of David Cameron’s (DC) blunder in relation to the phone hacking case, especially by the party formerly known as New Labour which moved swiftly to put the boot into DC. DC’s blunder whether unfortunate or calculated was not a criminal act and won’t land him in the International Court at The Hague, unlike some acts of one former New Labour leader. Legal issues and angry judges aside, at the end of the day, if the party formerly known as New Labour had not outlived its usefulness to News International then we may have found ourselves somewhere else. Perhaps employment opportunities within 10 Downing Street (and Scotland Yard) may have been as open to former News International employees under Gordon Brown as they were under DC. Perhaps if the party formerly known as New Labour had not been dropped by the Dirty Digger, then perhaps DC might have been attempting to put the boot in rather than Mr Milibland.  Additionally if the relationship with News International been maintained just exactly how vigorously would the party formerly known as New Labour pushed for any regulation of the news media or any enquiry into Fleet Streets misdeeds. Historically plenty of villains (elected or otherwise) and iffy media moguls - from Alfred Charles William Harmsworth, Harold Sidney Harmsworth, etc onwards -  have trodden the floors of Downing Street from the days of Lloyd George, who openly sold honours for cash, onwards. Putting the legal rumpus to one side there will be consequences of this mess that last longer than the media headlines. Basically as long as the incestuous relationship between the (mostly) Westminster based political leaders and Fleet Street remains important then there is no chance of any independent regulation of the worst aspects of the press behaviour, as personified by the phone hacking scandal. 

MEANWHILE OVER THE BRIDGE...

Interestingly enough, while Labour has problems with devolution in Wales, it is beginning to look like this is not the case over the bridge. In England, Labour has promised English cities more powers over transport, housing and employment to help close the "productivity gap" with London. If elected at the next Westminster General election, the Labour Party has pledged to hand £20 billion pounds to councils to spend on skills, back-to-work schemes and infrastructure, so says current Labour leader Ed Miliband. Ed has suggested that the Con Dem government has missed opportunities to give English towns and cities the economic levers they needed to generate new jobs. This announcement followed a review by the former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis, a future Labour government would invite every local authority, local enterprise partnership and university (in England) to work together in partnership with local businesses to bid for resources. Apparently the doubling of existing devolved funding would amount to the "biggest devolution of powers to towns and cities in a hundred years." Perhaps the party formerly known as New Labour is finally beginning to speak for England. 

NO SURPRISE THERE THEN...

The debate surrounding the debate around the Wales Bill (and the important related issue of fair funding for Wales) which took at Westminster has flushed out some blatant contradictions within the party formerly known as New Labour both in Wales and in Westminster. So rather than bringing clarity to the Labour position on devolution in relation to further financial powers and fair funding for Wales we have ended up with an increasingly bizarre series of contradictions.

Differences of opinions (which have existed for some time) have now fully emerged between Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones, Labour leader Ed Miliband and Shadow Welsh Secretary Owen Smith MP (an individual with diverse and contradictory opinions on the tax lockstep as he is both for it and against it) in relation to devolution and how it should or should not develop. Whatever Labour in Wales and Westminster is or is not saying about devolution in Wales, they are saying something different in relation to Scotland.

People may well ask just exactly who speaks for Labour on devolution and just exactly who speaks for Wales. Some of this, I think, can be put can be down to simple ineptitude and some of it can be put down to  barely disguised self-interest on the part of Labour in Westminster MP’s. I suggest this as some of these peoples comfortable jobs will be on the line if Wales gains more powers and the number of Welsh MP’s are understandably reduced.

Most of the responsibility for this  confused and inherently contradictory Labour vision for Wales is down to the fact that Labour in Wales remains deeply split over devolution. The problem is that this shambolic situation does not help the people of Wales very much who are struggling with the effects of the Con Dem Government’s ill-thought out austerity programme. It also further strains the paper thin credibility of Labour in Wales's claim to be standing up for Wales.

ED SPEAKS OUT...

According to Ed Miliband a newly elected Labour Government would freeze gas and electricity bills for every home and business in the UK for 20 months if Labour wins the 2015 election. The big energy firms would also be broken up and would be governed by a new tougher regulator to give people "a fairer deal". Eds says that this plan would will save average households £120 pounds and businesses £1,800 pounds per year and cost the energy giants some £4.5 billion pounds. Apparently the Labour leader said that energy firms had been overcharging "for too long" and that it was time to "reset" the market.

It sounds good, save for the fact the energy market that now exists under the control of the big 6 energy cartel members  came into existence when Labour were last in power (with a significant majority). Gordon Brown, initially as Chancellor and then later as Prime Minister did nothing to curb the excessive profits of the large monopolistic energy companies, so why would we seriously expect Ed do anything different.

 Potentially this is the first real break in the consensus on the profitable privatised nominally ‘free’ energy market by the Westminster focused political parties – since the late 1980’s. The big 6 have kicked off with warnings (threats) of power blackouts and a lack of investment in the energy sector and the usual former fleet street suspects have kicked off big time with ‘Red Ed’ like headlines. The ‘policy’ may have sounded good on the conference platform yesterday (naturally it did not go down well with the big 6 cartel members) but it (and Ed) did not quite have sounded so good or so convincing on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme this morning.

The adoption of this new Labour position on energy, may seriously stir things up a bit as Cameron whatever his private (or some of the Conservative Party) feelings are on the matter cannot afford to look like the best mate of the ‘Big 6’ energy cartel members in the run up to the next Westminster General election. The problem is that in office Labour (under Blair and Brown) adopted not so much ‘a hands off approach’ as ‘a look the other way approach’ to the increasingly excessive profits raked in (at our, the energy customers expense) by the cartel members as long as the Treasury continued to receive its share of the profits in the form of extra tax.

The applecart may well be truly been upset if  the power companies cozy relationship with the political parties ends. Over the years some of the Political parties have got used to some of the perks of having a close relationship with the Power Companies – who sponsor free food at funded functions, glossy paid adverts in conference brochures, etc. One very old rule that Ed may have forgotten is that once you sell your virtue it stays sold, and once you sell your principles they stay bought and the end result is that the fabric of our democracy is damaged or tainted.

WHO SPEAKS FOR ENGLAND?

The report by the McKay Commission suggested that English-only laws need to be backed by a majority of MPs who represent English constituencies and that Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs could see their roles reduced if proposals to give English MPs more say on laws for England are eventually brought in. The Con Dem Westminster government said that it will give the report "serious consideration" this may well be Westminster speak for kicking it into the long grass.

The McKay Commission was set up to examine how MPs should deal with English legislation in the wake of devolution. For some time there has been a potential problem over what’s been known as West Lothian Question - the ability of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs to vote on England only matters - for several decades, but this has intensified of late as a result devolution.

Back in 2004, support from Scottish and Welsh Labour in Westminster MPs meant that the then Blair government could push through the introduction of university top-up fees in England. The McKay Commission has concluded that the current situation is "unsustainable" and that changes were needed. The Commission has proposed the principle that House of Commons' decisions that involve a "separate and distinct effect" for England should "normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs sitting for constituencies in England".

The same principle would apply for decisions that affected only England and Wales. The Commission has recognised that while Westminster law-making had inevitably come to focus on England, or England and Wales the actual processes for making law at Westminster have not significantly changed or taken account of the developments of devolution.

Understandably people in England are unhappy about the existing arrangements and may support some changes to the Westminster legislative process. English people are beginning to fell disadvantaged and understandably have concerns that MPs who represent the devolved nations are able to vote on matters that directly affect England but not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Clearly the status quo is unsustainable and there is a clear need to sort out the problem of all England legislation

Even the Party formerly known as New Labour (and Ed) has recognised the problem and have made tentative efforts to embrace the political elephant in the room that is Englishness and they have admitted that they (Old and formerly New Labour) have apparently been somewhat reluctant to talk about the sleeping elephant (in the room) at the heart of the UK - Englishness. There is more, apparently they have decided that the issue of national identity (English or British perhaps?) should not be a closed book.

Last year in a keynote speech on ‘England’ Miliband managed to hit his thumb squarely rather than the head of the nail, saying that Britain should be a country "where it always possible to have more than one identity" and people should not have to choose between being British, English, Scottish or Welsh. The acknowledgement of "multiple allegiances" potentially raises some interesting questions about national identity and effectively accepted that Labour had done its best to try to avoid having to articulate a vision of Englishness.

Plaid has long called for a partnership of equals, but it is pretty clear that Ed's current position on the English question is that they do not deserve their own Parliament. Not unsurprisingly the party formerly known as New Labour, has done its best to largely ignore the thorny matter of the West Lothian Question and English votes on English laws, perhaps hoping the problem will go away.

Labour’s failure, may remind older participants in the devolutionary process of not so long ago, of typical old Labour fudge. Labour is still apparently currently keen to continue devolving powers to local authorities in England, which is one way to fudge the issue and avoid calls for an England-only parliament to balance those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I suspect that based on the way labour plays the devolutionary game, I predict that this means that in about 10 to 15 years Labour will embrace the cause an English parliament....

ED EMBRACES THE ELEPHANT

Ed's new friend!

Ed (Miliband) and the Party formerly known as New Labour have decided to embrace the political elephant that is Englishness and they have admitted that they (Old and New Labour) have apparently been somewhat reluctant to talk about the sleeping elephant (in the room) at the heart of the UK - Englishness. There is more, apparently they have decided that the issue of national identity (English or British perhaps?) should not be a closed book. In snippets from the speech released before yesterday's event, it appears that Miliband has managed to hit his thumb squarely rather than the head of the nail, saying that Britain should be a country "where it always possible to have more than one identity" and people should not have to choose between being British, English, Scottish or Welsh. Yet at the same time acknowledging that "multiple allegiances" raise serious questions about national identity and accepting that that Labour has avoided trying to articulate a vision of Englishness. Apparently the released draft of Miliband's speech contained no reference to the thorny issue of a separate English Parliament. Plaid has long called for a partnership of equals, but it is pretty clear that Ed's position on the English (question) is that they do not deserve their own Parliament. He has also entirely ignored the thorny matter of the West Lothian Question and English votes on English laws. In a typical old Labour fudge. that may remind older participants in the devolutionary process of not so long ago, Labour sources suggested that although Ed was keen to continue devolving powers to local authorities, he believed that calls for an England-only parliament to balance those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were "simplistic constitutional symmetry". By my reckoning, based on the way labour plays the devolutionary game, I predict that this means that in about 10 to 15 years Labour will embrace the cause an English parliament....

LABOUR INACTION

Despite all the budget day bluster from Labour, when it came down to the actual vote (on Monday evening) Labour politicians failed to oppose the cut to the 50p tax rate. The vote was forced by Plaid Cymru and the SNP, some 22 MPs voted against the cut, with only two Labour MPs voting to keep the top rate at 50p. The vote took place after both Labour Leader Ed Milliband and Carwyn Jones (Welsh First Minister) made much of their party’s opposition to the cut from 50p to 45p proposed in last Wednesday's Budget.

Plaid Cymru's Treasury spokesperson, Jonathan Edwards MP said:

"Having heard Labour's alleged objection to this regressive taxation policy time and again last week, the inaction of its party members last night showed astonishing hypocrisy.

"Over the past few months, we have seen Labour abstaining or voting with the ConDems on important issues such as privatisation of the NHS and cutting Welsh farming subsidies. Labour of course introduced regional pay in the public sector and are now advocating a regional cap on benefits. What we saw last night was the Tory-Labour tag-team at work yet again.

"Plaid Cymru has always maintained that progressive taxation is a principle, not an option, and those who are most able to afford to pay must make a fair contribution.

“Cutting the 50p income tax rate for the mega rich who earn more than £3,000 per week whilst continuing to slash support for the needy and vulnerable shows once again that the Coalition only cares about the rich and wealthy.

"Labour's failure to vote last night clearly shows that their priorities are much the same.

"First Minister Carwyn Jones's inability to influence his MPs in Westminster reveals a crisis of leadership for the party in Wales.

"His Treasury spokesperson, Owen Smith MP, was quoted last week as saying that cutting the top rate of tax for the rich would show how out of touch this Government is, yet when it came to the crunch last night, Labour failed to deliver.

"The Labour Welsh Government as always is more interested in serving its masters in London Labour HQ than serving the people of Wales."

OOPS...AN UPDATE

An advisor to Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor, has admitted that Labour had made a “screw-up” on Monday night by not voting with Plaid Cymru and the SNP to oppose Con Dem plans to cut the top rate of tax for the highest earners. The admission reveals embarrassing efforts by Labour staff to claim their abstention had been planned, and also reveal that Carwyn Jones was only belatedly told what was going on in Westminster rather than being part of Labour Party discussions. The Labour no-show followed some pretty vocal opposition and several pledges from shadow chancellor Ed Balls to vote against the Budget measure. The Con Dem Government won the vote on the 45p rate by 319 to 22, a majority of 297.

AN ACUTE LACK OF FAIRNESS...

I spent the first half of the week on a very intensive training course (complete with an exam - which thankfully I passed) so I missed the strike day entirely. It's literally taken until today for the deprogramming to kick in and to put thought to blog. Wednesday came and went, the Conservatives are feeling good, having a pop at the Unions over strikes for the Tories is like playing to a familiar audience.

The amply rewarded and well-paid card carrying largely Labour dinosaur Union bosses are happy as they got to have a go at a Conservative led Government. The current (New) Labour leader is quietly hoping that the strikes will go away and no one remembers that this whole economic mess originated when New Labour were running the show.

Now to be fair it's a devilishly awkward situation that the party formerly known as New Labour finds itself in. I mean they are trying to sit on the fence and avoid taking an official position, neither for or against the strikes. Fence sitting aside as the dust settle a lot of people who can least afford it are out of pocket at a time of year when they can least afford it.

The anger of public-sector workers who took part in strike action on Wednesday remains understandably undiminished. They are being asked to make significant financial sacrifices to pay for the mess, those responsible for the mess the private finance sector, are definitely not being asked to make the same level of sacrifice and by and large appear to have got away with it and escaped unpublished for their actions.

Understandably public sector, many of whom are not paid very much, are a tad upset that part of their pension, for which they were entitled to plan for many years, is going to be taken away. I have no doubt that the scale of government borrowing requires emergency action, yet any savings from changes to public-sector pensions won't actually come through until some years after this financial disaster has faded into memory.

Apparently the Government has moved some distance towards meeting the unions' objections, apparently by reducing the cuts for those nearing retirement. If this is the case, then serious efforts should be made to get a deal on the table and to sign it. Both the Unions and the Government should accept it an honour it.

Why do the cuts need to be so apocalyptic? Could not saving be made in other areas? Trident perhaps or a couple of aircraft carriers (one of which there are no plans to even use!). The UK Government can manage to find the money to spend on wars and their aftermath, but, not apparently when matters are deemed less urgent.

I wonder if the (subconscious or not so subconscious) motivation for the attack on the public sector workers is more ideologically driven rather than financially driven. It is worth noting that both Cameron and Osborne were heavily involved if not key players (coat holders) for Michael Howard’s thankfully unsuccessful campaign to be Prime Minister.

That thought aside, one financial cuckoo that's coming home to roost is that of PFI – something that the public sector was forced to use by the last Labour Government (and is still favoured by the current government) and for which we will all be paying for many years to come. We will all be paying for a whole raft of Blair’s legacies, including a couple of wars and the London based and largely London beneficial Olympics.

For the next ten years at least, public spending is going to be under severe pressure. Harsh choices will be made and priorities decided; and some changes may need to be made to relatively generous future pension rights of public-sector staff. I don’t necessarily dispute that, but, I question on whose behalf these decisions are being made and what efforts are being made to ensure that we all pay our fair share?

From where I am sat (in the cheap seats) this Conservative Government is the Trade Union leaders' best mate (if not a convenient ally). This is government for the rich and by the rich (for that's how it appears to me) has stood by while the City fat cats continue to be rewarded for failure and to rake in fat bonuses and done nothing.

The Con Dem's biggest problem is the acute lack of fairness, as boardroom pay has raced ahead, and tax evasion and tax avoidance largely goes unpunished. Excessive profiteering by the energy cartel has gone unpunished and those who can least afford are getting hammered. David Cameron and Mr Osborne remain utterly unconvincing as they continue to fail to convince most people that they (of all people) are genuinely "all in this together".

Last Tuesday George Osborne showed that he failed to even consider any idea for public disclosure of tax returns or a ban on honours to those who have already rewarded themselves pretty handsomely. Nothing was done about tax avoidance; and no consideration was given to a "Robin Hood tax" on financial transactions (something that needs to be done on global basis). Rather than criticising the strikers, Cameron might want to take steps to ensure that the bankers and the rich are in this, too, like the rest of us.

WHAT PRICE AMBITION?

I was driving into work this morning and listening to the Radio 4 Today programme (as I do most mornings) when I heard Harriet Harman giving her side of the much discussed mutter (and Paddington Bear stare) between her and Milibland the Elder during remarks made by Milibland the Younger about the Iraq War being wrong or words to that effect and her resultant enthusiastic applause. I was surprised to here said Harman admit (perhaps) through hindsight that the decision to go to war was wrong and dubious. No doubt the Paddington Bear hard stare was delivered because no doubt Harman had temporarily forgotten (perhaps through a combination of sycophancy and a desire to be in with the in crowd) that she sat in the cabinet when the decision to go to war (on dubious grounds admittedly) was made and no doubt she strongly and vigorously expressed her doubts and concerns at the time - though I suspect not.