You can't have missed news of the recent spate of stabbings particularly of Adam Regis, who's uncle is John Regis, not that having a famous uncle makes your murder any less acceptable than anyone elses.
We clearly have a problem with violent crime amongst our youth, and what is more, it seems on the increase.
I listened with interest to Sunday's BBC Radio 4's The World this Weekend, ( 4 minutes and 47 seconds in) which featured an interview with Shaun Bailey, a fellow of the Centre for Policy Studies. have to say it was fascinating stuff.
Shaun is an interesting chap. For a start he grew up on a crime ridden estate but avoided crime. You can learn more about him by reading this.
He was asked if family breakdown was important in youth violence. His answer? Massively. Children spend far too much time away from their families. There is a nationalisation and centralisation of child care. You can't administer a hug from Westminster. (even if it is only as far as North Kensington so what chance has the North East got?)
I have to say he was compelling. On the other hand the MP for the next door constituency, Lyn Brown seemed to blame the disparity between the rich and the poor, and in particular in London. I can't say I found her compelling at all, primarily because Shaun Bailey comes from one of the richest areas in the country where there has always been a massive disparity in wealth and youth crime is not getting any better.
Monday, March 19, 2007
What is in 2007's Budget?
There used to be a time, it seems now a long long time ago, when what was in the budget was a closely guarded secret, only to be revealed on the day of the budget and before parliament first.
There were, and indeed are, good reasons for this. The budget contains much in the way of sensitive information. What is in the budge can and probably will change peoples behaviour. What is more it is a key bill that affects taxes and must be passed by parliament each year. Propriety dictates that parliament ought to hear of it first.
In fact budget secrecy used to be so important in pre New Labour days that Chancellors have been known to resign over leaks. Not a bit of it now. It is all over the press.
For example:
The Times has this article about how Gordon Brown is going to ratchet up the road tax on the most polluting cars registered since last April, the Sun carries a similar story. The Guardian has this article on how houses that generate more environmentally friendly electricity will not have to pay income tax on their profits when they sell it back to the national grid.
I am not going to comment on the policies themselves at this stage, but I find it remarkable that they have been leaked ahead of the budget, in essence to try to steal David Cameron's green clothes.
There were, and indeed are, good reasons for this. The budget contains much in the way of sensitive information. What is in the budge can and probably will change peoples behaviour. What is more it is a key bill that affects taxes and must be passed by parliament each year. Propriety dictates that parliament ought to hear of it first.
In fact budget secrecy used to be so important in pre New Labour days that Chancellors have been known to resign over leaks. Not a bit of it now. It is all over the press.
For example:
The Times has this article about how Gordon Brown is going to ratchet up the road tax on the most polluting cars registered since last April, the Sun carries a similar story. The Guardian has this article on how houses that generate more environmentally friendly electricity will not have to pay income tax on their profits when they sell it back to the national grid.
I am not going to comment on the policies themselves at this stage, but I find it remarkable that they have been leaked ahead of the budget, in essence to try to steal David Cameron's green clothes.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Cash for Access, A new sleaze storm brewing?
The Sundays Times has being carrying out an investigation into "Cash for Access" for two months according to this report today. In it the Sunday Times claims it has uncovered close access between lobbying firm Golden Arrow Communications employs a former Labour minister David Jamieson.
This is to some extent reminiscent of the cash for access scandals at the end of the 1992-1997 parliament. However this report will come as no surprise to regular readers of Private Eye who are already very aware of the revolving door between Whitehall and private firms for both ministers and civil servants, frequently avoiding the scrutiny of the committees set up to avoid accusations of impropriety.
The problem is of course that lobbying companies can get better access to decision makers than ordinary members of the public which makes their services valuable. That obviously causes public concern.
This is to some extent reminiscent of the cash for access scandals at the end of the 1992-1997 parliament. However this report will come as no surprise to regular readers of Private Eye who are already very aware of the revolving door between Whitehall and private firms for both ministers and civil servants, frequently avoiding the scrutiny of the committees set up to avoid accusations of impropriety.
The problem is of course that lobbying companies can get better access to decision makers than ordinary members of the public which makes their services valuable. That obviously causes public concern.
Cash for Peerages, has it just got worse?
The reason why I ask is that I am in two minds about this report in today's Sunday Telegraph.
It reports on a letter sent by Sir Christopher Evans, Labour donor, lender and the man who had that note written in his diary talking of P's and K's.
The essence of the letter is that of course he talked money with Lord Levy, as that was hos job. They talked about a possible future role in politics for Sir Christopher Evans, in the Lords for example, what is wrong with that?
Legally it is difficult to tell. After all a jury will make the final decision if and when charges are brought. it will depend on whether the conversations amount to an inducement.
I do wonder if Sir Christopher has been as candid with the police. I do hope so or otherwise he can expect what I am sure will be an unwelcome visit.
What is certain though is that politically this is very damaging. Lord Levy is at the end of the day he money man. He has claimed to have had little or no role in nomination for peerages, (though the police may now want to ask supplementary questions) . Clearly that line is looking less tenable by the day.
Sir Chris and Lord Levy seem to feel they have been hung out to dry. The implication of that statement is that they will be bitter if that is the case. I wonder if charges will make them more talkative?
For more on the cash for peerages saga see here.
It reports on a letter sent by Sir Christopher Evans, Labour donor, lender and the man who had that note written in his diary talking of P's and K's.
The essence of the letter is that of course he talked money with Lord Levy, as that was hos job. They talked about a possible future role in politics for Sir Christopher Evans, in the Lords for example, what is wrong with that?
Legally it is difficult to tell. After all a jury will make the final decision if and when charges are brought. it will depend on whether the conversations amount to an inducement.
I do wonder if Sir Christopher has been as candid with the police. I do hope so or otherwise he can expect what I am sure will be an unwelcome visit.
What is certain though is that politically this is very damaging. Lord Levy is at the end of the day he money man. He has claimed to have had little or no role in nomination for peerages, (though the police may now want to ask supplementary questions) . Clearly that line is looking less tenable by the day.
Sir Chris and Lord Levy seem to feel they have been hung out to dry. The implication of that statement is that they will be bitter if that is the case. I wonder if charges will make them more talkative?
For more on the cash for peerages saga see here.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
In Defence of Dissent
I listened to parts of BBC radio 4's Moral Maze (See here) on Wednesday evening.
The debate centered around dissenting from current orthodoxies like climate change, and to some extent multiculturalism, and discussed whether there was a growing intolerance of ideas that do not fit within the new orthodoxy.
I have to say I think there is a great deal of intolerance around, directed at people who hold unfashionable views. The problem is of course, that the current orthodoxy was yesterday's unfashionable view. If we allow debate to get fossilised in this way then we will lose the ability to move ideas forward.
The debate centered around dissenting from current orthodoxies like climate change, and to some extent multiculturalism, and discussed whether there was a growing intolerance of ideas that do not fit within the new orthodoxy.
I have to say I think there is a great deal of intolerance around, directed at people who hold unfashionable views. The problem is of course, that the current orthodoxy was yesterday's unfashionable view. If we allow debate to get fossilised in this way then we will lose the ability to move ideas forward.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Hospital not fit for purpose
The latest issue of Private Eye carries the story of the death of a 60 year old patient in a mental health centre in Leeds. He was the fith person to die whilst in teh care of the Becklin Centre.
The man was found on fire in a corridor.
Apparently it is one of three mental health centres in Leeds that failed fire regulations in 2005. Perhaps they need replacing? Well, no they are new build PFI units.
What is worse is that apparently the layout of the unit makes it hard to supervise patients!
This problem is of course not just a PFI problem. Lots of public buildings seem not fit for purpose before they open these days. You have to wonder how they came to be that way. Obviously the architects need some experience of working in these types of building but I suspect a bigger problem is that executives make executive decisions about what is needed with no knowledge or understanding of what the people who will end up working there will do, or how they do it.
Until we find a way of dealing with this sort of serial incompetence we will continue to build facilities that are not fit for purpose.
The man was found on fire in a corridor.
Apparently it is one of three mental health centres in Leeds that failed fire regulations in 2005. Perhaps they need replacing? Well, no they are new build PFI units.
What is worse is that apparently the layout of the unit makes it hard to supervise patients!
This problem is of course not just a PFI problem. Lots of public buildings seem not fit for purpose before they open these days. You have to wonder how they came to be that way. Obviously the architects need some experience of working in these types of building but I suspect a bigger problem is that executives make executive decisions about what is needed with no knowledge or understanding of what the people who will end up working there will do, or how they do it.
Until we find a way of dealing with this sort of serial incompetence we will continue to build facilities that are not fit for purpose.
Labour's NEC to decide Blair exit timetable
Well according to the BBC that is here.
the only problem is this, no one other than Blair can decide when he is going. The rules of the Labour party make it very very difficult to unseat a sitting Labour Prime minister.
You would need 70 MP's to sign up to a leadership challenge, which would then need a conference to be organised and a vote held. That is of course before anyone has had a chance to run for the post if all that works.
It won't happen, and it certainly won't happen quickly. What is more with Tony Blair's vague promises to leave of his own accord before the next conference there is no appetite to force him out.
However all I have heard Blair say is that he will not be Labour leader at the next labour conference. That means that he can resign first, as leader and stay on as PM until after the conference. He probably will not, but he could and stick to his promise.
So the NEC trying to decide any kind of timetable, except in the loosest possible terms, is just silly.
the only problem is this, no one other than Blair can decide when he is going. The rules of the Labour party make it very very difficult to unseat a sitting Labour Prime minister.
You would need 70 MP's to sign up to a leadership challenge, which would then need a conference to be organised and a vote held. That is of course before anyone has had a chance to run for the post if all that works.
It won't happen, and it certainly won't happen quickly. What is more with Tony Blair's vague promises to leave of his own accord before the next conference there is no appetite to force him out.
However all I have heard Blair say is that he will not be Labour leader at the next labour conference. That means that he can resign first, as leader and stay on as PM until after the conference. He probably will not, but he could and stick to his promise.
So the NEC trying to decide any kind of timetable, except in the loosest possible terms, is just silly.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Miliband to cut emissions by hundred percent before 2010
Yes that's right. According to rumours on the Internet there is a shocking new policy to cut emissions by 100% by 2010. What's more it looks like it could work.
For more see here.
For more see here.
Cash for Peerages, Yates letter to the Public Affairs Select Committee
Guido has published a copy of Yates of the Yards letter to the Public Affairs Select Committee here.
What I found most interesting about it is this paragraph:
Mind you he does also promise to get the files over to the CPS as soon as possible, its just that the tone of that paragraph indicates it may be a little way off still.
What I found most interesting about it is this paragraph:
"As experience no shows, it is unwise to set myself any deadline to complete the investigation. To do so would be unrealistic in view of the fact that many matters, not the least of which is further evidence coming to light, are out side of my control."Looks like the saga will carry on for just that little bit longer.
Mind you he does also promise to get the files over to the CPS as soon as possible, its just that the tone of that paragraph indicates it may be a little way off still.
Morgan Tsvangirai Attacks Police!
Yes you heard it here first!
According to a spokesman for the Zimbabwean government Morgan Tsvangirai ruthlessly attacked police.
An eye witness who did not wish to be murdered named said he saw Mr Tsvangirai head but a police mans truncheon several times. A large gentleman stood directly behind explained "It's a devil of a job to clean the blood off a truncheon after someone has head butted it repeatedly"
Meanwhile the Chief of Harare's Police complained about agitators. "They cause immense damage by constantly throwing themselves down stairs, spattering blood as they go. The cleaning bill is horrific. When you add that to the damage they do to truncheons by ruthlessly head butting them it seriously affects our budgets!"
Meanwhile in other news, there are rumors that Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf has been approached to act as spokesman for the government of Zimbabwe to lend it much needed credibility.
The BBC has this obviously biased report here.
According to a spokesman for the Zimbabwean government Morgan Tsvangirai ruthlessly attacked police.
An eye witness who did not wish to be murdered named said he saw Mr Tsvangirai head but a police mans truncheon several times. A large gentleman stood directly behind explained "It's a devil of a job to clean the blood off a truncheon after someone has head butted it repeatedly"
Meanwhile the Chief of Harare's Police complained about agitators. "They cause immense damage by constantly throwing themselves down stairs, spattering blood as they go. The cleaning bill is horrific. When you add that to the damage they do to truncheons by ruthlessly head butting them it seriously affects our budgets!"
Meanwhile in other news, there are rumors that Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf has been approached to act as spokesman for the government of Zimbabwe to lend it much needed credibility.
The BBC has this obviously biased report here.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The cost of Silence
Or rather, the cost of trying to keep Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes finding out in detail how much MP's spend on travel expenses and what sort of travel they spend them on.
The answer is £17,000.
The Commons Commission resisted Norman Baker's request under the freedom of Information Act for two years, arguing that giving him the information would breach data protection rules. It seemed they had something to hide. I don't know why. All it means is that MP's have to explain themselves if they seem to be spending a lot.
Of course now MP's are considering giving themselves a get out of the Freedom Of Information Act. That would be a big mistake. Anything that makes MP's look less accountable is bad for democracy and politics.
The BBC has this on the cost of trying to deny the request here and the story about the expenses here.
The House of Commons Commission webpage is here, and its membership is here.
The answer is £17,000.
The Commons Commission resisted Norman Baker's request under the freedom of Information Act for two years, arguing that giving him the information would breach data protection rules. It seemed they had something to hide. I don't know why. All it means is that MP's have to explain themselves if they seem to be spending a lot.
Of course now MP's are considering giving themselves a get out of the Freedom Of Information Act. That would be a big mistake. Anything that makes MP's look less accountable is bad for democracy and politics.
The BBC has this on the cost of trying to deny the request here and the story about the expenses here.
The House of Commons Commission webpage is here, and its membership is here.
Voting Fraud, you can help stamp it out
I have written about voting fraud before here. I don't like any form of voting where the voter does not turn up at the polling station because of the potential for fraud and intimidation.
On top of that postal voting seems fraught with with opportunities to steal peoples votes. I do not believe enough has been done to combat this. We will have election monitors from Poland to see oversee our elections. Ridiculous.
While this is happening the government ploughs on regardless with other ways of voting potentially open to fraud such as telephone and Internet voting, all in the name of increasing voter turnout. Not enough thought has been given to the vast increase in the potential for fraud.
Electronic voting will be carried out in Rushmoor, Sheffield, Shrewsbury & Atcham, South Bucks and Swindon.
Electronic counting will be piloted in: Bedford, Breckland, Dover, South Bucks, Stratford-on-Avon District Council and Warwick District Council.
If you live in these areas you can help. The Open Rights Group is looking for volunteer election monitors. You can learn more here and sign up to help here.
Lets keep our elections democratic!
On top of that postal voting seems fraught with with opportunities to steal peoples votes. I do not believe enough has been done to combat this. We will have election monitors from Poland to see oversee our elections. Ridiculous.
While this is happening the government ploughs on regardless with other ways of voting potentially open to fraud such as telephone and Internet voting, all in the name of increasing voter turnout. Not enough thought has been given to the vast increase in the potential for fraud.
Electronic voting will be carried out in Rushmoor, Sheffield, Shrewsbury & Atcham, South Bucks and Swindon.
Electronic counting will be piloted in: Bedford, Breckland, Dover, South Bucks, Stratford-on-Avon District Council and Warwick District Council.
If you live in these areas you can help. The Open Rights Group is looking for volunteer election monitors. You can learn more here and sign up to help here.
Lets keep our elections democratic!
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Post Office closures, it does not have to be this way
This may be old news to some but it still concerns many.
In short it looks like the government wants to close down 2,500 post offices. Well, they are being subsidised and yes that is with tax payers money.
Is that justifiable? On the face of it no.
However is that the question? Do they need subsidising?
Well, under current rules and restrictions yes. This situation has arisen over a number of years as the Post Office network has lost major parts of its business, like for example the processing of giro's and pensions and the latest, TV licenses, which you can no longer pay for in a post office but can in a number of shops.
Maybe the market has moved on. Fair enough.
However the reason why the post office can't compete is because the government has failed to loosen the rules on what the post office can and can't do. Whilst government is removing services from the post office network for what may or may not be valid reasons, the dead hand of government is failing to allow it to evolve, move on and attract new business.
I work in Burgess Hill. The main Post office in the town center closed there a number of years ago. Then it had a bit of a post office inside a large shop, and now it has by popular demand got a new post office. Good. There are a lot of people in Burgess Hill, and it would be odd to only have a few sub post offices dotted around. I can't help but notice how busy it is with regular business quite a lot of it generated by eBay.
This success story aside though what we are actually talking about is sub post offices, as well as main post offices. It is a fantastic branch network that can provide a lot of services.
Instead we have plans to cut the network back to save money. I am happy with saving money in principle, but closing post offices is not the only way to do it. Letting the post office network compete would save even more money. Alas that does not seem to be on the cards.
The Post Office needs help from the Government to generate new business ideas and opportunities, not closures. It provides a lifeline to the local economy and community and we have launched a petition rejecting these planned closures. We need your help to secure the future of these vital services. It just does not have to be this way.
In short it looks like the government wants to close down 2,500 post offices. Well, they are being subsidised and yes that is with tax payers money.
Is that justifiable? On the face of it no.
However is that the question? Do they need subsidising?
Well, under current rules and restrictions yes. This situation has arisen over a number of years as the Post Office network has lost major parts of its business, like for example the processing of giro's and pensions and the latest, TV licenses, which you can no longer pay for in a post office but can in a number of shops.
Maybe the market has moved on. Fair enough.
However the reason why the post office can't compete is because the government has failed to loosen the rules on what the post office can and can't do. Whilst government is removing services from the post office network for what may or may not be valid reasons, the dead hand of government is failing to allow it to evolve, move on and attract new business.
I work in Burgess Hill. The main Post office in the town center closed there a number of years ago. Then it had a bit of a post office inside a large shop, and now it has by popular demand got a new post office. Good. There are a lot of people in Burgess Hill, and it would be odd to only have a few sub post offices dotted around. I can't help but notice how busy it is with regular business quite a lot of it generated by eBay.
This success story aside though what we are actually talking about is sub post offices, as well as main post offices. It is a fantastic branch network that can provide a lot of services.
Instead we have plans to cut the network back to save money. I am happy with saving money in principle, but closing post offices is not the only way to do it. Letting the post office network compete would save even more money. Alas that does not seem to be on the cards.
The Post Office needs help from the Government to generate new business ideas and opportunities, not closures. It provides a lifeline to the local economy and community and we have launched a petition rejecting these planned closures. We need your help to secure the future of these vital services. It just does not have to be this way.
The Great Global Warming Swindle!
Yes its all a con! Well according to this program on Channel 4 it might be. I did not watch the actual program, but did catch a bit of the Newsnight discussion and have read the programs webpage.
The program lays out its arguments here.
I will make the following observations.
The program claims, here:
The program claims here:
So any sensible model would say the air with the most carbon dioxide in it gets the hottest (Well, OK methane generates more), and as it is heavier than air you would expect that to be closer to the ground.
However the program goes on, here with this:
The problem is not that human activity cause carbon dioxide to be produced, but where it comes from. generally it comes from fossil fuels which contain carbon that has been locked up for Milena. That adds carbon dioxide to the system faster than it is used to absorbing it, whilst crucially we reduce the ability of the environment to absorb that increase. This is where the problem comes.
Here there might be a point:
Mind you there does need to be a debate and discussion. There can be no room for theological positions on this and we do not need a Mary Whitehouse of the climate change debate.
The program lays out its arguments here.
I will make the following observations.
The program claims, here:
There is some evidence to suggest that the rise in carbon dioxide lags behind the temperature rise by 800 years and therefore can't be the cause of it.This is a massive load of old tosh. Yes there may well be evidence to show that global temperature rises lead global carbon dioxide levels. I have no problem with that. What it shows it that global warming causes increased natural carbon dioxide emissions. It does not prove or disprove that carbon dioxide can cause global warming. For a bit of a discussion on how carbon dioxide heats the atmosphere see here.
The program claims here:
If greenhouse warming were happening, then scientists predict that the troposphere (the layer of the earth's atmosphere roughly 10-15km above us) should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't seem to support this.Well, I'd like a bit of backing for this as a model. It does not seem to make sense to me. Most carbon dioxide emissions happen near the earths surface and carbon dioxide is heavier than air, just. Therefore it will stay low if it is generated low. The program does have some lovely pictures showing how carbon dioxide traps the suns rays by seemingly bouncing them back to earth. Well that's wrong, what happens is that carbon dioxide absorbs more heat. It does not bounce it anywhere.
So any sensible model would say the air with the most carbon dioxide in it gets the hottest (Well, OK methane generates more), and as it is heavier than air you would expect that to be closer to the ground.
However the program goes on, here with this:
For some people, the final nail in the coffin of human-produced greenhouse gas theories is the fact that carbon dioxide is produced in far larger quantities by many natural means: human emissions are miniscule in comparison. Volcanic emissions and carbon dioxide from animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean outweigh our own production several times over.One would hope it only took a small amount of thought to dismiss this argument. The natural environment both gives off and absorbs carbon dioxide. That is normal. It is in balance. As in fact is animals, bovine or otherwise farting. It happens and it has always happened. Nature copes.
The problem is not that human activity cause carbon dioxide to be produced, but where it comes from. generally it comes from fossil fuels which contain carbon that has been locked up for Milena. That adds carbon dioxide to the system faster than it is used to absorbing it, whilst crucially we reduce the ability of the environment to absorb that increase. This is where the problem comes.
Here there might be a point:
New evidence shows that that as the radiation coming from the sun varies (and sun-spot activity is one way of monitoring this) the earth seems to heat up or cool down. Solar activity very precisely matches the plot of temperature change over the last 100 years. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising.Well, yes, but an unnatural increase in carbon dioxide concentrations does help the atmosphere absorb more heat. It is certainly the case that as the sun burns hotter so the earth gets hotter, but as I discussed here, that does not mean we can't do anything about it, nor does it mean that climate change models have ignored it.
Mind you there does need to be a debate and discussion. There can be no room for theological positions on this and we do not need a Mary Whitehouse of the climate change debate.
Where the SFO left off, the DOJ will continue
I watched an interesting report on Newsnight about the ending of the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
It featured an interview with Robert Wardle head of the Serious Farce Office, who still maintains that it was his decision, and that he reached it after discussions with the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, the Solicitor General Mike O'Brien and our Ambassador in Saudi Arabia.
Robert Wardle claims he made the decision in the public interest. However there are doubts. Firstly as I have said before in this article, it is not his job as he still does not have all the information and it is still a political decision, then we have this about Sir John Scarlett's letter saying there were no concerns about our relationship with the Saudis. Apparently the Americans who have had anti corruption laws for years are not convinced either.
Well according to the Newsnight report the United States Department of Justice is actively looking at the case and may well carry on and seek to get a conviction. What is more they get easy extradition terms from us. Could be fun.
It featured an interview with Robert Wardle head of the Serious Farce Office, who still maintains that it was his decision, and that he reached it after discussions with the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, the Solicitor General Mike O'Brien and our Ambassador in Saudi Arabia.
Robert Wardle claims he made the decision in the public interest. However there are doubts. Firstly as I have said before in this article, it is not his job as he still does not have all the information and it is still a political decision, then we have this about Sir John Scarlett's letter saying there were no concerns about our relationship with the Saudis. Apparently the Americans who have had anti corruption laws for years are not convinced either.
Well according to the Newsnight report the United States Department of Justice is actively looking at the case and may well carry on and seek to get a conviction. What is more they get easy extradition terms from us. Could be fun.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Cash for Peerages, More on that BBC injunction
Well, according to BBC Radio 4's 6 o'clock news, the BBC has now been allowed to report the reasons for the injunction.
The BBC story is here. It is serious stuff.
According to it, Ruth Turner's document did in effect accuse Lord Levy of trying to get her to lie. I wonder if Bindman partners, Lord Levy's lawyers will be issuing an injunction against the Sunday Times. If they don't then some of us may draw adverse conclusions. (If Bindman Partners want to email me a statement on Lord Levy's behalf I will publish it).
Strong stuff indeed.
However the Met, and therefore presumably Yates of the Yard sought the injunction as they wanted to question Ruth Turner, John McTernan, and did wanted to retain the element of surprise.
That leads to the question how long has the Yard had the document, and if they only just got it, how did the BBC find out? If they had it for a while why not question sooner?
I also suspect that Yates of the Yard would have also wanted to question Lord Levy and Johnathan Powell again, but then maybe not.
The BBC story is here. It is serious stuff.
According to it, Ruth Turner's document did in effect accuse Lord Levy of trying to get her to lie. I wonder if Bindman partners, Lord Levy's lawyers will be issuing an injunction against the Sunday Times. If they don't then some of us may draw adverse conclusions. (If Bindman Partners want to email me a statement on Lord Levy's behalf I will publish it).
Strong stuff indeed.
However the Met, and therefore presumably Yates of the Yard sought the injunction as they wanted to question Ruth Turner, John McTernan, and did wanted to retain the element of surprise.
That leads to the question how long has the Yard had the document, and if they only just got it, how did the BBC find out? If they had it for a while why not question sooner?
I also suspect that Yates of the Yard would have also wanted to question Lord Levy and Johnathan Powell again, but then maybe not.
The Dirt on the Dome
There has been much speculation about the Dome, owned by one Philip Anschutz, and whether or not it would get a licence to operate as a Super Casino. That is not what this is about. In fact it isn't really about Philip Anschutz, or his company AEG which now owns the Dome site.
It is about who is building in the Dome, and should they be?
There is currently much construction going on in the Dome. In fact it is a building site. There are now clear rules about who can and can't work on a building site, for health and safety reasons. All construction staff have to have a Construction Safety skills Certificate, or CSSC, which in theory means that you know that building sites work on 110 Volts not 240, about slip hazards and other safety matters.
These cards have a 7 digit number. When you want to work on a site, you fill in 3 forms giving the 3 digit number, and that is it.
Well, in the Dome, they don't check whether the number is valid or not. You could and many do, just make up a 7 digit number. As long as you use the same number on all the forms, you won't be found out.
This makes the scheme pointless. What is worse is that most construction sites in London seem to work the same way. So the labour in the construction industry could well be untrained and unskilled, but worse still dangerous.
not all building companies work this way, some do check the numbers given, and obviously reject those without the valid paper work. The problem is of course that then they have to pay more for their workforce, as they can't rely on cheap foreign workers with no paper work.
It seems that there are a lot of Eastern Europeans working in construction in London at the moment and they are pricing many of the local workforce out of a job. Fine as far as it goes, but they are not just from the EU. They are also from places like Russia or Albania and clearly have no intrinsic right to work here. They can get away with it because no one bothers to check their paper work.
Update 20:50
I now understand that there are frequent raids by immigration officers at Greenwich station, in fact on average twice a month once every two months! (sorry for the original inaccuracy)
I wonder if it has ever occurred to the immigration officers to wonder where these people are going, after all there are not that many new and large employers in the area.
The plot thickens. I wonder if any one has told Philip Anschutz yet? I know his people know!
It is about who is building in the Dome, and should they be?
There is currently much construction going on in the Dome. In fact it is a building site. There are now clear rules about who can and can't work on a building site, for health and safety reasons. All construction staff have to have a Construction Safety skills Certificate, or CSSC, which in theory means that you know that building sites work on 110 Volts not 240, about slip hazards and other safety matters.
These cards have a 7 digit number. When you want to work on a site, you fill in 3 forms giving the 3 digit number, and that is it.
Well, in the Dome, they don't check whether the number is valid or not. You could and many do, just make up a 7 digit number. As long as you use the same number on all the forms, you won't be found out.
This makes the scheme pointless. What is worse is that most construction sites in London seem to work the same way. So the labour in the construction industry could well be untrained and unskilled, but worse still dangerous.
not all building companies work this way, some do check the numbers given, and obviously reject those without the valid paper work. The problem is of course that then they have to pay more for their workforce, as they can't rely on cheap foreign workers with no paper work.
It seems that there are a lot of Eastern Europeans working in construction in London at the moment and they are pricing many of the local workforce out of a job. Fine as far as it goes, but they are not just from the EU. They are also from places like Russia or Albania and clearly have no intrinsic right to work here. They can get away with it because no one bothers to check their paper work.
Update 20:50
I now understand that there are frequent raids by immigration officers at Greenwich station, in fact on average twice a month once every two months! (sorry for the original inaccuracy)
I wonder if it has ever occurred to the immigration officers to wonder where these people are going, after all there are not that many new and large employers in the area.
The plot thickens. I wonder if any one has told Philip Anschutz yet? I know his people know!
Brown on the Environment
Gordon Brown is giving a speech on climate change today to the Green Alliance. In it I suspect he will highlight Ukrainian tractor production and bore people stiff.
However he will also seek to trash George Osbourne's announcement on taxing air travel.
The Conservative party's position on air travel seems to be this:
We need to cut the growth in air travel because it is the fastest area of growth in green house gases.
The Conservative party are issuing a consultation process, that is about to start and has not yet even finished.
The bones of the consultation are these:
Air travel within the UK will be subject to VAT. (Given that tampons and sanitary towels are I can't see this as controversial, after all you could catch a train, but I dread to think what the alternatives are for "sanitary products", I think air travel is a bit more of a luxury especially as I have to pay VAT on the fuel I put in my car, but apparently it might be.)
Individuals will get a personal air travel allowance, on which either they will not be taxed, or at least they will not be taxed any more.
Taxes will be aimed at the dirtiest engines.
People traveling above and beyond their personal allowance will pay a higher rate of tax on air travel.
All the extra tax raised with this tax will be taken off other taxes. So for every billion raised will be used to reduce tax elsewhere.
Now going back to Gordon's speech to the Green Alliance. In it Gordon will criticise the Conservative position thus:
"Changes must be considered, costed, credible and consumer friendly not ill-conceived, short-termist, unworkable and unfair."
Well let us consider his critique:
I wont go into whether it is costed, it is after all a consultation paper, it does have to be credible, and if Gordon can highlight how it is not credible, lets here it.
Consumer friendly? Well the idea here is to reduce consumption surely?
Short termist? Umm? What like reducing tax on air travel one year and then increasing it a few years later on the grounds you now want to save the planet? Oh, and failing to pass the relevant legislation to make it legal whilst just using the money to will the treasuries coffers?
Unworkable? I am not sure Gordon has carried out a full analysis of how these proposals will work, largely because the consultation paper has not been published. Clearly he is talking nonsense.
Unfair? In what way exactly?
Currently Gordon Brown is either just raising yet another stealth tax with is currently illegal hike in airport taxes or his aim is to raise airport taxes to such a level as to reduce demand.
Airport tax at the moment is per journey. So if you raise the tax to stop some people flying the first to suffer will be the poor who will be taxed put of air travel all together. Is that fair? No.
On the other hand the Conservative proposals will allow everyone some tax free flights and aim to hit the more frequent and presumably wealthy fliers. Looks a lot fairer to me.
Mind you I don't suppose it will help that Director of the Green Alliance, Stephen Hale has said "the Conservatives' proposals on aviation fuel would take them ahead of where the government are at present, if they see it through."
You can read the BBC's report here.
The shame of it all is of course that Gordon, and indeed the Labour party could have waited to see more detailed proposals, but instead just wishes to be combative.
However he will also seek to trash George Osbourne's announcement on taxing air travel.
The Conservative party's position on air travel seems to be this:
We need to cut the growth in air travel because it is the fastest area of growth in green house gases.
The Conservative party are issuing a consultation process, that is about to start and has not yet even finished.
The bones of the consultation are these:
Air travel within the UK will be subject to VAT. (Given that tampons and sanitary towels are I can't see this as controversial, after all you could catch a train, but I dread to think what the alternatives are for "sanitary products", I think air travel is a bit more of a luxury especially as I have to pay VAT on the fuel I put in my car, but apparently it might be.)
Individuals will get a personal air travel allowance, on which either they will not be taxed, or at least they will not be taxed any more.
Taxes will be aimed at the dirtiest engines.
People traveling above and beyond their personal allowance will pay a higher rate of tax on air travel.
All the extra tax raised with this tax will be taken off other taxes. So for every billion raised will be used to reduce tax elsewhere.
Now going back to Gordon's speech to the Green Alliance. In it Gordon will criticise the Conservative position thus:
"Changes must be considered, costed, credible and consumer friendly not ill-conceived, short-termist, unworkable and unfair."
Well let us consider his critique:
I wont go into whether it is costed, it is after all a consultation paper, it does have to be credible, and if Gordon can highlight how it is not credible, lets here it.
Consumer friendly? Well the idea here is to reduce consumption surely?
Short termist? Umm? What like reducing tax on air travel one year and then increasing it a few years later on the grounds you now want to save the planet? Oh, and failing to pass the relevant legislation to make it legal whilst just using the money to will the treasuries coffers?
Unworkable? I am not sure Gordon has carried out a full analysis of how these proposals will work, largely because the consultation paper has not been published. Clearly he is talking nonsense.
Unfair? In what way exactly?
Currently Gordon Brown is either just raising yet another stealth tax with is currently illegal hike in airport taxes or his aim is to raise airport taxes to such a level as to reduce demand.
Airport tax at the moment is per journey. So if you raise the tax to stop some people flying the first to suffer will be the poor who will be taxed put of air travel all together. Is that fair? No.
On the other hand the Conservative proposals will allow everyone some tax free flights and aim to hit the more frequent and presumably wealthy fliers. Looks a lot fairer to me.
Mind you I don't suppose it will help that Director of the Green Alliance, Stephen Hale has said "the Conservatives' proposals on aviation fuel would take them ahead of where the government are at present, if they see it through."
You can read the BBC's report here.
The shame of it all is of course that Gordon, and indeed the Labour party could have waited to see more detailed proposals, but instead just wishes to be combative.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Cash for Peerages, Has the Sunday Times got something?
The Sunday Times has this article, with the headline "Blair aides ‘plotted’ to foil police". It seems that the attempt to foil the police was not the latest leak (See here and here), on which Fraser Nelson has some interesting insight in this article in the Spectator, but the overall nature of Number 10's staff cooperation with the police inquiry.
Fraser speculates in his article that maybe staff at Number 10 are turning on themselves.
The Sunday Times is somewhat more forthright.
Firstly it alleges that Lord Levy tried to get other staff to lie over his involvement in recommending people for honours. As I have made clear in a previous article here, Lord Levy recommending someone for an honour is not legally an issue, and he need not have been worried about the police knowing that. Unless, which I will come to later.
The allegation that Lord levy tried to get people to lie to the police is a very serious one. I do hope the Sunday Times have good evidence to back up their claim. I know that Lord Levy's lawyers at Bindman partners read this blog, I suspect they will take the Sunday Times somewhat more seriously.
In short, if there is not a writ for libel issued against the Sunday Times by say, Tuesday of next week, things are looking bad for Lord Levy. Of course if they just spout the Abu Hamza defence again we will all draw our own conclusions.
The other key point raised is the potential for charges under the 1925 Honours, Prevention of abuses act against Lord Levy and Sir Christopher Evans.
I must stress that this is a remarkably easy crime to avoid. In order to make out the offence there needs to be evidence of a bargain being struck (Well we do have that P or K note).
I do not know how much of the article is speculation. What is clear is that the Sunday Times can't go around boldly asserting that Lord Levy asked people to lie to the police on his behalf without some evidence, otherwise they will get sued.
Oh, and at the bottom of the article there is a bit on how government wants to merge all the watchdogs that have given it such pain into one big one. No doubt this will cause some concern. On the upside the new body will be entirely responsible to parliament, not to the Prime minister.
You can read more on the cash for peerages saga here.
Hat tip to Witan on politicalbetting.com for the link to the Sunday Times article.
Update 10:20
The Independent on Sunday has this article which says that Lord Levy feels let down and may "turn on Labour". That would be one of the canaries singing and could deepen the crisis. I have always suspected that if the police had enough to charge someone then that someone would suddenly become very cooperative. I wait with baited breath!
It also has this little nugget at the end of the piece:
Hat tip to Dez on politicalbetting.com for pointing it out.
Fraser speculates in his article that maybe staff at Number 10 are turning on themselves.
The Sunday Times is somewhat more forthright.
Firstly it alleges that Lord Levy tried to get other staff to lie over his involvement in recommending people for honours. As I have made clear in a previous article here, Lord Levy recommending someone for an honour is not legally an issue, and he need not have been worried about the police knowing that. Unless, which I will come to later.
The allegation that Lord levy tried to get people to lie to the police is a very serious one. I do hope the Sunday Times have good evidence to back up their claim. I know that Lord Levy's lawyers at Bindman partners read this blog, I suspect they will take the Sunday Times somewhat more seriously.
In short, if there is not a writ for libel issued against the Sunday Times by say, Tuesday of next week, things are looking bad for Lord Levy. Of course if they just spout the Abu Hamza defence again we will all draw our own conclusions.
The other key point raised is the potential for charges under the 1925 Honours, Prevention of abuses act against Lord Levy and Sir Christopher Evans.
I must stress that this is a remarkably easy crime to avoid. In order to make out the offence there needs to be evidence of a bargain being struck (Well we do have that P or K note).
I do not know how much of the article is speculation. What is clear is that the Sunday Times can't go around boldly asserting that Lord Levy asked people to lie to the police on his behalf without some evidence, otherwise they will get sued.
Oh, and at the bottom of the article there is a bit on how government wants to merge all the watchdogs that have given it such pain into one big one. No doubt this will cause some concern. On the upside the new body will be entirely responsible to parliament, not to the Prime minister.
You can read more on the cash for peerages saga here.
Hat tip to Witan on politicalbetting.com for the link to the Sunday Times article.
Update 10:20
The Independent on Sunday has this article which says that Lord Levy feels let down and may "turn on Labour". That would be one of the canaries singing and could deepen the crisis. I have always suspected that if the police had enough to charge someone then that someone would suddenly become very cooperative. I wait with baited breath!
It also has this little nugget at the end of the piece:
A senior figure close to the probe said the issue of whether both main political parties broke the law by hiding donations as "loans" was still "live".Well we have not heard much about offences under the 2000 Political Parties, Elections and Referendum act recently but I certainly think it could be fertile ground for the police investigation.
Hat tip to Dez on politicalbetting.com for pointing it out.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
The Impact of The New Media
The Adam Smith Institute held a reception on Monday the 5th of March, entitled "The Impact of the New Media". It was interesting. The Adam Smith Institute blog has its own write up here, but this is my take.
The event was supposed to start with a half hour of discussion followed by drinks, but was far more civilised than that, starting with a half hour or so of drinks, followed by the discussion followed by more drinks, until they ran out when we all piled next door to the pub.
Stephan Shakespeare of 18 Doughty Street and YouGov fame kicked off.
He made a number of points. Now the BBC is allowing its content to go out on YouTube, it in effect allows itself to be undermined. Once it is there anyone can comment on it, and indeed use it to their own ends. Blogging it seems is undermining traditional media.
He then moved on to discuss how blogging would affect future elections. Apparently in a survey of young people they were asked if they had to give up one of the following 3 things, television, mobile phone or Internet which would it be. Overwhelmingly it is the television. It seems clear that the new media is going to grow and grow.
Interestingly, whilst blogs allow anyone to have a voice, that is not quite the case with places like Conservative Home, or 18 Doughty Street, both of which, in Stephan's view allow people just below the existing establishment to have a voice. It does still widen the political discourse though.
Stephan also feels that this will see the audience fracturing. After all there will be much more choice and many more providers. That being the case the big providers now will lose audiences to various Internet sources. This, Stephan felt would lead to a fracturing of politics as well.
I agree with a lot of what Stephan said, but am not convinced that political parties will fracture because there is a lot of advantages to the big coalitions that political parties are.
Fraser Nelson of the Spectator spoke next. he felt like a beta max salesman addressing a VHS conference!
Blogs it seems have shaken the dead tree press. For example Recess Monkey posted this story on Monday just after midnight alleging Margaret Thatcher was dead. Now that had many on the blogosphere running around in a blind panic trying to find out if there was any truth to it. What I didn't realise but Fraser told us, was that it had the same effect on fleet street with panicked journalists ringing around trying to find confirmation. When Margaret's team switched their mobiles on in the morning their answering service was full of messages asking if she was dead. Of course Recess Monkey was the victim of a hoax, and published a not very complimentary retraction here.
Fraser also highlighted the fact that the blogosphere is littered with the blogs of dead tree journalists which are going nowhere. It seems they just don't get how and why blogs work.
It seems that the new media is taken more seriously by politicians, or at least team Cameron. The Cameroonians believe that new media gives more direct access to people and are less concerned with the dead tree press and MSM. New Labour on the other hand are still in thrall to Fleet Street.
Tim Worstall made a couple of interesting points. If blogs destroy the establishment they will become it. However Tim thinks that bloggers will infiltrate the media, by being invited to write for it! (note to editors, if you want to to write an article for you, all you have to do is use the Email Me link on the right, and let me know how much you will pay :) ) So Fleet street will not be packing its bags and going away.
Bruce Anderson was also there, and piped up with a few interesting and amusing observations. He believes that the DTP and MSM have lost their monopoly. Blogging should make the MSM do better and keep it on its toes.
Bruce also had some amusing observations on the spectator. Apparently Boris Johnson was a lightweight editor, but under Matthew d'Ancona the editing is leaden.
Apparently, according to Bruce, the Spectator oscillates from tedium to sycophancy. I don't think Bruce is Matthew d'Ancona's biggest fan, but I may be wrong.
During the questions session afterwards someone who seemed to be from the DTP popped up to ask how bloggers intend to make money from their blogs? With things like pay per article? I popped up to say I don't think most bloggers care. It is true if a blogger gets a lot of traffic they might sell advertising, but that is no why we blog.
Afterwards I had a few conversations with people. One such was with Nicholas Jones, a journalist formerly of the BBC for some 30 years. He was expressing some concern over the way the Murdoch empire is looking to set the news agenda both for the MSM and the blogosphere by buying up big stories like the Jane Goody interview and the cockpit video of that friendly fire incident. His concern was that this arm of the media is unregulated. If they get their websites together and he feels they will then they could be more influential at the next election.
There is some truth is this view. After all we also had the Guardian breaking that police 'brutality' story on Wednesday via Newsnight. In many ways news papers who have been eclipsed by both TV and radio are now hitting back with websites with multimedia content.
That said I am not quite sure how much of a problem this is. After all we have blogs like Guido's and Iain Dale's setting the agenda as well. In many ways I can only see the power of blogs increase and whilst Murdoch's empire may grow at the expense of his rivals the market place for news and opinion is now forever changed by blogs.
I mentioned some of the bloggers I met at the event in this article here, but others I met include Andrew Dodge, Perry de Havilland of samizdata.net, and Philip Chaston of the bewilderness blog.
The event was supposed to start with a half hour of discussion followed by drinks, but was far more civilised than that, starting with a half hour or so of drinks, followed by the discussion followed by more drinks, until they ran out when we all piled next door to the pub.
Stephan Shakespeare of 18 Doughty Street and YouGov fame kicked off.
He made a number of points. Now the BBC is allowing its content to go out on YouTube, it in effect allows itself to be undermined. Once it is there anyone can comment on it, and indeed use it to their own ends. Blogging it seems is undermining traditional media.
He then moved on to discuss how blogging would affect future elections. Apparently in a survey of young people they were asked if they had to give up one of the following 3 things, television, mobile phone or Internet which would it be. Overwhelmingly it is the television. It seems clear that the new media is going to grow and grow.
Interestingly, whilst blogs allow anyone to have a voice, that is not quite the case with places like Conservative Home, or 18 Doughty Street, both of which, in Stephan's view allow people just below the existing establishment to have a voice. It does still widen the political discourse though.
Stephan also feels that this will see the audience fracturing. After all there will be much more choice and many more providers. That being the case the big providers now will lose audiences to various Internet sources. This, Stephan felt would lead to a fracturing of politics as well.
I agree with a lot of what Stephan said, but am not convinced that political parties will fracture because there is a lot of advantages to the big coalitions that political parties are.
Fraser Nelson of the Spectator spoke next. he felt like a beta max salesman addressing a VHS conference!
Blogs it seems have shaken the dead tree press. For example Recess Monkey posted this story on Monday just after midnight alleging Margaret Thatcher was dead. Now that had many on the blogosphere running around in a blind panic trying to find out if there was any truth to it. What I didn't realise but Fraser told us, was that it had the same effect on fleet street with panicked journalists ringing around trying to find confirmation. When Margaret's team switched their mobiles on in the morning their answering service was full of messages asking if she was dead. Of course Recess Monkey was the victim of a hoax, and published a not very complimentary retraction here.
Fraser also highlighted the fact that the blogosphere is littered with the blogs of dead tree journalists which are going nowhere. It seems they just don't get how and why blogs work.
It seems that the new media is taken more seriously by politicians, or at least team Cameron. The Cameroonians believe that new media gives more direct access to people and are less concerned with the dead tree press and MSM. New Labour on the other hand are still in thrall to Fleet Street.
Tim Worstall made a couple of interesting points. If blogs destroy the establishment they will become it. However Tim thinks that bloggers will infiltrate the media, by being invited to write for it! (note to editors, if you want to to write an article for you, all you have to do is use the Email Me link on the right, and let me know how much you will pay :) ) So Fleet street will not be packing its bags and going away.
Bruce Anderson was also there, and piped up with a few interesting and amusing observations. He believes that the DTP and MSM have lost their monopoly. Blogging should make the MSM do better and keep it on its toes.
Bruce also had some amusing observations on the spectator. Apparently Boris Johnson was a lightweight editor, but under Matthew d'Ancona the editing is leaden.
Apparently, according to Bruce, the Spectator oscillates from tedium to sycophancy. I don't think Bruce is Matthew d'Ancona's biggest fan, but I may be wrong.
During the questions session afterwards someone who seemed to be from the DTP popped up to ask how bloggers intend to make money from their blogs? With things like pay per article? I popped up to say I don't think most bloggers care. It is true if a blogger gets a lot of traffic they might sell advertising, but that is no why we blog.
Afterwards I had a few conversations with people. One such was with Nicholas Jones, a journalist formerly of the BBC for some 30 years. He was expressing some concern over the way the Murdoch empire is looking to set the news agenda both for the MSM and the blogosphere by buying up big stories like the Jane Goody interview and the cockpit video of that friendly fire incident. His concern was that this arm of the media is unregulated. If they get their websites together and he feels they will then they could be more influential at the next election.
There is some truth is this view. After all we also had the Guardian breaking that police 'brutality' story on Wednesday via Newsnight. In many ways news papers who have been eclipsed by both TV and radio are now hitting back with websites with multimedia content.
That said I am not quite sure how much of a problem this is. After all we have blogs like Guido's and Iain Dale's setting the agenda as well. In many ways I can only see the power of blogs increase and whilst Murdoch's empire may grow at the expense of his rivals the market place for news and opinion is now forever changed by blogs.
I mentioned some of the bloggers I met at the event in this article here, but others I met include Andrew Dodge, Perry de Havilland of samizdata.net, and Philip Chaston of the bewilderness blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
