The Labour campaign appears disasteful from all accounts.

Here are some of the things being said and being reported upon.

• John Harris in today's Guardian takes a very dim view of Labour's tactics.
• If you want to know about what John Harris is talking about, take a look HERE.
• A local blogger - Crewe.tv - provides interesting commentary from a local perspective.
• The ever excellent Sky News is teaming up with the Crewe blog to cover the election.
• Greg Hands MP sees Gordon Brown's fingerprints in the grubby campaign.
• Benedict Brogan reckons that Tory MP Eric Pickles has the better byelection strategy.
• Even Iain Dale is keen to visit and share in the byelection fever.

Not long to wait now. I think I said earlier HERE, that the Tory would be a shoe-in. The reality is I'm not so sure, maybe I should join in those going up there to canvass.

Question Time tonight should be fun, though I'll be trying to give This Week, that follows, a miss as Portaloo is out of favour with me big time.

UPDATE: Reporting on this byelection is hot, hot, hot. See here also:

• Daily Telegraph  byelection coverage and MP's struggle to get to Crewe.

UPDATE 2: THE REASON FOR THE PANIC: This quote, in The Times from a former Labour minister and friend of Gordon Brown, gives the reason for the desperation in Labour's tactics.

“If we lose Crewe then I think a few of us will be telling him to think about quitting,”

HaaaaahahaAAAA...

Snacka om att vissa tidningar kör en fuling...
På index-sidan så lägger dom upp en bild på Linda Rosing ihop med en gubbe som jag aldrig har sett förr.
Han funderar på att vara med i en dokusåpa!

Han heter Gordon Brown och är brittisk premiärminister och han har gjort sitt sämsta val genom tiderna och funderar därför på HUR han ska bli poppis igen!

Rubriken säger något om gemensam nämnare, men läser man artikeln så finns inte ens Linda omnämnd... Suck! Att hon ska få vara med på alla hörn å kanter vare sig hon har med saken att göra eller ej...
I vissa fall tycker jag liiiite ( bara lite) synd om henne!

Att dom skulle ha en gemensam nämnare - snacka om fuling....

When a company starts looking for a new leader, rumours about the incumbent are bound to arise. The most recent case is that of British Airways and its CEO Willie Walsh. Students of leadership succession should keep a close eye on unfolding events.

The duty of a corporate board is to safeguard a company’s future viability, and that must include monitoring of its leadership. While secrecy is desirable, it may suit pressure groups to bring matters to public attention. For example, shareholder activists seek advantage for their narrower interests, which would include getting the best short-term deals on investments, but might also include the possibility of becoming king-makers for a change of leadership.

The Independent reports that

[British Airways] has appointed the recruitment consultants Whitehead Mann to find a new chief operating officer and possible successor for its embattled chief executive Willie Walsh.

The successful candidate will fill a newly created role, devised after the recent Heathrow Terminal 5 fiasco. Both BA's director of operations, Gareth Kirkwood, and head of customer service, David Noyes, parted company with the group last month [April 2008] . The two roles will now be combined to create the position of chief operating officer.

The airline, which will publish its full-year results on Monday, is believed to have instructed Whitehead Mann to find a senior level candidate who could be considered for a position on the board within two years, and could also be a potential replacement for Mr Walsh within five years.

Opening Sacrifices?
For ‘parted company’ read sacked. Gareth makes an opening sacrifice in BA’s attempts to allay criticisms for a wave of customer service reactions. David will do for the time-being for operational failings, as Terminal 5 lumbers into action.

Later, [May 13th 2008] BAA, Heathrow's operating organization announced the departure of Mike Bullock, its Managing Director at Heathrow, another victim of the Terminal 5 opening (or non-opening, if you prefer). At least the BBC announced it, beating the BAA web-site to the news.

The departures at British Airways seem more in the nature of opening gambits, if we want to puruse the theme of chess as a metaphor for corporate strategy.

The Times has reported that public sentiment strongly in favour of BA finding a replacement for Willie Walsh.

However, Richard Northedge argues that

Walsh ..is directly culpable too [for the recent Terminal 5 opening fiasco]. Unfortunately, BA cannot afford to lose him. It has other problems that require solutions – from its pension deficit to its industrial relations – and Walsh is the best man it has. But stakeholders require some recognition that Walsh’s acceptance of responsibility is not just hollow words: it would be appropriate if, when the remuneration committee considers bonuses, it acknowledged the need to punish Walsh.

The Walsh Legend

Mr Walsh arrived at British Airways in 2005 already as something of a celebrity. His reputation had been secured as a former pilot who aspired to leadership. He had risen through the ranks at Aer Lingus to be acknowledged as a transformational figures for the fortunes of that company.

Stories accumulated about his hands-on style, and were used to sketch his operating methods.

He was known for negotiating toughness. Successfully reinventing Aer Lingus as a profitable no-frills airline, while other established European flag carriers went to the wall, he slashed costs by 30% and shed more than a third of staff. [saying]"we make no apologies for focusing on profit" … [and that] "a reasonable man gets nowhere in negotiations".
He is renowned for not driving an expensive car and choosing not to take on a secretary, instead writing all his own letters and answering his own phone.

Mr Walsh's obvious toughness and eye for increased profitability no doubt caught the attention of BA's board. After the UK airline's long history of staff disputes, most recently the wildcat walkouts in August 2005 in support of sacked workers at the airline's main caterer, he must have seemed ideal.

Be careful of what you want…

‘Be careful of what you want. You might get it’ runs an office-wall summary, capturing the myth of the Faustian pact. Maybe that is another version of getting the leaders we deserve. The appeal of a tough leader for BA was obviously appealing, not just to the Board, but to its major shareholders.

Students of leadership succession should keep an eye on events at British Airlines. We will continue to watch Willie, at Leaders We Deserve.

To go more deeply

We touched on British Airways in the context of Mandrill Management .

Travolution is a useful site for wider issues of the industry

The Post Office/Royal Mail leadership succession activities were noted including attempts to have a fall-back plan if Allen Leighton were to leave.

Times Warner’s appointment of Jeff Bewkes also makes an interesting succession story.

EADS strategic issues under Louis Gallois
and also its leadership challenges have been covered.

There have stories of the rise and fall of varous sporting leaders. When Liverpool owners approached Jurgen Klinsmann, the story blew-up as a scheme to get rid of the popular Rafa Benitez.

England’s Rugby Football Union eventually appointed Martin Johnson and relegated Bryan Ashton to the bench.

Numerous posts covered the stories the longest leadership succession saga of modern times.

The transition from President Vladimir Putin to Dmitry Medvedev is offering further insights into succession issues in internationally important arenas.

Overall, the events covered in these posts indicate recurring themes within recent leadership succession stories. A thorough examination might produce a valuable contribution to understanding of the dynamics of leadership succession. They may also hint at the likely outome to the story of Willie Walsh at British Airways.

In total there were plans for 18 full bills, linked under four themes of: economic stability; "making the most of your potential”; personalisation and improvement of public services; and "handing back power to the people". The list of 18 includes an Equality Bill and an NHS Reform Bill which is aimed at taking forward proposals arising from Lord Darzi’s ‘NHS Next Stage Review’ of the NHS in England that would require legislation to enable their implementation.

Funny impersonation of Gordon Brown in this video from Bremner, Bird, and Fortune.

"I've got a lousy tax policy to finish with"

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Let's start with one simple assumption. That he's not being a typical politician. That what he is saying is true. The presumptions and predictions from the economy to public and private life in the UK and abroad are generally promising and uplifting.

But I don't want that in a leader - not in a group, a business, or running the country. I believe that if you are in charge of anything, the most frequent question you should be asking yourself if "what if this is wrong? And if so, what will I be able to do?" There should be multiple ways forward at every point in the decision making process. Given the choice between a plan that has 100% good effects, but has absolutely no flexibility if conditions deviate from the expected, or a plan that has (say) 60% good effects if everything works as expected but can accommodate changing conditions to reduce any negative effects when it (inevitably) goes tits up, I want someone who chooses the later option.

Listening to Brown (and the members of his Cabinet) I hear zero evidence that they actually plan for the bad things to happen. The 10p income tax band doubling situation is evidence of that. Again, taking the Chancellor at his word, there was absolutely zero slack in the Budget to allow any adjustments to be made without ringing up 2.7 billion pounds of debt. More to the point, if the call on the 10p tax was really triggered by the changing international economic conditions, then the Chancellor is not even taking a short term view of ten weeks of what could go wrong and to make provisions in case of things not working out perfectly.

And the reserve cash before we hit the self imposed rule is only £100 million... which isn't a reserve at all; it's a single chip to tip the croupier after your gamble in Las Vegas fails. Remember I'm going on the assumption that we're not being lied to; pop in the money in Northern Rock and the PFI's and we'd be well over the 40% 'maximum.'

I want a Government that believes in policies that have less reward, but that also carry less risk. There's no replay option in real life. I want to know you've considered and planned for the worst case scenarios, and not just crossing your fingers that the best predictions are going to come true. I don't get that vibe from the words or the actions of Gordon Brown and his government.

With bar room economics.

"This is a short-term political fix. It has done enormous long-term damage to any reputation he had for economic competence."

He went on: "I think [people] see a government that has abandoned the founding principles of New Labour, which were that you get away from the emergency budgets of the Denis Healey era, that you did not fight class war campaigns and that you tried to occupy the middle ground."

Words of George Osbourne, shadow chancellor (for those of you not familiar with UK politics. George is on the opposition side of the the House of Commons. The Labour party, which used to be left of centre and the party in power with the Conservative  part in opposition who used to be right of centre similar to Republicans in US).

Even Alistair Darling the current chancellor admits the 10p tax abolition "could have been handled better" according to the Telegraph.

Under plans announced yesterday, the Treasury will borrow 2.7 billion to fund a 120 pound (approx 240 USD) tax cut for all basic-rate taxpayers. Mr Darling said the scheme would not fuel inflation and insisted Government borrowing rules would not be broken. It will only be offered this year.

Interestingly David Cameron ( leader of the Conservative party) possibly had the clearest observation.

[....] told Mr Brown: "Yesterday we all paid £2.7 billion to keep you in your job."

Perhaps it's not all bad news;

Defending Brown from claims that he is now the most unpopular prime minister in Labour history, Balls insisted that he prime minister could claw back from the role of villain to a figure of respect, just as famous sportsmen do. "These are times when politicians in most governments get tested and you find out whether you are strong, ideologically divided or united," he said. "You sort out those people that can look forward, rather than backwards, and put the national interest first".

Confused!

Then this wee tale might just help. Got it in an email from a friend, who does not want to be named. Therefore, Source Unknown.

BAR ROOM ECONOMICS

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are
all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by £20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could
they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?'

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everyone's share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by
roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts
each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings.

'I only got a pound out of the £20,' declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got £10!'

'Yes, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a pound,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get £10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison.
'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors,
is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get
the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Yet he probably has more reason than most for wanting to see Gwenyth’s daughter keep the seat - for seeing Gordon's display of deck-chair rearranging yesterday actually helping to scrape a win in C&W. If Labour lose, then the pressure will be on him, either from the hotheads to go for broke, from fellow challengers wanting to flush him out early to do the initial dirty work, or simply a temptation to be seriously (and in an inevitably semi-visible kind of way) preparing for a bid when the time is right. The last thing he wants is to have even more of a spotlight on him right now – after all, in politics how many times do the front-runners at the start of the race actually win? Who wants to be the Heseltine or Portillo – the one who is out in the open for so long that he gives a clear shot for anyone who wishes to take it?

No, any serious challenger will want to see Gordon carry on and lose at the General Election. After all, what future leader wants to be at the helm of the ship just as it’s been left too late to avoid the iceberg? Better to revel in the luxury of opposition, with four years to regroup, lose the baggage and work on your prime-minister-in-waiting image.

And the best thing is, it’s easy to do - he can genuinely put all his efforts into backing Gordon to the hilt during the next two years, assuring the PM that he is behind him at all times, while omitting to mention that it’s because Gordon is acting as his human shield.

He was being cross examined about the measures he took to correct his government’s mistake in abolishing the 10p tax rate band. He was trying to explain the mistake in terms of “sorting this problem out” as though the problem just happened by itself and was not created by Mr Darling and his leader Mr Gordon Brown.

I don’t mind that too much; I am very glad that Messrs Brown & Darling have done something to reduce the tax impact that this Government imposed just two short months ago on the poorest people in the United Kingdom.

He said he went further than people anticipated by “giving back more tax than he took away because fuel prices were rising and utility prices were rising. “A large section of the population were facing increased bills”, he said, and he wanted to help them, as other countries have helped their citizens.

That is not quite true; the whole of the population are facing increased bills. Even the lucky ones who took up the utilities’ offer to get a fixed four year energy price (like me) two years ago could not find a way to insulate themselves from petrol and transportation price increases.

Mr Darling attempted to defend the government on charges of obfuscation, delay, lack of clarity, lack of honesty, lack of trust and other venial political sins that were levied against him by the interviewer. I suppose he made a reasonable fist of it.

He said that the economy could finance the measures that he was introducing. He talked about an inflation rate of 3% and said that inflation was being pushed up primarily by oil prices and food prices. These are external factors outside his control. He was not relaxed about inflation. He then let the cat out of the bag, by saying:

“One of the big priorities has got to be for governments all over the world is to try and get oil production increased and also to tackle this problem that was pushing up food prices that was diverting corn into biofuels in a way that is not sustainable.”

Well, so much for the Climate Change legislation, the environmental agenda, the seriousness of solving climate change and the need to lead the world in climate change matters all exposed as empty rhetoric in a sentence. This Government is only concerned with climate change if the economy is strong, inflation is low and if oil prices are low. Otherwise they will persuade everyone to get more oil out of the ground to sell it to reduce the oil price.

This is very bad economics but even worse than bad economics. Such a policy, even if it were possible, would hasten climate change with all the bad effects that we fear a changed climate would bring. Mr Darling seems to have forgotten Mr Stern’s expensive advice about the economics of climate change. He has admitted that the whole climate change policy is a sham.

Mr Darling has announced a big priority in getting governments all over the world to get oil production increased. How? We cannot force countries to sel their reserves of oil at low prices. We cannot find oil where the oil companies have failed to find it. If we get even more investment in finding oil we shall only find smaller more costly oil fields to exploit, and this is what is happening anyway.

Short of nationalising the oil industry and/or invading some oil producing countries or banning the export of oil to the developing nations, I do not understand what Mr Darling means. Does he?

It looks like Labour will lose the next General Election. What Gordon will probably do is try and court the centre ground voter as much a possible, by pandering to the right-wing press. The trouble is, this hasn’t done much good in the past few months. The Tories have pretty much got the centre ground sewn up with Cameron’s changes, and I don’t think it’s Labour’s ideology that is doing them any harm in the polls but a string of blunders and half-baked policies that make them look incompetent and a spent force as a Government. The Tories have the initiative, policy-wise.

Labour’s undoing seems to be an obsession with polls and what the media thinks of them, and the way they act on this clearly isn’t working. Now that it looks highly likely the Tories will win the next General Election, I think they should abandon this and just be a bit more honest. Do what they think is right. Go back to core Labour values. They’ve got nothing to lose by doing so and maybe if people saw what the real Labour can do, they’d have a bit more respect for them.

If, somehow, like Major in 1992, they do manage to hang on in 2010, perhaps by ditching Gordon, there’ll just be another five years of division, dithering and unnecessary authoritarianism which will alienate Labour from the people, leaving the party like the Conservatives pre-Cameron. Another three or more terms in the wilderness. I agree with Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian today that a period in opposition would be refreshing the party – particularly all the young policy wonks who’ve known nothing but Government.

The Telegraph has been quick to receive the negatives in Cherie Blair's and John Prescott's autobiographies.

They reported Prescott saying: "On one occasion, Gordon wouldn’t let Tony see what was in his preparatory budget proposals. He even banned the Treasury from telling him. That was totally against tradition. The Prime Minister is always told in advance."

This comment, in The Telegraph article Brown will quit as PM before election, Field predicts, was placed above any positives in the article.

In the Metro there has been daily attacks on Brown's personality and his ability to lead by focusing on Conservtive put downs.

But, in The Times this week, a commment piece entitled King Oil Will Turf Out Gordon Brown, gave a much more logical explanation as to why Brown has lost popularity. William Rees-Mogg attempted to explain popularity cycles in terms of economics.

Oil traders, he says, have predicted that oil price will eventually reach $200 a barrel. Food prices are also escalating worldwide.

These factors are having a direct effect on British politics in that British consumers are already paying higher prices for gas and petrol  due to the market crash.

None of this is Gordon Brown's fault. It is very unlucky that he became prime minister at a time where global recession was about to begin.

"We shall pay more for petrol and bread but our houses will be worth less", says Rees-Mogg. "The average person is likely to express his protest with a vote."

The recession has not done Brown any favours. Perhaps the attack is not reflective of his actions. Maybe it is due to a natural turn in world economics.

Nick Clegg's expenses are now public record and it turns out he has claimed his house renovation on them, a cost to the UK tax payer of around £7,000. It isn't much but then we all know that isn't the point.

If there is any greater evidence not to vote for the political parties is must be these facts. They are putting their livelihoods and reputations ahead of the greater good of the public, which is simply morally wrong when ultimately it is your role to serve them.

I'm a tad angry. Perhaps I should listen to the soothing sounds of Scarlett Johansson. Hmmm.

Non è una sfida facile. La cosa più interessante rimane però che, forse, per davvero David Giovinciuffo Cameron è migliore di Gordon Brown. La cosa farà molto felice lui e sorprende noi costringendoci ad un leggero, appena percettibile mea culpa.

There's one point that came early on in the Queens Speech proposals that surprises. It's the one on housing - so spectacularly exposed in part yesterday by the Housing Minister. It follows what Gordon Brown said here in answer to David Cameron in the preceding PMQ's:

"Mr. David Cameron(Witney) (Con): Yesterday, it was revealed that in private the Housing Minister told the Cabinet that house prices would fall by up to 10 per cent. this year, house building was stalling and further falls were predicted. Yet in public the same Minister said the housing market was strong. Does the Prime Minister agree that she was not being straight with people?"

The Prime Minister: It is because of the condition of the housing market that I will be announcing new measures in my statement after Question Time. The housing situation has deteriorated in the last few weeks, and we will be taking measures to protect first-time buyers and give them new opportunities, to take out stock that is not being bought so that housing associations and other authorities can buy it, and to help people who are facing repossession."

Here are the PM's words in his proposals for the Queens Speech:

"The Housing Minister is today announcing a £200 million fund, re-allocating money to purchase unsold new homes and then rent them to social tenants or make them available on a shared ownership basis; £100 million pounds for shared equity schemes to allow more first-time buyers to purchase newly built homes on the open market; and for the first time an offer of shared equity housing open to applications from all first-time buyers, subject to a household income limit."

Now, given the average house price in the UK is £218,000; dividing that sum into the £200 million equals 917.

So much for government intervention. Labour help 917 people to buy a home.

Bloomberg have commented on this too.

In the Daily Politics programme, Ken Clarke made a telling comment about what first time buyers should do. Namely, wait 12 months before buying a home. Especially as the government, in the words of their Housing Minister, reckon house prices will fall by up to 10% in the coming year.

What a disaster.

And now we learn that inflation can only get worse (so much for things can only get better).

Despite Darling's attempted £120 bribe yesterday, it's time for the people of Crewe & Nantwich to send Labour a clear message by voting Conservative next Thursday.

The plan includes the creation of a scheme, a law on savings (savings bill ") could receive eight million people with low incomes, where each pound saved would be equalled with a government contribution, according to the Times' online .

It further support to banks, by banking law ( "banking bill") that will allow protection for holders of deposits in case of breaking into a bank and the Northern Rock as an example, as well as measures to support people who contract credits for housing for the first time during the slowdown in the residential market.

Other measures will be disclosed in full in November, has yet Gordon Brown.

The prime minister of the UK was today however criticised mainly by the "gaffe" of his minister of housing, Caroline Flint, who yesterday was no longer shooting in front of No. 10 Downing Street with the confidential documents of the government. The photographs of the documents, now widely disseminated by the British media, showed that in their personal notes the minister hopes that the prices of homes may fall, "at least" between 5% to 10% during 2008, which contradicts opinions more "optimistic" previously undertaken by his colleagues in government.

The criticism was mostly personificadas by David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, who recommended Gordon Brown anticipate that the elections to the British people could "fire". For the leader of the opposition, the new legislation, Brown is "another relaunch" by a prime minister who was without ideas.

About the proposals on the financial system, said: "we have [now] a plan for the financial sector (banking bill") because the regulatory system that he created 10 years ago failed its first test with the Northern Rock ".

Gordon Brown, who succeeded Tony Blair ahead of the Labour Party and the British government, held the finance portfolio during the mandates in which Blair led the executive in Downing Street.

1. how any referendum should be conducted and who should have a vote;
2. how Scotland will separate from the rest of the UK once that referendum has been won by the 'yes' vote.

On the first issue I have read a number of comments calling for 'Scots abroad' to have a vote, sometimes outside Scotland but within the UK, and sometimes outside of the UK too.  There have been more frivolous calls for 'people with an interest' to be given a say, people who may only know Scotland through parents and grandparents.  Never before though had I heard it mooted that England should have a say though.

Tim Luckhurst, former editor of The Scotsman, has written an article for the Times Online in which he argues that any referendum on Scottish independence must be a :

three-question referendum - independence, devolution or a unitary state - with all the British people eligible to vote.

Yet his reasoning is based on the fact that:

The 1707 Treaty of Union, passed both by the Westminster and Edinburgh parliaments, reflected the combined will of both political establishments to augment the union of the crowns with a merger of national legislatures. Ending the Union demands the same mutual consent.

This is, of course, a nonsense given the paradoxical situation that might arise where a Scotland that votes to dissolve the Treaty of Union, and become independent, is blocked by an England which wishes the Union to remain intact. 

The article has thrown up some interesting, and telling, discussion online where comments may be interpreted as it being 'England's decision' whether or not Scotland leaves the Union.  Afterall, the Union isn't just Scotland and England, there's also Wales and N. Ireland to be considered and Scotland voting for independence does not mean that the remaining three will also need to go their separate ways.

Gareth Young writes in response to this debate on Our Kingdom:

Why should the English be made to sit on their hands whilst the Scots determine the fate of the Union, again?

It highlights a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps ignorance, of What the Union is.  If Scotland wishes to leave the UK, to become independent and leave England, Wales and N. Ireland to get on with it, than that's Scotland's decision, it's not a decision for anyone living outside of Scotland to make.

Not wishing to pick on Gareth here, but he also goes on to say:

I don't think it's at all acceptable for Scotland alone to decide on this.

It patently is for Scotland alone to decide on this, I wouldn't expect a vote if England wished to become independent, I don't see why they should get a vote on Scotland becoming independent either.

I'm inclined to agree with another contributor (Ray Bell) to the debate who says:

This is a stupid and futile argument coming from last ditch defence of the Union.

...

By the way, why are these arguments usually so anglocentric? There are millions of people in the UK who are neither English nor Scots.

But enough of that discussion if you want to participate or read it in full the link's here.

image from michael greenwell

The second debate arising, this time from the UCL's Constitution Unit Press release (view PDF), is in reference to the agreement for terms of separation.  I can't say I agree with their press release, although the fact that it has been made does suggest that the debate is moving forward and that the idea of indepedence for Scotland is becoming 'normalised'.  The Press release reads as follows:

Two Referendums Required for Scottish Independence

A single referendum initiated by the SNP government and authorised by the Scottish Parliament could not achieve independence for Scotland. The terms of any independence deal negotiated with the UK government would require a second referendum authorised by Westminster, says the Constitution Unit. A first referendum could only be held on the principle of independence, and authorise the SNP government to enter into negotiation with the UK government about the details.

The Constitution Unit is responding to the apparent U-turn on a referendum by Wendy Alexander leader of Scottish Labour, after her call on Alex Salmond’s SNP minority government to “bring it on.”

“We have long argued that Scottish independence requires two referendums, for reasons of law and practical politics” said Constitution Unit director Prof Robert Hazell. “Under the Scotland Act only Westminster can authorise a referendum that would grant Scotland independence. I would be surprised if Gordon Brown has also done a U turn and wants Westminster to hold such a referendum any time soon”.

“But there are also reasons of principle why there should be two referendums. People in Scotland might support independence in principle, but think again when confronted with the terms of independence. The terms will include not just issues like North Sea oil, but division of the national debt, ending all financial transfers from the UK government, and Scotland’s continued membership of the EU. The Scots are entitled to know the detailed terms of independence before making such a big decision”.

The Constitution Unit addressed the referendum issue (among others) in Jo Murkens’ book Scottish Independence – A Practical Guide (Edinburgh University Press, 2002) and made two observations. First, the referendum question would need to be carefully worded to be about commencing negotiations rather than about independence itself, in order to stay within the confines of the powers of the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament defined in the Scotland Act 1998. The question would be on the principle (rather than the details) of independence. Secondly, the terms and conditions of Scottish independence (including that Scotland would separate from the United Kingdom) would be the subject-matter of a second referendum

Jo Murkens (now law lecturer at the LSE) added: “Wendy Alexander’s rallying call to ‘bring it on’ may be of political significance in Scotland. But in constitutional terms it is little more than an acknowledgment that the Scottish Executive (having obtained legislative authority from the Scottish Parliament) has the power to hold a consultative referendum on negotiations with Westminster. That acknowledgement in no way anticipates the eventual outcome of the negotiation process.

I don't agree with the UCL release on a couple of levels.  In the first instance, only one referendum is required for independence to be achieved, and that referendum must be to give an appointed body the responsibility to negotiate the settlement between Scotland and the remainder of the UK.  Presumabley Westminster would also appoint a body to negotiate on it's behalf, free of the like's of Brown or any other MP in a Scottish seat - and rightly too.

A referendum on the settlement itself is likely to be difficult for the majority of the electorate (in either Scotland or the remaining UK) to digest, simply on the basis of it's complexity.  And who's going to vote to accept a proportion of the national debt in Scotland, and likewise in England who's going to vote in support of large sections of the North Sea to come under Scottish jurisdiction.  Any referendum would end up being based on headlines and media bias without a look at the finer detail.

The idea that the people at large could make an informed decision in any referendum on the settlement details is unlikely, and in the end most voters would likely support the settlement arrived at following the negotiation process anyway, as this would be the position agreed with and endorsed by senior Government members anyway.  Many aspects of the settlement are likely to be reached in reference to international bodies who may be invited to mediate.

The discussion of a second referendum though has once again given rise to the notion that Scotland does not have the 'right' to self determination, seemingly on the basis that:

Scottish secession would have such a cataclysmic effect on the future of the rest of the UK

Brian Barder goes on to say (in this debate):

it's hard to imagine any UK government or parliament agreeing to it without a prior consultation with all the people of the other three 'nations', presumably by referendum.

He is of course not alone in voicing this opinion, which is bizarre in the extreme.  Scotland should not be allowed to become independent because it might upset the other members of the UK?  Really?  Remember, unionists would have us believe that Scotland can't survive economically outside of the UK, so why so keen to hold on?

And what would be the result if Scotland was held within a UK it no longer wished to be part of?  Turmoil, anger, and ultimately violence.

Anyway, I think I've written enough on this just now.  I've never been one of those people who agreed with the notion that England is Imperialistic, but reading comments like these you do begin to wonder.

• Public say on GP hours
• Parents' councils to help run schools
• Citizenship ceremonies for young people

What a load of rubbish.

The first two carry on this obsession that democracy and better services are somehow delivered by consulting the public. Now, I'm not against public involvement through consultation per se, but when it comes to important things like, you know, the health of the nation or the education of millions of children, I kinda want the decisions made by experts who have an inkling of what they are doing.

There is also the bigger problem here: it isn't democratic in the slightest.

Who makes the decision to consult who? God knows. What this really boils down to is that the PTA and the residents association, the neighbourhood watch group and the campaign for local issues quango make the decisions.

Why? Why are these non-elected twats making decisions for me? You may say 'well, involve yourself', but that is easier said than done isn't it. How do I involve myself? Who do I contact? Do I have to join?

No, this is a scheme that will be abused by local jumped up tossers who call themselves 'Chairman of the Greater Poppington Residents Society', or in other words, a nobody with training in nothing who is a nimby to the nth degree, hates change and wants it all as it was in his day.

The poor teachers will now have to have constant arguments with a select set of high profile parents, who effectively represent eight children out of a thousend, who are almost certainly architects, accountants, lawyers and chairman of the greater poppington residents society. They will get ripped apart in meeting by people who rip people apart in meetings for a living and will have to cave in for requests for more books, or better desks. Even though there isn't any money.

The children to take citizenship ceremonies idea makes me feel sick. If you don't already feel like you are British having lived here for, most probably, 16 years, then fuck off. How can a child of two UK citizens who was born in the UK and lived in said UK all of its life possibly not feel British?

This is an American approach to a probelm that simply doesn't exist, that is the issue of caring about the country you live in. The problem is basic self-discipline, control and manners. Taking an oath won't change that.

If you need to fly a flag or chant an oath, then you simply don't deserve to have one. In fact you should be shot. It is totally un-British.

I want government to govern. I don't want select groups of 'the public' running my health system or schools. I want people who know what they are doing running these services under an umbrella of government who keep their noses out and well away from residents associations who haven't got a clue what is going on.

Local Authorities are run like this. An elected Council oversees a group of skilled people who basically run it for them. And it works, despite what the Sun would have you believe.

Labour is unable to delegate to professional people so instead hands it over to nimbys and quangos. Then it tells your chldren to stand up and pledge, bend over and take it like men.

Thinking of the average person in South Shields, just what could we all do with the £120 bribe being offered later this year by Brown and Darling?

• Save it for a rainy day, council taxes might just go up again next year!
• Use it to pay for the increased price of petrol (it might cover 24 tank fulls.)
• Put it towards the expected 30% increase in gas bills seeing as the government is doing little to secure energy supplies.
• Put it towards the costs of repairing aunty Mabel's council toppled headstone.
• Use it to pay the extra tax on the family car.
• Allow it to be swallowed up by the mortgage increases.
• Put it towards the increase in council house rents.
• Buy 66 school meals at next year's price.

Feel free to add any other suggestions.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Gordon Brown is borrowing £2.7billion, which we'll all have to repay long after he's living on his pension, so that he can preserve his ego.

This series of small payments to much of the electorate will not do his party any good at the polls - in 18 months, nobody will recall the £10 payments dribbling into their bank accounts as they cast their vote in the general election.  As the first payment comes months after the by-election, the people of Crewe and Nantwich are not going the be swayed either.

The only constituency shallow enough to be influenced by this vulgar bribe are the Labour backbenchers who will now spare Gordon Brown the "humiliation" of a commons defeat.

Personally, I think the Prime Minister would have emerged from this whole sorry affair with a little more dignity if he's had the nerve to admit that he made a mistake in the first place.  As it is, he's thrown away what little credibility he had left and, in doing so, lost the ability to challenge any future Conservative policies as "unfunded".

But...

Labour are cutting taxes and simplifying the tax code. Interest rates are fairly low and predicted to go a little lower. Gordon seems to be acting according to his convictions. It started with casinos and now he's taking action on drugs.

Personally my mortgage has gone down, my taxes decreased and my child tax credit gone up.

Would everyone quit moaning!!

DON'T GIVE UP THE GOOD FIGHT GORDON! If you were running the Conservative party you'd guarantee my vote.

p.s. I'll admit this post isn't 100% serious.

Has anyone ever attempted to bribe the British people in the way that Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown did yesterday? Whilst we were sitting in South Shields Town Hall for the meeting of South Tyneside Council others were getting their calculators out to analyse the effects of this U turn over the 10p tax rate, and commentators determined just how big was the sticking plaster being used to patch over the gaping wound in Labour's body.

£2.7bn borrowed from the markets to drive a small £120 payback to 22 million people despite the fact that only 5.3million were initially affected by the loss of the 10p tax rate. We now see that those earning between £18,500 and £40,000 pa will also benefit from the gamble as the Chancellor and the Prime Minister play roulette with the economy. It was all so easy to raise the thresholds with personal allowances, but it would have been a far more genuine gesture if it had been achieved at the expense of government spending elsewhere, perhaps a massive reduction in the amount of government press officers, political aides, spin doctors, and consultants might have made a better headline, especially as these are the people who seem to be pulling Brown's strings.

So let's hear no more from Brown, Darling, Balls and the others about Tory proposals for unfunded tax cuts, yesterday's unfunded cut illustrated just how desperate Brown is to gain favour, yet the voters will see through this ruse, we know that eventually we will have to pay for this loan through cuts in services or through higher taxes. The Labour Party do not have a good record for saving our money, so expect your wallet to take another bashing at the next budget. We know a bribe when we see one, in fact we've read the script for this awful film, and it doesn't have a happy ending!

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

All of a sudden we can find 2.7 billion pounds to fund a raising of the personal allowance, because thats the easiest way to get to some of the people affected by this. Yes of the 5.2 million hit by the doubling of the 10p tax band, 4.1 million will not loose out. And the other 18 odd million people who are in the £12,000 to around £40,000 annual earnings, what are we to make of the £120 going into their pocket? An early christmas present? A chance to buy an iPod?

If there was an election on the horizon, then this budget would look like a blatant come-on. I mean a General election, not jsut Crewe and Nantwich, although this may (may) act as a firebreak for Labour's core supporters. But with the first stage of the refund, the lump sum of £60, not hitting anyone's wage packet until September, and the likelihood that if Gordon Brown is to make way for a new Labour leader, then any post-conference bounce in the opinion polls could mean an election at the start of October. Just as everyone sees a bulge in the wage packet... Naw, it could never be that well planned.

This was a cock up. It was wrong last year when announced, it was wrong this year when it was let through, and the compromise is fatally flawed, misses the worst affected by the changes, and leaves some of the most vulnerable people in society significantly worse off (those on roughly £6,600 to around £8,000 per annum) while the middle classes get enough money to buy a posh meal and a night out.

This from a Labour government? From a government that would shout down any hint of an unfunded tax cut? Obvioulsy borrowing £2.7 billion to do this one off tweak isn't unfunded. It's just being paid for on the never-never. It's tax and spend without the tax.

The double speak of "...the remaining 1.1 million households will see their loss at least halved. In other words, 80 per cent of households are fully compensated with the remaining 20 per cent compensated by at least half" is clear to the public. Over a million of the lowest paid people in the UK, at the very bottom of the income tax scale, are loosing money, while the rich are getting the full benefit of a tax cut.

PS: With roughly 600,00 households lifted out of income tax altogether, how long till this gets rounded up to "New Labour took one million households out of paying income tax altogether?"