The Bewilderness

Will the defector muscle awaken?

Some Liberal Democrats did attend the Labour conference. They had form in opposing the coalition and contributed to sessions on potential alliances between the second and third forces in British politics. John Leech, a left-wing Liberal Democrat was quick to endorse future political pacts with the Labour party.

He said: "I wasn't sure if I was going to come tonight without my tin hat.

"In the north west, we have a level of hostility between Labour and Lib Dems that would make it impossible."

But Leech admitted that there was more common ground between the two parties than acknowledged by activists.

What does it say about outliers like Leech that they endorse a left-wing pact despite the antipathy of their own activists. Such sentiments sound like a precursor to defection.

What surprises me is the lack of movement despite the fertile grounds for swaps in personnel that political pacts and coalition government provides. Three disaffected communities are evident: Blairite MPs (after the election of optimistically optical illusionist, Red Ed), left-wing Liberal Democrats gravitating towards public sector interest groups and those Tories who may occasionally be mistaken for conservatives. With Labour's shift towards the trade unions, broad churches may become fissiparous and sectarian.

Red Labour revived?

A concerted union effort has placed Ed Miliband in the driving seat of Labour, defeating his brother and swinging the opposition party towards the Left. Cue the shrill stereotypes of extremism, a 'lurch to the left' and generational unelectability. Predictions that rely upon the assumptions that the British electorate enjoy innate sage advice and that the coalition will remain a viable option for both parties.

Only with his speech as new leader to the party will we see how far 'Red Ed' remains wedded to the promises that he made on the campaign trail. He has already maintained that he is not a pawn of the unions, despite their all-out support on his behalf. The prospects are not good: a combination of anti-Blairite rhetoric ("New Labour is dead") and a continuation of Brownonomics, deficit denial and the reactionary defence of unreformed public services remain the hallmark of Labour's arrogance. As the author of their manifesto, Ed Miliband, more than most, is responsible for opposition. Yet, the statements remain a mantra: spending cuts bad, public spending good.

Within a few years, this mantra will appear as outdated as Thatcherism was by 1997. All political culture changes and, unless salvaged by crisis, Labour will be playing catch up, since the springs of renewal do not appear to command the opposition front bench. But politics can surprise....

 

Tory on Tory torture in the Star Chamber

The Liberal Democrat conference highlighted stresses and strains within the coalition. Yet, whilst this sideshow of irrelevance fed media lust, did the Tories tighten their grip on government? The star chamber, that body devoted to the bloodletting of the red line, has been beefed up wit Caroline Spelman and Eric Pickles. Both are viewed as enthusiastic cutters and austerians. Apart from Danny Alexander not one Liberal Democrat has made a seat though, given the opposition of Fox and IDS, the room will mainly deal with Tory on Tory action.

The star chamber has been negotiating cuts for months but will now become a final court (of appeal, if you are an optimist) for the ministers who wish to feed the maw. 

LDs retreat to puerile comforts after the cold bath of power

The Liberal Democrats never really prepared for government. The vault into power has come at the expense of discipline or compromise. Yet, while one can understand the wishes of the grass roots to let off steam, is it legitimate to view this as providing direction for members of the Cabinet? Are the Liberal Democrats so appalled by power that they wish to disavow any further opportunity?

How are companies in China, India, the United States and elsewhere to respond as they weigh up investment prospects here and learn that the Business Secretary appears to be anti-business? Mr Cable is being self-indulgent. He said yesterday that the Coalition has to work if the economic mess Labour left behind is to be cleared up. He is right. It is time he stopped undermining it.

 The Liberal Democrats could have used their conference as a showboat for independence and radicalism; perhaps outflanking the Coalition on some of their disappointments and highlighting their disillusionment with the incipient signs of bureaucratic capture. Instead, we have dogwhistles to interest groups that have already abandoned them.

Perhaps next year, the cuts and Labour hypocrisy will concentrate minds. Then, you can persuade one of your own: Danny Alexander

But Alexander said the coalition was determined to carry out its deficit reduction plans over the course of the parliament, which is due to have a fixed five-year term.

"The Liberal Democrats and the coalition are totally committed to seeing this process through over the next five years," he said.

Greenest Greatest Green Deal ever in the world ever

Chris Huhne's speech at the Liberal Democrat conference is reported as a fall from innocence by the Grauniad rag. The tests for the speech are considered to be the green lobby, the previous statements of Huhne (before the compromise of coalition) and how far ideals are abandoned before the

Tory beast and the Treasury's ravenous appetite for cuts.

It is rare that we can read analysis masquerading as sentiment. The opposite: shallow wallowing of faux indignation by sanctimonious hypocrites more guilty of contempt than any politician. The better test of a politician rests upon how far their policies can deal with the real; an awareness of their own impotence, and a modest acceptance that the actions of millions obtain a better outcome than the decision of one. Alas, Huhne has stood up and claimed unemployment benefit: his policies will create jobs, supposedly...

The "green deal" will lead to thousands of workers modernising some 26 million homes to make them more energy efficient as part of the coalition's ambition to be the "greenest government ever".

When I sit back, I think of what will actually be achieved: hundreds of workers will obtain a heavily subsidised position and will manage to reduce the energy efficiency of the British home through incompetence and waste. 

Still, if we had hyperinflation, we could burn the notes and lots of accompanying statutory instruments.

 

 

From Bilbao to Santander: our spiritual Ice-Age homeland

The Conway Institute has run the genome of an Irish man for the first time and found a number of unique features, in terms of the single nucleotide polymorphisms and other variants. Not even a sample population, just the one. The report of this study has been written up for genome biology and then announced to the press as evidence of an Irish genome.

Discounting the claims of nationalism that accompany the announcement, where it becomes one genome for all of the Irish, this achievement serves to signpost the interaction of nation and genome. Is it that the smaller the nation, the more important this achievement becomes?

The work that has been done already confirms that there is a distinctive and shared genetic heritage across the islands:

Major genetic surveys of Ireland and Britain have established that the gene pool of both islands is amongst the least diluted in Europe. The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of the ancestors of the Irish and British people were the pioneering settlers who arrived at the end of the last ice age between 17,000 and 8,000 years ago. The inescapable upshot of this is that the Irish are not Celts, any more than the English are Anglo-Saxons.

In fact, both the Irish and the British are Basques, with the Irish significantly more Basque than our neighbours across the pond, who've absorbed more migrations from Europe over the centuries.

An advancement, but not the distinction that publicity would have us believe.

The figleaf of Airstrip One

I have yet to hear the United States invoke the "special relationship", that mythic totem which supposedly forms an umbilical cord between the two countries. Suddenly, once the consequences of the defence cuts are known: there is a flurry of concern. The figleaf of Airstrip One may be discarded.

This does not mean that I support the defence cuts. Strange that we undercut the most important reason for the state in favour of health or international development. A wrong set of priorities.

One godawful tax mess

An error rate of twenty percent is one of the highest that any government department has managed to achieve. Delve deeper into the background of erroneous tax codes, overpayments and a complex beast that is unable to calculate taxes and we get a new computer system. Another failed IT fiasco. Yet every time, the damage varies wider and deeper.

Yesterday it was disclosed that internal HMRC fears over the accuracy of the tax authorities’ employment records date back to January when a new computer system was activated and asked to generate tax codes for 2010-11.

The new promise is that tax codes will be more accurate under the new computer system in the 'medium term'. What is clear is that unification of systems and databases widens the damage when errors within the system are magnified throughout. They also demonstrate the flaws of a centralised system.

What is the alternative? Decentralised systems that collect their own taxes and pay certain sums upwards in return for certain services. Sensitivity to a local tax base would go some way to weakening the central state and enter circuit breakers that prevent certain mistakes from permeating an entire system. Currently, The British state metastizes all mistakes and lacks all resilience.

The Great Ham speaks

Years away from today, when the dust has settled and the final memoirs have all been published, Blair's cri de coeur will still be debated. The one-time Prime Minister has leaked various details from his book in a sledgehammer plea for sympathy. Hindsight is used as justification.

Yet, the line of revelations does not move a vote for pity. He will do penance for the Iraqi war (but not the others). He was so pressured by the job that he began to rely upon alcohol (but not to such an extent that he ever became alcoholic). He was unnerved and worried by Gordon Brown's suitability, so much so that he could only tell us in great detail after the fiasco.

All Blair's memoirs confirm is his lack of fitness for the role of leading this country. Any doubts on his lack of statesmanship and inability to rise above his own needs are confirmed by the publication on the day that the new leadership ballots are issued. Their votes must be overshadowed by his needs.

Perhaps he feels cheated: but will the words of the Great Ham divide the Labour party. Somehow, one suspects that Blair will have done himself a disservice, and ruined his credibility, putting petulant preening before party.

Who else but Blair could muster a sympathy vote for Brown?