The Bewilderness

Michael Jackson is breaking news

Michael Jackson is dead. News, certainly, but not exactly worth a newsflash on the BBC.

Public sector broadcasting is replaced by public celebrity broadcasting.

New Govt bargain: pay more for less on electric cars

No surprise that the new subsidy offered for electric cars will have the opposite effect. Knowing that the government has a desire to pre-release and re-release any idea they have, the new wheeze of a grant for electric cars has been sunk by a small problem: those that are available do not fit the scheme as they are too primitive.

The company intends to start a trial this year involving no more than 40 Mini Es in London and the Thames Valley. Participants will have to pay about £550 a month to lease a Mini E, three times the lease rate of a petrol-powered Mini Cooper. They will be unable to carry more than one passenger because a huge battery occupies the back seat and it has a range of only 150 miles before it needs recharging.

The strategy says it expects numbers “to rise to the thousands in the early part of the next decade”. To put this in context, more than two million cars are sold in Britain each year and there are 27 million on the road. Sales of electric cars halved last year to 179, down from 397 in 2007.

Nigel Wonnacott, a green-car analyst, said: “This strategy could be the final nail in the coffin for the current crop of electric city cars as buyers hold out for models from mainstream car makers. But there’s no guarantee that any will be on sale come 2011.”

The government have done us a favour. By setting up a scheme that will never see the light of day, they have lengthened the odds on their muppet successors from wasting money on crap cars that cost more for less. Is this not the universal principle for all public services?

Watson calls in Carter Ruck

Calling in the lawyers is always viewed as a damning line, over which governments can fall. The news that Tom Watson has called in Carter Ruck to defend himself against the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday has suddenly upped the ante. Watson states that he was unaware of the emails and had nothing to do with the smear campaign. Without any comment on Watson's motives in this matter, those interested in this affair can respond in two ways: they can view the action as an impediment or as a spur to their investigations. Whatever the reaction of the press, Watson's action, in contrast to the restraint of Nadine Dorries, has given the story greater longevity.

Now we can see that the whole affair of the smear has become an issue of governance, and rightly so. I am not one to usually support Dave, but he hits the nail, and he must have been working on this in wounded anger:

'These people have just been in power too long; they have forgotten who they are serving, what they are meant to be doing, how they are meant to behave and we need some change,' he said.

'I do not know what Gordon Brown knew and when he knew it but what I do know is that he hired these people, he sets the culture, he is the leader and we need change in order to change the culture and stop this sort of nonsense."

There are many who now wish to see the back of Labour, not least those who now feel betrayed by the importation of Scottish Labour's methods to the United Kingdom as a whole..

One month to respond to children in need

The BBC provides a positive spin for Brown in the latest internet headline on the Baby P case: "PM vows to prevent Baby P repeat". The first two paragraphs of the article feature Brown's rejection of "buck passing" by Michael Gove, Shadow Secretary for Children, without featuring the source of this accusation. Instead the article refers to the loss of the natural father and Gove's initial statements are downgraded to the bottom of the article.

The article is distinctly odd, as politics, paternal loss and whistleblowing are amalgamated in process that is anything but impartial. The 'personal' angle to this story is best dealt with in a separate article from the political headlines of the day, since the air of accusation surely intrude on a private man's grief. Brown's statements on action are interspersed with the response of the natural father giving the impression of the Prime Minister responding directly to a public statement of loss. This is highly inappropriate, especially when the failings of Haringey Council are "alleged".

The whistleblowing act by the social worker, Nevres Kamal, was sent in a series of letters by her lawyer to the Department of Health and individual MPs (the BBC omits this latter fact) whilst she pursued a claim for racial discrimination from Haringey Council. The letter was passed by the Department of Health to the Department of Education and Skills, raising the alarm over an individual child's case and stating that there were wider problems with the conduct of standards by Haringey Council. The BBC appears to have information on the scope of the letter. No other paper states that the letter specifically referenced Lord Laming's report or its recommended procedures:

A lawyer acting for former Haringey social worker Nevres Kemal sent a letter about her concerns over the council to the Department of Health in February 2007.

She was worried that children in the borough continued to be "at risk".

This was despite an inquiry into the killing of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie - she died from abuse and neglect in the same borough eight years ago.

Ms Kemal believed recommendations made by Lord Laming following that inquiry were still not being followed.

Her letter was passed to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), which said proper procedures were followed.

The Independent states that the letter demanded a public inquiry over the shortcomings in Haringey's social services, a more salient fact than the curious reference to Lord Laming, when the author of the BBC article means the legal procedures set down for child protection.

The permanent secretary of the former DES stated that they replied to the letter and forwarded the letter to the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) one month after they received an urgent warning that children were at risk. One month!!!  The CSCI met with Haringey Council and confirmed to its own satisfaction that the individual children concerned were not at risk whilst failing to respond to the wider allegations of Nevres Kamal.

Details of the case had also been scrutinised through the Joint Area Review involving other agencies and through court proceedings, the CSCI said.

But it added that its inspectors ended their inquiries at that point, and did not explore Ms Kemal’s wider concern, expressed in a letter from her lawyer, that child protection procedures were being flouted. That admission will raise concerns about the broader oversight system.

Of greater concern is the confusing facts now coming to light that appear to show that the DES delayed replying to these allegations for one month and that the CSCI may have acted upon Kamal's letter rather than through a referral from the DES:

Last night, the Department for Children, Schools and Families confirmed it had received the letter 21 months ago.

A spokeswoman said: "Our records show we received a letter dated 16 February 2007, forwarded to us from the Department of Health, detailing an employment tribunal issue with Haringey Council, and containing an allegation that child protection procedures were not being followed in Haringey. Officials from this department replied on 21 March 2007. In that letter they made the point that ministers could not comment on the specific details of the employment tribunal case. As is standard practice, they suggested that the individual should notify the relevant Inspectorate, the Commission for Social Care Inspection, to take appropriate action and they provided the necessary contact details."

A misleading BBC article leads to an exploration of the media on this issue: an attempt by a social worker's lawyer to warn the government and individual MPs of problems at Haringey, before the social worker was prevented from further publicity by an injunction. A government that took one month to reply to allegations of inadequate child protection and confusion as to whether the CSCI was involved by the DES or directly by the social worker herself.

Does the government take one month every time it receives an allegation that children may be at risk? Does the government ignore allegations of departmental negligence in a local council when the source is a disgruntled employee? Does this make them any less serious, if the alleged council is Labour controlled?

Osborne: no smoke without, little wisdom within

The Osborne story, without any supporting evidence, soon ran out of steam. Perhaps, Brown, with his history of untimely intervention, put the sticker in when he called for an investigation. The Electoral Commission wisely rejected any investigation without clearer evidence of wrongdoing.

This gives us a taste of those politicians who would make hay out of hearsay, wasting resources and using bureaucracy to tie their opponents in knots:

Opposition MPs have tried to force the watchdog to launch an inquiry into the events surrounding the meetings between Mr Osborne and Andrew Feldman, the Tory chief executive, and Oleg Deripaska while on holiday in Corfu this summer.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, wrote to Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, urging him to investigate the matter or explain why the matter falls outside his legal jurisdiction.

He said: "The law suggests that George Osborne and Andrew Feldman have been sailing very close to the wind. The Electoral Commission should either launch an inquiry or clarify its interpretation of the law."...

The Electoral Commission immediately seemed to reject Mr Huhne's letter. A spokesman said: "We have received a letter from Chris Huhne. Our position remains the same, that we have seen no evidence of any offence."

That came as Norman Baker, another Liberal Democrat MP, wrote to John Lyon, the parliamentary standards commissioner, asking whether Mr Osborne's stay in the Corfu villa of Mr Rothschild should have been entered in the register of MPs' interests.

Shadowing the company of Brown does revise my notion of Chris Huhne as a prospective Liberal Democrat leader. An opportunistic move that could backfire if a funding scandal it that party. Acting as if you are whiter than white is a poor selection strategy in politics.

This damp squib of a scandal has left Gideon George Osborne besmiched and hopefully wiser. 

Warning to Labour: this could rebound

As there are no donations, the media have moved onto Osborne's judgement. As he has stated that he will not take lawyers, this has given reporters to state with licence what would usually be viewed as libellous. Seeking a donation is an offence, but discussing a donation is not.

Labour have puffed up this non-scandal:

Opposition MPs, peers and standards watchdogs said the affair raised serious doubts about his position. John Mann, a Labour MP, demanded an Electoral Commission investigation into whether Mr Osborne and Mr Feldman had broken the law.

"Andrew Feldman has to be sacked and David Cameron also has to remove Mr Osborne as his shadow chancellor," Mr Mann said.

Sir Alistair also criticised Mr Osborne's conduct. "He is in very difficult territory – shadow chancellors should be very wary of people they may need to deal with when in office in the future," he said.

"I am surprised these discussions are taking place when UK law makes it very clear that you have to be on the electoral register to donate money. The Conservative Party is overflowing with money so I find the whole thing rather bizarre."

Disingenuous vitriol from two political parties that actually received money from disreputable parties, one of which appears to have been in return for favours. Unlucky for the Tories in the near-term, but sinning with politicians should not cast stones. They boomerang.

No story, no money

The media has now got their teeth into the Osborne story, though it will not probably run for more than two days. Looking at the article, Osborne met the Russian oligarch, Deripaska, on his yacht five times. Osborne denies soliciting for a donation and one was never made. The furore commenced when Nathan Rothschild wrote a letter to the Times with his allegations. It also transpires that Lord Mandelson was present at three of the meetings


Deripaska is banned from entering the United States and is alleged to have relations with the Russian mafia. Hobnobbing with such a character shows poor judgement, as Lord Mandelson was accused of a conflict of interest, of which he was later cleared. Although Rothschild states that he has a second witness, questions must arise over allegations that could never be proved.

There is no clear outline of the allegation and this has been refuted. At the end of the day, this can be considered as an unforced error but the lack of any donation renders the whole story moot. No story, no money.

The evidence all seems to strongly suggest that George Osborne did nothing illegal in Corfu. 

EU pesticide madness

What do you do if there are food shortages threatened across the world, rising food prices for your own citizens and problems for your farmers? You move to ban pesticides, lower yields on your crops and increase the amount of acreage required. This is the dangerous proposal set out by the European Union, since they intend to move from a risk based to a hazard based system.

He said 80%-100% of insecticides will be banned, along with 80% of fungicides. According to the UK Pesticides Safety Directorate, up to 15% of all products will be deregistered, with a further 25% needing to be replaced over the next five years.

Mr Parry estimates the ban will cut yields 20% and gross margins 37%, requiring an extra 500,000ha across Europe to make good the loss in food production.

“But the European Parliament itself estimates a drop in yields of 39%-40%, and 79% lower gross margins. In this scenario, we’ll need 1.5m hectares of extra land,” he added.

The new rules will also allow the Commission to ban food products from other countries on the ground that residual amounts of presticide will be included. Sarkozy's disgusting inversion of agricultural protection and saving the lives of the poor in other countries is now revealed for the lie that it is: in reality, the EU uses its tariffs and regulations to impoverish its own citizens and keep farmers in Africa, Asia or Brazil poor.

We are now in a thought experiment: how long can a polity infected by the institutional equivalent of mad cow disease survive?

Time for cameron to be cautious

Brown is "very depressed" and has shown how he reacts to bad news of his own making, without letting go of the spin:

Gordon Brown did not look happy as he took his seat at the Pride of Britain Awards ceremony on Tuesday night at television studios on London’s South Bank.

Before the cameras rolled the prime minister sat down at his table, surrounded by celebrities whose names he did not know, and adopted an ogreish expression that signalled: “Don’t talk to me, I don’t want to talk to you.”

Only when the signal was given that the cameras were rolling and the programme was going “for a take” did Brown’s face light up with a smile.

Yet, double-digit poll ratings falling to a Tory lead just show volatility. Cameron has fortune, the end of Brown's honeymoon and Ming Campbell on his side. But, the problems, principles and plans must take precedence. This is a favoured moment for the Tories and they will slip back for awhile.

Cameron had a good PMQs, yet further aggression may be seen as arrogant. Time to attack Labour's policies more, pinpoint their dishonesty and let their complacent hubris and incompetence work its magic.

Have the tories done enough?

Following the Tory conference has been encouraging and frustrating in equal turns. Gone are the pervasive reports of lunatic taxes and strange policies which did so much damage in September. The strategy was not one to follow: serving to confuse the voter and allowing ideas to float that would induce fear or contempt. For a while, the Tories began to sound like the wilder shores of the Liberal Democrats. It was a valuable lesson in how not to announce policy, and showed that some Tories still know rockall about politics.

David Cameron's speech has been reported well, and the lack of an autocue provided authenticity and sincerity, two qualities that he is perceived to lack. Now that he has a policy platform in place, he needs to accentuate the positive and attack the negatives on Labour. The most efficient way to achieve that is through human stories, demonstrating the gap between policy and justice in Labour policy. The weakest point is their hypocrisy.