Labour MP: why should the people trust Labour?

Isn't it funny how all these Blairites that kept their tongues over the summer are coming out of the wood work? Tonight's Evening Standard carries a scathing attack on Gordon Brown from former minister Gisella Stuart. As I'm typing this on my phone I have not had chance to see if she is only speaking up because she fears she will lose her seat but even if that were her motivation her words by no means hold back.

She talks of the 'Praetorian guard' around Brown and argues that Brown is not showing leadership over Europe and virtually endorses Cameron's view that Brown is treating the public like fools. She attacks the moving goalposts in the Government's position on the EU constitution, calls the red lines 'red herrings' and closes by saying on a referendum that 'If Labour can't trust the people, why should the people trust Labour?'

Like I say, I know nothing about Gisela Stuart but she sounds like she not just disaffected with Brown but Labour overall. Time to cross the floor perhaps? Who knows. One thing is for sure, she's not going to have a nice conversation with Labour wwhips the next time she sees one of them.

The House of C'mons

When is a boycott not a boycott?

When you create a Facebook group calling for the boycott of Kettle Chips because they have "professional 'union busters'" but then also say,

Note we don't want sales to drop so far that workers lose their jobs. We are simply getting our message across to the private equity company that owns Kettle Foods in a language that they will understand.

Like Blog Action Day, a pointless gesture.

Lib Dem MP attacks Cowley Street for being like "Pravda"

This morning the Lib Dem MP for Southport, John Pugh, as launched a scathing attack on the official Cowley Street Lib Dem newspaper for being like "Pravda". Writing on Lib Dem Voice he's asked whether he is the only one that finds it "tribal, patronising, horribly on message in an unliberal way and above all - quite dull?"

All those words could equally apply to the things some Lib Dems are telling political hacks about their elderly leader. Couldn't possibly be the sub-text to the attack could it? Hmmmmm.

Blog Action Day: The Environment and Me!

The other day, someone asked me if I would be taking part in Blog Action Day and writing about the single topic of the environment in order to raise awareness of the subjects' importance. Apparently the organisers don't have a specifc agenda, but they picked the environment "both for the clarity of its importance and the undeniable urgency that issues like global warming and pollution have." So I thought, for a bit of fun, I would write something about what I do daily for the environment.

1) I drive a 4x4 and I often just pop round the corner to the shop in it to save the strain on my legs. Personally I don't think there is anything more that one can do for the environment than drive a car that eats the most amount of fuel possible.

If, as the theory says, our reliance on fossil fuels like petrol is the cause of the problem then it seems clear that the best way to end that reliance is too use it all up as fast as possible. Only then will car manufacturers consider it economically viable for their business to heavily invest in alternative fuels.

People that drive small cars with 1 to 1.3 litre engines in them should, frankly, be ashamed of themselves as they are helping to prolong the oil supply and thus encoruaging the car giants to not develop anything else. As for cyclists, they are even worse because they're actively not using oil at all.

2) I have the air conditioning in my car switched on permanently, even in winter. This prolongs the life of the aircon unit and means that I do not have to have it replaced as soon as those that never use it. Aircon units have manufacturering processes that damage the environment. This is also a double-whammy as it burns even more fuel as I am driving thus bringing about the end of our reliance on fossil fuel sooner (see previous point). People who have aircon and don't use it are killing the planet.

3) I leave my laptop on permanently, and any other computers I have. Everytime you turn a machine on from cold the component parts expand with the rising temperature and then they contract when you switch it off. The more you do this the shorter the lifetime of the parts and the sooner you will have to replace them.

When you replace them lots of very nasty dangerous chemcicals end up in landfill which then filters down to the water table and eventually you will drink them. People that turn their machines off when they have finished using them are bring about the contamination of the water supply quicker than me, and ending our reliance on fossil fuel generated power slower than me.

4) I regularly fill the kettle right up even if I am having only one cup of tea. I also always boil the water again after making a cup of tea to ensure that it boils quicker the next time I want to make one. Not only does this save me essential seconds in my important life but because my energy is not supplied from renewables, it means that I am using fossil fuels faster and again bringing about the end of our reliance on them sooner.

5) Last and by no means least, I am immensely proud of the fact that I avoid energy saving light bulbs at all costs. Unlike all those that use them I am fully aware that they are not recyclable and contain levels of mercury which, when thrown in landfill, puts the environment in danger as well as increasing the risk of us all getting mercury posioning at some point. Instead I always use 100-watt bulbs for maximum visibility at night, and maximum energy consumption - which I pay for - again in order to end our reliance on fossil fuels sooner rather than later.

Little Mosque on the Prairie?

I can't believe I've managed to miss this one, but it's apparently on Season 3. It's from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and is a Muslim sitcom that really is called Little Mosque on the Prairie - Small town Canada with a Muslim Twist.
The next episode is called "Ban the Burkha" where a mystery woman turns up in the town mosque wearing a full veil. One of the characters thinks it is creepy, whilst one of the female characters finds it oppressive. I always appreciate issues that are dealt with through comedy for some reason.

Now, I wonder if the BBC would be brave enough to buy the show? There are lots of episodes on YouTube if they don't.

Note: Blogging will cease for the next 48 hours as I'm going out.

Raising the higher rate tax threshold?

This morning's Independent is reporting that the next big Tory proposal is going to relate to the tax threshold of the higher rate of income tax, something that Brown has consistently allowed to drag in order to ensnare more middle income people and boost his coffers.

Now the obvious reaction of the Labour Party to such a policy will be to scream that it is a tax break for the rich middle classes. The problem they have with that argument now though is that there is a large group of people who pay higher rate tax who are by any stretch of the definition "rich".

Now they may say that someone on £40,000 a year is earning almost double the national average and should pay higher tax. But what if that person is in their early thirties, married, with a kid and a mortgage to pay? By the time they've spent on their outgoing they'll be lucky if they have much left to save or spend on luxuries.

Yet the current tax threshold system says that they are, in some way, rich. Of course, they could probably apply for tax credits. They could, if they wanted to, fill out a long form telling Brown the minutest details about their income and savings and be handed back some of their money, but why should they do that?

Why should they have to detail their life to the Government in order to be given their own money back? Why should they become beholden to the state for their material survival when they are earning enough to survive already if the tax take was just reduced a little?

Isn't the purpose of a tax and welfare system to help those that actually need help, rather than using the former to entrap ever greater numbers in the latter? There is a powerful case today for raising the threshold for higher rate tax to put it more in line with reality. It would also be very popular.

Brown U-Turns on marriage tax relief

I see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Andy Burnham, has given an interview to the Daily Telegraph and basically said that the next step for the Government is too recognise marriage and civil partnership through the tax system.

This comes just a few months after Gordon Brown said he didn't believe in rewarding marriage through the tax system, and it's less than a month since the Deputy Leader Harriet Harman said, to the Labour Conference that,

"sending a message about marriage [means saying] there's something wrong with your family.... We will not stand for that.... That Tory message about marriage is just the same old back to basics. And the truth is that until they drop it, the Tory party is still the nasty party."

This really is starting to get silly now isn't it? I'm guessing that Brown is calculating that because they've been able to get away with stealing policies in the past they can get away with it now.

However, that doesn't work if you (a) do the first one immediately as a panic move after some bad polls and general humiliation, and then (b) do the next theft within the same week. It simply shows that the momentum is with and the agenda is being set by the Tories.

Effectively the Government is no longer leading the country but following the Opposition in the hope of making short term electoral gain. So much for acting in the interests of the country.

Brown edits his own words

As Iain has noted the possible dodgy editing of video on the Downing Street website it's also worth noting the dodgy transcripts that are there too. The more perceptive of you will have noticed on Monday that I wrote that Brown said in his press conference that we didn't want to go back to the 90's (ergo Tories) with tax cuts because it causes "economic stability".

That is what he said you see, but, "No" says, the Downing Street website. What he said was "it causes economic instability". This is simply not true. It is a lie. It is an untruth. He did not say that at all. Now some might say he meant to say that, but that doesn't change what he actually said. Time for a comment about "he who controls history" and all that jazz I think!

Asset News Management

Isn't it funny? This morning the Public Accounts Select Committee publishes a report about the Asset Recovery Agency stating that it has been a failure. The report goes on to note that the IT systems at the agency are appalling, cases were often not followed up, and that it has managed to recover about a third of what it has cost the public purse since its creation over five years ago.

Shoot forward about eight hours and the Government New Network is sending out press releases which detail specific assets recovered by the Agency and is effectively praising its work. I believe this is what's called 'damage limitation' or what has come to be known as news management and spin. One day perhaps there will be a Government who is - when they've been found wanting on a particular policy - willing to put its hands up and say 'you know what, it was a nice idea but it really didn't work, sorry about that'.

Unlikely I know but wouldn't it be a refreshing novelty?