PMQs 03.06.09

David Cameron's first question - No relevant answer from Gordon Brown
David Cameron's second question - No relevant answer from Gordon Brown
David Cameron's third question - No relevant answer from Gordon Brown
David Cameron's fourth question - No relevant answer from Gordon Brown
David Cameron's fifth question - No relevant answer from Gordon Brown
David Cameron's sixth question - No relevant answer from Gordon Brown

Stabbed by a chipmunk

Hazel Blears more of a man than the rest of the Cabinet put together.

The wake

The BBC Today programme this morning sounds like a cross between a wake and a piece of Labour Party navel gazing. Even James Naughtie in his interview with Harriet Harman sounds like he is losing patience with his party. He even pushed Harriet Harman more than most Today interviewers have in the past, although he still deferred to let her spout the usual mix of platitudes and prepared soundbites.

Is it nearly all over?

The Guardian leader today reads:

"...The tragedy for Mr Brown and his party is that his chance to change it has gone. Although he still purports to be a radical, he has adopted the caution of an establishment man. He cannot lead a revolution against his own way of doing government, and yet a revolution is necessary. Grandstanding on his claims to good intentions, the prime minister demands the right to carry on, even as the cabinet implodes around him. The home secretary, the chancellor, and perhaps even the foreign secretary may go, and Labour faces its worst defeat in its history on Thursday, but the prime minister does not recognise his direct responsibility for the mayhem.

The truth is that there is no vision from him, no plan, no argument for the future and no support. The public see it. His party sees it. The cabinet must see it too, although they are not yet bold enough to say so. The prime minister demands loyalty, but that has become too much to ask of a party, and a country, that was never given the chance to vote for him. Had there been a contest for the leadership in 2007 - and had Mr Brown called a general election - he would probably have won. He decided not to do these things. And he has largely failed since.

...


The blunt reality is that, even if he set out a grand programme of reform now, his association with it would doom its prospects. Proportional representation would transform parliament, but if Mr Brown put a referendum on the ballot, it would be defeated because he backed it. A draft constitutional renewal bill was published more than 12 months ago - but what has come of it? This week Mr Brown announced a national democratic council that might (to see it in a generous light) form the basis of the sort of constitutional convention that led to Scotland's modern parliament. But it is too late. The chance for him has passed.

...


The needs of the Labour party and the country are obviously not the same. Labour members must ask themselves this weekend whether they think Mr Brown is best placed to put its values into action, and win popular support for them. The public, in tomorrow's elections, will consider whether Mr Brown is the right man to lead the country. And anyone advocating a change of leadership must make it clear whose interests will gain from it. This paper believes Britain has often been at its best when Labour has been at its strongest. People who disagree with that will welcome its implosion, knowing that it will make a Conservative landslide inevitable. That is why they are not clamouring for Mr Brown to go. Progressive thinkers do not have this luxury. Of course many people, who see the better angels in Mr Brown's nature, do not want his dreams to end like this. His premiership would be one of the briefest in history. He would never have fought an election. But fate can be unjust.

All must agree that the die is cast and a hard judgment made. Otherwise progressive politics will be dragged down at a general election in May 2010 that could lead to a much bigger defeat than Labour suffered in 1979. That might bring a chance for other parties to take it forward, as the Liberal Democrats are trying to do in this election. But they are not placed to enter government. Labour has a year left before an election; its current leader would waste it. It is time to cut him loose."

TTFN Gordon?

Party Election Broadcast by the Labour Party

What a shock, it's dark images, doom laden music and claims of what nasty things David Cameron would do. Just realised that the man hitting the punchbag was meant to be David Cameron or a Tory be-suited thug.

Eddie Izzard speaks his mind and says he will be voting Labour.

That was it! Have Labour really given up?

The questions Gordon Brown should have been asked

Richard Littlejohn lists the questions that he thinks interviewers should have asked Gordon Brown recently:

"Not for the first time, I'm left wondering why anyone bothers to interview Gordon Brown.

He is genetically incapable of giving an honest answer to a straight question and cloaks everything in a bogus morality.

Brown sticks to his script and drones on regardless of what he has been asked. He lies, dissembles, completely ignores the question, refuses to accept any responsibility for anything, or tries to claim credit for something which is actually nothing to do with him.

Half the time he doesn't even get asked the right questions.

Both Andy Marr and Evan Davis had the opportunity to ask him about his own expenses claims, but flunked it.

It would have been a waste of time, obviously, but the interviews could have gone something like this. . .

'Prime Minister, for the past 12 years you have lived virtually free-of-charge in a grace-and-favour flat in Downing Street. Why were you claiming second-home allowance on a property five minutes' walk from the Palace of Westminster?'

'What people want me to do is get on with the job . . .'

'Actually, what people want is a General Election, but we'll come back to that. You spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on that property, even splitting the cost of a new kitchen over two accounting periods to claim the maximum available...'

'Look, I'm disgusted and that's why we are setting up a National Committee on Constitutional Renewal. . .'

'Why have you now put that flat in your wife's name? Is it to avoid Capital Gains Tax when you come to sell it?'

'Appalled, angry, Presbyterian conscience, moral compass, Gentlemen's Club...'

'Why have you flipped your second home to your house in Scotland and renovated that at taxpayers' expense, too?'

'My father was a Church of Scotland minister. . .'

'Do you regret selling Britain's gold reserves at car-boot sale prices, now that it's risen to over $950 an ounce?'

'I was brought up in a family where integrity and telling the truth. . .'

'Then why don't you just answer the bloody question?'

'This is a global financial crisis, which began in America. I am getting on with the job...'

'Prime Minister, go away.' "

All joking aside, the questions about Gordon Brown's housing arrangements do seem to be off the agenda of all interviewers. I would like to know two things.

First why our Prime Minister who has lived for the past 12 years in grace-and-favour accommodation in Downing Street claimed second-home allowance on a property five minutes' walk from the Palace of Westminster?

I'd also like to know how he justifies the transfer of his flat to his wife, you can read more about that here.


It seems to me that interviewers, especially BBC ones) are too respectful of Gordon Brown, maybe as well they are scared of what he might do in revenge for being asked a really probing question.

Reshuffle rumours

I hear that Jacqui Smith is to stand down as Home Secretary at the upcoming Cabinet reshuffle. The BBC report that:

"Jacqui Smith is to stand down as home secretary in the cabinet reshuffle, sources close to her have told the BBC.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is set to shake up his cabinet after Thursday's European and English local elections.

...

It is understood Ms Smith, the first woman home secretary, intends to defend her Redditch seat at the next election.

Mr Brown confirmed to the BBC he is planning a reshuffle but refused to be drawn on individual ministers' roles."

That's a major Cabinet position freed up to shuffle Alistair Darling into, if Gordon Brown really tries to promote his old friend and colleague Ed Balls to the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unless of course David Blunkett really is coming back after two forced resignations to takeover the Home Office; well Gordon Brown did bring back Peter Mandelson. In which case where to put Alistair Darling? Tea boy perhaps as any other cabinet position would be a demotion, unless he moves to the Foreign Office. But then what to do with David Miliband... Tricky things reshuffles, here's someone else who was worried about a reshuffle...


I wonder if Gordon Brown will keep a place in the new Cabinet for John Hutton. After all John Hutton was the Labour MP who went on record as saying that Gordon Brown would be a "f***ing disaster as Prime Minister", surely that sort of prescience deserves to be rewarded...

I hope this new blog is satire

If No Leader But Gordon is satire then it is quite nicely done. If however it is for real then it is the work of a seriously confused individual...

"In these times of Global meltdown, caused exclusively by capitalist bankers on the other side of the World, one man above any other, gives us hope to carry on.

He is a shining light to one and all, a feather in the cap of Socialists everywhere. We never hear him complain, for that is not his way. Instead, he manfully gets on with the job of inspiring us all to live our lives in the knowledge that no matter how bad things may seem, we can always rely on Gordon Brown to carry us through these dark and dismal days, safe in the knowledge that he has our best interests at heart.

Ladies and gentlemen, Socialists and heathens, I give you our great leader, the one, the only, Gordon Brown. "

"Egypt mufti issues fatwa on use of WMD"

The BBC report under the headline "Egypt mufti issues fatwa on use of WMD" that:

"Muslims should not use weapons of mass destruction and possess them only as a deterrent, a top Islamic cleric says.

Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa said using such weapons would violate Islamic teachings as Muslims as well as non-Muslims could be killed.

He issued the religious ruling, or fatwa, following reports that the use of such weapons was legitimate, the state news agency Mena said.

His ruling comes just days before the visit of US President Barack Obama. "

Interesting, so the problem with Weapons of Mass Destruction is that Muslims might be killed as well as non-Muslims.

Let's read on...

"The grand mufti, who is state-appointed, said it was also not allowed for Muslims to kill civilians even during a declared war. "

I think this may be a reference to the "innocent" point that I have made before, which is that many Islamic scholars believe that (as Anjum Chaudri said):

"When we say innocent people we mean Muslims, as far as non-Muslims are concerned they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God... As far as Muslims are concerned, you are innocent if you are a Muslim, then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are a non-Muslim then you are guilty of not believing in God... I must have hatred to anything that is not Islam"

Here's the video...
I wonder if the BBC would like to bear this in mind in future, before accepting the "innocent" or "civilians" point being made by Islamic scholars; definitions are importnat and their definitions might not be what you expect.

It's Flipper

One for the kids, well the adults who were kids in the 1970s.




Thanks to The Red Rag for the spot.

What's missing from this news report?

The BBC finally get around to reporting the House of Lords' Economic Affairs Committee report on the banking crisis. The BBC report that:

"There has been fresh criticism of the way banks were supervised by the Treasury, Bank of England and Financial Services Authority (FSA).

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee said the so-called tripartite system had failed and must be reformed.

Its defects were highlighted by the failure of Northern Rock.

The report said the problem was that it was not clear who would be in charge in a crisis. It said the Bank of England should get a clear executive role.

The Lords' findings mirror the report of the House of Commons Treasury Committee, which said that the tripartite financial authorities had been insufficiently prepared to deal with Northern Rock's difficulties and needed to communicate better with each other.

"Without a clear executive role, the Bank can do no more than talk about financial stability. This exposes it to reputational risk without generating any clear benefit," the Lords' report said.

Financial stability

It recommended taking the responsibility for supervising the banking system as a whole away from the FSA and giving it to the Bank of England.

The committee's chairman, Lord Vallance of Tummell, told the BBC that the new powers that the Bank of England has been given by the Banking Act 2009 do not go far enough.

The report criticised the FSA for concentrating on its consumer protection role at the expense of its responsibility for maintaining financial stability.

The Lords also called for the authorities to be given more power over foreign banks operating in the UK.

"The degree of control that our supervisors and regulators here in the UK have over bank branches of foreign banks is very limited," Lord Vallance said.

"If there is a crisis then the money tends to rush back to the home of the bank itself leaving the problem with the UK taxpayer." "

In the whole of that report there is not a single mention of who set-up the tripartite regulatory arrangements, that's odd. Back in 1998 the BBC reported the Queens Speech thus:

"The Financial Services Authority, the financial markets' new super regulator, will be given greater power, to create a safer environment for investors and tackle market abuse... The United Kingdom's financial markets are currently regulated by a number of separate organisations, among them the Building Societies Commission, the Insurance Directorate, the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, the Personal Investment Authority and the Securities and Futures Authority.

But the distinctions between these markets have become blurred, and mergers have led to one company operating in many areas.

Therefore the government has been searching for a new approach to financial regulation.

In May 1997 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, announced he wanted to change the whole system, merging all regulators under the roof of a single body, the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

The FSA was launched in October 1997 - in fact emerging from the Securities and Investments Board, and this summer it was given the responsibility for banking supervision.

The new legislation will give it the powers necessary to do the whole job, and create a single regulator.

The FSA is expected to be fully operational in Autumn 1999."

Ah that's who set-up the tripartite system, Gordon Brown. Now why do you think the BBC are so coy about reminding people of that fact in 2009?

The BBC reporting Israel

Jeremy Bowen, that paragon of fairness, was interviewed on the BBC Today programme this morning. The subject was Barack Obama's upcoming speeches on the Middle East to be given in Cairo and Saudi Arabia. You can hear the whole interview here. There was much worthy of comment in the interview but it was a remark near the end that caught my ear:

"Well his cabinet is dominated by people who absolutely believe in settlements, who absolutely believe that the land the settlements are built on is Jewish land, it should be Jewish land in perpetuity. Some of them believe that that land was given to them by God in a miracle..."

The "narrative" being spread here was that it is the Israelis who are extreme and motivated by religious zeal. How odd I thought that Jeremy Bowen never talks about the foundation of the Palestinian claims on Israel. To save me looking up the records, Pounce on the Biased-BBC blog produced an example. It's from Article 11 of the Hamas covenant and runs:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement."

Would that claim be worthy of comment oh great BBC experts? Or would that bring up the fact that many Muslims see all lands that were Muslim in the past as being Muslim lands "till the Day of Judgement". In case you are wondering, that would include most of Spain and Portugal, much of France, most of the Balkan countries, Hungary, parts of Italy and even parts of Switzerland. A map to illustrate this point can be found at Euro Heritage.




By the way note that the Israeli cabinet is described at 2:56 as highly conservative, yet another try to link Conservatives with views that the BBC detest.

Amother opinion poll (2nd thoughts)

Further to my earlier piece on the latest ComRes opinion poll that shows:

"Conservatives 30% (-10%), Labour 22% (+1%), LibDems 18% (nc)"

I wondered at the causes of the drop in the Conservative vote and reported on Political Betting's thoughts.

As I slept last night I had a thought. Maybe a large number of Conservatives are moving to UKIP for the EU and local elections and are using opinion polls to make their point.

Another opinion poll

ComRes for The Independent is the latest poll and it's an odd one:

Conservatives 30% (-10%), Labour 22% (+1%), LibDems 18% (nc)

On the face of it a disaster for the Conservatives albeit that all their voters appear to have gone other than to Labour or the LibDems.

Maybe Gordon Brown will convince himself that the polls, like the economy, are moving in the right direction and that calling a snap general election would be a good idea…

Of course Political Betting may have a rational explanation, or then again maybe the UK political system is in meltdown, maybe Gordon Brown has succeeded in bringing down the whole house of cards on top of him...

Latest opinion poll

This one is an IPSOS/MORO one:
Conservatives 40% (-1%), Labour 18% (-10%), LibDems 18% (-4%)

As Political Betting report:

"It must be remembered that MORI have a very strict filter on their headline figures and ONLY include those who are 100% certain to vote. This can have the effect of the pollster showing quite turbulent findings. Clearly, at the moment, Labour supporters have little certainty to vote - hence the 18% poll share.

I stand to be corrected but the 18% Westminster share must be the lowest total ever for Labour and for a governing party. Confidence seems to have just collapsed.

Just 18% (compared to 23% last month) are satisfied with the way the Government is running the country, and more than three-quarters (77%, vs. 70% last month) are dissatisfied. "

Even so, Labour look dead in the water, shame isn't it...

Vilifying Israel

The BBC's Middle East news page is a great example of how the BBC view Israel. One or more of the lead stories are always anti-Israel and today is a good example:

Number 2 story today concerns claims, reported as fact, that "Several Palestinian workers have been hurt in an attack by a group of Israeli settlers in the northern West Bank.". The regular stoning attacks by Palestinians on Israeli cars is never reported just like the regular rockets being fired into Israel were not reported upon.

Number 3 story today concerns " A UN team investigating possible war crimes in Gaza, led by Richard Goldstone, arrives in the territory from Egypt." The BBC love to report stories of Israeli war crimes, oddly the huge numbers of civilians killed by Muslim countries or groups seem to slip by the BBC without a mention of war crimes.

Top Other Story concerns "One of Israel's most famous entertainers has been accused of ordering attacks on TV executives who turned down his ideas." A minor story but as it shows an Israeli in a bad light, it's a major story.


With this obsession about Israel, which comprises less than 2% of the Middle East's population and less than 0.2% of the land, it is odd that the BBC have not covered the news that Ephraim Katzir, Israel's fourth president and one of the county's pioneers, has died. Ephraim Katzir emigrated at the age of 6 from Kiev to British-ruled Palestine. He was a member of the Haganah, the Jewish militia group that fought for Israel's independence. Katzir, a prominent biochemist and physicist, was one of the founding scientists of the Weizmann Institute of Science. Ephraim Katzir served as President from 1973 to 1978 during a pivotal time is Israel's history; including the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 when Israel's neighbours and near neighbours invaded Israel in an attempt to destroy Israel, the invasion happening on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. Ephraim Katzir was also President when the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat visited Jerusalem in 1977. Maybe the BBC don't like to inform people that Israel is outnumbered, surrounded and hated by most of its neighbours.

St Barths (SBH) crash landing

crash SBH from Mo Po on Vimeo.

I've landed at St Barths airport quite a few times as a passenger not a pilot and it can be scary but that landing was started too late. In my view the pilot should have aborted and gone around again.



Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Peter Mandelson's back...

Here's something I just read in The Mail, unsurprisingly there is nothing on the BBC about it. Apparently:

Peter "Mandelson is under attack over a deal that could see some production at Vauxhall moved to a Russian firm controlled by one of his close friends.

Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, is a key mover behind the rescue of the car manufacturer, which employs 5,500 in the UK.

Under a deal hammered out over the weekend, some car production could shift to Mr Deripaska's car maker GAZ in low-cost Russia.

That could threaten thousands of jobs at Vauxhall plants in Luton and at Ellesmere Port in Cheshire.

General Motors, which owns Vauxhall, will this morning file for bankruptcy protection, making it one of the biggest corporate failures in U.S. history.

GAZ has teamed up with Canadian car parts giant Magna and Russian bank Sberbank to buy Vauxhall and its German sister firm Opel, the European arm of General Motors.

Lord Mandelson is facing accusations of manufacturing a deal to favour Mr Deripaska.

Their relationship sparked controversy last year after it emerged that the Business Secretary - then a EU Commissioner - stayed on the billionaire's £80million yacht anchored off Corfu.

It was later claimed that Lord Mandelson signed off on valuable trade concessions to the Russian tycoon - a charge both men have denied.

He faced criticism recently for giving van maker LDV - controlled by Mr Deripaska - a £5million handout to smooth its rescue by Malaysian firm Westar. "

The Mail goes onto report the worries of Conservative and LibDem spokesmen:

"Last night, Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott said: 'The Business Secretary clearly has a conflict of interest given his past contact with Oleg Deripaska. He must steer well clear of any deals on Vauxhall with Mr Deripaska lurking in the shadows.'

A Tory frontbencher said there was an 'air of suspicion' over the deal because of Lord Mandelson's links to Mr Deripaska. "

And on the BBC not a word. In fact until I read that piece in The Mail I had no idea that Mr Deripaska was involved in any way with the Vauxhall deal, I suppose it is my own fault for relying on the BBC for unbiased news.

I am labelling this post "BBC bias and BBC/NuLab but I suppose it is feasible that the BBC like much of the media is in fact not biased towards Peter Mandelson but scared of him. If ever a man had "something of the night" about him, it is Peter Mandelson and not Michael Howard.

Gordon Brown's interviews Sunday and today

Gordon Brown seems to be trying very hard to push the idea that he is the best man to sort out Britain's problems as he is working hard to do so.

"People know... that I'm determined... I work hard... and I get on with the job"

What utter rubbish, just because Gordon Brown is the main architect of the UK's economic and social destruction does not mean that he's the right person to set it right. In fact the opposite is more likely the case; by being in charge of the economy and much of home policy during the last 13 years, Gordon Brown is almost certainly the wrong person to be in charge because he didn't understand or deal with any of the causes of the problems that we're suffering from. In fact by his deliberate ignoring of professional advice he all but destroyed the UK's private pension schemes, the regulation of the banks and many other aspects.

The Sun have taken the next step

I have commented a few times before about The Sun newspaper's role in determining UK election winners and how the paper seemed to moving ever closer to saying vote Conservative. Today Trevor Kavanagh advises:

"YOU want a general election? You want Gordon Brown out?

...

The way you vote - or don't vote - on Thursday will decide the fate of this failed Prime Minister and the timing of the General Election.

It will determine whether we have a clean break and a fresh start - or another disastrous year of scandal and economic paralysis.

This is not just about greedy politicians. It is about the failure to govern - the unwillingness to address the crises of unemployment, immigration, crime, MRSA - and a TRILLION Pounds of unaffordable debt.

Another 12 months of hard Labour is an intolerable prospect for most voters.

This week offers "the little people" a rare chance to do something about it.

So it's up to you and me. We don't have to put up with this wasteful, incompetent, blundering Government any longer.

All we have to do is turn out and vote ABL - "Anything But Labour".

The beauty of it is that you don't even need to vote at all.

If you are a jaded but loyal Labour supporter, sitting on your backside is a form of protest, too. But as this newspaper argues today, the best way to get your message home - at least on Europe - is by using your ballot paper and voting Tory.

Gordon Brown betrayed us all by promising a referendum on the hated EU Constitution - then reneging on that promise.

...

The mood of voters is souring fast against the European Union - and not just in Britain.

...

For Gordon Brown, the war could soon be over. "

Is it true, could Gordon Brown be soon on his way to well deserved ignominy?