Well, something good has come out of it

On another forum somebody said in our discussion, mostly rather gleeful, about Baroness Warsi's resignation that it turned out that the Gaza conflict was in Britain's national interest, after all. That may be a slight exaggeration but, on the whole, there has been little sorrow shown at the resignation (probably just ahead of a final sacking for incompetence) of this government's least capable and most over-promoted Minister. Yes, I know: them are fighting words and I look forward to people challenging me with other names.

Guido Fawkes quotes an unnamed Tory source:

Warsi’s resignation is classic Warsi. Attacks her own team, pure grandstanding, and shows that she is a quitter. Her resignation does nothing to help the innocent civilians on both sides who are suffering. She had a much better chance of helping support the ceasefire if she had stayed inside Government. But instead she has thrown in the towel.

He also quotes a few other people, none of whom are shedding any tears. I understand, also that she has chosen a day when the Chancellor is due to make an important speech. No, I don't care much about those speeches either but I am not a senior Conservative politician. Why eactly did she choose today of all days? And why, since we are talking about crassness and grandstanding, did she announce her resignation on Twitter before actually tendering it? (Sharp-eyed readers will have spotted that she or her minions have mis-spelled the word Islamophobia in paragraph 6 of her letter.)

On the other hand, Labour politicians appear to be pleased but that is unlikely to upset anyone, Tory or not.

Two things I find quite extraordinary: one is that Baroness Warsi actually managed to work out what the government's Gaza policy was and that she did not agree with the Foreign Secretary's rather inane comments I blogged on before. Moving on from there, it is hard to know what she thinks the government's policy should be. Does she think we should have sent our few remaining troops to support Hamas (whose stated policy is to use civilians as human shields is a good idea? (I have seen a comment on another forum to the effect that Warsi resigned on the day when an effective truce, or so it would seem, has been noted for the first time in Gaza.)

Cranmer's blog post is interesting. He seems to have found more admirable qualities in the lady in the past than I have but it is true that she has, on occasion, made negative comments about forced marriages and other nastiness. He, too, finds it hard to understand what it is she dislikes about the government non-existent policy and wonders what she would like to see in its place:

But she has resigned from the Government over its policy on Gaza, which she says in "morally indefensible".

This is curious, not least because Foreign Secretary has not articulated any policy at all on the matter. Still green in the job, one gets the impression that he studiously straddling fences and balancing on pinheads in order to avoid offending anyone, possibly in order to bolster the Muslim vote.

But perhaps that is Baroness Warsi's problem. She clearly believes that HM Government ought to join in the global choruses of condemnation denouncing Israel, accusing the Zionist aggressor of war crimes and demanding sanctions. She insists that all arms exports to Israel must stop. And since the FCO isn't prepared to dance to that tune, she has decided to clear her desk and resign.

Perhaps that is a good thing.

I hope His Grace in correct in his brief analysis of what the FCO is and is not prepared to do.

He seems to have followed the good lady's pronouncements a good deal more closely than I have and this is what he has to say:

For all the praise heaped upon her over the years by this blog, she has, of late, completely lost the plot. She lectures us about "true Islam", and mocks those who expose the paucity of her theological understanding. She tweets and tweets about Sharia finance, seemingly oblivious to the religio-cultural significance of the policy. She convened a committee to propagate global religious liberty, but it met only twice for coffee, said absolutely nothing and achieved even less. And she answered many of her critics with veiled allusions to 'Islamophobia', thereby shutting down any valid criticism of her incompetence and deficiencies.

There was a feeling, if not the perception, that this 'Senior Minister of State' had made something of a hobby out of being in the Cabinet, and was using her position in the FCO more for faddish personal interests than the weighty matter of implementing government policy. William Hague was prepared to indulge her and the Prime Minister humoured her: she was symbolically important for Tory detoxification, modernisation and Cameroon rebranding project. It was important that the first female Muslim in the Cabinet was seen to be happy, fully integrated and successful.

She will be missed, he adds, as the election campaign starts.

Will she? I am not so sure. The Conservatives are not likely to gain any more Muslim votes by pandering to the worst possible versions of it, like sharia law or support for terrorists. At present, most Muslims, if they vote at all, will support Labour (and let us not go into the details of some of the voting practices) unless there is someone like George Galloway is standing. Those Muslims who have actively decided to vote Conservative will do so, regardless of whether Baroness Warsi is in the government or not.

Here are a few other reactions:

Tim Montgomerie reminds us that she was effusive in her support of Hamas in the past.

Isabel Hardman in the Spectator:

There had been a concerted campaign in the Conservative party from senior figures with a great deal of influence to get Warsi moved. They felt she was being deeply unhelpful to Downing Street, particularly by going on ITV’s The Agenda and posing with a front page about Eton Mess. But the judgement that the Prime Minister and others took was that it is far safer to keep Warsi, who is a prolific diary-writer, safely in the tent, rather than outside. That she has gone of her own accord does at least mean she will not be tempted to exact revenge. But it’s by no means safe to bet that she will stay silent. She has resigned because she disagrees with the government position on Gaza, and presumably she will want to elaborate on what precisely she disagrees with, at the very least.

As for whether this has a seriously destabilising effect on the government’s foreign policy, Warsi’s insecure position does not necessarily mean that ministers can simply shrug her criticisms off. They come just a few days after Ed Miliband argued that the Prime Minister was not being sufficiently robust in his dealings with Israel. Then, Downing Street accused the Labour leader of playing politics, and Chris Grayling even went so far as to say he was undermining Britain’s efforts to secure peace. It is one thing to say that of an Opposition leader, but if one of your Conservative colleagues makes the same accusation – and the detail of the gripe leading to her resignation may well turn out to be in the same vein as Miliband’s criticism – it is quite a different matter. It gives credence to Miliband’s line if a Foreign Office minister feels she cannot support the government’s position.

On the whole I tend to go with the line that the government has no real policy in Gaza and has no real power to effect anything there. In which case, Baroness Warsi's resignation will be seen for the empty posturing it is and a general desire not to draw too much attention to the twin facts that her job was largely make-believe and her abilities non-existent.

Douglas Murray argues cogently that

The most over-promoted, incapable and incompetent minister of recent times has finally done the nation one service and resigned.

There is more there but people should read it for themselves. He does enumerate her many political "car crashes", just one of which would have lost anyone else their position. But not Baroness Warsi. This, however, is particularly interesting:

Her time in government was filled with disasters. She repeatedly narrowly avoided being sacked. Her car-crashes mostly came over her attempts to develop what was effectively a parallel set of policies to those of the British government of which she was meant to be part. Word was that she had become increasingly angry after various reshuffles in which it became plain that she would never be given a ministry. She doubtless concocted in her mind various conspiracies as to why this might be, but the reason was single and obvious: she did not have the ability.

Realising that this ambition was to be thwarted, she manoeuvred to turn her position in Cabinet into one which was somehow meant to ‘represent’ Muslims. Purest, as well as dangerous nonsense. Everybody in Cabinet is there to represent everybody in Britain. But Warsi encouraged sectarianism rather than diminishing it. And where she could have used her position to side-line the extremists within Britain’s Muslim communities, she spent more of her time trying to stop people criticising the extremists within Britain’s Muslim communities. She was a notable behind-the-scenes critic of genuine Muslim reformers, in particular.

That she was manipulating behind the scenes in favour of the more extremist Muslim groups in this country, I have heard before from good sources; that she thought she would become Foreign Secretary on William Hague's resignation, is news to me. It shows that the woman is quite seriously delusional as well as everything else.

Word is now that she has been an assiduous diary keeper and is, undoubtedly, already in negotiations to have those screeds published. Sadly, for the lady, living politicians' diaries may have been interesting when Tony Benn's and Barbara Castle's were published in a different political atmosphere. They are no longer so.

What exactly does the Foreign Secretary mean?

This blog rejoiced in the passing of William Hague, as he was a seriously inept Foreign Secretary and Angelina Jolie could always find someone else to be photographed with, someone more like the beautiful people she is used to.

That does not mean, we need to welcome his successor, Philip Hammond, unreservedly and reservations are being made already. In the wake of the disgraceful episode when a perfectly ordinary supermarket where people were going about their business had to close because of anti-Israeli demonstrations that made that business impossible with the police apparently doing nothing, we have the Foreign Secretary making some very curious statements.

I am quoting from JTA, who are in turn quoting from an interview in the Sunday Telegraph:

Much of the British public is “deeply disturbed” by the impact of Israel’s operation in Gaza, the new foreign secretary of England said, and the response could be more widespread anti-Semitic attacks.

“Of course it’s a concern,” Philip Hammond told the Sunday Telegraph, speaking of the hate crimes on Jewish communities in Britain, “and we have already seen certainly an upturn in anti-Semitic rhetoric.”

Anti-Semitic incidents have doubled since Israel began its operation in Gaza nearly a month ago, according to the Community Security Trust, the security apparatus for the British Jewish community.

Hammond, who assumed his post less than a month ago, said the British government shares the “widespread public horror” of a “wide swath” of the British public at the suffering of the people of Gaza.

“The British public has a strong sense that the situation of the civilian population in Gaza is simply intolerable and must be addressed – and we agree with them,” he told the Independent. “There must be a humanitarian cease-fire that is without conditions. We have to get the killing to stop.”

As a matter of fact, I think he is wrong about most of the British public. They have long ago stopped being interested in what is happening in what they consider to be a hell-hole, the Middle East, though it is unquestionably true that there is a large and vociferous minority that is campaigning against Israel and the old hatred as I have said before has morphed into a new shape. It is that old hatred, nonetheless.

Mr Hammond's comments about the cease-fire show that he is either ignorant or prefers to lie about what has been happening. Does he not know that each cease-fire was broken by Hamas if they even agreed to it which they did not every time? Does he not know that Hamas is refusing to have a proper cease-fire unless a number of its conditions are fulfilled? And if he does know this, why does he not appeal to them?

More serious is the implication that somehow Mr Hammond thinks that anti-Semitic attacks in Britain are justified by what is happening in Gaza and that they are likely to increase with the authorities not in a position to do anything about it. In other words, he is threatening Israel with increased anti-Semitism (as if they didn't know) if they do not do what they are told and surrender their military advantage.

Is that not virtual incitement to violence and hate crime? Should the Home Secretary, she of the kitten heels, not look into the matter. Imagine if any Minister had said that attacks on Arabs were understandable in the light of behaviour by the Syrian government, various Syrian groups and ISIS? How long would his career survive a statement like that?

As we witness an orgy of commemoration of the beginning of the First World War with candles, poppies and lots of memos about "we will remember them"; as we listen to the uncertainty as to whether that terrible war was fought for British self-interest or to preserve freedom (both rather questionable but the first at least debatable) there is one thing missing from all these tear-jerking accounts: the attacks on people and businesses with German names because Germany was now the enemy (here and here though this dates to 1915). That, in itself was wrong and obviously something rather shameful, not to be discussed. Nevertheless, according to the Foreign Secretary it is not altogether wrong or, at least, completely understandable, that there should be attacks on Jews because Israel, a mostly Jewish state is fighting a tough war and is not giving any quarter. The fact that Israel is not fighting Britain seems to be irrelevant. Anti-Semitism, apparently, cannot be stopped even in its violent form.

A few words about the reshuffle

There is no intention here of writing about the reshuffle, the last big one, we assume, before next year's General Election, at length. At least, not at this stage since a good many of those promoted remain unknown quantities as I said in my interview with the BBC Russian Service yesterday.

As it happens, I have no objections to women politicians being promoted and find it a little surprising that a number of people who firmly assert that people should be promoted entirely on merit then equally firmly dismiss the idea of any woman being so promoted. Suddenly their thinking is all about gender and the fact that no woman could possibly deserve a higher position. This train of thought is very prevalent among eurosceptics; they call it being anti political correctness and I call it being stupid, stubborn and scared.

Some of this misogyny by whatever name you care to call it was caused by the inept way in which the PR was handled. A reshuffle was coming and there were the usual discussions as to who might fall victim to it and who might benefit by it. Some of the speculations turned out to be correct, some not so much. But in addition to the usual speculations there were many stories, inspired, we must assume, by the whizz-kids around the PM, that women will be promoted and the Cabinet will now be full of women. A good many women were, indeed, promoted though not all the predicted ones and some men. The Cabinet now has some women members but the majority remains male and very few of either sex has so far shown that much ability. What a weapon was handed to the misogynists who now assert at length that those who were promoted were so because of their sexual organs not because of their ability. I note, however, that they do not mention any male politicians who have been unfairly kept on the back benches.

Moving on to individuals, I have to admit to an unsurprising to readers of this blog lack of interest in William Hague's fate. From the day he was appointed Shadow Foreign Secretary I thought he was inadequate to the role and the stories circulating about him treating one of the great offices of state as a part-time job did not endear him to me. His statements tended to be rather foolish and superficial, showing no understanding of Britain's position in the world or of the EU and its impositions. Come to think of it, I recall that he showed a complete lack of understanding about the differences between the relationship Britain might have with China and with India. To him they were two developing countries we have to be close to, in order to balance out our "unhealthy" dependence on the US.

Not only is Hague retiring from front-line politics, he intends to leave Parliament altogether next year, preferring to concentrate on his career as, possibly, writer and, definitely, speaker. So much for the great predictions, the first of which was by Margaret Thatcher who, famously, mused about the 16-year old William Hague that he might be the new William Pitt.

His successor, Philip Hammond, hitherto Secretary for Defence is known as a man who once said that he would vote for Britain's exit from the EU if powers were not brought back to Westminster but has also expressed the hope that we should still be there in five years' time. Still, he is known as the most senior eurosceptic in the government now and his successor Michael Fallon is also making noises about this being a eurosceptic government.

So obsessed is our media about the newly promoted female contingent that they do not seem to be able to dig particularly deeply into this nonsensical myth that is being promoted. The Boss, of course, is there, tearing Fallon and the media apart. Matthew Elliott, on the other hand, thinks that the reshuffled Cabinet is good news for eurosceptics (I asked him for his definition but have not had a reply) and shows Cameron responding to the lessons of the European election. So far as I can see there was only one lesson: the majority of this country has no interest in voting for MEPs and does not care who get their snouts into the trough.

I have few opinions about some of the other discarded Ministers and join all those who think Ken Clarke's departure was long overdue. Sadly, I do not think he will disappear from our ken (pun intended) but will be seen and heard frequently on the BBC and other media outlets, proffering his opinions and judgements.

There are two departures (one only partial) that I do have views on and those are of Michael Gove and Owen Paterson, both, incidentally, stronger eurosceptics than any of the present incumbents. Gove has moved on to becoming Chief Whip, which can be described as "a brave decision Prime Minister". I am looking forward to his handling of the various colleagues who had briefed against him as he battled the teachers' unions and the educational establishment.

Paterson, who is one of the few leading politicians (make that very few) who actually understands the European Union and our membership of it, is now on the backbenches. That might not be a bad thing as it will give him the opportunity to speak out more openly than he could even as a rebellious member of the Cabinet.

So much for the silver lining. Now for the clouds: both the Ministers were shunted off in response to a determined campaign by the teachers' unions in one case and the Greenies in the other. This does not reflect well on the Prime Minister and his preparedness to stand by his colleagues if they try to implement policies that are slightly more radical and less acceptable to the soft left establishment than usual. (To be fair, he left Iain Duncan Smith in his place but that might be simply because he does not think Duncan Smith is ever going to implement anything.)

Indeed, there is much rejoicing in Greenie and educational establishment circles. Some of the attacks on Gove and the rejoicing at his departure were so illiterate that I was almost tempted to ask whether the writers were teachers. (This, incidentally, is worth reading on what Nicky Morgan, Michael Gove's successor, should grapple with.)

I noticed on another thread that Elizabeth Truss, the new Secretary for the Environment, whose credentials on this particular subject are not strong enough to feel that she can fight DEFRA and the EU (but then who can? even Owen Paterson found it almost impossible), is already being lambasted by the Greenies for having worked for Shell. Either there is more to the lady than I realized or the Greenies have tasted blood (if I am allowed to use that expression) and are determined to destroy every successive Secretary of State.

Nicky Morgan, too, has fallen foul of the luvvies. Michael Rosen, who has figured on this blog as a figure of fun before, is said to have tweeted his disgust with her because she voted against same sex marriage in Parliament. Whether I agree with Ms Morgan or not, that news and Mr Rosen's disgust made me feel a little better about her: she clearly has some opinions and has not been too afraid to make them clear.

Readers may have noticed that I am producing a carefully argued posting here and not a rant. That is because I do not think this is the worst reshuffle in 25 years or a particularly good one either. It does not, pace Matthew Elliott, do anything much for the eurosceptic wing of the party or the eurosceptic part of the electorate.

My friend, John O'Sullivan, thinks most of it is bad though he quite likes Michael Fallon taking over defence and will benefit UKIP. He may well be right on most points but not that. John keeps hoping UKIP will benefit from something and show its mettle at last - a vain hope in my opinion.

So that leaves the man who is going to Brussels: Lord Hill of Oareford. There had been many suggestions of various MPs who would be "definitely" sent to Brussels but I do not see anything wrong with a member of the House of Lords becoming a Commissioner. No, he is not an elected politician but how does that affect his suitability for the job of a Commissioner? On the whole, his career in the couloirs of politics might give him a better understanding of how to manipulate that of Brussels. Why would a failed though formerly elected politician do any better or be of greater benefit to this country? Was Neil Kinnock better or Leon Brittan?

Had I paid more attention to ConHome I would have realized a couple of weeks ago which way the wind was blowing. On June 26, Lord Hill denied that he would ever be Commissioner, or that his name was even being considered. Now Mark Wallace sums up the pros and cons of the appointment, complains a little about the fact that Lord Hill is not known outside his own circle and, generally, treats the position as if it were an ordinary ministerial one.

I have seen other complaints about Lord Hill being unknown. Was the very well known Neil Kinnock a better choice, I asked, getting no reply. If it is true that he did not want the job then that is something in his favour but what, if anything, he can achieve remains a matter of dispute. After all, if the negotiations for Brexit should begin they will not be conducted by the Commissioner but by the government.

Intriguingly, Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, and a man who is often the unconscious source of hilarity, has announced that MEPs might vote against Lord Hill's appointment because of his "radical anti-European views". Where do these people get their information?

As Steven Swinford says:

His comments surprised Westminster, where Lord Hill is not renowned for his outspoken views but instead praised as a discreet, diplomatic behind-the-scenes fixer.

In fact, completely appropriate to the organization he is being sent to. Plus he looks like somebody out of a Le Carré novel. That'll show them.

Some things do not change

Before I blog about Thursday's victory for the Sod Off Party I want to turn to an interesting continuity in English history and that is the relationship between the government (the King and the Royal Household in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries) and the wealth creators (the City of London then and now).

Here are two related news items.

John Cridland, Director General of the CBI, has warned a so-called Conservative Chancellor, to wit Georgie-Porgy Osborne, not to follow the example of his Labour predecessor and raid pension funds again. Or, in other words, stop punishing those who earn money by creating wealth for the country and who use that money to provide pensions for themselves; stop regarding all money that is made in this country as something that rightfully belongs to the government.

At the same time, the ever more ridiculous Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons, grilled and prepared to chastise executives from various large international companies for using perfectly legitimate ways of avoiding (not evading) taxes, mostly by positioning their headquarters in countries with more favourable tax jurisdiction.

The idea of MPs lecturing the rest of us on fiscal rectitude is too funny for words. How many of them are still there only because they have not been caught out in some light-fingering of what they term expenses but is really part of their salary? How many of them will be caught out in the future, much to our amusement? How many of the self-righteous who lambast those executives ensure through ISAs, pension funds and every possible loophole available that they pay only as much tax as they can get away with? I do not think that is wrong. In fact, tax avoidance is a civic duty, in my opinion, but hypocrisy on that scale begins to make one feel very ill, indeed.

As we know, the answer is very simple: make this country into one of those favourable tax jurisdictions and the companies will place their headquarters here. In the meantime, they  run businesses, sell goods, employ people, pay other taxes, make and spread wealth. How many MPs can say the same for themselves? Certainly, not our lamentable Chancellor, whose family undoubtedly has excellent tax accountants and who, himself, has worked outside the Conservative party very briefly as Wikipedia says accurately:

After graduating in 1992, Osborne did a few part-time jobs including as a data entry clerk, typing the details of recently deceased into a NHS computer database. He also briefly worked for a week at Selfridges, mainly re-folding towels.

Nothing wrong with folding towels or typing details into an NHS database but a few weeks in either job is not what one might call being in the big bad world and knowing about economic realities.

As I mentioned before, I am reading, inter alia, Thomas Penn's account of Henry VII's reign. The emphasis of Winter King is on the last years when Henry's carefully and bloodily built up regime seemed to be tottering once again but, necessarily, there are detailed descriptions of earlier events, particularly the marriage of Prince Arthur, the Prince of Wales, to the Infanta Catherine, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. The marriage was supposed to signify that Henry had finally full control over his country and the various troublesome nobles (he didn't, as it turned out), could place his dynasty among the older ones of Europe (he was, after all, the grandson of a Welsh adventurer) and could mount a display that rivalled those of his Yorkist predecessors and Continental contemporaries.

The preparations, needless to say, took several years and, contrary to practice, Henry and his tightly knit Royal Household took full control, not letting the City of London do the planning but demanding that the City paid for it. In fact, that characterized Henry's relationship with the City even more than was the case with previous monarchs: distrust of their independence, envy of their wealth, need to control them tampered by the desire to get as much of their money as one could. Not much has changed there, as I said at the beginning of this post.

Matters came to a head in the late summer of 1501 when Edmund de la Pole, the Duke of Suffolk, a Plantagenet with a better claim to the throne than Henry himself (at least in his and other nobles' opinion) fled the country again. Henry had intended to place him at the centre of the various celebrations though he was to be kept under tight administrative and financial control. His presence was supposed to show that he had submitted but, at the same time, he was not allowed to have the title and lands he considered to be his own. A muddled and unhappy situation that resulted in yet another widespread conspiracy and Suffolk's flight from London to the Low Countries.

Thomas Penn writes:

Henry and his counsellors decided that something more was needed in the wake of Suffolk's flight. Sir Reynold Bray, one of the king's inner circle and a familiar and unwelcome face in London's corridors of power, strode into the Guildhall to demand a major change to the plans. The customary wine fountain, positioned outside St Paul's on the wedding day to keep the crowds in good voice, should be transformed into another pageant, the most spectacular of them all. An artificial mountain studded with jewels and covered with red roses, wine gushing forth ceaselessly from its depths, this 'Rich Mount', a play on Henry's family name of Richmond, would be an emphatic statement - and the city, Bray stated, would foot the bill. Outraged, the city leaders pointed out that they had paid for all the other pageants and a lavish present of gold plate for the Spanish infanta, and refused point-blank, unmoved even by Bray's uncompromising bluntness. The king's household grudgingly covered the cost.

 Apologies for the slightly lame prose. Not mine, obviously. But the tale it tells is instructive. Perhaps our own government will finally realize that you can push these people only so far.

Why do I even bother?

No, this is not another agonizing self-appraisal about the pros and cons of blogging but a rant about certain organizations. Earlier today I decided to go along to a discussion organized by Open Europe who no longer hide the fact that they think Britain should stay in the EU. The theme was: What is the Coalition's record on Europe so far? I ought to have known better when I saw the title. Really, what kind of a question is that.

So, we had Tobias Ellwood MP for Bournemouth East speaking for the Coalition or, at least the Conservative bit of it. He spent a good deal of time explaining how much this country gets out of the EU, how we always lead from the front (that's the army officer speaking) and why the problem is that most MPs do not like going there and that is why we have less influence than we would otherwise. Oh and he asked if anyone in the room knew about "the yellow card system" (that's the one where nine national parliaments can get together and send back a piece of EU legislation to be reconsidered and has been used successfully once so far). Sadly for him, quite a lot of people in the room knew about it and, I assume, knew what a ridiculous bit of nonsense it is. No, Mr Ellwood, it is not an adequate substitute for legislating for ourselves.

Then we had Chris Leslie, Labour MP for Nottingham East and Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who told us at slightly shorter length that the problem was that we did not have enough clout in "Europe" because the Conservatives are so against it and because of the "phantom veto". Mind you, no man who uses that expression can be all bad but did he do so at the time?

Finally, we had Baroness Falkner, Lead Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs in the House of Lords, who started her talk with a bad joke and continued by explaining that the two most important events in all our lives except the really aged members of the House of Lords (yes, that's what she said) have been the refusal to enter the eurozone and the refusal to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. How old is this woman, I wondered, that she cannot remember anything else of importance. Anyway, apparently, these two events affected our ability to do anything anywhere, let alone in Europe.

As they used to say in the less reputable Sunday newspapers, I made my excuses and left. Why did I even bother?

Watchman, what of that rebellion?

There was, as we recall, a rebellion against the ECHR in the matter of prisoners' vote. The House of Commons definitely voted against giving them that right and the ECHR threatened all manners of punishments. Where do we stand on it now?

As usual, it depends who is your source.

The Independent says that

the coalition is poised to introduce legislation to give prisoners the vote.

According to the Guardian, ministers are preparing to launch a draft bill to comply with a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

According to the same article, government sources say that nothing will be done until the end of November, that is after the somewhat contentious election of police commissioners, predicted to have the lowest turn-out in history.

The BBC puts the story differently:

Prime Minister David Cameron has said Britain will continue to defy a European Court ruling saying prisoners must be given the right to vote.

"No one should be under any doubt - prisoners are not getting the vote under this government," he told MPs.

But he offered a further Commons debate to "help put the legal position".

Is "no one should be under any doubt" the same as a cast-iron guarantee? Also, what is the point of another debate? To explain to MPs that they actually cannot decide such matters for the country, even though, for once they do have the country on their side?

Dominic Grieve, the Attorney-General "warned Britain's reputation would be damaged if it did not follow the European Court ruling" and has also said rather ominously that Britain was negotiating with the Court and that some "flexibility" was needed. Flexibility on whose part, one wonders.

Lasting Legacy - part 2,368

One of the stupidest parts of the pro-Olympics propaganda was that it would create a "lasting legacy" of greater sporting activity in the country. I should have thought one look at many (though not all) of the spectators would suggest that maybe people who watch sport are not always the ones who do sport. As for the ones who care only about a medal count ... just don't get me onto that subject.

I am completely in favour of children and teenagers doing sport, preferably in some sort of organized fashion. Of course, many of the sports clubs for them had to close because they had been funded by the government and the money was diverted towards the Olympics. Still, there are schools or there used to be schools. Sadly they no longer do much organized sport in the state sector because teachers do not like to stay beyond their allotted "teaching hours", because teachers are afraid of being sued over possible injuries or hurt feelings when somebody's little darling fails to win something or other and because the bureaucracy around sporting activity is nightmarish.

The Cleggeron Coalition, specifically the Minister in charge, one Jeremy Hunt, last seen laughing his head off at the woes expressed by London's business community, have decided to deal with the problem. No, they are not going to ease the burden on the heads with regards to bureaucracy. Goodness me, no. That would mean shutting whole departments of civil servants down and maybe even the odd quango. Can't have that. What they have done is to say that heads, teachers and parents can now decide not to do any organized sport at school if they cannot be bothered with the bureaucracy and whatever else. That should sort it.

Sounding a retreat

The government has temporarily at least retreated on the House of Lords destruction reform as even Tory MPs managed to rebel. I shall blog about it properly tomorrow when I have had a chance to look at Hansard and seen the list of rebels.

Meanwhile, the Guardian confirms the whispers that have been going round that the Boy-King personally rounded on Jesse Wood Norman, the leader of the rebels who has conducted a very effective unofficial whipping-in operation. I hear tell that Cameron accused Norman of behaving dishonourably. As some people have been saying, the Boy-King must be living in a parallel moral universe. But then we have always known that.

All very depressing

The news yesterday was particularly depressing; worse than that was the discussion around some of the items.

The picture on the front page of the Evening Standard of the Queen shaking the bloody hand of Martin McGuinness filled me with despair. The man should have been put on trial for multiple murder and for involvement in many more. Instead his hand is shaken by Her Majesty who, no doubt, had to go and spend some time washing her own fingers afterwards. It is appalling that she was made to do this. I cannot even begin to imagine how survivors of murderous attacks and families of those who had not survived must have felt.

Compared to that, the information that Tony Blair was guest-editing the paper elicited nothing but a snort of derision from me. The Standard is so bad that even Blair could not make it appreciably worse though I did leaf through it even faster than usual, speeding past his cronies Bill (Clinton), Bob (Geldof) and others.

If I thought Sarah Sands, the editor, capable of such a joke, I would have assumed that she deliberately handed the editing over to Blair today so she would not be responsible for the first publication of that dreadful picture (no I am NOT linking to it) but I really do not think she has enough sense for that.

The other depressing news is that the wrecking of the House of Lords misnamed reform is going ahead though I am looking forward to it tying up Parliamentary time to the exclusion of absolutely everything else. This may be Cameron's Hunting Bill, which took seven years, interminable hours of debate and was finally passed in a seriously botched version.

It seems that Cameron, who spoke in support of this measure at PMQ has threatened to sack any Minister who opposes this utterly un-Conservative piece of legislation. There are threatened rebellions but, as usual, I do not hold out much hope. The best one can assume is amendments that develop into long debates though, as usual, there is talk of guillotining these in the Commons, which would be outrageous on a matter of constitutional change.

The egregious Deputy Prime Minister, leader of the Lib-Dims who managed not to improve on their electoral achievement two years ago and whose support has been sinking steadily since then, has told us in his own inimitable fashion:

We should just get on with it. I hope people won’t tie themselves in knots in Westminster. It’s something people want.

I have not come across many people outside the rather ridiculous Westminster hothouse who do want this or even care about it.

When it comes to MPs, that is members of the elected House, the public is quite adamant:

The head of the Commons anti-sleaze watchdog today warned MPs they should be “very worried” over reforms to their pay and pensions.

Ken Olisa, senior board member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, has received scores of damning assessments of politicians’ value during his review of parliamentary salaries.

Responses from the public branded MPs “despicable, incompetent, corrupt and treacherous” and said they “should get paid the same amount as British Army privates”.

Maybe it is time the government had a look at the Commons. Oh wait, they have had a look. So far they have managed to legislate on a set parliamentary term, have controlled the possibility of introducing a vote of no confidence, made two attempts to control the 1922 Committee and are now intent on destroying the independence of the House of Lords. Not, I think, a government that cares about democracy, constitutionalism or liberty. Yet their vandalism of the British Constitution is applauded by the very people who should find it abhorrent.

An elected House of Lords, I hear in jubilation from members of the party formerly known as Conservative and others of UKIP. We are progressing towards democracy.

Well, that depends on your definition of democracy. If it consists of nothing else but voting and the right for anyone who gets more votes than other candidates to do whatever they like, then these people should be supporters of the European Parliament (UKIP might be since that is the only place in which they can get any seats) and of an elected EU President. Surely, once that President is directly elected by the people, or however small proportion of them bothers to vote, it will all be democratic.

If, on the other hand, one thinks of the need to control elected dictatorships, the need for some balance in the political structure and the need for independence in at least some of our legislators, then possibly an elected House of Lords is not the answer to the problems we are facing.

Of course, this is all displacement activity. As I asked one Conservative MP who was pontificating on the need to reform the House of Lords in such a way as not to lose the primacy enjoyed by the Commons, what does any of it matter while most of our legislation comes from the EU? She refused to discuss the matter, dismissing the European issue as of no importance. That tells you a great deal about Conservative MPs and their understanding of the legislative process.

Such a good thing we no longer have a socialist government

After all, only socialists would think of spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to advise parents how to change nappies and make funny noises to their babies. Am I not right?

I am not altogether surprised

On the other hand I am not altogether sure what difference it will make to the government and its policies. News comes from the Daily Torygraph and the Spectator that David Cameron is about to hand the plum job of policy adviser to Matthew Elliot, the Head of the Taxpayers' Alliance and formerly of the No to AV Campaign.

Matthew, who is a friend and whom I have been teasing mercilessly for some years, probably thinks that he has been chosen for his political views but Donata Huggins of the Torygraph appears to think that it is his for his presentational skills, something this government badly needs after the mess they have made of the Budget and one or two other policies.

Then again, what difference will it make if the Boy-King will spend his time on chairing ridiculous UN Commissions?

We have some way to go

The Adam Smith Institute reminds us that today is Tax Freedom Day in America. Of course, in some states (the more successful ones) that day came a little earlier in the year and I am not convinced it has yet hit New York or California. The ASI says:

Today, average Americans, who have been working every day for the sole benefit of the tax authorities, can finally have a beer and rejoice that, for the rest of the year they are working for themselves. It means Americans have to work 107 days of the year to earn enough money to pay this year's federal, state and local taxes.

Well, lucky Americans. For we have a way to go before we can start working for ourselves.

Tax Freedom Day in the Britain, calculated annually by the Adam Smith Institute, does not come round for another six weeks – not until the 29th of May, to be precise. That means the average person in the UK will spend 149 days this year working for Chancellor George Osborne's tax gatherers. Including the extra Leap Year day, that is two whole days more slave labour than last year, when Tax Freedom Day fell on the 28th of May. (According to the Treasury's adjusted figures.)

We also have a government that believes that the money we earn rightly belongs to them and anything we keep is a sign of their generosity. So, I suppose, we should be grateful that we have a Tax Freedom Day at all.

No such thing as failure in politics

So Nick Clegg thinks that failure must not be rewarded by high bonuses? How about failure being rewarded with the position of Deputy Prime Minister?

After all the talk of Cleggomania in last spring's electoral campaign and after all those pointless TV debates between the three main party leaders the results achieved by the Lib-Dims were lamentable. Their share of the vote went up by about 1 per cent, when turn-out went up by just under 4 per cent; they lost 5 seats and failed to gain a number of those they had been certain of. One would call this a failure for the party and, more specifically, for its supposedly glamorous leader.

This is the kind of failure that ought not to be rewarded, according to Mr Clegg. But it was. Because the Boy-King would rather go into a coalition with the Lib-Dims than with his own MPs, the failing party found itself in government with a number of ministerial positions (that keep being filled by their people whenever one of the Ministers is forced to resign) and the failing leader became the Deputy Prime Minister with the apparent remit of producing the stupidest of all political ideas in order to take the heat off the Prime Minister himself.

Are we allowed to say sub-prime mortgages?

Come to think of it are we allowed to quote that bromide about people in power (not just the Bourbons) learning nothing and forgetting nothing? Those are the thoughts that go through one's head as we read the following:

The Prime Minister and his deputy, Nick Clegg, will unveil proposals to help first-time buyers of new homes by carrying part of the risk of their mortgages.

They also propose subsidising the construction of 16,000 homes by giving £400 million of taxpayers’ money to property developers.

In a further move, ministers are working on a scheme under which billions of pounds of money in pension funds will be used to finance the construction of power stations, wind turbines and roads.

Would it be too much to expect the people who blithely misuse taxpayers' money to do just a little bit of thinking? Yes, I expect it would. What will happen if those who take out mortgages that will be gaily handed out because the taxpayer will provide, find themselves too deeply in debt to be able to pay their interest?

James Delingpole has a more sinister explanation than just incompetence for this appallingly stupid idea.

Did you know that as part of his initiation for the Bullingdon Club, David Cameron had to steal a fluffy kitten from a kindly old lady called Mabel, barbecue it, and dance round the flaming kitty embers chanting: "Ra ra ra! I'm an Old Etonian and you're a filthy oik, moggy, and that's why I'm having you for dinner," before washing the charred feline down with a lovely bottle or three of Cheval Blanc '47 in readiness for the arrival of the Buller's harem of Russian whores?

Not, you understand, that I have any evidence that this story is true. But Cameron must have a skeleton in his closet of that magnitude, surely? It's the only explanation for the extraordinary grip exerted on him by the house building industry, which has just persuaded him to embark on the most harebrained scheme of his political career: the recreation, in Britain, of President Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act and of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Possible. For the moment I go with idiocy and economic illiteracy on a monumental scale.

Allister Heath, as ever, manages to connect his hammer with the nail head.

THERE are two ways one can address a problem caused by faulty policies: by tackling its root causes – or by addressing some of its manifestations, and risk creating more issues thanks to the law of unintended consequences which plagues all government actions. Regrettably, when it comes to house prices, the government is largely going for the second option, albeit with a small nod towards the first. There are massive problems in the housing market – but today’s announcement that the government is going to partly underwrite mortgages for first time buyers and move some risk onto taxpayers is a terrible, short-sighted blunder.

Developers will also be able to bid for public money to finish stalled developments: this implies yet more corporatism to fund projects nobody really wants. Have we all forgotten the sub-prime crisis in the US? Over there, politicians concerned that many poor people couldn’t afford homes forced and bribed lenders to lower credit standards and extend mortgages to those who couldn’t afford them. In the short-term, this boosted home-ownership; but it all ended in tears. It is good to care about the poor and young people who can’t get onto the housing ladder; but it is bad to give people false hope, to create moral hazard or to privatise gains and socialise losses in the housing market.

But they will not listen. It will all end in even bigger tears.

Sometimes one finds a paragraph ...

While being a great admirer of Ruth Dudley Edwards, the journalist and non-fiction writer I am less than completely fond of her detective stories. They are very wittily written, full of fascinating characters and deliver wonderfully sharp attacks at the British Establishment, including and especially its left-wing variety. What they are not is detective stories. Crimes happen, investigation goes on and suddenly, hey presto, we get a solution for no apparent reason. Her last venture into the field, Murdering Americans, was barely readable, despite the sharp barbs. This is what I wrote about it at the time and I stand by all of that except that I have found out what happened to Superintendent Milton and his wife Ann. It is explained in the latest book I read, Publish and Be Murdered.

This novel takes us back to the early days of the Blair government when the entire main-stream media went dulalee over the bright new dawn of something or other. At the centre of the book is a staunchly conservative and brilliant weekly The Wrangler, which manages to stand up to this mass hysteria until the dishonest and venal editor decides to change tack.

While the author makes it explicitly clear that her hilariously funny description of the journal does not apply to The Economist about which she has written a learned book, such demurs are unnecessary: The Economist did not stand up to Blair and the surrounding media hysteria. The Wrangler is pure invention and a lot of fun it is, too.

One of the book's themes is whether it is possible to pursue the right path (in every sense of the word) and to comply with noblesse oblige in the modern world or whether economic considerations have to come first. How well one knows this dilemma. In the book a compromise is reached but this is rarely possible in real life.

The dilemma lies between Lord Papworth, known to all as Charlie, who is very old and who believes in doing his duty even if it means keeping a highly regarded but old-fashioned journal going, though he does get in a manager to sort out the finances and bring the publication a bit more up to date, and his son, whose notion of duty does not extend beyond his ancestral home and who thinks The Wrangler is nothing but a drain on resources and should be sold.

Questioned by Chief Inspector Milton after a murder and a suspicious death he explains quite frankly that he just wants to get rid of the rag. Reminded that his father did not agree with his point of view, he explodes:

Sodding easy for him too. He's a great man for the pro bono publico shit. Spent most of his life slogging away in the Lords defending tradition and decency in public life. And where does that get him and the others like him? Despised and mocked and threatened with extinction by these miserable gits that we've got ruling us now.

This was certainly true with the ghastly Blairites who were in government in 1998 when the book was first published but it is true now with the Cameroonies in there. Was it really worth voting for this lot?

So where are we on those resignations?

Talks to form a unity government in Greece have collapsed and there ain't no Sanity Clause either.

In a day that was bizarre and chaotic even by Greek political standards, Papandreou wished his successor well and headed off to meet the president -- only for it to emerge that there was no successor due to feuding in the political parties.

Earlier, party sources said senior members of the socialist and conservative camps had settled on the speaker of parliament, veteran socialist Filippos Petsalnikos, barring last-minute snags.

But snags did indeed emerge, with large sections of Papandreou's PASOK party and the conservative New Democracy refusing to back Petsalnikos after a three-day hunt for someone to lead the coalition until early elections in February.

So who is the Greek Prime Minister? Do we even care? It appears that talks will start again tomorrow.

Meanwhile, we are assured that the eurozone has not plans to rescue Italy, which was never on the cards anyway. Whether Italy is too big to fail or not is a moot point but it is certainly too big to rescue.

French and German officials are discussing a smaller eurozone. It is not immediately clear whom they will shed but they might start with France. Of course, a smaller eurozone is as good as no eurozone, given that this was a political project from the very beginning, aimed at a fiscal and economic unification of however many countries there might be in the EU at any given time. That project has, to all intents and purposes, been abandoned.

The Italians hope to avoid the Greek political mess and a possible successor to Silvio Berlusconi when he finally goes has been mooted. Then again, it looked like the Papandreou succession was all stitched up as well, yet here we are.

Theresa May is definitely not resigning. Not today, anyway.

This, I thought, should be entertaining

And I was right. Lord Empey asked HMG

whether they propose to change the rules under which citizens of other European Union member states have access to the United Kingdom benefits system.

Well, we'd all like to know.

In HMG's name Lord Freud, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions, read out what the civil servants wrote replied:

My Lords, we do not propose to change the way DWP determines benefit entitlement for EU nationals, but we are considering the details of a European Commission reasoned opinion against the right to reside test. While we accept our responsibility in supporting EU nationals who work and contribute here, it is absolutely necessary that we protect our welfare system from those who come here with no intention of working or looking for work.

So, is that a yes, they do propose to change rules or no, they will stick it out and defy the Commission? Lord Empey asked for clarification, too, and got it, after a fashion:

My Lords, we are moving in two directions. First, we are looking hard at the Commission's opinion and considering whether we should go to court. We have two months in which to take that decision and the likelihood is that we will take it through the full legal process. The second area is the political one. We are talking to other countries which are also deeply disturbed about this. Some 13 countries have signed a motion calling for a minute statement and for a policy debate on this matter.

So, we are not just going to say "forget it" to the Commission and stick to our own rules for welfare.

Maybe we should begin asking this question

Of every pound I earn how much do I deserve to keep? Simple. This question, mutatis mutandis was asked of Congresswoman Jan Schakowski. The subsequent discussion was illuminating. More here and here.

So, ladies and gentlemen of the House of Commons and of this unelected Coalition, what percentage of our income do we deserve to keep and what percentage do you think we should hand over to you to waste spend on plans you have made for our better existence? Oh for a media interviewer that will ask that question.

Real politics

Real debates about real issues and real disagreements that result in real political actions. This is what real politics looks like. Whereas our Business Secretary (what kind of a job is that, anyway?), Vince Cable, infamously described fiscal conservatives as "right-wing nutters". Does that mean he wants those blogs and websites that support fiscal conservatism and .... shock, horror .... the American Taxed Enough Already movement banned, controlled and, possibly, closed down for being right-wing nutters. I would not be surprised to find out that he is thinking along those lines. Guess, what this blog would be classified as?

An excellent analysis

Irwin Stelzer is an astute man but a kindly one. Well, he is kindlier than I am, but I suppose that is not saying much. He has, on the whole, been ready to give the Cleggerons the benefit of doubt but he seems to have reached the end of that road and says that the electorate will do the same very soon, despite the May 5 results that were favourable to the Conservatives.

His gripe with the government is one that is a familiar refrain on this blog: a complete lack of coherence at the heart of it, not because it is a coalition of two somewhat dissimilar parties but because the Conservative leadership is incoherent in its approach to most major issues. (Make that all major issues.)

Take the much touted policy of localism:

One of the best of those intentions is to devolve power from Westminster to local councils. There is, after all, an entire chapter in the Conservative canon about pushing power down to the unit of government closest to the people, and further to "local councils, communities and neighbourhoods and individuals", to cite David Cameron's statement when launching the agenda to implement perhaps his noblest vision, the Big Society. But this government is not engaged in a theoretical exercise: it is dealing with decades in which local governments have become increasingly infected with left-leaning, expansive and intrusive attitudes about the proper role of government; in which councils have become dominated by apparatchiks rather than by citizen-politicians modelling themselves after Cincinnatus; in which multiculturalism and relativism have become the received wisdom. In short, the government is not engaged in the rather standard and oft-practised process of moving the line that separates the powers of central from local governments a few millimetres to the right or the left, a periodic feature of democratic government. It is engaged in a revolution, an attempt to reverse powerful habits of mind and peel away institutional barnacles in which the existing local ruling class has a major stake. Revolutionaries do not succeed by delegating power to those whom it wishes to weaken or destroy. They succeed by recognising that the facts on the ground are nothing like those theoreticians imagined when they called for devolving power to the smallest unit of government. There are times — such as these — when powerful leadership from a democratically — elected centre is necessary to get the nation's business done, being careful always not to cross the line that separates such as Franklin Roosevelt and Margaret Thatcher from Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler.

Readers with long memories will recall that it was this problem with local education authorities (LEAs) that led to the creation of a centralized curriculum, which has not been much of a success.

Mr Stelzer is absolutely right: there is no point in talking about localism if that means handing more power to people who are determined to prevent any loosening of the state's grip on social life.

This is one policy area in which the government is being crushed under the weight of its incoherence. It wants to devolve power from the centre, and it wants to direct newly scarce resources to purposes uncongenial to those to whom it is devolving power. If withdrawing some vital service prevents a cut in executive salaries; or funds construction of fancy, very green offices for councillors; or permits the hiring of a "head of strategic commissioning" at £79,000-£87,000 per annum, surely no one can doubt the wisdom of such a move. And if a civic group appears and volunteers to run a community centre on a self-funding basis, why permit such an intrusion on the government's sphere? Better to close it than to allow creeping privatisation.

You can't have decentralisation of power to a bureaucracy that quite naturally believes its pay cheques are top priority if you also want to keep libraries open; you can't hand the power to distribute pain to politicians who value easing the social problems of transgender citizens over well-lit streets; and you can't rely on the emergence of a disinterested band of politicians to challenge the entrenched bunch after so many years when the public has had no experience of a better way of running a town, and sees only short-run loss from transferring power to Burke's little platoons, if any such have survived the past decades of local misgovernance.

Despite such examples, the government sees no inconsistency in pursuing both the goal of decentralisation and the goal of resurrecting civil society. But, as in the words of the popular song, "It's gotta be this or that."

There is incoherence in many other policies. (What kind of government cuts defence back and promptly goes to war?)Naturally enough, Mr Stelzer concentrates on economic policies, attitudes to the fiscal sector (a dislike characteristic of safe-playing civil servants and people who live on inherited wealth) and entrepreneurship.

In short, the government is currently promoting an incoherent mix of policies designed to

-shore up the banks while draining them of capital

=reduce risky lending while forcing banks to lend tobusinesses at rates some analysts say do not reflect the risks involved

-encourage financial firms to set up shop in Britain while taxing their staffs more and limiting compensation

-foster small businesses while effectively precluding them from participating in the programmes aimed at helping them

-failing to exempt them fully from excessive regulation and Treasury harassment.

Read the whole piece.