We Fought the War and Well It Sort of Won Itself

So David Cameron's latest claim is that the Tories won the cold war. That must have been the Tory MP for Berlin East in the by election night of 9 November 1989 in that case I'm sure you'll remember the night well.

Peter Snow: Here are the new graphics for the Eastern reaches. Margaret Thatcher is looking to secure a big win here, with the help of Helmut Kohl and the late addition or Perestroika and Glasnost. Some opinion is that we shouldn't expect anything tonight. Some are saying that the Hungarian relaxation may take some time to whittle through the the rest of the seats out here so we shall wait and see.

However, if Margaret Thatcher does secure a victory expect to see me use this graphic as a surge of Blue rosettes charges through the wall and secures victory in the war that was cold.

David Dimbleby: Neil Kinnock what do you make of that?

Neil Kinnock: I think it is ludicrous David. It is obvious that if there is a result tonight it will be the people that will have spoken. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Iron Lady.

DD: But wouldn't that be bad news for Socialism and indeed your own party.

NK: The enemy of idealism is zealotry, sadly too many of my socialist friends have taken themselves too zealously and forgotten the people. Socialism will survive because it is the people that will decide.

DD: Prime Minister what do you say to that?

Margaret Thatcher: Marxists get up early to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom. The Labour Party believes in turning workers against owners; we believe in turning workers into owners. As young man on our staff in our research department also called David said to me just the other day. If the people of East Berlin rise up to own their city twenty years from now whoever leads our great party will say "The Conservatives won the Cold War on this night.".

There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families. And you know what David, I think the families of Berlin will be reunited tonight in that victory for the Conservatives.

Now I may have missed something but that wasn't how I remembered it. The people rose up in Berlin, in Moscow, in Timişoara. It wasn't so much won by anybody but lost by the behemoth of Central Planning. I remember my second term of my second year Economics degree the entire political philosophy course was meant to have focused on the socialist philosophy, systems and structures. Ten weeks of lectures became three and the third was a "What next?" hastily put together lecture.

We'd battled for years in a cold war state. In the end it turned out that maybe Sting was right in the song Russians.

Mr Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

I think it was indeed more hope, more luck and a love from the Eastern Europeans for their own rather than anything we did that led to the end of that particular war. There was very little being done except to hold the lines.

(On a side note as for Cameron attacking Brown for wearing a CND badge at the time, I think that speaks for the Tories Nuclear policy now. Or Brown bringing in Ashcroft to an unrelated area of questioning, truly shows up how disconnected both the main party leaders are with the mainstream opinion on how they should behave.)

Fisking Harriet Harman

So today in (Deputy) Prime Minister's Questions Vince Cable stepped up to ask Harriet Harman about the widening inequality gap, which I'd picked up on earlier.

So in response Ms Harman said it had got wider under the Conservatives.

Well to be honest it did, but that is not the end of the story, it got even wider under Labour. Indeed the differential (equivalent to 100 times the wealth) between the top 10% of earners and the lowest 10% is greater than at any time since 1961.

One wonders just how Harriet can justify her statement that her Government have helped the poor when the opposite appears clear.

Brown's Crumbliest Flakiest Answer

As the Government owns 84% of the Royal Bank of Scotland is the Government therefore 84% liable for the £12bn loan they have given Kraft to buy Cadbury's putting British jobs at risk.

That is the question (iPlayer Nick Starts at 17:54) that Nick Clegg the Lib Dem leader asked Gordon Brown at PMQ's today. Also why are they lending such amounts to American based multi-nationals when they still refuse to lend to British businesses trying to invest in British jobs and British products. The Prime Minister responded with the crumbliest, flakiest answer. An answer that did not taste like the question before.

Indeed he went off listing economic achievements of his Government rather than answering the specific charges of Nick's question. Brown's default position even though that looks more dodgy the more he quotes his economic achievements in response to economic disasters.

Vince Cable has made a follow up statement on this issue.

"Cadbury is a national institution which provides thousands of jobs in the UK and there is a real danger its takeover by Kraft will lead to job losses.

"It is particularly galling then that state-owned RBS should part fund this takeover when it is clearly not in the interests of the UK economy.

"This takeover also raises broader questions about how hedge funds, out to make a quick buck, can destabilise even the most established companies.

"We have seen Cadbury shares rapidly bought up by hedge funds that are keen to accept the Kraft takeover regardless of whether it is in the long-term interests of the company.

"As the City minister Lord Myners himself notes, it is becoming too easy for good British companies to be taken over by foreign predators."

So there you have it the Government has aided an abetted a predatorial take over of a British institution. Anyone who have ever tasted American chocolate will know we have far the superior product.

UPDATE: Now that Hansard has issued the 3 hour later official record here is the exchange. I've added a few comments in red.

Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD):......

I should like to return to the issue of Cadbury’s. Last month, Lord Mandelson declared that the Government would mount a huge opposition to the Kraft takeover of Cadbury’s, so why does the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is owned by this Government, now want to lend vast amounts of our money to Kraft to fund that takeover?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is really suggesting that the Government can step in and avoid any takeover that is taking place in this country overnight (Actually I think Lord Mandelson suggested it when he said "If you think you can come here and make a fast buck [you] will find that you face huge opposition from the local population... and the British Government"), and then tell a bank that it has got to deprive a particular company of money by Government dictate (Again Mandelson "We expect long-term commitment, not short-term profit, to rule."), his liberal principles seem to have gone to the wall.

Mr. Clegg: I thank the Prime Minister for the little economics lecture, but there is a simple principle at stake. Tens of thousands of British companies are crying out for that money to protect jobs, and instead RBS wants to lend it to a multinational with a record of cutting jobs. When British taxpayers bailed out the banks, they would never have believed that their money would be used to put British people out of work. Is that not just plain wrong?

The Prime Minister: Putting the words “liberal” and “principle” together seems very difficult now—[Interruption.] I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that no Government are doing more to try to protect and increase jobs than this country’s (actually quite a number are doing better). Unemployment is falling today (except in Scotland where is it up 9,000) as a result of the actions we have taken (This time I'm quoting Jim Murphy who isn't so certain "After previous recessions the jobs market has taken longer to bounce back than the economy, and we know that we are still in very uncertain times."). If we had taken the advice of the Liberal (I assume he means to insert Democrat here) party (the Banks wouldn't have been given the free reign they had and income tax and capital gains would be in parity), unemployment would be a great deal higher than it is now (I dispute this as around here many jobs were lost when the banks no longer where willing to lend). He has nothing to offer the debate on the economy at all—[Interruption.]

A bit of a visual update:

Hat tip to Subrosa Video from Ollie at the Red Rag

Deal or Too Slow Deal

I've just seen Gordon Brown's response to Nick Clegg's questioning in PMQs about the Copenhagen summit and raising the issue that Labour is doing too little (I'd add too late) on the Climate Change.

Brown replied that ALL parties should campaign together for a deal at Copenhagen. Strangely that only last week all parties bar one, plus Sammy Wilson of the DUP, did vote positively for their own responsibility, agreeing to vote for Parliament signing up to 10:10. Of course we know the one that was largely against was Brown's own party. Ed Milliband tried to explain this anomaly in talk and action away by saying (my comments in red):

"10:10 is a campaign which Labour supports: all Cabinet ministers have signed up to try to reduce their CO2 emissions by 10% in 2010. It's a great motivator of public action to cut carbon emissions through individual and collective behaviour change and I hope it helps to build public support for action by governments to agree an ambitious, effective and fair deal at Copenhagen. This is a great opening paragraph one I cannot fault.

"It's also true that signing up can be an important step to sustaining long term emissions cuts. That's why Labour-run councils and Labour groups are signing up to 10:10; we want local authorities to have local carbon budgets, and signing up to 10:10 is an important step towards that goal. Again bravo!

"But Oops! as a government we have a much bigger too big to take personal action?, long term goal that we set out in the framework of the Climate Change Act last year. Five months ago we put flesh on that framework when we agreed - with the support of the Lib Dems and the official ouch! Opposition things have changed in five months – the first three carbon budgets for this country. Those budgets are 3 five year cycles moving from last year to 2022. The problem of course is that the whole thrust of the 10:10 campaign is that we no longer appear to have the luxury of waiting until 2022 hence the need for drastic acceleration starting NOW!


"So every government department is committed to a long term reduction in carbon emissions – not just in 2009, not just in 2010, but through to 2022 and beyond failing to recognise the fact that 10:10 also believes these need cutting beyond as well. The public sector has already reduced its emissions by a third between 1990 and 2007 this has shot up from 21% or 18% from last week circa one fifth. Impressive or lies? and the Government is on track to meet and exceed its carbon emissions target of 12.5% as I said last week that is inclusive of carbon trading actually 8.5% reductions from across its estate by 2010-11.

"We're now allocating £20 million pounds to cut CO2 emissions from both the government estate and its transport to achieve those goals." Again while it looks impressive spending to save the planet but isn't really that much especially when but beside the £1.5trillion to save the banks.

So I think that Nick's question was very well justified, and Gordon should really have taken his own answer to heart only last week, instead of playing a political game of football.

PMQs Northern Ireland Brings Reflection

Today's PMQs took on a somber note. While in recent times the PM has normally started reading the names of fallen soldiers today they had not occurred in Helmand or Iraq but in constituencies represented by members of the House.

With the exception of Dennis Skinner this wasn't a time for Punch and Judy politics. Even when David Cameron moved off Northern Ireland it was unto another heavy issue, Iraq and rendition flights.

However, both David Simpson who was Officer Stephen Caroll's DUP MP in Upper Bann and Paul Durken the leader of the SDLP representing the two side of community were greeted with absolute silence as was much of the 30 minutes of questions. The afternoon that silence will be echoed in Belfast, Stroke City*, Lisburn and Newry as members from all Northern Irish Communities will show unity for peace in Northern Ireland. I've taken part in one before outside City Hall in Belfast when I worked down Chichester Street in the late 90s just after the Omagh Bomb. I stood beside Catholic and Protestant work colleagues that day and I'm sure that will be happening again now. Judging by the #silentprotest hashtag on Twitter that is the case.

*None Northern Irish readers will not be aware that this is how NW Northern Ireland DJ Gerry Anderson got around the politicising of the Derry/Londonderry debate over the provinces second city.

Harriet's Heffalump Trap Hell

As if her comment to overwrite the European Convention on Human Rights to try and cease Sir Fred Goodwin's private property (his pension) off him. Saying they could retrospectively change contracts, which would be a real disincentive for foreign investors to invest in the UK. Harriet Harman was at it again in her personal vendetta to get at Sir Fred Goodwin.

She claimed during PMQs. while standing in for the act performing to US Congress in Joint Session later that Sir Fred's pension was for his work with the Prince's and not for Banking, but for his work for the Prince's trust.

Whoops! Even Downing Street said of his award when given "[Goodwin] undertook many challenging projects that benefited both his company and the Scottish economy as a whole."

Of course it was for Banking he'd just overseen a record £6.2bn profit for RBS back in 2004 when he was awarded it. However even at the time of this award it was noted:

"However, he also came in for criticism from unions who branded him a fat cat for accepting a £900,000 bonus on top of his annual salary of £1m."

Oops, obviously not Teflon Fred then.

However, the fact that she was being asked the question by Elfyn Llwyd should have made Harriet cautious if she did not know the answer. But she fell right into that Heffalump trap and had to apologise immediately after PMQs.

Government Start to Come Clean on Rendition

Almost three years ago Tony Blair's normally calm persona at PMQs took a serious knock when he fumbled out an answer that there was nothing new on rendition flights. Even Iain Dale was impressed with how Ming had got the then Prime Minister on the ropes.



Then the Prime Minister said there was nothing new to from the Council of Europe's report that Britain had colluded with the USA on extraordinary rendition flights.



To be fair to Tony Blair it now appears that collusion is indeed the wrong way to describe it. The Labour government appear to have actively handed over suspects to them to catch these flights. Far more than even Sir Menzies Campbell hinted at on that particular Wednesday when it was only assumed that our airspace or airfields were being used.

Who is this Super Hero?

Spiderman?

No.

Mandy the smooth operator?

No.

Gordo the mild mannered prudent Chancellor?

Could be.

Yes apparently in answer to David Cameron's first question about banking at today's PMQs the Prime Minster said "he has saved the world".

Just how much borrowing has he been doing? How are we going to pay for all this world wide borrowing?

Has the UK now bailed out General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, as well as the banks across the world?

Or was it just an imprudent slip of the PM's tongue?

Could be.

Prevention or Cure Prime Minister?

"The more important thing that we are doing is investing £15 billion over the next 10 years in trying to find cures to diseases including cancer and skin cancer."

Wake up Gordon!

Yes folks that is how our Prime Minster opened his answer yesterday to the following question from Jo Swinson:

The most rapidly increasing type of cancer in this country is skin cancer, of which there are more than 80,000 new cases each year. As the Prime Minister heads to Suffolk for his bucket and spade holiday, I am sure that he will be stocking up on sun cream. How can his Government justify charging VAT on that essential health protection item?

So rather that cut 17.5% off products already available as a preventative measure, the PM is quite happy that some of that £15 billion pounds which may well not be available is he were to slash the VAT on such a healthy option as suncream is more important to him. His answer to Jo carried on:

The action of the national health service in making it possible for people to be seen quickly when they are diagnosed with cancer means that 99 per cent. of people suspected of having cancer are seen within two weeks. Those are the actions that we can take, and they will get rid of skin cancer in the long run.

Diagnosis is also mentioned seemingly instead of prevention. What is prudent about that Mr Brown. Zero rating sunscream is hardly going to be a major dent in the governments coffers. However, it may well be marginal enough for some of our poorest citizens who ignore suncream and are most at risk of skin melanoma's to actually take some action to help themselves, rather than relying on diagnosis and then cure.

In the words of Baz Luhram:

Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of
fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the
ugly parts and recycling it for more than
it’s worth. But trust me on the sunscreen…

Well this advise isn't for the sake of nostalgia. Nor is it recycling old truths. PM this issue may have been looked at from time to time, yet still the wrong sort of message is coming back. Get rid of VAT on suncream, free up a few beds, doctors' hours and whatever else as a result of doing the right thing.

Cable Not Going as Quiet as a Mouse

T'was the PMQ's before Christmas and all round the House nothing was stirring not even a mouse, the members and press were waiting for killer Cable's last stab to the heart.

He started by merely asking which of the disasters that have battered the infant Brown Government would haunt him over his Christmas sprout. Brown tried to side step the issue, thanking Vince for his contributions as stand-in leader in recent weeks, but speculating that with the rate of change in the Lib Dems he might be back there for Prime Minister's Questions soon.

Vince then uncoiled another killer put down, "Given his [the Prime Minister’s own position, he might not be wise to speculate about leadership elections." The opposition benches let rip their laughter, the Labour side looked like they'd only found an empty box under the tree for decorative purposes.

I'm not so sure about Vince Cable for Strictly Come Dancing, but Mock the Week and Have I Got News for You might have another Lib Dem who could follow Charles and Lembit.

Blair Back Peddles Over Tartan Army PMQ Slur

Yesterday at Prime Minister's Questions Anne Begg the Labour MP for Aberdeen South asked her leader:

While accepting that people can be passionate about football, does he agree that that incident besmirches the reputation not only of Aberdeen, but of the tartan army, who can travel the world without attacking supporters of opposing teams?

The Prime Minister's response in full to her question was:

My hon. Friend is absolutely right both in what she says and the tone in which she says it. I am sure that everybody condemns what was an appalling and totally unjustifiable attack. In fairness to the football fans from England, as well, the vast majority of them behave extremely well. The way in which the present World cup is being conducted is absolutely excellent and it is a great tribute not just to the German authorities, who are conducting it and in charge of it, but to the English fans who have travelled there. I pay tribute to all those who lawfully and properly are football supporters. She is absolutely right about what she says about that particular case.

The fact that he did not point out that the vast majority of Scottish fans also abhor such attacks which was part of Miss Begg's question has caused upraor with the Tartan Army.

However, with comments flying in from various Tartan army supporters associations A Downing Street spokesperson said later:

"What the Prime Minister was agreeing with was Anne Begg's clear assertion that attacks like these should be seen for what they are, which is a disgrace."

Going on to assert that Mr Blair was "absolutely not" criticising Scottish fans, the spokesman said, endorsing Ms Begg's view of tartan army members as peaceful supporters. However, as seen above Mr Blair's comments in the House did nothing to suggest this about the Tartan army. While Scottish fans praise the English fans on their good conduct in Germany that is in no way related to the question about an attack on an English fan in Scotland.

If only Gordon Brown hadn't raised the issue of World Cup football into such a political arena.

So Tony What is Changing?

Much as I'd like to think Sir Menzies Campbell read my blog this morning and aimed his question at PMQs today based on that, I doubt it. After all he did speak on the subject yesterday to a group of businessmen.

However, Ming added a new twist which must have made the fading shade of green Chameleon shirk in his seat across the ailse as he asked something that David William Donald Cameron wouldn't dare to test his party's green credibility. What Ming asked was what had changed since 2003 when an energy review criticised the option of new nuclear power stations on the grounds of cost and waste.

Mr Blair's response was that a balance of new sources of power was needed (is this a climb down from his over reliance on nucleur) and also that the technology of nuclear power was also changing. It may be changing Prime Minister but the issues of cost and waste have not yet been address. As the Prime Minster said 'also' this must mean that he acknowledges that other low-carbon energy production methods are also changing. They are becoming more economical, less wasteful of what is produced and more with greater efficiency.

At the moment Blair with his push for more nucleur no matter what the costs or effects is setting him up for an Arnie Vinnick type nightmare some time hence.

Ming Flying High

Ok the BBC, Rob Renwick and even Iain Dale all agree that Sir Menzies Campbell had a good PMQs today.

He asked the Prime Minster about rendition flights using the USA in light of the latest report from the Council of Europe which has claimed the UK has colluded in CIA rendition flights. Tony Blair was clearly flustered and gave an non-commital answer saying that the report added nothing new.

However, the report does conclude that there was a "spider's web" of flights criss-crossed Europe and mentions two new locations of secret jails Poland and Romania.

Mike Gapes, chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, and Labour MP for Ilford South said the report contained little new information. So either the chair of the Foreign affairs select committee is right that there is some new information of the Labour member for Sedgefield is right that there is nothing new, when he answered the question earlier. Both cannot be right.