Happy Christmas

Just wanted to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

I don't know about the rest of you but i intend to eat and drink loads in the next few days putting on about half a stone!

I hope you'll forgive me for very light blogging during the festive period. I doubt anything very much interesting will take place in any case. Even our Dear Leader will be taking a break from "saving the world" during the next couple of days.

Anyway, thanks for reading. I've only been blogging since September but i've really enjoyed it and my readership has been steadily increasing month upon month. Please keep reading!

Also, if you have any suggestions for the New Year, please drop me a line!

SPIN BOWLER

Should shadow Cabinet members have outside jobs?

It was previously reported back in Nvember that David Cameron wanted his front benchers to quit their outside jobs so that they could focus their attention on fighting Labour and winning the next general election.

However, today the FT reported that Cameron had climbed down and was no longer going to insist they give up their other jobs.

Many in the Tory blogosphere have reacted badly to the news.

Ben Brogan has written a post entitled Cameron gives in to part-timers and argues that "It's difficult not to conclude that David Cameron has scrapped his plans to impose a ban on Shadow Cabinet moonlighting because he did no want to suffer the resignation of senior colleagues, most notably William Hague."

And James Forsyth over on the Spectator's CoffeeHouse blog has said: "This really does call into question their commitment to the cause. One begins to wonder which job they actually regard as their first priority."

Apparently William Hague told Cameron he'd resign if the Tory leader forced a ban, as did two other front benchers.

But how much of an issue is this really? The FT said that "the onset of recession will add weight to Labour jibes that Mr Cameron’s 'two-jobs team' is not devoting its full attention to mitigating the impact of the downturn," but the only time i read about the outside jobs of the shadow Cabinet are when the Tories get in a tizzy over it - whether it's Cameron wanting to enforce a ban (encouraged by Steve Hilton and Andy Coulson) or front benchers who are unwilling to give up their extracurricular jobs and resentful about overbearing centralisation and control of Team Cameron.

To the average man and woman on the street, this story is just not registering. But it might if the Tories keep on talking about it!

To my mind, outside jobs are a good thing. People often criticise the fact that we live in an era of the professional politician who has never had a 'real job' and no experience of business and running things. But when politicians do have these jobs and experience they are attacked for not devoting themselves to their political job. They can't win!

As far as I'm concerned, outside jobs are only a problem if:

1) they are under-performing in their front bench role because they are not devoting enough time and effort to it as a result;

2) their outside job conflicts with their front bench role; and

3) their outside job becomes the story and detracts from Tory messages.

Two of the Tories with significant outside jobs most often mentioned are Hague and shadow Business Secretary Alan Duncan. With regard to these two politicians i agree with Tim Montgomerie from ConservativeHome who writes: "Mr Hague is proof that it is possible to combine outside interests and a high profile portfolio... Alan Duncan, Shadow Business Secretary, is most vulnerable in the next reshuffle. His outside interests have been a growing concern to Team Cameron although it is reported that he is cutting back on them."

Hague is safe. Whether he should be throwing his weight around, standing up to his leader by threatening to resign, is a moot point but i take the view that his outside jobs do not rule him out of his shadow Cabinet job judged by my three criteria set out above. However, Alan Duncan has underperformed in my view. He is a pretty good media performer but his media presence is no where near as high profile as it ought to be especially given the fact that he is now shadowing Lord Mandelson who is in the papers every day. I have read previously that Cameron is considering bringing Ken Clarke into the shadow Cabinet as shadow Business Secretary, replacing Duncan. Don't get me wrong, i like Duncan, but this would be a move i would endorse. Clarke is a 'big beast', a 'political heavyweight', who would prove an effective counterweight to Mandelson and he would be able to bring a wealth of experience and a strong media presence to the role.

In short, message to fellow Tories: stop making this out to be a big deal. You are in danger of making a non-story into a story. So long as their outside jobs do not fall into any of the three criteria above, their experience should be spun as a positive, which it is. That said, of course there will come a point when we approach the next general election that these outside jobs will need to be dropped but it is not now in my opinion - especially if the general election is in 2010.

Brown should go to the polls in 2009

The two dates most commonly speculated about for a general election in 2009 are the 26 February and the 4 June.

On the 15 December the Sun’s political columnist and former political editor, Trevor Kavanagh, ran a story claiming that Brown could call a February general election. However, in an interview with the Daily Mirror today, Brown ruled out a February election. He said: "I want to get on with the work of getting the economy moving and making sure our health service, our schools and our policing is the best it can be." Asked if that meant ruling out an election in February or March, Brown said: "Yes. I am not interested in speculation about the election."

So if February is not on the cards, what about the 4 June – the same day as the local and European Parliamentary elections? This has to be considered a real possibility. Although the government is doing its best not to stoke speculation about an ‘early’ general election, weary of the trouble it got itself into in October 2007, in his interview with the Daily Mirror Gordon Brown could have ruled out a June 2009 election or even an election at all in 2009. He could even have announced the general election will be in May or June 2010. However, he is not going to rule out a June election next year because the ability to set the timing of a general election is an advantage he holds as Prime Minister over the Leader of the Opposition. If Brown feels June is best he will want the freedom to choose it.

Of course, the Conservatives will do their best to get him to rule it out by talking up the possibility of a 2009 election hoping that Brown will be unable to afford the damaging speculation and is then forced to rule it out so he can get on with the business of helping Britain weather the recession. Expect the Tories therefore to crank up the election rhetoric next year. The Conservative economic strategy is dependent on the long game and a 2010 general election would play into their hands if their economic gamble is to pay off. The Conservatives believe that the economy will get steadily worse and by 2010, far from the economy having moved out of recession, the economy will still be in a terrible state with unemployment touching 3 million. They believe Brown’s fiscal stimulus – particularly his 13 month VAT cut – will be shown to be a costly mistake and the electorate will have concluded by 2010 that the politics of “doing something” were not all they were cracked up to be. It is all very well being seen to be “doing something,” but more important ultimately is doing the right thing. In addition, if Brown waits until 2010 then the Conservatives can say he has held on to the bitter end (much like John Major did in 1997) hoping in vain that the economy and his political fortunes will be turned around. They can portray him as a desperate man who held on to the bitter end.

Paradoxically, Labour’s strategy, on the face of it, seems also to point to a 2010 election. The Chancellor predicted, in his Pre-Budget report, that the economy will begin to recover in the third quarter of 2009, with decent growth in 2010, and the economy back to normal pre-financial crisis growth levels in 2011. He has made a rod for his back by claiming that the government’s fiscal stimulus will be responsible for the recession being shorter and shallower than many other economists have predicted. The thinking for 2010 is that the public will be very grateful for the government’s economy saving measures and will duly reward them in a general election and punish the Conservatives as the “do nothing” party who would have made the recession worse had they been in power. Furthermore, if the government goes for 2010 they will avoid accusations that they are cutting and running, seeking to capitalise on improving poll ratings and having an election before the economy gets worse.

However, despite this, I believe that Brown will call an election in 2009. The 4 June is the likely date as it would take place on the same day as the local and European Parliamentary elections helping turnout, though Brown could of course go in April or May if he wished, as there is no reason why these months could not be chosen. Although the government has predicted that the economy will recover in the third quarter, this is very likely to prove too optimistic. If Brown waits until 2010, he could be in the dire position of an economy still in recession, or at least not showing tangible signs of recovery, high unemployment, a temporary fiscal stimulus that not only did not work, it cost £20 billion pounds adding to our already huge public debt and has expired. He would also have to face an election campaign in which the Tories will remind voters every day that they now will be hit by permanent tax rises to pay for Brown’s profligacy and economic mismanagement. This is how I see the political-economic situation playing out over the next 18 months and it will lead to a heavy defeat for Brown and a landslide victory for Cameron.

But if Brown goes to the polls in 2009, the situation is very different. It will be too early to categorically brand Brown’s fiscal stimulus as an expensive failure (though I’m sure the Tories will try), so Brown can make the general election campaign about a choice between his fiscal stimulus and his politics of doing something versus what he terms as the “do nothing” Conservative Party which is willing to stand aside while people suffer and let the recession take its course. This would be Brown’s preferred dividing line and he can only use it in a general election campaign if he goes early in 2009. In addition, the new US President, Barack Obama, will have been inaugurated and Brown will try and associate himself as much as possible with him hoping some of his electoral magic will rub off on him. Brown hopes to meet President Obama as early as February for bilateral talks and then again on 2 April in the G20 Economic Summit which Brown himself is hosting in London (another reason why February as an election date should be discounted). The Tories might have the Germans to point to in order to justify their economic policy, but Brown will be able to point to the new superstar of world politics to justify his economic approach. Expect Brown to constantly cite Obama’s fiscal stimulus as support for his own stimulus and he will also use it to portray the Conservatives as isolated in the world for opposing one. An additional reason for a June 2009 election is money – or lack of it. In many respects the Pre-Budget Report resembled a pre-election giveaway Budget. Many of the handouts were temporary and they all cost money that is unlikely to be available in 2010. It would make more sense for Brown to call an early general election in 2009, capitalise on any goodwill he may have received for the handouts and before the economy gets worse, he gets the blame and is subsequently defeated.

Of course if he goes early he will be exposing himself to attacks from his opponents that he is cutting and running and has no confidence in his own economic strategy as he is unwilling to see it through to 2010 and let voters judge whether it has worked or not. However, Brown can say that it is important that voters get the chance to endorse his economic strategy especially as the two main parties have policies that are diametrically opposed to each others. Although that argument would be more credible if the election was now, not next spring/summer.

Another complicating factor will of course be the opinion polls. Labour have narrowed the gap in the polls since September as voters have preferred Brown (and Darling) in a crisis to Cameron (and Osborne). However, although the Conservative’s double digit leads have been proven soft, the Conservatives have still retained a lead, albeit a single digit lead, in every single poll. ComRes have the Tories with only a one point lead though YouGov have the Tories with a seven point lead. Moreover, Cameron and Osborne still are favoured to run the economy and to take the country in the right direction after the next general election. There is also a strong sentiment that it is time for a change. Ordinarily Brown would want to have a lead in the polls ahead of a general election being called so he could be more confident of victory. The current polls point to a hung Parliament with most pointing to Labour having the majority of seats though with no outright majority. Brown is inherently a cautious politician and he could be tempted to hold out until 2010 if the polls do not point to outright victory. However, he has shown signs of being bolder recently. One only need look at the return of Peter Mandelson, for years Brown’s political enemy, for evidence of this. Brown may conclude if the polls are narrow that he could carve out a decisive lead during a general election campaign and he must size the moment rather than dithering and being far too timid as in October 2007. He may also conclude that even if defeat is likely it could be less damaging for the party to go in 2009 than wait until 2010 and face complete electoral annihilation, though I doubt this. He is more likely to believe that he would be able to turn it around by 2010. Complicating matters further are the betting and spread betting markets – both of which continue to point to a Conservative victory despite the narrowing of the opinion polls. The markets seem to have taken the view that the Brown bounce will erode as the economy further deteriorates which will strengthen the Tory position. Two final factors that Brown will consider when deciding when to call a general election are private internal polling and polling of marginal constituencies. It was the results of these that convinced Brown in October 2007 that a general election was too risky, especially as he had only been in the job he had coveted for at least 13 years for just four months.

Weighing up all the pros and cons I believe it would be in Brown’s interest to call an election for 4 June (or April or May) 2009. If he has a poll lead by then I think he will go for it. If he waits until 2010 there is a good chance he will be playing into the hands of the Tories. In any case, whenever the general election does take place, I would expect the campaign to be the nastiest ever. The two main parties have diametrically opposed policy positions and the parties are likely to clash in an increasingly vicious manner as the campaign progressed. To conpound matters, Gordon Brown and David Cameron do not get along at all. They do not like nor respect one another and this is likely to become particularly evident during an election campaign.

Reshuffles in the new year?

Most commentators expect that David Cameron will reshuffle his front bench team in January bringing more experience into his Shadow Cabinet. Two names that have been reported have been Ken Clarke, the former Chancellor and political heavyweight, and Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader who has rehabilitated his political career and become something of an expert on social justice and social breakdown. In the same sense that Gordon Brown brought Peter Mandelson back into government as Business Secretary (and de facto deputy Prime Minister) to add experience, Cameron could bring Ken Clarke into his shadow Cabinet as either shadow Chancellor (unlikely – it would create too much of a political storm as it would be seen as an admission that Osborne has been a failure and Tory economic policy has been a failure, not to mention the fact that Cameron and Osborne have a very close political relationship which would serve them well in government) or shadow Business Secretary (much more likely as it would help bolster the Tory business-economic team, be a counter-weight to Mandelson, and would not undermine Osborne). As for Iain Duncan Smith it has been speculated that he could become shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Chris Grayling would then be free to become Party Chairman, a role he would be good at, given that he is an able television performer and is good at taking the fight to Labour. Another benefit for Cameron of bringing Clarke and Duncan Smith into his team is that it can help counteract Brown’s charge that the Tories are “novices.” Some have argued that if Cameron does this it could undermine his message of change, though I would contend that bringing back two politicians is hardly likely to do that.

Gordon Brown could also choose to undergo a reshuffle in the new year. There has been some speculation that former Cabinet minister David Blunkett could be brought back into government. Peter Bingle, from Bell Pottinger Public Affairs, has also predicted that Ed Balls will be made Chancellor in the new year. I would be amazed if this happens. Although Darling is an unremarkable Chancellor and has faced criticism, he has taken a lot of flak on behalf of Brown who most people believe is still determining Britain’s economic policy. I remain to be convinced that Ed Balls would be better at providing Brown political cover even though Balls is closer to Brown than Darling. Moreover, I fail to see how Balls would be more reassuring to the public or the markets. He is not the greatest television or Commons performer and not somebody I can see the public particularly warming to during these difficult times. In addition, if Brown moves Darling, it might also look like an admission that his economic policy has been a failure and that he was making Darling carry the can for his own failings.

PMQs - Dull deputies

With Gordon Brown doing his PM thing by visiting the troops in Iraq ahead of Christmas (of course right and proper, but also fair as he had been to Afghanistan!), it was the turn of Harriet Harman, William Hague and Vince Cable to deputise for their respective bosses.

It was also the last PMQs of 2008 (MPs go on their month long break tomorrow - Recession? What Recession?).

William Hague began with a joke about the news that troops would be returned from Iraq next year saying that since news about the withdrawal had been leaked by the government last week he was surprised that no one had since been arrested! Hague then moved on to the issue of the independent Iraq Inquiry, or more precisely, the lack of one, to which Harman reiterated government policy that there is no delay just that it was right while troops were still serving in Iraq there cannot be one. Hague's point was that the PM has announced today that British troops are to be withdrawn by July next year so no time should be wasted if lessons are to be learned which could be applied in Afghanistan.

The other issue Hague went on was the economy, specifically the lack of credit getting through to small businesses which he linked to the rising unemployment figures announced today. Hague called for the government to adopt the Conservative proposal for a national loan guarantee scheme which has been endorsed by business. The shadow Foreign Secretary also attacked the government's fiscal stimulus saying that the VAT cut had been denounced in Britain and abroad (a reference to the German Finance Minister). Harman said the government was taking action, she said the government was putting an additional £1.3 billion into job centres which she said the Tories were refusing to endorse as they were the party of spending cuts, and she attacked the Conservative's national loan guarantee scheme for not being backed up by public money and described it as "not worth the money it's press released on." The Leader of the House also criticised the Tories for talking down confidence and the economy (to which Hague reminded her of Tessa Jowell's comments the other day talking the economy down saying Britain was facing the worst recession).

The contest heated up slightly towards the end. Hague attacked Labour as the "say anything, spin anything, do nothing government" in a clear attempt to turn Brown's "do nothing" jibe on its head. Hague tried to portray the Conservatives as the party of action with their proposals for a national loan guarantee scheme. Hague also labelled the governments 'new' £150 million announcement on helping unemployment as "a reannouncement of a reannouncement" saying that "at Christmas time we're not supposed to just get repeats which we are getting." Hague also asked Harman "how many more people must lose their jobs before the Prime Minister justifiably loses his?"

Harman decided it would be a good idea to recycle a joke she had used just last Thursday in Business Questions in her capacity as Leader of the House saying she'd "rather have Superman as our leader than the Joker when it comes to party leadership." She was rightly mocked for re-using the joke which wasn't that great the first time round! Harman also decided to draw the House's attention to a website of William Hague (http://www.williamhague.org.uk/) which still describes Hague as the Leader of the Conservative Party but is clearly defunct as it is a single page website consisting of his name, position and the old Tory 'torch' logo. Hague looked perplexed. Harman obviously thought this amusing and now not only the House but also the country as a whole has been enlightened about this vital issue of national importance.

As for Vince Cable he went on the issue of the financial crisis in housing associations. He told Harman that housing was at its lowest level since former Labour PM Ramsey MacDonald - which was met by jeers from the Labour benches asking whether he remembered it. Poor Cable was being subjected to the "Sir Menzies Campbell" treatment about his age. He recovered pretty well, smiling at his detractors, and told Labour that they ought to remember as it was in danger of repeating that history! Harman got up and said she was very concerned about housing and mortgages but Cable retorted that she had just given a very "complacent" answer. He said the government should be helping housing associations as much as it was helping out the banks.

VERDICT

A fairly dull display from the deputies today. It was a pretty low key affair and most of the jokes fell flat and one was even a repeat (tut tut Harman). Bring on 2009!

Cameron calls govt parent plan "shameful"

In his press conference earlier, David Cameron rightly condemned the government's plan to get parents with children aged between one and seven to start preparing for work, though said that he supported the government's wider aim of reducing welfare dependency and getting more people into work.

Cameron described the proposals as "shameful" saying that it was the "rotten apple in the barrel." He said he did not oppose practical proposals to help parents such as debt or drug counselling but the "sensible" time for them to think about work was when their children were at school.

This makes sense. A recent report from Unicef has shown that working mothers "put children at risk with low-quality childcare" and have suggested that it might be a good idea for one parent to stay at home for the early formative years of a child's development.

The Tory Leader said he suspected the proposal was being driven by a "macho positioning exercise" from Ministers which he said was "pretty sick." He added: "It potentially hits single mothers at a very vulnerable time of their lives," and said he wanted the idea "taken out" of the bill.

This is likely to happen, I would predict, as many Labour backbenchers are also likely to oppose the move when the legislation goes through the Commons.

I believe Cameron has adopted this position because he believes it to be right. He is a strong backer of families as the bedrock of society and wouldn't want to support anything that undermined the family. But it is also clever politics because it shows him in a positive light and the Tories as caring "compassionate Conservatives." In contrast it makes Labour look harsh and the "nasty party."

ECB calls for fiscal discipline. You listening, Gordon?

Claude Trichet, the President of the European Central Bank, has said, in an interview with the FT today, that fiscal rules must be kept. He warned that fiscal indiscipline could undermine already fragile economic confidence and said it was not the time to tear up the rule book.

Are you listening Gordon?

As our Dear Leader, "Saviour of the World," is keen to talk about co-ordinated action and European unity, one might think he could be so persuaded by Trichet's words that he decides to resurrect his own fiscal rules from the dead, dust them off, and put them into practice.

But that isn't going to happen because Brown and Darling think fiscal rules are "perverse" - especially as fiscal discipline would prevent Brown from "doing something" and appearing as our decisive, man of action (or 'Superman' if you're Harriet Harman), irrespective of the fact that his fiscal stimulus is going to achieve exactly squat, other than add to our already huge levels of debt.

Should we join the Euro?

Predictably, now the Pound has weakened significantly against the Euro, approaching parity, the Europhiles have come out of hiding and have started to bang the drum once again for British membership of the Euro.

The Europhiles have dusted off their old discredited arguments and are deploying them again. Now we hear that Britain is too small and weak to go it alone and we need the protection of the Eurozone. Gordon Brown may have buggered up our economy but come on, we’re not as small and helpless as Iceland!

Perhaps the only worthwhile thing Brown has done in office is oppose joining the Euro and holding Tony Blair’s Euro ambitions at bay with his five economic tests which were purely political in purpose. With the current speculation about joining the Euro, Brown has let it be known that Euro membership is not even on the agenda, never mind being discussed.

But it is worth reminding everyone why Euro membership is not a good idea.

The key economic argument against Britain joining the Euro is its ‘one-size-fits-all’ monetary policy – it is EMU’s biggest flaw. The former Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, said he saw “the one-size-fits-all monetary policy as a disadvantage and a special risk. The same monetary policy is not optimal for every country at the same time.” Britain has had problems having a single interest rate which does not always suit different regions of the United Kingdom. Some have criticised the Bank of England for setting rates to suit a booming South East of England rather than the more depressed North. Eddie George made this very point when he said that “the Bank’s job is to maintain macro stability for the whole country, and discrepancies between regions and industries were regrettable but inevitable.” This very problem would be far more pronounced for Britain with monetary policy set at the European level by ECB rather than the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC).

Across the Eurozone, the effects of the one-size-fits-all interest rate have and will continue to be larger because the variation of performance is greater. They will also be more significant because the political fall-out will be much bigger. If Britain joined EMU it would have interest and exchange rates set for the whole of the Eurozone rather than being tailor-made specifically for British needs. Basically the ECB currently chooses a ‘compromise’ rate for the whole of the Eurozone and therefore this would never be as consistently responsive to Britain’s needs as a monetary policy set by our very own MPC. Look what happened to Ireland when the ECB cut interest rates that led to an unsustainable boom.

This “one-size-fits-all monetary policy” would matter less if the Eurozone was an Optimal Currency Area (OCA). OCA theory was developed by the Nobel Prize winning economist, Robert Mundell. It states in the event of negative economic shocks, such as a world recession or oil price increase, a currency area will have the best chance of minimising the damage if the economies that are members are broadly homogenous and synchronised. This is because shocks will then be symmetrical; that is, they will affect all economies similarly and hence only a single economic response is required to stabilise all of the economies of the currency area. However, if there is no OCA then the shocks are likely to be asymmetrical which will mean that economies will need specific policies applied to them. This is exactly the problem that EMU faces. Although the EU6 (Germany, France, Benelux and Austria) comprise an OCA, the Eurozone as a whole does not. The IMF has stated previously that the United Kingdom and Nordic countries are situated outside a cluster of core economies centred on Germany and some of the Southern European economies have even less in common with the ‘core’ European economies but have joined the Eurozone nonetheless.

Britain’s economic cycle is somewhere between that of the US and the EU6. before the Euro should be considered, with all its political ramifications about sovereignty and democratic accountability, Britain’s economic cycle would have to be in sync with the Eurozone’s core which is not the case today. In fact there is no reason to suppose that the economic cycles of countries will ever be sufficiently synchronised so that all countries require the same interest rate at the same time to influence the level of output or the rate of inflation. For real convergence, some countries need to grow faster than others do, which means encouraging investment at the expense of consumption. This, in turn, requires lower interest rates in some countries than others.

If we joined the EMU it would not only be signing up to a currency area which lacked convergence, we would obviously be surrendering our monetary policy instrument and thus would be reduced to having to rely on Gordon Brown economics to help our economy. No longer able to respond to asymmetric shocks with supply side economics we’d be forced to result to fiscal policy to get us out of a sticky situation – the failed and discredited policy of trying to spend our way out of recession. If we joined the Euro there would be no leaving unlike the ERM on Black (or was it White?) Wednesday. We would be forced to adopt the economics of Gordon Brown forever.

I shudder at the thought.

Germans rubbish Brown's economic policy again!

After Peer Steinbrück, the German Finance Minister, ridiculed Brown's economic policy on Wednesday, another German politician has done the same.

This time it was Steffen Kampeter, who speaks on economic policy for Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party. This is significant because yesterday Ed Balls claimed the comments from Steinbrück had more to do with Germany's internal politics in its ruling coalition than the nature of the global response to the economic downturn. He said: "I think Germany will join the international consensus when their internal politics are sorted out." But, as i argued at the time, this was complete Balls. I wrote: "Peer Steinbrück is a member of the Social Democratic Party which is a left of centre party. If anyone in Germany's coalition government is going to embrace a Keynesian borrowing and spending splurge surely it would be Steinbrück and the SDP?"

Now Steffen Kampeter has entered the debate, describing the British government's moves to raise debt as "a failure of Labour policy" and completely dismissing Balls's argument. Remember, Kampeter comes from the CDU Party (Merkel's party) whereas Steinbrück comes from SDP. Kampeter said:

"Peer Steinbruck's comments have nothing whatsoever to do with internal German politics, as Prime Minister Brown has suggested. The tremendous amount of debt being offered by Britain shows a complete failure of Labour policy. In questioning the British government's approach, Peer Steinbruck is exactly expressing the views of the German Grand Coalition. After years of lecturing us on how we need to share in the gains of uncontrolled financial markets, the Labour politicians can't now expect us to share in its losses. The tremendous amount of debt being offered by Britain shows a complete failure of Labour policy."

It is true that Angela Merkel has supported a fiscal stimulus across the EU - something the Labour government has latched on to claiming the Germans agree with them - but she insists, like the Conservatives do in Britain (and the IMF), that it has to be fully-funded.

At the end of last month, Merkel expressed her disapproval to Gordon Brown’s drive to stimulate the world (FT Blog). She told the Budestag (German Parliament):

“Excessively cheap money in the US was a driver of today’s crisis. I am deeply concerned about whether we are now reinforcing this trend through measures being adopted in the US and elsewhere and whether we could find ourselves in five years facing the exact same crisis.”

She holds this view even though Germany starts from a position of a balanced budget and a trade surplus - unlike us. The Germans have always been wary of growth financed by debt. If only Gordon Brown had managed the British economy so that we were in such a good position to face this recession as our German neighbours - the world's 3rd largest economy.

So why are the German's gunning for Brown? Benedict Brogan reckons it is payback time for all the years Brown used to lecture the Europeans boasting about how great his management of the economy was. Now he is portraying himself as the saviour of the world, the Germans have had enough of his egotistical hubris and have decided to hit back, especially as they think his boasting is misplaced as the British economy is particularly vulnerable. Brogan wrote:

"The relish with which the German finance minister has mocked Gordon Brown's "crass Keynesianism" is delightful to behold. Years of resentment have come bubbling out, with devastating effect. Remember how Mr Brown used to enjoy lecturing the Germans and the rest of the EU for their economic failings? Well, the jack-boot is on the other foot. You can bet that Peer Steinbruck's outburst was in part motivated by a desire to rub the PM's face in his economic mess. Think of all those Ecofin summits when Mr Brown would deliver his lecture ahead of time through the media, and then either not turn up or leave in a rush without staying for lunch... The German offensive against Mr Brown is a reminder that there are quite a few out there who may endorse the principle of a fiscal stimulus package - but only if you can afford it."

I'm really warming to Germans at the moment... I'll be raising a glass to them this Christmas. Makes one feel proud to be European! ;)

Sir Gus clearly hasn't heard of mobile phones!

Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell appeared before the Public Administration Select Committee earlier today as part of the Committee's inquiry into Whitehall leaks.

When asked why Sir David Normington, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office, had not notified the Home Secretary immediately about the impending raid by the police on Damian Green's office and why it took a couple of hours before she was informed, Sir Gus said:

"I'm sure he [Sir David] would have tried to contact her as soon as possible, but she [Jacqui Smith] was in Brussels at the time."

Is that supposed to be an excuse? Has Sir Gus not heard of mobile phones? His statement before the Committee was just not credible! If it was decided she should have known, it was surely not beyond the capabilities of our civil service to inform the Home Secretary immediately, even if she was in Brussels!

Woolworths - stripping flesh from the bone

I popped into Woolworths earlier to see what all the fuss was about and it was a sad sight to witness the end of a high-street institution.

All items had a discount from 10 to 50 percent but many of the shelves were empty and were not being restocked.

The depressing sight looked like a hoard of scavengers pulling the last remaining flesh off the Woolworths bone - while it was still half alive.

With no credible buyer in sight it looks increasingly clear that it won't be long now until Woolworths is no more - and with it the loss of 25,000 jobs.

Gordon saves world? Nein! Say Germans

Government Finance Minister finally talks sense on the economy. Unfortunately he is German, not British!

On the day that Gordon Brown claimed he had saved the world (and I know it was a slip but he actually believes he has), Peer Steinbrück, Germany's Finance Minister, ridiculed Brown's fiscal stimulus economic rescue plan telling Newsweek magazine: "The switch from decades of supply-side politics all the way to a crass Keynesianism is breathtaking."

Steinbrück also attacked credit-financed growth (which has been responsible for Britain's boom years): "When I ask about the origins of the [financial] crisis, economists I respect tell me it is the credit-financed growth of recent years and decades. Isn't this the same mistake everyone is suddenly making again, under all the public pressure?"

The outspoken German Finance Minister also attacked Brown's fiscal stimulus, especially his decision to cut VAT: "The speed at which proposals are put together under pressure that don't even pass an economic test is breathtaking and depressing. Our British friends are now cutting their value-added tax. We have no idea how much of that stores will pass on to customers. Are you really going to buy a DVD player because it now costs £39.10 instead of £39.90? All this will do is raise Britain's debt to a level that will take a whole generation to work off. The same people who would never touch deficit spending are now tossing around billions."

When asked whether extraordinary times called for extraordinary measures (something Brown has repeatedly claimed), Steinbrück was scathingly dismissive: "It's the yearning for the Great Rescue Plan. It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist!"

And when asked about the politics of "doing something" vs "doing nothing" (as Brown likes to reduce the debate), Steinbrück said: "... I'd say the risk is greater of burning money without significant effects and in the end having a budget weighed down with even more debt."

So much for the global consensus, hey Gordon!

Brown claims he has been leading the world, travelling to summit after summit in an effort to persuade fellow world leaders that his "fiscal stimulus" policies should be repeated. But he hasn't even been able to convince Europe's largest economic power of the merits of his actions.

George Osborne, leapt on Herr Steinbrück's remarks: "This comment from the German finance minister totally demolishes Gordon Brown's central political charge that only the Conservatives oppose his expensive and ineffective VAT measures." Osborne also said, referring to Brown's claim to have "saved the world": "On the day he claimed to be saving the world, the world answered back."

I'd say Cameron and Osborne have somebody new to put on their Christmas card list!

UPDATE: Brown has said in an interview in the Sun (with Alan Sugar) that "we do need a lot of blunt speaking at the moment about what has happened." I wonder whether Gordon appreciates Herr Steinbrück's "blunt speaking?"

Deluded Blinky Ed Balls has also hit back saying the comments from Steinbrück had more to do with Germany's internal politics in its ruling coalition than the nature of the global response to the economic downturn. He said: "I think Germany will join the international consensus when their internal politics are sorted out." Err... Balls, what international consensus? Also, Peer Steinbrück is a member of the Social Democratic Party which is a left of centre party. If anyone in Germany's coalition government is going to embrace a Keynesian borrowing and spending splurge surely it would be Steinbrück and the SDP? As ever Ed, you are talking absolute Balls!!!

SuperGord - Saviour of the World

As promised, the clip of Brown claiming he had saved the world (from The Crown BlogSpot).

Despite being a slip of the tongue, the problem for Brown is that everybody believes he actually thinks he is the saviour of the world!

Humility was never Gordon Brown's strong point!

PMQs - Brown saves the world

Well, it's official. Gordon Brown has saved the world!!!

How do we know? It came from the horse's mouth! Brown said at PMQs today in reply to a question from David Cameron: "We not only saved the world..."

Obviously it was an accidental slip by Brown. He meant to say 'banks' but it feeds into the hubris he has shown in recent months when he has claimed he has led the world in action to save the banking system and the wider economy from recession. Had Tony Blair made such a slip he would have made a self-effacing joke to laugh it off, but not Brown who instead bludgeoned on. I'll post it here on In the Brown when someone puts it up on YouTube.

As for the rest of PMQs, David Cameron went on the failure of the government's bank recapitalisation. He said that all parties had supported it but as the Bank of England Governor has said, bank recapitalisation was not just about saving the banks, but also about getting banks lending to companies and individuals again. Cameron asked the PM whether he would agree that recapitalisation was not working.

The PM ignored the part about banks not lending and insisted the action he had taken had saved the world... err... banks. (The opposition benches jeered and fell about laughing, waving their order papers at Brown after his mistake). Brown said no depositor had lost money and that steps were being taken to lower interest rates and increase lending. The Prime Minister said: "The Opposition may not like the fact we led the world but we did."

Cameron jumped up and retorted: "Well, it's now on the record. He's so busy thinking about saving the world, that he's forgotten about small businesses in this country." Cameron introduced a business case study about the effects of a lack of credit meaning a company had to lay off 11 staff. He then addressed Brown's claim that everyone had copied his scheme. Cameron said no other country had copied the details. No other country was lending banks money at 12 percent and asking them to in turn lend to businesses at 6 percent. The Leader of the Opposition said it had to change. Brown said Cameron had forgotten the government had set up a small business loan guarantee scheme of £1 billion, among other measures. He then sought to contrast and divide, reducing the argument to just "fiscal stimulus" vs. "do nothing" and once again said the Tories were pursuing the failed policies of the 1980s.

Cameron hit back saying Brown's fiscal stimulus had nothing to do with bank recapitalisation and getting banks to lend again. The Tory leader said he knew that Brown had been around the world boasting about his recapitalisation so was therefore reluctant to change it, but he has to. Cameron then quoted the Council of Mortgage Lenders who have said the government needs to sort out it's priorities, as its current economic strategy is "conflicting and incoherent." Why was this, Cameron asked. Brown said the Council of Mortgage Lenders supported his actions. The PM then went into full patronising mode - something he has started to do recently - and said he was sorry to have to teach Cameron what the economy was about and then preceded to talk up his fiscal stimulus, once again branding the Conservatives as the "do nothing" party.

Cameron fired back saying the difference between Brown and the Tories was that the PM is talking about saving the world, and the Conservatives are talking about saving businesses. Cameron said Brown could have spent more time on this had he not been wasting time on a pointless VAT cut. Cameron asked whether, on the day the government was "copying our welfare reforms," Brown would now accept the Tory proposal for a national loan guarantee scheme. The Prime Minister accused Cameron of refusing to put money in. He then attacked comments the Chairman of Public Accounts Committee (Tory MP Edward Leigh) has said dismissing the few pence poorer people could save as a result of the VAT cut on items they ought not to be buying. Brown said this showed up "uncaring Conservatism."

Cameron said why couldn't the PM just answer the question? He said others had welcomed the Tory proposal for a national loan guarantee scheme, including the Guardian who, in a dig at the government, manage to get leaks without getting arrested. Cameron asked Brown to swallow his pride and admit he needed to copy his proposal. Brown, once again in full patronising mode, said: "Again I've got to teach him something..." He said the government already had a loan guarantee scheme. He said it was an extension in the budget and on top of that the government had an export credit scheme, and was going to do more in next few days. Brown said it could not be done without preparation to put money in and accused the Tories of being on the wrong side of history.

Cameron retorted that Brown was on the wrong side of mathematics. He said Labour's £1 billion scheme helped just 0.2 percent. Trying to deflect Brown's jibes about the Tories being the "do nothing" party, Cameron said: "How can you accuse us of doing nothing, when we're announcing a multi-billion pound package to help businesses." Cameron then sought to portray Labour as the "do nothing" party. He said: "What did he do to put money aside for rainy day - nothing. What did he do to get real credit moving? Nothing." Rather cheesily the Tory backbenches joined in with the chants of "nothing" and were accordingly mocked by the Labour benches. Cameron finished up saying Brown had bankrupted the country and he was the only person responsible for the recession. The PM said Cameron had said only yesterday that he would spend no more money and would cut spending in 2010. "I think Tory party enters 2009 with same policies of 1980s. Say anything to disguise the fact they will do nothing."

A few minutes later, Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, stood up to ask his two questions, criticising tax credits. He started saying that a single mother had come to see him in Sheffield but was interrupted by Members on other benches who for some reason found that hilarious - perhaps childishly thinking of the GQ interview when Clegg revealed he had slept with around 30 women. Once order had been restored, Clegg said the single mother had brought with her a bundle of letters from the government asking for tax credits back. He said they were asking her to pay back money she did not have and even threatened to drag her to court. Clegg asked was this the type of help people needed in a recession? Brown said that tax credits had gone up but promised to look at details of individual cases.

Clegg accused the PM of deluding himself. He said: "I know he thinks he's Atlas with the world on his shoulders" but 10 times as many people as last year are being taken to court on this. When will there be fixed payments, the Lib Dem leader asked. Brown replied that if the government used fixed payments then they could not be changed when problems arose. He said a flexible system helped. He said Clegg had to recognise that 6 million families have child tax credits and they had done more than any other measure to raise people out of poverty. Brown said if Clegg was committed to ending child poverty, then he should support tax credits.

VERDICT

Brown - 5 - He will rue saying he "saved the world." Was not on his best robustious form and his constant repetition of "do nothing," "failed policies of the 1980s" answers, although clever politics, are sounding very tired when continually delivered by Brown. It's a case of how you tell 'em, i guess...

Cameron - 7 - Sprightly performance. Was clearly up for it almost jumping up to the despatch box each time. Is making headway each week going on the failure of the banks to lend and is now employing retorts to try and neutralise Brown's "do nothing" attacks. Brown saying he "saved the world" was a gift to Cameron which he duly exploited.

Clegg - 6 - Decent questions about the inadequacies of Brown's tax credit system punishing people in a recession with threats of court action.

Government emasculates Parliament

Gordon Brown came to power as PM saying that he would seek to strengthen Parliament and its scrutiny of the executive.

Yet today when MPs are in an unusually packed Commons, the government is trying to curtail debate and restrict scrutiny.

The Speaker promised a debate on the Damian Green affair but the government has chosen to use a guillotine motion to curtail the debate to just 3 hours.

MPs are currently voting in the Division Lobbies on an amendment to the government's timetabling motion signed by Conservative MP Douglas Hogg and Lib Dem MP David Heath. If accepted the amendment would allow for 6 hours of debate on the setting up of a Speaker's Committee.

But that has little chance of happening. The Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews has rightly denounced a couple of minutes ago the government's attempts to use a three-line whip to ensure Labour MPs not only have turned up but also voted with the government against the amendment.

It is nothing short of outrageous but is also what one has come to expect from this government which has gone out of its way to strengthen the executive and weaken the legislature!

UPDATE: Surprise, surprise the government has got its way with a majority of 74. Amendment rejected. Pathetic!

Clegg boycott's Speaker's Committee

Harriet Harman has announced that the Speaker's committee of seven senior parliamentarians that will be looking into the issues surrounding the Damian Green affair will meet only once the police action against Damian Green is complete. Furthermore, she announced it will reflect the composition of the Commons - 4 Labour MPs, 2 Conservatives and 1 Lib Dem.

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, therefore has understandably decided to boycott the committee.

I agree with Iain Dale and Guido that it's a disgrace!

Not only is Harman trying to pack the committee with Labour flunkies to ensure the final report goes easy on the Labour speaker and government, she has kicked the committee into the long grass by saying it won't meet now until the investigation into Damian Green and any subsequent action is complete. As Dale noted, the committe doesn't have to mention Damian Green at all as it will be looking at future policy "to ensure that such a situation never reoccurs." Harman, like Gordon Brown, has taken the view that she cannot pass comment on anything that happened, including expressing regret that the police entered the Commons office of Damian Green without a warrant because it compromises the operational independence of the police. Funny that the Speaker could offer regret, isn't it?

David Cameron should follow Nick Clegg's lead and boycott the committee too! We all know that whenever the committe were to report it would be a whitewash!

Has Hain really been 'cleared'?

Peter Hain is saying he is pleased that after "ten months in limbo" he has been "cleared" of late declarations to the Electoral Commission of donations to his Labour deputy leadership bid. He finished 5th out of 6 candidates if you remember.

I would contend that it depends on your definition of 'cleared'. All that has really happened is that the Crown Prosecution Service has said that while donations were declared late, they have insufficient evidence to charge him with anything as they could not prove Hain handled the unreported donations.

It's a farce because the CPS is essentially saying that as it cannot determine who handled the donations - whether Peter Hain or anybody else - nobody is to be charged.

He may be 'cleared' in the sense that he won't be charged, but this is hardly a fulsome, wholesale clearance of Peter Hain and restoration of his reputation as Hain seems to be implying. It just means he has managed to exploit a loophole in the law whereby if you can keep prosecutors in the dark about who handles late donations who have nothing to worry about as they won't charge anybody!

Ignorance is bliss for Jacqui Smith

Earlier today Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, gave a statement about the arrest of Damian Green to the Commons. She told the House that on the 17th November she had been told by Sir David Normington, the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office, that an arrest of a civil servant was likely in the next few days. On the 19th the civil servant was arrested. On the 27th November, Sir David Normington was notified by the police at 1.45pm that a search of an opposition front bench MP's homes and offices was imminent. Sir David was subsequently told that an arrest had been made. The Home Secretary said she and other ministers only learned about the searches and arrest after they had taken place.

Questions, questions... so many questions!

1) So, Sir David was told an arrest of a civil servant was likely in the "next few days." Ok, so why did the police not give him a similar kind of in advance 'heads up' about the arrest of an MP?

2) The Home Secretary failed to tell us whether Sir David or anybody else in government was told on the day the arrest of the civil servant took place that it was about to take place. She just said on the 19th the civil servant was arrested. Did the police say the arrest of the civil servant was imminent on the 19th? If not, why not? If yes, then did Sir David notify the Home Secretary before the arrest took place?

3) On the 17th November, Sir David notified Jacqui Smith that an arrest of a civil servant was likely in the next few days. Why, when Sir David was told by the police at 1.45pm on the day of the arrest did he not then inform the Home Secretary immediately what he had been told? Surely she would have been interested?

4) Why did the police inform Sir David a couple of days in advance of the civil servant's impending arrest, yet only told him about the searches of a MP's homes and offices 15 minutes before they began?

5) Why was Sir David only told by the police that the searches of a MP's homes and offices were about to take place but was only told about the arrest of the MP after it had happened?

6) Why is Jacqui Smith seemingly so happy to have been kept in the dark by the police and Sir David? John Reid, the former Labour Home Secretary, said after her statement that had he still been Home Secretary he would have expected to have known about the arrest of an MP in advance. This was a point another former Home Secretary, Ken Clarke, had made several days ago. Reid also added that he would not have been as "placid" in his reaction to not being informed as Jacqui Smith.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven! The police kept Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, completely in the dark about an investigation into leaks from her own department and the arrest of a shadow Home Affairs Minister. The police kept Sir David Normington partially in the dark. Information they did provided him, as the source of the complaint to the police about the leaks, was inconsistent to say the least. It should have been far more forthcoming and far more timely, not last minute. And Sir David seems to have taken a conscious decision to keep what limited information he knew about the police's actions towards a MP to himself yet shared the information he knew about the imminent arrest of the civil servant with the Home Secretary. Why the inconsistency, Sir David? Finally, as for Jacqui Smith, she's in ignorant bliss! She knew nothing and as far as we can tell knowing nothing is how she likes it. I'm so pleased we have such an intellectually curious Home Secretary!

She also told us in her statement that even if she had been informed about the searches and arrest of a MP in advance she would have done nothing as it would have been "wholly inappropriate for me to seek to intervene in the operational decisions being taken by the police. I will not do that; and I should not do that." So once again she hides behind the operational independence of the police. She knew nothing, isn't bothered that she didn't know, and would have done nothing even if she had known. I thought Labour said the Conservatives were the "do nothing" party? She epitomises the "do nothing" minister! She should have known and she would have been well within her rights to have asked pertinent questions about what the police planned to do. This in no way would have affected the police's operational independence as she would have only been asking questions and seeking reassurances, not directing the police, telling them how to act.

It is becoming clearer than ever that the reason Jacqui Smith has acted like a dumb-blonde is because she had motive. She wanted the investigation to be pursued vigorously even if that entailed arresting an opposition front bench MP. Had she been kept in the loop she would have had MPs and the media calling for her to resign or to be sacked for allowing such a deplorable thing to happen when national security was clearly not at stake. By being purposefully kept in the dark - and it has to have been a conscious, calculated decision to do so - she is able to claim that she knew nothing and the police were just doing their job.

Heads should roll for this. Sir Paul Stevenson, the Acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Jacqui Smith and Sir David Normington should consider their positions for their collective complicity!

Who's interested in the economy, Prime Minister?

I've just found this gem taken from Hansard's coverage of the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Brown criticised the Tories saying: "It is absolutely clear that the Opposition have no interest in listening to what we are doing about the economy. It is also absolutely clear that they are obsessed with only one thing today, but we have got to get on with the business of helping move from the downturn to higher prosperity."

Then a couple of minutes later Tory MP Andrew Robathan stood up and asked Brown: "The Prime Minister accused the Opposition of not being interested in his speech. Could he explain why the Benches behind him are empty, whereas ours are full?"

Hilarious! Sometimes Brown can be a right plonker!

Is Cameron being naive about leaks?

Some are arguing that Cameron is being naive by being so supportive of leaks from civil servants to oppositions because if he were to become Prime Minister he will have trouble denouncing leaks as he embraced them so wholeheartedly when in opposition.

Nick Robinson made this point in his blog saying: Would David Cameron, as Prime Minister, "feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."

In the debate that followed the Queen's speech, Labour MPs also tried to make this an issue.

Dr. Tony Wright, the chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, said: "The right hon. Gentleman would like to become Prime Minister one day. Is he really telling the House that as Prime Minister he would be perfectly relaxed about a civil servant committed to impartiality entering into an arrangement with an Opposition spokesman to release information on a continuing basis in breach of the civil service code?"

Then Dr. John Reid, the former Home Secretary, stood up and asked Cameron: "This follows on from the point just made, which is one of fundamental principle. Whatever happened during this specific case—all of us have concerns about that, and they will be addressed—what the Leader of the Opposition is saying from the Dispatch Box is tantamount to the creation of a new principle if he were Prime Minister... He is announcing in advance that, as Prime Minister, he would be perfectly happy for any civil servant, on their own judgment, to release any information other than that classified for national security purposes and that he would support its publication for the public. Is that what he is saying?"

So, is Cameron being naive?

Cameron's position is basically:

1. "Of course no Government—I have worked for a Government—want to see information leaked."

2. But... it is not "right for the police to arrest a Member of Parliament for doing his duty."

3. Cameron distinguishes between information which is released that is merely embarrassing to ministers who would prefer it remain hidden but is in the public interest and information that compromises national security.

This to me seems quite a pragmatic, reasonable approach to leaks and not in the least bit naive. Cameron is well aware that government's use leaks to further their own ends. He understands that as Prime Minister he is not going to like leaks. He worked as a special adviser in the last Conservative government who suffered miserably from leaks - many of which fell into the hands of Gordon Brown. Cameron, however, is pragmatic enough to distinguish between leaks that there is a legitimate public interest to have the information in the public domain and information which threatens national security. He might not like it as Prime Minister; he doesn't have to. He just has to accept it happens and is a fundamental part of our democracy. MPs should only be arrested for compromising national security.

As for any additional the points raised by Robinson, Wright and Reid, let's address them in turn:

Will Cameron "feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years." No, of course not. He would instigate a leak inquiry to find the 'mole' like any Prime Minister would. Oppositions try and spring leaks. Governments try and plug them. Would this be consistent with Cameron's current position on leaks? Yes, so long as he did not instigate a police inquiry into leaks that did not compromise national security. Remember, from 1996 onwards, leaks to Labour from 10 and 11 Downing Street became so bad that a full-scale internal investigation was launched by John Major's government into the issue but at no point were members of the Opposition arrested by the terror squad and rightly so!

Would Cameron feel "perfectly relaxed about a civil servant committed to impartiality entering into an arrangement with an Opposition spokesman to release information on a continuing basis in breach of the civil service code?" No, of course not. He would feel very uncomfortable but the answer to the point above also holds true for this one as well.

Is Cameron's position some kind of new 'Cameron Doctrine' as Reid seems to imply when he says Cameron is creating "a new principle" on the acceptability of leaks? No. All oppositions have a very different view on leaks to when they enter government. Just ask Gordon Brown. If there is anything "new" it is just that the question of leaks has come to fore like never before with the arrest of Damian Green and Cameron has been forced to explicitly state the de facto position held by all oppositions throughout the ages as he has had to come to the defence of his shadow immigration minister.

In addition, Reid went on to say: "He is announcing in advance that, as Prime Minister, he would be perfectly happy for any civil servant, on their own judgment, to release any information other than that classified for national security purposes and that he would support its publication for the public. Is that what he is saying?" Again, no, Cameron would not be happy. But like i argued above, he doesn't have to like it or accept it. His response just has to be proportionate and not involve the police investigating and arresting an opposition MP for "doing his duty." Reid cracked me up when he said "for any civil servant, on their own judgment." I'm not sure if Reid understands how leaks work. Any whistle blowing civil servant is hardly going to ask his superiors for their judgement on whether they should leak or not are they?! Of course they are going to have to use their "own judgement" and then take the consequences. That is what makes whistle blowers so brave because they have to act alone knowing full well that the organisation they work for will seek to persecute them. Also, as we're on the subject of John Reid, Cameron rightly noted that the leaks came from Reid's old department which the then Home Secretary had labelled as "not fit for purpose." Thus there was a clear public interest in exposing its failings.

There are two more points that need to be addressed. The first is the question about the difference between receiving leaks and inducing leaks. This to me seems like very grey territory. Those who normally pose the question do so in a very black and white way. By "receiving leaks" they are implying the MP has adopted merely a passive role and by "inducing leaks" they mean the MP has built a relationship with the 'mole' and persuaded them to release the information. But if you are a MP and have been sent information more than once from a single source there would have to be some type of limited relationship. Moreover, if you got sent some really juicy information would you not also want to say to your source "if you've got anything else like that, I'd be grateful if you could send it my way again." Are all these Labour MPs who are adopting a 'holier than thou' approach to these leaks really saying that their Dear Leader, Gordon Brown, who received multiple leaks when he was shadow Trade Secretary and then shadow Chancellor, was purely a passive player who found these leaks were continuing to drop on his lap without any encouragement whatsoever from him? Is it really conceivable that every time Gordon Brown received a new leak it was from a different source every time, completely out of the blue? Come off it! As for the more pernicious form of inducements, such as offering payment, the lawyer of civil servant leaker Christopher Galley, made clear that no inducement of this kind was made to his client from Damian Green or any other Conservative.

The second, and final question, that needs to be addressed is the independence of the civil service. It has been suggested that using a single source for multiple leaks somehow undermines the independence of the civil service which is supposed to be impartial and impervious to political interference. I appreciate the seriousness of this charge. Ministers also must feel that they can trust their civil servants. However, i would argue that one civil servant leaking to the opposition is not enough to compromise the entire civil service's independence and impartiality. The civil service has not become Tory as a result of some kind of covert insurgency. Whistle blowers are found in all organisations and institutions, whether governmental or NGOs. Moreover, specifically on the issue of trust, i understand its importance. However, i would suggest one's answer will depend on which side one stands on the dividing line between trust overriding public interest considerations or public interest considerations overriding trust (and with it, possibly operational effectiveness). And this is unlikely to be a simple black and white answer. The problem is, we have a very secretive form of government despite the Freedom of Information Act - which was dramatically scaled back from Labour's promises when they were in opposition unsurpringly. Oppositions are always in favour of more openess. They soon change their tune when in government. Ministers are not open about mistakes and failures because they know that the opposition and media will vilify them. Consequently, they very rarely own up to anything. In this environment, i would suggest, the only way for the people to know what their representatives are doing in their name, let us not forget Ministers work for us, is for whistle blowers occasionally deciding unilaterally (yes, John Reid, "using their own judgement") that the information they have before them ought to be in the public domain and not hidden, even if this does undermine the trust ministers have in their civil servants. Call it a necessary evil, if you will.