PMQs - Harman out of her depth

William Hague, standing in for David Cameron, gave an accomplished performance as ever though it was one which was more restrained than normal. The Conservative front bench, which has showed signs of removing its bipartisan shackles the last day or two, obviously still feels the time is not right to go for the government's jugular on the economy. However, there was much more critique of the government than last week's woeful efforts - thank god!

Hague challenged Harman on the rising unemployment figures and called on the government to reform the insolvency laws.

In reply, Harman said the government had made changes to the insolvency laws in the 2003 Enterprise Act. She said unemployment was lower than in 1997 and announced a £100 million package to help people back into work.

Hague retorted that she should not be so complacent about unemployment by referring to 1997 as unemployment is forecast to reach 3 million (if it does it will stop Labour harking back to the 1980s!!!), and he clinically took apart the £100 million programme which is not all it seems having been a combination of a re-announcement and money taken from an existing budget (what are the chances with this government?)

Harman said she wasn't being complacent and said Hague should not write-off the economy (Is this going to be Labour's line of defence - any criticism of the government's handling of the economy will be turned around as unpatriotic; running-down the economy built off the back of hard working Britons? What a load of crap!)

Hague then came up with another practical suggestion about stopping pensioners being forced to buy an annuity now that would provide a poor pension given the depressed stock market. He called on the government to act on the Tory proposal without delay.

Harman said she was concerned about pensioners but Hague said it was all very well being concerned, what was needed was swift action.

Harman then said the last thing the Treasury needed was advice from her or from Hague. (Bipartisanship was beginning to look decidedly tenuous).

Hague then asked what the government meant when it said institutions bailed out will lend on 2007 levels - the height of boom and bust?

Harman replied that banks should indeed lend and not sit on capital. She said the government did not regret its investment in public services and claimed that the government had reduced public debt from 43% of GDP in 1997 to 37% thus allowing themselves now the space to increase government debt to back the economy if necessary. (A whopper of lie from Harman here. It was a 'Brownie' of which the PM would have been proud. Government debt currently stands at 43.4%, not 37%, so there is no 'room' to increase borrowing and keep the economy stable as she claims if one is still supposed to be sticking to the government's own 40% threshold. The government simply borrowed too much money during the good years).

In his best intervention, and most partisan, Hague said the government was "no longer in a position to boast about the economic record" of the last 11 years. He said Gordon Brown's claim to have abolished boom and bust was “one of the most foolish, hubristic and irresponsible claims ever made by a UK prime minister.”

Harman said it was a serious moment for the economy which was met with derisory laughter in the Commons (well, duh!) and she again repeated her line that Hague should not write off the British economy or compare it unfavourably with other countries. (Come off it! Brown has compared the UK's economy to other countries during the good years to make himself look good for a decade. Now the economy looks like going down the toilet, the government can't claim that international comparisons are suddenly not allowed). She concluded by saying the PM will take action to protect the UK economy and help stabilise the global situation and weakly described Brown as a "man with a plan" - using Cameron's line from the Tory conference.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vince Cable got to his feet a short time after asking how prepared was the government for the major rise in unemployment at a time when it had cut staff at benefit and unemployment offices? He also asked whether Harman could make sure those looking for loans were treated as favourably as the bankers were this week.

Harman said he was absolutely right. She said action had been taken to ensure credit is flowing back into small businesses and the housing market. She said the latest jobs figures were very concerning but claimed there were 600,000 vacancies in economy. (That will put people's minds to rest).

Cable then said he had got the sense that the minister didn't realise it's an emergency. He asked why hadn't the government and Tories changed their vow of silence on interest rates. He said cuts were necessary to prevent a deep slump.

Harman said she didn't accept his comments on the government being unprepared. And in her best moment of the entire PMQs she said she didn't know what Cable was talking about in relation to interest rates as there had been a cut last week.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other points worth making about PMQs was that Tory backbenchers seem determined not to let the government off the hook about the economy and don't seem committed to bipartisanship. A couple of Tory MPs brought up Equitable life and Philip Davies accused Brown's tripartite regulatory regime of failure. Harman struggled with these questions but said it was wrong to say Brown was responsible for the banking crisis when its origins were global.

The Tory front bench really needs to start hitting Brown hard on his profligate spending/borrowing, hubristic claims to have ended 'boom and bust' and the fact that his own regulatory system was not fit for purpose.

Returning to Harman though, i'd guess that if one was a Labour supporter, watching her would prove a nervous experience. Watching her deputise for the Prime Minister is like watching a car crash in slow motion.

Today, the politically correct Leader of the House looked badly out of depth, awkward, and uncomfortable - particularly having to deal with the numerous economic questions that came at her.

PMQs RATINGS:

Harman 5; Hague 7; Cable 6

PMQs: Will Harman repeat her jokes for a third time?

With the PM in Brussels today continuing his mission to save the world, the deputies will take over PMQs at 12pm.

We'll be returning to the Harriet Harman show for the third time.

I'm just praying that Harman won't use the same tired jokes against Hague she's used during her past two efforts. The first time she deployed them, including an attack saying she should be facing Theresa May, they were quite effective. However, the second time Harman faced Hague she produced an almost carbon copy performance - but by then we'd heard it all before.

So what are the chances Harman goes for a third undistinguishable sequal?

UPDATE: Thankfully she spared us (though her performance was still poor!)

Thatcher is not to blame

As a post script to my earlier post, it is worth rebutting all those in the media who are indulging in the worst kind of revisionism by blaming Margaret Thatcher for the country's current woes.

Mary Dejevsky has an excellent column in today’s Independent in which she argues correctly that Mrs Thatcher was always a strong supporter of ‘sound money’. Those saying the financial crisis has ended Thatcherism never understood what she stood for. She never supported the Wall Street ‘Greed is good’ mentality nor did she believe in the law of the jungle. The Conservatives have always supported effective regulation but have rightly decried excessive, burdensome regulation much favoured by the Left. Moreover, Mrs Thatcher, 83 yesterday incidentally, was not in love with the rich like New Labour has been – fawning over them and holidaying on the superyachts of foreign billionaires!

Finally, a question to all those on the Left in the media who continue to see Mrs Thatcher as the root of all evil – who the hell has been in power these last 11 years? I know Mrs Thatcher had a huge political impact during her 11 years in office but her time as PM ended in 1990 – 18 years ago!!!

If the finger of blame is to be pointed, let us point it at those who have held office during the ‘Age of Irresponsibility’ - Hang your heads in shame Brown and Blair!!

Even if the media is having trouble attributing blame, the British public certainly won’t do come May 2010!!!

Is Brown back in the game?

Temporarily it would seem, but ultimately he is still doomed to electoral defeat and here’s why:

Brown’s/Labour’s poll bounce, as Peter Riddell has pointed out in today’s Times, has largely come at the expense of the Lib Dems rather than the Tories whose poll ratings are largely holding steady.

The Glenrothes by-election could derail any Brown/Labour recovery if the seat is lost to the SNP. Expectations of a Labour victory, which were very low before the party conference season, will now be much higher, which means so are the political stakes for Brown.

Change is still triumphing over experience. For all the talk about Brown having successfully changed the political narrative with his “no time for a novice” conference speech, the public still want change and this is possibly the biggest obstacle facing Brown in his attempt to win Labour a fourth term. The latest Populus monthly poll for the Times (7 October) showed that despite the economic problems, 65 percent still agree it is “time for a change.”

Brown is benefiting from actually being able to take action whereas his opponents can only talk and offer bipartisan support in a crisis. Being able to act has made Brown look authoritative and strong – attributes that were once associated with him. But his return to form, if it can be called that, is largely because the financial crisis has allowed him back into his comfort zone - but this will not last forever. Brown cannot go on indefinitely playing Chancellor. This is his favourite role and the one he is most comfortable in. Eventually, when the financial crisis subsides, he will have to go back to playing Prime Minister and we all know after 18 months in the job he isn’t cut out for it. He is a prime example of a No. 2 not being cut out for being a No. 1.

The wall-to-wall, day-to-day financial crisis will not last forever and will instead be replaced by coverage of families experiencing the pain of recession. This will hurt Brown. For all he might be getting credit in the short term for his present handling of the credit crisis, he won’t get any credit but just blame when people’s experience of the ‘real economy’ involves falling living standards, rising unemployment and house repossessions. This is going to be the Conservative’s line of attack – Brown, well done on the banks but you haven’t done anything to rescue the ‘real economy’. Their strategy has been outlined by Tim Montgomery over at ConservativeHome.

Brown struggles to empathise with people. Unlike Blair and Cameron, he does not have high EQ (emotional intelligence) and struggles to find and use the required language. He is much more comfortable dealing with facts and statistics. When the ‘real economy’ takes a turn for the worse and people begin to feel real financial pain and hardship, Brown will not be able to comfort people with his technical jargon and barrage of ‘tractor statistics’. Cameron will have a clear advantage over Brown – in terms of empathy and not being culpable for the downturn.

Brown’s notorious propensity towards boasting and hubris will also come back to haunt him. For the past decade he has been telling us that he had ended boom and bust ("Under this Government, Britain will not return to the boom and bust of the past." Pre-Budget Report, 9th November 1999; "Britain does not want a return to boom and bust." Budget Statement, 21 March 2000; "So our approach is to reject the old vicious circle of the...the old boom and bust." Pre-Budget Report, 8 November 2000; "Mr Deputy Speaker we will not return to boom and bust." Budget Statement, 7 March 2001; "As I have said before Mr Deputy Speaker: No return to boom and bust." Budget Statement, 22 March 2006; and "And we will never return to the old boom and bust." Budget Statement, 21 March 2007). Well now the boom is over and has been replaced with bust. And even now Brown can’t help himself boasting that the rest of the world needs to follow his lead. Brown has framed himself as the ‘Pied Piper of Fife’ of the financial crisis. However, his triumphalism will come back to haunt him when the real economy takes a turn for the worse. The Tories are said to be cataloguing examples already.

On the subject of Brown’s quotes, one comment he made in his press conference on Monday (13 October) may come back to haunt him. The Daily Mail’s Benedict Brogan drew attention to this remark from Brown: "In future regulatory systems there will be both greater attention to issues of solvency and liquidity and probably a pro-cyclical attitude where in a period of growth you have got to lay aside more for the possibility that there will be contractions." Is this not an admission that the roof should have been fixed while the sun is shining? I’m sure George Osborne has been making this point…

Other comments Brown has made recently are also worth noting. He has called this the “Age of Irresponsibility.” Of course Brown was only referring to banking practices but it also lends itself to a description of Brown’s 11 years in office as the Tories pointed out during their conference. As does another Brown attack. He has condemned banks for hiding bad assets “off balance sheet” from regulators. However, Brown does just the same with the billions of pounds of Private Finance Initiative debt he has built up over the past decade. This debts/liabilities are not on the UK’s balance sheet!

When media coverage inevitably shifts from financial crisis to recession, the Tories and Lib Dems will be able to truly take the ‘bipartisan’ gloves off and attack Brown where he is particularly vulnerable; namely, that he was responsible for excessive, profligate public spending/debt; having presided over and encouraged an unsustainable housing boom despite saying in his 1997 Budget Statement that "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery;" having overseen the highest household debt in the G7 (178 percent of household income) and done nothing about it; and for having created the financial regulatory regime which has manifestly failed.

In short, Brown is still doomed!!!

Gordon plans to campaign in Glenrothes

Guido has a copy of a letter from Gordon Brown to his Labour MPs and Peers asking them to campaign in the Glenrothes constituency.

The Glenrothes by-election is hugely important and a Labour defeat despite a 10,000+ majority would bring Gordon's 'bounce' crashing back to earth.

Interestingly, the letter reveals that he plans to campaign in the constituency in what would be a break in precedence - PM's don't campaign personally in by-elections. It shows that Brown is obviously feeling much more confident after his 'Gordon saves the world' routine he has performed during the current financial crisis.

However, Brown has given himself and his proposed visit a get-out-clause in his letter saying it is "subject to the global financial situation." In other words, 'McCavity Brown' might still do a disappearing act if his bounce subsides and he no longer feels a visit to the constituency is in his political interest!!!

Cruddas wanted Cabinet position

An extremely reliable source has informed me that Jon Cruddas rejected a return to government because Gordon Brown only offered him a junior ministerial position, that of Housing Minister.

There had been much speculation that Cruddas would join the government, especially due to his support on the Left of the Labour Party and that he came third in Labour's deputy leadership contest last year.

My source, a senior Labour figure, says Cruddas wanted a position within the Cabinet but Brown refused on the grounds that it was a step up too far. Therefore Cruddas refused the lesser position offered and spun the line that he was far too busy fighting the BNP to return to government.

My source said he felt Brown made a mistake in not bringing Cruddas back - and had told the PM so - but tipped Cruddas as a future Labour leader in the event that Labour suffers a landslide defeat at the next general election as the Labour Party would no doubt shift to the Left and would need to rebuild from scratch.

Should Lehman Brothers still be recruiting?

Er... didn't this global investment bank go bust the other week?

Not according to the jobs section of the Guardian!

Competitiveness Rankings: UK drops out of top 10

The World Economic Forum has published its annual report on global competitiveness.

The USA retains its top spot but the UK has dropped out of the top 10 and is now ranked 12th most competitive country in the world - a fall of three places from last year.

The report says: "The United Kingdom, while remaining very competitive, has dropped by three places and out of the top 10, mainly attributable to a weakening of its financial markets."

Look on the bright side, at least we're still ahead of France who are ranked 16th...

Savings safer in Botswana!

According to the World Economic Forum your savings would be safer in places like Botswana, Namibia, Chile, Brazil, Senegal, Peru or El Salvador than in UK banks.

You couldn't make this shit up...

P.S. Safest country is apparently Canada

Tory MP gravely ill

I've heard that a Conservative MP is gravely ill.

Sad news.

Not sure who the MP is but it could mean another by-election this Parliament.

42 days is dead

I've just heard that a government whip has let it be known that 42 days is dead. The spin being that the government is only focused on the financial crisis and will not let anything else distract the government from its central mission.

This fits with Nick Robinson's post the other day. The BBC political editor said that the PM has been told that he faces a heavy defeat in the Lords (possibly on Monday) and that it would be political suicide to invoke the Parliament Act. Robinson also wrote: "A clear sign that the game's up came in the reshuffle when two of the ministers most closely involved were moved -Tony McNulty's left the home office to go to DWP and Baroness Ashton is leaving the Lords front bench to replace Peter Mandelson in Brussels. "

It is interesting to see how the government is going to spin its humiliating retreat - PM still believes in 42 days detention without charge but the focus is on the economy.

I'm sorry, this is absolute bullsh*t! Brown has argued that 42 days is vital in our fight against terrorism. I disagree with him but let's take him at his word for the moment. If it's so vital, why is he prepared to let it drop? As for the focus on the economy, can our government not multi-task? What is more important than the security of the British people?

The truth is that Brown knows he can't get the legislation through the Lords and does not have the political authority to use the Parliament Act. The "focusing on the economy" line is a load of crap.

I'm looking forward to the Lords giving Brown and the Labour government a bloody nose on this issue... they deserve it!!!

Will the cut in interest rates help?

The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) took the decision today, in concert with other central banks around the world, to cut interest rates by 0.5 percent.

But will it help? I'm not convinced...

1) It is only 0.5 percent. Sure, it's the biggest single cut by the MPC since 9/11 but people have been calling for cuts in the region of 1-2 percent

2) The famous economist John Maynard Keynes once said that cutting interest rates during a financial crisis is like trying to push against a piece of string. The old boy wouldn't think it will work.

3) Japan - 10 years of stagnation - the 'Lost Decade' - wasn't helped by 0 percent interest rates.

Nevertheless, I feel the cut should be welcomed.

For those struggling to make ends meet, cuts in their mortgage repayments (assuming the interest rate cuts fee through to us average Joes) will be very welcome.

In terms of savings, normally banks would reduce the savings interest rates they offer but this time it might be different as they need our money like never before so rates may still stay 'high'.

Finally, even if it does not help the economy begin to recover it is unlikely to hurt, so long as - and this is the big 'if' - inflation, already far too high, does not get out of control as a result of this move. The gamble being taken is that with the slowdown affecting the consumption of oil and commodities, inflation will begin to fall and in any case helping stimulate the economy by getting cheaper lending rates is being seen as the more important objective.

PMQs - Bipartisan boredom

A expected, PMQs was a dull, bipartisan affair.

Both Cameron and Clegg slavishly supported Brown meaning he received no serious questioning about the government's financial rescue package. The key question that should have been asked, but wasn't, was how is the government funding its multi-billion pound bail-out. The answer is probably yet more government borrowing but the two opposition parties did not hold the government to account on this vital issue just because they wanted to keep up the pretence of bipartisan support.

Cameron was particularly poor today. He seemed to be asking questions that had been fed to him beforehand by the Prime Minister. After almost every question from Dave, Brown would respond by saying he was grateful for the question.

Message to Dave: Gordon Brown should not be grateful for your questions!

Cameron also tried to sound all left-wing and populist by attacking the bonus culture in the City. This got him many jeers from the Labour benches and a put-down from the PM who reminded the House of Cameron's claim to Andrew Marr that he wouldn't use "cheap jibes" which would undermine cooperation and the markets. Brown ruined the bipartisan unity a bit right at the end but he didn't care because Cameron had no more questions to respond and he was being cheered by his Labour MPs who were very happy with his robust performance (for a change!). Labour seems to be quite enjoying this financial crisis - it has put their man back in the game.

Clegg did a better job. He offered his full support to Brown but began with a nice Titanic joke. He said that when the ship was sinking you do not argue about who has steered it into an iceberg. This was better than Cameron because the clear implication was that Captain Brown has got us into this mess but still allowed Clegg to look bipartisan.

However, there is a flaw in the 'united' approach taken by the Tories and Lib Dems. They seem to think that by not opposing Brown's plan in any way, they 1) Look good - the public likes politicians working together for the good of the country; and 2) If the plan goes belly up in the months to come everybody will attack Brown - after all, it is his plan.

But i've got news for Cameron and Clegg - you'll be blamed too because you have tied your colours to Brown's mast. Your support now means you have foregone your right to criticise in the future without looking ridiculous.

RATINGS:

Brown - 7; Clegg - 7; Cameron - 5

PMQs - Brown condemns excessive risk taking

Er... does excessive risk taking include spending money a country does not have; living beyond a country's means; and borrowing so much money that the country's public deficit now stands at over £600 billion and rising?

Gordon Brown has been guilty of profligate borrowing and spending during the boom years, saving no money for a rainy day because he hubristically thought he had conquered 'boom and bust'.

Brown seems to be benefiting from the financial crisis at the moment but if there is any justice in the world he will rightly be In the Brown before the next general election...

PMQs - Difficult one for Cameron

Not long now until PMQs - the first one since the long Summer Recess.

It's a difficult one for Cameron what with the tonal shift he had to perform at his conference and since due to the worsening financial crisis.

Ordinarily i'm sure he would have liked to hit the PM hard, ridiculing the lack of unity in the Labour Party and the perililous state of the public finances (made worse as the government seems intent on nationalising everything - Michael Foot i'm sure is very proud).

However, Cameron is likely to continue in the spirit of bipartisanship while just asking questions about the implementation of today's rescue package.

I've got to admit i'm not too comfortable with all this 'bipartisanship'. It allows Brown off the hook and enables him to act all authoritative and statesmanlike as if none of this crisis is his fault whatsoever, in the process strengthening Brown's position within his party and in the country at large. I know it's important to judge the mood correctly but Cameron needs to stop the media narrative changing in Brown's favour.

The sooner this false bipartisanship ends, the better!!!

Mandy's return is political

Gordon Brown claims he has recalled Peter Mandelson from his position as the EU Trade Commissioner to take up the position of Business Secretary because in these difficult economic times the UK needs experienced people in government and Mandelson has experience in abundance as he was also a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The government spin is that Mandelson is back simply because of economics.

However, his appointment should be seen in political terms. Brown has brought his enemy back because it has allowed him to do several things:

• First, Brown is correctly seen as a factional politician who holds grudges against his enemies. This appointment allows Brown to play against type as an inclusive leader who puts the country first.
• Second, it is a defensive and slightly desperate move as Brown is trying to shore up his position in the Labour Party. Brown realises that one fairly decent conference speech is not enough to keep at bay the Blairites within his party and government who have been undermining his authority by briefing the media. By bringing back the arch-Blairite it sends out a message to the plotters that he is willing to compromise. It is undoubtedly defensive because a strong Brown would have preferred to banish Mandelson to the Falkland Islands rather than make him a peer and a powerful Cabinet minister.
• Third, it helps a disunited Labour Party look united. He can say he has a Cabinet of Blairites and Brownites which will work together in harmony. The people that founded New Labour - Brown, Blair (who is in regular contact with him), Mandelson and Alastair Campbell - are also said to have put aside their differences to work together again to help Labour cling on to power.
• Fourth, it provides Brown with cover. Bringing the Blairite Mandelson into government has allowed Brown to promote his cronies. Thus, those responsible for the "balti house plot" to oust Tony Blair in September 2006 which Brown claimed he knew nothing about have been promoted. Step forward Chris Bryant (Deputy Commons Leader), Sion Simon (Skills Minister), Kevan Jones (Defence Minister), Wayne David (Wales Office), Tom Watson (Cabinet Minister) and Huw Irranca-Davies (Defra). With the exception of Kevan Jones, the only meagre talent the others have is loyalty to Brown. One of the biggest rewards though goes to Nick Brown who has been promoted to Chief Whip. Brown would not have been able to get away with this had he not have had the cover of his Mandelson appointment because Nick Brown was seen as pivotal in helping force Blair out and is fiercely loyal to Brown.
• Fifth, and finally, Brown is attempting to drive home his current political message against David Cameron – that “this is no time for a novice.” Mandelson (and Margaret Beckett) are old hands and old faces which add some gravitas to what was quite a young Cabinet.

Mandelson's return is a shrewd political move but it is also defensive, desperate and not without its risks. Mandelson is an incredibly divisive and polarising figure in the Labour Party. Mandelson has a reputation for playing fast and loose with truth and honesty. The fact that he has had to resign twice from Cabinet positions means he has shown questionable judgement at times. Mandelson has an incredibly high media profile which means his every word will be scrutinised – Mandelson has a long track record of briefing against Brown – and any lapses of judgement will be seized upon. Brown is taking a huge gamble by bringing him back. Mandelson will be the only person in a Cabinet of pygmies who can stand up to Brown. Given the history of bad blood between the two, Brown will find it very difficult to deal with a dissenting Mandelson. But Brown has given himself the problem of appointing an almost unsackable Cabinet minister. If their relationship broke down again Brown would be in big trouble. As Fraser Nelson has noted: "... Peter Mandelson, a world-class plotter and intriguer. He put the skills to great effect in Europe, and it's an incredibly bold move by Gordon Brown to appoint him into his Cabinet because if things get pretty tough for Brown six months down the road, say if he loses this Glenrothes by-election, people will immediately look to Peter Mandelson to be the man who organises any kind of plot or coup."

Bringing Mandelson back is a very risky, some would say reckless, move from a Prime Minister known for his innate cautiousness.

Is Vince Cable losing his touch?

Mostly since Vince Cable, Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, successfully stood in as a temporary leader last year, the old twinkle toes ballroom dancer has been fawned over by the media - so much so that you see him on TV more than his supposed leader Nick Clegg! He also made much of the fact that he had called for Northern Rock to be nationalised 5-6 months before our dithering Labour government decided to just that (whether nationalisation was a good decision is another thing entirely!).

However, it looks like recently he is losing his touch.

Guido has recently been highlighting the slippage of Cable's 'crown' arguing he is overly populist, has been guilty of flip-flopping over bipartisan support, and was overrated in the first place.

And Iain Dale has posted today about how recently Cable had been arguing that the independence of the Bank of England should be respected only for him to change his position on Sunday with a call for interest rates to be cut by 2 whole percent!

This is a serious point. Politicians cannot champion Bank of England independence one minute then try and exert political pressure on the Bank the next when the going gets tough. Cable is once again being populist because he knows his remarks will, and have, generated media coverage. To be fair to Cable he does not want monetary policy back under direct political control. Instead he has argued for the Bank's remit to be broadened from just focusing on keeping a check on inflation to the wider well-being of the economy including its growth.

But the Bank's primary focus should be on inflation. We have all got used to low inflation as a result of cheap goods from China but that does not mean inflation is just an evil relegated to history. Politicians like Cable seem to have rather short memories. And he's an old guy so he should remember the devastation caused by inflation in the 1970s!!!

Moreover, as we have seen with Japan which saw stagnation for 10 years in the 1990s - the 'Lost Decade' - even interest rates set at 0% cannot always rescue an economy.

In short, the Bank should continue to focus on bringing inflation under control (it is well above its 2% target) and politicians like Cable should know better and avoid playing opportunistic, populist games!

Recount and the hanging chads

I watched Recount with Kevin Spacey last night (I had taped it off More 4 the other night).

It was a pretty good HBO film/dramatisation about the 2000 Presidential Election which all hinged on the 25 Electoral College votes from the state of Florida. It was filmed mostly from the Democrats perspective and of course delt with their attempts to force a manual recount. You remember, all that stuff about hanging and dimple chads.

It made some good points about how the state had disenfranchised voters which is of course outrageous but on the issue of the 'chads' my views still haven't changed from 8 years ago. As the Republicans argued, the voting procedure clearly stated that a hole must be punched right through. The Democrats had argued that intent was more important than following the rules.

But i'm sorry, if you are such a moron that you can't follow the rules so get confused by the ballot paper, and can't punch a simple hole in a piece of card, you don't deserve your vote!!!

Will Europe like Brown recalling Mandelson?

Interesting one this. Mandelson was very pro-trade and pro-free market. Accordingly he polarised opinion within the EU. The protective instinct of the French and their President Sarkozy meant Mandelson was their Public Enemy No. 1. They won't miss him - other than losing a figurehead to vent their anger at.

However, when countries put forward Commissioners for the EU Commission, they are supposed to do so in the interest of the EU, not their own nation state. Thus, once appointed the EU Commissioner operates in the EU, rather than national, interest.

The reason I raise this is that Michael Crick has just done so in the PM's press conference that has just taken place. The PM had argued that Mandelson had been brought back into government because of his huge experience in business and interenational trade etc, vital at such a difficult economic time. Crick then said to the PM that he would have a lot of explaining to do to his EU partners about why he had recalled Mandelson if his experience was as important as the PM was saying - surely it would be better for the EU as a whole if Mandelson's talents were utilised as a Commissioner, not selfishly by the UK government? [Not Crick's words, but that was the gist].

To which Brown replied saying it was right for British interest...

Not a very good European, Mr Brown (though me knew this already). This will further disappoint the Europhiles...

Brown: Watch your back!

Fraser Nelson has made a good point about Mandelson's return to government, saying it's a brave move by Brown:

"... Peter Mandleson, a world-class plotter and intriguer. He put the skills to great effect in Europe, and it's an incredibly bold move by Gordon Brown to appoint him into his Cabinet because if things get pretty tough for Brown six months down the road, say if he loses this Glenrothes by-election, people will immediately look to Peter Mandelson to be the man who organises any kind of plot or coup."

Watch your back Brown...