The xenophobia of Gordon Brown

With the wildcat strikes and walkouts by workers at oil and energy plants (which, no doubt, Cameron will soon be comparing to the 1970s) attracting some comment, it is to be hoped that people remember where it came from. It was a speech in 2007 by Gordon Brown with 28 uses of the word 'British' and 51 uses of the word 'Britain' (some of which were part of the phrase 'Great Britain', to be fair), Gordon Brown said:

this is our vision: [...] drawing on the talents of all to create British jobs for British workers.

and

And I want the new green technologies of the future to be the source of British jobs in British businesses.

Jim Murphy, apparently, doesn't agree, he's said

this free movement of labour across Europe is a great thing for Scots and for people throughout Britain

It's absolutely a consequence of Brown's speech:

Speaking on Friday from Wilton, on Teesside, one protester urged the prime minister to take action, saying: "All we want is for Gordon Brown to fulfil his promise. He said British jobs for British workers."

Some of the protesters have been saying that the protest is 'not racist' but is about foreign labour undercutting domestic workers in wage costs. I disagree - it is racist, otherwise the protest would be about the wages being paid rather than about who they were being paid to. It's a xenophobic protest and it's directly attributable to Gordon Brown's encouragement of British isolationism, done as some kind of signal to the mythical 'Middle England' (come, Frodo, vote Labour) that he's not some crazy Jock with a Braveheart attitude - with a side order of 'dish-the-Nats-back-home' for good measure.

Is this truly worth a few political points Mr Brown?

Team GB Gone Bang

Alex Ferguson - fine chap. No, no, not the Presiding chappie, the fitba chappie, casting doubts on whether a Team GB for the 2012 Olympics could ever happen.

Surely they know?

Perusing the website of the Scotland Office, currently occupied by that esteemed chappie Jimmy Murphy (nah, nah not the fine wee winger that played for the dark blues, old cadaverous himself) , I chanced upon the Freedom of Information section. "Oho," thinks I, "let's just pop in and have a perambulation among these tulips."

And so it was that I came upon a release of engagements from the official diary of a previous incumbent which contains the wonderful line:

They are available in Hansard at www.parliament.gov.uk.

Which is all very nice except, erm, that's not the website address for the House of Commons (where you would find Hansard), that's an address that has been registered by an internet-type company. You'd find HoC at www.parliament.uk

Is it just me or would you expect a Civil Servant working to a Minister or Secretary of State to know that? Jings, Crivvens and Help Ma Boab (with capitals)!

Casting about

In today's budget debate, the casting vote of the Presiding Officer was the vote that took down the Budget Bill. He said that he was casting that vote to "follow convention and opt for the status quo".

He could, instead, have used his casting vote in the same way as he did when convenor of the Rural Development Committee on the 1st May, 2001, according to the debate in chamber on 19th September 2001.

Funnily enough, it was Mike Watson who introduced the Westminster idea of the casting vote resting with the status quo to our Parliament:

Mike Watson (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab): We have not prepared anything in advance, so we are all looking at each other. I speak in the light of my experience not only in the Parliament as the convener of the Finance Committee but as a previous member of committees in other forums and other places.
The general principle that a casting vote should not be used to effect change is broadly accepted, and I subscribe to it.

Brings a question to mind - why bother having a casting vote rather than simply amending standing orders? Surely we should trust Convenors and Presiding Officers to be able to make a judgement?

Ach well, onwards and onwards!

Oh what a day!

Budget day today, a budget to freeze council tax across the country, pilot home insulation schemes, put more police on our streets, cut business rates, support 5,000 jobs, bring forward £230 million capital spend (to help beat recession), continuation of the Climate Change Challenge Fund, and so on.

That should pass unanimously, eh?

Icing on the statue

Global warming? Are you sure? In Tetlin Junction, Alaska, temperatures hit record lows this year, leading some denizens of that metropolis to question global warming theories, but at least they did it with some panache.

I discovered this wee gem courtesy of Mr Eugenides who also pointed in the direction of an interesting blog.

Do you see what I see?

I do like a wee wander down memory lane from time to time. See what you think of these flowers I picked en route:

Mr. Gladstone combined the positions of Chancellor and Prime Minister, something no one should ever contemplate doing again.
Gordon Brown's last budget as Chancellor, 21st March 2007

Ahem, quite ...

With consumption forecast to rise in each of the next two years by 21/4 to 23/4 per cent., and investment and exports by more than 3 per cent., we expect that next year also, in 2008, alongside North America, our growth will again be the highest in the G7—between 21/2 and 3 per cent., with the same rate of growth also in 2009.
ibidem

Slightly off, I think.

in Britain, we expect debt from 2007-08 to 2012 to be 38 per cent., 38.5 per cent., 38.8 per cent., 38.8 per cent. and 38.6 per cent. in successive years
ibid

He was talking about debt as a percentage of GDP. I think that prediction has gone a little awry.

Britain’s net borrowing, which in the early 1990s went as high as 8 per cent. of our national income is this year just 2.7 per cent. In future years, it will be 2.4 per cent., falling to 2 per cent. and then falling to 1.8 per cent., 1.6 per cent. and just 1.4 per cent. Compared to a deficit equivalent to over £100 billion in a single year in the early ’90s, the figure for this and future years will be just £35 billion—£1 billion less than forecast at the pre-Budget report—then falling to £34 billion, £30 billion, £28 billion, £26 billion and £24 billion. That means borrowing therefore over the economic cycle not for current consumption, but for essential investment in the future of our country.
ibid

Events, dear boy, events...

You know better than me how we are and can continue to entrench our position as a world leader in business and financial services, but from the point of view of the government we insist that we will continue to implement our new risk-based light touch approach to regulation, we will make our planning system more flexible and responsive and of course we will work together on infrastructure to invest in our long term priorities. And I believe that that is an important part of London retaining its position as the pre-eminent financial centre in so many sectors.
Gordon Brown on 1st October 2007

That light-touch financial regulation worked well, didn't it?

I believe the British economy is far more resilient than it was facing the last two oil shocks and facing some of the problems we had when there was a world downturn in the early 90s.”
Gordon Brown on 3rd July 2008

Hmmm.

In the next two decades our world economy will double in size.
Gordon Brown on 26th September 2008

What was the starting point?

Labour has taken the right decisions to promote prosperity.
Labour’s economic policy

Perhaps not?

Darling has told cabinet ministers that there will be no additional money for schools, hospitals, defence, transport or policing. "There is no point them writing in saying 'can we have some more money?' because the reply is already on its way and it's a very short reply," he says in today's Times, adding that even he is feeling the pinch: "I haven't purchased a tie for ages."
Alasdair Darling showing he knows all about public procurement 19th July 2008

The economy shrank by 1.5% last year - but it's apparently Johnny Foreigner's fault.

If you look at what's happening in America then obviously where all the issues started - America

Gordon Brown saying "a big boy did it and ran away"

In May of last year Gordon Brown was trying to combine the jobs of Prime Minister and Chancellor - something he know shouldn't be done - perhaps that's why he's not managed either of them well? In November he was off saving the world again, by December he was promising that going bankrupt actually makes you stronger, and by today he was telling us to cheer up and get with the programme to just suffer "the difficult birth-pangs of a new global order".

Perhaps if he'd paid attention to the IMF in 2005 those birth-pangs might not have felt quite so much like strangulation?

Seeing the future

ComRes, pollster types, have a great poll up on their website - I particularly liked the historic data - from 17th October 2009. That's what I call polling!

Cash and peerages

When you've paid for your peerage, how do you make the money back? Easy call - sell what you've just bought. Cash for peerages followed by cash for peers.

It's all tied up with Parliamentary Consultancies. That's one of the reasons why paid advocacy is illegal for MSPs, and why the Code Of Conduct for MSPs goes even further:

5.1.6 The section of the Code on General Conduct (Section 7) sets out the standards expected in relation to acceptance of hospitality, gifts and benefits. In addition to this and the statutory provisions in the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, Members:
...
should not accept any paid work to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant, for example, advising on Parliamentary affairs or on how to influence the Parliament and its Members.

Quite right, MSPs should not get dragged into that mire, especially not someone who might be have some inside knowledge of peerages and whose Register of Interests reads

I am a director, as is my wife, of Carrick Court Associates Ltd, a consultancy business. Carrick Court Associates receives remuneration of between £45,001 -
£50,000 per annum for my work from Eversheds LLP and GovNet Communications (as Chairman of the Editorial Board). I work approx 3 days per month in relation to the consultancy. As a Director of Carrick Court Associates I estimate that I will receive between £15,001 and £20,000 per annum in expenses and dividend. [Registered 24 May 2007, Amended interest 4 July 2007, Amended interest 13 July
2007].

Or whose House of Lords register reads:

FOULKES OF CUMNOCK, Lord
*12(a) Parliamentary consultancy agreements
A political and parliamentary consultancy with Eversheds LLP. Payment of £3000 per calendar month (excluding VAT if applicable) for consultancy services for 36 days per annum (all fees are paid to Carrick Court Associates Ltd - see 12(g) Chairman of Editorial Board of Govnet (a client of my company Carrick Court Associates), £10,000 per annum

Hmmm...

That Summit

The Knife Crime Summit.

I was impressed by the contribution to the debate made by John Muir, he is a man whose obvious grief as the father of a victim of violent crime has led him to campaign for a change in the law. He recognises the collective failure of our society on this. It is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to provide long-term solutions (not just quick fixes) and the responsibility of opposition politicians to look to scrutinise the work of the Government in doing that - and to offer alternative solutions which may work as well or better than the solutions offered by the Government.

Partisan political opposition is important in every debate - including this one - in order to get the issues properly aired and debated. Partisan political point-scoring doesn't do that.

Some politicians could have done with listening to John Muir's comments on Radio Scotland's Morning Extra this morning when he said "political infighting will achieve nothing".