Running scared

Engaging her brain before opening her mouth is obviously not one of Hazel Blears’ virtues, if her reported remarks in the FT this morning about Boris Johnson are to be believed.

“He’s a nasty, rightwing elitist with odious views and criminal friends like Conrad Black [the former newspaper tycoon].”

Leave out ‘rightwing’ and substitute ‘leftwing’ and you have Ken Livingstone: except Ken’s criminal friends are closer to home.

Read Rod Liddle in this week’s Spectator for a slightly different take on the Ken and Boris contest.

Core Labour values

A very good post on Martin Bright’s New Statesman’s blog which looks beyond what he calls the Michael Martin affair, and suggests that

“the real question for younger Labour MPs is how they define themselves against the other parties without reverting to the old politics of class identity. Oddly, this may mean a return to certain core Labour values: an abhorrence of poverty, social injustice and inequality. Some Labour MPs are worried that young people joining the party are more interested in civil liberties and global warming than in the millions of people still living in poverty in Britain today. Yet it is for those who still believe that Labour has a duty to the poorest in society to offer a persuasive argument that the party can and should make a difference, rather than simply manage the status quo better than the Tories.

If Labour backbenchers are looking for a cause more worthy than the Speaker of the House of Commons, they could do worse than commit themselves to honouring pledges to end poverty in Britain. Blair and Brown proved they could do what was once unimaginable: run a successful economy and increase investment in public services while winning over swaths of middle-class voters. What the Conservative Party has yet to prove, despite the rhetoric, is that its frontbenchers, most of whom do not have a single member of their extended families who has known a day of economic hardship, really care about those who have.”

Personal accounts

I never cease to wonder at the uncritical belief this government seems to have in the digital age. Leaving aside the reports of lost or missing data, failed or failing projects and costs out of control, the success or failure of one of this government’s flagship projects, Personal Accounts, will it seems depend on whether the IT will stand the strain: on day one, 5 million people are likely to be enrolled. It may be a little over four years away, but that is a very short time period to ensure that everything will be in place and ready to go (the fiasco with patient records points up the risks). And the real problem is that no one knows at the moment what the detail will be, what will be needed and what the effect will be. This last is critical for another reason. The legislation is currently on its way through Parliament, and the necessary Act will be made before the end of the year. But it is only now that the Government has commissioned a report on how Personal Accounts will affect people. Will they be appropriate for all employees? And if not, how does this square with compulsion?

Parliamentary fear and greed

If I didn’t know better, I would guess that Nick Robinson quite deliberately chose the highly unattractive MP he interviewed last night on BBC News. On he (the MP) went, bleating about how unfair it was that he had to answer all those questions about where the money went, and that it was time to stop this nonsense now. Not his finest moment. I suppose we should not be surprised that MPs are so up in arms about it all. After all, when you have your snout deeply into the Westminster trough, you will probably do anything to keep it there. For more, you cannot beat Nick Robinson’s blog and the comments posted on it. I particularly liked the comment from Patrick Stevens, about politicians and journalist being the least respected of occupations (makes a change from it being lawyers).