Enough said: George Wilkinson’s blog

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.”

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?

According to the UK Pension Regulator, last year saw 3,000 occupational pension schemes beginning the closure process; and the registration of only 300 new occupational pension schemes, all defined contribution.

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). 

The ongoing correspondence in the FT on the two new aircraft carriers reflects the ongoing debate about Britain’s role in the world. If Richard Bassett (letters yesterday) is to be believed,

 ”A Royal Navy without these carriers, limited to its present few capital ships and a submarine nuclear deterrent entirely dependent on US satellite navigation, would resemble little more than a provincial coastguard.”

Contrast this to Sir John Graham today,

“It is no good beggaring the other military forces and indeed the navy itself, in order to provide a capability of debatable value. Unless we as taxpayers are prepared to spend more on defence, as I believe we must, there is surely a need for further debate about priorities, whatever our present government may have said in the past.”

Although my money remains on the carriers going ahead, to keep jobs in Labour constituencies, perhaps the argument will be won. The problem, however, is highlighted by Phillip Stephens in his article in the FT yesterday: “the government’s reluctance to acknowledge choices”.