Liam Fox resignation

As soon as it became clear that xxx Werrity was being funded by business to be an advisor to Liam Fox (if that is what he was?!), it was clear that Liam Fox would have to resign.  I have no issue with that.

However, it still disgusts me that the press rounded on Liam Fox and left Chris Huhne alone.

I also think this is yet another reminder that the way senior politicians use political advisors needs a rethink.  We need a move back to making better use of the voices of wisdom that exist within elected politics - i.e. using MPs with appropriate experience or time in office.

Political advisors distort politics and create a separation from the Government and the backbench MPs that are supposed to support them, less of them and better use of backbenchers would be a good thing.

Dr Liam Fox vs. Chris Huhne

I am not an apologist for Dr Liam Fox - I am not sure his behaviour is that you would expect of a Defence Secretary when you consider the security implications.

However, at the same time as he was exposed for having someone as an unpaid employee with access to the MoD, Chris Huhne MP has also, apparently, admitted trying to slur Theresa May privately to journalists The Guardian - surprise, surprise).  But, furthermore, it seems he may have lied about it.

In my view it is the sort of conduct that Chris Huhne has admitted guilt to that is destroying trust in politics - it feeds journalists in the Westminster bubble with bile and gossip that makes twant more, it contributes to our political system becoming distant and remote from the people it serves.  In my opinion, Chris Huhne has proven himself far less worthy of holding political office than Dr Liam Fox.  However, I cannot see there being a campaign against Chris Huhne - the press love the vile politicians that like to sneak and brief their way to the top - they are the ones that create their headlines, irrespective of morality.

The Justice Secretary should bow out

I have been concerned about Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke ever since the election.  His unwise comments of last week are not the only issue, they are an indicator of a much bigger problem - which is that his whole stance on criminal justice seems to challenge a fundamental belief of most Conservatives.

Some crimes justify nothing else other than long sentences.  Repeated crime justifies nothing other than long jail sentences.  That is my view and, I suspect, that of most of my Conservative colleagues.  Punishment should be hard, but so should rehabilitation.  A Justice Secretary that fundamentally undermines this core principle, doesn't just do us damage as a Government, he undermines the values of the party.  If the Conservative Party loses its reputation as THE party of law and order, it will take a long sustained effort to wrestle it back.

I have massive respect for what Ken Clarke achieved as Chancellor, but I am increasingly of the view that in the interests of the Conservative Party he needs to stand down.

Publication of Spending Over £500

I was fascinated by the decision by Eric Pickles to be ahead of the game and publish all of his department's spending over £500.  At the moment it is a win-win situation for him.   He gets to highlight some of the utter waste that there was under New Labour and provides an incentive for Councils to get on and publish.

Some of you may know that I was a Civil Servant for 14 years, working for the MoD.   During that time I went on a few "jollies" that went under the banner of team building.  Probably the one I questioned most was 3 days at Centre Parcs Longleat - where, to be fair, as well as team working exercises we carried out an examination of where our section (which was split into 3 locations across Britain) was going wrong in terms of communications and strategy and some useful stuff came out of it.   Whilst value was gained from it - there can be no doubt that it didn't need to be at Longleat for that to be achieved.  The point is, I think, let's not dismiss all of this sort of spending - the best thing is to look in detail and understand the benefits as well as the negative points (although massages cannot be justified!!!)

I also know that during my time as a Civil Servant there was a great deal of spending that just was not necessary; Budget holders were not allowed to carry over funding from one year to the next, so at the end of the financial year there was a tendency for money to be spent on unnecessary stuff rather than risk losing part of next year's budget through underspending.  Hopefully more transparency will provide a disincentive to that sort of waste.

In the medium term, as Eric Pickles becomes responsible for what his department spends, this sort of publishing could cause problems but I am sure he is on top of that.

I have chased where Cambs County Council are with this and I am advised that we will start publishing spending data in October at the latest.

The Budget

I was going to write a long post about yesterday's budget and what it means for Cambridgeshire - but it was a bit too long - so I have split it into two.   The other post is here.

Overall, given everything we have seen and heard since the General Election, the budget was better than many could have thought.  It is interesting that the BBC are highlighting that families earning £40k a year or less are better off and families earning £50k are not - that is a bit of narrowing the gap that Harriet Harman of course will conveniently forget (especially given that the gap between rich and poor widened under New Labour).  However, it is quite clear that when the VAT increase comes into effect in January this will not be the case.  It is the one measure I would prefer not to have seen in the budget, but those like me that recognise the dire financial situation that was inherited from the Labour Government know that it was unavoidable.


But I am pleased that alcohol and fuel taxes were not increased.


Harriet Harman called the budget one "that will throw people out of work, hold back economic growth and damage the public services we all rely on."


It is a really strange quote - she made the point that the Office of Budget Responsibility predictions for unemployment as the basis for part of this, but as the Spectator points out - there is much about her claims in that respect that are open to question.  As for holding back economic growth - can someone please tell me how lowering corporation taxes will have a negative impact on growth?  Those tax cuts are important, that is money that will allow businesses to invest and grow.  It is important that sort of incentive is used; we are going to see a shrink in the public sector - and quite rightly so, but as that starts to effect jobs, it is important that we have an economy that is creating jobs to mitigate the problem; moving new employment opportunities away from the wealth eating public sector and transferring them across to the wealth creating private sector.


I have to say that during the election campaign Labour proved it was in denial about the mess it has created.  You would have thought losing would have woke them up a bit, but they seem to have taken a step further away from reality instead of making the much needed leap towards it.  The Labour Party are encouraging supporters to use a form email to write in to local papers encouraging them to oppose the budget (link deliberately not provided).  Every time you read those letters - just recognise they are written by people who choose, for whatever reason, to ignore these facts:


1.   The current Government inherited the worst peace time debt ever from Gordon Brown's failed administration


2.   The level of taxation of New Labour was about 40% of GDP, the level of spending was at 50% - they were borrowing 25% more than they were spending.


Now some of this can be blamed on the banking bail-out - but not all of it by a long, long way.  Without making changes and making them quickly we were heading to disaster.  I hope our normally conscientious local newspapers decide not to publish any letters where the words are written by the Labour Party.  I am all for people making their own views known about the budget - but these letters will not contain individual views but the centralised opinions of a party that were just voted out of Government.