Filming in London

I am now on my way back to Gateshead on the train. I came down to London a few days ago to film two episodes for the Horticultural Channel. I am one of the five presenters. I do the cookery section. I never in my wildest dreams thought I would end up as a tv chef! We filmed the two programmes in my kitchen in my London home on Tuesday. The original plan was to film in Gateshead but we decided this time it would be easier all round if I travelled south.

The first broadcast is at 9am on Sunday 6th March on Sky Channel 166.

Meanwhile, my viewing figures on YouTube have leapt forward again. Not surprisingly the videos I filmed in Libya a few years ago have had a surge in viewings. And another video, Nick Clegg's speech to the conference rally last year (he was speaking in favour of the alternative vote) temporarily went viral. I passed the one-and-a-half-million-total-viewings-on-YouTube milestone in January. I am rapidly closing in on my next target of 2 million.
---
Sent via BlackBerry

Yes to fairer votes - our video to constituents

This is the video I have been working on recently which will be emailed to constituents shortly asking gthem to vote "Yes" in the referendum on 5th May on changing the voting system.

Labour's last link to reality resigns

Well, well, well. I heard the news about the resignation of Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor whilst I was stuck in a traffic jam after today's Gateshead Council meeting. One kilometre down the road I got the best news of the day: Ed Balls is to be his replacement. If the Conservatives had John Redwood, the Vulcan, Labour's very own alien from outer space is Ed Balls. Alan Johnson served a useful purpose for Ed Miliband. He kept Balls out of the role of Shadow Chancellor. Now the blockage has been removed, Balls has bounced into the post.

Balls is an economist who is unable to speak the same language as ordinary people. Yet, despite his undoubted knowledge of economics, he offers an economic alternative that carries massive risk of long term collapse under the weight of ever increasing debt. The position he promoted during the Labour leadership election was one of no cuts at all. For a highly educated economist to have such an economically illiterate position is, to say the least, very interesting. Nevertheless, his views will chime with all the other economically illiterate members of the Labour party who believe there is a pain free way out of the economic mess in which we are in.

Balls is much more aggressive as a politician as well. Politics will now be a battle between those who know action needs to be taken to sort out the problems of the economy and those who think a spend, spend, spend approach will solve everything. My own feeling is that the British people hate the mess the country is in but they know that it can't be solved without pain.

And finally, don't forget who was City Minister in 2006 when the excesses of the banking sector were at their height. It was Ed Balls who defended "light touch" regulation of the City. He is heir to Brown, he had his hands all over the failed economic policy of the Blair Brown years. The leaflets write themselves.
---
Sent via BlackBerry

On the road to Damascus

If you want to know why my blog has been a bit quiet in recent weeks, this video is part of the explanation. I've been touring Syria and Lebanon, visiting Phoenician, Roman and Crusader sites, plus brief tours around Damascus and Beirut. The video covers most of the sites visited.

My first video to reach 200,000 viewings on YouTube

I have reached a video milestone. This is my first video to reach 200,000 viewings on YouTube. I filmed this in a former Soviet submarine base in the Crimea on the Black Sea. It was dug out into the base of a cliff. Until the early 1990s no westerner was allowed to visit this area. Now it popular was a destination for cruise ships.

The next YouTube milestone I expect to reach is one and a half million viewings of all my videos. Should be there in a few days.

Ending forced retirement

Ed Davey seems to be quite busy at the moment. He is the minister responsible for transferring Royal Mail to the private sector to ensure it has a strong future rather than the slow death it has been undergoing in the public sector. But today he has been leading on the proposals to end forced retirement at the age of 65.

With an aging population, this is the right move. Back in my policy unit days at the Lib Dems, scrapping forced retirement at 65 was one of the proposals I included in the business and employment paper I wrote. The policy working group looking into the issue concluded that the loss of productive and often skilled older workers from the workforce was damaging to the economy and increased the burden on the remaining workforce which was shrinking as a proportion of the population. An increase in the number of economically inactive older people left younger working people to pick up the bills.

In addition, many people have not made adequate provision for their retirement and therefore forced retirement for them at 65 is a financial disaster.

What we need instead of the sudden move from full time work to full time retirement is a transition period, allowing people to move gradually into retirement. That will need some changes to the pension system to allow people to work and receive part of their pension at the same time. This sort of flexibility is going to be more important as the population continues to age.

So Ed Davey has moved employment policy in the right direction today. There's plenty more to do but the plans today are a step forward.

PMQs: Cameron ahead on points

Parliament is back in session after the Christmas break and that means PMQs is back as well. So what did the weekly cockpit punch up bring us this time? As expected, bank bonuses were at the top of the agenda. Miliband Junior tried to lay some punches by taking up this issue. He had mixed results. He scored a hit when he was able to quote Cameron's remarks in opposition about the need to clamp down on bonuses. It wasn't a knockout blow but it could have been damaging if Cameron hadn't beaten him back with Miliband's own record, and that of Labour in office.

Most Labour members I speak to seem to believe that history began on the day the Coalition was created. That conveniently allows them to ignore their own record. It allows them to ignore the fact that Fred Goodwin was allowed to leave RBS when they nationalised the bank with a payoff so large it puts nearly every likely bonus in 2011 in the shade. It allows them to ignore the fact Labour knighted Fred The Shred for services to banking. It allows them to ignore the fact that the bonus culture became the norm in banking under Labour. And it allows Labour to ignore the fact they they too did little to stop bonuses.

Cameron however was able to throw all this back at Miliband. Cameron won on points. Nevertheless, it was a rather tetchy performance by both of them.

If it's not a VAT rise, what are the alternatives?

It's VAT Rise Day today. The Opposition, the self-appointed "Taxpayers' Alliance" and the Beer Retailers Association have all made noises opposing the rise. So what are the alternatives?

The first is to do nothing. This may be comfortable for some commentators and is often a line adopted by some in the Labour Party. It saves their having to put forward an alternative and proffers the scenario of there being no problem so there's no need for pain. The simple problem is that instead of being a "do nothing" option, it amounts to a "put off the evil day" option. And as we all know, the longer a problem is left to fester, the bigger it gets. If nothing is done to address the deficit now, cuts in the future will be much greater to pay for the additional interest on growing government debt. Those who promote the "do nothing" option should tell us what services they will cut or which taxes they will put up in future just to cover the additional debt charges. And for good measure, they should also tell us what measures they will introduce to eliminate the structural debt.

The second option is to make the banks pay for the deficit. This is an attractive option for those who feel obliged at least to put forward an alternative, no matter how shallow. It is popular with those who realise there is a problem but feel they can get away with offering a no pain solution (ie no pain except for the banks). This option has an unintended consequence. Taking £12 billion (the amount raised by increasing VAT) from the banks in a single year will mean £12 billion less capital available from the banks to invest in business or to lend to retail and mortgage customers. Given the difficulties businesses have getting affordable finance from the banks, an excessive tax on financial services could massively reduce the capital available to invest in British jobs and companies. A £12 billion levy on the banks would also not be a one off. The VAT rise will rais revenue year in, year out until such time as it is reversed. A £12 billion bank tax would have to be applied every year. Such a gigantic tax on one sector of the economy would end up undermining the banks in the medium term. Do we really want the banks to come close to collapse, repeating the events of 2008, especially as the public sector is now the biggest individual shareholder in the banking sector?

It is right that the banks should pay a levy and the Coalition has introduced such a tax. However, it has to be set at a level that does not undermine the rest of the economy. There is a fine balance and the government has set the level of the levy accordingly.

The third option is an increase in income tax or national insurance contributions. Well, the latter are going up anyway by 1% (a decision made by the last government but retained by the Coalition.) I've already had a letter from the Inland Revenue telling me I will be paying more class 2 contributions. Novertheless, a further rise in income tax and NICs would undoubtedly raise additional revenue for the government. The problem is that higher rates on people on low and middle income act as a disincentive to work and often lock people into poverty by making them better off on benefits than they would be if they worked. NIC and income tax rises also shift more of the tax burden onto the working population. VAT however spreads the burden across the whole of the population.

No one likes a tax rise. All the options have drawbacks. They all have unintended consequences. Those who argue against the VAT rise have every right to remain silent about what they would do instead (Labour remained silent about their plans to raise VAT to 19% until Peter Mandelson let the cat out of the bag). Nevertheless, it would be interesting to hear from those making the most fuss (largely Labour) as to what their alternative is. Labour claim to be against any VAT rise now (another Labour uturn, but are exercising their right to remain silent over their own alternatives.)

Why a graduate tax is unworkable

Opponents of the government's tuition fees proposals have put forward very few alternatives as to how higher education could be financed. The total oppositionists simply state that it should be free (ie free for the student) and so should be financed from general taxation. There is of course no explanation whatsoever from any of these people as to how such a gigantic spending commitment can be met from a public purse that is under severe financial pressure.

The other alternative proposal that has been raised is that of the graduate tax. Whilst this is obviously an attempt to paper over a gaping hole in the argument mounted by opponents, it should at least he given serious consideration. So I have done that, and my conclusion is that it is unfair, unworkable, counterproductive and completely mad.

The first point to make about it is that if you believe in free higher education (free for the recipient, but not free for the taxpayer, including the millions who are denied a university education, who have to pick up the bill) there is no way on the planet that you can support a graduate tax. Shackling a student to a lifelong commitment to paying extra income tax means that a university education comes at an enormous price, in many cases vastly more than would be paid under tuition fees. It is interesting that Labour attempts to claim graduate tax as an alternative to fees at the same time as attacking any notion of students having to pay for their education. In other words, Labour are suggesting that higher education under them is free, as long as you pay for it with a blank cheque.

With tuition fees you know what your liability is. You know what you owe. And once it's paid off, you are free of the burden. The liability ends. That is not the case with a graduate tax. Once you graduate, you are stuck with it. Your income will always we liable to it (though see below for the avoidance scheme). Graduate tax means paying for your higher education an amount that has no relationship whatsoever to the cost of your course. You could do a course that is relatively cheap but you end up paying graduate tax far in excess of the costs. Hardly fair.

Graduate tax is unfair as all taxable income is liable. So, as of April 2011, graduates will start paying graduate tax once they start earning £7,000 a year. So there will be no protection whatsoever for low earning graduates. This is much more unfair for graduates on low incomes that the tuition fees proposals.

However, how about a graduate tax avoidance scheme? For this you will need to be a wealthy graduate who can spend their time earning abroad. Successful barristers, educated at the cost of the taxpayer, will be able to earn bag loads on the international circuit and shelter their earnings from tax. And accountants for the rich will be able to find all sorts of ways to ensure their clients avoid their liabilities.

Since higher education funding is devolved, what happens to English graduates who move to Scotland or Wales? Since the graduate tax would apply to England only, do Scotland and Wales suddenly become tax havens for graduates?

The single biggest reason for rejecting graduate tax however is that is will not raise a single extra penny for higher education. A graduate tax raises revenue for the government. They collect the money and spend it as they think fit. There is no guarantee that any of it will find its way to the universities.

Picture the scenario is a few years' time under graduate tax. A government is running short of cash (when are they not?). The graduate tax suddenly becomes an attractive option for an increase in the rate. The graduate tax would rapidly become a cash cow for cash trapped governments to pay for other spending commitments or to bail out a bankrupt government.

With tuition fees, the liability is fixed. You pay back what you owe. You know when you have escaped from it (and after 30 years you do escape from it for good, whether or not you have paid it off). And you know the money has gone to the university at which you studied.

So, graduate tax is unfair, the rich will avoid it, it will raise nothing for universities. No wonder Alan Johnson called it unworkable. No wonder, when Labour were in office, they rejected it in favour of tuition fees. What a pity Johnson is experiencing an opportunistic wobble on it now.

---
Sent via BlackBerry

Why Lib Dems have to get real on tuition fees

I guess they can be called growing pains. The rather messy debate in the Lib Dems over tuition fees has well and truely put us in the spotlight. There is a significant lesson here: don't make unrealistic commitments. Given that all our other commitments were properly costed and realistic, questions have to be asked as to how it was that such a generous spending commitment (phasing out tuition fees) was made to an interest group at a time when we were squeezing down on all other spending priorities.

I can't answer for other parties but my perception is that the internal debate on tuition fees by our MPs has not been marked by the venomous state of affairs that can be seen when the other two parties, especially Labour, have an internal debate on an issue where there are significant differences. That said, however, the debate in the Lib Dems has a major part missing: those who oppose the plans put forward by the government have put forward no credible alternative funding proposals. Sometimes, the graduate tax is suggested but most of those in the party who oppose the tuition fees plans simply rattle off the claim that our MPs made a pledge to the National Union of Students that they would oppose any rise of tuition fees.

Frankly, that is not good enough as a policy. In fact, it is not a policy for the country at all. It is simply an oppositionist stance. Frankly, the "pledge" should not have been made. As a party, we pledged to the whole nation that we would behave in a responsible manner in government and we would sort out the financial mess the country is in. So which pledge has top priority - the one made to the whole country to help save it from financial ruin, or the one made to an interest group which is demanding the rest of the country should pick up the tab for their enhanced earning potential?

Higher education is a privilege, not a right. Only the half of young people are entitled to it - those who have reached a minimum academic standard. The other half don't reach that standard or choose not to go to university. Why should they have to pick up so large a share of the costs when they are not direct beneficiaries? Why should those who are the direct beneficiaries by having their earnings potential significantly increased, not pay a fairer share of the cost? I hear some members of the Lib Dems say that university education should be free as of right. But free for those fortunate enough to go to university means someone else pays. And that means an unfair burden falling on those who are not entitled to go a higher education - and they tend to be people from lower income groups within society. Can Lib Dems opposed to the government's plans continue to argue that higher education should be provided entirely at the cost of everyone else? It's time for them to get real.

The package that Vince Cable has negotiated is a significant step forward. It is fair to the nation as a whole and is specifically geared to ensuring students only pay after they have graduated and only pay an amount that is affordable. Anyone earning less than the median income will pay nothing. Those who do best out of the system and become higher rate taxpayers will pay more in interest - everyone else will be charged an interest rate the same as inflation, so the debt burden will not increase in real terms.

Most importantly of all, the money raised from tuition fees goes to the universities themselves. Students will be the customers. This will force up standards and improve results. Popular courses will be able to expand. Universities will be free of interfering governments and won't be on the sharp end of cuts from future Chancellors. Students themselves, rather than governments or institutions will set the pace.

So, to those Lib Dem MPs planning to go through the opposition lobby tomorrow, ask yourself whether or not your alternative will achieve all this. If it does, at least tell us what that alternative is and how it will be funded. If you don't have an alternative however, the moral grounds for voting against what's on offer are somewhat thin.

---
Sent via BlackBerry

Is Miliband Labour's IDS?

Another lacklustre performance from Ed Miliband today who succeeded in getting verbally punched up by Cameron in Prime Minister's Questions. The most telling moments were when the cameras caught Miliband's expression of indignant innocence when Government backbenchers asked questions and passed comments about the Labour party. These are early days for him (though they are not a flying start) but he needs to learn not to respond with such pained looks when he's under attack. He looks like he is hurting. He looks weak.

Ed Miliband is up to the job of being a cabinet minister and to be fair to him, he conducted himself competently in that role before Labour's election defeat, regardless of what you think of his policies in government (finding them in opposiiton is a bit more difficult). I don't get the impression however that he is prime ministerial material. It also seems that he is not cutting ice with the voters either. Whilst Labour's poll ratings are much improved on the Brown period, Miliband himself is slipping into negative figures.

I suspect his elder brother would have been on a higher personal rating now had the unions not foisted Miliband Minor onto the Labour Party. David came over as more of a candidate for Prime Ministern than his younger brother.

The question is, have Labour repeated the same mistake of electing the wrong leader for the wrong reasons, in the way that the Tories did back in 2001 when they opted for Iain Duncan Smith. He was chosen for who he wasn't (Ken Clarke) and for a presumption that he was more rightwing that actually he turned out to be.

So, is Ed Miliband the IDS of Labour - chosen because he wasn't David and because some in Labour think he is more leftwing than he actually is? Time will tell but this sluggish start for Little Ed is not good for him.

Ball bounces into Vince's fan club

Ed Balls describes the Government as being in "wholesale retreat" on setting an immigration cap. He even praises Vince Cable for his work in watering down the policy of having a cap. It is not clear whether or not having Ed Balls patting Vince on the back should be regarded as something to shout about or a kiss of death. Nevertheless, the comment by Balls was interesting. Labour are constantly incorrectly claiming the Lib Dems have no influence in Government. Ed Balls has just shown otherwise.

The reality is that the Conservatives have been in retreat though describing it as wholsesale is somewhat egging the pudding. I have heard however that quite a few Conservatives were concerned that an overly restrictive cap would damage the economy. Clearly there have been moves in the right direction and the Tory right has been defeated on this.

And now for a completely different matter. Apologies for having no posts in the past couple of weeks. I have had a hectic time recently. Too much to do, too little time in which to do it. I think I am seeing the light at the end of the tunnel but can't be entirely sure. Hopefully, there will be more posts soon.

Northern Democrat latest edition

Northern Democrat No 56 Oct 10
This is the latest edition of the Northern Democrat whch I produce for Lib Dem members and supporters in the North of England. It includes coverage of the Lib Dem presidential election and North East regional conference.

Photos from North East Regional Conference

I've had a rather busy few months with the past two weeks in particular being exceptionally hectic. It wasn't helped by the arrival yesterday of a tv producer from London who spent a day filming me on the allotment, in local fields and in my kitchen for a programme for the Horticulture Channel on Sky which is starting next year. The Channel starts next March (the website is at an early stage - http://thehorticulturalchannel.info/). Anyway, I'm still snowed under and am trying to catch up on things. One of them is the North East Lib Dem Regional Conference. The photos have been up on Flickr for a while but a selection now follows.

The Conference was a first for us - we had Cabinet ministers speaking at it! Chris Huhne and Michael Moore to be precise.


New Redcar MP Ian Swales addresses Conference.


Chris Huhne MP addresses Conference


Michael Moore MP addresses Conference


Parliamentarians in attendance: Alan Beith MP, Baroness Maddock, Michael Moore MP, Fiona Hall MEP and Ian Swales MP




Overflow into the public gallery


Reading matter: Chris Foote Wood catches up on the latest news via the Conference edition of Northern Democrat, published by, errrr, well me actually!

Taxing issues on air travel

The outcry from the airline operators about the coming rise in air passenger duty (APD) comes as no surprise. I wouldn't expect anything else. Any sector of the economy will always argue against paying more tax. Yet their complaints overlook the huge tax advantages they currently enjoy.

Air travel is free of VAT. That is a huge advantage in the retail market. Whilst most other goods and services are liable for VAT, air travel comes tax free. APD does not constitute a significantly bigger burden than VAT would, were air tickets to be liable for it.

But this is not the only tax advantage enjoyed by airlines. They pay no fuel duty. This is a long standing advantage that goes back to post war international trade talks. Were fuel duty to be introduced by governments setting their own rate, it would be easy to fly to a country with a low rate to fill up. The effect would be a duty war between countries and almost certainly more pollution as planes fly further to pick up fuel and carry more weight than necessary.

So, two significant tax advantages are enjoyed by an industry whose customers tend to be mainly from the better off. The rise in APD helps to balance out these advantages.

The government is looking into replacing APD with a duty on aircraft. When I worked in the Policy Unit in Cowley St, I worked on aviation policy and I proposed this tax change when I wrote a paper on air travel. The aim is to make air travel more environmentally efficient. Under APD, a full aircraft (and therefore one used more fuel efficiently) pays far more tax than a plane flying half empty. This does not make environmental sense. So hopefully, this tax change will be implemented.

Back to the duty increase coming in next week. One of the arguments put up by opponents of the rise is that it will make holidays in the Caribbean "unaffordable". Are we really meant to cancel the increase because expensive holidays in the Caribbean which are well beyond the means of the overwhelming majority of people will end up costing more for those wealthy enough to afford them in the first place? I think not.
---
Sent via BlackBerry

Tickets for Take That Clause 4 Comeback Tour arrive in the post

Excellent news from Parliament yesterday over plans to privatise the Royal Mail and to mutualise Post Office Ltd, the franchising body for the branch network, 95% of which is already made up of private businesses. And what an interesting reappearance for Clause 4, last seen when Take That folded in the mid 90s and, just like Take That, now appears to be returning for a Comeback Tour. As with Take That, the old fans are still there, if a little more aged than previously. Vince Cable dubbed them “Heritage Labour”.

Labour MPs are relighting the fire of socialism as they rant against the privatization of Royal Mail. So I thought I would take a look at what the socialist brothers and sisters from my neck of the world have to say. Let’s start with Sharon Hodgson, MP Sunderland. Mrs Hodgson opened up her attack with the claim that, “Reform of the UK’s postal services was in the manifesto of both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats.” Then she went on to admit she had read the entire Conservative election manifesto but found no mention of postal services. Sharon, you really do need to get a life! However, it does seem odd that you can make an opening statement in a speech and then go on to trash what you have just said!

Mrs Hodgson wanted to make great play of the fact it was the Liberal Democrats who are committed to the sale of Royal Mail. Labour claim incorrectly that this is a Conservative government pursuing Conservative policies and constantly claim incorrectly that the Lib Dems are there simply to prop up the Conservatives. The reality is that this is a Coalition following an agreed and negotiated programme between the two parties.

Mrs Hodgson demonstrates however that Labour wants it both ways – attacking the Lib Dems for giving too much away to the Conservatives whilst attacking the Conservatives for following Lib Dem policy. As we have seen from her opening statement however, consistency is not her strong point.

And so to Dave Anderson, Labour MP for Blaydon and dubbed “Heritage Labour” by Vince Cable. This came about because of an early intervention by Mr Anderson following a comment by Vince that he was ahead of the Labour party is calling for nationalization of banks at the start of the financial crisis. Mr Anderson intervened: “May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that for more than a century a number of Labour Members have believed in the nationalisation of the banks?”

Nice try Dave. But consider the following. It was said by Mr Anderson on 12th December 2007 when he vociferously argued against the nationalization of Northern Rock when proposed by Vince Cable:

“It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are starting to bottle out. As usual, they have taken an opportunistic chance to make some hay while the sun shines—that is the way they work, and that is up to them. They talk about nationalisation. I spent my life working in nationalised industries—20 years in coal mines and 16 years in local government. I have a very different ideological view from that of my party's Front Benchers: their view is that public ownership is a good thing and we should have more of it.”

So Dave, supporting nationalization is “bottling out” and “opportunistic”.

Yesterday, Mr Anderson claimed that 6,000 miners will die as a result of privatization of mines in China. And for good measure he attacked the last Conservative government for letting Royal Mail have a holiday from paying pension contributions. Given that this happened with Royal Mail as a publicly owned company, quite how that helps the case of continued public ownership is unclear. If anything, it is a case for privatization. The same point goes for his claims that 200,000 miners were put on the dole in Britain. He simply failed to point out that the huge number of job losses in the industry took place under public, not private, ownership.

Mrs Hodgson and Mr Anderson are not lone voices in the Labour Party singing the old tunes of Clause 4 socialism. Retro Labour does seem to be attempting a comeback tour following the collapse of the Blair/Brown central control. Whilst Ed Miliband may want to reject a swing to the left as making Labour unelectable, that same swing is what so many in Labour’s ranks want to do. I suspect the swingers will get their way. Miliband did after all raise expectations which will now be difficult to control. That was clear from yesterday’s Royal Mail debate.

The only proposal offered by Labour was continued public ownership of Royal Mail. It seems tickets for the Clause 4 Comeback Tour have arrive in the post.

Northern Democrat October 2010

Northern Democrat No 54 Oct 10

This is the latest edition of the Northern Democrat which I edit and produce for members in the North of England.

Conference - The Inside Story

This is the video programme I filmed at the Liverpool Lib Dem Conference last month. Presented by me and Greg Stone from Newcastle, we interview 2 Cabinet ministers, lots of members and take a look at the exhibition area and the fringe meetings.

Click on "close to play" at the bottom of the ad to play the video rather than the advert.

Taking the biscuit

I had a diary cockup today. Somehow I got my council scrutiny committees mixed up. My diary said it was the "Place" scrutiny committee (ie the one dealing with environment). When I got there, I discovered it was "Healthier Communities" scrutiny committee. As I am not a member of healthier communities I realised then why I had not been sent any papers for the meeting. Anyway, I decided to stay.

On the agenda was an examination of the projects used by employers to help tackle obesity. Though not a committee member, I was allowed to speak. And during my contribution, I suggested that not having a plate of chocolate biscuits and jammy dodgers at the start of council meetings would be good for our own health and set a good example. I suggested that if something had to be served, provide fruit instead.

Alas, I didn't expect my suggestion to be taken up so quickly. By the time I got home, I received an email from an officer which was to the catering section asking for an end to the supply of biscuits to this committee. Rather embarrassing I think - I'm not a member of this committee and I fear its members may now regard me as the Biscuit Snatcher!

The scrutiny committee of which I am a vice chair appears unaffected by this austerity/anti-obesity drive. Perhaps I need to make clear that my suggestion was for all council meetings to make do without biscuits!


---
Sent via BlackBerry

Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor

The first announcement of the Shadow Cabinet appointments brings a few surprises. Mr and Mrs Balls are sent to Home and Foreign Offices respectively. Of more interest is the appointment of Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor. Of all the current Opposition front bench he is the one for whom I have most time. Nevertheless, quite how he fits into the "new generation" is not clear.
---
Sent via BlackBerry