LibDems more crap than incompetent

Early this month I blogged that rather than being unprincipled and duplicitious, the LibDems were simply incompetent. That they were out of their depth in government and that David Cameron had run rings around them.

After the relevations in the Daily Telegraph I know have to strengthen that view and state that they are just plain crap.

The Telegraph has given an interesting window upon their mentality and their complete lack of self-awareness. First we have the fantasy world of Norman Baker who likened himself to an anti-apartheid MP who fought to change from within. Er ... perhaps Fraggle Rock might be a more suitable place than the Houses of Parliament?

Then Michael Moore who admitted tuition fees were a car crash. Followed by David Heath who said he was "wholly against" tuition fees. Quite why neither in that case simply voted against them is not clear. As Eleanor of Aquitaine said to Richard in James Goldman's "Lion in Winter" = "Departing is a simple act. You put the left foot down and then the right." The "No" chamber is over there lads.

On a more serious note though, that the LibDems are so crap is a serious cause for worry. The Tories clearly do not expect to win the next election which is why they trying to enact what they hope is irreversible change at such a rapid pace.

The LibDems were unable to bring themselves to stop tuition fees so how on earth can we trust them to moderate or stop another Tory wheeze like Lansley's highly unpopular NHS reform?

If they cannot reign in the Tories and act as responsible Coalition partners then the LibDems should do the decent thing and step down. Now these Thatcherite policies are out in the open we should have another General Election and decide once and for all whether we want them.

Plus ca change

Albert Einstein once said something to the affect that to keep on doing the same thing yet expect a different result each time was akin to madness. Given Mike Ashley's Emporer Caliglua-like reign as owner of Newcastle United there must surely be a case now for Northumbria police to have him sectioned.

The only explanation the Toon fans can give, yet again scratching their heads at more inexplicable behaviour from Fat Ash, is that he must be a closet mackem whose only goal is to make Newcastle United a national laughing stock. A plant as part of a long running revenge plot run from the Stadium of Light as payback for the self-confessed Newcastle fan Lawrie McMenemy who delighted in sending Sunderland into Division 3 for the first time in their history.

So off goes Chris Hughton, an unassuming intelligent and low-key key manager who was well liked by the fans, dismissed for being er ... 11th in the league. This is two better than Souness who was sent on his way for being 13th. And one better than the great Joe Harvey, who was sacked for a solid 12th. In both instances relegation followed a few seasons later.

Whether the new manager is a promising Martin (Jol or O'Neill) or a laughable Alan (Pardew or Curbishley) makes little difference. The new manager will barely last longer than two years before getting their jotters from the Great Leader Ashley via his Beria-like right hand man Derek Llambias.

So what next? Gazza to return in a dream management team with Five Bellies? Timmy Mallett as Director of Football with Jimmy Krankie put in charge of youth development? Nick Clegg appointed Head of Communications to try to build back trust with the fans?

Ooer you dread to think ... still at least there's always the England team to seek solace in ...

LibDems more incompetent than unprincipled

Ever since Nick Clegg went into full coalition there has no been shortage of leftish detractors questioning his principles and integrity. With tuition fees that noise has now become deafening as the Lib Dems are widely pilloried as lying, duplicitious and dishonest.

There are may be a simpler explanation though, that plain and simple Nick Clegg and his LibDems are incompetent.

Nick Clegg was initially praised by political columnists for playing his hand well in the coalition discussions. With Brown or Cameron, Clegg, so the story goes, was a hard headed and tough negotiator. This view is completely wrong.

First Nick Clegg played his hand early in the election campaign. He stated that he would look to form a coalition with the party that won the most votes. This may have been honest of him but it was naive. It was clear that the largest party would be the Tories and as a disenchanted Labour voter I decided not to vote for him as a result. I'm sure others did the same which explains the now forgotten elephant in the room of election night - the poor showing from the LibDems.

Second, in the coalition negotations David Cameron ran rings around him. Cameron did indeed make him an offer - a third of all ministerial appointments - that Clegg just couldn't refuse. Cameron gave a lot but in return gained far much more - almost total control of economic, health and education policy. The result is that we have a programme of change that is being enacted as though the Tories won by a landslide. They did not.

Third, Cameron tied Clegg into a guaranteed fiver years and offered him a high profile job. This approach, rather than demand and supply, has meant that the LibDems have very little room to object or influence policy. In demand and supply the Libs could simply have voted down Tuition fees, it would have made them popular. They would have appeared serious political players, principled and worthy partners in coalition. But they would have less ministerial appointments.

Fourth, AV. This was Cameron's masterstroke. He made a big concession on this but by adding reform of electoral boundaries to the referendum has created change that he knows Labour cannot support. The LibDems will be completely isolated in their campaigning for AV and with 10% approval ratings, the wider electorate will be in no mood to do them any favours.

For a party that wanted to be in coalition for so long they have proved to be remarkably inept at being in one.

Nick Clegg and his colleagues were unable to resist the carrot dangled in front of them by David Cameron. Clegg has the distinction of being the first Liberal leader to take his party into government since Lloyd George. The price of that distinction is they are now seen as being without principle, truth or conviction. They are all of these things but most of all they are just plain incompetent.

The Return of the Pinstripe Wizard

Who can forget the Spitting Image version of Pinball Wizard?

"He's a pinstripe wizard
He got to be a twit
He's a pinstripe wizard
He talks a lot of complete bullsh7t".

Well Lord Young is back as Cameron's "Enterprise Tsar" to join the war against red tape and to conduct "a brutally honest review" of employment law.

As a curtain raiser Lord Young has already given us a taste of what is to come. The CIPD wrote this week:

"The Conservative peer – who has just reported back to the coalition with his recommendations for overhauling health and safety regulations – told the Today programme that he would be examining the unfair dismissal system.

He said he would be consulting on extending the time someone needed to be employed before being able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, which is currently 12 months.

“Back in the 1980s when we did that, the result was that employment starting shooting up again,” Lord Young told the BBC Radio 4 show. “I want to find out what small business people themselves think about this and then we’ll think about it.” "

This report is of course simply a political exercise to give the impression that consultation and some degree of thought have taken place. You can write Lord Young's report now and here goes:

1. Increase timeline for unfair dismissal to two years
2. Reduce the compensation payments for unfair dismissal
3. Add cap for compensation for discrimination cases (note it is currently uncapped)
3. Reduce statutory redundancy payments
4. Abolish maximum working week
5. If he is feeling particularly bold - abolish minimum wage. This is more likely to be couched as "look at minimum wage".

None of the above is surprising because it has been if not overtly stated by David Cameron certainly hinted out throughout his leadership and more to the point it is standard Conservative Party policy. It is an indication of how ineffective the LibDems are at reigning in the excesses of the Tory party that the prospect of any of the above being resisted is remote.

Depressing then that the young will now not only have to leave higher education with huge debts, find it desperately hard to buy a house and receive low pensions, they are likely to have a rotten start to their working life as well.

What's the lowest point?

What's the lowest point that a civilised and affluent country should allow some one to descend to? What are the base things, the lowest standard of living that it is acceptable? Is there a lowest point at all?

In Victorian society there was no lowest point. If you were injured and couldn't work you went hungry. Other than relying on whatever charity you could find, you might starve. You could certainly be homeless or destitute. The received view of government at the time was that this wasn't something that the state should be responsible for. Charities would pick up the pieces at best, otherwise you could try street begging.

The question of the lowest acceptable point is one that is at the heart of the belief system of the Conservative and Labour parties.

If you are Conservative then despite any spun protestations to the contrary, there is no real lowest point that some one can descend to. I know because I worked for a housing association in the early 90s and saw directly the effects of Major's economic policies. Osbourne's announcement today will herald a welfare model where claimants will have benefits taken away from them for the slightest administrative glitch or reason. They will have to appeal against loss of benefit and this will not be a speedy process. Some one may be without money for weeks or not at all. As a result you may be homeless and picked up by a charity. You may not be "so lucky" and will have to live rough. If you are hungry you may steal, if only to get into some kind of system again. You will in short be lost to the welfare system and this will not trouble the Tories at all. That isn't infantile name calling, it's a fact, just look back fifteen or twenty years.

Over the next few years we will see homeless rates go up and a return to the volumes of street begging that was common place twenty years ago. Again there will be no troubled consciences within government nor I suspect from Conservative voters. Figures will be disputed or a finger will be pointed across the chamber at the profiligate and irresponsible "deficit deniers" who caused this in the first place. The poor and desperate will be invited the vent their spleen at Her Majesty's Opposition.

The previous Labour government had many faults but there is one core view at the heart of Labour belief which makes them miles apart from the Conservatives. It informed Brown and Darling's economic policies and response to the financial crisis.

It is an affront to the Labour Party, to the fibre and core of their collective being, that anyone should go under on their watch. For all Gordon Brown's infatuation with financiers, that some one should be derelict, homeless and hungry was an offence to his upbringing, thinking and conviction and he did everything he could to avert it.

As the Coalition continue with their fanatical assault on the welfare state crime and homelessness will rise, street begging will increase, whilst the Lib Cons take the credit for reducing the welfare bill and reducing unemployment figures.

The clock continues to be turned back, any legacy of a Labour government continues to be erased, and in this project the Conservatives have enthusiastic and willing collaborators in the Liberal Democrats.

"Deficit Denier" the new Tory insult of choice

One of the more intangible and lasting legacies of Thatcher is the effect she had on political life and debate in this country.

Thatcher's approach to dissenting views was simple, to have no truck with them.

If some one disagreed with her she either insulted, sacked or fought them. Consensus, negotiation and compromise were signs of weakness.

The Coalition have been very busy. With an energy verging on fanaticism, they are turning back the clock so that within two years any trace of a Labour government between 1997 and 2010 will have been erased. Public services are being slashed, Britain will surely opt out of the Social Chapter as soon as Cameron feels strong enough and then the abolition of the minimum wage and reduction in the top tax rate will follow. Job done.

If it's economic policy at such energy levels that would leave Mrs T breathless, then she'd be equally impressed with government's approach to dissent. Easy just insult them.

David Cameron discovered a new insult in July speaking of a "new problem in British politics. They are called "deficit deniers" and I am looking at a whole row of them".

"Denier" is of course a very emotive word. In Austria, as the far right historian David Irving found out to his cost, holocaust denial is a criminal offence. "Global warming denier" is used freely against those who question global warming. Cameron now wishes to give a similar label to those who disagree with his spending cuts. In crassness and mentality, it is an insult on the same level as anything that came out of the repetoire of Margeret Thatcher.

Whilst other Labour candidates were quick to deny their er ... denial only Diane Abbott, who actually sat in the House of Commons opposite Thatcher, recognised the insult and the tactic for what it was:

"Rather than engaging in proper political debate at PMQs, this Prime Minister used wicked bullying tactics in an attempt to humiliate his opponents into subscribing to his viewpoints, and this isn't the first time David Cameron has tried such a thing".

The Coalition are turning back the economic and social clock to the 80s at a furious speed, the political and intellectual mentality of that era is following swiftly behind.

Labour have a strong front row

My good mate Piloti asked me what I thought of the "Labour leadership debacle". Piloti is a Tory however this isn't a view that is restricted to the right. Polly Toynbee wrote in the Guardian "Will the contest seize the imagination of the voters? Not a chance with a format that sucks all oxygen out of debate."

However I beg to differ. I am not a member of the Labour party so have little interest in its internal workings however I was at the last election a Labour voter, although it was a late decision made when it became pretty clear to me, though not apparently many leftish journalists, that Nick Clegg was moving towards the Tories.

The leadership election has given the prospective candidates plenty of airtime in the media: on Question Time, the various news broadcasts and This Week. This has been at a time when the Coalition have been reluctant to commit anyone of any influence to a grilling especially when it involves a head to head with a member of the Labour Party.

The Coalition sent former LibDem MP Susan Kramer into bat with Ed Milliband on Newsnight. It was thankfully over quickly and Ed was decent enough not to drive it home. There then followed Ed Balls against Vince Cable on Question Time. Balls performance was so impressive that Andrew Rawnsley described him as a "killer" in his Observer column. Cable was pretty unconvincing and Balls remorselessly drove his points home.

After an awkward appearance on This Week, Andy Burnham followed with a few rounds with Francis Maude on Question Time. It was like putting England in a World Cup match against er ... Germany. Burnham not only saw off Maude, he was angry and passionate so much so that David Dimbleby remarked "you are clearly very passionate about this - why didn't we see this in the election"?

So as Mark Twain might have said, news of Labour's demise are greatly exaggerated. Only the underated ITV political editor Tom Bradby noted on election night that Labour "were still strong" and the Leadership contest shows they will have a front bench of heavyweights no matter who is leader.

In Balls, Burnham and Ed Milliband Labour have a formidable front row. Put Alan Johnson and Yvette Cooper in the second row (ok the rugby analogy starts to fall down) and Labour look even stronger.

David Cameron and most of his front bench are lightweights. Their only conviction is Thatcherism which is why on any pretence to be anything different they are unconvincing. This is also why they avoid media scrutiny wherever they can. Ironically there are principled bighitters in the Tory party but one, Iain Duncan Smith, will be an irritant to Cameron and I suspect will not last long and the other, David Davies, has been consigned to the backbenches.

The Lib Dems meanwhile are a mixture of unprincipled ambition, naivety and shell shock.

So to those outside the machinations of the politcal party this Labour leadership is not damaging, it is casting some light on to a very strong front bench. It's only to be hoped, a possiblity acknowledged by Simon Heffer in the Telegraph, that the new Labour leader will not have to wait too long before being elected into number 10.

Cameron the Macc Lad

A reviewer in Kerrang once said of the 80s band The Macc Lads that the list of people they offended was short - everyone.

The self-appointed "rudest, crudest, lewdest, drunkest band in Christendom", hated amongst others southerners, foreigners, gays and women. So what then could the band that gave our rich language the phrase "get your kit off" have in common with our Eton Oxbridge educated smart and articulate Prime Minister?

Dave did a passable impression of a Macc Lad on his recent world tour managing to insult - in the space of one week - his own country, Israel and Pakistan. He denigrated Britain's "finest hour", berated Israel for prison camps and accused Pakistan of "looking the other way" on terrorism.

The first displayed a breathtaking ignorance of his own country's history, which should not be surprising given Blair's and previous PM's open lack of interest in the subject. The last though was just plain insensitive and stupid.

So on a serious note what does this say about Cameron?

This Sunday Andrew Rawnsley, a columnist I respect, admired Cameron's political astuteness in forming and holding the coalition together. In the same paper Nick Cohen suggested that Cameron's PR approach to international relations showed a man out of his depth. I agree with Nick Cohen.

David Cameron is a hard man to dislike. He is clearly ill at ease with confrontation which is why in PMQs he comes across as awkward and insulting. A collegiate approach is clearly in his nature and at other times he appears affable and engaging. He has that self-effacing self-confidence which likeable public school boys have, blimey you might even have a beer with him. He even rides a bike!

However I suspect what we are seeing is what first came apparent to me during the election campaign, that although for his political astuteness in party politics and handling the media, David Cameron is in fact a lightweight who is out of his depth in the highest office.

This contrasts Nick Clegg who is in fact is a very easy person to dislike but whom I suspect, is more at ease in higher political office.

David Cameron may be lucky and may not be faced with the issues that faced Blair and Brown - decisions on taking the country to war, home terrorism and the banking crisis - however if he's not so lucky, and how many PMs have a quiet life, I suggest that we will see more cracks appear in Dave's prime ministerial mask.

I am happy to be proved wrong, but I'll say it again, David Cameron is a lightweight.

Contador shows that whilst winning is hard, class is even harder

In 1995 the new Rugby World Cup winners South Africa and their captain Francois Pienaar arrived in London for a friendly with England. England had not met South Africa in the tournament and the expectation was high that England could beat the World Champions. The England fullback Mike Catt, ironically South African born, was interviewed by the BBC. Catt said that South Africa were lucky to win the World Cup and that the captain Pienaar was an average player. In a separate interview the BBC, clearly looking for an angle, asked Pienaar what he thought of Catt's comments and in particular that he was average. Pienaar replied "Well I think Mike Catt is a very good player". A small thing but in one sentence Pienaar showed he had that very elusive quality which few sportsmen achieve - that as a rugby player, captain and man he had class.

There is very well known footage of Lance Armstrong crashing on a climb in the Tour following a collosion with a "spectator handbag". It is shown a lot because it is unusual, Armstrong hardly ever crashed. What is shown less is what happened further up the mountain. Jan Ullrich, Armstrong's great rival who always came off second best, slowed down and waited for Armstrong. But not only did Ullrich slow down so did his group. Ullrich showed that not only was he a class act, he was a rider with the presence to order other riders to slow down as well.

This is something Contador chose not to do.today. He chose not to do slow down for Andy Schleck nor to urge Menchov and Sanchez to do so. Was he right or not? Neither Paul Sherwin - he was wrong - and Phil Liggett - he was right - could agree on this. The ever wise Chris Boardman said afterwards that he was two minds on where he stood. What Contador did show though is that whilst he is a great cyclist who has won every grand tour he has entered, he was not able to match the class of his fellow Tour winners - not Merkx who refused the wear yellow the day after Luis Ocana crashed out, not Ullric, not Armstrong who once stopped for Ullric and not even Hinault.

So every one will have their own view on sportsmen who have shown their class.

My personal favourite is from a relatively small race in world sport - Ironman UK. A few years ago, I forget which year exactly, New Zealander Bryan Rhodes was leading the race well into the run. 10 miles from the finish he pulled up with an injury and was unable to do anything other than walk. As a pro whose living depending on triathlon, it would have been acceptable and completely understandable for Rhodes to stop and rush off to get treatment. Instead Rhodes walked the last ten miles to finish way down the field and out of the prize money. Rhodes stated afterwards that he finished to race out of respect to the event, his fellow competitors and the spectators. A class act.

And by the way South Africa beat England 24 -14.

Cyclists and broken collar bones

"Nor do I in any way approve of the modern sympathy with invalids. I consider it morbid. Illness of any kind is hardly a thing to be encouraged in others. Health is the primary duty of life."

So said Lady Bracknell in the "Importance of Being Ernest". I wonder, then, what she would have made of the modern sympathy with cyclists with broken clavicles?

Barely a day goes by in the Tour de France without one "poor malnourished individual" (as one fellow tweeter called them) lying by the side of the road, one arm hanging inactively whilst the other hands extends across hold it in an attempt to numb the pain. There then follows a deluge on twitter of pictures of the aforesaid injury usually accompanied by an optimistic pithy statement like "he's going to need surgery".

Poor Frank Schleck is the latest of appear in Twitpic glory looking forlornly at his brother Andy's iphone with his arm in a sling. Frank further illuminated us with the xray picks of his op with multiple titanium plates in place. It's a good op apparently and Frank will be hammering his turbo trainer within days.

If you look further every one seems to be doing it. Lance Armstrong did it last year and shrugged it off noting he'd cheated cycling lady luck for too long and even he had to succumb to the inevitable bike crash broken collar bone. Even class doesn't make you immune either. I read just last week that top royal tottie Zara Phillips took a fall off her pony and yes broke her collar bone. My injury reading was a biography of the great Italian cyclist Fausto Coppi. Poor lad took a fall in one of the first Giros after WW2 and yep you guessed it broke his collar bone.

I know what all this like because six weeks ago I did exactly the same thing though I can scarcely describe myself as malnourished. I hopped around the side of the road for a bit, extended my good arm to hold the bad one and looked at my Trek hoping that it was not irreparably damaged (good news it came off fine - well done clavicle you took the fall so that the Trek might live). There then followed a ride in an ambulance for the first time since I was three and then being stretchered into A&E in full cycling gear - it might have been the laughing gas but wow that felt great!

Four years ago on the other hand I took a very innocuous fall and dislocated my shoulder. Could I find anyone who had done the same thing? Certainly not any cyclists who didn't seem remotely daft enough to get an injury like that. In fact in around 6 weeks of rehab the only fellow dislocees I could find were Bryan "Captain Marvel" Robson - the image of him walking off the pitch in Mexico 86 was all that filled my mind when I was in A&E getting it put back in - and Mark Lawrenson, who kindly noted whilst commenting during the 2006 World Cup - "a dislocated shoulder is the most excrutiating pain you will ever feel". Ah thanks Lawro I think we both understand each other.

So of course avoid all crashes, accidents and the occasional falls that happen if you are going to take a road bike and ride it down a hill at some speed. But if you are going to give something a whack breaking your collar bone means that you will find no shortage of better, fitter, richer and more handsome cyclists who can say to you "I've been there too and I know your pain".

Ride safe.

Look to the bench but not at Beckham

Picking themselves up off the floor as they watched Podolski or Mueller disappear into the distance, England players may have looked to the bench and cast their eyes upon two ex-England players for guidance and inspiration.

Had they looked to the first player they would have seen the most capped outfield player ever, a multi-millionaire celebrity with a showbiz wife and more mansions than I have road bikes. No doubt this player would have shaken his head in disapproval at the performance in front of him but inwardly felt a warm wave of relief that he was not out there with his own reputation joining the many that were being crudely mangled in a ruthless display of fast counter attacking football.

But then perhaps they would have looked at a second player. His face still slim showing the rare sight of ex England player in his 40s still determined to keep himself in shape. His simple cropped hairstyle looks no different from the days when he used to play in non-league grounds around London to crowds that numbered in their hundreds. In contrast this former international is quietly seething and cannot believe the lack of passion and anger that he is witnessing on the pitch. He is not relieved not to be part of it, he is furious. He wants to be younger, he wants to boot up and get out there and restore some order and leadership on the pitch.

So contrasts David Beckham and Stuart Pearce. Two very different England internationals from two very different England eras.

I've no inclination to write extensively on Beckham. No inclination to question a player for whom personal ego has always come before the team, who somehow has outcapped players who had twice his ability and commitment, who for almost eight years has traded on excellent performances in the 2002 World Cup qualifying campaign but has never matched them since. No interest in writing that he is the single player who embodies the self-indulgent indolence and stupidity that has characterised England over the last decade. No I'd rather write about Stuart Pearce.

"Psycho" would have to be in any Top Ten Living Englishmen. A hard left back who never gave quarter nor expected none in return. A player who never hid when it got tough. A player who formed part of the core big hearted players who made the Italia 90 team now the best England side most of us are likely to see for decades. A player who learnt his trade in the lower leagues in his own words "getting the sh7t kicked out of me". A player who said that "Englishmen are more prepared to put themselves on the line than other nationalities" (subsequently how wrong he was). But likewise a player who said how impressed he was with the modesty the Germans showed in victory in that semi-final in Turin. A player who was passionate for England but who always respected other nation's and their passion.

But above all the current England players would see in Pearce a big game player for whom the tougher the opponent and the grander the occasion meant the bigger the performance because that is what you did if you pulled on an England shirt.

Capello should start with Eriksson

If Capello wants to know where to start when choosing his squad for the Euro 2012 qualifiers he should look at the example of Sven Goran-Eriksson.



After fake sheikhs, FA secretaries, the 2006 World Cup circus it's easy to forget how brightly Eriksson started as England manager in 2001. Let's remember where England were. Kevin Keegan had resigned as following a 1-0 defeat to Germany with a side that contained Adams, Keown, Le Saux and Andy Cole. Keegan had become a somewhat discredited figure following the Euro 2000 campaign. A campaign which started the trend of overinflated expectations followed by a damp squib as soon as the players started to kick a ball. The fallout contained rumours of inner cliques, card schools and Kevin Philliips attributing his failure to start to his lack of interest in golf.



Move forward ten years and this all begins to sound all too familiar - an inner clique of senior players, past their sellbuy date and immersed in their own complacency.



Acting as caretaker manager, the underated Peter Taylor paved the way for Eriksson's first game after taking a young team to a friendly with Italy. Eriksson's first squad selection shut down the card school and brought in, amongst others, Rio Ferdinand, Nicky Butt and Frank Lampard for a 3-0 win against Spain.



Now it is time for Capello to follow suit and consign the "golden generation" to the lucrative world of media punditry and after dinner speaking. Out should go Terry, Lampard, Heskey, Barry and Beckham. In should come en masse players from the U21 squad including Wilshere, Johnson, Gibbs, Walcott, Carroll and Taylor. If they aren't regulars to their respective clubs so what? At least they will be fresh and will see playing for England as a step up. The U21 side needs to be viewed as youth team for the England side where good performances merit inclusion into the England squad. Of the senior squad I would retain Gerard, surely one day an England manager is going to work out how to get the best out of our most talented player, Joe Cole and Rio Ferdinand who deserve the benefit of the doubt, and Ashley Cole, who has no reason to be ashamed of his performances in the World Cup.



Capello is inheritently a conservative man. How radical is he prepared to be? We will know at England's next friendly in August. If the squad and the starting side has a familiar look to it we should resign ourselves to another disappointing tournament.