There are a few by-elections coming up in Lancashire in the next couple of months. There is of course the parliamentary election in Oldham West for which Liberal Democrats have selected Jane Brophy. Given the renewed spirit in the party, I would expect this to be a gripping three way contest between Labour, LibDems and UKIP. The fact that our new leader is from the county (albeit holding a seat across the county boundary) must be an advantage.
In addition to contests in Fylde and Barnoldswick, there is one in the Lancaster authority which should appeal to those campaigners who have recently been celebrating the anniversary of Brief Encounter.
An English bibliotaph of fifty years residence in Wales pontificates about politics (slightly off-message), films and trivia. Acting secretary of Aberavon and Neath Liberal Democrats. Candidate for Neath in the Westminster elections of 1997 & 2017 and the Welsh general election of 2016.
Thursday, 5 November 2015
Wednesday, 4 November 2015
Picking a team up off the floor
There was an interesting pair of articles on Jose Mourinho's management style in the Indy recently: an interview of Arbeloa (before Chelsea's home loss to Liverpool) and Monday's comment piece by Ian Herbert, the paper's chief sportswriter. It seems that Mourinho is good at driving his players, ruthlessly dropping them when he feels he needs to punish, and defending his teams as a whole against administrators, referees, the media and everybody else he sees as an enemy, but not so good at putting an arm round the shoulder of individuals whose confidence needs restoring. Sir Alex Ferguson, who became notorious for his "hair-dryer" treatment, was, on the quiet, good at the softer side of management also. Bill Shankly was another with a fearsome public reputation but very good on the one-to-one side of management. It is notable that both had long periods of tenure and saw Manchester United and Liverpool through testing times as well as periods of success.
The trouble is that, Arsenal apart, Premier and Football League owners are less patient these days. Most are driven by the desire for quick returns or to cut losses. Managers like Nigel Clough, who have achieved success by building teams over a long period, face an uncertain future. One wonders how long Sam Allardyce, another "player's manager", has to justify his position at Sunderland.
Swansea City is a different sort of club and Garry Monk is part of the family, as it were. Even so, Huw Jenkins and the board have been ruthless in shifting out managers who have not lived up to expectations. The Swans are not exactly on the floor (they are two points above Chelsea in the League table, after all) and the Trust is not going to be desperately disappointed if the club does not win a trophy this season, but this does look like Monk's first real test. He has proved to be a clever tactician; is he also capable of keeping all the players onside and stopping the poor run of results?
The trouble is that, Arsenal apart, Premier and Football League owners are less patient these days. Most are driven by the desire for quick returns or to cut losses. Managers like Nigel Clough, who have achieved success by building teams over a long period, face an uncertain future. One wonders how long Sam Allardyce, another "player's manager", has to justify his position at Sunderland.
Swansea City is a different sort of club and Garry Monk is part of the family, as it were. Even so, Huw Jenkins and the board have been ruthless in shifting out managers who have not lived up to expectations. The Swans are not exactly on the floor (they are two points above Chelsea in the League table, after all) and the Trust is not going to be desperately disappointed if the club does not win a trophy this season, but this does look like Monk's first real test. He has proved to be a clever tactician; is he also capable of keeping all the players onside and stopping the poor run of results?
Tuesday, 3 November 2015
About-faces on the Lords (continued)
Last week I fingered Sir Edward Leigh for praising the Lords' independence when revolting against the coalition and condemning it when supporting George Osborne's SI to cut tax credits. Having trawled through Hansard's record of oral questions last week, I find that other Tories need to be named and shamed: Jacob Rees-Mogg, Bernard Jenkin and Mark Pritchard.
It is only fair that those supporters of the cuts to tax credits who have been consistent critics of the make-up of the Lords should also be praised for their consistency, if nothing else: Liam Fox, George Osborne, Kenneth Clarke, John Stevenson and Henry Smith.
An IT or O&M practitioner accustomed to drawing up decision tables will naturally ask: was there a member who voted against Lords reform yet queried the cack-handed and hubristic way in which Osborne attempted to push through his measure? Indeed there was: Peter Bone continues to prove himself almost as big a nuisance to the 100% Conservative cabinet as he was to the coalition.
Finally, Cheryl Gillan has a record of wanting Lords reform, but not if it meant a totally-elected upper chamber. It appears that she has been a supporter of the tax credit system in the past, and her contribution last week was distinctly ambiguous.
It is only fair that those supporters of the cuts to tax credits who have been consistent critics of the make-up of the Lords should also be praised for their consistency, if nothing else: Liam Fox, George Osborne, Kenneth Clarke, John Stevenson and Henry Smith.
An IT or O&M practitioner accustomed to drawing up decision tables will naturally ask: was there a member who voted against Lords reform yet queried the cack-handed and hubristic way in which Osborne attempted to push through his measure? Indeed there was: Peter Bone continues to prove himself almost as big a nuisance to the 100% Conservative cabinet as he was to the coalition.
Finally, Cheryl Gillan has a record of wanting Lords reform, but not if it meant a totally-elected upper chamber. It appears that she has been a supporter of the tax credit system in the past, and her contribution last week was distinctly ambiguous.
Monday, 2 November 2015
This could be bad news for the Kurds
The regaining of an overall majority by the AKP in Turkey as a result of a campaign based on fear, uncertainty and doubt, is bad news for honest electoral campaigners and probably not only for the Kurdish population of Turkey but also the semi-autonomous Kurds of Iraq.
A key date in computer logic
George Boole, after whom Boolean algebra, ingrained in every self-respecting computer logic designer, is named, would be two hundred today.
Sunday, 1 November 2015
Before the Boston Tea Party, there was the Stamp Act
A major imposition of extra taxation on American colonists occurred this day 250 years ago. The Stamp Act ignited the first sparks which were to lead to American Independence.
Saturday, 31 October 2015
Karl Theodor Wilhelm Weierstrass
I see that my sister shares a birthday (though not a birth date, obviously) with the German mathematician termed "the father of modern analysis".
Friday, 30 October 2015
Tax credit cuts: a few conspiracy theories
Even Hamish McRae, one of the most conservative contributors to the Indy, writes that tax credits were necessary. He does go on to say that they need reform because of the unpredicted fivefold rise in their cost (but does not specify how, except to call for a simplification of the direct taxation code).
The difficulty, he points out, is that
there has been a surge in low-paid jobs and part of the reason for that is that the taxpayer in practice subsidises employers. People are prepared to work for lower rates than would otherwise be the case because the Government pushes up their pay to a more acceptable level. This is what the whole scheme was designed to do: to persuade more people to go out to work. But it has, you might say, been much more successful than its instigators expected.
So far, so good for Conservative ministers, especially David Cameron who relishes at prime minister's questions reading out the rise in employment and/or cut in unemployment in the relevant constituency in response to critical queries from opposition MPs. However,
The UK economy has become a huge job-creating machine, with 2m more jobs since the recession, sucking in workers from all over Europe.
Could this be the objection? Would Cameron and Osborne tolerate a cut in the employment figures if it meant that fewer job-seekers from the continent were attracted to these low-value jobs? A reversal of the EU immigration figures would certainly be welcomed by them.
Dr Monique Ebell at the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, quoted in the article, points out:
“For many couple families, the tax-credit system makes it more attractive for one partner to stay at home, rather than go out to work. It is this adverse and unintended consequence of the tax-credit system that should be a key focus of any reforms.”
Adverse?? Surely the Conservative ethos is that families should be headed by two married parents, one of whom should be a home-maker? Or does that apply only to middle-class couples?
My first thought was that it was an excuse to bring back a Conservative majority by swamping the upper house with a flood of new barons, in spite of the adverse publicity which would be generated by all those extra £300 per day peers.
However, the swift inauguration of a review under Lord Strathclyde suggests another line of attack on their Lordships' house. I would not be surprised if its major recommendation is to take away the power to review any Statutory Instrument, which would suit several parties. Not only the elected dictatorship in Downing Street, but also Sir Humphrey, would welcome the facility to push through delegated legislation with one less stage to worry about.
(Incidentally, Lord Strathclyde was said not to have any great love for Liberal Democrat peers.)
The Lords and law officers have already resisted at least one attempt to create "Henry VIII" powers. I trust that they will continue to be successful.
The difficulty, he points out, is that
there has been a surge in low-paid jobs and part of the reason for that is that the taxpayer in practice subsidises employers. People are prepared to work for lower rates than would otherwise be the case because the Government pushes up their pay to a more acceptable level. This is what the whole scheme was designed to do: to persuade more people to go out to work. But it has, you might say, been much more successful than its instigators expected.
So far, so good for Conservative ministers, especially David Cameron who relishes at prime minister's questions reading out the rise in employment and/or cut in unemployment in the relevant constituency in response to critical queries from opposition MPs. However,
The UK economy has become a huge job-creating machine, with 2m more jobs since the recession, sucking in workers from all over Europe.
Could this be the objection? Would Cameron and Osborne tolerate a cut in the employment figures if it meant that fewer job-seekers from the continent were attracted to these low-value jobs? A reversal of the EU immigration figures would certainly be welcomed by them.
Dr Monique Ebell at the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, quoted in the article, points out:
“For many couple families, the tax-credit system makes it more attractive for one partner to stay at home, rather than go out to work. It is this adverse and unintended consequence of the tax-credit system that should be a key focus of any reforms.”
Adverse?? Surely the Conservative ethos is that families should be headed by two married parents, one of whom should be a home-maker? Or does that apply only to middle-class couples?
The constitutional "crisis"
There was no need for the government to have a run-in with the upper house. The cuts could have been incorporated in primary legislation which, certificated as a money Bill, could not be voted down by the Lords. The implication is that Cameron and Osborne induced the confrontation on Monday for a reason.My first thought was that it was an excuse to bring back a Conservative majority by swamping the upper house with a flood of new barons, in spite of the adverse publicity which would be generated by all those extra £300 per day peers.
However, the swift inauguration of a review under Lord Strathclyde suggests another line of attack on their Lordships' house. I would not be surprised if its major recommendation is to take away the power to review any Statutory Instrument, which would suit several parties. Not only the elected dictatorship in Downing Street, but also Sir Humphrey, would welcome the facility to push through delegated legislation with one less stage to worry about.
(Incidentally, Lord Strathclyde was said not to have any great love for Liberal Democrat peers.)
The Lords and law officers have already resisted at least one attempt to create "Henry VIII" powers. I trust that they will continue to be successful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)