Snow wipes out wimp out Britain

Yes, it's that time of year. With the exhaustion of the Christmas and New Year holidays behind us, less than three weeks later comes,-with plenty of warning,- a few days of snow, most of it in low or moderate quantities rather than in blowing dix foot drifts.

"No problem" you might say or think ," The indomitable Britsh spirit in the face of adversity honed through centuries of heroic defeats will see the country through".

Well, no actually. A new spirit walks the land. One of risk aversion, taking the safe and boring option. No more heroic fighting on the beaches, struggling to get to work through thick and thin and making sure eveything gets done and nobody is let down. We just don't do that anymore.

Britain's key business airport and alleged global hub, Heathrow , no longer sets out to fly the plan even if it takes into the wee small hours and a waiver of the night jet ban.  It orders the precautionary cancellation of flights regardless of how the weather actually turns out on the day. Then some airlines,- a very big one in particular,- heap on a few more just to be sure/have rear ends covered. "People would  rather know in advance they are going nowhere" says the voice of "We're not even going to try". Actually said people just want to get on with their travels. The airport and airlines' task is to enable that to happen, and safely. It's been done in the past, even at a near saturated airports. It is elsewhere. Why not now? It's all about attitude and the bulldog having become a cosseted poodle.

The disease is not confined to airports. Next step forward the schools and timorous health and safety obsessed head teachers worried about whether a car might skid into the bus queue, the playground gates or heaven forbid, the admin office. Never mind the huge problems posed to parents, working ones especially and the self employed in particular. "We're not babysitters" says one teacher quoted by the Times. "Well amongst other things you actually are" should be the answer of any head with a firm grip, "Whatever your mean minded unions may say. You  have an inalienable responsibility to your customers,- that's parents and children both".

The local health centre says its computer system , a scandalously expensive public sector disaster in the first place, should be fixed for this week "if the contractors can get here safely". Who  are these contractors that they havent heard of 4 x 4s, winter tyres, good old fashioned chains or any other means of getting to a comfortable, warm, inside job. Do they not feel a responsibility to get to their customer and meet their obligations unless they are buried under an avalanche. (unlikely on main roads in a flat part of the home counties)? The answer is apparently "No" and their nice succulent taxpayer funded contract can wait another day or two if they'd rather go sledging with the school-less kids instead. Maybe they did turn up. I'd ask the health centre if they could get around to answering their phone. Maybe that's buried under the snow too.

And so it goes on. The really unfortunate part of the saga is that the message to many of the next generations is that going for it is off.

Bring on more Poles.

An easy question for Cameron,- but will he complicate it?

Today's now delayed much trailed and pre-critiqued (pre-whinged in the case of Ed Miliband) speech by David Cameron of his thoughts on Britain's future within or without the EU and whether or not a referendum on the subject will eventually be held should be a simple task.  Unfortunately the Conservative Party's form is to present sensible policies and projects disastrously thereby snatching a PR disasters from what should be easy winners.

The big speech is already being slated by opponents of all sorts as being about Britain alone slagging off the concept of the EU in the face of a united front of all the other members. Cameron should not have allowed himself and Britain to be positioned in this way. It's not what the question is all about and he should say so very clearly.

The fact is that there have always been two separate visions of what the EU is and should be all about. It's become a very old elephant in the room and needs bringing into the open. Unfortunately Europe is not full of leading politicians prepared to surface it although a number clearly do behind closed doors.

Firstly the original concept of the Common Market was a free trade area amongst European nations. This is what British citizens voted for in the orginal referendum and that is the only democratic public mandate any government has ever had. No more no less.

Secondly there is the much more extensive sub plot always espoused by France and Germany, partly as a defensive measure to stop them ever again trying to knock six bells out of each other on the one hand and to jointly dominate wider European politics and economics on the other by the creation of a single European superstate. This was never agreed by the United Kingdom's electors and is unlikely to be. It would probably get the thumbs down from most of the EU's other voters too if they were ever asked. Most of their governments however have no intentionto do that.

For at least the past two decades politicians and Eurocrats have tried to ignore the fact that one day the question of who wanted which ,or neither, of the options would have to be faced.

Cameron should now be saying, not that he is at war with anyone, but the time has come when all European nations must face the the choices and declare what it is that they really truthfully ( a difficut word for politicians and officials alike) want.

The reality is that there are two groupings, possibly with 26 in one and 1 in the other. How many are in which doesn't really matter. Nor does talk of a two tier or two speed EU. There is no reason that the Superstate group should not do their thing and the Common Market people theirs with a bridge of a free trade area linking the two. There is also no reason why either group should out of political pique put up trade and taffiff barriers against the other. Restricting trade does nobody's economy any good .Free trade areas are growing between countries of vastly different political and social character without talk of political alliances so why should a diference within Europe be a problem?

By giving four years notice of a referendum, Cameron is in reality opening a debate in which all EU members should take part about whether from here on they want to go for option 1 or option 2, or again neither. It should not be positioned or positionable as a hostile move of UK v the rest. It should be labelled as a "Let's each take stock and then decide individually which option we want to take" moment with an end date of  2018.

All we need now is for Cameron to seize the initiative by talking in these terms rather than place himself and the UK on the defensive by presenting the debate as a great confrontation. Will he? Past experience is not encouraging. Those of a nervous disposition may have to watch his speech from behind the sofa.

  

"Britain needs to be in the EU" = "USA Needs Someone to Talk to in EU"

That exemplary purveyor of selfless and unbiased advice and "assistance" to the world, the USA, has through its emissary Philip Gordon pronounced that it would be better for Britain, its influence in the world and importance to the USA ,if it helpfully remained in the EU.

His utterances in London were immediately seized upon by Danny Alexander, Labour's shadow minister for deeper integration with loss of sovereignty as living proof that questioning deeper integration and ultimately a democracy-choking federal state with a disastrous single currency is in some way a sign of dementia. Mr Alexander also seized upon an open letters from sundry British businessmen and the CBI urging the government not to risk changing its relationship with the Union. They warn that the business sky would fall in. They, along with the friendly man from America should  be disregarded as vested interests saying what one would expect them to say as is their right. The UK though is a major market for the EU regardless of whether it is in or out of the Union or an assosciate member. Why would Europe risk losing that business by putting up barriers to British exports?  The reality is that Britain has hugely under exploited its exporting potential worldwide for decades. There is plenty more to go for around the world even if Europe did go through a tetchy spell. Even in the colonial days of Hong Kong the UK was usually totally outsold in almost every sector by other European, American, Australian and Asian companies. Its businesses just didn't make the right and consistent efforts. Similar reports come in from all over the world.

All the toothsucking and head nodding by various pundits including  courtesy of the Europhile and Toryphobe BBC over the past 24 hours along the lines of the UK must not risk not being at the centre of Europe (it isn't in it anyway) or losing its influence (it has none,- all the important discussions and decisions are taken when it's out of the room) is predicable politicised nonsense.

Four things re key in the "debate" or whinging and handwringing of the past 24 hours.

Firstly America finds it difficult to genuinely get along with anyone else in Europe. They don't speak the same language in any respect. There is mutually little trust. That's why they need the UK in there as someone they can talk to, who can tell them what's going on and bat for them. From their point of view that's fair enough.

Secondly, Socialists and therefore the Labour Party will always love Europe warts and all .The continent is fundamentally socialist with a culture of welfare dependency which favours socialist voting at elections.

Thirdly, Europe is deeply suspicious of the perfidious British always being driven by their own interests rather than the warm, fuzzy, democracy stifling illusion of "solidarity".

Fourthly the real agenda of the "European Project" has always been a united federal state with individual countries, the maverick UK in particular, rendered virtually powerless.  That has never been an agenda accepted by the British people and probably never will be. The UK has always wanted a trading, not a political union. That is the real difference between British and European views and is what politicians have always been afraid to say/admit.

It would be much healthier for all if the elephant were honestly indentified and new agreements and treaties put in place to recognise the truth, stop agonising over it and get on with trading and creating wealth ( screams from the left,- they don't like wealth or prosperity especially for everyone. What appeal would they have if there wasn't enough misery about?). Britain should courteously but determinedly steer its own political course and the core of the EU do the same while both remain open to free trade between the two. Happiness and lack of aggro all round. All too simple?

UK's Railways,- HS 2. More Conservatives across the line.

Today's Sunday Times has published what it claims will be the twin Y shaped routes of Britain's proposed high speed line north of the first London-Birmingham stage. The official government announcement is expected shortly.

Just as stage one continues to face highly emotional and state funded opposition from the mainly (very) Conservative and conservative constituencies lying along its route, the essential northern extensions are facing the same sort of noise wherever faced with similar well heeled constituencies and constituents further north. This is despite different "we want it here" clamouring from points further north . The divergence of approach illuminates well the north/south divide. In the affluent Chilterns any talk of the national interest or the needs of the north cuts little ice. There is simply little interest in anywhere much further up the country than the fashionable Cotswolds. Even the wealthy rural Cheshire enclave, the home of much northern brass and pretty much the furthest outpost of the Tory party, is considered not quite "one of us".

No surprise then that the Sunday Times reports the Conservative Mayor of Cheshire East as declaring "We don't want HS 2 coming through our part of Cheshire. We would very strongly resist it". No doubt they will but  hopefully for the future of British rail capacity and ease of travel to, through and within the midlands and north and ultimately Scotland, the robust Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin will listen but continue to hold his course and drive his bulldozer forwards so that actual construction can begin. Ideally that should be earlier than the currently planned 2016 date.

The UK's air, rail and road transport systems have suffered from political paralysis for decades .Wasted opportunities (expansion of London airport capacity) and road and rail congestion pile up by the year. Air traffic diverts away to Amsterdam and Paris and, more distantly, to the newly dynamic Gulf. Labour's Lord Adonis, ironically a former Liberal Democrat, had at last got a grip on things between 2008 and the 2010 General Election.  Unusually enthusiastic about his portfolio, something seldom appreciated in a Minister, he was firmly pushing ahead on Heathrow's third runway. He  had also launched HS 2 as well as kicking off the beginnings of what is now a major programme of rail electrification. The latter is the easiest to deliver as with few exceptions it can be done without the laborious process of getting planning permission. Building work and hardware are already beginning to appear.

There is much to be done to make all areas of UK's transport infrastructure fit for at least the 25-50 year timescale future, a thing itself may well be beyond the lifetime of many of the "Say No To...." campaigners. Sadly this may explain their lack of interest in it.  "Localism" and the devolution of the ability to stop anything down to the level of a local coffee shop happening is all very well but there are times when it has to be put and even pushed aside. Fortunately by the look of it, Mr McLouglin will listen to everyone , make a few costly alterations, and then drive on.

Three Shades of Grey,- is that Boris at the end of the tunnel?

A fairly recent innovation the lomg suffering British public could do with out is New Year message from our political party leaders,- well, heads. They would all probably increase their ratings by saying absolutely nothing during what is meant to be the festive season.

None of them is in the least bit festive,- ever.

Dave seriously says we are on the right track but it is a long and tedious one with lots of grey along it.

Ed the preacher says something in class war tones about fairness. Nothing about how he, the Ballses and the Brown team brought the country to its economic knees through reckless overspending and artifical creation of non productive artificial jobs in the public sector while throwing out welfare bungs in all directions. They would dearly love to have another go at the same recipe. After all, "the rich" can pay for it.

Nick, the perpertually ashen faced, also goes on about the unobtainable nirvana of total fairness while urging his party to keep the coalition government in the centre and free of evil Tory plans to be beastly. Joining the easy-to-do class war and adding to the impression that he is still in short trousers, the ex-Westminster public schoolboy he says his coalition partners can't be trusted to look after people other than the super-rich.  Overall the LibDems' aim in life appears to be to ensure the government's ability to do anything much is neutralised and neutered.  They don't like new runways, railways, roads, power stations and most other things that make people and the world go round either. Marks for exciting forward thinking ? Zero. Great partners to have.

Little wonder that most of the nation reach for the "Off" or at least "Mute" button every time these three gents appear on the screen. All three totally lack inspiration, vision or have anything exciting to say. Ed occasionaly manages a smirk. Otherwise all three find humour, pleasure, joy and those sorts of things impossible to express. Would most people enjoy going in holiday, having a kitchen supper, a drink in a pub or even a latte in Starbucks with them? Unlikely.

The 2015 election may well end up in another coalition with Labour the largest party and the LibDems snuggled up to them in what most of their MPs and members would consider a much more natural and comfortable alliance. The LibDems would most likely find that Labour treated them with greater courtesy and "respect" but were actually far more ruthless in cutting them to shreds behind the scenes. The Conservatives are pussycats compared to Labour in many of the political dark arts and are much more organised in the execution of them.

Unless they win an outright overall majority the Tory Party will want a change of leader after the election. It is possible , though less likely, that they will go for one before as many now recognise that Cameron's image is now too firmly set as the remote toff surrounded by small clique of similar going back to his school and university days. The fact that he has allowed this positioning to develop indicates that his political and social antennae are poor or that he doesn't understand what he is seeing. Neither gives confidence in his political longevity or ability to emotionally connect with the electorate.

There is also the question of Cameron's philosophy and vision for Britain around which he has to invite the nation to rally. He simply doesn't seem to have one.  He is at best a manager,-and not a very exciting one,- not a leader. There is no sign of energy and commitment to even a dream of a ew and better future for Britain and without one what has he and his party to offer? All that the Party does is presented piecemeal and not as a coherent whole although in fact it has many good and consistent strands running through it. Is Cameron and therefore a Cameron led party electable in 2015?

Conservatives have therefore probably spent the last few very grey days of a pretty grey 2012 looking gloomily into 2013 hoping to see something better through the murk. They will also be trying to dismiss the feeling that the party might arrive at the end of 2015 having done the hard yards in getting some sort of order back into the economy and dealt with a wide range of issues whose ill effects have built over decades and especially since the Brownite abandonment of Prudence in 2000 only for Labour to take over again , say "thanks for doing the nasty and difficult stuff,- we'd have had to do that too " and reap the benefits through a new term of office.  The Tories might even reflect that 2010 was an election which would have been better lost.

In searching for a beacon of light and a clue as to how 2015 might be won, Tory strategists must be looking at the 2012 London Mayoral elections. Here, against a pro-Labour flow a Tory arch-toff Boris Johnson, defeated the long standing London darling of the London left , chattering classes, establishment socialites as well as normal people, Ken Livingstone . That proved that the Conservatives' problem isn't about Etonians, toffness and those staple hates of the left. It's about charisma and the ability to communicate with and relate to absolutely anybody,- even when stuck on a zip wire. The Tory problem would be even worse if either of the other two leaders has an ounce of presence or ability to inspire. Fortunately neither do which is why few bother to listen to them either.

Boris Johnson, by far the cleverest and most erudite of the four, is never going to be an old style classic Prime Minister. Neither is he going to be in the weapy eyed moralising articificial "Tone" Blair sort. Nor will he modify his accent to fit what he thinks to be the audience and he won't dive into Greggs to buy a pasty for the photo opportunity. He will create enough of those of his own.

One drawback is that Boris tends to be waylaid by single issues and get into some difficult cul-de-sacs. However , if supported by a first rate group of people to actually do the business and make things happen he could be exactly what the British nation needs to rally and energise people and the economy. His "Do something" approach is miles apart from Cameron's kicking of the tough balls into the far distance beyond 2015. He radates energy, is able to deliver tough messages in an acceptable though often blunt way. He is not boring and he is a very able politician. He should not therefore be dismissed as any kind of joke or joker. With the right team he could save the Tory party from even more shades of grey and even a disaster in 2015 and beyond. For starters he wasn't booed at the London Olympics.  For seconds he'd radiate energy and fun (while demanding performance from his everyone) anywhere. That's a pretty good launch pad.

Beware Eurocrats talking solidarity.

Actually, beware of anyone uttering the word "solidarity". Anyone, anywhere, any time taking it at cosy face value as a friendly arm around the shoulders displays only solidarity between the ears. The word is entrenched deeply in socialist and controlling/dictatorial lexicons. It is code not for a warm embrace but a crushing bear hug, around the throat if necessary, and means  conform or else". It is a word of the controller, dictator and/or bully. Treat it therefore with extreme caution.

It is therefore no surprise that it cropped up in the wake of the treacly self congratulation indulged in by those EU leaders who so ridiculously accepted the absurd Nobel Peace prize for not having marched into or over each other since 1945. The Times' picture of the heads of Mrs Merkels, President Hollande whose countries fought each other in World War 2 and Mario Monti of Italy whose nation cleverly fought on both sides all close together , each with their own variations of what is probably meant to be a triumphant smile is priceless and  worthy of a major caption competition. Maybe the uniting factor was that David Cameron wasn't there to spoil the rather good party (no cheap wine again this week, that's for sure), There is no sign in the photos of Dave's emissary, the lad Nick, but he was there somewhere glowing at being at least in the same room as the big boys and the Head Girl.

The "s" word then cropped up again in this week's Eurozone success when the same players agreed to bind themsleves more deeply and more expensively into driving on with the artifical one-size-fits all fiscal impracticality, the Euro, yet again denying the awful cliff edge somewhere ahead just beyond,- and maybe not very far beyond,- their headlights. Intoxicated by the resultant cameraderie up popped the unelected head of the unelected European Commission the sharp suited Barroso saying that the agreement heightened the need to drive on to further political unity,-or solidarity. To him and many other very well fed (thankyou European taxpayers) Brusselscrats the answer to any Eurozone or EU problem is a call to push further into unity and centralisation rather than to pull back, reflect and back away from visions of an even more stifling regime of undemocratic centralist control . The option of veering away to the much lower cost, more democratic and more sensible,practical and desirable notion of a free trade rather than fully controlled and micro managed Europe.

The purveyors of solidarity have therefore had a good few days and are glowing suitably as well as growling or glaring at or simply ignoring the perfidious British who mainly don't like what they see coming, and Lib Dems apart , never really have done.

 To celebrate all this and administer a further dose of solidarity, the usual suspects have, regardless of Britain's early protests, voted to increase the EUs budget and thereby the Commissions abilty to meddle in anything they care to. All this increases the cost of the whole Brussells apparatus at a time when none of those who pay the bills have any spare cash and are cutting back on their governmental spending extravagances back home (Well, some are. Others are asking for more time and meanwhile remaining on the beach  afraid of going cold turkey after decades of dependence on state funds). The rest of the world, especially the parts which are working 24/7 to secure better standards of living for themselves and the next generation, look on with amazement as the already fat, happy and self indulgent Europe adds further costs/overheads to its activities and doing business while continuing to indulge in all kinds of limitations on its own productivity and prosperity and to generally tie its own hands and feet together. This world beyond shakes its heads in disbelief, shrugs and gets on with designing and building the future. Unthinking "Solidarity" is the way to ensure that Europe doesn't have one.

Taking out the suspense. Do we really want that?

Not long ago episodes of the weekly cliff hanging thriller would end with the killer's knife-bearing hand raised ready for the fatal blow. Then would follow a brief burst of tension inducing music and  the credits would mercilessly roll leaving the viewer in a paroxysm of terror. A whole week before the truth is revealed . Did he/she do it or did something intervene in the nick of time?  Recently the format has changed. Just as you thought it was all over there are flashes forward to next week's edition. In some of these the intended victim looks fit and well. From that it can reasonably be concluded that they, usually a near psycho lady detective, ducked at the crucial moment so all was well. Phew, that's good then. No suspense, no tension. Put the kettle on. We can sleep well tonight and the next edition can be viewed from on the sofa, not behind it.

The same thing has happened in that other, if declining, theatre, the House of Commons. Budget statements and other policy statements were closely guarded secrets. Heads would roll (at one time literally) if there were any leaks. In the Budget the first hint the nation got of whether the next 90 minutes were going to cause elation or depair could come in the Chancellors drink, his antidote to a dry throat, something that can occur especially if one is lying. A glass of tap water would signify austerity, but milk, honey and maybe a dash of something a little stronger indicated a happy afternoon and good times to come. If he was clearly smashed before he even started talking that was probably a bad sign. Now almost all parliamentary announcements or trailed ,-that means officially leaked,- days in advance .As result they are thoroughly analysed by the 24 hour media not just once but three times. Before, during and after. The during really need not happen at all. The middle man, the House of Commons bit, could be eliminated entirely and the whole process of announcing and discussing anything be left to the various media and twitters and tweets. In view of the quality of and attendance at many Commons debates there may be some merit in that but on the other hand when you think about what some of the press, not to the mention the own-agenda BBC, can get up to that may not be worth the downside risk if we want to keep some vestiges of democracy.

In both cases better theatre and more excitement and interest would be generated by not knowing what was going to happen in the real thing on the day. Do we really want decaffinated versions of everything? No adrenaline rushes, clenched knuckles or looking away? Just perpetual blandness?

Can we rewind and go back to anticipation and suspense? We know that excitement must carry a health warning "Could raise blood pressure, cause heart failure, death, etc" but we think it's worth it. It might just feel a bit more real. For the politicans it might just raise interest in what apart from fiddling expenses and polishing desks with assistants or colleagues goes on in Parliament. Some gain there to be sure. Now back to Sarah Lund.