It’s policies like these that tell me the current Labour government do not want to win the next election or they are so out of touch they shouldn’t. A sixty quid fine plus 3 points on your license, for taking a swig from a water bottle whilst driving? For listening to music too loud? For eating a chocolate bar? Do the ministers not realise that this policy has the kiss of death about it?

And in other news, according to the BBC News At 10, the economy is shrinking at the fastest rate since the recession of the early 1990’s. So that’ll be the last recession then…. Plonkers.

Ever since the banks were bailed out, I was worried that the government could not resist micromanaging their way through this mess. The difference between the Libor - the rate that banks lend to each other - and the BOE base rate - the rate that the BOE lends at - cannot be clearer. Generally speaking, banks don’t borrow from the BOE but from each other, so the rate that they pay for credit is the Libor and not BOE base rate. Yet our government do not understand this and are embarking on a policy of interference and micromanagement. The 1.5% cave in is all the evidence we need:

It was a difficult meeting… Right at the start the chancellor’s people thrust unflattering newspaper headlines under the executives’ noses. We then had to make it quite clear that just because rates fall it does not mean we can afford to do the same with our products… The issue was unresolved.

Bankers do not care about headlines. They only care that their business is viable and sustainable. Admitted, there is sometimes a correlation between bad headlines and poor business performance, but this it is not the place of the government to point this out. But what is perhaps more worrying is that it is “treasury officials” that are pushing the banks into a very political corner. Civil servants should not be worried about the papers - why are they doing political dirty work? Does this not break the rules?

Yesterday evening, for the first time in my life, I went to a football ground. Not to watch or play football, but to listen to a speech by Dominic Grieve MP, the Shadow Home Secretary. And I was extremely impressed with him. Not only was his speech 1st class, the 30 minute chat I had with him impressed me even more. His knowledge of a plethora of issues was well  in-depth and informed. He even managed to sidestep the awkward comments and conversations that can be so common when speaking to some of the older clientele.  But there was one thing that he said, which had nothing to do with policies or fixing the Labour mess, but represented precisely what Labour truly stand for. And that is media manipulation.

I have already blogged about how I believe Labour, Gordon Brown specifically, used the timing of the US elections to political advantage. By calling the Glenrothes election 2 days after the US election and 1 day after a massive 1.5% interest rate cut (although that could not be predicted, the date of any possible cut was known. Lucky, but as we all know, you make your own luck in life), the news agenda was dominated by these events rather than the fate of Glenrothes. However, a quick look at the papers reveals that the day before the election, there was apparently no chance that Labour would win (see for example here, here and here). And apparently, Nick Palmer, the Labour MP for Broxtowe said

I don’t know any Labour MPs who are expecting us to win - the range of opinion is from “Well, we’ve given them a run for their money” to “Bloody byelections, what can you expect?”

Yet only a couple of days earlier, according to Dominic Grieve, there was not a single Labour Minister that thought they would loose. Most thought they would win by a healthy, but reduced, margin. It seems that the Labour spin machine was in, well, full spin. By letting it be known that they thought they would loose, Labour have managed to turn the headline “Labour reduce their lead by half” or “Despite Brown bounce, Labour still on course for election loss” to “Labour’s tale of the unexpected” from the Beeb. In fact, a swing towards the Conservatives of the same magnitude in the general election could result in a small, but very real, majority for them.

Despite what I would call a disastrous result - despite all of the resources in the World thrown at the seat, they still lost half their majority - the media are full of “Brown Bounce” stories because he fed them with a “we are going to loose” line the day before the election. It’s a perfect manipulation of the media.

I certainly don’t remember hearing about the convenient timing when the date was announced, the media all ran with the same story the day of the election (that Labour will loose) and now the media are full of the Brown Bounce. And this is the culture that is true New Labour - no strong policies, just media manipulation and plenty of coverage. And is has got to end. The media must be independent, free to investigate and report on their own. They should not be bullied into running the politician’s particular spin that day. Enough of the “Tomorrow, the Home Secretary will announce…”; enough of the same stories blanketing all of the news papers; enough of the bullying tactics. If a particular policy is not strong enough to win on debate and strength of arguments alone, it is probably the wrong policy.

Why is the media so obsessed with Obama, when we have our very own election to worry about? Yes, the Glenrothes bi-election is today, which possibly will signal the end of the Brown premiership and bring about a general election, yet the Torygraph has a dozen “comment” articles about Obama yet only one (very short) article on Glenrothes.

With literally hundreds of BBC reporters in the USA, and I am sure Brown was aware of this many weeks ago, the bias in coverage is easily explained. What were the beeb thinking of? I even saw one interview with the great grand daughter of the first self made black American millionaire. Like she had actually done anything in her life that was interesting, or more importantly, had anything to contribute to the debate.

And as I said above - Brown must of known what aunty beeb (and others) were up to. And that is why he chose to have the election 2 days after the USA election. This debacle is yet another example of how Brown is perfectly willing to abuse his powers for party political gain. The sooner we have fixed term parliaments and the decision of when to hold bi-elections made by the Electoral Commission the better. The primary concern about when to hold elections should be to ensure the playing field is as level as possible with respect to external events.

But this attempt at a media blackout may backfire on Brown. It means the campaign agenda is no longer set by the national media, but by what happens on the ground. And the SNP are excellent at these kind of campaigns. Let’s not forget, if Brown looses that election, the media focus will have done a full circle and have its sights firmly aimed back at Brown.

I wish I had not come back. I learned today that our incompetent Labour government, not happy with 100 or more separate tax increases, of plunging our economy into recession, of presiding over a massive banking crisis, of pissing billions of our money down the drain, of all the lies, backtracking and blaming the Tories for their own failures, they now want to plunge the country into economic ruin for decades to come.

I am utterly speechless. I cannot believe that the governing Labour Party are so vindictive and certain of their own demise that they are willing to sabotage the country so that the incoming Conservative government will be able to do nothing but increase taxes. Not happy with bankrupting their own party, they now wish to do so to the country they govern. They know they will never win the next election, but maybe if they force the Conservatives to increase taxes at the same time as reducing spending, they might win the one after. Never did I expect even Labour would go so low as to drill holes in the lifeboats so that no one would survive to bear witness to the crew’s failure.

Just look at this graph:

Apparently, the extra spending will come from borrowing because Labour has paid back the debt’s taken out by the Conservatives. But they only did it by following Conservative economic policies! Since they abandoned the prudence invented by their arch-rivals in their second term, they borrowed it all back again, and we are now at the point where we were in 1997! And these figures do not include the recent bank bail out, to the tune of £500bn! 

In the last decade I have grown to dislike and even detest Labour and all they stand for. I am now hold them in complete and utter contempt, disgusted by their lies, vitriol and incompetence. How dare they do this to the country! Do remember, it was only last week that Brown and his puppet Chancellor uttered the words “The age of irresponsibility must be ended”.

A few million here, a few tens of million there. The bonuses earned by our bankers are a King’s ransom for some, but chicken feed for the banks. Gordon Brown, as it is him that is behind this fiasco and its “rescue” (and not his Darling puppet), has insisted the banks should not pay “cash” bonuses this year to their executives. But the bonuses are chicken feed. They have not caused this problem in any way - the money that that the banks have lost is trillions, not hundreds of millions. Not even billions.

So what has actually caused this problem? Not enough regulation perhaps? Apparently, Brown has been calling for Worldwide regulations for years. Bullshit - as is shown in his Mansion House Speech where he calls for the exact opposite. Despite Brown’s talent for being economical with the truth, is more regulation the answer? 

I would say, and so would a number of others, is that the problem was that banks have been lending to people who cannot service the debt. They have been lending to high risk individuals - according to the BBC this morning, even those without a job. Under whose bidding? Well, Gordon Brown’s, of course. In his pursuit of equal opportunities for all, whether it’s in the best interest of those that are given the opportunities or not, Gordon’s economic policy, far from allowing the practice of it, has been actively encouraging lending to high risk individuals. It’s everyone’s right to own a house - after all, one can extract more tax from the population if more of them own a house.

And guess what the other string of these new proposals to “help” the banks? Yep - in order to accept the government’s money, the banks have to increase lending to those without very much capital (i.e small businesses) and individuals who wish to purchase houses (in a market that is currently in freefall). The root cause of this crisis - a large and sustained increase in access to credit - is the very policy that Gordon is attempting to sell to the world as the fix!

And what about that regulation? Has there been a failing in regulation? Perhaps - if banks were not involved in the practice of buying and selling packaged up debts, then the good and bad debts would not have been mixed together and there would not be the same crisis in inter-bank lending. If the practice of consolidating debt was banned, those banks that did not purchase bad debts would be insulated. Whilst there would still be a crisis, as the lending in the first place would still have taken place, the banks that only traded in “good” debts might still be able to borrow money. Perhaps better regulation could have reduced some of the severity of the crash, or changed the nature of it, but regulation alone is not the answer.

The crux of the matter is that banks need to go back a few decades and reduce access to credit, so that those that can service the loans are the only ones that are lent to. But of course no politician - even those in the Conservative Party - has the balls to tell the poor that they can never own their own home. So I worry about the nationalisation of the banks - with such large shares of the banks, can ministers stomach the one thing that will stop a crisis like this ever happening again? Politician’s imply they want to punish the bank’s executives for taking too many risks, but the real risk of the last decade was lending to the poor.

Update 15.06:

It appears that my hunch of Government’s not understanding the route of the problem is correct. And it seems that I was also correct about ministers not wanting to leave well alone, content only if they can micromanage from the bank’s policy so that it meets their own agenda. You see, another condition of the money is for the bank’s to return to lending at the 2007 levels. Labour will not admit the fundamental problem was caused by lending to those that cannot afford it.

Using terrorist legislation for an economic crisis is wrong. What on earth were this government thinking when they decided to use this legislation to stop assets in Icelandic companies leaving the country? This decision will come back to haunt them - not only are they bullying a country with an economy the size of Coventry, but they have used legislation that was designed to keep our nation safe from terrorists, not countries undergoing an economic melt down. Furthermore, is it legal to use such legislation in a way it was not intended? And what about all of the other “terrorist” legislation that the government has written, insisting it’s all for our own protection? There is already anecdotal evidence to suggest the other laws are being abused, perhaps now the media (and country) will realise the price that we have paid is too high. Of course, will this derail the government’s attempts to get car GPS tracking installed in every car, or ID cards, or 42 days, or any host of other “protection measures”?  

It seems to me that short term political gain has won over our long term country’s international standing. It was only a few days ago that Brown was accused of not acting and not leading the nation, but dithering and following from behind. But there is leading us away from and there is leading us into a future crisis. Which road has Brown taken us down? From reading international news this morning, there seems to be significant opposition to us using terrorst legislation against what should be a friendly, western nation state. Furthermore, there are already reports that Iceland are accepting bribes loans in exchange for a Russian military/navy base. Bullying a small nation, such as Iceland, will only push them towards what they see as a powerful and protective friend - the Russians. This time, in Cold War 2 we will be surrounded and it might not be limited to Cold…

Remember - the moral of this story

I am glad that she is not only leaving government, but leaving parliament. Parliament is not a place for religious fanatics of any description. 

On another note, isn’t it interesting that rats tend to desert sinking ships? Who is next?

In the last 10 years, we have reduced the public sector debt, from 44% GDP to 37%.

Gordon Brown, 9.50am Sunday 21st September, BBC1 Andrew Marr Interview.

Taken from the Office for National Statistics. Isn’t it interesting that the only time that public sector debt has gone down in the last 10 years has been when Gordon Brown was following Conservative economic policy. From 2001 onwards, it has soared to beyond the starting point.

Gordon Brown, you are a liar, coward and fraudster.

I am listening to Brown talking about the financial crisis on the Andrew Marr Show this morning. Apparently, Brown was right all along but no one would listen. If only those pesky Americans had listened, he could have steered the world away from the current financial crisis. Apparently, it’s all America’s fault and it is a global problem. Oh, and it was much worse when the Tory last ran the country.

But isn’t it strange that this is the first time that he has mentioned the American’s not listening.

But more importantly, strange that he did not try to stem the levels of debt, both public and private, in the good years. Strange that he increased stealth taxes over his 10 years of tenure in no 11 by the equivalent of an increase in income tax of 10p in the pound. Strange that he was more than happy to ride on the “end of boom and bust” mantra, that it was “the longest period of expansion in the 20th century” or the longest period “on a quarterly basis” for 100 years, and then for “250 years” (even though that these claims are not true) . Strange that if the situation is so perilous, after all that increase in taxes and borrowing, he can commit us to a £1bn scheme to fund nursery places for all 2 year olds (when the current commitments for all 3 year olds cannot be met). All of these things, and more, he does and did have direct control over.

This current line of America not listening: what utter crap.

Brown you are a liar, a coward and a fraudster. You deserve everything you get.

Apparently, Brown will/has promised free universal nursery care for all 2 year olds. When my wife recently called the local nurseries to enquire about a place for our 3 year old - who already is supposed to have a free place according to the government - she was laughed off the phone. You see, to get a free place, you need to have been registered for at least 1 year. For the popular nurseries, that increases to 2. It seems that the waiting lists are at least three times the size of the number of places, indicating a dramatic and systemic shortage of spaces.

Such commitments then, for free nursery care for all 2 year olds, are false. Everyone who has a child, or knows someone who has a child, is fully aware that such commitments will never come to pass. If politicians, Brown and his party included, hope to renew the public’s faith in politicians, then they need to understand making headline-grabbing policy announcements is not how one should run a country if the existing policies cannot be delivered.

I am suspicious of Brown’s personal intervention - where clear rules on competition will be bent in order to gain some short-term political advantage. Indeed, Brown’s spin doctors were very keen to associate him with the “no loose” situation. But no one has asked how will a bank the size of Lloyds-TSB-HBOS will work in some more stable future. But I digress - the interesting thing here is the politics of the situation.

A bank with a large Scottish work force on the doorstep of Brown’s constituency, and more importantly, the constituency where there will be a by-election in a few weeks. It seems perfectly understandable for Brown to want to associate himself with a rescue of one of Scotland’s largest private sector employers, especially when large numbers of the employees live in the commutable town of Glenrothes, which is exactly where the by-election will be. It appears that there are plenty of assurances that jobs won’t go in Scotland - indeed a clause has been “inserted” to protect Scottish jobs:

The enlarged group will continue to use the Mound (its Edinburgh HQ) as its Scottish headquarters, will continue to hold its annual general meeting in Scotland and will continue to print Bank of Scotland bank notes. In addition the management focus is to keep jobs in Scotland.

Yet the merger would certainly result in redundancies. It does make sense - where is the saving if you employ the same number of people? The Halifax win of HBOS, of course. The Labour MP for the region, Mrs Riordan, is right on the ball - thousands, if not 10’s of thousands, of job losses in a town the size of Halifax will have a drastic effect indeed. However, I heard her today on the Radio 4 evening news ask for a similar commitment of no job losses. Hard luck dear - there is no by-election in the area and it is not in the Prime Minster’s or Chancellors doorstep.

So what are the long-term effects of this less-than-little deal that Brown and Darling have been so desperate to associate themselves with? Well for a start, there will be 10’s of thousands of job cuts, in Labour’s heartlands. Remember what happened last time a government pushed through such a level of redundancy in the industrial north? And we mustn’t ignore the anger that will appear in the backbenchers eyes when they wake up and realise Brown has shafted them to keep his own backyard in order.

Remember - it is no coincidence that Brown has associated himself with a deal that will temporarily boost the prospects of one of the major employers in a region where there will soon be a by-election, especially as he is from the neighbouring constituency. Short-term gain and long-term pain - as is usual with Brown. This time the pain will mostly be for Brown and Labour, although I do have a word of advice for Halifax staff: start searching for a job…

Back by popular request (well, 1 anyway), a new and updated TheUnstoppableBlair has been produced.

Enjoy.

A full sized version can be found here.

p.s if he gets stuck, give him a nudge, just like his MP’s….

According to Channel 4 News, tomorrow the Government will announce their new policy on energy efficiency. Sorry for being stupid, but if they are announcing it tomorrow, why was it covered on the news today?

Perhaps my stupidity has something to do with not being in PR?

A rather abrasive title for a post, perhaps, but it comes from a conversation that I had with someone on the train this morning. An individual who works for a FE college in Essex (both shall remain anonymous) was telling me of some courses that he teaches in. Or rather, talking about the students who are studying for qualifications in the department in which he teaches - performing arts.

Apparently, most of the students are unable to perform and have little commitment to any eventual career in the performing arts. Only a few go on to study performing arts at university, fewer still at the well renowned ones. Those who do not go on to study to a higher level, yet stick with a career in performing arts, invariably end up in Butlins or on a cruise ship. A significant number of the students end up selling insurance, working in sales or admin, factories or agriculture - jobs where a qualification in the arts would at best offer no advantage, and at worse hinder the chances of employment. 

Many of the students arrive thinking they will be famous, most via shows such as X-Factor. The tutors, teachers and course managers know that the students are arriving with this false hope. They know that the vast majority of students will leave with a “vocational qualification” that will make them no more employable than one in strawberry picking. They know that the majority of the students are wasting their time. Yet the FE colleges are funded by the government to offer these courses. The college managers are perfectly happy to accept the country’s hard-earned cash in exchange for a qualification that offers very few tangible benefits. How the teaching staff keep motivated, given the person that I spoke to was so up-front about the shortcomings of the course, is beyond me.

But, after this conversation, I have some questions.

How many other courses are funded by the government, all in the name of keeping people off the official unemployment statistics? How much money is being wasted on training our teenagers in skills they will never use in their adult lives? How many schools are feeding teenagers with false hopes when they advise them to start these “vocational” courses? How much intrinsic bias is there in the education system, whereby education of any description is better than a job, regardless of the consequences? Would it not make more economical sense to have vocational qualifications that are taught ‘on the job’, perhaps by day release to FE colleges, rather than ones based solely at FE colleges?

As someone with the greatest respect for education, I believe in educating oneself for the sole purpose of personal development. But I have to question the effectiveness of the government’s policy on vocational education.

I have recently criticised Brownian economics in two different posts. They involve government subsidising particular services for particular ‘target’ groups, normally politically identified. One of the main criticisms that I had was that the level of waste and increasing bureaucracy. Instead of entering “shared ownership” schemes with first time buyers, reduce red tape and taxes on house builders. Instead of taxing energy companies to subsidise energy bills for families, simply lower taxes on gas companies or the families themselves.  

So let’s get this straight. If you are a pensioner, then you can claim some fuel payments:

If you are aged 60 to 79 and you are entitled to receive a Winter Fuel Payment, this year you will get either £125 or £250, depending on your circumstances in the qualifying week (15 to 21 September 2008).

If you are aged 80 or over and you are entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment, this year you will either £200 or £400, depending on your circumstances in the qualifying week.

In 2006, that corresponded to 9.5 million people getting the allowance. That’s a cost of £2bn per year.

Only last week, there could be a further £150 for families taking the credit, but thank goodness it seems this this is wrong. Instead, the government now proposing that the payment should only be £100 for 6 million families - so just another £600m, making the grand total £2.6bn.

It seems that in 2006-7 the DWP spent £120bn on benefits and £6bn administering those benefits. Assuming the same ratio of benefit to administration, we have a grand total of £2.75bn. 

Wouldn’t it just be much simpler to give the pensioners an extra lump of pension that they could spend on what they choose? Would it not be simpler to give the ‘poor’ families a tax cut, so that they can spend the money on what they choose? The total comes to £175 per person per year, whatever their situation. 

Why does the government insist on taxing people to give the money back to them, via a complicated vouchers system? Would it not be simpler to not tax people in the first place?

The same can be said for tax credits. We hear that they cost £1.5bn per year just in fraud and incompetence! The actual benefit that was paid out is £15bn. Leaving pensioners aside (lots do not pay tax, although some do), we could increase the personal tax band (currently £5,435) by £3000! Just think about it. That’s £600 in every working person’s pocket - every working person. And you might just take a few 10’s of thousand people out of tax all together.

Apparently, Labour is about helping poor people. My arse. It’s about building a client state and interfering in people’s lives.

We find ourselves in a society where spending on education does not actually educate and achievement in education does not necessarily result in reward. One must ask oneself, if not to educate the country’s best and brightest, what is the point of our universities?

The Labour administration’s worst legacy to our great nation is the wasted opportunity that can only happen once in a generation. An opportunity so great, that if competence prevailed, would leave an entire generation of youngsters with a lifetime of fulfilment and success. Only once in a generation can a government increase spending on education in the way that Labour have done in the last ten years. And only once in our generation can this money be wasted on bureaucrats, social engineering, targets and pointless schemes.

With a legacy like this, can the Labour Party ever be trusted to govern again?

How can taxing a company more reduce the cost of its services? Of course, things are more complicated than this, because in fact Brown is not suggesting that he should “encourage” businesses to lower their profits in order to avoid a windfall tax - the policy that Brown has just “announced” might be a replacement for one a few weeks ago, that on the most part, received public condemnation. 

What Brown proposes to do is give families* £150 extra this winter to help pay for their energy bills. All well and good, one might say. Money from the government is always good. Until you realise the cost - this money might be borrowed, resulting in higher taxes for future generations. And of course what happens to money that goes into the government’s coffers? Well half of it stays there, or be magically turned into smoke. Of course, the real cost - when interest and government waste and whatnot - is much higher. So it’s caution to the wind, let’s mortgage our children’s future - that is the current way of thinking. Effectively Brown is taxing companies and the workforce more to pay for the give away, even if it is not direct.

But maybe this policy is not a replacement for the “windfall” tax policy. Maybe the two will be combined and there will be no increase in borrowing. Maybe it would be a direct tax for a direct subsidy. Would this be any better? Would a windfall tax on the energy companies, with half of the money disappearing into thin air and the other half distributed to the target group that Brown thinks he needs on side to win the next election (e.g parents, especially the middle class ones), be any better?

Of course not. But is it more likely than funding this give away through borrowing? Probably.

So what effect would a windfall tax have on energy bills? Of course, it will push them up. Companies have a mandate to make a profit. If they don’t, then shareholders oust the board - or worse - the companies become a take over target. And of course, profit margins matter when it comes to stock market prices. In effect, company directors will do all in their power to ensure the company has a good profit margin, as they want to maximise their bonus and retain their position. 

It appears that Brown thinks he can get away with increasing the whole country’s energy bills in order to pay for a give away to whatever particular group in society that he needs votes from. Perhaps the title of this post should have been “Brown fails to understand politics, again”.

* I am surprised that hard working ones were not mentioned, but I guess this was because the policy announcement was a mistake

I propose a simple but effective way to ensure the destruction of the Labour Party - not just in the short term, but lasting for decades. Personally, I believe what the Labour Party has done to our country, both in the last 11 years and previously in the tax’n’spend unionised claptrap of the mid to late 20th century, is unforgivable.

It starts with encouraging, or hoping for, a leadership challenge in the next couple of months. Just when the country needs to be guided through tough economic times, in the event of a leadership challenge, the Labour Party will turn inwards. It will begin a bitter battle with itself, with factions briefing against factions, each with the belief that they are the only ones capable of carrying forward the torch of victory; they are the only ones that can lead the country out of its current (self-made) state. Whilst we are all hypocritically assured on numerous occasions that the current economic woes are of global nature - for example, the Labour defence of the housing market is because we live “in a world where British families can’t buy or sell a home because US bankers lent money to impoverished Americans.” - this does not wash with the population. Facing economic troubles, the last thing the population wants is a government unable to govern, especially when this inability could make matters much worse. The impression the population will have is that with strong leadership of this country there could be light at the end of the tunnel, but with a factionised and paralised government, we are all doomed to a recession that was ultimately avoidable. So any serious leadership challenge, whether successful or not, would almost guarantee a loss of power for Labour.

The next fatal blow to Labour’s electoral success is the leadership successors. Faced with Milliband, who is obviously too immature and naive for high office given his performance in the last few days (how he became Foreign Secretary is beyond me), with Harman whose political ineptitude is unsurpassed, or with a Union puppet, it seems clear that even if the disaster known as Gordon Brown was replaced, it wouldn’t get any better.

Whilst it would be easy to accuse me of wishing troubles on the country for purely party political gain, one must remember that a 3rd Prime Minister in 15 months could not govern without a mandate of his or her own. So in the event of a leadership challenge, an early election - maybe as early as May 2009, or even October 2008 - would be almost certain. But wouldn’t it be more damaging for the country if we were faced with another 2 years of Brown, followed by the possibility of that 4th term?

Further nails in the coffin of Labour winning an early election would be that almost certainly cost a fortune, giving the hard-left unions who currently hold the purse strings the ultimate over the manifesto. We can already hear the cries of “increase taxes on the rich”, which is code for increase taxes on everyone, resonating with the electorate.

Just think about it, an early election brought about by a leadership contest would leave Labour (even more) millions in the red, a heavily factionised party hell-bent on briefing against each other, a critical loss of the Scottish heartlands (the resurgent SNP would severely cripple Scottish Labour), a hemorrhage of support in England, probably another leadership contest and deliver a landslide to the Conservatives.

In such an environment - with a disfuntional opposition probably worse than the 1997 Conservatives under Hague - then the new Conservative government could set in place a series of reforms that would transform the political and electoral spectrum of the United Kingdom for decades. By working with the resurgant SNP, the Conservatives could set in motion a true devolution of power. By splitting up the union of Wales, Scotland and England, the ‘West Lothian’ question would be answer once-and-for-all. It would remove Labour’s power base from the English parliament - of the 350 Labour MPs in parliament, 67 of them are from Wales and Scotland. Whilst in the first two terms under Tony Blair there would have been a Labour majority, there would not have been that historic third term.

Another reform should be the increasing the fairness of electoral wards. Currently, Labour wards have an advantage of a smaller electorate - in 1997 5200 fewer per constituency, in 2001 6400 fewer per constituency and in 2005 6200 fewer per constituency. Indeed, in 2005, the Conservatives would have needed a lead of 11.7% votes to gain a majority.

Faced with a factional and bankrupt Party, and a significant electoral disadvantage, would Labour survive in the long-term? The final blow of removing two of the four Labour heartlands from the equation (the others being the North East and the areas surrounding Liverpool/Manchester) could easily lead to a Party split in two, resulting in four major political parties and the dominance of the Conservatives for decades to come.

The question is, would it be morally correct to do such a thing?