Shane Greer

The last few months have been rife with revelations about financial impropriety on the part of MPs. But perhaps more shocking than scandals themselves was the failure of those concerned to take responsibility, no matter how guilty they were (Hain).

Today though we heard about financial impropriety of a different kind; an MP paying his son with tax payer money for a job he never did. Apparently Derek Conway is to be suspended form parliament for ten days and may have to pay some of the money back.

If the Conservative Party is to distinguish itself from the Labour Party, and show that it is indeed a party of integrity rather than self-indulgence, then Derek Conway should stand down; nothing more, nothing less.

Hat Tip = Andrew Sullivan

I think I’ve yet to read a piece of commentary on Barack Obama’s victory in South Carolina that hasn’t mentioned the proportion of black voters who went with Obama. Moreover there were very few pieces of commentary prior to the primary that failed to mention the proportion of the South Carolina electorate that is black. My point? By focusing on the issue of race the British press feeds the stereotype of the US as a racist country, one where a black voter is more likely to vote for a candidate simply because they’re black (and conversely a country where white voters are less likely to vote for a candidate simply because they’re black).

Of course, like many stereotypes, this one isn’t very helpful. Are there people in the US who won’t vote for Obama because he’s black? Undoubtedly. Just as there are voters in the UK who wouldn’t vote for a black candidate.

But to read the British press you would think the issue of black vs white was a real issue for large numbers of Americans. Well, shock horror, it’s not. America is a lot of things, and certainly it’s a country that, in my opinion, is a touch too sensitive about issues of race, but it’s not a racist country.

For what it’s worth, if I had a vote in South Carolina I would have used it to vote Stephen Colbert (but sadly he didn’t get on the ballot). He did however interview Debra Dickerson from MotherJones.com about South Carolina’s Democratic primary:

“The prime minister has defended the accreditation of in-company qualifications after it was announced that staff at McDonald’s could gain the equivalent of an A-level in burger bar management.

The fast food giant, Network Rail and the airline Flybe are the first three companies to win government approval to become an exam board.”

Wow, I mean… well… um… that’s, well it’s… um… it’s certainly one way of countering claims of dumbing down.

A few days ago we heard about the woeful state of maternity care in London. But fear not, Labour has ridden to the rescue like a knight in shining (payed for by the tax payer) armour. Yes, Alan Johnson has pledged an extra £122 million annually to ensure:

“a gold standard of maternity services for women in every part of the country”

Well that’s it then, problem solved. Everyone knows that poor healthcare is always, always, the result of underfunding. For example, and not many people know this, the reason we have such a problem with MRSA is that staff and visitors in NHS hospitals simply don’t have enough £10 notes to wipe their hands on.

When I think about Labour’s tokenistic response to public sector failure such as that displayed by Alan Johnson I’m reminded of something Milton Friedman once said:

“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.”

That is government, and in particular that’s Labour government.

I haven’t read the speech yet, but according to the BBC Gordon Brown has indicated in his Davos address that organisations ‘like the World Bank were set up decades ago, and not designed for the problems of 2008′.

I suppose when you look at it that way organisations like the World Bank are a lot like the Prime Minister; a man whose view of politics was forged decades ago, and not designed for the challenges of 2008.

The Facebook one is particularly accurate I think; although it would have been spot on if all the other party goers were pestered to add applications:

Jacqui Smith was on the Today program earlier and was faced challenges that her proposals for detention for 42 days without trial only existed to cover hypothetical situations. Smith responded with, well, with something approaching… um…:

"It won’t be hypothetical if and when it occurs. We are not legislating
now on the basis that we are bringing it in now for something that
might happen in the future; we are bringing it in now for something
that might happen in the future; we are bringing in a position for if
it becomes unhypothetical. If, unfortunately I and many other experts
are right and we do need it in the future it is in place."

Suddenly I’m reminded of Donal Rumsfeld’s "unknown unknowns".

Hat Tip = LibDem Voice

And so the inevitable has happened; Peter Hain has resigned from the cabinet. Hmm, I wonder whether he was pushed or… defenestrated. I guess now he’ll have lots of free time to help police with the enquiries and pick out furniture for his cell.