Lawslot

Times are hard and it will be a difficult year (see my immediate past post, Stormy weather), but Gordon Brown was at his hectoring worst during PMQs today. Pressed on why the Home Secretary wouldn’t accept the recommendation from the independent tribunal on police pay, all he had to offer was his government’s anti-inflation strategy. If government is all about trust, then things are going from bad to worse. Badly done, Mr Brown.

Mervyn King was very honest last night in his speech to the South West CBI-IoD dinner about what is in store for UK plc in 2008. Listening to him with upwards of 725 other South West businessmen was a sobering experience: no flashy delivery, no blinding with science, no self-congratulation on a job so far done well (how unlike Gordon Brown, who cannot resist telling us that even if things aren’t quite as good as they might be (a) it isn’t his fault and (b) that that it is as good as it is is all down to him and his best friend Prudence). Instead, from the Governor a critical summary of where we are, why and what is in store. Aside from the main points in his speech, and see an excellent report by Norma Cohen in today’s FT, two things remain in my mind: that as consumers we must save more and spend less (fairly obvious, but blindly ignored by most of us); and that the fear of what is still to come out of the sub-prime catastrophe in the US is as potent a destabilising force as what is already known.

An interesting column by Stefan Stern in the FT this morning on trust, and why deception is the real enemy of trust. He refers to a Gallup poll quoted by Mark Thompson (BBC DG) last week, that only 36% of UK citizens thought politicians were trying to do their best for the country.  In the context of the government’s proposals for Northern Rock and Miliband defending the refusal to offer a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, we should not be surprised.

In his The RSPB View (February Birds, the RSPB’s Quarterly) Graham Wynne, the charity’s Chief Executive, returns to the story of a pair of hen harriers being shot on the Sandringham Estate. He writes, “The shooting of two hen harriers at Sandringham last October and the poisoning of a golden eagle in southern Scotland last summer were despicable acts and should be sources of shame for those responsible”. I could not agree more; but, Mr Wynne, there is still no evidence that two hen harriers were brought down, no close eye-witness, no dead birds and no charges brought. Although this doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen, is it the job of a responsible charity to repeat this canard? It is not so much the story as the innuendo, that the shooting involved the Royal Family, whether directly or indirectly. On 21 November, a month after the alleged shooting Charles Moore was continuing to draw attention to what he referred to this ‘curious incident’ in his Spectator column, and it seems surprising that two months later the RSPB still maintains that the hen harriers were shot.

I was rather taken aback reading Anne McElvoy’s Diary in this week’s Spectator. Apparently ‘You’re a star!’ is to be avoided as “an apparent compliment but with the undertone of addressing a slightly simple housemaid”. Leaving aside the fact that I do not have a housemaid, simple or otherwise, it is a comment I used only recently to my secretary at work (I suppose the modern day equivalent of the housemaid). Let’s hope she doesn’t read The Spectator.

A snippet on the Radio 3 news this morning (which is not yet up on the BBC News website), about coastal erosion. Apparently this is happening and, according to “environmentalists”, the government should do something about it. Quite what we weren’t told. If they still taught history properly in schools we would be spared this sort of story!

For someone who normally appears very careful in his choice of words, Gordon Brown’s answer on News at Ten last night that Peter Hain’s current travail was the result of “an incompetency” seemed strange. The Shorter OED defines incompetency as ‘(1) inadaquacy; and (2) the fact or condition of being incompetent; want of the requisite ability, power or qualification; incapacity’. It was not the word incompetent, but the indefinite article in front of it. It begged the question whose incompetency (although there should be no prizes for guessing whose: and the BBC on its Radio 3 news summary at 8.30 this morning left listeners in no doubt, as Brown was reported as having “accused Hain of incompetence”. It is a sorry tale, and compounded by Brown playing the “He’s said he’s sorry” card. The story is not going away, and Brown now finds himself caught between a Rock (more later) and a Hain place.

As a son of the manse, Gordon Brown will know all about Pontius Pilate. His behaviour over Peter Hain has just the teeniest-weeniest bit of the Pilate in it, as he has quite clearly washed his hands of this matter. In Coffee House this morning Matthew d’Ancona says that Peter Hain is “toast”. Will Gordon ride to the rescue? Will he heck!

My youngest pointed out, on hearing that Tony and Cherie were Posh ‘n Becks Mk.2, that this implied an improvement. In his view this is most certainly not the case.

A fascinating Point of View on BBC Radio 4 this morning: David Cannadine talking about the changing art of giving. As Cannadine reminded listeners, “the practice of giving money away has been around for as long as there have been people possessed of more wealth than they required for their own immediate needs”, and his talk ranged in its all too brief 10 minutes from Sir Thomas Bodley to Warren Buffett, via Tate, Carnegie, Rockefeller, the Sainsburies and Bill and Melinda Gates. Cannadine identified a number of reasons why the rich are prepared to give their money away, including “the imperatives of religion, the desire for social recognition and acceptance, the need to assuage feelings of guilt, the craving for immortality, the pleasure of handing out large sums of money, and the genuine passion to try to do good, and make the world a better place.” To which I would add, at least as regards the great art collections assembled by the North American robber barons, the desire to prevent anyone else getting their hands on them. Walking around the Metropolitan Museum of Art and The Frick Collection last year, I had the overwhelming feeling that whatever the reasons that drove them to collect, the last thing they were going to allow to happen was for their collections to be acquired by one of their rivals.