To Play the King

I decided to run with a theme on this. House of Cards fans will no doubt appreciate it, or at least I hope they will. Anyway, the results dripped through on Wednesday and so I can give them to you more or less in full. Here goes. 

Justice Secretary: Ken Clarke is out at last. In comes Chris Grayling in the first of the right wingers to enter the Cabinet since the reshuffle. He might give a good account of himself at Justice, although how sad IDS will be to lose him at the DWP we will see. Ken, meanwhile, has been given a role in economic affairs, so he's back to what he knows. 

Health Secretary: Out with Andrew Lansley and in with Jeremy Hunt (cue sharp intake of breath). So far another speculation proven right. This should now be Hunt's chance to atone for his bad record over BSkyB at Culture. Sad for Andrew Lansley, who is now Leader of the House. I don't see him making any kind of comeback from this now. 

Environment Secretary: Caroline Spelman is in the long grass as Owen Paterson comes up from the Northern Ireland Office, to be replaced by Theresa Villiers, former Minister of State at Transport. Environment is a good bet for a long run to Foreign Secretary (probably past the DfID, but more of that in a moment).  He seems competent, so we could get something to run with green-wise until 2015. He may well want more later, but he has until 2015 to see if he deserves it. 

Culture Secretary: With Jeremy Hunt at Health, Maria Miller was appointed (albeit with raised eyebrows) to the Culture Department. There have already been raised voices over her voting record, in similar tones to the appointment of Chris Grayling. To the nay-sayers I respond thus: I don't care about previous voting records, especially when certain votes contained large numbers of Labour MP's. She needs to prove that she's competent. 

International Development: We wave goodbye to Andrew Mitchell and welcome Justine Greening, formerly Transport Secretary. Justine, you may well remember, being responsible for tacking the controversial issue of a third Heathrow runway. She has already promised a tougher stance on aid and abut time, given that we pledged 0.7% of GDP to go overseas in the next few years. Andrew Mtichell gets Chief Whip, replacing Patrick McLoughlin who gets...

Transport Secretary: Patrick is already hitting the ground running with Boris sounding off on Government policy over the proposed Heathrow expansion. He is also now responsible for overseeing HS2, the highly necessary (although no less controversial) rail provision we need. 

Party Chairman: One of the first revelations was that Sayeeda Warsi is finally out, to be replaced by Grant Shapps, former Housing Minister at DWP. She goes to the Foreign Office to bother William Hague while Grant is left to begin the mammoth task of putting together the election strategy for 2015 and rallying the beleaguered association network across the UK. His role is now crucial as we begin to look at the endgame in the run-up to the next general election. He will need to be continually active and hopefully be involved in major decisions, as it will be his task to present policy in an electoral context. 

All in all a strong-looking team. None of the Great Offices have been moved and Vince is still at Business. Surisingly David Laws was given a semi-formal role at Education but attached to a roving brief. It's good to have him back though, we need another set of brains in Whitehall. 

House of Cards

Sadly this isn't a review of the much-acclaimed serialisation of Michael Dobbs' magnum opus. However it does bear some relevance on the current goings-on in the Westminster village, for finally we get a big reshuffle. It's been two years in coming, but hopefully by this time tomorrow we'll have a Cabinet hopefully more refreshed and energetic in tackling the challenges ahead. 

Here, then, I hope to give a personal account of those involved and whether or not I believe they would be best suited to the job they've been tipped for. I shall start with: 

The Great Offices of State: these being the PM, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary. Obviously we cannot afford to lose George Osborne at the Treasury, but he really must get a grip on the economy. It has started to run away with him and he must now reveal a more bold and robust growth plan in order to get Britain going again. Build a runway by all means, but do it at a regional airport for God's sake. Birmingham would be perfect for this; central location, good access to all parts of England and Wales as well as onward travel by air and rail to Scotland and of course as one of the termini for High Speed 2. 

Foreign Secretary: William Hague has been stellar these past two years. British foreign policy has never been in better shape with him at the helm and we are being listened to again. No more gaffes, mistaken handshakes or anything like that. He's been right on the money, such a shame he won't move and take on the chairmanship role. He would add the political clout needed while being popular and well-known to help galvanise our tired association network. He might have paved the way for...

Home Secretary: Theresa May. She's had a bad innings at the Home Office one way or another, although not too much of her own making. Scandals with UKBA and G4S, the Police Federation conference to name but three. She has the tenacity to turn that round and the intelligence to provide innovative policy. She has, however, grown into her role nicely and could probably survive another year. 

Health Secretary: Andrew Lansley may or may not be for the chop. I hope he stays, it was just horrible how the NHS reforms were presented. Trusting GP's with money is not a good idea, but ensuring more competition within the Health Service is. Letting him go now looks like admitting defeat and that cannot happen. That is not to ignore his long record on Conservative health policy, but some people do need a gentle push. We shall see. 

Justice Secretary: Speaking of gentle pushes, Ken Clarke could well find himself gently pushed out and upstairs. Might not be such a bad thing, he's had forty years in and out of governments one way or another. The apparent softness on crime and blatant Europhilia do count against him, he's much better at economics. Had we been in a better position, he could easily have gone to the Treasury as Chief Secretary. His future is very uncertain; I won't be sorry to see him go. A peerage and position at CCHQ might be just the retirement he needs. 

Work and Pensions/Education: I mention these two in the same breath because there is no point in moving either Ian Duncan Smith or Michael Gove. There are those who say that their policies are socially harmful and not the least bit beneficial to those who would use their services most. I forgot that it's wrong to empower people, to show them how they can live their lives without full dependence on the State for everything. If you are capable of work, then you ought to work. If you desire a good education for your child, then your child must have it. Gove has wrested the schools away from the devastatingly toxic grip of the local authorities and allowed dedicated people to help set up free schools. In the same way, IDS is attempting to show people that in fact it is much better to stand on your own two feet and run your life yourself. 

Business and Innovation: Sadly Vince isn't moving either. However he has just put forward proposals for a new investment bank, so he ought to see the project through its initial stages before he's shunted anywhere. Hopefully he might learn a few lessons and actually read the very helpful reports he's given before carrying on regardless. 

Transport: Justine Greening also hangs in the balance, after only a few months in the job thanks to the minor reshuffle caused by Philip Hammond's promotion after Liam Fox's departure. However after her brave intervention over the third runway at Heathrow, she might actually be kept on a little longer. 

Who, then, might be in line for a promotion? Well, firstly, some of the new boys and girls from the 2010 intake are set for higher office in the junior ministries, setting them up for possible promotion a little further down the line. Both Chris Grayling and Grant Shapps are in line to take on more heavyweight roles, with either one of them tipped to be Party Chairman (I have mentioned how awful the Feldman-Warsi-Osborne triad is and would welcome its eventual demise). Owen Paterson could leave the Northern Ireland brief to take on Transport and Patrick Mcloughlin is widely believed to be our next Chief Whip. 

What is needed is a deeper understanding of the voting public. Leave the south-east as it is; it's Tory heartland and nobody will change that any time soon. We need to start winning in other areas, such as the Midlands, the North and Wales. Apart from everyone's chief political concern, which seems to the economy, where are the frequent polls on immigration or crime? I doubt that having an exclusive northerner at CCHQ would make any difference, but it would be a help certainly in rallying the northern associations. Eric Pickles might be good at that, though; leave his job at Communities for someone else while he sets about putting the party on an election footing. We are staring down the barrel at 2013 now and Conference is fast approaching. This is the time when the Chancellor must be bold and deliver on his promise earlier today of increased investment, when the Prime Minister must face down his critics and get tougher on Nick Clegg (bringing David Laws back might just help in that regard, but we shall see) and when the Conservative Party has the leadership it needs to put a majority government in Westminster come 2015. 

Reading Between the Lies

No, it's not a typo or the title of a song. Although anyone wishing to use that will now have to pay. Heavily. Price negotiable, details on request. 

Hello, everyone! It's been ages, how are you all? Isn't the weather funny? Are we all sick of the Olympics yet? Shame about Andy Murray yesterday, but there's time yet. Right, there, we're all caught up. The topics this week, bankers and peers. We should now be aware of the Libor scandal that broke last week and the current row over the House of Lords reform demanded by the Lib Dems in return for letting us have our way with the boundaries. Doubtless Little Nicky wants this because he didn't get his way on AV. What price, then, the boundary changes? And what happens if people don't vote the way he'd like tomorrow? We shall see. 

So, yes, that's the first thing. For those of you reading this from overseas or who wish a little clarification on the Upper House, I shall put that into a brief context. The House of Lords in the United Kingdom acts as a revising chamber to legislation brought before Parliament, with much of the leg-work being done by the House of Commons and the relevant committees. Their Lordships debate the bills and can hold up legislation for up to one year, when it then automatically goes through. They now, thanks to the 1911 Parliament Act, cannot block financial or provision legislation. They are also divided into categories; the main two being the Lords Temporal and Lords Spiritual. The Lords Temporal are those peers who are not bishops in the Church of England who are also privileged to have seats in the Lords (hence Lords Spiritual. There are 26 of them). 92 Lords Temporal are hereditary peers (those whose titles have been passed through the family) and the rest are life peers (those whose peerages expire on their death). All clear? Marvellous. 

The main feature about the Lords is that nobody is fully elected to it. The hereditary peers choose among themselves, the life peers usually are appointed because of some great service done (although most are retired politicians) and the bishops are there because they are among the more important ones. Another little interesting factoid is that there are more peers than there are MP's. Yes, you saw it here first, there are over 700 people entitled to sit in the House of Lords. There are only 650 MP's elected by the people. An anomaly in a democracy such as ours and I'm inclined to agree. In the US, the Senate is made up of two people from each state, so that's 100 people elected there every six years. The House of Representatives is over four times larger, with 425 people elected to it every two years. Most countries with a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature elect both chambers. There is a further anomaly in our constitution; that is if a person is desired to serve in a ministerial capacity without a seat in the Commons (it's part of the framework, each minister of the Crown must be answerable to Parliament), then they can have a life peerage and sit in the Lords. Unfortunately the Lords has been a little bit abused since 1911 in that because nobody needs to be elected to it, governments could pack it with their cronies and get laws through without a hitch. Hence why it has become so bloated and top-heavy. Unable to resist a little dig here; I noticed that Blair found this most useful, although many of the Labour peers created on his watch never bothered to attend the Lords very often, if at all. 

That, therefore, is where the contextual stuff ends. How, then, do we solve such a crisis? Easy, elect! Make them mostly or completely dependent on the will of the voters for their seats and then we'll have a more accountable Upper House. Great! Not. More bloody elections? God save us. I know that the Lib Dems want peers in an elected house to serve the length of three Commons terms, but that's too much. Why should they have the opportunity of virtually safe jobs when decent MP's could be kicked out through boundary changes every time? How is that democracy? In addition, we wouldn't be able to have an age qualification, something definitely needed in a revising chamber, where thought and due process are required. The EU would have a fit if we said that nobody in the UK below the age of 40 could stand as a national representative, it's age discrimination. It'd be a second Commons otherwise (not that the Commons isn't entertaining with the barracking, order-paper waving and boisterousness, but one is enough). Even setting something like that up would be a nightmare; how many should we shrink the Lords to? How do we decide on constituency sizes?Should it be fully or partially elected? 

As you've all come to expect, here's my opinion on what should happen. Yes, reform the Lords, but let's be sensible about it. First; enough with the cronyism. If you wish to show a dedicated party apparatchik how much you appreciate their efforts then either throw them on a quango or recommend them for a gong. That should not be what peerages are for. Second, on a similar theme, let's stop using the Lords as a political retirement home. A peerage in terms of retired politicians should be reserved for Cabinet-level ministers, Prime Ministers and Speakers (not Deputy Speakers either). For those in the Civil Service, nobody below the rank of Permanent Secretary. That way we can then open the Upper House up to individuals with more specialist experience; former senior service personnel, university vice chancellors, captains of industry (no bankers, please) etc.  Appoint people like that and we'd get a heady mix of professional people who would be able to provide more objectivity to legislation. Slash the numbers to 500 as well and arrange as appropriate using sets of ten (means dropping six bishops and two hereditaries but hey ho). That leaves 390, which is more than enough to find some of the best and brightest to serve. Bring them in alongside each new electoral intake every five years and it should all work out nicely. Create a separate monitoring committee made up of, say, five people from the previous House's membership, five MP's and an independent chair which would handle appointments and maintain discipline along with the general administration and I see no need why we should have to have an elected Lords. It would save people the bother of electing someone else, maintain the long-held tradition of dignity and debate for which it is known and ensure that we got the best out of our Parliament. 

That's the Lords, then. Speaking of people getting their just desserts, did anyone see the performance by Paul Tucker, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England at today's Select Committee? It seems that it doesn't matter who one is in the City, some scandal somewhere will come and get you. Last week we had Bob Diamond, who gallantly fell on his sword for Barclay's (he deserved to go, though. There's only so much corruption one can deny. Pity he's not old, then he could employ the Murdoch defence). I can smell something definitely fishy on this one; I did wonder if Tucker did actually either lie or at least mislead the committee today. He might not have had word from Ed Balls directly on rate-fixing at Barclay's, but I'm willing to bet that someone from the Treasury was sent over without Mervyn King knowing to lay down the law. No wonder Brown was so eager to set the Bank of England up completely on its own, it meant that the pliable Governor would be easily led and swallow every line fed to him and he wouldn't ask about the goings-on between the Treasury and City bosses. Well that worked out, didn't it? 

I have to do something distasteful as well. I must come out and agree with Ed Miliband on something. He wants more competition in the banking sector and I frankly agree with him, although I think we can go further. As well as the high street becoming more heterogeneous in terms of bank branches, I believe that banking as a whole could diversify. Why do we not have dedicated banks which lend to and invests in industry and agriculture exclusively? While I'm not a specialist in economics and don't pretend to be, I do wonder nonetheless why we cannot be more like Germany, for example, in our approach. There are certain banks in Germany which don't even operate out-of-state branches and indeed act more like building societies. Why can we not do the same? More choice for customers, less risk for commercial and personal banking alike and if one bank goes completely under a la Northern Rock, then there wouldn't be any need for the government to rescue it if it didn't want to. The "too big to fail" idea, now completely defunct, would be laid to rest forever. Surely with a (just about) Tory-led government we can secure some kind of action on this? Ours is the party of business, so let's start as we mean to go on and create some (granted it's the business that got us into this mess, but most vaccines contain a little of the disease under inoculation). If Osborne has any sense he will go away and give this some thought over the summer. 

So that's it for this week. I do notice that my comment boxes seem a little empty. Do feel free to comment, particularly if you're from overseas. I like seeing that people from across the oceans have a particular interest in this. Gives me a warm fuzzy glow. Not that being too warm is particularly welcome in summer, but it'd still be nice. 

Junctions and Signal Failures

Sounds like something the Reverend Awdry would have written in one of his many Thomas the Tank Engine stories, be it either title or exclamation. The phrase is equally applicable to roads and this is where I shall begin this edition.

I was browsing on Twitter just now and saw a lot of the political types I follow talking about U-Turns and it got me thinking about the whole road metaphor that politicians use when rolling out their vision post-general election. Now, we all know St Margaret, in the Book of Conferences was disdainful of such things and so this is where I shall start. Here is the Political Guide to Motoring.

If, like Tony or Maggie, you prefer to go at high speeds with no reverse gear but plenty of room for manoeuvre until you reach your destination, then motorways are the way forward. The motorway building project crowned of course in the mid-80s with the building of the M25.

If you like going at a good pace having first given yourself plenty of time to work out your journey without the bother of going too fast and the possibility of a nice little country diversion along the odd B road, then by all means follow the Major road map.

If you're a follower of the Brown method, then you'll want lots of roundabouts; just because you need to try every available exit before making the wrong decision and crashing anyway, but trying to lay the blame on the motorist coming off the motorway exit.

Because the Brown method meant that there's now not much fuel in the car, the Coalition motorist will have to think a journey out very carefully, in order to maintain minimum consumption. This means jettisoning the caravan, slinging off the roof box, detaching the bike rack and the rear seats. You will also need to programme the sat-nav for all possible places to make U-Turns and avoid roundabouts. Make sure the radio works to give Nick something to do while Dave drives, and as there are no back seats anymore, Boris will still have to cycle.

What Will You Do When the Money Goes?

So runs the title of a song by band Milburn. Well if you're a Greek then go back to the money you used before you got yourselves into the mess you're in now. It'll hurt for a bit, but ultimately the pain will subside then fade. And if nobody knows what I'm on about at this point then please feel free to return to your cave in Tahiti and return your fingers to your ears and close your eyes. All better? Good. 

Now, to the main thread of the first part. Yes, first -- I'm going back to the old format. Got a fair bit to say this week. Might even throw in a third, I'll see how I feel. It's all a bit linked now I come to think of it. OK, the third makes up for missing a second bit out a fortnight ago. So -- launch. 

Now I've finished doing my impression of a writer on The Bridge, you're all coming with me on a tour of Greece. See the ruins, soup kitchens and elderly people rooting through dustbins. Yes, I know, and it's a fundamental reality for some now. Pensions aren't stretching as far, nor are salaries as we hear stories of parents giving their children up to an overburdened state. Welcome to Greece 2012; please don't expect much to be functioning at the moment. Disillusionment runs rife, as do rumours as to which party's going to get the plurality and whether or not Greece will still be in the single currency or not in four weeks. The Olympics seem to have been kicked off in good style by a run on the banks as well. The sad fact is that none of this is sustainable for much longer. Germany, swamping Europe as it does with its economic might (take note, would-be dictators. And indeed dead ones), might be able to buy Greece outright but the German taxpayers wouldn't stomach it. A recent BBC interview conducted the day of Francois Hollande's arrival in Berlin for his first summit with Herr Angela, showed the disdain some Germans have for their Greek neighbours and indeed their worries about what will happen should the Euro collapse. But they need not fear. Germany's economy is growing and doing well; they can send a clear message to the Bundestag about what should happen with their money. 

What should happen is that Greece be allowed to quietly slink out of the currency and then the continent be re-structured, as has been suggested before. A strong North (Finland, Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Austria) and a more manageable South (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Ireland, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Malta). Now, of course, there are two glaring anomalies there -- yes, Ireland and Estonia are with the South, despite being far to the north. That's a matter of geography, not economics. While there are fewer countries in the North, they are nonetheless the larger and more stable economies (Estonia could have some good potential, so we could soon move them North). They would be best suited to working out economic and currency difficulties because they have the necessary capital. I'm no economist myself, but I do recognise common sense when I see it and this is a possible as good ideas go. 

So what of the Greeks? Well, the drachma could be re-introduced and pegged both to the Turkish lira and the Euro. The former is the more preferable, as Turkey is close to Greece and their economy is also doing rather well. It would be weak at first, but nursed on both lira and Euro, it could grow to being sustainable in a few years' time. Certainly a weak drachma would encourage tourism, particularly from the eurozone as well as from Britain and the US. However, there are two things that could necessarily scupper such a plan. The first being that Greco-Turkish relations can be a little fiery from time to time and pegging drachma to lira could result in a heavy backlash. The second is that if Greece is permitted to leave the Euro, what would then be wrong with Germany saying "we're tired of supporting Portugal and Spain too. We might just encourage them to leave". In my view I see nothing wrong there because that's another two currencies to compete against the Euro and make it work harder. A third aspect is that the Greeks don't seem to want to leave the single currency, but don't want to obey its rules. It's just so hard to come up with sensible policies in an area where one size only fits Germany. 

Speaking of sensible policies (and returning home now), I read something that piqued my interest and seems to have been picked up in a few publications. The proposal out today from the TaxPayers' Alliance and Institute of Directors suggests that, while cuts would still need to happen until 2020, growth would be stimulated by 8.4% over 15 years. Doesn't sound like much, I know, but consider what would be needed for this to happen; scrapping air passenger duty, abolition of national insurance, abolition of stamp duty on shares, the abolition of corporation and capital gains taxes to replace them with the 30% rate and include rent in that as well. Council funding would be cut, but local authorities would then be able to raise revenue through local income and sales taxes. Personal rates would only be 30% as well, with a personal allowance of £10,000. 

While the deficit would increase by £49.1 bn in the first year, annual borrowing by 2017 would fall by £35 bn. However this would be offset a little by people having more money in their pockets to spend on things they know they want. Sales taxes might rise to help cover the cost, but in large parts of Scandinavia this has been the case for a long time. As Tim Worstall pointed out (see links below), Sweden has no inheritance tax, gift tax or wealth tax and all the countries (who, if they had the Euro, would be in the North) enjoy relative prosperity, despite having low personal and corporate taxes. Even though they have socialised healthcare, there is no such thing as a Swedish or Danish NHS; it all comes from the local tax pot. Amazing.

Returning to the Olympics and now leaving the world of finance. The Olympic torch finally reached British soil on Monday to start its tour, which now only has 65 days to run. If republicans all want to escape the Jubilee, then can I please escape the blasted Olympics (that cave in Tahiti I mentioned earlier would do nicely)? I don't mean to be unpatriotic, in fact any of my friends reading this (to whom I haven't already given my opinion on the stupid thing) would probably be shocked at my lack of enthusiasm. Not that my deep-seated antipathy towards sport has anything to do with it. Not in the slightest, I am perfectly comfortable admitting that I don't much care for sport at all. Never have done. It's just all the hype and how clearly anyone who doesn't like the Olympics must be some kind of lunatic. I just fail to see why there is so much enthusiasm for a thing which is only going to cause us so much embarrassment. We're not going to win, people, we might come a decent third or fourth but that's it. It's a waste of effort and money for something which is only going to be here briefly and will do little by way of legacy.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100016459/lets-give-polly-toynbee-the-britain-she-wants/

You Give Me Fever

Election fever, that is. It's been sweeping Europe quicker than the Black Death and certainly the last word has been applicable. On Thursday, the UK saw elections in local authorities and devolved parliaments, yesterday the French, Greeks and Russians all went to the polls to elect (or re-elect) their leaders. The results were interesting. 

The UK election results were, if I'm honest, to be expected. The SNP made gains in Scotland, the Tories lost seats in most English authorities and Labour swept the board. The Lib Dems made some sort of showing, but again, the results were as expected. The biggest sigh of relief was breathed in London when Boris Johnson was re-elected as mayor. This, of course, throws up some problems for the Coalition. Boris is a Tory, but he made little of his political credo during the campaign. He managed to show his political colours without making it explicit and therein lies his success. He has therefore shown that to be a Conservative and be ultimately electable is still possible, without resorting to the cheap showiness of social democracy that has clearly pervaded thinking within Tory HQ and gathered pace since Andy Coulson left Downing Street (see previous entries). Some are touting Boris as a possible leadership candidate and I for one would not be surprised if he threw his hat into the ring before his mayoral term is up. We need more of his kind of authenticity; the greasy pole might be there for the climbing but that doesn't mean everyone should try it. This means you, Nadine Dorries. We are not the Labour Party, no matter how much we think we ought to act like them to gain electoral success. 

I'm going to swing south and run forward in time three days to yesterday when France went to their second poll to elect a new president, which they did in style. Francois Hollande, known and loved Socialist, is the new incumbent and given Nicholas Sarkozy the epithet of being the second president in the Fifth Republic's history to not win a second term. This means that those with a great interest in Europe will be watching very closely, as the fiscal compact so carefully worked out by Sarko and Auntie Angie is re-negotiated to suit a slightly altered relationship between France and Germany. I for one think that it might mean the direction of the EU will change and for the better, although I might be a little bit too optimistic in joining the likes of UKIP and the Daily Express in gleefully hurrying in the end of the EU (although it's no bad thing, but wait for my next paragraph). Wait and see ought to be the mantra for the next couple of months, especially since the French must elect the National Assembly. 

Further south lies Greece. Little bit of a cracked urn over the last year and a bit, this cradle of democracy. From austerity measures to being handed a government by Brussels, there seems to have been little hope for this plucky little southern European nation. And now it seems that the Greek people have rejected their situation and sent a loud and clear message to the political class; it's your mess, we're ordering you to clean it up. The centre-right New Democracy seems to have won a slender majority over socialist PASOK, but nobody has enough seats for an outright majority, so it seems a coalition is in order. They have three days before another left-wing party is given a crack. If they have no government by this time next week then all I can say is God help the European project. So many things pinned as pivotal for the EU have happened in or around Greece and the Greek economy that it seems only natural that the two most recent elections should also have a bearing on the future of the great socialist project nobody seems to want any longer.

Bearing further north and further east we now come upon Russia, the great Slavic rotten borough. They operate their democracy as anyone else, with each person having one vote (that is, of course, people with sensible democracies. None of this AV nonsense. But anyway). Unfortunately the one man entitled to have the vote is Vladimir Putin, who has fiddled about with the Russian constitution so much that he will remain in power until 2018, having first been on the stage as Acting President in 1999 before being officially nominated to the post the following year. This is certainly the longest any elected politician in Russia will have been in power and almost edging on Stalin's record. If he believes he has the answer to Russia's slowing economy, having helped bring it up to standards currently enjoyed in Poland, then I say go ahead. I'd also criticise keeping someone in power for nearly two decades, not even Maggie managed that (although if somehow Kinnock and half the front bench team had been arrested when they went after the Poll Tax protesters, we might be telling a different version of our island story). It's rather sad that since the era of glasnost and perestroika there has been little movement to reform the Russian constitution other than Putin's machinations to maintain his iron grip on power. It will be most interesting to see who comes forward as a likely candidate for 2018.

I haven't much else this week, I know these come in a two-hander, but what I've given you should hopefully provide food for thought. More in the coming weeks, of course. Lord help me when Silly Season comes round. 

A Brief Word

On a personal note this time, as we welcome a new member of the family to the blogging community. Make sure you all have room in your reading schedules for my little sister, who comes to us from strange and faraway places to give her own unique take on the world around her.

So sit back and read Dark Realm, as written by Luce (otherwise known as Atom Onyx). You can do so here http://atomonyx.blogspot.co.uk