Al Jeers

I don't think we can complain that we were not warned by the Algerians about the operation to release the hostages in their desert gas plant. If they felt that they either didn't want, or couldn't wait for, an SAS team, so be it. We would not, of course, have consulted them (nor asked for their crack team of special forces) if, say, a few dozen Algerians were being held hostage in Cleethorpes, or Londonderry, or Port Isaac.

The risk of working hundreds of miles from habitation in the Sahara is self-evident, even before factoring in the pissed-off and bloodthirsty Islamist. I hope the pay reflects this, for the current emergency will surely not be the last.

UPDATE: Elby refers us to Raedwald for a good burst of invective.

Dish of the Day

My Lidl pony

That's That, Then

Leaders 'set aside' collective responsibility

David Cameron and Nick Clegg have formally agreed to "set aside" Cabinet collective responsiblity over boundary changes, Downing Street has revealed.

No.10 said the decision to suspend ministerial responsibility, agreed before a Lords vote yesterday, was "the first time it has happened under this Coalition".

  

Given that the Conservatives, by common consent, need at least a 7 or 8% lead in the headline polls to gain a majority in the Commons of even 1 seat, the collapse of the boundary review plans are more than a mere setback. Barring an economic rebound that affects all parts of the UK, Cameron and Osborne are sunk.

Cameron should have taken a horse whip to Clegg, of course, and humiliated him for his treachery and double-dealing with the Labour Party in the Lords. How long the government could have lasted is anyone’s guess, but it would have guaranteed the Libs being wiped out at a subsequent election, making it a two-horse race (I speculate that Dave would have seen the light on Europe and welcomed back a million UKIP votes).

But Cameron is as wet as a scrubber and a hand-wringing social-democrat himself, so there is no surprise here.

What, my friends, are the circumstances that might yet win the election for the Conservatives? I think it’s the economy, only. Tell me in the Comments.

Man the Barricades

I like Eric Pickles; he's one of the less embarrassing Cabinet Tories. I'm sure his bluff Yorkshire straight talking appeals across the political spectrum. So it's a bit surprising when he starts waffling and obfuscating as badly as he did with Andrew Neil over the weekend:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/01/pickles-refuses-to-disclose-government-numbers-on-how-romanians-and-bulgarian-immigrants-will-come-to-the-uk-when-eu-transition-controls-end/

Idle posted on this issue last month, but makes no apology for raising it again. Cameron, on the radio this morning, ruled out an In/Out referendum (disingenuously referring to it as a 'false choice' - ie, uncomfortable for a confirmed Euro fan like Dave). His much-awaited speech, which has been so long in the making and the hinting and the leaking, threatens to backfire on him. And with good reason - here we have, within a couple of days of one another, a Cabinet member making clear that another wave of (let's face it) undesirables are headed our way, almost certainly in the hundreds of thousands, yet the Prime Minister won't consult his electorate on the issue.

I often think that Dave is interested only in power, such is his rootlessness in conservative intincts and traditions. Yet on the subject of providing houses, schooling, health provision, rubbish collection, benefits and motability cars to Romanians and Bulgarians, he seems all for it, despite its great electoral unpopularity. Given that the current working class (black or white, recent immigrant or not) doesn't want to let them in any more than the middle class of potential Conservative voters, this seems to be either utter stupidity, or a blinkered devotion to the European cause, come what may. I suppose it is the latter, but there is still time for him to prove me wrong.

Dan on Form

Hannan, a thespian to his fingertips, addresses the Oxford Union on the great myth, namely that capitalism has buggered us up these last five years. Of course, he's right. Capitalism would have put tens of thousands of bankers on the dole, the best of which could apply for jobs available in the surviving healthy banks, had capitalism been allowed to work its natural cycle. Instead, we saved the big banks, the big bankers and the huge market share they enjoy - so big, they coudn't be allowed to fail - and STILL can't be allowed to fail. We guaranteed the status quo! Idiocy.

Idle has worked for one of these leviathans since the dust settled after the disaster of 2008. I'd happily see it a quarter of its current size, run by enterprising businessmen rather than the current coalition of government and opportunists, wound up in the straitjacket of regulation and share price fixation. Banking is easy, after all; pay a reasonably competitive interest rate to depositors and lend at slightly higher rates to borrowers. Where possible, know your depositors and borrowers very well, in order to understand their needs right across the financial services spectrum, and thereby to maximise your return from them, through competent provision of product and service. Fractional reserve banking means that you will lend a multiple of what you take as deposits, so don't overdo it; a good executive board and a few wise old non-execs will keep you the right side of this.

The sooner Hannan gets to Westminster, the better.

O Level Art Failure

It is true that a portrait need not look exactly like its subject to be a superb portrait. Some highly individualistic painters manage to make all their subjects look as though they belong to the same family, yet still catch the vital character of the individual.

This is not one of those portraits. It is shockingly bad. The eyes, whilst reasonably close representations of Kate's, look slightly stoned. The nose, instead of being coquettish, has become slab-like. And the mouth! What was he thinking? This is a smug smirk, as if to say: "See? I told them I'd get him. Now I'm going to be Queen, so there!"

And, as a final insult to aesthetics, he appears to have put a vaseline glaze over the whole horror show, like a Penthouse Pet of the 1970s.

This is bad. Really bad.

Hopeless

The Prince's Trust is clearly a force for good in Britain and I have always been impressed by the quiet way it improves lives and communities and helps establish hundreds of youngsters in start-up enterprises. Compared with, say, the Joseph Rowntree charity, which does a lot of bleating about 'poverty', it seems to value deeds over words.

So I don't quite know what to make of 'The Prince's Trust Youth Index', which has some fairly alarming statistics from its most recent survey.

27% of the youths surveyed believe their prospects have been 'permanently damaged' by the economic downturn.

19% said they 'had no future'. This figure goes up to 36% for those who are NEETs.

My first impression was to get quite angry that one in five of our youth believed they had no future. Get a grip, I thought, there's a world of opportunity out there for anyone prepared to graft and use their imagination. Has Britain come to this? I could give cash in hand work to a couple of people most weekends if any were to knock on the door. Pull your socks up! The world owes no one a living! Join the Forces! Go West, young man! etc.

Then I reflected that the survey had probably taken place in inner cities (though it claims it is weighted and representative of all UK young people aged 16-25), in which case we should be cheering that 81% of them DID believe they had a future (and, we must hope, are motivated enough to go out and grab it by the bollocks rather than wait for it to arrive, gift-wrapped, at their door).

Then I reflected further and remembered that youth unemployment in much of the Garlic Belt averages 42% and is as high as 58% in Greece and Spain. And that includes graduates, the highly skilled, the whole shebang.

Perhaps we ought to be thankful and accept that 20% of our yoof is a small percentage, some of them will end up in the black economy, etc etc.

NO!

We need, urgently, to improve their prospects. And the way to do that is to put a stop to the sort of immigration which soaks up all the unskilled jobs and leaves our chaps on the dole and a life of benefits or crime, which thanks to the tireless IDS is going to be less feasible an option.

The bottom end of any society needs education, a welfare safety net and programmes to help the unemployed become productive, self-sufficient and to live life without indignity. The Labour Party has been a disaster for this section of our society. To give it it's due, it is in these areas that this government is making some progress. Gove's education crusade is bold and crucial, IDS's welfare reforms rather more timid, but when climbing a mountain thousands of small steps is the only way.

But the greatest difference we can make to those at the bottom of the heap is to protect the jobs we expect them to do from being hoovered up by economic migrants. This is not about race or creed or religion or culture, it's about basic economics. Halt unskilled and low-skilled immigration immediately - there is, on balance, great economic harm in it.