Things are getting interesting in local government (yes, you read that correctly).  It seems as if upwards of 20 councils have money stashed away in Icelandic banks, and are going to have some difficulty accessing their deposits following the nationwide banking collapse.

I am amazed that councils deposit money in foreign banks.  There is clearly benefit in not putting all of your eggs in one basket, but a decent spread around the British banks would surely be as safe?  More safe, even, I would argue, than investing abroad.  There is little that the government can do about deposits in Iceland, whereas should the British banks suffer in the same way the government could quickly step in and bail out council deposits if nothing else.

It will be very interesting to see how the councils resolve this severe problem, but retrospective thought should at least consider keeping money in the UK.

The Scribo team (or, rather, I on behalf of the Scribo team) apologise for the lack of posting recently.  Doug and James headed to University on Saturday, and I went up on Sunday.  Freshers’ week and general business have pushed blogging slightly off the agenda, but not off the radar.  Once the lectures and work begin, diversions will doubtless become highly desirable and blogging will return.  Until such a time, allow me to spend a brief moment considering the quandary George Osborne finds himself in.

George Osborne is a conservative and he believes in small government and low spending and economic freedom.  But he is a politician and he wants to win an election in just over a year’s time.  To attempt to seek a public mandate on the back of tax cuts is always a brave move, especially when the electorate is as skeptical as we are today, but to attempt to cut tax while the economy is tanking is folly.

Like it or not, when the economy begins to crumble the electorate wants to see leadership and good government.  This, in the eyes of skeptical voters, is not adequately achieved by tax cuts and slashes to regulation of any and every sort.  Like it or not, the Tories have been forced into a corner of accepting an escape-route to the crisis that fully contradicts their fundamental beliefs.  But there is nothing else for it.  Should they oppose the government line, they would be vilified by every other party in the Commons.  And they would also be contradicting the public perception of leadership in a crisis, looking instead like they would allow the economic situation to deteriorate.  Osborne may be a conservative, but he wants to win an election.  This aim trumps all else in such a fractured time.  He is on uncomfortable ground but his position is fully understandable.

The Met are in open revolt.  Does this mean that they see Boris Johnson as an opportunity for change?

Brown looks intent on respawning New Labour. Or rather, New Labour’s propaganda apparatus; Derek Draper returned recently, Mandelson comes back today. Unity suspects Campbell might return in a consulting role to fully pull together the team that tripped the landslide in 1997. Add to that the apparent retention and promotion of Blairites, and the neglect of the left - and it becomes clear Brown feels the 1997 formula might just work.

If so, he fails to note the rather obvious flaw in his plan; it’s not 1997, and we no longer have a Tory government in power. We have a Labour government, who’ve been in power since 1997, and so have presided over the current decline into gloom. For which they might well be blamed. Figures such as Mandelson thus become the problem, not the solution. They’re associated with all the worst aspects of New Labour - the lies, the hated spin - and their appointment simply reminds the public that they exist. So to expect their return to lead to a change in fortune is simply bizarre; they helped construct the current mess, and will be blamed for that. It’s a sign that Labour just isn’t listening, and wants to carry on as before - when, clearly, the polls show the public no longer want that. Mandelson might be a worryingly skilled political operator, but he’s also so loathed that he could well make the situation worse. So, on ideological and tactical grounds; a very bad decision.

The reshuffle is more horrible than I could ever have imagined. Yes, it’s the return of Peter Mandelson, he who starves the poor and says that Brown should hold New Labour to the “Centre” rather than swinging left (when in fact the former would require the latter). John Hutton is moving to a role which will let him arrange killing people and Geoff Hoon, the man who previously did that job so poorly that British troops were fighting without basic body armour, is now in charge of transport. Doubtless a bus sighting will soon become a rarity.

In other words, the ascendency of the Blairites has become total. In this time of economic collapse Brown has found no place for the left. Perhaps he wishes to play the reliable New Labour acolytes off against the more radical Millibandians or perhaps, as usual, he’s just being a damn fool.

Tom suggests a very plausible strategy for Boris’ spinning strategy:

Hmm, Boris can always say he’s looking forward to working closely with the next appointment on KNIFE CRIME and YOUNG HOODIE MUGGERS etc. The spin is obvious and easy, show Boris as the Voice of the People, we need change, fresh start, new broom, Blair unfortunately tained by the failed policies of the Labour past, yada ya. Job’s a good ‘un. I should do this for a living.

That assumes he gets his way; as well he might, given the subservience of the London papers and Blair’s numerous enemies on either side of the spectrum. But it could go wrong.

Blair’s statement made it clear from the start that Boris forced him out. That makes the move look political, and that could play badly. The police exist to enforce the legislation of democratically elected bodies. The need for that legislation to be applied universally and without prejudice means that the police force must exist without political influence. Democratic bodies should exist to ensure the force remains accountable and enforces the laws properly - but it must itself remain free from interference from partisan individuals.

Democracy comes in the formulation of the law, not its application, which should remain the same no matter who does the application. So when a politician clearly edges a public servant out of their job, we should worry. Blair is abused as a political appointment, but his political resignation matters just as much - it’s exactly the same principle, after all.

And, if Boris did force Blair out, that raises a perhaps more damaging charge; that of political immaturity. Blair gives the impression that Boris wanted him gone largely out of dislike and disagreement. And yet that’s what you’ll encounter every day in public, and indeed general, life. You won’t like everyone you meet, and you won’t agree with everyone you work with; but you need to accept that and move on if you want to ever get something done.

That Boris apparently couldn’t do that here could be made to work against him. The opposition could easily use this, and the rash of resignations from his office over the Summer, to form a narrative of incompetence; with such trouble, they’d say, it’s clear the man can’t operate in public life. That could hurt, if it last long enough.

Currently watching Ian Blair’s resignation live. Boris clearly being made the bogey-man. Fully expect the Home Sec to push that line harder.

I don’t care for unnecessary Boris-bashing - my interest here is this: can Boris spin this to his advantage? I doubt he can.

I bet Cameron will be livid at the “Nasty Party” jibes that will doubtless flood back.

The central task I have set myself and this party is to be as radical in social reform as Margaret Thatcher was in economic reform. That is how we plan to repair our broken society.

David Cameron

The Tory Conference was not policy-heavy.  It was never meant to be.  Its purpose was to make the Tories look strong on the economy, and Cameron look Prime Ministerial.  The blatant “no-smiles-please-we’re-Conservative” approach was shameless but effective, and the theme of the conference seems to be a lingering frustration with government lying 18 long months out of reach.  At their conference last year, the Tories were wetting themselves with the prospect of losing an Autumn election - this year they were blue in the face with anticipation of winning 2010’s offering.

I think we can learn a couple of things from the conference, though.  First, that the Tories are now ready to lead.  Visionaries like Michael Gove are seriously planning for office, with a detailed description of the sort of education system he intends to put into place in a couple of years’ time.  Others will follow.  There will be none of the first-term time-wasting Blair admitted he was guilty of.

Second, we know that the Tories think the Labour party is weakest when “alternatives” to Brown look weak.  The sneering was almost palpable - “come on then, who are you going to replace him with?” rang through the West Midlands.  The image of David Miliband holding a peculiarly flaccid banana was so inexplicably ridiculous that open mockery was thoroughly acceptable: cardboard cutouts of Miliband were distributing bananas until the tone of the conference went from “serious” to “as if you are being told of the tragic deaths of both your parents and their siblings”.  Cameron’s keynote speech singled Miliband out for a personal attack - strong words were used to describe the “arrogance” of his politics, dwelling on the picture of aloofness.  There was no Brown love-bombing, which surely would have been enjoyable to watch, but the Miliband-bashing was tantamount to nodding the prime minister towards another 18 months in power.

Third, as a post-script, a word on my thoughts of Cameron’s view of Brown.  It is patently obvious that there is a potent animosity between the prime minister and his presumed successor, but I think Cameron’s loathing is superseded by rank astonishment at Brown’s inability to govern.  I truly believe Cameron expected an Autumn election, and his fantastic line (I paraphrase) in PMQs following the climbdown should be taken at face value - “he is the only Prime Minister ever to have canceled an election because he thought  he would win it!”.  To put it another way, “you had us by the nuts there: why on earth didn’t you buy yourself a mandate when you had the chance?”.  It is my firm opinion that Cameron thinks Brown is a bad operator, and thinks he would perform better.  It’s not just a seeking of power - it’s a seeking to replace the Labour government he has grown to loathe.

And fourth, it should again be noted just how similar Cameron’s ascendancy is to Blair’s.

Scarily accurate:

(Hat-tip: Adam Ramsay’s facebook status.)