ThunderDragon Blog

From the BBC:

The watchdog conducting an inquiry into local authorities’ decisions to invest in Icelandic banks has admitted it has also got £10m tied up in the country.

The Audit Commission’s job is to ensure that £180bn of public sector spending provides “value for taxpayers”.

It said it deposited £5m in Landsbanki in April this year - and a further £5m in July in Iceland’s Heritable Bank.

The commission said the deposits were in “full compliance” with their guidelines “on prudent investment”.

I make no comment, except that it should guarantee the quality of the report while running the risk that it may be too mild.

Statements that make you go “well, duh” for today:

• The database of phone, email, and internet use is “Orwellian“;
• The Barnett Forumla must be fairer to England;
• SATs at 14 are useless; and
• Socialists are not vindicated by the credit crunch.

Brown might want to re-think that particular soundbite…

Yes, I know I said I wouldn’t be writing about the economy, but this definitely comes under the category “throwing a few stones from the sidelines”.

It seems that I am not the only one to have problems with Lords taking up Cabinet roles - as I wrote in my We The People column this week - that should go to elected representatives. Mark Oaten (remember him?) has tabled an Early Day Motion:

That this House notes the appointment of a new Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to the House of Lords; further notes that the lead Minister for this Department will therefore not appear in the House of Commons; and calls on the Government to bring forward proposals to ensure that all Government Ministers who are members of the House of Lords be required to attend departmental Questions and make Ministerial Statements in the House of Commons so that the elected House can hold them to account.

Oaten has raised an interesting point. How can these ministerial Lords be held accountable to the Commons? They’re not allowed to go there, and their department cannot be held fully to account through the second minister.

It’s a conundrum all right.

via Dizzy

This serves as an example of the intense polarisation of American politics.

John McCain was booed by his own supporters during a rally on Friday after he described Barack Obama as a “decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States.”

McCain was responding to a town hall attendee who claimed he was concerned about raising a child under a president who “cohorts with domestic terrorists such as [Bill] Ayers.” Despite the fact that McCain and his campaign have repeatedly used Ayers to hammer Obama in recent days, the Arizona Senator tried to calm the man.

“[Senator Obama] is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared about as President of the United States,” he said, before adding: “If I didn’t think I would be one heck of a better president I wouldn’t be running.”

The crowd groaned with disapproval.

Horrific.

At last there is one good thing about having the Lib Dems in British politics: it prevents this sort of political polarisation.

Wow, I’ve found a good reason for the Lib Dems to exist! I didn’t think there was one.

UPDATE: The video of the incident is here.

Andrew Adonis has been moved from his position as Schools Minister to the Department of Transport. This has been to the condemnation of both the Conservatives and Lib Dems, who both fear the imminent demise of the academy schools programme, of which Adonis was known to be a champion.

It seems that even depsite bringing Peter Mandelson back, Brown certainly isn’t willing to fully embrace a Blairite agenda - just a spun Brown one [about as bad as each other].

All well and good.

However, there is just one thing that made me stop and think about this story. Contrasting his name - Adonis, throwing up images of musclar Greek gods - and his image.

Adonis by name, not adonis by nature.

Set your alarm clocks.

6th November is volcano day.

The day that Gordon Brown’s future becomes clear: will he stay or will he be forced out?

It’s all down to the people of Glenthrothes.

Hat-tip: Mr E

Margot James, a Conservative PPC, believes that “gay people should not just vote Conservative, they have a duty to vote Conservative.” Laurie Penny at Liberal Conspiracy objects, claiming instead that “queer politics are inherently radical”. Which is falling into exactly the same trap, except from the other side.

Let’s start with a little quiz:

What’s the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual?

Whether they want to sleep with a person of the oposite sex or same sex to them.

There are no other differences. Unless I’m missing something. I really thought that, by now, we had moved on from thinking that there is any difference between gay and straight other than their preferred partner’s gender.

Thus, gay people have no “duty” to vote Conservative or to be “radical”. Just to make their own decisions as to the parties [and policies] which they believe will best suit them and the country - precisely the same way as everyone else.

When it comes to politics, sexuality means nothing. What matters are your opinions. Whether you are straight or gay, you have precisely the same role to play and decisions to make. Anyone who proposes that someone should vote for someone or believe something purely due to their own sexuality really needs to go away and rethink a lot of things.

In a blog post, he says:

I do note, however, that the Tory leader explicitly invited the country to compare himself with Margaret Thatcher in 1979 - when she was “the novice” confronting the “experienced” Jim Callaghan during an economic crisis.

Ah, no actually, he didn’t. That particular narrative was set up by Brown himself with his conference speech, when he spoke the line:

everyone knows that I’m all in favour of apprenticeships, but let me tell you this is not a time for a novice

If he was not setting himself up as Gordon “Experience” Brown in contrast to David “Novice” Cameron, I don’t know what he was doing.