The inside track since 2003

The White House, Washington D.C., April 9, 1963. (Awarding of honorary citizenship of the United States of America to Winston Churchill)

President John F. Kennedy said:-

“We meet to honour a man whose honour requires no meeting – for he is the most honoured and honourable man to walk the stage of human history in the time in which we live. Whenever and wherever tyranny threatened, he has always championed liberty. Facing firmly toward the future, he has never forgotten the past. Serving six monarchs of his native Great Britain, he has served all men’s freedom and dignity. In the dark days and darker nights when Britain stood alone – and most men save Englishmen despaired of England’s life – he mobilised the English language and sent it into battle. The incandescent quality of his words illuminated the courage of his countrymen. Given unlimited powers by his citizens, he was ever vigilant to protect their rights. Indifferent himself to danger, he wept over the sorrows of others. A child of the House of Commons, he became in time its father. Accustomed to the hardships of battle, he has no distaste for pleasure. Now his stately Ship of Life, having weathered the severest storms of a troubled century, is anchored in tranquil waters, proof that courage and faith and the zest for freedom are truly indestructible. The record of his triumphant passage will inspire free hearts for all time.

By adding his name to our rolls, we mean to honour him – but his acceptance honours us far more. For no statement or proclamation can enrich his name — the name Sir Winston Churchill is already legend.”

There’s a by-election in Walsall tomorrow. The Conservative candidate has either reproduced a leaflet from May, or misprinted the leaflet and bodged two important amendments. If you look at the black blotches on the page you will see two things.

1. The date of the election was originally printed as Thursday 6th May. An amendment added in black ink to put the new date.

2. This is the bit that simply takes the biscuit. In the section headed “Together building a better town” you see the line “investment in schools”. Above, clearly visible for all to see through the black ink are the words “200 million”!

The Tories cut the Building Schools of the Future programme last week so they just blocked it out. As well as the bare faced cheek of it, it’s politically inane.

Investment in schools

Tom Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for health, if he will publish the KPMG report on the effectiveness of the NHS Choise and NHS Direct Websites.

Simon Burns: We are not able to publish the requested report as it is central to the formulation of government policy. The KPMG report on NHS Choices and NHS Direct is informing the Department’s Information Strategy.

Time for the Freedom of Information Act: NHS Choices/NHS Direct

Tom Watson esq.,

Dear Mr Watson

Wine purchases by HM Government

I have followed this news item and I would like to offer you my comments. Let’s establish, at least, that bottles of wine are not warheads.

Leaving aside for a moment the specific points they raise for denying you access to their database, I don’t see why the FO can provide any grounds for declining to make available overall figures for acquisition costs, increases in values, stocks held etc etc.

Now to the specifics. I don’t intend to mince my words because arguments put forward in the letter you publish on your site dated 28th June from Robert Alexander contains a number of false suppositions. My own conclusion is that these statements were made intentionally to mislead you and were made in the full knowledge that they would mislead anyone who read them.

1.’Releasing information would hurt suppliers, thus ending discounting and prejudice the future dealings with GH to obtain cheap prices’. The wine market is a transparent market. Prices on wines, retail, wholesale and at auction are available in an instant and as a result the market is highly competitive. Certainly, some discounts may be given for larger orders. It is however wrong, in my view, to suggest that GH’s discounts might be curtailed and in any case for the more expensive wines, which presumably make up the bulk of the department’s investment, their statements regarding discounting would not be applicable. Additionally, the overall size of the government cellar is rather small and would have no impact on the wine markets as a whole.

2.The question as to providing detailed information – they are prepared, in some cases, to reveal the name of the wine, but not the vintage – because it might affect the ‘volatile wine market’ and indicate an endorsement of specific producers, presumably affecting the discounts the GH might obtain and values. This too is a completely false picture (someone should tell them this isn’t ‘Yes Minister’). Everyone in the wine market, producers, suppliers, critics, consumers (if sufficiently interested) know perfectly well what is a good wine, a good year, and, yes, a good price. I think it more likely, for example, they probably don’t want you to know that they may have bought 23 cases of Margaux 1993 at a high price.

3. The wine market is far from ‘volatile’ or is this a reference to the fact it is a liquid? All research shows that it is one of the best performing and most consistent investments.

4. It is suggested that the GH considered its position following consultation with its suppliers. Were I a supplier and was asked by the GH in a way which suggested they did not want to publish information about their activities, I wouldn’t want to dispute it with them either. Would you? I have already explained in (1), (2) and (3) above why this is a false premise.

A copy of a meeting of the Committee which advises the GH is published on the web –http://foi.fco.gov.uk/content/en/foi-releases/2010/158-243. This seems to me a highly negligent way to be proceeding.

There are serious issues pertaining to this subject which might form a paradigm for other government departments. I recently wrote an article which was published in the Drinks Business (June 2010) and which was based upon a Quality Price Index for the new Bordeaux vintage (2009). I attach it to this email. As you can see, very clearly, there are wines which might be purchased by any government and which would provide good value for money even in an exalted year for Bordeaux such as 2009.

Further, the FO or any government department might adopt a strategy of careful investment which might provide drinking wines for its functions at little or no cost to the taxpayer by periodically divesting itself of wines it owns – I am sure Christie’s/Sotheby’s would be only too happy to help.

A combination of acquiring wines at the right prices at the right time, buying high quality wines which are relatively inexpensive, seeking sponsorship for certain events could probably reduce the cost considerably.

I would not be content with the lists of the wines themselves, costs etc but also I would like to know their strategy and objective for their wine acquisitions, how they put out a tender for the wines, etc etc.

Perhaps if you could make it all sound a little less like sour grapes you might get a little further?

Kind regards,
Fabian Cobb,  http://www.finewinejournal.com

New age of transparency? “The information that has been supplied to you continutes to be protected by the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1998.”

Here’s the information in full:

The Downing Street spokesman was asked if the date of the referendum on
voting reform would be announced tomorrow – or
‘sometime next week’.

He replied, ” When we can give you some guidance we will.”

He was asked if there were any plans to fly the Saltire tomorrow for
Andy Murray’s Wimbledon match. He replied, ” I do not think
we have any plans to do that at this time.”

He was asked if the Prime Minister had any views on the restitution of
the death penalty or a new law to allow ‘human beings to marry
horses’ (proposals received since the Deputy Prime Minister launched his
website today asking the public to nominate laws and
regulations they would like abolished and adopted).

The spokesman replied, ” I think we shall let that process continue. We
will be responding to it (the public suggestions) in due
course.”

” So, you are not ruling it out then, ” asked a correspondent.

He replied, ” I do not want to make any precipitate comments, especially
on the horse issue.”

Another correspondent asked about the law requiring citizens to file a
report to the police every time they see a grey squirrel in their
garden – ‘an offence, I must admit, I have committed many times’.

It was put to him that the Government had just announced a review of
Government websites, saying they wanted to examine whether
they provided value for money. There was, said a correspondent, already
a website for ‘crackpot proposals’ – that was the Downing
Street website. Why did the Deputy Prime Minister have to set up his own
website for crackpot proposals. Was this not the
duplication the review had been set up to avoid.

” We are trying to engage the public and using the internet is one way
of doing that, ” said the spokesman. ” I can see you are not
enthused by this idea, ”

Forgive me, but I thought it had been shown that hooliganism had nothing to do with Hillsborough:

DM: …Staying with football, those footballers have just set the wrong example haven’t they, I mean so many people who have travelled out there, so many people who have been watching at home saying we really didn’t play as a team it is not an example to set to youngsters.

JH:   Well yeah of course it was disappointing because we have this enormous talent and for some reason they just didn’t gel as a team but I have to say, you know as a Minister I was incredibly encouraged by the example set by the England fans, I mean not a single arrest for a football related offensive and the terrible problems that we had in Heysel and Hillsborough in the 1980s seem now to be behind us and I think you know there is small grounds for encouragement there even though obviously we are very disappointed about the result.

“The UK’s video games industry will be rightly furious that a solemn promise made during the election has been broken six weeks later. It’s a short sited move and will lead to more developers being lured abroad to countries that understand the strategic importance of this expanding sector of the creative industries.

“Frankly, gamers, developers and publishers were misled by the Tories”

Many years ago I told myself that I would never blog in anger. So for now, I’ll just publish what this two-faced pompous wretch said before and after the election.

Nick Clegg before the election:

Let’s say there was a Conservative government, right. And let’s say a Conservative government announced in that sort of macho way, ‘we’re going to slash public spending by a third, we are going to slash this, we’re going to slash this, we’re going to do it tomorrow because we have to take early tough action’, just imagine the reaction of my constituents in South West Sheffiled.

Nick Clegg today:

“Sheffield Forgemasters is a great British company and as a Sheffield MP I regret that the Government cannot afford to support its expansion.

“The truth is that this loan was promised by the outgoing Labour Government as a calculated ploy to win support in Sheffield just ahead of the election – when they knew all along that there simply wasn’t the money to keep to that pledge in first place. In front of TV cameras Labour made all sorts of lofty promises, but behind closed doors they left notes telling this Government that there was no money left. This was a breathtakingly cynical way of raising false hope of everyone in Sheffield.

“I believe Sheffielders should be treated with greater honesty.

“At a time when the Government is spending more in interest on debt than it does on defending the nation or policing our streets, we have to take difficult choices to make sure taxpayers’ money is spent as wisely as possible. This Government will do all it can to help secure private finding for the expansion of Sheffield Forgemasters. I want us to give the company real help, not false promises of money that doesn’t even exist.”

“The Prime Minister and President spoke for over 30 minutes today.”

“They discussed Afghanistan, where the Prime Minister briefed the President on his visit. On Iran, they agreed on the need for the European Council to signal tough measures in support of this week’s clear message to the Iranian regime from New York that it must halt its military nuclear programme.”

“They also discussed preparations for the G20, where the US and UK are also working together closely.”

“The Prime Minister expressed his sadness at the ongoing human and environmental catastrophe in Louisiana. The President and Prime Minister agreed that BP should continue – as they have pledged – to work intensively to ensure that all sensible and reasonable steps are taken as rapidly as practicable to deal with the consequences of this catastrophe.”

“President Obama said to the Prime Minister that his unequivocal view was that BP was a multinational global company and that frustrations about the oil spill had nothing to do with national identity.The Prime Minister stressed the economic importance of BP to the UK, US and other countries. The President made clear that he had no interest in undermining BP’s value.”

“The President and Prime Minister reaffirmed their confidence in the unique strength of the US-UK relationship.”

If you look at the pension entitlements of David Cameron and Andy Coulson you get a different picture. The parliamentary scheme expects members to pay a greater contribution than that of the civil service scheme that Andy Coulson is a member of. When you take these into account, he’s on a bigger whack than the PM.

Cameron: Salary £142,500
11.5% of his salary likely to be paid into his pension: £16,387.50
Final salary after taking out pension contribution: £126,112.50

Coulson: Salary £140,000
3.5% of his salary is likely to be paid into his pension: £4,900
Final salary after taking out pension contribution: £135,100

Today Programme 9th July 2010,

Speakers: Tim Harford, Justin Webb

JW: I asked him whether the claim that the government has just discovered how bad things are is true or false.

TH:   Well it’s false. Things are bad but the numbers that David Cameron was using in his speech that he seemed to be claiming that it’s just come from no where, they are secret government numbers; they are absolutely the same numbers that we were using during the election campaign. The politicians weren’t talking about but everybody else was, especially the big numbers, the national debt, £770 billion. The projected debt in 5 years £1400 billion. They haven’t changed. David Cameron also pointed to lots and lots of little numbers throughout his speech and we’ve actually tracked down all but one of them and that every single one that we’ve tracked down was available in a published document often an official document before the election.

JW:  Hmm. Available but … I mean here’s what the chancellor said, he said ‘consider this one fact which the previous chancellor refused to publish.’ Now to that extent they are right aren’t they? That these figures when you talk about them being in the public domain they weren’t actually figures that had been officially issued by the labour government.

TH:  Well usually they were but there is one figure that David Cameron and that George Osborne had pointed to of £70 billion a year.

JW:  Yeah that’s the big one.

TH:  The cots of servicing the debt in 5 years. Now this is … this is something we’ve discussed with George Osborne’s office and they were quoting this number at us before the election campaign even started. Now its true that before the election campaign started it was a number that had been published buy the Institute of Fiscal Studies, an independent think tank and it is a very big number. Just debt payment – its over thousand pound for every man, woman and child in the country per year but George Osborne’s own office were quoting that number on emails two, three months ago to us and sure now its an official government number rather than unofficial government number but its almost exactly the same number so I don’t really know why they are so surprised.

JW:  No but I suppose they would make the point that this was a number being talked about by commentators, Institute of Fiscal Studies and others but it wasn’t being talked about by government. Now they’ve got into government they discover that the government knew?

TH:  Well I’m sure over the next five years they will be far more transparent. We will see.