Sung Hero - Gordon Prentice

Parliament's most un-sung hero deserves an opera of praise.

Gordon Prentice is parliament's Sleaze-buster General. His campaigns against absent lords, revolving doors for former ministers and lobbyists are bearing fruit. This will be his week.

(After this point I was marooned in my block of flats by snow - without access to WiFi. Still the comments continue without my intervention)

Gordon relentlessly pursued Jonathan Aitken. In his auto-biography, Jonathan recalls the persistent Business Question by Gordon on whether Jonathan's's perjury had an influence. The issue could not be quietly forgotten as many establishment figures hoped.

Gordon often apologised to fellow members of the Public Administration Committee because he was determined to complain for the umpteenth time about the Lords Laidlaw and Ashcroft. Their absentee status and their lavish (possibly illegal ) contributions to the Conservative party, was his constant theme. All witnesses with any possible influence on action were grilled by Gordon at the Select Committee. Hardly a week went by, without Gordon raisng the issue in the Chamber of committee rooms. He has outstanding inquiries under Freedom of Information. Now a bill has emerged from the LibDems in the Lords that are based on Gordon's campaigning.

He was prominent in the exposure of the problems of lobbying and pressed for action yesterday.

Here are main points from the lively debate yesterday on Parliamentary Standards.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I beg to move,

That this House believes that the United Kingdom needs and deserves a Parliament that is fit for purpose and free from the taint of partial interests; is dismayed by the slow pace of reform which has failed to deal effectively with the opportunities for abuse; welcomes the suggestions from Liberal Democrat members of the House of Lords to introduce powers to suspend and expel Members of that House, require Peers to declare any interest in all legislation, make all Members of that House resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes, put the Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis, bring Members of both Houses into the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and tighten up on the issuing of passes to Parliament; believes however that there is now an urgent need to bring forward plans for an elected House as agreed by a majority of hon. Members; is concerned at the lack of progress on the Prime Minister’s constitutional renewal programme; is disappointed that current legislation fails to provide for limits on donations or spending by political parties; calls for urgent and effective action to reduce parties’ dependence on large donors and trade union interests; believes that comprehensive reform of the procedures of the House is essential to enable it to scrutinise Government and the spending of taxpayers’ money more effectively; and recognises the need for urgent action to restore the trust of the British public in Parliament as an institution and in politics as a profession.

The past fortnight has been a bad couple of weeks for parliamentary politics. We had the aborted attempt to exempt Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the revelations about the activities of certain peers and a reminder, in the Standards and Privileges Committee’s report, of the actions of one hon. Member. A week ago, when we discussed the freedom of information provisions, perhaps in a genuflection to Burns, I asked colleagues to try to see themselves as others see us. I despair at what those outside the House who are struggling to keep their jobs and to keep a roof over their heads think when they read in their newspapers of people asking for £10,000, £20,000 or up to £100,000 to affect legislation by the exercise of whatever influence they believe they have. This cannot go on, and it is time that we took action.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Lord Laidlaw is a self-confessed tax exile and he gave more than £100,000 to the Conservative party last year. Is it not inappropriate for any political party to accept donations from someone who is a self-confessed tax exile?

 

Mr. Heath: I believe the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in saying that the gentleman in question has made no secret of the fact that he lives outside this country—he lives in Monaco, as I understand it—so I do not think we are in a contentious area there.

There is also the view that peers should be brought under the supervision of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We have improved self-regulation in this House; it is not perfect, but it is better, and one of the reasons for that is the existence of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It is extraordinary that self-policing is considered to be a sufficiency elsewhere, and I believe that all Members of Parliament should be brought within the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, which brings me to the third reason and the core problem with the Government—timidity. The Government are afraid to put their neck out and do those things. They like to hint and suggest; they like to form all-party Committees to spend a lot of time looking at things—I have sat on two of them—but when it comes to putting legislation before Parliament and pushing it through they are not prepared to act.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Given what has been reported over the past few weeks, should we not embrace what the Public Administration Committee’s suggestion and introduce a mandatory register of lobbyists, giving details of the lobbyist and those whom they are lobbying?

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, but it is important to understand what counts as a lobbyist, not least because one of our constituents’ ancient rights is to come to the Lobby and demand to see us as their Members of Parliament. Obviously, nothing should undermine that, but my colleagues will want to reflect on the interesting point that he makes.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be fatal to many of the sensible proposals made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to link them to the question of elections? The reason reform of the House of Lords has eluded us for 100 years is that we keep opting for “big bang” solutions rather than concentrating on the issues on which we all agree….

 

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): My hon. Friend is a recent adornment to the Front Bench. I am very pleased that he was appointed to be part of the Government, but he did enter the House a little later than most of us, and he will not recall that we were being told in those first years that now—or, rather, then—was not the time for Lords reform. A time would come, and we would know when it was. Now we are being told that it is too late. What has happened? Why has my hon. Friend lost his radicalism in his transfer from the Back Benches to the Front Bench?

 

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree strongly that there is a danger that Parliament is held in disrepute by the electorate, and that is a serious danger because it is when external forces—the street—take over. We are not far away from such a situation now. Indeed, we saw such a situation today when the three Front Benches were all patting each other on the back and agreeing about the particular economic model that has caused the problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that differences in Parliament are healthy for democracy? When all the Front Benches speak the same language, that is not good for democracy. Some good research shows that the only thing that correlates with low and decreasing turnout at elections is the growing similarity between the philosophies of the political parties. That is a fundamental problem that we have not addressed, and it is up to the parties, as much as Parliament, to do something about it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Vara: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about overseas issues. He will, of course, be aware that the noble Lord Paul, who more or less agreed to underwrite the general election campaign that never was about a year or so ago, is non-domiciled. I accept that overseas issues to do with Members of the other Chamber cut across both sides of the House. That needs to be looked at. I suggest that he refrains from trying to score cheap political points and perhaps does his homework a little bit in future.

 

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman make a good start by sending back the Ashcroft cheques now?

Mr. Vara: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman refer to the answer that I just gave. He might like to review the enormous sums of funds that have been given by the noble Lord Paul to his party.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): I want to concentrate on the “constitutional renewal programme” aspect of the lengthy motion because I am disappointed that, after 12 years of a Government whom I support, there has been little to show in the way of genuine constitutional reform. Indeed, our manifesto in 1997 made it clear that we were intent on reforming the House of Lords and said that we would introduce proposals to do that. It does not matter how much Ministers try to get round that; we have not fulfilled the manifesto commitment. That is only one example.

Earlier, I said that the Labour Government’s hallmark in respect of constitutional reform is deeply conservative. Let me share something that grates on me. I left school at 16, and many contemporaries of mine have turned up on the Labour Front Bench over the past 12 years

Andrew Mackinlay: Absolutely. If I may return to the historical point, some hon. Members may remember the late John P. Mackintosh, the Member of Parliament for Berwick and East Lothian. I am a disciple of John P. Mackintosh, who produced a programme for the devolution of Britain to make all the parts of the United Kingdom much more coherent, and to allow greater scrutiny at local level where decisions are taken at local level.

The big states—the big players around the world—are federal. The Bundestag, the Parliaments in Ottawa and in Canberra, and the United States Congress deal with defence, foreign affairs and broad macro-economic social policy, but the rest is left to the states, the provinces or the Länder. Here we try and do too much, and we do it badly. That needs to be addressed with some dispatch.

We are constrained tonight, for obvious reasons. If Parliament were in charge of our timetable, the subject matter that we are discussing tonight would be debated at much greater length. Clearly, there is a demand among hon. Members to talk more fully about constitutional reform.

I am deeply concerned that senior civil servants almost automatically become peers. It is offensive and it is a reward for those who know where the political bodies are buried. Lord Jay, who incidentally is presiding over the appointment of people’s peers, was head of the Foreign Office. He is the man who stopped Jeremy Greenstock publishing his memoirs and tried to stop the former United Kingdom ambassador to Washington publishing his memoirs, but he was prepared to take a peerage and what is more, was elevated to decide who is appropriate to be appointed under—I think it is called the House of Lords Commission, but I call it people’s peers. That is the kind of cosy thing that goes on. There was a man who presided over a disaster in the national health service. He was immediately dismissed, but he also got to sit in the House of Lords. The bigger the mess up, the greater the rewards in this country, and that has to stop.

Comments

[Kay Tie]

"Enter Kay Tie (as Clint Eastwood)"

I hope that's not the High Plains Drifter Clint Eastwood. Or the Dirty Harry one. I can just about accept the Unforgiven one, but I would prefer that you had in mind the Million Dollar Baby one.

[patrick]

Tonypandy Andy
I've heared of this sort of thing before. It usually comes from an English visitor to North Wales .....or was it the league of gentlemen?

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks for your optimism Tonypandy Andy. You have refreshed my will to live.

[Tonypandy Andy]

This blog is normally like a pub with four or five curmudgeons in it, including the landlord, who rumble on, generally sympathising with one anothers' fixations, hobby horses and lamentations.

When a stranger enters, the locals stare pointedly and start to abuse any newcomer who ventures an opposing view. Reasoning, good humour, tolerance, persuasion ? Whoops, wrong address.

Enter Kay Tie (as Clint Eastwood) and the locals start to take a pasting. Hair flying everywhere.

Maybe this blog could become entertaining after all.. a tour de force by the newcomer

[Kay Tie]

Read some history, Patrick. Spain in 1936, Germany 1933, even Detroit 1932. Google the Smoot-Hawley Act. Think what else was happening across the world in the ten years following 1929.

[patrick]

Kay Tie
"It would be amazing if, for once, the people that pay vast sums to the Labour Party are actually prosecuted for their criminal behaviour. I'm not holding my breath."

As you are so bothered about Millions being donated to New-Lab ,can we assume that you are equally troubled by the donations from Lord Laidlaw and Ashcroft give to the Tories?

"we are going to slip into anarchy and civil war and millions will die. I really mean this: we are doomed to repeat the 1930s, only this time with nuclear weapons. God save us all."

As a Professor of science and at a time of climate change surely you have more to worry about than some Daily Mailesque fantasy scenario?

[Kay Tie]

"I'm am obviuosly redundant."

In which case I hope you don't go and picket your local Italian restaurant and hurl racist abuse at the waiters and blame the customers for not allowing you to apply for the "vacancies" generated by their orders for dinner.

[Kay Tie]

"as for Mr Aaronovitch, he was a former left winger who seems to have fallen for the New Labour (Old Tory) party line hook, line and sinker"

I agree with very little of Mr. Aaronovitch's politics. That doesn't prevent me respecting his attempts to debunk the incendiary half-truths in this "debate".

"Something along the lines of "you didn't do it, did you?" and the company obligingly says "no"."

The unions have made incendiary claims. They are unable to substantiate them. Quite frankly, the denials from Total are beside the point. If I accused you of being a Russian spy, it's up to me to show the evidence for it, not for you to prove your innocence (and for people to have your denials disclaimed by "he would say that, wouldn't he?").

"Total appears on the radio he doesn't seek to deny that British workers were precluded from applying for these jobs."

I suggest that's either a distortion of the position or a misunderstanding of the question. The very idea of "vacancies" when you win a contract is an absurdity. The contractor creates vacancies when it feels it has enough long-term business to expand. The very idea that the contractor's customer has created "vacancies" is ludicrous. The trouble is, people are so ignorant of the way various industries work that they project their ideas of office work for a large employer on to a completely different commercial arrangement.

I ask you again: if you hired a building firm to build your kitchen for you, have you created "vacancies"? Has the building company? If I then asked you whether British workers were considered for the "jobs" in your kitchen building, what would you say? Yes? No? The question is along the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife?"

"You seem, if you'll allow me to say so, to incorporate a wide range of suspects into the paranoia: "the union leaders, the BNP and the Daily Mail brigade ". Very strange to see the unions in bed with the BNP - or the Daily Mail, come to that, who generally hate each other."

Hate makes strange bedfellows. The Nazis and the Soviets hated the Poles more than each other, hence David Low's famous Evening Standard cartoon:

http://web.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect16_files/Rendezvous.jpg

The Daily Mail sells papers. It appeals to the basest emotions to generate sales. Those emotions are usually of the "right". Sometimes not. But always designed to enrage.

" it is quite natural for people to be concerned and for their uniuons to take action to get the best deal they can for their members."

And what about the members in the oil industry who work abroad? Or the workers in the steel factories and their jobs making steel for export? What of their jobs lost from reciprocal protectionism? Obviously they don't matter because there's nowhere to picket, no foreigners to throw stones at.

"Britain seems to obey more than many other nations do: France, for example, would go it's own way and I suspect germany to, they ignore EU laws when it suits them."

I suspect that it's largely a myth. The people in France obey the laws too, and become just as livid as us about being told they can't sell "illegal" tomatoes on their market stalls (I saw this happen personally).

"After being pro EU in the first instance, I am now coming very firmly down on the other side of the argument."

I too used to be pro-EU but no longer. Probably for different reasons (I am completely happy about Turkey joining: the more countries that join then the less chance of the usual hegemony running things).

[Graham Marlowe]

Kay Tie: I think I am pfretty "wised up" (ghastly expression): as for Mr Aaronovitch, he was a former left winger who seems to have fallen for the New Labour (Old Tory) party line hook, line and sinker, I rather suspect he hopes for a peerage in the resignation honours list. What "facts" do you think he has actually unearthed?.Something along the lines of "you didn't do it, did you?" and the company obligingly says "no".

It is interesting that each time the head of "Human Resources" another ghastly term (what's wrong with personnel?)from Total appears on the radio he doesn't seek to deny that British workers were precluded from applying for these jobs.

You seem, if you'll allow me to say so, to incorporate a wide range of suspects into the paranoia: "the union leaders, the BNP and the Daily Mail brigade ". Very strange to see the unions in bed with the BNP - or the Daily Mail, come to that, who generally hate each other.

I wouldn't doubt for a moment that the BNP (not to mention the Tories and the paramilitary wing of New Labour, led by Major general Mandelson) are using this dispute for their own personal agendas, but the fact has to be faced, ina country which is seeing the largest increases in unemployment in many years, it is quite natural for people to be concerned and for their uniuons to take action to get the best deal they can for their members. that is what unions are supposed to be for. Britain is not alone in this very understandable protectionism - Obama is trying the same thing.

I agree that the company is entitled legally to do as it pleases - that is after all, Eu law, but Britain seems to obey more than many other nations do: France, for example, would go it's own way and I suspect germany to, they ignore EU laws when it suits them.

After being pro EU in the first instance, I am now coming very firmly down on the other side of the argument. The Eu was fine wqhen there was a limited number of members, now, in their great desire to expand it is getting just plain silly: for example Turkey - Europe?

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks for the comments, continuing in my absence - marooned by snow in a WIFI-free flat in London. I'm obviously redundant.

[Kay Tie]

"John and Kay Tie: The biggest source of anger seems to be among these workers, that the vacancies were not even advertised to the British workers, and they were precluded from applying. It is therefore otiose for Total to claim that these workers did not have the necessary qualifications for doing the job - how could they, if they didn't even give them the chance to submit their CVs?"

You are gullible. THERE WEREN'T ANY VACANCIES! The subcontractor HAD ITS OWN TEAM. You think that it should fire its own team to create vacancies? British workers were not precluded from applying because there were no vacancies.

Please read David Aaronovitch who actually took the time to follow up for facts behind the half-truths and lies. Then save your anger for the people who are trying to manipulate us for the most personal of gains:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article5645229.ece

Total have done what any customer does: they picked the best contractor for the one-off job of building one particular piece of plant. Do you think that the winner of a contract is obliged to create a new company from scratch and then go to the local job centre to find new staff, hire them, do the job, then lay them off again in six months when the job it done? Or do they simply use the skilled engineers THEY ALREADY EMPLOY to do the job?

I am not ignoring both sides. I am looking harder than most at the facts. Do you not understand how contractors operate? That there's a difference between "job" meaning "contract with a firm to build something" and "job" meaning "employment of a worker"?

It is frankly absurd to talk of "British jobs" when letting contracts out to specialist sub-contractors. Are we to say that a British car makers can't contract with a Japanese car radio manufacturer unless all the radios are made by British workers in Britain? Should we send all the Japanese people in Honda in their Swindon factory home to Japan and offer the job of reading Japanese design specs to people from the local job centre?

Wise up. You are being lied to by some of the union leaders, the BNP and the Daily Mail brigade to manipulate your emotions. This is about as crude as it gets. How come you were able to see the lies and manipulation over Iraq but not here?

You know, if you, as an example of a member of the public, can't see through the lies and self-interested propaganda, then we're doomed: we are going to slip into anarchy and civil war and millions will die. I really mean this: we are doomed to repeat the 1930s, only this time with nuclear weapons. God save us all.

[Graham Marlowe]

John and Kay Tie: The biggest source of anger seems to be among these workers, that the vacancies were not even advertised to the British workers, and they were precluded from applying. It is therefore otiose for Total to claim that these workers did not have the necessary qualifications for doing the job - how could they, if they didn't even give them the chance to submit their CVs?

Also, they are concerned that if foreign workers do the job cheaper it might reflect on their own earnings, and indeed, there is quite a lot of evidence that employers are reducing the wages they offer.

With the greatest respect, you don't seem to be looking at both sides of the argument - then, to be fair, neither is Mandy.

[John]

Totally agree with you Kay Tie

I was listening to the strikers last night on the news. I will try and be careful about how I put this but they are just thick. You wouldn't be able to reason with these people they didn't seem understand the concept of free movememnt of labour within the EU or how similair acts by other countries would affect their own countrymen.

As you say Kay the veneer of civilisation is perilously thin. The government needs to get out into the media and explain the situtation and to distance themselves totally from unofficial strikes.
If we don't watch out the riots the Greeks were experiencing recnetly will be happening in the UK.

[Kay Tie]

Protectionism is as understandable as racism: both are natural base instinct unrestrained by intellect. When the veneer of civilisation is scratched off, out they come. In these wildcat strikes you have both together.

[Graham Marlowe]

I don't think Mandelson is a force of "light" - heat, yes. He keeps making very inflammatory statements from the safety of the House of Lords, designed, frankly to make a bad situation worse.

It was absurd top throw 300 billion at the banks, without getting cast iron guarantees from them. There are times the government are very jejune in their dealings with business.

As regards Fascism, I have heard a couple of ministers blame both the far left and the far right for the current disputes so they are covering all bases. It might be more to do with the behaviour of our own government. Mr Brown would have done better to concentrate on our own problems instead of constantly wittering on about "globalisation" (his favourite word - just as "radical" was Blair's). Then at the weekend this self appointed king of Globalisation admitted to a world audience that nobody knows how to deal with the current problems - that givwes you great comfort and confidence.

In dire times, which I am sure you would agree these ARE, it is understandable that all countries adopt a degree of protectionism - even Mr Obama is doing so in the States.

Brown is totally out of his depth and he would do better to stand aside and allow a leadership challenge, or his colleagues should get rid of him.

[Kay Tie]

Oh, and have a read of David Aaronovitch's piece in tomorrow's Times. Enlightening.

[Kay Tie]

Lord Mandelson may be pompous (I do not disagree). He is also floundering because there is nothing substantial the Government can do. There simply isn't enough money to prop up every company in trouble, even if that were the right thing to do. The Government borrowed so much money before the crisis that it's credit line is decidedly thin now. It's now time to wriggle around and try to hold the line against racism and riots. And the reappearance of Fascism. You and I may dislike Mandelson, but in the current situation he is one of the forces of light. Ironic considering his nickname is the Dark Lord.

[Graham Marlowe]

"From the ukwelder.com forum:"

WHat obscure things you read!.

Given that unemployment is as high as it is in the U.K. I think anyone can understand the anxiety people are feeling, indeed, even some of the right-wing press have shown some sympathy. Another Labour MP Frank Field (with his Tory sidekick Nicholas Soames) is being xenophobic, but nobody seems prepared to say so.

It might help however if people like Mandelson tried to be a little less high and mighty. Frankly the man is a rotten Trade secretary - look at the number of companies that have gone under in the past couple of months, and, apart from throwing 2.5 billion at the car industry, he seems to be doing very little except make pompous supercilious announcements - and announcing his wish to appear on a TV dancing show.

Of course, there might well be a case for leaving the E.U.

[Kay Tie]

"Your call for police and other legal action was my objection, do you wish to prosecute people just for striking? "

There are laws on striking. Unballoted strikes are illegal. Secondary action is illegal. Mass picketing is illegal. Yes, I want people prosecuted for illegal striking.

"Ow do you know the strikers are "self interested xenophobes"?"

From the ukwelder.com forum:

"let's send them stinking foreign leeches back to tgheir urine-soaked shantys."

"From what I hear from the strikers all they are saying is that they should be considered for the jobs the Italians are doing."

Why should they be considered? The tender went out to a number of contractors. Each of these contractors have their own workforce. If someone hires a firm of painters and decorators, is there an obligation (moral or legal) for the winning firm to offer jobs to the losing firms (excluding their own staff)? No, of course not! In this case, the difference is that the winning firm has a team of Italians. These urine-soaked shanty-dwellers must be very grateful for the opportunity to come to work in such a welcoming part of Britain.

This is causing a diplomatic incident (the ambassador in Rome has already had to give reassurances), and now the Italians are using this as a pretext for excluding British firms:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/4436818/Wildcat-strikes-threaten-to-escalate-after-Lord-Mandelson-calls-protests-xenophobic.html

Nothing good will come from this dispute, and it is shameful that the Labour Party allowed itself to be paralysed by it.

"I found it somewhat amusing that pompous Mandy announced this afternoon that he was investigating whether what the strikers are doing is illegal - and - it is - "they will take action""

It would be amazing if, for once, the people that pay vast sums to the Labour Party are actually prosecuted for their criminal behaviour. I'm not holding my breath.

[Graham Marlowe]

Kay Tie: HOw do you know the strikers are "self interested xenophobes"?. From what I hear from the strikers all they are saying is that they should be considered for the jobs the Italians are doing. What upsets them is the fact that Total refused to allow British workers to apply for these jobs; not that have a personal vendetta against the Italian workers. Mandelson did nothing to ease the situation by pouring petrol on the fire.

I found it somewhat amusing that pompous Mandy announced this afternoon that he was investigating whether what the strikers are doing is illegal - and - it is - "they will take action"

Making fraudulent claims on mortgage applications is illegal, but luckilly for one gentleman, no action was taken. Still, it is nice to know he respects the law so much these days.

[patrick]

I agree that people should be allowed to use the roads and get to work etc.
Strikes can be quite easily managed by the police. Your call for police and other legal action was my objection, do you wish to prosecute people just for striking?
Are you also a lawyer?

[Kay Tie]

"What a shame for you that the police won't go in and baton charge and split heads as in the miners strike."

There's a different between splitting heads and ensuring that people can go to work. I know you're a bitter old Trot, but surely even you can see that it's not right that a collection of self-interested xenophobes are allowed to stop all road transport?

[patrick]

"This means that the illegal strikes will continue, no police action against the strikers will be allowed, and no legal action against the unions will go ahead. Even if that means power cuts and no petrol."

What a shame for you that the police won't go in and baton charge and split heads as in the miners strike.

[Graham Marlowe]

I didn't say we should exclude foreign workers, what I was underlining was the crass insensitivity of Mandelson: a lot of people afre just unable to up sticks and leave the country (muchj as they might like to) - they have committments.

Just because Mandelson got a highly paid job in Europe thanks to his pal Blair, he seems to think everyone can do it.

[Kay Tie]

"If we start imposing english born workers into jobs rather than better quality non uk workers it will lead to the very protectionism that prolonged the depression of the 1930's."

Precisely. Open this even a crack and every British company bidding for a contract in France will be excluded by a duty to hire French people to do the job.

You can start to see why the Labour Government is not fit to deal with this problem: the unions fund the Party, and no strong criticism will come from Gordon Brown. This means that the illegal strikes will continue, no police action against the strikers will be allowed, and no legal action against the unions will go ahead. Even if that means power cuts and no petrol.

Let us hope that the country merely repeats the 1970s and not the 1930s.

[John]

Over the next few years we are going to have an upsurge of entranchment and protectionism by many countries. THe fear that understandably many people will feel by the worsening economic conditions is fertile ground for right wing parties.
Part of this is the blaming of other ethnic groups for our woes. I feel that this current round of strikes is a whisper of what is to come. it must be resisited by all.
Very rarely do I agree wiht Mr Mandelson but on this occasion he is right. If we start imposing english born workers into jobs rather than better quality non uk workers it will lead to the very protectionism that prolonged the depression of the 1930's. Such a policy would see UK born UK workers returning to the UK becasue other countrties have imposed jobs for "insert country/ethinic group" programmes...such an approach gets us nowhere.

[Graham Marlowe]

For every hero there is a villian, Paul. I always knew that Brown would rue the day he thought of bringing Mandelson back and now Mandy proves how totally divorced he is from the rank and file by telling people they can go and get jobs abroad.

This so-called business secretary has been shown in the words of John reid to be "not fit for purpose". Look how many big (and smaller) businesses have gone to the wall on his watch.

Mandy has always talked through huis nose, now it seems he is talking through another edifice as well. Does he not understand that most people have committments to their family in their own country?