Sheffield Hallam Man Speak with Forked Tongue

In the run up to the general election the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) said this about the Liberal Democrat manifesto:

"The highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, in its analysis of the parties' financial plans, said the Lib Dems had the smallest black hole of the main three in their funding schemes, and that there were no hidden tax rises on top."

Obviously we as a party were jumping up an down with delight with such a judgement in the week before the election. The great and the good of the party Vince Cable, Chris Huhne and of course Nick Clegg were all over the headlines expounding the wise judgements of the analysts at the IFS.

The IFS has called the comprehensive spending review "more regressive than progressive" and "unfair" saying the poorer families with children would be the "biggest losers" of the cuts. Excluding the wealthiest 2% of the population, who the IFS assesses will be the hardest hit, it says the poorest 10% of the population will, on average, lose about 5.5% of their net income compared with roughly 4.5% for the top 10%.

So these very sage like analysts from April/May should obviously be taken seriously by Nick Clegg. Not a bit of it, in today's Guardian he says:

"It goes back to a culture of how you measure fairness that took root under Gordon Brown's time, where fairness was seen through one prism and one prism only which was the tax and benefits system. It is a complete nonsense to apply that measure, which is a slightly desiccated Treasury measure. People do not live only on the basis of the benefits they receive. They also depend on public services, such as childcare and social care. All of those things have been airbrushed out of the picture by the IFS."

Yes Nick. But we are making fundamental cuts that are going to affect some of those other services to if we are not careful.

Labour's 11 Week U-Turn

In the Labour party manifesto for May they had as point one under The next stage of national renewal:

Referenda, held on the same day, for moving to the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons and to a democratic and accountable Second Chamber.

It is there in black and white.

So how do they respond to just such a bill that will be introduced to move to the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections? The shadow cabinet, who bear in mind are largely the cabinet that framed said manifesto, say they will be voting against it.

Jack Straw says that the bill being introduced with a reduction in the number of members, which both Coalition partners stood on, which will require boundary changes is gerrymandering. How on earth Labour can thing equalling out the size of constituencies can be construed as gerrymandering is something I'd already dealt with. Though to summarise to resist equalising the representation for each MP is actually more like gerrymandering to any sane individual.

Mark Harper, the constitutional affairs minister sums up the reaction to Labour's ludicrous assertion by saying:

"All this bluster simply highlights the fact that Labour MPs do not believe in seats of equal size and votes counting equally across the whole of the United Kingdom."

It does look like the inclusion in the manifesto was to try and wean some Lib Dem supporters back to vote Labour and to try and prepare the way for possibly a Lib-Lab pact after the election. Labour failed on both counts when it became obvious that they cannot be trusted in either circumstance. This new turning away from their own manifesto pledge is further proof of that.

Brown U-Turns on Fault with Bank Regulation

Do you recall Gordon Brown the Prime Minister saying that the banking crisis was brought on my a world wide problem and nothing to do with Gordon Brown the Chancellor?

Do you recall Vince Cable warning both Gordon Brown the Chancellor and Gordon Brown the Prime Minister of serious flaws in banking regulation that needed to be dealt with?

You probably won't recall George Osborne nodding his ascent of the former and barracking the later.

Well in an interview to be aired tonight Gordon Brown has finally admitted that he was wrong.

"In the 1990s, the banks they all came to us and said, 'Look, we don't want to be regulated, we want to be free of regulation.' And everybody in the City was saying ... and all the complaints I was getting from people was, 'Look you're regulating them too much.' And actually the truth is that globally and nationally we should have been regulating them more."

As for the Tories he said they had urged him to be even lighter handed on the banks adding:

"You don't listen to the industry when they say, 'This is good for us.' You've got to talk about the whole public interest.

"And so we are tougher on the banks and tougher on the way they behave and we can be relied on to make sure the banks act in the national interest."

So who would you want in charge of the economy?

• Someone who's taken soundings knows what he's talking about and is still saying we need to be tough on banks, like Vince
• Someone who's prepared to act because one interest group have said it was god for them who then realises later, when it is too late, that other views are important, like Gordon
• Someone who doesn't seem to know what is going on or realise how bad things are and is prepared to carry on, like George.

I know which of those three I'd rather have. The steadying yet firm hand, the foresight and forethought of Vince Cable stands out head and shoulders above the other options.

That's why a vote for the Liberal Democrats is not a wasted vote this time around on May 6th. It actually makes sense to vote for the party that's been making sense over our biggest problem for the last decade.

When Less is More for Alex

Speaking to COSLA's annual conference last week Alex Salmond said:

"This Government will not sit idly by and accept cuts imposed from Westminster."

Looks to me like the no cuts message the SNP have been spouting for months.

Yet on Saturday at his party's General Election launch he said:

"Because at this election the message is simple.

"MORE NATS MEANS LESS CUTS"

It may be simple but it is not clear.

He's been accusing the other parties and even in this speech of having the "axe sharpened and poised" yet for all his rhetoric he has just announced that even voting SNP there will be cuts. Where was the clarion cry of "U-Turn"?

I'll be fair earlier on he did also say:

"The London parties talk about cuts as though it was all about numbers on a balance sheet. But we know different. Behind those cuts will be real people, real services, real jobs.

Thing is the Liberal Democrats are aware that having to make cuts to make up for Labour and the bankers folly can make an impact on people lives. That is why we are balancing cuts with holding back on some of our objectives. Balancing taxes so that the lowest paid don't suffer while we find ways to pay for things fairly. We've also promised to balance cuts with investment in employment and education opportunities so that those that have been suffering will have a way to make things better both for themselves and for our economy.

Salmond says "we as a community know the value of looking out for each other; the value of investing in education, in housing and in health." Dare I ask where is the new investment in school infrastructure since the SNP came to power, the investment they they promised to match brick for brick has not been forthcoming.

U is for U Turn

A continuing series of spelling out Conservative plans Part 6.

They say that a week is a long time in politics. But an hour and forty two minutes!

Yeah that is how long it took the Dave to spell out that "could not guarantee a Conservative government would be able to offer a tax break to married couples".




Until he, well, he had to correct himself. So less that just two days into spelling out just what the Conservative policies are going to be and they have to get out the Tippex*. Oops.



* Other correction fluids are available, probably on a Conservative HQ desk right now.

Labour Forced to see Commonsense Over Common Travel Area

Was it a clever way for Big Brother Labour to get hold of my biometric data once my passport comes up from renewal? We may never know.

The government wanted to shelf quietly their U-Turn over plans to make residents in the Common Travel Area that included Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man to produce a passport on coming over to the fourth component Great Britain. Yeah all of you who know how pedantic this Northern Irish man is will know when I say Great Britain I'm not including all of the United Kingdom. Labour had planned for me to have to present my passport to go from my house in Bathgate to visit my family in another part of the same UN, EU and IOC recognised country.

Thankfully the Lib Dem and Conservative amendment to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill got rid of this ridiculous step back 80 years in time. But consider this as a British Citizen my catching a ferry to Belfast does not cross any borders, I'm not emigrating or immigrating anywhere. Of course by using the Airports and Ports of Ireland as a line of defence the Labour control freaks thought they had a way to control terrorist from entering the UK easier than by sealing up the UK-Ireland land border, which course they failed miserably to do when there was a real terrorist threat from over said border.

That one time teacher of mine Sammy Wilson MP had said:

"This Bill would have radically changed the United Kingdom's borders. In effect it would have placed a very tight border around Great Britain but would have left Northern Ireland exposed and isolated to those involved in international terrorism.

"From day one I told the Government that it was unwise, would be ineffective for the United Kingdom as a whole and treated Northern Ireland people as second-class citizens."

Of course all this brings back memories of travelling between Northern Ireland and Scotland by ferry to get to University. There as the troubles were on passengers were often asked for spot checks of photographic ID. So out popped all the Northern Irish Driving Licences, but back then the Great British ones didn't have photographic elements, so the English, Scots and Welsh were disadvantaged in travelling to Northern Ireland.

Quote of the Day: Mark Lazarowicz

Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland this according to ePolix Mark Lazarowicz the MP for Edinburgh North and Leith said:

"Why on earth am I bothering to pay back the money? That's actually the view which has come back from a large number of people I have been in contact with.

"I do wonder to a certain extent whether, in some hysterical atmosphere in Westminster during the week, possibly I over-reacted to the situation.

"Speaking to some of the Lib Dem MPs in particular who have paid some sums of money for relatively small items, I do wonder if some of us have been as it were taken along in a situation where maybe we shouldn't.

"Having said that, I've said I'll pay it back, I will pay it back, because I actually accept at the end of the day the fundamental principle that MPs shouldn't actually benefit from property they have acquired."

Now come on Mark you're meant to have a calm head when dealing with expenses. Both in making claims and in paying overpayment claims back. Flipping on the designation of homes is one thing but flipping on the decision of waht you decided to do and so often in four paragraphs is something else. But at least you argued yourself round in enough circles there to come to the conclusion that not benefiting from property is the thing an MP should do.

The SNP an Education in Failure

Obviously being a local political operative here in the Linlithgow and Bathgate area one person I run across quite often is the SNP education minister Fiona Hyslop. However, working with numbers all day I have a thing or two I'll be sure to raise with her next time our paths cross.

It does appear that today we have found the way that the Scottish Parliament were hoping to reduce class sizes. Ronnie Smith, general secretary of Scotland's largest teaching union, the EIS deduced:

"Pupil to teacher ratios remain unchanged, which highlights that the Scottish Government's strategy of simply relying on falling pupil numbers and holding
teacher numbers in order to lower class sizes is just not working."

Problem is that Fiona as the Nats education spokesperson promised in her election address to the people of Linlithgow that:

"[The SNP] recruit new teachers to cut over-crowded classes in West Lothian, reducing class sizes in secondary and cutting classes to 18 in Primary 1-3."

Sadly today however, she seems content with the status quo says:

"These figures demonstrate that, for the second year in a row, teacher numbers are delivering a historic low pupil-teacher ratio in Scotland - in both primary and secondary schools.

"The number of teachers in both primary and secondary schools were also higher than in all but one year of the previous administration, in 2006."

Mr. Smith disagrees saying these are the lowest since 2004. Therefore 2004-5, 2005-6, 2006-7 were all academic years when teacher numbers had to have been higher. As schools count in academic years and the Nats had no control over any of these three years.


Considering the SNP glossy A3 promising it's time for a Government of new ideas and then listed:

• It's time for a fairer local tax fail



• It's time for more police on the street fail



• It's time to dump student debt dumped



• It's time for the best start in life fail (see above)



• It's time to keep healthcare local success



• It's time to back small business partial success but how many of the 120,000 small business they set out to help are still in business

So what's that 1.5 out of six key planks. Even Meatloaf would be hard pressed to say that ain't bad.

Update 25/3: Make that one more fail as the Nats are moving to a two tier health service.

Pope's Prophylactic Fallibility

Well His Infallibleness Benny XVI's comments in Africa have come under much scrutiny, not least in the Vatican's own official website. While His Condomless was heard to say about AIDS in Africa:

"It is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms which even aggravates the problems."

The Vatican's website changed the word for the phrase "merely risks aggravating".

There is another subtle change and dispute in the Italian text of an interview given on the flight to Angola the colloquial term from condoms is preservati this was replaced by profilattici (which covers a wider range of measures) before being changed back. Clearly in light of the comments the Holy See felt that the use of a word from the stem to preserve life wasn't in keeping with the overall effect of the message that was clearly being portrayed.

It is all very well the church trying to teach abstinence and fidelity of those who take Holy Orders were above reproach. But the failure of Priests in sexual celibacy, even to the abuse of children shows how difficult even the Church of Rome finds it difficult to practise what it preaches.

Surely now is the time for the Pope as head of the Roman Catholic world to acknowledge the help that wearing a condom can do to the quality and hope of life in areas so heavily afflicted by AIDS. If every sperm is so precious that it should be used by procreation then sadly the teenage male population would have every available womb in the world starting to create a new life before breakfast.

Don't Drink and U-Turn

Be careful that Kenny MacAskill hasn't been drinking before performing the next hand brake turn in SNP policy. For as a comment on Kez's blog also failed to omit any mention of plans to review alcohol policy possibly because this is going to be watered down from what was originally announced it seems.

The SNP were promising that they would lift the minimum age for off sales to 21 across Scotland, yet it seems that MacAskill is leaving this decision up to local authorities rather than making a central decision. There is also a problem with the pledge to make business pay for the social problems associated with alcohol. The proposed separate checkout for alcohol sales is also likely to be dropped.

Don't forget that no matter what ends up remaining in the policy paper brought forward the Nats had promised far reaching steps to deal with a major problem. If they are truly watering down their plans it is not because they are being less authoritarian probably more to do with trying to get at least part of this one through. But again it is another climb down as they are unable to argue their corner.

If You're Only Just Shy Of Support On LIT...

OK lets for a moment assume I accept the SNP's excuse for dropping Local Income Tax (LIT)proposals on the grounds that there was not enough support in Holyrood, even with the Lib Dems on side. What does that mean for the appointment of Mike Russell to his new role?

Now I'm not claiming to be good at maths (OK stats is what I do for a living) but surely there are 13 less MSPs* in favour of Mike Russell's new remit as Minister for Constitutional Affairs Independence than there was for scraping the council tax and replacing it with LIT. Indeed independence said Iain Grey in yesterday's FMQ's is the last remaining flagship policy on which the SNP got elected in 2007 that they 'currently' are still looking to implement before the next election. That is a disastrous only 21 months into a 48 month fixed term.

So we know that the SNP have over run the parliamentary process in Holyrood since taking office. No it appears that they think they can get away with overlooking the reasons that people voted for them as well. One by one the flagship policies are falling by the wayside.

Wait for the next good day to bury news for the announcement that the SNP will not bring forward a Bill calling for Independence for Scotland before the 2011 election.

*Instead of 16 Lib Dems they could maybe count on the two Greens and Margot MacDonald.

SNP Axe Pledge to Axe the Tax II From Tavish TV

Here is Jeremy Purvis's opinion on the SNP's decision to not follow though on their pledge to axe the council tax and replace it with local income tax.



You can read my views here.

SNP Axe Their Pledge to Axe the Tax

One of the things I agreed about in principle if not the means of execution of the SNP Government was their pledge to scrap the council tax and replace it with a local income tax based on the ability to pay.

Just this morning some of the press were praising Salmond for bringing in some heavy hitters today he is reeling against the ropes. One of his key pledges to get elected lying in tatters.

John Swinney, the Finance Minister claimed it would be politically very difficult to introduce the tax in the current political and financial climate at a time when the recession will see year-on-year cuts in public spending. Blaming political difficulty is hardly by itself a valid reason to bring about a change that leads to fairness.

Then there is also the adjustments being made under the Barnett formula £1bn over the next two years, so Westminster takes the blame. But surely an independent Scotland wouldn't have a cash payout from Westminster so if the SNP are truly intent on Independence such trivialities should not be the reason that they can hide behind.

No the problem of why the SNP's proposals from why LIT failed is intransigence of their proposals. They wanted a fixed rate set centrally. One that did not take into account local needs. They also wanted to set a rate below what was recommended giving themselves an inbuilt shortfall before they even started to look for other scapegoats. Like the first budget that failed to pass last month they refused to budge.

LIT can work and it can be fair. It needs to meet the requirements of the councils that need to spend it. Sadly the SNP administration has been failing them on too many counts by limiting their money while increasing their responsibility.

The SNP pretty much lifted the Liberal Democrat policy on Local Income Tax I remember being handed a leaflet about it in 2005 and noticed only 2 or 3 words difference from the policy as described in our pre-manifesto document. But they have betrayed the people who voted for them believing that maybe they could offer a faier local tax.

This is after all Scotland the test bed of Maggie's Poll Tax. Therefore to let the people of Scotland down over local taxation is liable to be one sin that may not be overlooked too easily.

ID Cards Objectionable and Unacceptable

The annual disclosure of documents under the 30 year rule always throws up some interesting, some shocking and some embarrassing documents. So the government must be somewhat embarrassed by the feelings of the last Labour administration's take on ID cards.

In 1978 Labour felt that their introduction "would require major changes in practices and powers reaching far beyond immigration control". They stuck to their plans in 1978 not to introduce immigration quotas, as they didn't want the "objectionable2 measure of making everyone carry identification papers. They described the measures of Margaret Thatcher back then as draconian. They felt that such measures in the past were only introduced in times of war.

Step forward 30 years. The war we are apparently fighting is a war on terror in 1978 we were at the height of another terrorist threat. One that struck far more often and far more deadly than the current situation. Yet Labour then did not deem ID cards necessary in 1978 to combat the IRA.

If you consider that most of the current string of domestic terrorists are citizens just as those of 1978, you do have to wonder just what has changed? The only thing is the level of technology that can be used on an ID card. But if Thatcher's measures were described as draconian where does that leave the current situation?

One thing it does show is that Labour are laying aside their principles. In 1978 they were facing serious competition for power, yet were still prepared to stand on matters of principle. When they starting talking about ID cards themselves they were riding high, and the principles of 1978 were forgotten.

Tories U-Turning Before They Get to Power

Little over a year ago George Osbourne promised that the Conservatives wouldn't make cuts in public expenditure. It was seen as a similar pledge to the one Labour made back in the lead up to 1997 not to increase the level of tax set by the Tories and therefore as a major plank to lure disheartened voters from the other side. Well unlike the political convictions so loved by Gordon Brown or an Iron Lady these Tories are for turning and haven't even had the removal vans turn up to turf Gordon et al out of Downing Street yet, at least Gordon didn't go back on his no more taxes pledge until he started issuing budgets.

Now Osbourne has said he is likely to inherit and "economic mess" well we can all many of us can see that around us. Those of us who can see it know that many of those who are worse off will need help from the public purse. However, he goes on to say that he will not give details until after the Government set public expenditure budgets up to 2014 next summer of what he says will be a "tonal change" over his policy to match that spending until 2011. The Conservative have long made clear that they will aim to share the proceeds of growth, yet as Mr Osbourne is facing a potential shrinkage in the economy it is not clear how as he claims he will free cash to cut taxes and reduce debt.

He's also hinted at scaling back the Tories early eagerness for green taxes, even though he says, "I think green taxes are a very powerful tool in tackling climate change.[But the] case is made much more difficult by Gordon Brown and Labour because they have used them as stealth taxes, by which I mean they don't replace some other tax." So why isn't he going to be able to make a case for them, or was he planning to introduce them stealthily himself instead of being up front about it. Maybe Caroline Lucas is right that Labour and the Tories have borrowed environmental rhetoric merely to dump it when the nay-sayers (most specifically those in the Conservative Party) are claiming it is hard to be green in a credit crunch.

Hockey Mom has Done a U-Turn

Hat tip to Concerned08 who posted this comment.

It appears that Governor Lipsticked Pitbull doesn't quite know whether she supports of disagrees with Sen. Barak Obama's energy policy. On September 3 while accepting the Republican nomination for Vice President she said:

"...we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.

"And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.

"Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's
energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already.

"But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all."

Nothing she says it what her opponents are going to do yet from the State of Alaska archive less than a month before on August 4, she said:

"I am pleased to see Senator Obama acknowledge the huge potential Alaska’s
natural gas reserves represent in terms of clean energy and sound jobs,”
Governor Palin said. “The steps taken by the Alaska State Legislature this
past week demonstrate that we are ready, willing and able to supply the
energy our nation needs."

In a speech given in Lansing, Michigan, Senator Obama called
for the completion of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, stating, "Over the next
five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our
substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to
finally build the Alaska natural gas pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and
creating good jobs in the process."

Governor Palin also acknowledged the Senator’s proposal to offer $1,000
rebates to those struggling with the high cost of energy.

"We in Alaska feel that crunch and are taking steps to address it right here
at home," Governor Palin said. "This is a tool that must be on the table to buy
us time until our long-term energy plans can be put into place. We have already
enjoyed the support of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and it is gratifying to see
Senator Obama get on board."

The Governor did question the means to pay for Obama’s proposed rebate —
a windfall profits tax on oil companies. In Alaska, the state’s resource
valuation system, ACES, provides strong incentives for companies to re-invest
their profits in new production.

"Windfall profits taxes alone prevent additional investment in domestic
production. Without new supplies from American reserves, our dependency and
addiction to foreign sources of oil will continue," Governor Palin said.

Of course the Governor doesn't suggest any other way to pay for these rebates, but seeing as she has been slashing state spending no doubt she'd expect Obama to find this from Federal funds so she can blame it on Washington when she has to seek re-election as Governor or when she may challenge for the Presidency in 2012.

If you ask me the only one who's prepared to do nothing about this herself is the Governor of Alaska not the Democratic Nominee for President.

Alex Tram'U-turn'old

Just when the Nats and cybernats thought it was save to venture into Edinburgh without the threat of any more tram works because they're not cost effective, or there's no need for them as buses are better, or an electric train to Glasgow is a better way to spend the money etc. Or simply because Alex Salmond is always right even if every other party was against doing away with the investment. Cue the Jaws theme as today it appears that there is a change of heart and policy.

Maybe Alex Salmond is starting to take heed of Nicol Stephen's words this Spring that the Scottish National Party were weak on the environment, that coal or the road isn't king. However, even the Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson seems a little confused. He says today:

"We are not against trams as such, but the project that was before
us.

"The advice which Edinburgh City Council and Transport Initiatives
Edinburgh (TIE) have made to me, which I can see the logic of, is that when you
have invested in the infrastructure it is cheaper to make extensions."

While his spokeswomen is adamant that:

"The Scottish Government was against the trams project, but we respected the
will of the parliament to allow the scheme to continue."

Just what is going on? Even former SNP Member not Independent Margo MacDonald last year felt the SNP were well suited for Hogwarts house of Slytherin when she said:

"I think somewhere along the line the SNP have mastered the black arts. The
signs were there at the tail-end of the last parliament when, for cheap
political advantage, the trams project was dropped [by the SNP] and the
Edinburgh airport rail link was disparaged.

"At the same time, comment was made about how much needed to be spent
modernising infrastructure north of Perth. It is no coincidence."

Implying that the Nat's transport policy drifts where the votes are. As I pointed out just yesterday it is a art still practised by the First Minister of smarm, trying to please all of the people all of the time is not going to wash forever.

Update:

Thanks to this comment from Scottish Unionist I thought I'd better make it clear, rather than assume that every reader knows, that I have been a firm supporter of the tram networks in Edinburgh since the off as a clean, efficient and reliable alternative to road transportation whether car or bus. Looking forward to the current schemes merely being the first stepping stone to a network stretching to other parts of Edinburgh and beyond (there was initial talk of extending it out to West Lothian for example).

Wobbly Wednesday for the Nats

Alex Salmond may well have been jealous of Gordon Brown yesterday. Sure the Tim'rous Beastie of Downing Street has had his trouble but they haven't hit three main policy threads on the same day to quite the same devastating effect.

Yesterday it was Alex's turn to miscalculate, face tax problems and be attack whilst on the U-Turn. The Nats have been quick to attack Labour on the illegality of donations and awards for donations, yet seem content to draw a fine line over what legally they themselves can do, under the powers vested in them.

The miscalculation comes in education, which must be an embarrassment, especially for a former Economist like Alex. The SNP had set aside £40 million to reduce class sizes in primary 1 through 3 to 18. It now appears that the figure they told us was undersold in Holyrood building size proportions as just over a year later we find it is actually going to cost £420 million.

Now where is this revenue going to come from? I did hint yesterday that the Finance Minister was looking for help from the Unionist Parties on that one. He'd better first of all sort out local government taxation. The SNP seem set to carry on regardless with their centrally set rate for Local Income Tax to replace the Council Tax. However, Alan Page a professor of public law at Dundee University has warned that because of the legality issues arising out of what is allowed under the Scotland act it could become another Poll Tax scenario. People may end up refusing to pay stating that the Scottish Parliament does not have the right to do what they are attempting.

Finally the whole PFI-lite, sorry Scottish Futures Trust debacle also reached the floor of Holyrood. The plans to remove the PFI funding mechanism and the £150 million a year that raises looks like being replaced by a plan that is awfully similar if less clear. John Swinney made a statement which failed to reassure MSPs when he said the SFT was of the 'PFI Family' and that he would be using the local councils as the borrowing mechanism to raise the Private investment in their projects, again something that the administration has no legal powers to do.

So while Wendy's House on the opposition benches does teeter, Alex's foundations also look far from secure.

Wendy All a Dither

As an economics graduate I know the question in a room full of economists how may theories on any economic issues are in the room? The answer for those less au fait with a gathering of economist is n+1 where n is the number of economists present.

However, over the last week I've come to the conclusion that like those children's day a week underpants sets Wendy Alexander must have been given a week long policy a day set over independence.

From bring it on a personal statement, it gained the backing of the MSPs, but the PM turned his back on it saying it was a matter for the Scottish Leader, who then said she'd bring her own policy paper for a quicker referendum, to losing the backing of the party's Scottish National Exec at the weekend. We now have her not going to stand in the way of the SNPs own policy proposal on the issue.

Or dear, one Sunday Wendy Alexander finds a rocky promontory to stand on, but after a week and a day of gales, realising it was a slippery rock and that she did not really have a hold and support of those standing behind her, she's run unto the beach, only to get stuck in the sand.

Maybe she'll considering burying her sand in it for a while as the Nats will just attack her, her own party just stalk her, the Tories and Lib Dems at Holyrood mock her, and those pro-referendum pro-union supporters are still scratching their heads trying to ascertain whether she's done any good or damage to the whole issue with her whole random policy making this week, based on which set of undies she's been wearing.

Wendy About to Make Double U-Turn

On Friday I decided that's I'd had enough personally of blogging about the Wendy house of cards over the referendum for independence statement Labour's Scottish leader made last week. However, when you wake up this morning and the Scottish Edition of the Times headline is 'Mad' Wendy on Brink over new U-Turn some promises, even those made to yourself have to be broken.

They do say a week is a long time in politics and it appears that having made that U-turn statement last Sundaoy to hurry up the Nats over a referendum on independence, Wendy Alexander is being forced into doing another three point turn this weekend. Is a U-Turn of a U-Turn a Double U or W-Turn. Anyway the result is that Wendy appears to have been going around in circles this week, looking like a headless chicken rather than a leader of the second largest party in Holyrood. It may have been when the Prime Minister failed to back her up properly in the commons that Wendy's spinning, not spin doctoring, started in earnest.

Whatever is going on it is making her position as a leader almost untenible. Her predecessor Jack McConnell has brended her 'mad', and she has also garnerd criticism from former First Minister Henry McLeish who said she had been ineffective in opposition and former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. Yesterday Scottish Labour's national executive met and as a result Ms Alexander tried to pull herself out of the inreasing mire she had created for herself, then dragged her party into, by saying that her party could no longer guarantee a referendum.

Oh dear the party had sheepishly followed the leader, first assuraning they backed her on her call for a referendum, but then turned on her. It looks like Wendy's house of cards is on the brink of collapse.