Was That The End of Torchwood?

Last week, BBC1 showed the third season of Torchwood- a five-part adventure called Children of Earth.

The first thing to say was that this was an impressive story- after first and second seasons which were a bit of a curate's egg- this season hardly put a foot wrong. Also, they had finally realised what a "grown up" show meant, i.e. intrigue, a strong plot, morally complicated characters.

This was also the second outing of the smaller team of Jack Harkness, Gwen Cooper and Ianto Jones, which we saw in last year's Doctor Who season finale, The Stolen Earth/Journey's End. That adventure saw Martha Jones wander off with Jack as he was saying he wasn't sure about UNIT, and Mickey Smith catching up with them.

When Torchwood's second season finished last year with Exit Wounds, we had the deaths of Toshiko Sato and Owen Harper, the other members of the team (OK, Owen had been killed earlier that season in Reset but was enjoying- or probably not enjoying- a continued post-death existence in Cardiff thanks to the resurrection gauntlet). I had simply assumed that with Owen and Martha both being medics and Toshiko and Mickey being computer geeks then we would simply see Martha and Mickey join the team.

Actually, I'm glad they didn't. The smaller team worked well, and I found that it didn't seem odd that Toshiko and Owen weren't there.

The plot involves all the children around the world just stopping for a few minutes. The next time they do it, they all say "We are coming." The next time it's "We are coming back". Then "We are coming back tomorrow." Finally, "We are here". The reason for this is an alien race called the 456- in Scotland in 1965 they took a group of children and are back for more. 10% of the world's children- or else they will wipe out humanity. The reason, as they eventually explain to UNIT's Col. Augustus Oduya, is "the hit"- basically, a high from feeding off the children.

Then there are the politicians. The Prime Minister, Brian Green, out of his depth, and his spin-doctors, Rick Yates and Denise Riley, coming up with an idea of choosing the 10%. Simply take those from schools at the bottom of league tables, and remove what they see as the 10% who are expendable, and spin it as removing the kids who will grow up to be unemployed, hanging on street corners, in prison. Do it as a way of tackling population growth. The official explanation to start with- a vaccination, with teachers to be told the children in their care have to be taken off to be vaccinated.

One of the main characters is John Frobisher, a weak, but- as emphasised a few times- a "good man", who is a senior civil servant at the Home Office, responsible for dealing with the 456. One of the best scenes is when Green tells him that, to reassure the public, Frobisher's two daughters will be "vaccinated". Frobisher at first assumes that he will have to pretend that they will be "vaccinated", the reality slowly dawning on him- that in front of TV cameras they will be taken off. He will have to say goodbye to his children knowing their fate. When he threatens to use the TV appearance to warn the world of what is happening, Green simply tells him that that will mean that his daughters will know what will happen to them. Frobisher signs out a gun, and ushers his wife and children into a bedroom. No suprise when three shots ring out in succession, followed by a fourth.

During the course of the adventure, the Torchwood Hub is blown up- by a bomb in Jack's stomach. And this gives us the chance to see the gruesomeness of his immortality, as a few hours later he comes back to life- without his skin. Well, over time the skin does replace itself, but part of his immortality is rapid healing, so his skin does grow back. But it was a bit stupid to put all his parts in the same body bag. What would have happened if they didn't? Would he come partly back? Would the main part of his body draw the rest of it to him? If, for example his arm was left at the Hub, would he simply grow a new one or have to live with one arm?

But why are the authorities so keen to get rid of Jack (as well as the rest of Torchwood)? The answer lies back in 1965- and there are some unpleasant revelations about him. He was a group of 4 people who handed over the children to the 456- with the other 3 being assassinated that same day.

By the end of the adventure, you are left with the impression that instead of being the hero, Jack is not a particularly nice person. The most shocking moment is how he defeats the 456- by using a child. However, whichever child he uses is going to die- and the only available child is his own grandson, Steven Carter.

OK, you can debate for ages the morality of his actions. The life of one child against the millions? Whether it's fairer to him to sacrifice a child he doesn't know- maybe one who "won't be missed" (the reason for choosing that group of children in 1965)?

Is that it for Torchwood? In a scene set in April 2010 (near the start, a newspaper Ianto is reading states it is September 2009 and the final scene states it's six months later) Jack tells Gwen he has contacted a passing spaceship and beams up there, saying the Earth is too small for him. Ianto was killed off by a virus the 456 released. Gwen is pregnant (interesting that her telling her husband, Rhys Williams, that she is keeping the baby is juxtaposed with scenes of the Army taking away the children the Government wants to get rid of).

What happens with the Rift and the aliens coming through? Maybe after maternity leave, Gwen goes back to being a policewoman and the police keep an eye on that. Perhaps UNIT takes over the responsibility. Or maybe Gwen leads a new Torchwood team (Gwen, Martha and Mickey?).

And what about Jack? Well, he is supposed to be in David Tennant's final appearance as the Doctor. In Tennant's first adventure, The Christmas Invasion, the Doctor despatches the Sycorax leader with the words "No second chances", and expresses the same sentiments when he turns against the Prime Minister, Harriet Jones. Tennant's Doctor can turn from good friend to hostile in an instant if he disapproves of the morality of one of your actions. Maybe, when the Doctor learns about how Jack sacrificed Steven, the phrase "No second chances" will be heard as the Doctor turns his back on Jack and walks away.

5 billion years on, Jack appears three times in Doctor Who- in The End of the World, New Earth and Gridlock- as the Face of Boe. Now, at no point in those adventures do we learn that Jack is the Face of Boe- in dramatic terms, that revelation is left until Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords. But, perhaps the reason why Jack doesn't reveal his real identity in those adventures is that a rift has opened between him and the Doctor...

There Is A Difference Between Criticism And Hatred...

At some point everyone- except Guardianistas- learn that if they are being criticised, or if someone dares to disagree or disapprove, it doesn't automatically mean that they are hated by that person.

Last year, the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 made some extensions to the Public Order Act 1986. In particular, the offence of inciting hatred on racial grounds was extended to making inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation and/or practice a criminal offence.

One of the amendments to that was introduced in the House of Lords by the Conservatives' David Waddington, the former Home Secretary, which clarified this to emphasise that criticising or disagreeing with certain sexual matters did not, in itself, mean "inciting hatred."

Recently, Jack Straw, the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, introduced the Coroners & Justice Bill, which among other things had "Section 61", which was intended to repeal Waddington's amendment- and this was voted down in the House of Lords last week.

Of course, The Guardian is not happy, and this saw a shrill article responding. The first target of criticism is Waddington and his "so-called free speech amendment."

"So-called"? Either it defends freedom of speech or it doesn't. Everyone gets used to being criticised- it's part of human society. That's what freedom of speech involves. It seems that the moment that an opinion is expressed with that paper disagrees with, it has to demand that the law is changed so that expressing that particular viewpoint becomes illegal.

The second target of criticism is Andrea Minichello-Williams, of Christian Concern for our Nation and the Christian Legal Centre, who, apparently is forcing her religious opinions down other people's throats.

How exactly is she doing that? It is that curious "free speech" logic that we are used to from some secularists, which we saw over the atheistic buses. If you feel that people should be free to hold opinions which The Guardian doesn't hold then you are forcing your opinions down other people's throats.

The most peculiar argument from The Guardian is that we have separation of Church and State, and somehow, that means the State should be able to introduce laws which restrict what preachers say from the pulpit.

However, the Church of England and the Church of Scotland are established churches- we don't have separation of Church and State. If they want that, clear off to a secular nation like France or the USA.

But just suppose that there is- like Guardianistas believe- a separation between Church and State. Wouldn't that mean that the Government keeps its nose out of pulpits? What exactly do these Guardianistas want?

It's How Johnny Foreigner Votes

Recently, Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, was writing in Evening Standard about the prospect of electoral reform- as Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has floated the idea (finally!) of switching from First Past The Post to the Alternative Vote Plus.

The problem is that Cameron and his ilk like to make out that basically terms like "Single Transferable Vote", "Additional Members System", "d'Hondt", "Sainte-Lague", "Supplementary Vote", "Alternative Vote" etc. are simply fancy terms for the same system, a system which is fine for other nations to use. All you need to do is find one odd result- just one will do- under any of these systems, and that is enough to defend FPTP.

It has to be said that the system of FPTP in single-member constituencies dates from the February 1950 general election, when the Representation of the People Act 1948 had abolished the university seats and divided the two-member constituencies (as well as ending the practice that some people were allowed to vote in more than one constituency). If the pre-1950 system were still in place, I could vote at all of:

• Southampton- a two-member constituency. Put an "X" by two candidates, and the top two get elected
• University of Oxford- a three-member constituency. List the candidates in order of preference, and three are elected by STV.
• Combined Scottish Universities- a single-member constituency. Like Oxford, list the candidates in order of preference and one is elected by AV.

Indeed, until the November/December 1885 general election, when the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 made alterations to the system (and the Representation of the People Act 1884 had extended the franchise), multi-member constituencies were the norm.

Britain could, in the early 20th century have gone down the STV or AV route. STV was British enough to be specified in the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as the electoral system for the devolved Parliaments in Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland*, so let's ignore the "unBritish" argument.

[*Post-independence, the Irish Republic- as Southern Ireland became- continues to use STV to elect local councils and the Dail Eireann, its legislature].

When the Jenkins Commission was looking into how to reform the electoral system (and settled on AV+), I wrote to its chairman, Roy Jenkins, the former leader of the Social Democrats, suggesting single-member constituencies elected by AV in rural areas and multi-member constituencies elected by STV in urban areas (my argument was that the 1885 system had a mix of single- and multi-member constituencies, so there is a tradition there, and simply bring that back but use a different method this time for electing the MPs), e.g. a two-member Reading constituency using STV, next door to a one-member Newbury constituency using AV, which is itself next door to a two-member Swindon constituency using STV.

Of course, there is the argument that "proportional representation" (a catch-all term for any system other than FPTP) creates huge party lists and the link between MP and constituency is lost. Israel is one 120-member constituency, Israel uses "PR", therefore the link is broken under PR.

But, some systems- especially STV- are very constituency based. Even with AMS, there is still a constituency link, with the lower-tier representatives elected in constituencies, and electoral regions can be small enough for there to be a link for the upper-tier representatives (e.g. the Jenkins model saw the upper-tier MPs elected on a city or county basis).

Another argument is that PR leads to loads of changes of Government. But what is a change in Government? Look at the Welsh Executive since devolution:

• May 1999 to October 2000- Labour (minority)
• October 2000 to May 2003- Labour/Liberal Democrat
• May 2003 to April 2005- Labour (majority)
• April 2005 to July 2007- Labour (minority)
• July 2007 onwards- Labour/Plaid Cymru

What has Wales had? One Government since devolution? Does Labour forming a coalition with one party or ditching its coalition partners count as a change of Government? How about Rhodri Morgan replacing Alun Michael as First Minister in February 2000?

What about the Irish Republic in recent years?:

• March 1987 to July 1989- Fianna Fail (minority)
• July 1989 to November 1992- Fianna Fail/Progressive Democrats
• November 1992 to January 1993- Fianna Fail (minority)
• January 1993 to November 1994- Fianna Fail/Labour
• November to December 1994- Fianna Fail (minority)
• December 1994 to June 1997- Fine Gael/Labour/Democratic Left
• June 1997 to June 2007- Fianna Fail/Progressive Democrats
• June 2007 onwards- Fianna Fail/Greens/Progressive Democrats

So, in the last 20 years, has the Irish Republic had 7 changes of Government? Should we include changes of Taoiseach (Prime Minister) in that period when Fianna Fail changes leader (Charles Haughey to Albert Reynolds in February 1992 and Bertie Ahern to Brian Cowen in May 2008)? That gives us 9.

Depending on how you define "change of Government", there have been between 2 and 9 changes in of Government in the Irish Republic in that last 20 years. And the future? The Progressive Democrats are down to 2 Teachta Dala- Noel Grealish in Galway West and Mary Harney (the Minister for Health) in Dublin Mid West- and has voted to dissolve later this year. So, Grealish and Harney will end up as Independent TDs.

But what happens to Harney then? Does Cowen keep her in the Cabinet- in which case there is a Fianna Fail/Green/Independent Government- or sack her to create a Fianna Fail/Green Government. Will these count as another change of Government?

Italy gives the classic case. All you need to do is point out about 50 "changes of Government" in about 40 years, and that is your knock-down, irrefutable "PR causes unstable Government" argument. Any counter-example (and there are many) of stable Governments under PR are met with the "look at Italy" case.

But what were these changes of Government? Between July 1946 and June 1981, every Prime Minister was from the Christian Democrats. 35 years of one party providing all the Prime Ministers. Yes, there would be minor parties coming in and out of Government, and if you define "change of Government" in that way, then yes, there were oodles of changes. But if you say that Wales has not yet had a change of Government since devolution (as Labour has either ruled on its own or leading coalitions) and that the Irish Republic has only had two changes in the past 20 years (December 1994 and June 1997) then you have no choice but to say that instead of having loads of changes, Italy had the same Government for 35 years.

Italy was an unusual system, as the classic left-right split was different. Normally, there will be a centre-right party (e.g. Conservative, Christian Democrat, Republican) and a centre-left party (e.g. Labour, Socialist, Social Democrat, Democrat) vying for power and minor parties in the middle may play a role.

In Italy, the second largest party was the Communists. You would have the Christian Democrats on about 40% of the vote and the Communists on about 30%. The only way you could have a Government without the Christian Democrats would be one in which the Communists were the largest party. Therefore, as no-one would sit in Government with the Communists, the system forced there to be a "Christian Democrat and allies" Government again and again. Of course, this system led to corruption and the eventual downfall of the Christian Democrats.

What has now become a main argument is to look at the fact that the British National Party got one Member of the European Parliament (its leader, Nick Griffin) elected in North West England and another MEP (Andrew Brons) elected in Yorkshire & Humberside. Therefore, PR leads to extremists getting seats, and if we switched over the AV+ we would see BNP MPs elected all over the place. Well, the BNP managed to won council seats on FPTP, so it is hard to see the logic of that argument. You could make a stronger case that their council seats were won on a small share of the vote, and would not have been won on AV.

TCF Update

Regular reader(s) of my blog will know that I have been having problems with my bank over cancelling Loan Protection Insurance, and the fact that cancelling it cannot be done in writing (?) but by a lengthy phone call- and as I am partly deaf, this is problematic, and my complaint was basically that:

• by putting in an unreasonable post-sales barrier (viz. that cancellation in writing is not allowed) this is breaking the sixth of the Treating Customers Fairly principles drawn up by the Finanical Services Authority
• by insisting cancellation has to be done by phone, this is a violation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by making it harder for people with hearing problems.

The 8-week deadline by which the bank had to either:

• provide me with a final response, or
• tell me I can contact the Financial Ombudsman Service (and enclose a copy of the FOS leaflet Your complaint and the Ombudsman)

was 18 June.

That day passed, so I wrote to the FOS.

The bank have finally got back to me. Their letter was dated 19 June (therefore outside the deadline). Some of us look at the front of envelopes, and I am amazed that (supposing it really was written on 19 June) it took a week between being written and being posted.

It is likely that it was written this week, and an attempt was made to pretend it had been written in the statutory deadline- but they even got that date wrong!

Even if it were indeed written on 19 June, it counts as a breach and will have to be reported to the FSA.

And it gets worse! If I want further information about the investigation into my complaint then I have to do it by phone!

Do you feel that you have been discriminated against on the grounds of being hard of hearing? Well, you have to phone this number.....

Someone Is Keen To Ignore Democracy

Bad news on the flouridisation front- Ann Keen, Labour MP for Brentford & Isleworth (together with her husband, Alan, Labour MP for Feltham & Heston, known in the media as "Mr & Mrs Expenses") and junior minister for Public Health, has let the cat out of the bag.

Keen is keen to mention that flouridisation improves dental health. Yes, there was- as required by law- a public consultation, but as she is keen to point out, the South Central Strategic Health Authority does not have to listen to dissenting views.

It sounds a bit socialist to me. Yes, there will be a public consultation, where anyone can submit concerns, scientific evidence and anything that shows the great public opposition, but your views can only be taken into account if you want the state to do more nannying.

Mr Squeaker Becomes Mr Speaker

The House of Commons simply doesn't get it. After forcing Michael Martin to resign as Speaker, Labour scrabbles around to find the only person who could be worse than him.

John Bercow, Conservative (in name only) MP for Buckingham. Where do we begin?

Firstly, he completely lacks gravitas.

Secondly, he is not a "reform" candidate. One of his key supporters- who "dragged" him to the Speaker's throne when he was elected- is Sandra Gidley, Liberal Democrat MP for Romsey.

Writing in the local paper, Gidley says:

I knew I'd made the right choice when John announced that he was rejecting the traditional garb for everyday business. It may not sound all that important, but it clearly showed that he was prepared to break with tradition...

There is a good reason why it may not sound all that important- because it isn't important.

What has lowered the reputation of Parliament? Is it:

1. the Speaker wearing "traditional garb", or
2. MPs misusing the expenses system?

Opinion poll after opinion poll showed that the people of Britain would be happy for the house-flipping, porn bought at our expense, moat-cleaning, duck houses etc. to continue, as long as the Speaker wears modern clothes when presiding over the Commons.

Er hang on a second. Opinion polls didn't show that- when the expenses scandal was discussed in the media, no-one ever suggested that the people would accept the system if the new Speaker wore different clothes.

[May I tongue-in-cheek suggest that if MPs felt that a Speaker not wearing traditional clothes was the solution, then why not go the whole hog and elect Chris Bryant, Labour MP for Rhondda, as Speaker? Wouldn't a Speaker wearing nothing more than his underpants when presiding be a sign that Parliament has changed?]

The idea that the system has changed now there is a Speaker who doesn't dress up for the job shows that Labour and the Liberal Democrats believe the people will be satisfied with cosmetic changes. Gimmicks, in other words.

What is Bercow's attitude on this? When the Daily Telegraph did its investigation, his expenses were on the large side. Moreover, he wants to see MPs' salaries rocket.

Rather than being a reform candidate, Bercow is the choice of the "come on, get yer snouts in the trough! The taxpayers are paying!" lobby.

Traditionally, when the Speaker is standing at the general election, he or she stands as "Mr/Madam Speaker seeking re-election" and the main parties do not run candidates against him or her. After the next election, there still has to be a Speakership election, although by tradition there is only one candidate (the sitting Speaker) elected unopposed by the House of Commons in those circumstances.

Now, the Conservatives could contest Buckingham at the next election, and could put forward an alternative candidate for Speaker after the election. Both would be a break with tradition- but then again, Bercow's "reform" is simply that he breaks with tradition. Let him be hoisted with his own petard!

There was a genuine reform candidate- George Young, the Conservative MP for Hampshire North West, who was the runner-up (again). Young knows that reform means genuine changes in how MPs behave, not through cheap gimmicks.

One final thought on this- in his speech, Bercow decided to win over Labour MPs by mocking a Conservative MP, assumed to be Peter Tapsell, MP for Louth & Horncastle. Elections to the Speakership are presided over by the Father of the House of Commons. If Tapsell is re-elected at the next general election (and he has a very safe seat), then he will be the Father. Wouldn't be too difficult for him to "accidentally" lose Bercow's nomination papers....

What's The Difference Between These Sick Children?

There was once one principle which Labour believed in, which led to their traditional opposition to devolution, namely that welfare should be geographically equal. It didn't matter if you were in Edinburgh or Eastbourne, Cardiff or Chichester, Belfast or Birmingham, if you were in the same circumstances then wherever you lived, the state would give you the same help.

Several charities lost money by investing in the Icelandic banks when Labour decided to use a little clause in anti-terrorism legislation (Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001) to freeze these banks' assets.

[One of the things about anti-terrorism legislation is that the last thing it is used for is to fight terrorism. Put the "T-word" in the name of a Bill, and the Government can be sure that they can rush it through and any politician who objects is "weak on terrorism." Why not get the next Budget through quickly and with little scrutiny by calling it the Finance & Anti-Terrorism Bill?]

What about Government help for charities affected by this asset-freezing? The official stance is that it would create an "unrealistic precedence."

Unless of course, a charity is based where there are loads of Labour voters (e.g. Manchester) then it will get money from the taxpayer to compensate it for Labour's decision on the Icelandic banks.

A charity for sick children in the middle of Hampshire? Er- Hampshire North West (safe Conservative), Meon Valley (Conservative/Liberal Democrat marginal), Southampton North & Romsey (Liberal Democrat/Conservative marginal), Winchester (safe Liberal Democrat). There are neither enough Labour supporters for the Government to say "Thank you- have some dosh" to nor enough potential Labour supporters for the Government to say "If we help these sick children we could get an MP elected here."

-------------

There is another issue I want to address. Sometimes, it is sneered that these charities are being "greedy" and are simply looking for money.

Years of Live Aids, disaster appeals and Bob Geldof telling us to give our "f**king money" seem to have created the idea that charities work (or ought to work) on a MIMO (Money In, Money Out) method- namely that they get £1 and then immediately spend it on helping someone.

Since May 1997, there has been a Cabinet post of International Development Secretary (replacing the old non-Cabinet post of Minister for Overseas Development). Note the "d-word." There is no International Aid Secretary. The logic accepted by mainstream parties is that you help the Two-Thirds World by development, by long-term planning, and that means setting money aside.

And the same thing applies for domestic charities. They need to plan, to budget, to have aims. If they need a few million to build an extension, then they can't cross their fingers and hope that one day Bill Gates will knock on their door. They need to raise the money, save it, invest it- and then build.

Here Comes Summer

6.46 (Central European Time) tomorrow morning.

The earliest sunrise is at 4.51 (from 13 to 20 June) and the latest sunset is at 9.24 (from 22 to 28 June)

A Labour Conflict Of Interest

In the recent reshuffle, Andy Burnham, at the time Vice-President of the British Flouridisation Society, was moved from being Culture Secretary to Health Secretary- and therefore with the power to decide where compulsory water flouridisation can happen.

Earlier this year, the South Central Strategic Health Authority decided that much of Southampton, together with surrounding areas, should have flouride put in the water, despite there being majority opposition to it. But, remember the stance of the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats on Southampton City Council, namely that "nanny knows best". If you don't want nanny running your life for you, your views are irrelevant.

One Nanny, One Vote?

Three local MPs- Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey), Chris Huhne (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh) and Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East)- took a large petition to Downing Street objecting to compulsory flouridisation. In theory, Burnham could overturn SCSHA's decision, but given his BFS role, there is no way he would do so. Labour have a policy of forced flouridisation.

But the good news is that there will be a legal challenge to SCSHA's decision...

Lager Lout

Yet again, problems with my recycling bin. This may seem trivial, but it simply gets annoying.

Last night someone decided to leave their lager can outside my recycling bin. Of course, this will lead neighbours to think that I am some sort of lager lout (I can't drink the stuff).

The First Secretary of Space

I haven't had time to write about the Cabinet reshuffle of a couple of weeks ago. There was one curious thing, where it seems that someone had simply stayed in his job, whereas in fact a couple of titles meant that he had been promoted dramatically.

When you first read the news reports, you see that Peter Mandelson remained Business & Enterprise Secretary. And then I was trying to find out who had replaced John Denham- who had been completely out of his depth as Innovation & Universities Secretary (Denham was over-promoted to be Communities & Local Government Secretary in the reshuffle), reminding myself that whoever it was would be an improvement (let's face it, Sybil the Downing Street cat would make a better government minister than Denham).

[If you think I am being harsh on Denham, then I should emphasise I used to live in his constituency of Southampton Itchen. When I did need to contact him- about the behaviour of yobbos from the local police- he did not reply to my first two letters, and his response to my third was to tell me to contact the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I quickly got the message that he considered all this representing constituents stuff that he is paid to do to be beneath him. Denham is the best reason there is for scrapping the system of single-member constituencies]

On one level, Denham hadn't been replaced. His job had simply been absorbed into Mandelson's.

And then, tucked away in reports is that Mandelson replaces Janet Royall as Lord President of the Council (a post his grandfather, Herbert Morrison, held from July 1945 to March 1951), and that the post of First Secretary of State is revived and given to him as well.

Being First Secretary of State means that Mandelson is the most senior Cabinet member to come from the House of Lords since Robert Gascoyne-Cecil retired as Prime Minister in July 1902- and this is a Labour Government! Remember when Labour wanted to abolish the House of Lords?

Mandelson's empire is huge. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, he introduced, on a small scale, the idea of people being in more than one Government department, in a bid for "joined-up Government", e.g. a Minister for Trade who would answer to both the Foreign Secretary and the Trade & Industry Secretary. Upon becoming Prime Minister, Gordon Brown took this to extremes. Among Mandelson's ministers are:

• Kevin Brennan, Minister for Further Education, who also works for Ed Balls, the Children & Schools Secretary
• Stephen Carter, Minister for Communications & Broadcasting, who also works for Ben Bradshaw, the Culture Secretary
• Mervyn Davies, Minister for Trade, who also works for David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary
• Paul Drayson, Minister for Science, who also works for Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary
• Shriti Vadera, Minister for Economic Competitiveness & Small Businesses, who also works for Tessa Jowell, the Paymaster-General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
• Rosie Winterton, Minister for Regional Economic Development & Co-ordination, who also works for Denham.

Not only does Mandelson preside over the largest ministerial team, but his team are involved in the running of six other departments.

Back in May 1997, when Labour took over, Mandelson was outside the Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio, and the joke was that he was Deputy Prime Minister in all but name. Now the joke is that it's Brown who is Deputy Prime Minister in all but name.

Among other things, Mandelson is responsible for outer space. Well, to be more precise, Britain's outer space policy- which includes finally playing a part in the European Space Agency's manned spaceflight programme.

One immediate comparison that has been made is that Mandelson is like Henry VIII's Thomas Wolsey, leading to Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, joking that Mandelson will end up a bishop. Would anyone (apart from Rowan Williams) be surprised if Mandelson did indeed add being Archbishop of Canterbury to his existing roles?

What I find interesting is Mandelson's talk of this being an "economics ministry". When Harold Wilson led Labour to victory in the October 1964 general election, he decided to set up a Department of Economic Affairs, with the aim of counterbalancing the Treasury.

And Wilson used the post of First Secretary of State for this- between 1964 and August 1967, there would be someone who was both First Secretary of State and Economic Affairs Secretary (George Brown until August 1966; Michael Stewart from then)- which meant that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (James Callaghan) would be outranked in some areas which were traditionally the Chancellor's fiefdom.

In the run up to this reshuffle, the media consensus was the Alistair Darling would be sacked as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he dug his heels in. I wonder whether Mandelson's appointment as First Secretary of State and being effectively the Economic Affairs Secretary is a way of keeping Darling on, but clipping his wings...

No, Dr Beeching

Good news from the Association of Train Operating Companies, as they suggest re-opening some of the old railway lines closed down by the Beeching axe in the 1960s.

The one with the best business case is the Totton to Hythe (note to Daily Telegraph- this is Hythe, not Hyde) one as it is still used by freight trains. I find that getting from Southampton to Hythe (or vice versa) in the evenings, when I need to, problematic. There are buses from Southampton to Hythe till quite late, but my memory of buses there were always the small bone-shakers which left me with a bad headache. One way I used to use was getting a train down to Totton and then a bus from there, but buses from Totton to Hythe don't run after about 6. There is the Southampton-Hythe ferry, but that stops early evening most of the week.

The other local idea is opening up a railway station in Ringwood (or "Ringworm" as I always call it). When I heard this, I assumed that there would be a Bournemouth-Salisbury line, stopping at Ringwood. However, there is an old line between Brockenhurst and Ringwood which could be rebuilt.

A Load of Rubbish

Now, I am careful to sort out my recycleable waste from non-recycleable, and put these in separate bins.

There is something which is really annoying me. Often, when I go to put stuff in my recycling bin I find normal household waste in there- someone finds walking to the bins behind our flats too much effort and prefers to simply dump non-recycleable rubbish in my recycling bin.

In theory, I could be prosecuted for having non-recycleable waste in my recycling bin.

Leaving Britain Out Of The Loop

What really annoys Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, more than anything else?

The idea of anything being ruled by the United Kingdom. This annoyance even extends to the idea of parts of the United Kingdom (e.g. Northern Ireland) being part of the United Kingdom.

One thing she really ought to do is to leave her pathological hatred of Britain at home and not bring it into the State Department.

So, what ridiculous antic has Clinton done now?- she has agreed with Bermuda that some people from Guantanamo Bay should live in Bermuda. The slight problem with that is that Bermuda is- as Clinton is fully aware- a UK Overseas Territory, and as such, its foreign affairs and security are a matter for the British Government. Therefore, it does not have the legal authority to let these people live there.

Clinton is happy to break all the rules of sovereignty and go behind the British Government's back. And, as a result of her meddling, the Bermudan Government is facing a no-confidence motion.

She is completely out of her depth.

Who Is Minister For Europe?- Another Confused Reshuffle

Government reshuffles used to be rather simple affairs. X would leave to spend more time with their family, Y would move to replace X and be replaced by Z etc.

What has happened over the past few years is that reshuffles have an element of confusion over them. Going back to when Labour took power in May 1997, one of the first announcements was that Frank Field would be Minister for Welfare Reform. Ah, but then we learn that initial reports that he would be in the Cabinet were wrong.

Then there was the sacking of Derry Irvine as Lord Chancellor in June 2003, and his replacement by Charles Falconer. But, Falconer was to be Constitutional Affairs Secretary as part of Labour's plans to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor. This was also a confused reshuffle as there was the question of the posts of Scottish Secretary and Welsh Secretary. Helen Liddell was sacked from the first of these and replaced by the then Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling (now the Chancellor of the Exchequer)- but Darling remained Transport Secretary. Peter Hain carried on as Welsh Secretary (a post he returned to last week), but was also made Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons.

To add to the confusion, the Scotland Office and the Wales Office were to be part of the Department of Constitutional Affairs- so was it a case that Falconer was in charge of Scottish and Welsh affairs with Darling and Hain speaking in the Commons on these, or were Darling and Hain actually in charge of the Scotland and Wales Offices?

And that wasn't all! Much primary legislation (mainly Acts of Parliament) confers specific Executive powers on a member of the Cabinet, and this is normally done by the wording such as "the Secretary of State may/shall etc.". Most Cabinet positions derive from the old post simply known as Secretary of State (back in the days when the Government let people get on with their lives), and most Cabinet ministers are techinically "the Secretary of State for..."

So, to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor, every reference to that post in every piece of legislation would have to be replaced by the words "Secretary of State".

Days after announcing that he was abolishing the post of Lord Chancellor, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, realised it would be too much effort and Falconer became Lord Chancellor as well as being Constitutional Affairs Secretary.

Another confusing reshuffle was after the May 2005 general election, when Blair decided to move Patricia Hewitt from being Trade & Industry Secretary to Health Secretary. Hewitt's successor was to be Alan Johnson (now the Home Secretary) moved over from being Work & Pensions Secretary. However, Johnson was to be Productivity, ENergy & Industry Secretary- it took Blair about a week to realise the obvious acronym and Johnson became Trade & Industry Secretary.

And this brings us to last week's bizarre reshuffle. After vocally pledging her loyalty to the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, Caroline Flint found that she remained Minister for Europe. No problem- like any minister not getting the big promotion they wanted, scrabble around for a "matter of principle" to resign over, in this case, women in the Cabinet being treated as "window-dressing".

Brown appointed Glenys Kinnock to be Flint's successor- which means that Kinnock is the only member of her family to ever serve in Government. There is a little problem, namely Kinnock being a Member of the European Parliament for Wales.

The idea of her being an MEP might seem odd- yes, she was first elected to Strasbourg/Brussels in June 1994, and re-elected in June 1999 and June 2004, but did not contest the elections last week. Unlike the House of Commons, which is dissolved prior to the general election, the European Parliament runs from the month after election. Hence, the Parliament elected in 2004 still exists (until 11 July) and those who were defeated or retired last week are still technically MEPs.

European law forbids MEPs from serving in national governments- if an MEP did this, then they could end up voting on something as an MEP when it was before the Parliament and then voting on it again as a representative of their government when it was before the Council of Ministers. So, if Kinnock is still an MEP then she cannot be Minister for Europe.

The official Labour line is that Kinnock submitted her resignation as an MEP to the President of the Parliament, Hans-Gert Pottering, a German Christian Democrat. If so, then Pottering will have invited Labour's Gareth Williams to serve as an MEP for Wales for the weeks left of Kinnock's term.

So, is Kinnock in the government or not? Yet another reshuffle which is confused and vague.

Yes, We've Got The Centre-Right Stuff

So, the new European Parliament- to take over next month- has been elected, and the results announced.

With 736 members, a group needs 369 MEPs to have a majority. So, what was the final result?

• European People's Party (EPP)- 264
• Party of European Socialists (PSE)- 183 (including 13 Labour MEPs)
• Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe (ALDE)- 84 (including 11 Liberal Democrat MEPs)
• Greens & European Free Alliance (Gr-EFA)- 50 (including 2 Green, 2 Scottish National Party and 1 Plaid Cymru MEPs)
• European United Left/Nordic Green Left (EUL-NGL)- 34 (including 1 Sinn Fein MEP)
• Union for a Europe of Nations (UEN)- 28
• Independence & Democracy (ID)- 21 (including 13 UK Independence Party MEPs)
• non-iscrits- 72 (including 25 Conservative, 2 British National Party, 1 Ulster Conservative & Unionist and 1 Democratic Unionist Party MEPs)

Between them, the centre-right groups (EPP, UEN and ID) have 313 MEPs, just 56 short of an overall majority.

There are quite a large number of non-iscrits. These are simply MEPs who do not belong to one of the parliamentary groups, and one reason why this is so large is that the Conservatives (and the Ulster Conservative & Unionists) together with the Czech Republic's Civic Democrats have left the EPP, and hope to form a new grouping- the last proposed name I heard for it was European Conservatives & Reformists.

The Civic Democrats topped the poll in the Czech Republic, gaining 9 of the 22 seats there. The Conservatives and the Civic Democrats definitely have the numbers (35 in all), but there is another rule for forming a parliamentary grouping, namely that the MEPs concerned have to come from at least 7 member states.

Poland's Law & Justice party- currently part of UEN- has 15 MEPs and are looked at as potential partners.

An alternative is to look at taking partners from ID and/or UEN- which run the risk of these groupings falling below the size and/or distribution required to remain a formal grouping.

However this turns out, note that together the Conservatives, Law & Justice and Civic Democrats have 50 MEPs between them- hence it is clear that the centre-right will come very close to having an overall majority in the Parliament, and it is unlikely that all the other groups (as well as non-iscrits outside the mainstream centre-right) would be able to work together on every issue.

For the next five years at least, European politics is firmly in the hands of the centre-right.

It's A Relief This Man Never Held Cabinet Office

It is scary to imagine what would have happened if Labour's Neil Kinnock had actually become Prime Minister. Not only would we have been lumbered with him, but with a Cabinet which would have included Gerald Kaufman.

At the time of the June 1987 general election, Kaufman was Shadow Home Secretary, and by the April 1992 one he was Shadow Foreign Secretary. So, Kaufman is someone whom Kinnock would have trusted with high Cabinet office.

What insight, what nugget of advice, does Kaufman give to the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown?

Relieve yourself or push away the porcelain.

What?