Gordon Brown (the ugly one on the left) congratulates Colonel Gaddafi, thinking he is Sarah Boyle, winner of Britain's Got Talent

Over the past three days, as the Lockerbie ‘terrorist’ release turns into a full-blown international incident, we have heard not one word, or even a Twitter, from the man who saved the wurreld (and its banks). This is highly unusual; Gordon and his wife Sarah Twittered from Inverkilliecrankie, or wherever they are on holiday, catching crabs and burying each other in the sand, when the ungrateful Evil Empire dissed the NHS. This time it’s serious. Somebody gave Gordon’s independent-minded fellow Jocks a pass to give Abdulbasset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted for the Lockerbie bombing, a get out of gaol free card on the spurious pretext that he had less than three months to live.

Let’s leave aside the mountain of evidence that al Megrahi and Libya probably didn’t do it. He was threatening to appeal, a process which would have certainly opened the UK and US to wide and embarrassing scrutiny of their highly circumstantial fingering of Libya, then THE axis of the axis of evil, now everybody’s best friend and a bulwark against terror. Blame switched from Syria, the HQ of the PFLP- GQ terrorist cell allegedly paid by Iran to carry out the bombing as revenge for the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 six months earlier (1988) by the USS Vincennes, killing 290 civilians, when Syria joined the Bush 1 and Thatcher ‘Coalition of the Willing’ in the first Gulf War. Let’s ignore Scottish due process which dictates that a terminally ill prisoner should be released on compassionate grounds to die in dignity. Let’s ignore the oft-repeated fact that post-devolution, Scotland makes its own decisions in law. Let’s try and pretend that Britain isn’t the 51st US state, even if the antics of the past few years have understandably left the opposite impression.

Let’s try and focus on the facts. Last Friday UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband furiously demanded that BBC news presenter John Humphrys retract the ’slur’ that the FCO had anything to do with it. Today’s Sunday Times revealed that Ivan Lewis, UK Foreign Minister responsible for Libya, ‘is said to have written to the Scottish government, encouraging officials to send home’ al-Megrahi. Ten days ago ‘Lord’ Peter Mandelson, Business Secretary and de facto ruler of Great Britain, admitted discussing the subject a couple of weeks ago with Colonel Gaddafi’s son Saif at the Rothschild villa in Corfu. Today, after a mysterious prostate operation (in sympathy with al Megrahi or the result of some other sort of probe?) Mandelson broke his own uncharacteristic silence to declare it ‘offensive to claim’ that this meeting was connected to the release of the Libyan or to trade deals, despite the fact that Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi had emphatically declared the opposite. Colonel Gaddafi, meanwhile, has effusively thanked just about everybody in the UK:

Sarkozy is pissed off because he thought he was welcoming Michael Jackson to the G20 Summit. All Gaddafi had to offer was unlimited supplies of oil, gas and cash, though he performed a passable moonwalk.

“To my friends in Scotland, the Scottish National Party, and Scottish prime minister, and the foreign secretary, I praise their courage for having proved their independence in decision making despite the unacceptable and unreasonable measures that they faced. Nevertheless they took this courageously right and humanitarian decision.” And I say to my friend Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain, his Government, the Queen of Britain, Elizabeth, and Prince Andrew, who all contributed to encouraging the Scottish Government to take this historic and courageous decision, despite the obstacles.” (Reuters).

Barack Obama came slowly out of the traps to declare the decision ‘highly objectionable.’ Despite the fact that the release of al Megrahi was ‘on the agenda at every meeting between Blair and Libyan officials’ it was highly OK for St Tony to broker a return of Libya to the international coalition of the hypocrites in 2004 when we realised we were running out of oil and there was rather a lot of it there, not to mention a strongman capable of bullying the bejasus out of many of the the other whackjobs in Africa, especially Sudan, and Mahgreb Middle East. Despite the fact that we knew more than a week before it happened that this release was on the cards, FBI Head, Robert Mueller, sent a hissy letter expressing outrage and astonishment to Kenny MacAskill, Scottish Justice Minister, clearly intended for public consumption (printed in full in The Times). Various neocons (and David Cameron) have postured their horror at the release of this convicted terrorist and outrage at his hero’s welcome in Tripoli as though this was a bolt from the blue.

Exclusive: what they found when they operated on Mandy's prostate - a banana AND a Miliband.

Those are the facts. Here’s some outrageous speculation. Gordon Brown desperately needs sovereign funds. Mandelson told him that this was a small step to take and that nobody would bother once the dust had settled, and anyway, his new friend (and UK homeowner) Gaddafi jr had assured him the return of al Megrahi would pass off quietly. Scotland, an oil and gas economy, was promised lucrative oil supply contracts and plentiful exports of Dundee rock, Irn Bru, tartan and sporrans. The US agreed to turn a blind eye on the condition that Gaddafi refrained from dancing the Highland Fling. Besides, it’s a big bonus if al Megrahi dies without making an appeal – the dirty secrets surrounding massive CIA manipulation of witnesses and evidence, including the possibility that Pan Am Flight 103 was carrying US secret service contraband die with him. Mandelson wins either way: if Brown is discomfited and if the Scottish National Party is put in the hole, his task of bullying the Labour Party is strengthened (Labour desperately needs seats in Scotland in the upcoming General Election). The inconvenient truth is that Colonel Gaddafi is a loony and his son appears to be a blowhard, so the whole yellow ribbon homecoming was unfortunate, but you can’t win them all. Champagne all round at Chateau Rothschild, Corfu branch. Another dinner guest has provided immense entertainment value on the international stage.

John J Kelly

An admirable foreword is provided by that beacon of propriety, chauffeur-driven-to-excess Speaker Michael Martin. Fortify yourself with his good words and a working knowledge of a lucid and cogent, overarching section ‘Principles Governing Members Allowances,’ then rid yourself of the encroaching impression that we are governed by a bunch of shameless, grasping, incompetents. No, unless they are dyslexic, some of them are definitely crooks. The ‘Principles’ section contains, inter alia, the following. (The italics are mine – not of course that I am seeking to influence your view):

• Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else. (This principle, clearly stated, has been comprehensively abused in so many cases that it is almost worth resting the case here. But I won’t.)

• Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes (Freedom of Information Act ….. apply to me? I rather think not, Jimmy! I‘m not about to tell any of you nasty little nonentities what I spent your brass on ….. and if anyone spills the beans we’ll call him a terrorist and set oor friends the Plod on him.”)

• “Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed”. (Seven hundred and thirty quid for a massage chair for my bad back! Would you be kind enough to deliver it to my, er, second home please. Now have you got anything that will cure sticky fingers”?)

• “Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties – such as a massive eight grand telly. 

• Allowances are reimbursed only for the purpose of a Member carrying out his or her parliamentary duties. Claims cannot relate to party political activity of any sort, nor must any claim provide a benefit to a party political organisation. (Fair enough on this one I suppose – there’s not much danger of our Honourable Members being so dishonourable that they would consider parting with any of our cash, once they’d got their hands on it, to any third parties – political or otherwise).

• It is not permissible for a Member to claim under any parliamentary allowance for anything that the Member is claiming from any other source. (Here’s a wheeze love. We’re both MPs right? And we’ve got two houses? You claim one as your second home and I’ll claim the other. Then maybe we could rent one of them out too. And we’re allowed to claim travel costs for each other too …. it’s true – ‘things can only get better’).

• Individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses incurred, for making claims and for keeping records, even if the administration of claims is delegated by them to others. (Anyone could forget that the mortgage was paid off eighteen months ago – it’s right there alongside not remembering where you‘ve put your glasses or leaving the bath tap running).

• The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services – Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious. (This carpet’s looking a bit past its best. I’ll nip down to Carpet World and see what they’ve got on offer – or would you prefer I went to an antiques shop in Manhattan?)

• Claims must be supported by documentary evidence, except where the House has agreed that such evidence is not necessary. (Thank God the documentary evidence is finally in the public domain; horse shit, hanging chandeliers, flats for the kids, cleaning moats – all purchases vital to the function of democracy and bought at a time when the Government were sending troops out to parts foreign to get shot at with no body armour and in inadequate vehicles – makes you proud to be British).

Remember the New Labour 1997 campaign tune, ‘Things can Only Get Better?’ At the time an awful lot of us thought they couldn’t get much bleeding worse, but we were wrong. High spots, for me at least, were:

• moral outrage on the killing of foxes – and then killing tens of thousands of innocent people in foreign wars on the basis of spin • economy so far up the furthest regions of shit creek that our grandchildren will be picking up the tax bill • devolutionary muddle • ditching the Bufton Tuftons only to stack the House of Lords with cronies and stooges • needless regulation • surveillance • selling the country to oligarchs – and and all achieved whilst up to your elbows in the public till. Try spinning your way out of this one.  

John Keyes is a very big redhaired Irishman and my oldest schoolfriend, son of a miner and, like me, someone who would have been dragged to the gibbet rather than abandon his Labour roots. Thank you, Gordon fucking Brown, Blair, Mandelson, Darling, Harman, Straw, Miliband, Hoon, Blears, Mr and Mrs Balls, John Reid, Byers, Hillary Benn, Jacqui Smith, Phil Woolas, Milburn, Faulkner, Jonathan Powell, Matthew Taylor, Ruth Kelly (no relation), Hewitt, Campbell, Draper, Whelan, Shriti Vadera and all the backroom cretins who have stolen our hope. Special mention to the Guardian. Apologies to all those I’ve left out. John J Kelly.

PS. It’s a Shame Granita restaurant in islington didn’t close before Blair and Brown met to carve up the country. I wonder if they claimed on expenses?

Mandy in ermine, obsessed with postmen - leader of New Labour, as he might look in Opposition

‘Lord’ Peter Mandelson, former EU Trade Commissioner, now UK Business Secretary and architect of the ‘plan,’ has made little headway in winning them over. He appears oblivious to the damage he is doing by fighting a divisive and largely irrelevant battle for a relatively small amount of privatisation loot in the context of the deep recession and the looming certainty of heavy defeat in the EU elections followed by a General Election. Until recently, Mandelson was pushing hard for an uncontested sale to TNT, part of the former Dutch Post Office KPN Group, but allegations in the UK satirical magazine Private Eye and the Telegraph that TNT executives fraudulently avoided paying a tax bill of at least GBP 150 million to the UK Inland Revenue at the time of the Dutch takeover was the subject of a tabled Parliamentary Question. TNT also attempted to have Royal Mail censured a couple of years back for what it claimed were ‘illegal’ state subsidies. This appears ill-advised in hindsight, given that Royal Mail planned to offload its GBP 8 billion pension liability into the public sector in order to give the illusion of profitability to the postal services division and sweeten the TNT deal. More recently TNT complained to the EU that Germany’s minimum wage laws constituted a barrier to competition against Deutsche Post in the German market – campaigning to abolish the UK minimum wage would guarantee a strike which would cripple, not destroy, what remains of Royal Mail. Holland liberalised postal services on April 9, which explains why the Royal Mail deal was so attractive to TNT, but it will be interesting to see how it fares without a captive home market. There are few other candidates to take on the politically-poisoned chalice of Royal Mail. Deutsche Post, which owns DHL, recently announced losses of EUR 1.69 billion compared to a profit of EUR 1.38 in 2007.

147 Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion condemning plans to sell the Royal Mail minority stake. A rebellion on that scale would leave Brown in the humiliating position of relying on Conservative votes to push the part-privatisation into law. Research by the (left-leaning) think-tank Compass suggests the amount of money the Treasury would raise from the sale has almost halved since last year, claiming a price of £1bn is realistic in the recession but said a minority stake would have fetched an estimated £1.9bn if it had been sold a year ago. Mandelson responded acidly to the Compass claims, clearly still committed to a course of action which, at this price could only benefit one party – TNT – two, if you include the Tories – the government discomfiture would be another gift. Royal Mail, meanwhile, which has been run unremarkably (apart from his vast salary) since 2003 by the Blair-appointed ‘dream team’ of former FA CEO and advertising man Adam Crozier and part time Chairman Alan Leighton, argues that it could be run profitably without need for overseas ‘investment’ if the pension liability was cleared off its balance sheet. Delivering letters is not rocket science. Realists argue that the traditional letter post delivery is on a steep and terminal decline and that it should stay as a public service until such time as the public no longer need or are prepared to pay for it. Adding costs in the form of profits for a private sector partner will only increase costs to the consumer and forestall the inevitable.

Mandelson’s Post Office crusade defies rational analysis. If he proceeds with the sale, he stands a good chance of terminally wounding New Labour and losing a government vote for little or no gain. He is either motivated by arrogance, an inexplicable love of Dutch postmen or he is determined to undermine Gordon Brown and entertains notions of running for leadership after the inevitable trouncing in the next election. Alternatively, he could just be plain bonkers. My guess is all of the above.

John J Kelly

Turning chilly for Jaguar - another bailout needed

Margaret Thatcher privatised Jaguar in 1984 to howls of protest from people who liked big rusty cars that broke down a lot. Ford bought the brand for $2.5 billion in 1990, to more howls from Bufton Tufton (67) stalwart of the Enoch Powell Golf Club, Jaguar’s only customer. Sales fell to around 15,000 units a year, 75 per cent of these to the USA, in the teeth of the 1992 recession. Rework – the percentage of cars requiring repair at the end of the assembly line – was running at 65%. Productivity and quality control was as bad as in the strange days when Jaguar was merged with British Leyland, a state-owned basket case whose models gave Lada a market opportunity in the UK. Ford invested heavily in reskinning the big Jaguar XJ series, replacing almost 2000 components with ones that worked and drove through innovations such as stopping the cars from leaking, locking the passengers inside against their will and not starting. Jaguar had borrowed heavily from the bank of goodwill during its dark years. Ford fixed the reliability problems but the marque was always running on empty – its core market was middle aged CEOs who played golf and sat in the back and racy middle-aged cads who bought its expensive XJS sports car. Jaguar needed mid- and entry level models to expand its demographic, as we marketing mavens tend to say.

Inspector Morse investigated murders in a MK2 Jag - he was often late arriving at the crime scene, but always did so in style.

Ford, exemplary owners, made good their promise to the Midlands carworkers who loved the brand they could never afford to own, invested heavily in retooling and added a midrange S Series car, a beautiful vehicle, reminiscent of the iconic Mark 2 Jaguars made famous by Inspector Morse, designed to compete with the BMW 5 series. They also, less successfully, designed an ‘affordable’ Jaguar, the X type, to compete with the BMW 3 series, and replaced the horrible but ferociously fast XJS sports car with the beautiful, (relatively) affordable XK series, designed to compete with Porsche. 

John Major knew the wily ways of the Indian. Oh yes. Bring him back forthwith.

The trouble was that they didn’t address the fuel economy issues or introduce diesel versions of these cars until too late, largely because the US still has an irrational aversion to diesel passenger cars and the Jaguar market didn’t care about gas guzzling. Thus the big Jags couldn’t compete with Mercedes (or Lexus), the middle sized Jags couldn’t match BMW (or Lexus) and the baby Jags couldn’t compete with anyone, because they were too dear, too thirsty and had an uneconomical and pesky 4 wheel drive powertrain borrowed from the Ford Sierra and other ‘platform-sharing’  features which seemed designed to cause trouble. Ford needed at least 200,000 sales for the marque to be viable and a much larger percentage of European buyers. They never really got consistently close. There was also a problem of perception. Although Ford hived its “premier brands” such as Jaguar, Lincoln, Volvo and even Aston Martin into supposedly autonomous units, brand afficionados found it incongruous that Jaguar was owned by the Great Satan of mass engineering and there was no real economy of scale or opportunity in cross-selling a Fiesta with an XKS. The marque made progress but never really capitalised on the $11 billion which Ford spent rejigging and making new models. The impressive new Jaguar XF emerged just as the global downturn was starting and Ford’s own core business was in terminal decline.

Tata, one of India’s top three agglomerates, if not its biggest, stepped in to buy Jaguar and Land Rover/Range Rover, owned for a time by BMW but sold in 2003 to Ford, for $2 billion, more than half the price that Ford paid for the two marques, not counting the estimated $11 billion which Ford invested: a bargain, in fact. The deal was formally announced in March 2008 and 16,000 jobs were said to be saved as a consequence.

Ratan Tata, owner of Tetley Tea, Corus steel and Jaguar, may soon go on UK Benefits, courtesy of Lord Hinduja of Mandelson

So riddle me this riddle, Lord Mandelson of Hinduja: why should the British taxpayer step in to subsidise or part-nationalise a company owned by one of the world’s richest men and biggest agglomerates to the reputed tune of £1 billion – equivalent to the price Tata paid, in fact? Yes, we know about the 16,000 jobs, but Tata (company motto ‘Leadership with Trust’) is a global player, employing 350,000 people, bigger than any British manufacturing concern. Chairman Ratan Tata is a global philanthropist  and the group is seen as a model of ethical manufacturing and corporate citizenship. 61% of its $62.5 billion revenues come from outside India. Tata should not need help from the British government. We would laugh if Honda, Nissan or Toyota, all undergoing severe problems and bigger UK employers than Jaguar, were to be proposed for state intervention. If Tata gets help then where does the government draw the line?

Moreover, they don’t appear to be that broke. Today, when even Honda is stepping down from toys for the boys stuff for reasons of cost, it was announced that Tata would sponsor Ferrari in Formula One Racing. (Tata have a joint venture with Fiat, which owns Ferrari, to make cars in India). The company has a long and largely well-deserved reputation for ethical practice and global citizenship (yes, I hate these terms too but I’m pretending to be a business analyst today) but threatening to move production of Land Rover and Jaguar away from Browns Lane and Solihull unless the increasingly bonkers Brown trousered brigade grant unfair subsidies will incur horrid karma in the next life – Mr Tata may come back as a broken-down Jaguar or a Solihull shopkeeper.

Jaguar fitters like these made the company what it is today

If the vehicles can be made cheaper and better in India – I’m sure the land Rovers could – then get on with it. (Land Rovers are already made in local markets). If moving the entire production away from Britain was what Tata had in mind all along, then ditto, but I doubt if cheap labour will necessarily make expensive, complex cars: BMW and Mercedes, the world’s most successful prestige auto brands,  for example, operate in the world’s highest cost labour market. Also, if Ford found it difficult to sell a premium luxury brand under its umbrella, then the maker of the world’s cheapest car might find it even harder. For what it’s worth, my advice would be to leave the high end manufacturing where it is; the cars are good enough now, the market isn’t. Since Tata already makes the world’s cheapest car, the ‘Nano,’ however, invest in the development of electric vehicles for Europe here (not bloody Ferraris) and keep a respectable distance from Lord Mandelson, who has an unfortunate history when it comes to Indian oligarchs.

PS. Thus has an audacious plan to manufacture a hybrid version of the Sinclair C5 and the DeLorean. We’ll call it the DeCVe. We need a lot of cash or we’ll sack ourselves and move to Eastern Europe or India.

John J Kelly

by John J Kelly

What Gordon, Barroso and Sarkozy might look like, should they choose to wear kilts

Despite EU President Jose Manuel Barroso’s false memory of discussing the small matter of Britain’s entry to the Euro with the newly-ennobled Lord Mandelson, who as long ago as December 3 couldn’t remember having any such discussion when Britain’s EU Trade Minister, the EU president is meeting World Saviour Gordon Brown in London today. I wonder if they’ll get round to the Euro? Mandelson, embroiled in a high level row about not protecting Scottish kiltmakers against ferocious Far East competition, will presumably not pipe in the haggis at this mini-credit-crunch summit.

How Mrs Sarkozy might look if a gust of hot air lifted the kilts

What currency will Brown have in his sporran today? Will his kilt be M+S, Comme des Garcons, or some nasty inflammable acrylic Indonesian variety with a CE label stitched on by Afghan migrants? Or will he wear his famous Brown trousers? In 2003, when Chancellor Prudence to Tony the Bringer of War, he left the door open to Britain joining the Euro with his ‘five criteria‘, boringly predicated upon an equitable exchange rate, desirability for Europe and the UK economy and a referendum indicating approval by UK citizens (which he was confident wouldn’t happen). Back then the Euro was worth between GDP 0.57-0.62 and we were riding shotgun to W, World Police. Today the figure is nearer 0.82p and Britain is just one of many maxed-out bubble economies seeking a handout from the bank of Toytown.

One of the problems with converting to the Euro is that it inevitably involves a degree of ’rounding up’ – AKA gouging – on the part of banks, retailers, wholesalers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. However, if Brown’s brilliant management of the rate of decline of the value of Sterling continues at its present pace, there will soon be a window of opportunity to enter the Euro at parity. Think of the immediate economic benefits – no need to go round the supermarket with sticker guns – all we’ll need to do is substitute the £ sign for the €. See how easy and painless that was.

Another obstacle in the past was the pretense that we had the best banking knowledge in Europe, but now we know that our Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee is just as headless as the European Central Bank, so we’ve established parity there. A third consideration was sovereignty of banknotes – but since we’re going to have to print a Zimbabwean amount anyway, they might as well be Euro-denominated. The rules allow you to put the Queen’s head, Elton John, Barack Obama, Rupert Murdoch or whatever on one side, it’s not really like we’re losing much tradition. Besides, we’ve already given up Parliamentary Democracy and Habeas Corpus. Look how easy that was. Since most of our utilities are already in the hands of European companies, some of which, such as EDS, are part-nationalised, no doubt we could complete the process of re-nationalising the UK free from Brussels whingeing and get stuck into bankrupting an entire continent.

There’s still the awkward issue of the EU Referendum, but never mind, Labour promised us one of those before the last UK General Election and we’re still waiting, so this is hardly an unsurmountable obstacle. And anyway, the Irish have got that covered for us. They’ll kick Sarko senseless if he so much as mentions the blemming Treaty Referendum this side of the next century, sure they will. (Thus passim).