And another thing…

I ADMIT it – I’m not a morning person. The experience of having to get up at almost any time is one from which it takes me some time to recover.

So when the alarm went off at 6.20 this morning I was pretty appalled – until I remembered I was due on the Today programme less than an hour later.

My plan was clear: head into Millbank (where lie the BBC’s Westminster studios) at a quarter to seven, have my chat with Jim Naughtie then walk across the road for breakfast in the tearoom. That would give me an opportunity to start rehearsing my PMQ for later today (yes, I’m going to have another go – the third successive week).

All well and good.

Then, at 6.35, just as I was about to choose a shirt and tie, my mobile rang. Probably the Beeb confirming I was still coming in, I assumed. At first I could hardly make out the voice at the other end of the line – the radio was blaring out the Today programme and I had to turn the volume down so I could hear. “I’m sorry about this, Tom, but…” Oh, FFS, as we say round these parts. “Okay,” I cut across the caller, rather curtly. “Thanks.” As I hung up, I gazed longingly at my my comfortable, still warm bed. I couldn’t, could I…? No, I reflected, sadly. I was up and there was no going back.

The programme’s packed, my caller had said. It’s at moments like this one is reminded just where back benchers rank in the grand scheme of things. But they’ll regret this snub, oh yes, revenge shall be mine.

I turned the radio back up just in time to hear a report of a vote coming up later today in the Commons on a Tory proposal to freeze the TV licence fee.

A-haa….

THIS is part of a viral campaign for Radio 4’s Today programme. Or it’s something to do with Comic Relief. I don’t quite know what it is, actually, but it made me laugh, so have a look.

Hat-tip: Rapunzel.

I LISTENED, appalled, as usual, to John Humphrys’ attempt to bully Alistair Darling on the Today programme this morning. He clearly loves the sound of his own voice more than he wants to hear answers from whoever he’s “interviewing”.

At one point he sounded as if he was quoting from a Conservative Party press release, almost as if he was gullible enough to believe it: “But it (the government’s investment in the NHS) has all been wasted,” he declared, as if this was somehow a profound truth rather than a duplicitous piece of nonsense invented by a party that hates the idea of a publicly-funded health service.

Alistair did well, considering. But it’s amazing how accepting people are of this type of unprofessional hectoring masquerading as political interviewing. “He did the same to Osborne,” one colleague informed me, as if that excuses Humphrys in some way.

I’m told that my immediate predecessor as MP for Cathcart, John (now Lord) Maxton, managed to give Humphrys a taste of his own medicine when he appeared in front of the House of Lords’ Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, of which John is a member. When asked what he saw as his role, Humphrys replied: “As representing the people against the politicians.”

John asked him: “But who elected you to represent the people?” Humphrys started to give a convoluted explanation of his unjustifiably high opinion of himself, and John interjected: “Answer the qustion – who elected you?” Still Humphrys wouldn’t give a straight answer, and when John asked the same question again, Humphreys responded: “If you will stop interrupting me I’ll try to answer!”

Poetic justice.

CHRIS Huhne (who may or may not be the rightfully elected leader of the LibDems – who cares?) has again come out against mandatory sentences for those carrying guns.

He told the Today programme this morning: “The existence of these mandatory sentences  means there is less chance of people coming forward – it makes it a lot more difficult to catch people.”

His logic seems to be that members of the community will only consider giving information to the police if they’re confident that the sentence will be less harsh than is currently mandatory. But I wonder what evidence he has for that?

In other words, he reckons judges should have the discretion to give people carrying handguns a sharply-worded ticking off and a referral to a conflict-mediation therapist.

I see the depressingly familiar hand of the aggrieved legal profession behind this nonsense; judges and lawyers hate it when politicians reduce their scope for handing down inappropriately lenient sentences. Funnily enough, people who carry handguns agree with them, and with Chris Huhne.

DAVE was interviewed on Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, and although nothing he said will set the heather alight, one can only conclude from his musings that he has learned a lot at the knee of his former boss, that legendary, massively-successful chancellor, Norman Lamont.

He started off by saying that we’ve spent too much on public services in the last decade:

“The tragedy for the country is that we we didn’t have such tough public spending in previous years…”

The next obvious question would have been: where would you have cut spending? Alas, it never came.

Next we had his masterplan for easing the current economic difficulties: cutting stamp duty for first-time buyers. In other words, an uncosted spending plan. How would this be paid for? We’ll never know, because he wasn’t asked.

Next idea? Another tax cut with the introduction of the so-called “fair fuel stabiliser”, completely ignoring the fact that tax take doesn’t necessarily go up with fuel taxes, because other consumer tax revenue falls. This wasn’t pointed out to Dave, so he didn’t feel the need to defend it.

Then he came out with: “What the government ought to be doing is cutting taxes to give a fiscal stimulus to the economy.”

“They blew it in the good times,” continued Dave, unchallenged.

Blew it? By spending money on pensioners and public services? Where would you have cut spending, Dave? Okay, don’t bother answering that.

And finally, the Great Leader’s gets all technical: “That’s what sharing the proceeds of growth is all about – it’s about saying, look, when the economy grows, yes, you spend some of the extra revenue coming in but you put some aside either on tax reduction or debt reduction so you have money for a rainy day.”

Dave, listen, we need to speak to you… “Tax cuts” isn’t the same as saving. In fact, it’s the opposite. Tax cuts are government spending. Didn’t Norman explain any of this while you worked for him?

So there we have it: Dave’s economic masterplan is to cut taxes, and then if that doesn’t work, it’s to cut taxes. And of course, if neither of those two policies work out, then… oh, you know the rest.

Norman “unemployment is a price well worth paying” Lamont must be so proud.