Greenpeace irritated a number of MPs at the weekend by bombarding them to such an extent the parliamentary email server crashed. The targets were not those MPs voting in favour of the extension, but those who had suggested they might vote against. Frank, in this blog describes how he feels these actions may well have led to last night's vote going in the favour of the Government.

DWP publishes today a report showing how ineffective the Government's sanction regime is in smartening up claimants none too keen to find work. The report is released a day after the Commons debated the Government's new welfare reform bill.

This bill was conceived for an age in which boom and bust had been abolished. Over the past ten years over three million new jobs have been created but the workless total has fallen by a mere 400,000 claimants. Nine out of ten of the new jobs have been taken by immigrants.

Even through the age of continuous boom the Government's welfare reform measures clearly are not working. Worse still they are totally inappropriate to the conditions which an increasing numbers of families will face as the economic hurricane gains pace.

New Labour has made much of reforming welfare to match the new Labour market. Those worklesssness figures - 5.1 million at the last count - give a hollow ring to such claims.

A welfare reform bill that looks forwards instead of backwards would centre on two measures. Large numbers of citizens with impeccable work records are going to be sacked. They will then find out that their continuous National Insurance contributions gives them a princely £60.50 a week benefit. That is precisely the sum an individual gets who has never worked.

A relevant welfare reform bill would lay the basis for linking the size of this contributory JSA to a claimant's work record. Somebody who has worked continuously for five years would get double the payment and somebody, for example, working ten years would see the insurance benefit tripled.

The new arrivals to the benefit roles have work DNA'ed into their very being. They will be actively seeking work and will take work just as soon as they can. To encourage them to take risk with the next job they should be able to reactivate their old contribution record once they have been in work for thirteen continuous weeks - the definition the Government gives as a success in placing New Dealers in the job market.
New Deal for Young People becomes less successful as the months go by. Ten years ago it placed half of New Dealers into employment. Now two thirds fail to get a job.

This money, and the benefit money paid to single claimants under 25, should be used to finance a new green community programme. The one success of the Wilson Government in the eyes of the unemployed was a community programme that offered real jobs in their community to claimants.

Such a scheme cannot be run from the centre - (another big failure of the all the Government's welfare reform measures). Local authorities should be invited to initiate these programmes again with a special emphasis on protecting the environment and cutting fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.

The age of supposedly training people to take one of the never ending new jobs is over. Serious welfare reform now is about creating some real jobs.

DWP publishes today a report showing how in effect the Government’s sanction regime is in smartening up claimants none too keen to find work. The report is released a day after the Commons debated the Government’s new welfare reform bill.

This bill was conceived for an age in which boom and bust had been abolished. Over the past ten years over three million new jobs have been created but the workless total has fallen by a mere 400,000 claimants. Nine out of ten of the new jobs have been taken by immigrants.

Even through the age of continuous boom the Government’s welfare reform measures clearly are not working. Worse still they are totally inappropriate to the conditions which an increasing numbers of families will face as the economic hurricane gains pace.

New Labour has made much of reforming welfare to match the new Labour market. Those worklesssness figures – 5.1 million at the last count – give a hollow ring to such claims.

A welfare reform bill that looks forwards instead of backwards would centre on two measures. Large numbers of citizens with impeccable work records are going to be sacked. They will then find out that their continuous National Insurance contributions gives them a princely £60.50 a week benefit. That is precisely the sum an individual gets who has never worked.

A relevant welfare reform bill would lay the basis for linking the size of this contributory JSA to a claimant’s work record. Somebody who has worked continuously for five years would get double the payment and somebody, for example, working ten years would see the insurance benefit tripled.

The new arrivals to the benefit roles have work DNA’ed into their very being. They will be actively seeking work and will take work just as soon as they can. To encourage them to take risk with the next job they should be able to reactivate their old contribution record once they have been in work for thirteen continuous weeks – the definition the Government gives as a success in placing New Dealers in the job market.

New Deal for Young People becomes less successful as the months go by. Ten years ago it placed half of New Dealers into employment. Now two thirds fail to get a job.

This money, and the benefit money paid to single claimants under 25, should be used to finance a new green community programme. The one success of the Wilson Government in the eyes of the unemployed was a community programme that offered real jobs in their community to claimants.

Such a scheme cannot be run from the centre – (another big failure of the all the Government’s welfare reform measures). Local authorities should be invited to initiate these programmes again with a special emphasis on protecting the environment and cutting fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.

The age of supposedly training people to take one of the never ending new jobs is over. Serious welfare reform now is about creating some real jobs.

Extending Heathrow is a really good example of how not to behave if you are the Government, but also how not to behave if you are a powerful and well-organised pressure group, like Greenpeace. The Government has said that Heathrow will be extended, but is fearful of having a vote here in the House of Commons, so, no surprises, the Tories have called a vote on Wednesday and 58 Labour members, knowing this is what the Tories are up to, have declared they are against an extension of Heathrow. I am in fact more radical than that, I think a real determined radical Prime Minister would announce the date when the last flight leaves Heathrow. But in the meantime, we have to campaign against the extension, which I think is wrong on environmental grounds. I also think it is wrong in having an extension to our main airport when planes, in this age of terrorism, fly most of the time over our capital city.

At the weekend, Greenpeace has been lobbying by email those 50-60 Labour MPs who said they are not prepared to vote for an extension. This is the way not to conduct a campaign, I am absolutely furious with them, because they have actually crashed our email system. They have made it difficult for my constituents to get in touch with me, and if they think that bombarding me from all around the country with fatuous emails is actually going to change my vote, they have another thing coming. Except to the point I’m now so annoyed with them, if I did vote with the Government it would be because of this crass campaigning; somehow you think MPs are up for being pushed around by sending emails, that is not how I see our role.

I’m sure my resolve will be soon strengthened, because I am leaving this Blog to meet with the Deputy Chief Whip who phoned me on Friday, who is coming down to London early and clearly wants to try and twist my arm, and change my vote. I think he will disappointed on that score, but I will report later in the day how I get on with him.

The FSA Chairman is always worth listening to. Lord Turner has a proven track record. But what are we to make of his speech last night? Banking capital ratio rules should be used as a counter-cyclical device.

This is a welcome, but pretty late announcement. When the Government first started pumping huge sums of tax-payers’ money in to our banking system, to increase its capital base and free up the flow of credit to businesses, the FSA tightened its expectations on the banks’ capital ratio. In a single stroke much of the good that could have come from this move was neutered. So there should be much pleasure in heaven over this repentance. And the speech comes a day after the FSA sensibly began back tracking on its previous policy.

As far as his pro-active agenda, I hope Lord Turner will now start to rebuild the firewall between high-street and merchant banks. The twin architects of this destruction – Messrs. Greenspan and Summers – ought to be called before an Economic war crimes tribunal for they more than anyone who are guilty of letting off the lead the greed of bankers. Sadly Mr. Summers in ensconced back in the White House where he did so much damage last time, under Bill Clinton.

The FSA therefore needs to resist robustly the financial lobby that is already girding its loins to defend the status quo. The representative was on the Today programme telling us that it was us poor consumers that were demanding these highly-developed financial products.

B******s. That is simply untrue. The overwhelming majority of us demand no such products. We want a banking system that does not rip us of with unfair charges. Similarly occasionally we like to negotiate loans for big purchases such as our homes. It is the financial sector that promotes us making all the running.

If the financial industry wants to create fancy products and fancy prices, they should do so in a clearly defined sector that does not affect the rest of us.

That is what used to reign in the division in between merchant and commercial banks. Of course this will result in a major restructuring of the high street banks. But it is that division that the FSA needs to re-establish pronto.

I hope members of the cabinet’s economic war council were hard at work long before I dictated this blog. The second round of bank rescue measures announced on Monday were pretty thin gruel. True, tax-payers’ potential liabilities were massively escalated, but the Government could not explain much of the details of how the scheme will work in freeing up credit.

Even without the details it was pretty clear the wrong decision had again been taken. Insuring against toxic bonds is a very different operation from trying to bring them all together in a bad bank, as it is so politely called.

It was in mid-December that MPs on both sides of the chamber were calling for the establishment of a bad bank and for the details to be worked out in double quick time.

That must be today’s job for the economic war cabinet, gathering amidst another set of horrendous economic figures yesterday. The pound has fallen this week by 4.5% against the Euro, 5.8% against the Yen and 6.1% against the Dollar – a fall of 34% since November 2007. We don’t hear much now, thankfully, from those cheerful souls boasting falling Sterling will boost exports.

National debt is on line to rise from a little over 500 billion pounds to 800 billion by the beginning of the next Parliament. That figure could simply double if the guarantees the Government has made with tax-payer’s money arrive as bills and the loans against assets turn out to be less than the bargain us tax payers hope for.

So two dread announcements are now pending. The next unemployment figures, out today, will erase the last stretch of credibility attached to the Government’s roadmap to recovery contained in the pre-budget report.

At the same time we can expect Standard and Poor will give its judgement on the credit worthiness of the British Government. When that is announced, not only will the economic war cabinet need to hold onto its hard hats, we too should don ours, as the fall out of economic debris will greet us at every turn.

Mega crises sort the men out from the political boys. Michael Oakshot in his famous lecture on political education drew distinction between practical and technical knowledge. He talks of how “the boys might acquire the technical knowledge, but only the men would combine this with practical knowledge of affairs”. Over the past week I couldn’t but recall Oakshot’s famous words. The economic crisis is just beginning. Maybe a few more people now are accepting as I did at the beginning that it would be surprising if the recession/slump becomes as severe as I fear that our political institutions will remain intact. I suggested there might have to be a National Government. Three members of that National Government are beginning to identify themselves. Vince Cable, obviously. Peter Mandelson, who is thriving in current circumstances and must be kicking himself at not having a seat in the Commons. And the return of Kenneth Clarke, who has been through this twice before will quickly emerge in the views of politicians (he’s already there with voters) as one of those who might form this new Government.

Nearly full marks for Alan Johnson for publishing The NHS Constitution . As this is hopefully the beginning of the debate rather than its end, here are three ideas. What should be the role of constitutions, or as I argue contracts in our lives. First, we need similar constitutions/ contracts across most of our public life now as a way of allowing decent citizens to know what is expected of all of us. I’ve tried to pilot this idea in schools where the pupils themselves where the pupils themselves have come up with some pretty remarkable findings (see Neighbours from Hell). Any new contracts and going to be fairly rough and ready at first and the aim ought to be to get them, after much public discussion, revised quickly. It is a bit disappointing therefore that the new document talks of a revision in ten years!

The document sadly does not face up to two crunch issues. A main reason why health and equalities remain so stubbornly the same is differences in lifestyles. Of course it is so much more difficult for the poor to have a good diet. But many poor families manage and in so doing put most of us to shame. So under the section – your responsibilities – shouldn’t the first one be offering help to move to better diet and more exercise? The document simply talks about our having some personal responsibility here. I always find that action is far more likely if concrete steps are suggested.

The big hole in the document however concerns the bad behaviour against which too many staff suffer. The constitution doesn’t bite the bullet. We need to begin a public debate on whether a quickly revised constitution should clearly state that the courts will have powers, say after the second serious offence against staff, to exclude an individual’s NHS provision. Full Stop. The constitution pussyfoots around the issue. What do the public think though? Particularly as last year alone over 11500 NHS staff were subject to verbal or physical attacks.

At some stage the Government, I believe, will have to come back to the bad band idea. While the toxic assets have been repackaged to the nth degree the banks by now must have some idea of the extent of their vulnerability on this score. So I return to an idea I put forward in a Telegraph article dated 13th December. Before another penny of tax-payers’ money is given over to the banking system, the Prime Minister and Chancellor ought to lock Britain’s senior bankers in a room saying they are not being allowed out until they write down the size of their bank’s toxic debt and there be no takeaway Indian food until the exercise is complete.

Because the Government is not doing this, the Chancellor now cannot say the size of tax-payer liability from the measures he has announced this afternoon. Getting the bad debt parked on the side is likely to be the best way of freeing up credit.

Two other moves would help. The “short selling ban” should be re-imposed and the FSA ought also to list the extent to which pension funds have been allowing their shares to be used in this way. What has been the net loss to those funds of allowing short sellers to devalue pension assets in this way? Pensioners have a right to know.

At the same time, the Government should make plain that it is opening up discussions with Parliament on how best to bring to account those people who are most responsible for pushing the country towards the edge of an economic precipice. So far Parliament has looked irrelevant to this fast-evolving crisis. The Government needs to act quickly to prevent an economic catastrophe and, why it might sensible to listen to what MPs have to say, the Commons does not have an executive role to play. But it could have this deliberative role in helping to bring the culprits to book and suggest how some of their ill-gotten gains might be used to offset the escalating national debt amounting from the Government’s rescue packages.

More than a page of history will be turned tomorrow. The President-Elect will become President Obama proper. Naturally British political leaders have been rushing to pick up his coat tails. But his message from yesterday is as clear as it could be. Change is coming to America because the people are going to be the agents of change. Wow, in one smart move he begins to manage any disappointment with the new President. More importantly he brings the nation together to forge that change. It is not Obama but the American people themselves who, in Tony Blair’s touching phrase, “will feel the hand of history on their shoulders”.

There are a number of firsts with this morning’s post. It arrived early. It also bought a card announcing what will be in some weeks’ time a couple’s second child. The card is a reproduction of the mother’s last scan showing a very healthy child in her womb. The scans, which have been instigated to alert parents to handicapped children, thereby opening the door for an abortion, might, in the longer run, paradoxically have a totally different effect on the pro-life/pro-choice debate in this country. While this is the first time that I have had an expected birth announced in this way, I am struck by the number of young people in schools whose own lifebook begins with pictures of them in their mother’s womb. While only some of the young people link up their womb-life with the abortion debate, these scans will, I believe, over the longer term change people’s attitude to what is an acceptable time limit beyond which abortion should not take place.

Abortion was touched on in a public discussion I was involved in last evening. I gave an example of how irrational many of the contributors to the abortion debate are when parliament discusses the issue. We did so last year and I couldn’t but compare the attitudes of my colleagues to GM foods and GM embryos. I would guess that, on a free vote, a significant majority of Labour MPs would register against GM foods. And yet I could not but contrast the horror that is expressed in our GM debates in the commons from the Labour benches on the prospect of having, say, genetically-modified potatoes compared with the non-debate and the voting last year for genetically-modified embryos, which was carried easily. This extraordinary example of where that part of the political brain deciding issues of GM crops is totally divorced from presumably another part of the political brain deciding GM embryos will soon be a thing of the past as those scanning photographs spread a new sediment across our political debate.

The Government very bravely announces today a third runway for Heathrow while making it plain that they are not so brave to allow the Commons to vote on the issue. The Tories might well mess up this aspect of the Government’s intent by offering us a vote at the end of a day’s proceeding when they decide the issue to be discussed. I hope when that opportunity arises we will have a radical alternative on offer. It is surely madness to expand a country’s major airport, with even more planes, and thereby terrorist targets, flying over the capital city. Surely the next radical Prime Minister will announce when the last flight will leave Heathrow and link this with building up an airport in the Thames Estuary or the Bristol Channel. The Government is confident it can build up a Japanese-type bullet train network to get us from London to Manchester in 40 minutes, surely the first such line could be built bringing passengers for either the West or the East and delivering them in London in less than half an hour. I wonder what the odds bookmakers are offering against that third runway ever being built?