Mr Miliband failed to get a £1 billion Agency to tackle flooding urgently enough.

The Environment Agency in 2005/6 received £450 million for flood protection, and enjoyed a total income of £1038 million. Blazoned across its website Annual Report are warm words including “Protecting”.

All that seems very hollow to many people counting the cost of their ruined homes in the current floods. The Agency states the blindingly obvious as part of its attempt to divert responsibility from itself:

The vast majority of floods come from two sources; one is surface water overwhelming the drains, the second is very heavy and intense rainfall causing river levels to rise so high they overwhelm and overtop defences. Less than 1% of all floods are as a result of the failure of flood defences.

People expect the flood defence and the water management system to cope with heavy rainfall. Heavy rainfall may be unusual in June but it is not unusual at other times of the year in the UK. The Environment Agency is charged with regulating the whole water system, and with pointing out the dangers of building on floodplain.

The Agency’s report is typical of a top heavy very expensive monopoly regulator under this government. In July last year its report tells us that only 58.6% of EA maintained flood defences were in good or better condition. They admitted that 4.7% of EA defences were in poor or worse condition. There is still building on flood plain, often driven through against Council wishes by government Inspectors.

The Agency budget is mainly about paying for a very large number of people in offices to monitor, advise, warn, lecture, and to raise charges, fees and fines on the rest of us. Out of the 13,774 employees only 1608 are manual - the type of people who might go out and clear a blocked drain, improve flood defences or pump water away from residential areas.

The total pay and pensions bill was a massive £477 million last year. They spent £30 million on travel, subsistence and entertainment in 2005/6. If they had spent some of this money on improving our ability to handle water on the ground we would not be suffering so much. They blame the lack of grant they should try managing a £1 billion budget better in line with public priorities for them.

Mr Miliband gets promoted for failing to get value from all this spending, and for leaving the country ill prepared for some heavy rainfall. He should have spent more time at DEFRA trying to sort out the mess of the Environment Agency, and less time contemplating his future career in government.

It is interesting that after 10 years of the Blair regime undermining and sidelining Parliament, we are told the new Cabinet wants a stronger Parliament capable of holding the Executive to better account. Three cheers for that.

This is a case where actions will speak far louder than words. Offering a vote on a new war amounts to very little, as we had a vote on the Iraq war, and Parliament was summonsed and gave approval for the Falklands War.

The problem for these Ministers is their record. As theyworkforyou.com shows, the senior Ministers have not been showing great support for more Parliamentary accountability so far.

Gordon Brown spoke only 12 times in the Commons over the last twelve months and voted in only 19% of the Divisions. As a Minister he was unable to ask questions but did answer some. As the monitoring site says, he has not voted on a more transparent Parliament and voted moderately against investigating the Iraq war.

Alistair Darling never voted on a transparent Parliament and voted strongly against investigating the Iraq war. He voted in 58% of the divisions and spoke in 16 debates.

David Miliband never voted on a transparent Parliament and voted strongly against investigating the Iraq war. He voted in 63% of the divisions and spoke in 19 debates.

All three voted less often and spoke less often than the average MP.

As Ministers they can bring more of their issues to Parliament and offer to speak more often on matters affecting their own department, but they chose not to. If the Brown government is to show it is very different from the Blair government, these Ministers must offer more Parliamentary time to discuss matters of importance, and must attend themselves more often to both vote and speak.

Gordon Brown is an admirer of the USA. he holidays there, understands the power of the US economy, and has gone along with Blair’s foreign policy based on a strong US alliance.

However, he is good at political calculation and will not be sentimental. He will reason that Bush is unpopular and is on the way out, and that the Bush/Blair wars were unpopular in the UK. He will not want to go so far as to incur wrathful brieifng against him by the Bush regime, but he will want to signal that lessons are being learned from the invasions, and that he will be well disposed should a Democrat win next time.

Miliband has risen without expressing strong views on foreign affairs. He let people believe he was unhappy about the last Israeli/Lebanon hostilities, and just hinted that Iraq was not the UK’s finest hour without going too far.

Gordon Brown has let people believe he is sceptical about the case for more European integration. He was important in stopping the last government seeking to abolish the pound and put the UK into the Euro. He is unlikely to want to find that many of the things he woudl like to do as Prime Minister are no longer possible without EU agreement, as that will block or slow up his plans for Britain.

He faces an immediate problem. Tony Blair signed up to a wide ranging surrender of powers to the EU at the last Council of Ministers, whilst refusing a referendum which he had promised on the Constitutional Treaty.

Gordon Brown appears to hold the view that he must ram this through

Prime Minister… Gordon Brown
Deputy Prime Minister… Gordon Brown
Chancellor of Exchequer… Gordon Brown (did next year’s budget this year in advance) assisted by Alastair let’s be boring Darling
Foreign Secretary… Gordon Brown (Treasury officials going over to sort out Europe policy) assisted by David Miliband

David Miliband is rewarded for not opposing Gordon Brown, proving

Yesterday

I had a premonition I would not approve of Tony Blair’s style of departure from the Commons, so I watched proceedings from the TV in my office rather than jostling into the chamber. I am so glad I made that decision.

There was no point in asking him anything more, after ten years of his evasions, refusals to answer

Voters want a government which is more competent, above all else. The Blair Ministerial team concentrated on spin to the exclusion of much else. If you got a meeting with a Minister they had sheafs of press clippings and seemed most preoccupied by what had been written about a problem, rather than wishing to sort out the problem for its own sake.In department after department there are countless examples of waste, error and inneffective Ministerial activity. They believe that mouthing the words “We have massive increased investment in…” will see them through every problem, muddling investment for spending and usually unaware of how the money is being used or abused.

We know the Home Secretary goes, the Deputy Prime Minister goes and the Chancellorship is vacant.

It would be a good idea if the Health Secretary and

When I was reading through the documents from the European Council for the PM’s statement and to appear on Newsnight yesterday, it became obvious that the defence of the red lines was just so much spin.

Our right to settle our own social security matters is “protected” by a so called “emergency brake” in place of the veto. The brake may prove as useless as the old Emergency brake or Luxembourg Compromise, which we used to be assured remained in place to proect any important national interests but has now fallen through disuse. The brake seems to be intended to slow rather than stop EU social security measures that particular states do not like.

Our right to an independent foreign policy is “defended” by a mere Declaration, the weakest form of noting

England has always had two fairly reliable ways of bringing the rain in summer.

In the first three sticks are placed near the centre of a field, three more sticks are placed facing them 22 yards away. Two men in white coats come out into the middle of the field, followed by 11 younger men in white trousers and sports shirts, carrying a hard red ball. This often makes it rain. This summer it worked perfectly at Durham, although it was not reliable in London.

In the second, people place a net between two posts across the middle of a beautiful English lawn. Two men in white shorts and sports shirts come out carrying huge bags full of towels, rackets and other equipment.This brings on the rain. It also works if two young ladies come out dressed in white with large bags full of equipment.

It worked perfectly today. It was so like it has always been that the BBC will need to bring a new expert on to interview, to reassure us that we should expect it to be cold and very wet in June as part of

I was pleased the Sunday Telegraph picked up the answers to one of my recent questions about school results.

When I asked what proportion of A grade A levels in modern languages and sciences were awarded to public school pupils I expected it to be high, but even I was surprised to learn that 40% of all A grade A levels in sciences and modern languages go to independent school pupils. (Only 7% of all pupils go to fee paying schools, although the sixth form percentage may be a bit higher)

No wonder the most prestigious Universities end up with a high proportion of independent school pupils. It is a disgrace that our state schools overall

IT is good to hear even the BBC recognising that social mobility has declined badly in recent years. If education is the main ladder of opportunity, it has been moved away from the children of those on low incomes. The ladders are very firmly rooted in

All the contributors to this site - and my email correspondents - are united in seeing how Tony Blair’s last act is in some ways his worst (Iraq aside).

1. It’s the only way to hold these slippery Ministers to account - without a referendum they simply give our democracy away.

2. The people are

It’s a disgrace that Tony Blair has given so much away but will not hold the referendum he promised.

He has given away power in more areas than Maastricht (32) or Nice (40).

If Gordon Brown is serious about restoring confidence in UK politics he must hold a referendum as soon as possible.

I called my book on the Euro “Just say No”.

We won that argument, because we forced the promise of a referendum from Tony Blair. Once he worked out he couldn’t ever win one, he accepted Gordon Brown’s advice and slid out of his commitment to introduce the currency. Once the EU got used to the idea that we weren’t going to surrender the popund any time soon, they turned to trying to take away our rights to self government in other areas instead.

When pressure from the Conservative Opposition in the House, and other pressure through the media, forced the promise of a referendum on the Constitution it looked as if we had an efective block on the transfer of more powers. This time a Europhile government

We learn that the US is seriously considering offering Tony Blair a job seeking to find peace in the

The Prime Minister in waiting’s first public move was a masterstroke.

He invites the Lib Dem leader in for talks, offering junior jobs in his government. By doing this he poses as a thoroughly “new” politician, trying to build consensus with people beyond his party, showing he is not wishing to retreat into an old Labour bunker.

If the Lib Dem leader accepted, he would bind his party to supporting past and present policies of the Labour government, for very little influence. If he refused, he would show all that Liberal hot air about wanting a “new” style of politics that allows people of different parties to co-operate in the public interest is just spin that they do not mean.

Menzies Campbell decided to reject the offer.

The story leaks out, and the troubles in the Lib Dems begin. Having lit the yellow touch paper Gordon Brown does not retreat behind the nearest spin doctor, but decides to light some further political pyrotechnics.

He offers the former Liberal democrat leader, Paddy Ashdown, a place in the Cabinet - probably Northern Ireland Secretary - behind the back of the present Lib Dem leader.

It was a brilliant calculated risk. If Ashdown accepted, the Lib Dems would split between those who liked Ashdown and thought he was right to try to influence the Labour government, and those who thought the Leader was right to have nothing to do with Labour patronage. If Ashdown refused, it would underline the message that Lib Dems are not serious about building consensus and co-operating in power. Ashdown is working in Northern Ireland, and could offer something to the post settlement position there.

Ashdown decided to turn the offer down. Gordon Brown can sit back happy in the knowledge that there will be serious repercussions in the Lib Dems, who will have to argue over their model of politics, based on the assumption that they come third and then seek to enter alliances or coalitions with one of the major parties.

Alan Johnson, Educaiton Secretary,

As soon as something is successful in the UK people pop up to condemn it and demand that it be taxed more.

Most countries would

I hear on the radio that the slogan “Go to work on an egg” has been banned from the airwaves, as such advice does not recommend a balanced diet!

It goes to show how stupid some bans can be, as it has given the old slogan far more attention than if the banners had allowed it to be broadcast again.

As someone who does not usually go to work on an egg, I do question this idea of a “Balanced diet”. Is it

If Gordon Brown is serious about wanting to restore trust in politics, he should insist on a pre EU summit statement in some detail by the government to Parliament on what is wrong with the draft proposals for a new Treaty, and which things the Uk will definitely not accept.

We read in some places that because the UK is “isolated” Mr Blair has to do a deal - although we are never told why he has to .

In some places we read Gordon Grown is

I read that our PM is under increasing pressure from other EU leaders to do a deal over the draft Constitution. That’s nothing to the pressure the government will be under from the voters if they cave in over this.

It should be the easiest thing in the world to say “No”. It would be instantly popular at home. Normally this governemnt likes to make populist noises, but not on the subject of Europe.

If Gordon Brown wants to get off to a good start with the English, then all he need do is to explain that he will not be asking Parliament to transfer more powers to Brussels, so Mr Blair had better not agree to any such proposal.

The worst possible start for the new PM would be to accept a shady deal done by Blair in his last few hours as PM, and to tell us he had to implement it. He should make sure no such deal is done, or make it clear he is made of sterner stuff than Blair and will veto any transfer of powers.

We do not need the EU to have more powers because there are more countries in it. We do not want it to do more or legislate more, so it should not be given more power.

Christian theologians have agonised for centuries over this question. Today the western world is convulsed by it, as people argue and counter argue over the intervention of the US and the UK in Iraq.

The latest twist in the Arab-Israeli conflict is not good news for either the US or the UK governments. The movement of Gaza to more tension and a more extreme policy will

The EU once again is unable to understand “No”.

The French voted “No” to the Constitution. The Dutch voted “No”. The British would have voted “No”