It was fighting talk against Iran from George Bush yesterday, followed by briefings to assure us policy towards Iran had not changed after all. So what is going on?

The President clearly wanted Iran to know that he expects them to change their approach to intervention in Iraq, and to stop developing nuclear weapons. His speech was followed rapidly by the arrest of 7 Iranians in Iraq with no explanation yet of why or how they will be questioned or charged.

Today it sounds as if the Administration is keen to rule out early military action against Iran. They are walking a very difficult tightrope. They want the Iranian regime to change its conduct. They think they need to threaten the regime to get it to change, but going too far with the threats will upset the rest of the world.

The sad truth is the US invasion of Iraq has destabilised that part of the Middle East. It has given Iran more power by limiting the power of Iraq, her great rival. The neo con idea that creating a couple of new democracies in the Middle East following US invasion would lead other states to adopt a democratic route has not worked. It is proving very difficult to sustain and support the new democracies, whilst the non democratic states are projecting their power into the vacuum. The US now sees it needs policy change if not regime change in Iran, but is in a weak political position to bring it about following the difficulties in Iraq.

Iran is likely to assume the current President does not have enough political support to launch an invasion of Iran, and the Presidential candidates are unlikely to put that on their agenda to strengthen their case for election. That leaves the President with words. I am not sure the ones he chose yesterday help advance a Middle East settlement.

After some respite markets lurched downwards again in the first half of this week. One of the problems was the report from the Fed’s last meeting, where there was no discussion of early Fed interest rate cuts to deal with the crisis. The continuing uncertainty over how much each bank and fund has lost, and what impact this will have on future lending is always with us as a reason to be nervous.

I still think the crucial actors in this drama are the main Central Banks.
Since the worst of the crisis it appears that the Fed has changed its stance. The fact that the last meeting did not report a future move to lower interest rates is no longer proof that interest rates are going to held at present levels. It is quite likely that the September meeting will take a different view. The Fed cutting rates would boost confidence.

The European Central Bank has now changed its official position. Following the massive assistance it offered a vulnerable banking sector it has now acknowledged that further interest rate rises are not a good idea. The ECB cutting rates would help the troubled Euroland economy and banking system.

Only the Bank of England remains officially thinking of a further interest rate increase.

Some of my readers seem to hold the view that teaching the institutions who have lent and borrowed too much would be a good idea. My response is I think they have been taught a lesson, by central banks who have lurched from encouraging them by keeping rates too low, to warning them off by hiking them too high. The problem is you cannot insulate the impact of high interest rates just to a few rich companies and people who went over the top. Everyone feels the impact, because interest rates are the means by which the authorities either speed up or rein back the economies. If they keep rates too high for too long it will mean fewer jobs, and less propserity.

One of the disadvantages of working at home - because Parliament remains shut - is I get to hear the wonky voice of BBC current affairs at lunch time as well in the morning.
The World at One excelled itself today, with a feature on the one third of large companies who did not pay any UK corporation tax for the 2004-5 tax year.
They did not tell us how they defined large, where these companies also operated, or tell us how many of these companies were loss making in the UK.
The journalistic thesis was “This is a scandal. Let’s charge them tax on interest they pay on debt”
A pleasant Oxford Professor let them down, by pointing out that companies might set up more of their profitable activities in Ireland to pay 12.5% tax instead of placing them here at 30% tax. \He made an excellent point, but not one that fitted the left wing idea of the day.
A spokesman for the CBI reminded people that this related to 2004-5 profits year and some companies were still losing money then.
The Inland Revenue magnificiently said they were sure all these companies were paying the right amount of tax owing, and that tax reliefs were there for a good purpose.

The BBC made no effort to set out how much National Insurance, income tax on salaries, Stamp duty, environmental taxes, fuel duty, Congesiton Charge, capital gains and other taxes these companies are contributing. As always they seemed quite incapable of understanding that lower tax rates yield more revnue because more people set up in business here, more large and small businesses invest here, and make more profits here.

Latest polls show the Brown honeymoon coming to an end. The idea that he is new and different has taken several knocks in the last few weeks.

Our troops are still fighting in difficult conditions in Iraq. Hopes that Gordon Brown would bring them home early have been dashed, whilst he also seems unwilling to reinforce or protect them properly.

The credit crunch and continuing higher interest rates have reminded people that economic management has not been good in recent times. People are feeling the pinch from Brown’s higher taxes and money squeeze. Conservative plans for tax cuts got a great welcome, as people are fed up with paying more but not getting value for money.

Some hospital Maternity and A and E departments are still under threat of closure, depsite all the money being spent, reminding people just how much waste there is and how they are not getting what they want from all the tax paid.

Recent violent crime has reminded people that “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” was just a slogan.The Home Secretary has not looked as if she knows what to do to curb violence.

In summary, it looks like business as usual from Blair’s deputy. Tony may have been airbrushed out of the script by the spin doctors, but until there are some decisive changes in policy and direction people will not buy the idea that this is a new government with something good to offer.

It is unlikely Brown will go for an early general election against this background.

If I were advising Gordon Brown on going early I would say do the following:

1. Withdraw the troops as soon as possible from Iraq, notifying our US allies and leaving a few people to assist with further training of the Iraqi security services.
2. Announce an end to A&E and maternity unit closures, and the expensive reconfigurations that go with them.
3. Announce more community based policing with visible police presence in the worst areas for anti social behaviour, drug dealing and violent crime, cutting the paperwork and less important issues to create more police time
4. State that tax reduction and reform on Irish lines will be important to finding jobs for the 5.4 million out of work, and stimulating the economy in the slow growth parts of the UK.
4. Announce a Referendum on the Constitution on the same day as an early General Election.

Anything less invites disappointment at the polls.

I am pleased to learn there is no published timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Such a timetable could expose our troops to worse danger. I want to hear of the timetable when our troops are leaving, not before.

However, the government needs to understand that it has two options from here. Either it does a much better job defining the task, reinforcing the position and sending the right equipment (including enough helicopters and armoured vehicles), or it gets our troops out as soon as possible with the minimum of fuss and advertisement.

Mr Milliband on the Today programme was allowed to get away with some whoppers at the end of his interview on Iraq. At least the BBC realised they had to try to ask him something about the absence of a referendum on the Constitution, but they allowed him to make three entirely false points at the end. All of them should have been exposed to proper cross examination. I repeat the Milliband falsehoods (with response) beneath:

1. This deal on the “Constitutional treaty” is “good for Britain”.

What is good about surrendering the veto over so many areas? Why do we want the EU taking much more power over foreign policy, criminal justice, and energy? Haven’t we learnt from the mess they have made of our farms and fishing grounds where they have most of the powers to manage?

2. “This Treaty is very different from the Constitution”.

It is virtually identical to the Constitution, just taking the word “Constitution” out but leaving the main powers and changes in.

3. It “protects our red lines”.

The so-called red lines have been well and truly breached. If this goes ahead the governemnt will discover that Protocols, declarations, and Opt-ins do not protect UK independence in crucial areas like tax, criminal justice and foreign affairs. The only way to protect our independence is to leave in place the veto. Why take the risk of substituting something weaker?

It’s time for our representatives to jump on the jet planes and turn up the air conditioning at the luxury hotels. They are preparing for another world summit on climate change later this year. Yes, that’s right, it takes international junkets to try to find the son of Kyoto. Apparently they have not heard of the email, the web, the blackberry, the telephone, the conference call and fax, but need to meet in person with no sense of irony.

The EU of course will do what it did last time. It will urge tough targets, accept targets, and then carry on doing just what it has always done. If the targets are hit it will crow about it. If they are missed, it will grow quiet about the subject. The EU bureaucracy will not cancel a single fossil fuel contract, will not remove any air conditioning or heating system from its offices, will not cancel a single official car. It will condemn the USA for refusing to adopt targets that might not be hit, and will sit on its hands when posed with the difficult questions of what to do about India and China’s growing appetite for fossil fuels. It will not include the carbon belching forth from the Greek forest fires in its account of EU carbon output.

I find that many people I ask about the subject have been made cynical about the whole business, and just see it as another way to tax them. They have disliked the one sided nature of the debate on the BBC and elsewhere, the extreme spinning of the evidence from the scientific community, the elision of “global warming” and the substitution of “climate change” because it has been so cold this summer, the change of forecasts from warm wet winters and hot dry summers in the UK to wet cool summers and dry winters, and the recent discovery that the hottest summer in the last 100 years was 1934, not last year.

A recent survey has at the same time come up with the unremarkable conclusion that people do not use trains that often because it is difficult getting to the station and because the train timetables are inconvenient. The survey should have added that going by old fashioned heavy trains in the UK is often not a green answer either. If you have to queue in heavy traffic to get to the station and then go on a old train that is not even half full, pushing out dirty diesel exhaust, taking an old taxi at the other end, it is often less green than driving a modern car all the way. Highways departments and the Department of Transport have made it so difficult to get into city centres in the morning peak, yet that is where most of the stations are. Railway regulations and UK procurement practise require the trains to carry around twice as much weight as they need, and many of the older locomotives are dirty and inefficient.

It is time we had a proper green audit of the different ways of travel, taking an interest in end to end journeys so we can have an accurate picture of what is going on. Very few people just want to travel from station to station. I am sure such a survey would discover two very un green features of our rail travel. The first would be the congestion impeding us getting to the station,and the second would be the inefficient engines hauling the trains.

Some in the US are annoyed that the UK government is running its troop numbers down so much in Basra, when the US is still trying to gain control in Baghdad and region through its surge strategy. The numbers of Uk troops left(under 5000) is now not significant compared to the large numbers of US troops belatedly being committed. The Uk thinks the US reinforcement will yield at best some modest and temporary respite in violence in the areas patrolled most aggressively. The problem is the lack of a political settlement, and the large numbers of Iraqis who have no commitment to making this present democratic government work. We now read that the Bush administration itself is becoming doubtful about whether this type of democracy can work in Iraq, which implies substantial movement from the heady early days after the success of the invasion, when we were assured that our troops were fighting for freedom and democracy for Iraqis. It is difficult to see any Presidential hopeful wanting to lengthen and strengthen the US military commitment to Iraq after Bush has gone.

George Orwell explained how in the world of 1984 English socialism changed the language, to prevent heretical thoughts and to make sure everyone kept to the party line. Words were either deleted altogether, or were given limited or new meanings.

New Labour has been trying something similar. Here is a sample glossary:

“Investment in public services” - current spending in the public sector, including wasteful spending on reorganisations, spin doctors, management consultants, bogus consultations and propoganda.

” Tory Tax cuts means sacking teachers and nurses” - when Conservative tax plans are based on the assumption we carry on with Labour’s spending plans on health and education.

“Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime” - allowing some areas to become no go areas for the law abiding, given over to gang warfare and drug dealing

“Reconfigurations of health services” - closures of local Accident and Emergency and Maternity services.

My heart goes out to all those running from their burning homes and to those families who have already lost loved ones in the dreadful fire raging across southern Greece. It is difficult to fathom the depths of depravity if it turns out that these fires were started maliciously by arsonists. I trust our governemnt will be generous in offering help alongside the other international assistance that is being offered, to bring more firefighting equipment to bear to try to stop the spread of the flames.

It also shows how difficult it is to have rational policies to control the world’s output of carbon. The Greek fires are a double blow. They must be generating huge outputs of CO2, at the same time as destroying many trees which have previously operated as a carbon sink. It is galling for companies struggling to meet carbon controls and to pay carbon taxes to reduce their relatively small outputs, to see the massive escape of carbon gas in huge conflagrations like this, and in the forest fires of Asia and South America. If the world is serious about curbing carbon, it needs to turn its attention to how the really big events like forest fires can be dealt with more promptly, and how there can be better incentives to encourage more rather than less forest cover.

Rob Marris MP and I make an unlikely pair, yet together, from our different parties and perspectives, we have kept asking the government to tackle the consequences of climate change, as we do not believe they are about to prevent it. In debate after statement on flooding, on green issues and planning, we have asked the governemnt to plan a replacement for the Thames barrier, and to come forward with programmes of work to defend settlements from overmighty rivers and the power of the waves.

As so often in the British “debate”, the political and media establishment found handling a new idea almost impossible. Whilst everyone was busy demanding an end to global jet travel and severe restrictions on the car to stop global warming, more practical proposals were ignored. Rob and I cried in the practical wilderness for some commonsense and some reality.The coverage concentrated on stories about minor adjustments to tax rates on carbon producing machines, as if that was going to keep people dry in Tewkesbury or East London. The Sunday Telegraph have done a good job today in breaking the silence and running an interview on flood control.

I was delighted to read this morning of the government’s awakening on the need for a replacement Thames Barrier, and the desirability of better flood defences elsewhere. It may have taken the inundation of Gloucestershire and many parts of Yorkshire and southern England to get them to concentrate on the problem, but at last we hear from Phil Woolas, the Minister, that plans are being drawn up.

We will now have to watch to make sure these are not just fine words. Practical proposals need to reach contractors from the drawing board in good time.

Jeremy Paxman was in fine form when he rounded on BBC top executives for being unable to make their very large budget stretch to provide enough good programmes, and for failing to control phone in activities. He portrayed the Licence fee as a relic of the 1950s, and memorably said it was like taxing everyone with a washing machine to pay for the provision of one brand of washing powder.

Peter Oborne was also in good voice on Any Questions? Jonathan Dimbleby sounded shocked and surprised that anyone could think the BBC had a strong pro federalist bias on EU matters. Most of us think Peter was just expounding a fact. Research has shown that on news and news comment programmes pro federalists get more time, more speakers, and are interrupted less often. They are usually introduced with neutral or positive descrptions. We Eurosceptics are interviewed less often, with more interruptions and are usually introduced with a negative phrase.

I remember the height of absurdity when John Stevens decided to run in a European election as a pro Euro Conservative. Only the BBC swallowed his propoganda that he was as popular as the Eurosceptic Conservatives, and gave him air time to set out his silly stall. If I remember rightly, he ended up with 1% of the vote for his party, whilst the official Conservatives on an anti Euro platform ended up with 38%, and topped the poll comfortably.

Only yesterday we heard the bias again when the Today programme dismissed an honourable and interesting group of Labour MPs for daring to suggest a proper renegotiation at the IGC. The BBC clearly could not be bothered to research the true legal position concerning Treaty change and did not think it important that the government has broken its word on offering a referendum. Unfortunately for the BBC 80% of the public including many Labour voters and four leading Trade Unions do think it matters.

In the immediate aftermath of another shocking shooting in the UK the cries will probably go up for stronger gun laws, and stronger laws against violent crime.

It is the easy option. We are all revolted and shocked by what has happened. In the past the easy way out has been to blame the politicians for not putting in place strong enough laws. The politicians responded to the popular mood after past tragedies by amending the criminal law, and by tightening regulation on gun ownership. Politicians will do that, both because we too are disgusted by what has happened and would like to stop it in the future, and because we understand the public mood.

This time it would be better to think more deeply about what is happening. Legal gun ownership in the UK is now very strongly controlled. Past regulations mean that to own a gun a person has to go through an elaborate process of gaining character references, filling in a form, applying for a licence, and demonstrating they have a locked gun cupboard to keep it safe. Each gun and owner is registered and known to the police.

We now know this does not work.The burden of compliance is on the decent and law abiding. The law breakers buy and use illegal guns, traded on the streets. We also know from the USA that little or no regulation does not prevent gun crime either. The truth is that regulating the largely and wholly law abiding cannot stop the law breakers. If someone does not care about breaking the law against murder or assault on someone, they certainly will not worry that they are breaking gun control laws.

We have to accept that well intentioned as regulation is, in all too many cases it does not work. The young murderers and gun shooters on our streets live in a parallel universe where the rule of the gang is more important than the rule of law. There is a deeper indidividual and social malaise at work.

Each one of those young murderers started out in life with a mother and father. Usually both parents are still alive, but often not engaged with their adolescent children. Each one usually has aunts, uncles, grandparents,foster parents or step parents, teachers, vicars and social workers. Somehow all of the adults who know these youths have failed to make any impact, failed to offer them hope of a better life if they turn from crime to more normal pursuits.

Trying to mend a broken society is not easy, and will require many steps by many people. It certainly cannot be mended by one grand gesture by the politicians, by one sweep of the legislative pen urged on by tabloid newspapers. If it could we would all have put party aside and voted it through years ago.

This morning the Today programme gave a short and unpleasant interview to Ian Davidson MP, a Labour MP with the courage to demand a referendum on the draft EU Constitutional Treaty.

The BBC do not invite me on to put the case for a referendum. Maybe because I have given a seminar series in Oxford University on the Constitution, and have written three books provding a British critique of political integration, I know too much for them to allow me on. If they did, they would doubtless introduce me as a “right winger”, whose right wing view was proven by my Euroscepticism. They would then probably spend most of the interview discussing whether this showed the Conservatives had lurched to the right.

They did not attempt to claim that Ian Davidson (backed by up to 40 other Labour MPs) was lurching to the right because he shares our view that we need a referendum. Instead they dismissed his position as a “challenge to the authority of the Prime Minister”! All Mr Davidson was doing was speaking up for the 80% of the British public, including many Labour voters, who want the PM to honour his pledge to give us a referendum on this most important of matters. Mr Davidson very honourably reminded us all that all Labour MPs were elected on the pormise of such a referendum.

The BBC also slapped down Mr Davidson’s equally sensible suggestion that a “new” government led by a new PM should renegotiate the “settlement” from Blair’s last EU Council. The BBC seemed ignorant of the fact that only a properly constituted IGC can propose Treaty change, and we have not yet had an IGC on this latest abomination. Of course any government can decide to treat the IGC seriously and demand a renegotiation of the hasty compromise agreed foolishly at the last Council.

The BBC should instead have asked Mr Davidson what changes he wanted to see in such a renegotiation, and asked him more about what leverage the UK could bring to bear.

Personally I think it is easy. The “new” government should say it is not bound by Blair’s deal. It should announce quite clearly that it will veto anything which takes power away from the UK, but would allow the others to move ahead in a federalist direction if we are given watertight opt outs from the federalist agenda.

We hear this morning a Japanese bullet train is being tested on the London to Channel tunnel line. I awoke to a sales pitch on Radio 4 for these new faster trains, which we were assured were “safe” and “green”. No challenge was offered to either of these propositions.

Faster trains use more energy for the same weight pulled than slower trains. They are only greener than modern cars if they run with good occupancy of the seats, and if the passengers find green ways to get to and from the stations.

No method of travel at speed is completely “safe”. Train travel is relatively safe because they do not allow pedestrians or cyclists onto the tracks, because they only allow trains to run in one direction on any given main line, and because they do not run more than around 20 an hour on the track. Increasing either or both the speed and the weight of the train makes it more likely a rail will crack because that increases the force onto the rail, especially on bends where the pressure through the wheels is greatly increased. There will need to be a very vigorous inspection regime to avoid trouble, as damaged rails can create horrendous crashes.

The good news about importing Japanese trains is that they are lighter in weight. Part of the answer to the poor fuel consumption of our old trains on the network is to buy lighter weight modern trains from elsewhere that require less fuel to propel them. Buying slower lightweight trains would be better still, as it would allow us to run more trains per hour on the same piece of track. They would be both greener and safer than current trains and than the Shinkansen.

Greens should admit that all forms of engine driven travel burn fuel. The comparisons between some of the trains on our network and the motor car are not favourable to the train.

The rift between the US and the UK over Iraq is growing. American sources are now saying on the record that Britain’s ill disguised retreat from Basra is destablising the south at a time when the US wants to reinforce positions throughout the country.

As readers of this blog will know, I have always worried about revealing your intention to retreat too long before you execute the action, as it does weaken the overall position and expose your own forces. I also fear that the US will lose its own determination to try to impose order on Iraq. The US needs to understand that many of the problems in Iraq come from the warring factions and the inability of the elected government to create a political settlement in favour of united Iraq. Without a political consensus in favour of a united democratic Iraq the foreign forces trying to keep order become part of the problem.

George Bush claims that retreat now would create a Viet Nam. It is difficult to see that the US can commit sufficient forces to subdue the violence and rebellion throughout the country, and difficult to see how you can establish an independent vibrant democracy if it depends entirely on the heavy use of foreign force to sustain the elected government. It was a brave decision to throw the Viet Nam analogy back at his critics, but it will leave many people fearing that the final retreat from Baghdad will be like the retreat from Saigon

It is fascinating to see how far the news has now travelled that Ireland’s low business and capital tax regime has made Ireland much richer and more successful than Scotland or the UK. When I started this argument I did not expect the SNP to pile in behind the idea, let alone the new Leader for Labour in Scotland.

Some of us don’t just want lower business and capital taxes for Scotland - we want them for England too. The pressure must be on Mr Brown, who could bring them about any time he likes for both Scotland and England. If he doesn’t, tax will be one of the pressures pulling the Uk apart.

The Head of the Fed is at the moment the most important and powerful person for the world economy.

He came to office after the much liked Alan Greenspan. Greenspan had kept world markets and the world economy marching ahead, by slashing interest rates every time there was a financial squall, to prevent the losses getting out of hand and to prevent the real economy suffering too much. He was able to do this thanks to the arrival of super competitive China and India as large scale suppliers, keeping prices down however much the west borrowed.

His successor was well aware that this method of managing had created huge mountains of debt that could become unstable if interest rates went up too much. He also knew that all the time markets expected interest rate cuts everytime financial institutions got into difficulties, there would be little discipline in lending and no proper appreciation of risk by bankers and funds.
He decided that interest rates needed to be raised to give these financial insttiutions a warning that they needed to become more prudent in their lending. He was also aware that the China effect on prices might not last for ever. Chinese demand became so large it started to drive up oil and commodity prices, shipping rates and some Chinese salaries and wages, whilst at home domestic wages and prices could rise on the back of ever ready credit.

His early interest rate rises caused no great problems. No doubt Mr Bernanke was well aware that there would be lags, but because he also knew the debt problem was so large he kept hiking rates. By this summer the combined impact of much higher rates and the delayed response to earlier rate rises induced the sharp sell offs we have been witnessing in the last two months.

Now we learn that Mr. B has hinted that he will do whatever it takes to “stabilise” markets. That would mean we are back to the Greenspan approach, cutting rates to stop too many people defaulting and to keep the debt machine well oiled. Watch this space: that would change things quite a lot.

I hear that Australian politics is just as trivial as UK politics. At a time of financial crisis, with western forces still dug in in Afghanistan and Iraq, and worries about terrorism and migration, the media are going to town because the Leader of the Opposition once visited a strip club and the Treasurer once said he wanted the top job.

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is a family values Christian, so it is a newsworthy lapse or inconsistency. The real issue for him is will it make any difference to what he does in power were he to win? I doubt if one night drunk in New York means he feels he has to give tax breaks to strippers to grow more night clubs in Sydney, or ditch his Christian beliefs. Christianity is based on the doctrine of the fall of man, and on the inevitability that men and women will sin.

The Treasurer has been well known to want the Prime Minister’s job for many years. Again it is newsworthy that he once said so, and threatened to damage the Howard premiership because he wanted it so badly. The truth is he has not destroyed the Howard premiership, and has been prepared to work with the PM to produce a successful run so far.

The most important issue for both men that the press should concentrate on is how will they respond to the world financial crisis? Governments have had good times owing to the very long period of very low interest rates, the credit mountain that generated, and the hard work of the Chinese and Indians who kept prices down so people could borrow and spend all that money without pushing prices up. In a period of some correction of too much debt and higher interest rates governments and rich countries generally are going to have work harder and smarter to maintain and advance their living standards. It is a time for people who know how to get value for every dollar and pound spent by the public sector, and for parties that can free business to compete.

I was invited onto Hard Talk. I was told I would have 24 minutes to set out some of the views from the Economic Policy Review. It sounded like a long period of TV when perhaps we could get beyond the soundbites and the elementary misunderstandings onto some of the meat, so I accepted. I was quite happy to have “tough” questions - ideas should be tested out, and TV should not be too bland.

I told the researcher in response to preparatory questions that I supported David Cameron, and gave background to the wide ranging proposals on managing the economy, transport, universities, vocational training, energy, pensions, government efficiency,deregulation and taxation.

The interviewer was an intelligent man in suit and tie. It looked promising.

He then spent the entire interview telling me that George Osborne and I thoroughly disagree about taxation, based on one selective quote from George. I had to spend the interview repeating endlessly that both George and I think we can learn from the Irish example, both of us believe you can pay for tax cuts from the proceeds of growth, and both of us think economic stability matters. We both know that economies with lower tax rates on enterprise have more jobs, better paid jobs, and more money to spend on public services.

It completely wasted the time of the interview, and I felt it was very boring. If anyone wants to know what is in the Report, then forget that interview, because there was no single question on the Report. The BBC have still run virtually nothing on the transport, energy,skills, or education plans, and have completely ignored the critique of Brown’s economic policy framework and the very topical comments on the financial crisis.

Once the pre record was complete and we had shaken hands for the cameras, the interviewer told me the camera had been switched off. He then told me I had “played with a straighter bat than he had expected” and invited me to tell him what I really thought. I explained again that I do think economic stability matters, that there should be no upfront unfunded tax cuts,and that sharing the proceeds of growth will allow lower tax rates and a more successful economy.

I do not know whether I was more bemused by the BBC’s assumption that I was a lair, or that I am stupid!