Digital Inclusion

Paul Murphy is going to be a busy chap, if the following Commons answer by the Prime Minister yesterday is anything to go by:

The new Secretary of State for Wales has responsibilities in addition to his responsibilities for Wales. He is overseeing the British-Irish Council, he is responsible for the joint ministerial committees on devolution, he is the minister responsible for digital inclusion, and he is responsible for data security and information assurance. Those responsibilities are in addition to his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Wales .

Can't help wondering which minister is responsible for digital extraction, which is what is desperately needed from this government.

Cauli Wobbles

I am alarmed to read in today’s Telegraph that the cauliflower is in danger of vanishing from our dinner plates. According to the NFU, the cost of harvesting is rising and supermarkets aren’t paying farmers enough. They cost up to 35p per head to produce, but some supermarkets are paying only 18p.

I have a weakness for cauliflower, particularly cauliflower cheese. It is one of the great British dishes, up there with fish and chips and toad in the hole. I would gladly pay more to ensure its survival.

Supermarkets have a heavy responsibility here. I urge Messrs Tesco, Sainsbury et al to enter into early dialogue with the cauliflower producing sector to secure continuity of supply of this noble brassica.

Blank Canvas

The Wales Office clearly hasn’t got to grips with the change at the top.

Visiting its website today, I noticed that Paul Murphy’s picture still hasn’t been put up.

Poor Huw Irranca-Davies looks rather lonely.

In the Labyrinth

When I was elected to Parliament in 2005, I received a very kind note of congratulation from Dafydd Wigley. It concluded with the words: “Don’t worry if you keep getting lost; I was there 27 years, and I still kept getting lost.”

Easy enough to get lost in the Palace of Westminster. It’s absolutely vast: 2½ miles of corridors and over 1,000 rooms. And that’s not including Portcullis House, 1 Parliament Street and the rest of the parliamentary estate.

I’m constantly finding new nooks and crannies in this extraordinary building. Today was an example. I needed to table an amendment to the Planning Bill, now the principal focus of my life. I approached the clerks in the Table Office, behind the Speaker’s chair, but was told that I needed to go to the Public Bill Office, which I had never previously visited.

I was directed to a small, slow, creaking lift, which conveyed me laboriously up to the third floor. In this previously uncharted territory, I found the office and discussed my amendment with one of the public bill clerks, whose Rolls-Royce brains ensure that our legislation makes sense (until another Rolls-Royce brain later decides to pull it to pieces it in the courts).

The longer I am in this place, the more I love it. Anyone who works here – in whatever role - should regard it as an absolute privilege. It should never be taken for granted.

It's still the economy, stupid

Bill Clinton, famously, hung a sign on the wall of his 1992 presidential campaign headquarters that read: “It’s the economy, stupid”. It was placed there to keep the campaign team focused on the plain fact that, broadly speaking, voters feel more inclined to change their governments when they feel that the alternative is more likely to look after their economic interests.

The last few months have, of course, been a period of economic turmoil, which shows little sign of abating. The Deloitte Economic Review, released today, says that the UK economy is expected to grow by just 2 per cent this year and 1.7 per cent during 2009, the lowest rate of growth since 1992.

According to the review, the decline will be led by the housing market. House prices are expected to fall by an estimated 5 per cent over the coming year, and 9 per cent in 2009.

The Telegraph/YouGov poll, also published today, reports that voters’ financial concerns are contributing to an erosion of support for Gordon Brown and the Labour party. 56 per cent of those questioned said that by the end of the year they expect to be in a more precarious financial position; a majority were worried about the coast of heating their homes and four out of ten were concerned about the cost of their groceries.

The consequences for Gordon Brown are pretty dire:

“The… majority of voters thought the Government was doing a ‘poor or awful’ job at handling the impending economic downturn.

“Mr Cameron was placed ahead of Mr Brown by 31 points to 27, when voters were asked who would make the best prime minister.”

Given that the Deloitte review predicts that things are going to get worse for the UK, rather than better, it is hard to see how Gordon Brown’s political fortunes can improve, certainly in the short term.

The next general election looks a remoter event than ever.

Sheer Genius

So here we have a government who have had more than what might be considered their fair share of problems in recent months: ID cards, HMRC data losses, police pay, Northern Rock and Donorgate to name but a few. The last thing they need right now is to upset the electorate any more than they have already.

So what do they decide to do?

Take Britannia off our coins.

Brilliant.

Devo-realism

Speaking of Paul Murphy, he set out his position on devolution fairly clearly in the Welsh Grand Committee debate just over a month ago:

“I have been trying to work out whether or not I am a devo-sceptic and I have come to the conclusion that I am not. In 1978, I was a devo-opponent, and in 1997 I voted for devolution. My constituents agreed with me in 1978, but they did not agree with me in 1997, because they voted against a Welsh Assembly on both occasions. However, I would rather describe myself as a devo-realist, in the sense that what is here is here. I am not all that keen on a coalition in Cardiff, but we are where we are, and we have to work in the current political climate for the benefit of the people whom we represent, whether we are Members of Parliament, Assembly Members or members of local authorities.

“When I was Secretary of State for Wales, it was my job to ensure a smooth transition from the constitutional arrangements that we had before devolution to where we are today. However, devolution is not about divorce. It is about partnership between our Government in Parliament, the Assembly in government in Cardiff and our local authority colleagues in their respective council chambers. Above all else, devolution must be about improving the lives of the people whom we jointly represent, whether it involves the health service, schools or something else.”

It will be extremely interesting to see how Mr Murphy puts that “devo-realism” into practice during his second tenure as Secretary of State.

January Blues

The news of Peter Hain’s departure from the Cabinet came to me via my BlackBerry in the middle of the deliberations of the Planning Bill committee, which is now taking over my life. (It is, by the way, very interesting, and I may blog on it in future posts.)

Peter had no option but to go, and in doing so he did entirely the right thing. I shall refrain from mentioning his case here until the police investigations are finished.

Paul Murphy, the new Welsh Secretary, is a man for whom I have a considerable degree of respect. He is clearly seen as a safe pair of hands, and has been appointed to calm things down after the turmoil of the last few weeks. He is known to be lukewarm on devolution and was bitterly and vocally opposed to the Labour – Plaid Cymru deal in the Welsh Assembly.

This is bad news for Gordon Brown on several fronts. His handling of the Hain affair was weak; he failed either to give unequivocal support to Hain or to dismiss him. To keep in place a minister who he admitted was incompetent and who later had to resign in such unfortunate circumstances will play very badly with the electorate.

Furthermore, Hain’s resignation does not signal the end of Labour's agonies. As The Times points out:

“Mr Hain’s fate intensified the discomfort surrounding other Labour figures, including Harriet Harman and Wendy Alexander, involved in Electoral Commission, parliamentary or police investigations.

“It appears that Mr Brown may be unable to escape the cloud of police inquiries into Mr Hain and the proxy donations of £600,000 to Labour from David Abrahams until 2009, possibly election year.”

Testing times indeed for the Prime Minister. The New Year relaunch has come to grief on the slipway.

Oh, Calamity!

Nick Clegg’s third outing at PMQs was an even more lacklustre affair than the previous two.

He did, however, raise a resounding cheer from the Tory benches with the following question about the Northern Rock (itself a misjudgment, because David Cameron had spent his own allocation of six questions giving Gordon a mauling over the same issue):

Mr. Clegg: Is not the real truth that the Prime Minister will not nationalise the bank because he is running scared of the Conservative party? [Interruption.] It has no solutions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

It appears Clegg is going to prove a real asset to the Conservatives in the months ahead. As for the Lib Dems, I am sure they are kicking themselves that they didn’t stick with Vince Cable.

Welcoming the Fed

I was delighted to welcome a delegation of North Wales Police Federation members to Parliament this afternoon. Five coachloads of police officers had travelled from North Wales to lobby parliamentarians over the government’s betrayal on police pay.

Over 22,000 serving officers marched past the House – a most impressive sight that will have dismayed Jacqui Smith. At last, Labour seem to have kept their promise to put more police on the streets.

Of course!

Having spent this morning sitting on the Planning Bill committee, I am immensely reassured to learn that the spirit of Sir Humphrey still prevails in the uppermost reaches of Whitehall.

According to a helpful explanation provided by the minister, armed with copious notes from his phalanx of officials, nuclear waste does not fall within the definition of “hazardous waste” for the purposes of clause 13 (1), but is within the definition of “waste” for the purposes of clause 13 (3).

Struggling vainly to imagine what sort of waste could possibly be more hazardous than the nuclear variety, I look forward to this evening’s three-hour session, which, no doubt, will be equally enlightening.

Scattering Chaff

Rather a lame performance by new Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, on the Today programme this morning. Jim Naughtie had to ask him several times whether the party would vote for a referendum on the EU reform treaty before Clegg ultimately admitted that they wouldn’t.

Instead, Clegg repeated the usual Lib Dem waffle about wanting a referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the EU. That, of course, isn’t on the agenda as Clegg knows full well. Banging on about it is no more than a diversionary tactic that fools nobody.

The Lib Dem position, as usual, is deeply unprincipled. It is generally agreed by respected commentators, including two committees of the House, that the treaty is to all intents and purposes identical to the abandoned constitution. All the major parties in the House promised a referendum on the constitution in their election manifestos. Now only the Conservatives are willing to stand by their pre-election pledge.

No doubt the electorate will remember that when they cast their votes next time around.

Euro Follies

Today was the debate on the second reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill. The House was packed, and although the government won a comfortable majority, that is not the end of the story. Twenty days of debate, to which I hope to contribute, will follow.

William Hague delivered a masterly, forensic speech, devastatingly logical and at the same time hilariously funny. He is undoubtedly the best speaker in the House.

I particularly liked the following extract. No, to be precise, I was laughing so much that I had to wipe the tears from my eyes. It describes the reaction of Gordon Brown to the news that Tony Blair is to become President of the new, post-treaty, European superstate:

‘We can all picture the scene at a European Council sometime next year. Picture the face of our poor Prime Minister as the name “Blair” is nominated by one President and Prime Minister after another: the look of utter gloom on his face at the nauseating, glutinous praise oozing from every Head of Government, the rapid revelation of a majority view, agreed behind closed doors when he, as usual, was excluded.

‘Never would he more regret no longer being in possession of a veto: the famous dropped jaw almost hitting the table, as he realises there is no option but to join in. And then the awful moment when the motorcade of the President of Europe sweeps into Downing Street. The gritted teeth and bitten nails: the Prime Minister emerges from his door with a smile of intolerable anguish; the choking sensation as the words, “Mr President”, are forced from his mouth. And then, once in the Cabinet room, the melodrama of, “When will you hand over to me?” all over again.’

Wonderful stuff. And, unfortunately, not so far-fetched.

Pick up the phone, Jacqui

Jacqui Smith's admission to the Sunday Times that she wouldn’t feel safe walking alone at night on the streets of Hackney, or even Kensington and Chelsea, is arguably candid but nevertheless deeply worrying. Revealing, too, are the terms of her response, which was: “No. Why would I do that?”

Ms Smith made it clear by the manner in which she framed her answer that she understands only too well that anyone venturing out on the streets of many of our towns and cities after dark is simply asking for trouble. But the point is that, as Home Secretary, it is her job to make those streets safe, which she isn’t achieving.

If she wants to learn why so many of our streets are unsafe, she could do worse than consult His Honour Judge Ian Trigger. Last week, in Liverpool Crown Court, Judge Trigger gave vent to his obvious frustration and despair when passing sentence on a teenager who had beaten an elderly woman about the head with an iron bar. The youth was on bail at the time.

Judge Trigger told the yob (and I make no apology for quoting him at length):

"It is the fault of politicians that bail is so readily granted, rather than judges or magistrates.

"Parliament, and its woeful and indeed dreadful concentration on rights, forgets duties and responsibilities. It has meant people like you have the right to bail in these circumstances.

"We are living in a society which is bedevilled by wild feral youths such as you.

"Before we plunge into even greater violence at the hands of lawless and irresponsible youths it is time for us to address the problem.

"It is time for parents to resume control over their offspring.

"It is time for parents to teach values and respect to their children, value and respect for other people and not allow their offspring to engage in selfish and irresponsible behaviour.

"It is time for the police to be released from administrative tasks and red tape and be once more a visible 24-hour presence on our streets, particularly in our violent hotspots.

"It is time for the public not to criticise the police but support them so that wild youths like you are brought to justice.

"And it is time for Left-wing intellectuals and well-meaning do-gooders to abandon their obsession and concentrate on the obligations and responsibilities which we all owe each other.

"It is time for community and faith leaders to condemn the prevalent violence on our streets rather than excuse or condone it and it is time for sentencers to send a clear warning that violence will not be tolerated."

Ian Trigger knows exactly what is happening in our inner cities. He has what must be the dispiriting task of dealing with the consequences of Labour's failure on violent crime every working day of his life.

So, if Jacqui Smith won't venture out on the streets of London after dark, she could at least pick up the phone and speak to Judge Trigger, to find out from someone experienced and sensible just how bad it is.

Distant Hope

Drove to surgery in Ruthin this morning. The weather was foul, pouring with rain, with much flooding.

January gloom was lifted by the sight of early spring lambs playing unsteadily on the banks of the River Elwy. A daunting start to life for them, but, for me, the faint, faltering promise of warmer days and brighter evenings.

“April is the cruellest month,” wrote Eliot. Not in North Wales, it isn’t.

Unfortunate

The first official portrait of Tony Blair, by the distinguished artist Jonathan Yeo, has been unveiled.

The painting depicts Blair wearing a poppy. This, the BBC News website suggests, is meant “to represent his leadership role during the Iraq war”.

If that was indeed the intention, perhaps it would have been more appropriate if he had been shown with a dossier (of the dodgy variety) tucked under one arm.

Healthansafety Corner

According to the schools inspectorate, health and safety concerns have contributed to a big decline in geography field trips, leading, in turn, to many students abandoning the subject altogether.

Reporting an 11 per cent decline in the number of students taking geography at A level, the Ofsted inspectors comment:

“The majority of the primary and secondary schools in the survey did not recognise the value of fieldwork sufficiently and did not fulfil the requirement to provide it. Concerns about health and safety, curriculum time, expertise and budgets reduced the amount and effectiveness of fieldwork."

The report goes on to say that health and safety fears were so pronounced in some schools that head teachers had refused to allow pupils off site.

I have always considered travel to be probably the most mind-broadening exercise a child, or anyone else for that matter, can engage in. Geography may reasonably be said to be the academic expression of travel. Now, because of institutionalised paranoia, thousands of young people are being denied a life-enhancing experience.

Yet another triumph for the healthansafety industry.

Rien de Rien

Welsh Questions was more packed than I have ever seen – even Peter Hain remarked upon it.

The reason for the additional interest in the affairs of the principality was, of course, Peter Hain’s own presence; it was his first outing at the despatch box since his recent problems became so very obvious.

Peter was rather subdued, certainly not his usual combative self. His self-confidence had not been boosted by Gordon Brown’s remark that he had been guilty of “an incompetence”.

Fortunately for Peter, the order paper did not provide much leeway for those Members who had it in mind to give him a kicking, though Nigel Evans was pretty caustic and urged him outright to resign.

Cheryl Gillan asked him if he had “any regrets about the business endorsements that he had made as Secretary of State for Wales in the past two years”.

Astonishingly, given the echoes of Norman Lamont at his darkest hour, Peter replied that he had “absolutely no regrets” about them.

“Je ne regrette rien!” chorused the Conservative benches.

I doubt he will survive.

All our yesterdays

Readers may be interested in the following extract from Hansard, 26 June, 2003:

The Leader of the House of Commons (Peter Hain):

It is of the greatest importance that the conduct of Members of the House meets, and is seen to meet, the high standards expected by the Wicks committee, and also by our constituents. Lapses, however rare, are very damaging to public confidence in the House and in our parliamentary democracy. If lapses occur, and are not seen to be tackled with sufficient rigour, the effect is many times worse. Our system for regulating standards of conduct must be transparent, fair and effective.

Lack of Planning

Spent this morning in the Planning Bill Committee, debating amendments to Clause 1. There will be a lot more argument before the Committee's work is finished.

The Bill is an important measure, aimed at streamlining the consent procedure for major infrastructure developments. We support the thrust of the legislation, but not its detail; it would establish an Infrastructure Planning Commission, which would have draconian powers with little or no democratic accountability.

The government has announced that it intends to introduce new clauses into the Bill, to enable the Welsh Assembly to make primary measures dealing with local development plans and the Wales spatial plan. Apparently the request for the clauses was submitted to Whitehall by the Welsh Assembly Government as long ago as last summer, but they have still not been drafted.

Parliament therefore did not have the opportunity of debating the proposals at the Bill’s second reading and the Committee has still not had sight of the draft clauses.

This demonstrates an astonishingly contemptuous attitude to Parliamentary procedure and is an example of the sort of arrogance that will ultimately prove this government’s undoing.

Off yer bike!

Cycling is very much a preferred mode of transport in the Westminster village, partly, I suspect, because MPs get paid an allowance of 20p for every mile they cycle, which is half the rate for a motor car. They don’t pay the £8 congestion charge, either.

The consequence is that, every morning, the streets around Parliament are jammed with cyclists, not all of whom, sadly, are punctilious in their observance of either the Highway Code or simple good manners.

Yesterday, the Evening Standard reported that Baroness Sharples, an 84 year-old member of the Upper House, was so incensed when a cyclist jumped a red light and nearly ran her down that she took a swing at him with her handbag. According to the Standard, the Baroness’s only regret was that she “did not hit him hard enough”.

Lady Sharples raised the incident in a debate in the Lords yesterday and expressed concern that she might have been at risk of being sued by the cyclist after taking the pop at him. The Standard reports:

“Surprisingly, the Government's transport spokesman, Lord Bassam, backed her action, saying that she ‘probably did the right thing’.”

I was put in mind of Lady Sharples’s stand against furious cycling this morning, when I and a number of fellow pedestrians were almost mown down when crossing the road outside Westminster Abbey by a pack of cyclists who, for some inexplicable reason, had decided to wait for the light to change to red before proceeding.

I decided, after a short reflection, not to emulate her actions. Knowing my luck, I would certainly have been prosecuted, and I had no confidence in the likelihood of successfully praying Lord Bassam’s opinion in aid as part of my defence.

Following in Sam's Footsteps

A media feeding frenzy surrounds Peter Hain, for whom the prefix “embattled” now appears almost obligatory.

I had thought that he might just ride out the storm, but now I’m not so sure.

According to the Downing Street website’s summary of the 11 January press briefing:

“Asked if the Prime Minister was confident that Peter Hain could continue doing his job while this issue was being dealt with, the PMS repeated that the Prime Minister had full confidence in Peter Hain.”

This is really, really bad news for Hain. It probably means he is due for the chop.

Politics is a bit like football in this regard. On 31 December, the Newcastle United chairman was expressing full confidence in the Magpies’ manager, Sam Allardyce.

On 9 January, Allardyce was sacked.

... and some have it thrust upon them

Extraordinary statement by Peter Hain today in relation to the donations affair. The Guardian quotes him as saying:

"I apologise to my constituents, the party, supporters, and to the prime minister, who has been supportive and has been equally exasperated by the donor scene we have all inherited."

“The donor scene we have all inherited”? What on earth does that mean? It gives the impression that the whole dreadful mess was bequeathed to a reluctant and protesting Hain in the will of some malevolent departed uncle.

It is, frankly, humbug and utterly contradicts Hain’s assertion earlier in the same interview:

“I just want to make it clear that when mistakes have occurred in the past I have never dumped on assistants or civil servants. I will not start doing so now. I take full responsibility."

Furthermore, isn’t there a tiny omission in the list of people to whom Hain is offering his apology?

What about the British public?

No Excuse

An appalling mess for the double-hatted Wales and Work and Pensions Secretary, Peter Hain. His spokesman today confirmed that he failed to declare £103,000 in donations made in support of his failed deputy leadership bid.

Hain says that he took his eye off the ball because he was giving priority to his ministerial work:

“The fact is that during this period, I gave my campaign for office within the Labour Party second priority to my government responsibilities.

"I reasonably believed that the arrangements in place for my deputy leader campaign would be sufficient to ensure compliance with reporting requirements, but as it transpired, due to administrative failings this was not the case after early May."

That is an explanation, but not an excuse. All politicians should be very aware of their reporting responsibilities to the Electoral Commission. The Commons Standards Commissioner is also investigating the affair. We must wait to see if any punishment follows.

However, Hain’s bigger problem is that the media already are asking how he can manage one of the biggest spending departments in Whitehall when he is clearly incapable of managing his own campaign expenses.

A fair point, which may well prove his downfall.

Right behind him

According to today's Evening Standard, Welsh Secretary Peter Hain is “out of sorts", having reportedly been given a dressing down by Gordon Brown over his donations blunders.

That Peter is out of favour at No. 10 seems to be borne out by this exchange at today's PMQs:

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): Does the Prime Minister think it would be acceptable for the Secretary of State with responsibility for the poor to endorse a sub-prime lender and then accept a £5,000 donation from that lender? How does he think the public will see that?

The Prime Minister: As I understand it, the Secretary of State for Wales was visiting a company in Wales, and praising the work that it had done in creating jobs in Wales.

Hardly the most positive endorsement of Peter Hain that the Prime Minister could have delivered.

Peter, sitting five places away from Gordon on the front bench, looked more than a little sheepish.

Learning Ming's Lesson

First outing at PMQs today for the new Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg. It was a hesitant, but competent, effort.

Clegg has decided to eschew the traditional Lib Dem leader’s seat immediately below the gangway, preferring instead to sit three seats along on the front bench.

Some have speculated that this is because Clegg wishes to surround himself with friends, but my suspicion is that he is simply anxious to avoid the fate that befell Ming Campbell at the hands of the incomparable Eric Forth, late Tory member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

On a celebrated occasion in March, 2006, Ming rose to his feet and began a question to Tony Blair on the giving of “accurate and complete information about pensions”.

No sooner had the word “pensions” left Ming’s lips than Eric interjected, “Declare your interest!”

The entire House fell about for what seemed an eternity, leaving poor Ming blinking helplessly amid the laughter. It was probably this single incident that bestowed on him a reputation for elderly feebleness, from which he never recovered.

Nick Robinson subsequently congratulated Eric on his comic timing and was let in on the secret:

“It was easy, he told me. Ming's speaking notes were written in huge block capitals which were easy to read from Eric's place one row behind him.”

Eric, sadly, is no longer with us, but it seems that Clegg has learned the lesson of the episode and is not disposed to take any chances.

Murmurs of Discontent

Gordon Brown signalled today that public sector workers, including police officers and nurses, could expect three-year pay deals, to coincide with the budget rounds of Whitehall departments.

Speaking at his first press conference of 2008, the Prime Minister said:

"To send out the best possible message, about long-term inflation and about stability and to be fair to public sector workers, one way forward is a move towards long-term public sector pay settlements.

"It means as people face mortgage bills and utility prices they know exactly what their income is likely to be.

"The whole purpose of this is keeping inflation under control... There is no point in a big salary rise that's wiped out by a big inflation rise."

Already, the proposals have attracted criticism from the public sector unions. This evening, Dr Peter Carter, General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said:

“If we were to sign up to a long-term pay settlement in today’s volatile economy we must have a mechanism that will protect the living standards of nurses from any future rises in inflation. What’s right now may not be right in two years time.

"There are good multi-year deals and bad multi-year deals. The difference between the two depends on how much is on the table. So we await with interest the full details of what the Government has in mind.”

George Osborne’s comment on Brown’s announcement was blunt and probably highly accurate:

“The real reason for today's pay announcement is that, thanks to Gordon Brown's economic incompetence, Britain borrowed in a boom and now has the largest budget deficit in Europe. The Government has run out of money - it's as simple as that."

The mutterings that have greeted Gordon’s announcement so soon after it was made will undoubtedly cause the Prime Minister some concern. Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC, and Mark Serwotka, of the PCS Union, have already made highly critical comments. And Vince Cable, the man who, if the Lib Dems had any sense, should be leading that party, has warned of a repeat of the “winter of discontent” of 1978 – 1979.

And Gordon will certainly remember what happened to Labour at the general election held in the spring that followed that miserable winter.

Pearly Gates

According to Microsoft’s Bill Gates, the computer keyboard and mouse will soon become things of the past.

Addressing the Consumer Electronics Show at Las Vegas, Gates told his audience of his vision of a “digital decade” of televisions, telephones and cars that respond to voice and touch:

“High-definition video will be everywhere, from TV to wall projections to screens built into desks.

“Users will be able to roam in 3-D through virtual worlds when they shop or interact online with friends. Devices will connect seamlessly so that data is transferred automatically from computer to mobile phone, for instance.

“When you take a photo, it will show up where you want it to show up.”

This all sounds wonderful to me. My keyboard skills are less than rudimentary, to the extent that I have recently taken to using voice recognition software, with uneven degrees of success.

Gates’s prediction may be of nirvana to techies, of dystopia to Luddites. For my own part, I have no doubt that, as is usually the case, the technology will prove clunky and result in lengthy telephone conversations with customer support at 50p per minute.

All that, however, may be tolerable if it means that I can, at last, consign my hated keyboard to the dustbin.

Events

Continuing his New Year media round, Gordon Brown appeared on this morning’s Today programme, when he was interviewed by Ed Stourton.

The message was very much the same as yesterday’s on the Andrew Marr Show: the government should be judged on its long term performance; there would be choppy waters, but the course was steady. Events were a distraction, nothing more,

This, of course, goes against the received Macmillan wisdom that a government’s course usually is deflected by “events, dear boy, events”. Certainly, in the case of the Northern Rock, we have witnessed a whopper of an event that may yet cause the ship to founder.

Most interestingly, Gordon was at pains to assure Stourton that he would be more than happy to come on the Today programme whenever he was wanted. This is in contrast to Tony Blair, who for years would have little or nothing to do with Today, particularly when John Humphrys was doing the interviewing. It will be interesting to see how willing Gordon really is to submit himself to a savaging from Humphrys, whose confrontational approach is a far cry from Stourton’s velvet touch.

Stourton, nevertheless, did ask Gordon why he looked so miserable as PM. Gordon replied that he "enjoyed all the difficult issues and trying to make the best of it".

In other words, the premiership is a chore that Gordon feels he has to endure, not something to revel in. How very different from Tony Blair.

Hunkering Down

Gordon's first interview of 2008, on the Andrew Marr Show, was a pretty dour performance.

He has clearly taken Tessa Jowell's advice to heart and tried, so far as possible, to be himself. The scary smiles were flashed with merciful economy.

Repeatedly, he told Marr that the government will be judged on its performance over the long term. A fairly clear rebuff to Douglas Alexander and the rest of the so-called "Young Turks" responsible for the unseemly dash to the election that never was.

It also appeared to cast doubt on Ed Balls's slip that the election would be in the middle of next year. Gordon seems to have decided that it will take as long as it takes. Don't be surprised if we have to wait until late spring, 2010.

That Figures

An extraordinarily straightforward and persuasive argument on the identity card issue was put to me today by a constituent at my Colwyn Bay surgery.

You should not be allowed to have an ID card unless you can first prove your identity. And if you can prove your identity, you don't need an ID card.

Hard to fault, that one.

Rhos Rotary

Enjoyed an excellent evening at Rhos on Sea Rotary Club, where I was guest speaker.

The president told me that this Christmas the club raised almost £10,000 for the St David's hospice - a cause that is very dear to my own heart.

All over the country, there are groups such as this, quietly raising money for local charities and making their communities better places to be. The spirit of volunteering is very much alive and kicking, and all our lives are so much the better for it.

A Gaffe too Far?

Richard Brunstrom is wall to wall in the newspapers today, in the wake of his astonishing statement on the Today programme that ecstasy is a “remarkably safe substance” and “far safer than aspirin”.

The Mail, in particular, has gone in heavily, with a front page headline: “The Most Idiotic Police Chief in Britain”, accompanied by the familiar photo of Mr Brunstrom with cap askew that is usually used to illustrate such stories. Inside are two full pages, with a picture of the chief dressed as a “druid” (actually as a member of the Gorsedd) and a Mahood cartoon showing a policeman saying to a cannabis smoker: “Anything you say will be taken down and held until Chief Constable Brunstrom has got it legalised.”

Most devastatingly, the Mail also publishes photographs of seven young people who died after taking ecstasy, including Leah Betts, whose deathbed photos shocked the nation in 1995.

I really find it impossible to understand what motivates Richard Brunstrom. There is no doubt that he is a highly intelligent man who takes his work seriously. On a personal level, he can be good company. He is unfailingly courteous.

Yet he appears to attract bad publicity like a magnet. Within the last couple of months, we have had the affair of the decapitated motorcyclist, the police authority report calling for the decriminalisation of illegal drugs and now this. All these incidents tend to cast doubt, if not upon his judgment, then certainly upon his understanding of public opinion.

Mr Brunstrom would undoubtedly say that there is good, empirical evidence to support his claim that ecstasy is less dangerous than aspirin, and I am sure he could cite it if called upon. No doubt it doesn’t cause internal bleeding and is not fatal if taken in small doses.

The fact is, however, that most people don’t want their children to take drugs. They want them to be advised against doing so and to be protected, so far as possible, from becoming involved in drug culture. They want senior police officers to take the lead in the war against drugs, not to give the impression, inadvertent or otherwise, of trivialising drug taking by saying that ecstasy is safer than aspirin.

Up to now, despite my concerns about some of his pronouncements, I have refrained from calling for Richard Brunstrom’s resignation. I always try to give my total support to the police, because they do a demanding job and are our principal defence against criminality and anarchy. But this latest gaffe is serious and it worries me greatly.

Mr Brunstrom has an unorthodox position on drugs; indeed, he concedes that he is out of step with most of his fellow chief police officers. It is not unreasonable to try to make a case for the decriminalisation of drugs (although I would argue strongly against it), but it is not a position that sits easily with the office of chief constable.

I therefore feel, sadly, that we have now reached the point where we must say to Richard Brunstrom that if he wishes to pursue this campaign, which he appears so unwilling to abandon, perhaps it would be best for him to do so in the capacity of a private citizen and not as the leader of the North Wales police force.