Afternoon:
9°c
It's not every day you meet someone who has formed their own political party. And who appears sane on the outside. Still, I have to confess, upon reading that Sir Paul Judge had created a would-be rival to the Tories, Labour and the Lib-Dems, I yawned and thought, "Here we go again, mad tycoon in personal ego boost, shock."
So, when I found myself sitting next to Sir Paul at a dinner the other evening, I was prepared to have to stifle considerable doubt and some mirth as he would doubtless drone on about how he wanted to improve the world because he didn't like it and because he had tonnes of money he was in a position to do soor something to that effect.
To be fair, I've known Judge for years and have always found him to be among the more thoughtful and concerned of businessmen. Born in 1950, educated at Cambridge and Wharton, he worked for Cadbury Schweppes before leading the £97 million buyout of its Premier Brands food subsidiary in 1985, and selling it for £310 million just four years later.
Instead of playing golf for the rest of his life, he gave £8 million to Cambridge to found the Judge Business School (now seventh in the world rankings), and became director-general of the Conservative Party, improving its organisation and finances no end, before quitting for the Cabinet Office in 1995. For the last few years, he's combined company directorships with a string of charitable and educational posts.
But even so, starting your own political movement? He laughed. He knew what it looked like, too.
It began he said, "last spring, when I looked at the London mayoral election. I've nothing against Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone or Brian Paddick personally but I've lived in London for more than 50 years and I didn't think they represented the best London had to offer in terms of leadership". Why? "Because they were from the main political parties. None of them was used to running large organisations." This set him thinking. "Parliament is full of career politicians who leave college, do PR or a bit of journalism. They get selected for a seat in their thirties and become an MP in their forties - they join the Westminster village and that becomes their world. There's nobody in the Cabinet who has ever worked in the private sector, in business and industry at all."
The shadow cabinet, he said, is little better. Yet, they're expected to determine hugely complex issues like the banks' bailout. "In the past, Parliament held the monarch to account, so if they wanted to fight a war, they had to go and explain themselves and say why taxes should go up to pay for it. Now, they wave a £37 billion rescue through on the nod - it's not debated in Parliament at all."
Realising there was nothing to be gained from attempting to persuade his old party to press for reform - "they're all part of the contented club of Westminster and it's not in their interests to change" - he decided to create a new one. It has no policies, no manifesto - only the selection of people by public vote who are prepared to adhere to the principles of good governance and honesty. "I want to replicate the cross-benchers in the Lords in the Commons".
His base, as well, he says is the jury system where 12 independent people come together and make sensible decisions - so the name of the party is the Jury Team. Working out of the apartment next to Vauxhall Bridge where he lives with his wife, Barbara Thomas, also a holder of multi-directorships, a staff of four is building what he hopes will become a fully fledged electoral powerhouse.
Would-be candidates can apply and have their details posted online, and the public vote by text to choose the party's final line-up. Already, they have 117 names which will be whittled down to a roster of 70 for the European elections in June (voting closes this Friday - www.juryteam.org).
His enthusiasm is obvious. And, given the low esteem in which our national politicians are held, his reasoning isn't bad either. Whether he succeeds is a different matter. The established parties have a habit of rolling over newcomers - the electoral machine is heavily stacked in their favour, and polls show that people vote for independents only if they think they will win. All credit to him, though, for trying. Heaven knows, the system can't continue the way it is.
Darling ready to be keen, green and pass the buck
This Wednesday sees the best, or rather the worst, annual example of what Sir Paul Judge, above, dismisses as "initiativitis", where politicians feel they have to be seen to be doing something for the sake of being seen to be doing something.
So expect a slew of announcements in Chancellor Alistair Darling's Budget that will look good and capture headlines but in reality won't amount to very much at all.
Faced with a desperate economic situation and declining revenues, unable to do anything that will add to his party's unpopularity only a year away from a general election, and without the resources to do anything to seriously immediately alleviate the overall tax burden, his hands are truly tied. There will be an attempt to revive the housing market and plenty of "green". The latter is turning into a useful Whitehall tool. It ticks all the PR spin boxes marked "caring", "universal", "visionary", "modern" and "cheap".
Already, we've had the news about incentives to purchase electric cars. But we shouldn't get too excited; the cash bribes don't kick in until 2011. This may well prove to be another Budget theme: that the few pledges involving the Government spending money it hasn't got will apply after the next election.
They comply with a further heading, the one that says "someone else's problem".
Bailout of RBS is bogged down and without an exit
What I'd like to hear from Alistair Darling this week is...his resignation. Sorry, I'll rephrase that. One thing I'd like him to explain is the Government's plans towards the rescued banks.
I bumped into Angela Knight of the British Bankers' Association last week and we pondered what Angela called “the financial Iraq, an intervention without an exit strategy”.
Each of the four saved institutions conforms to a different model.
Northern Rock is a small bank that the Treasury gives the impression of rather enjoying owning; it takes in money and lends it out, and is therefore simple to operate. What's left of Bradford & Bingley is being run off. Lloyds is a good bank that only required taxpayer funding to bring stability to HBOS. Lloyds' management is sound, and HBOS can be quickly rectified by scaling back its commercial lending. The chances of Lloyds not requiring a lifeboat must be pretty good.
Which leaves Royal Bank of Scotland. While the new top duo of Stephen Hester and Sir Philip Hampton are very able, you have to wonder where the 70% Government-owned RBS is going.
The biggest problem they face is one of morale. A chairman of another bank, one that has not sought public aid, said as much to me as well. He couldn't for the life of him see how Hester and Hampton could lift the workforce so RBS could seriously compete again, not with the Government constantly breathing down their necks and an election in the offing.
Its ultimate bosses are the same ministers who have railed against bankers; they cannot be seen to be letting off RBS lightly. Years after we invaded, we remain in Iraq. Knight could be right, RBS is heading the same way.
