Don't panic, Captain!

Those of us of a certain age will well remember Corporal Jones's exhortation to Captain Mainwaring. However serious the problem, the loyal and trusty subordinate always advocated calm whilst running around like the proverbial headless chicken. And the problem was always solved by his colleagues - who didn't panic, rather than by Cpl J who of course always did.

I was reminded of this when reading about the BoE's warning that a rise in interest rates is more imminent than we may have thought. Governor Carney is by no means a Cpl Jones and doesn't appear to be a man who will panic, but I sense that there is an air of panic generally in the repeated references to a housing price bubble and the need to use interest rates to prick it.

I am fortunate to own property in London and the Midlands and whilst the rise in London prices is remarkable, I can assure you that it is not matched in the Shires. There may have been some upwards movement in the last 12 months but I don't think prices generally are much higher than they were before the recession. And what increase in activity there is may be quickly extinguished by a hefty rise in borrowing costs.

This, I guess, is the Governor's dilemma. We don't have one housing market, we have two: London and the rest. Using a sledgehammer to crack the South East nut may be sensible but it will, at the same time, cause immense damage to a less robust and slowly recovering housing market in the rest of the country.

The major reason for London residential property inflation is lack of supply. Solve that and prices will naturally stabilise. Restricting the availability of money by making it more expensive won't get new houses built; if anything it will achieve the reverse as developers take flight fearing that there will be a shortage of buyers. That is the last thing that we need.

We employ a substantial body of intelligent and highly paid people in both HM Treasury and the Bank of England. Now is the time for them to show their value by coming up with a more thought through and intelligent solution to this problem than jacking up interest rates. We must all say to Governor Carney - "Don't panic, Governor" and hope he listens.

It's just not cricket…or is it?

The furore surrounding Jos Buttler's dismissal at Edgbaston seems at odds with the facts. The rules are clear: if you are out of your crease whilst the ball is "live" and the bowler has not commenced his delivery, you can be run out. Etiquette demands that you are warned that this will happen if you continue to drift up the pitch before the ball has been bowled, and we are told that Buttler was warned more than once. Angelo Mathews, as captain of the fielding team has been criticised for not calling Buttler back but, given the above, it is difficult to understand why. All ways up, it looked like a clean and fully deserved dismissal. No question.

And yet this seems a minority view. Many people say that it wasn't within the spirit of the game and that the fact that it was within the letter of the law is missing the point. Cricket is a Gentlemens game and Gentlemen don't behave like this. Pinching a yard whilst backing up is a widespread practice and if every bowler behaved like Senanayake then matches wouldn't last for long. No, they say, the right thing would have been to remove the bails but then call Buttler back and allow him to continue his innings, presumably suitably chastened.

Are they mad? This is the man who almost destroyed a seemingly unassailable lead on Saturday and nearly won the game for England. A man who had been warned, twice, that he would be run out if he continued to poach ground, and who at the time of the stumping was probably six feet down the wicket. Had the roles been reversed I wonder if an English bowler and his captain would have been so roundly criticised for taking legitimate advantage of a situation that they were presented with and dismissing a batsman who presented possibly their biggest threat?

These are professionals. They know the rules and should play to them. Buttler took a calculated risk and it didn't pay off. He (and his captain), should have the good grace to accept that and make sure that when the Test series starts, England leave goodwill in the Pavilion and play to win according to the rules.

The Bonaparte Factor

When David Cameron set out his policy on our continued position within the EU - a significant renegotiation of the EU's powers followed by an in/out referendum, I didn't doubt that he believed that was the right course of action. I just didn't see how he was going to achieve it. The idea that Brussels - and other Member States - would willingly agree to a repatriation of powers and autonomy was anathema to everything I knew about the EU. A beaurocratic behemoth, growing in size and power would surely never be persuaded that it should diet. The old adage of turkeys, votes and Christmas came to mind. "No", I said to myself, "he may have the best of intentions but it just isn't achievable".

How subtly things have changed. The Conservatives have just lost an election, coming third behind UKIP and Labour, and ought to be out for the count. But, strangely, the chances of Mr Cameron delivering what he has committed to seem now to be much greater. This election has not just catapulted Mr Farage to a position of influence; it has shown up the growing sense of dissatisfaction around Europe with the way the Union has become overly dominant. Only the Germans seem content  with the status quo - or maybe they have too much respect for Frau Merkel to say otherwise.

The fact is that if Mr Cameron can get elected with a working majority next May he is likely to be negotiating a slimming down of the EU as part of a group rather than as a lone wolf. He will be able to rely on other Members making similar demands and being mutually supportive. In the face of that, the Commission may have little choice but to agree to the kind of changes that we clearly want. And his chances of winning the next election must be improved if, like I can, voters begin to see that he could deliver the benefits of EU membership without the baggage.

I don't know how Mr Cameron has engineered this but it is beginning to look like he is either a quite brilliant strategist or - hence the reference to Bonaparte - a lucky General. Given a choice between the two, I will go for the Bonaparte factor every time.

What price democracy?

Did you vote for UKIP? Did your neighbour? Do you care? Is this, as Nigel Farage says, an earthquake in British politics?

Once the noise around UKIP's very successful election result has subsided there are clearly some important points to debate. Yes, it is significant. Anyone who denies that is a fool. It is the first time for 100 years that an election has not been won by the Conservative or  Labour parties and that has to be significant. The LibDems tried and failed where UKIP has succeeded so full marks to Nigel Farage and his colleagues for taking on the establishment and giving them a bloody nose.

But isn't the most significant thing that in an election based almost entirely on whether the UK should continue to be part of the EU, only one-third of our electorate could be bothered to vote?

My father-in law died a month ago. He fought for six years to protect this Country's right to decide how to participate on the World stage, as did my own father and hundreds of thousands of their compatriots. Do we think so little of their sacrifice that we can't even be bothered to put a cross on a piece of paper? If so, then we deserve whatever fate doles out to us.

Come on Britain - don't be complacent. Have a view and vote for it. There is no such thing as a protest vote - only a wasted vote. Democracy is a precious thing and to take it for granted is the biggest sin of all.

Let common sense prevail

The Premier League has a difficult decision to make, without doubt. A CEO in the public spotlight has to be uber (sorry, is that a non PC term?) careful about what he (or she), does, says or appears to say or do in public. One false move can end a career. But what Richard Scudamore allegedly did was not in public. A temporary employee accessed his private e-mail account (Richard, memo to self here), and then, for whatever reason, decided to release to whoever was prepared to pay him/ her/it a sizeable sum, e-mails that were private and which contained material that was at worst distasteful and at best lacking judgment.

So let's hang him. Force him to resign for this heinous crime. God forbid that anyone should share a salacious e-mail (you should see the ones that my wife and her female friends send round). Or, alternatively take a balanced view and consider some important, if politically inconvenient, facts.

The  Premier League under Richard Scudamore's leadership has become the most successful and most profitable soccer league in the world. The TV deals that he and the team that he employs have negotiated are envied around the globe. Do you really think that Manchester United, which was an average First Division club well behind Liverpool on a world scale, would have become as financially strong as it has without the foundation of the Premier League that Richard Scudamore has been instrumental in creating? Of course not. They would be miles behind the game (excuse the pun).

UK sport needs strong and visionary leaders of which Richard is a prime example. People who leave factional interests and politics to one side and do what is right for the sport they are paid to champion.  We need more Richard Scudamores, not fewer, and if he is hounded out of his position by the short sighted, politically biased PC brigade then the Premier League and sport in general will be the poorer.

So, PL Council or whoever will adjudicate on this, please use your common sense. If Richard Scudamore has made a mistake treat him as you would hope to be treated yourselves - not as a model of perfection but as a fallible human being who is well meaning but imperfect and whose record over 20 years speaks for itself. And please don't fall into the trap of saying that he must be treated as a footballer would be. Without him, they probably wouldn't have jobs.

The Mother of Parliaments need to lose some weight

One of the many conclusions that can be drawn from the Maria Miller affair is that the rules governing MP's expenses are not well understood by those they directly affect and even less well by those who elect them. Many people have questioned why an MP who could commute to Westminster in a time that many people would regard as quite normal should be entitled to financial support at all - can you imagine a business paying an employee in the same situation? Surely not. But rather than simply refine and toughen the expenses rules, the time must be right to look at the size and structure of our instrument of government.

The number and size of constituencies harks back to an era when there was no internet or e-mail, no mobile telephones, and social media was a phrase yet to be invented. If you wanted to communicate with your MP or find out what he/she was up to you had to do so face to face by visiting the constituency surgery or travelling to Westminster. In these circumstances there was clearly a limit to the number of electors that an MP could properly represent and serve. But things have moved on and we need to reform Parliament to reflect the new reality. Using the communication tools that exist an MP today can be more visible to more people more quickly than has ever been the case in the past and, on that basis, can probably represent two or three times as many electors. We need to recognise this.

The US House of Representatives has 435 members; the Senate has 100. A total of 535 representing 300 million people across an area 40 times larger. We have 650 MPs - that just doesn't make sense. If we adopted the same ratio as the US (which may be extreme for a first step), we would reduce the number of MPs to less than 100! The space freed up in Westminster would enable all those representing "out of town" constituencies to have on-site accommodation which, at a stroke, would remove the need for second home allowances and expense "misunderstandings". It would also reduce the amount of office space required and the behind the scenes administrative support and bureaucracy. We could pay higher salaries to MPs, replace expenses with fixed allowances depending on the location of the constituency, and still dramatically reduce the size of the payroll.

It all makes sense. A management consultant or a Martian would reach the same conclusions in a nano-second - so why don't we do it? The sad reality is that a change of this significance would have to be approved by…..MPs! Turkeys and Christmas springs to mind so I guess it is just never going to happen.