Alan Johnsons right - capital spending required

I was watching Alan Johnsons(shadow Chancellor) interview on Andrew Marr this morning. Alan brought up the subject of capital spending. I agree that this is a good idea (as does Cable and Obama).

Capital spending means that we have a lasting asset like for example the Olympic venues, the high speed train link and say the proposed new aircraft carriers. But this of course includes building schools for the future (which is to be replaced which a smaller building program). Capital expensditure provides work and gives the country with a lasting usable asset. It's not employing administration staff for the sake of it. It provides economically viable jobs with something to show for it.

I hope capital expenditure is taken into account in the spending review and I also hope that it's not only Alan Johnson and Labour who put pressure on to ensure there is some capital expenditure.

No No No Not Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor

Ed Miliband has clearly changed his mind about winning over Liberal Democrat voters with the appointment of the highly authoritarian Alan Johnson. I freely admit that Alan is a big hitter and more popular than say Ed Balls who commentators expected to get the job.

However was this not a chance for Ed Miliband to demonstrate how different he is and to demonstrate this new generation. I personally think a more radical and better appointment would have been Yvette Cooper. Even though this could of looked like a snub to her husband Ed Balls. I think Yvette Cooper would have been a refreshing change to shadow Chancellor.

A missed opportunity to have an ambitious women as shadow Chancellor and to demostrate a different radical Labour party.

Todays link is to Tory Blogger Walaa Idris who asks How is Alan Johnson a New Generation!? and Labour blogger Scarlet Standard who supported Ed Miliband and can see internal and external political advantages of putting Johnson in the role.

Is Banning Islam4UK Right?

Michael White has done an excellent blog here on the banning of Islam4UK http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jan/12/islam4uk-ban-michael-white where he hopes Alan Johnson has called this one correctly.

Michael writes

‘My own prejudice is against bans unless absolutely necessary. Society is stronger for taking on the nasties in open debate and proving the merits of mutual tolerance. That goes for the BNP and their ilk just as it does for tabloid demagogues.

Repression only feeds extremism and other unpleasant side-effects as the current woes of both Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams and the DUP’s “Swish Family Robinson” Underline.’

These paragraphs above really sum up my thoughts on this ban for me.

I find Islam4UK highly offensive and disagreeable but banning them does not sit well with me. I think these groups need to be in the public eye so we can engage with them. Simply banning groups because we don’t like them and its popular to do so, is not always the right thing too do.

It would have been awful of course if Islam4UK did protest in Wootton Bassett and could of ended in violence, however the media attention they have gained from this has already got them the voice they are always seeking.

Anjem Choudary who heads up this group and led other groups before hand before they were banned will simply think up a new name and again get press for whatever action he tries next. Banning this group will simply not work.

We should not pick and choose freedom of speech, Where does it end?