David Blackburn

A former European leader was a guest at a private dinner in London recently. It was a polite and reverential occasion, but conversation grew lighter as Sauternes gave way to port. What, he was asked, is the most effective form of government? Easy, he replied, look at Europe: technocrats know best and they can ignore short-sighted voters. A battle between technocracy and democracy has broken out in Europe, as democratic Germany and technocratic Italy disagree over the next step in the euro-crisis. Last week’s G20 summit promised progress; Germany agreed to use EU bailout funds to reduce Spanish and Italian borrowing costs.

Dear commuter, how’s your journey panning out after you were woken by the sound of Ed Balls politicking about fuel duty? The shadow chancellor was a ubiquitous presence on the airwaves earlier (to say nothing of the tabloid press), laying out his opposition to the planned 3.02p fuel duty rise. He was on fine form, playing the caring shadow chancellor with the ease that Andrea Pirlo takes penalties. The rise would be, he said, ‘a real own goal’. Families are struggling. We’re in a recession. The price of oil has fallen by 20 per cent since Christmas but that has not been passed on to the consumer at the pumps. ‘The government should be pressuring oil companies to get the pump price down,’ he said.

David Cameron is at his best when circumstances force him to be bold, or so the thinking goes. With his government floundering and the wounded media baying for blood, the prime minister has counter-attacked with radical welfare reform plans. Yesterday heard rumours of reduced rent subsidies for the under-25s. Today comes news of proposed cuts to jobless families’ benefits: specifically, the withdrawal of dole payments after 2 years, lowering the housing benefit cap, and stopping income support and additional child benefit if a couple have more than three children. Those with a sense of irony will recall the outrage over Lord Flight’s view that the welfare system encourages the very poorest to ‘breed’.

‘I was sceptical [about civil service reform] until I read that unreadable column.’ This was the response of a Westminster type who I spoke to earlier about Francis Maude and Sir Bob Kerslake’s joint article on civil service reform in today’s Telegraph. Having re-read the jargon-ridden piece, I see what he means. Take this passage: ‘The Civil Service has to have a culture which is pacier, more innovative, less hierarchical and focused on outcomes not process. We also need sharper accountability, in particular from permanent secretaries and those leading major projects, and we need more digital services, better data and management information and for policy and implementation to be linked seamlessly together.

I heard a wonderful anecdote the other day. A well to-do couple knelt to receive communion. A man knelt next to them. They noticed that he was Enoch Powell. They told a friend after the service that a church which accepted Powell as a communicant was not for them. It is Enoch Powell’s centenary today, and his monstrous reputation persists, even at the communion rail. Sunder Katwala, the thoughtful former general secretary of the Fabian Society, believes that Powell, and in particular his infamous views on immigration and identity, should be regarded as 'a historical figure, an important, troubled voice in Britain’s difficult transition to the post-imperial society which we have become.