Aloadofoldstodge

Sunday Afternoon Musings..

2008-05-11T16:47:00.002Z

Hard not to be philosophical on such a glorious late afternoon though supporters of Reading and Birmingham City may disagree. It certainly was a wonderful start for Conservative activists with an avalanche of good news suggesting not only a strong probability of a win in the Crewe & Nantwich by-election but also an increasing likelihood of a Tory landslide at the next General Election.

A few weeks ago I thought Labour could not go below 250 seats (still representing a loss of over one hundred) but now the "floor" seems to be nearer 200. In context, the worst Labour performance since the war was in 1983 when, under Michael Foot, the party won just 209 seats. Yet, fourteen years later, they won exactly double that number. The Conservatives plunged to 165 seats in 1997 yet now there is talk of 380+ seats.

More fanciful elements over on politicalbetting.com are enjoying watching the Brown Government implode and predict with relish the end of Labour.

That won't happen any more than the extinction of the Conservatives was likely after 1997.

On the assumption that the Conservatives win big in 2010 can we begin to determine the opposition response to David Cameron ? "Events, dear boy, events" will help as inevitably the Cameron Government will run into trouble but can we even begin to speculate about what the next non-Tory Government might look like in say 2018-19 ?

It's all guesswork I suppose but some thoughts...

1) The era of low-price energy is over and economies across the world, both hyper-developed and developing, are going to have to adapt. By 2018, oil might be $200 a barrel and even with no increases in duty, petrol could be £2.20 a litre.

2) As baby boomers like me approach retirement, how will Government ensure we can retire ? I'm not sure I want to HAVE to work until I'm 70 or 75 - that doesn't mean I may not want to. I think I've made provision for my retirement but many won't.

3) Immigration won't be the issue it is now - the "lure" of coming to Britain will fade as the economies of central and eastern Europe grow toward those of the west. That's not to say issues of social and cultural cohesion won't exist.

4) I think the most important issue will be the relationships within the United Kingdom. With a (probably) independent Scotland and the possibility of a declining Tory Government ruling the north from the south, it may be that devolution within England will look an attractive option.

5) Who knows what the international situation will be ? One thing that does seem certain is that by 2018 Asia will be more important and influential than it is now. How will Europe (on the wrong side of the world) manage in a world dominated by the Pacific Ocean ?

There's lots more - the environment, developments in technology etc. One thing's for certain - there will be plenty of Sunday afternoons to consider the options...

A Poor Start for Mayor Johnson

2008-05-08T21:39:00.002Z

It's been a week since the polls closed in the London elections and six days since Boris Johnson was acclaimed the new Mayor. As the celebrations have died down, Londoners like me were left facing the unknown and wondering what sort of Mayor Boris Johnson would be like.

The first signs don't fill me with encouragement.

The new Mayor's first main announcement was the introduction of a ban on the consumption of alcohol on tubes, buses, trams and the DLR with effect from the beginning of June.

All well and good, a measure that will be very popular with many travellers.

Unfortunately, that's the problem. It's too simple, too obvious - if it worked, Ken Livingstone would have introduced it.

Boris misses the point - if a lot of people want something and support you when you introduce it, the first thing any shrewd mind should be asking is "why wasn't this done years ago ?"

The reason is that this "law" is unenforceable. I know it, most people know it, Boris probably knows it too but no matter, the doorsteps in the Tory suburbs and the Daily Mail want it so it must be done.

This proposal is only slightly more workable than the "ban" on drivers using mobile phones. Only the speed limits themselves are more widely flouted.

The Mayor proposes 440 new CSOs to impose the ban but apparently no one can be actually fined until the law has gone through Parliament so enforcement won't be easy. The group of office girls sharing a bottle of wine or a spritzer might play but the groups of lads coming home from a West End drinking session might be less amenable.

Another problem is that Boris thinks he will end anti-social behaviour on the Tube with this daft edict, he obviously doesn't travel by Underground that much. As a regular traveller, I am less bothered by people drinking than by sober people playing loud gangsta rap music through their mobile phones so the whole carriage can enjoy their crap mucical taste. I don't hear Boris trying to ban that behaviour but perhaps that isn't an issue bothering the Mail readership.

The unpalatable truth for populists like Johnson is that just because a lot of people want something, well, that doesn't make it desirable or attainable. Johnson, like socialists and other conservatives before him, reaches for the blunt weapon of sanction in an effort to impose their standards of behaviour on everyone else. Nowhere is there a recognition of the role of education which, although taking longer to achieve results, is a far more durable solution than the nanny-state populist Cameronite rhetoric that is the modern Tory Party.

So, Mayor Johnson, I didn't vote for you last week. If you carry on this way, you will have plenty of time over the next four years to alienate every part of the coalition that backed you and a long long time after that to consider why the siren voices of the populists should be ignored at all costs.

Is It Really That Bad Out There ?

2008-05-05T20:28:00.002Z

You'd think from reading all the economic doom-and-gloom in the right-wing media that people would be reining in, not spending and having a quiet Bank Holiday.

That may be true but out with Mrs Loadofoldstodge both yesterday and today, the garden centres and shopping centres were doing huge business so where is this recession, where is the downturn, where is anything approaching a belt tightening ?

Last week, data in the US suggested the economy wasn't doing as badly as analysts feared and the stock market rallied strongly leading to a similar rally here. Now, no one denies that increasing energy and raw material costs will have an economic impact but just how severe still seems uncertain.

I have accused the right-wing media of talking us into a recession in order to achieve some short-term gain for the Conservatives. I would also accuse Gordon Brown of reckless spending and economic mismanagement from the pensions tax grab onward.

Perhaps the economic downturn will be as severe as people say but for now, I would say it's more a case of "Apocalypse Postponed".

Is this where the next Conservative decline starts ?

2008-05-03T20:21:00.003Z

This may seem strange given last Thursday's local election results culminating in the triumph of Boris Johnson in the London Mayoral election but I think this is the high point of Conservative success at local level.

This doesn't mean the Conservatives can't or won't win the next General Election (they probably will though a cautionary note remains that the Conservatives have not won a substantial election with a turnout of more than 50% since 1992) - the implosion of Gordon Brown and Labour will probably gift it to David Cameron and while up to a couple of weeks ago I thought a majority of 40 the upper limit of Conservative prospects, the possibility of a landslide can no longer be discounted.

For the Liberal Democrats, London was plain bad but overall a small net gain of councils and Councillors (and a number of good results against the Tories) proved me and some of the other pessimists wrong. Unlike Sir Menzies Campbell, Nick Clegg has survived his first big test and the Party remains "in the game".

Back to the Conservatives and a little history lesson. 1995 was a catastrophic night for the party with losses of over 2,000 councillors on just 25% of the vote. In 1996, the Tories got 27% but still lost 600 seats. From then on, every year has seen the Conservative recovery in local Government continue. Conversely, for Labour, the 47% achieved in the 1995 local elections was the high point and ever since the party has slipped back at every election when compared with the one before either in terms of votes and/or seats.

I strongly suspect the Conservatives will make more gains in 2009 and win the General Election in 2010 but some of the results on Thursday night against the Liberal Democrats in the south suggest to me that the tide has got as far as it can. I remember in Penwith in 1995 the Tories held a couple of seats that they ought to have lost and even as they were being massacred in the 1997 General Election, many of the 1993 County Council losses were being reversed.

Democracy is a fickle mistress and the checks and balances are always there. Once in Government, it will not, in my view, be long before the local election losses begin given the high base the Conservatives will be defending in 2011 and 2012. Indeed, I suspect many of Thursday's gains will be reversed in four years time and Boris Johnson will face a much tougher battle to remain as Mayor.

For the Liberal Democrats, the next "opportunity" will be during this period of Conservative weakness. The election of Nick Clegg will be seen as being wise from around 2012 onward as the Cameron Government runs into trouble. The Party must be positioned to exploit the drift away from Cameron that will inevitably occur. The good performance last night provides that bedrock that can be built on.

Conservatives will have much to enjoy in the next couple of years as the Brown Government crashes and burns culminating in David Cameron entering 10 Downing Street. However, politics is also a long game and as night follows day the Cameron Government will in time hit trouble. That will be when the current euphoria gets tested as the public turn away possibly initially only in protest but that protest will be enough to cost the seats of a number of Conservative Councillors.

Who Should Fight Johnson in 2012 ?

2008-04-30T19:30:00.003Z

It may seem strange to be considering the 2012 London Mayoral election the night before the 2008 election but that was on my mind this morning.

On the assumption Boris Johnson wins tomorrow (and all the evidence is heading that way), he will face re-election in May 2012 when the political and economic landscape could look very different.

IF, as also seems likely, the Conservatives under David Cameron win a General Election in 2010, Johnson will be fighting not only on his own record but on the record of a Government approaching its midterm.

The last two Conservative victories over a Labour Government (1970 and 1979) led to serious trouble for the new Government within a couple of years. In both 1972-73 and 1981-82, Conservative Governments were struggling and facing huge opposition. This might happen again - it might not. My suspicion is the Cameron honeymoon with the electorate will be short and within twenty-four months of taking office, the polls will be looking pretty bad.

Given that there might be a real opportunity for Labour and the Liberal Democrats to defeat Boris in 2012, who should they pick ?

As a Liberal Democrat, the Party needs to start thinking about the next contest, not in a year or two years time, but next Tuesday morning. If we re-select Brian Paddick, let's get him in position as soon as possible and give him the skills he needs in terms of political presentation and policy-making. If we want a more political figure, let's get someone in place so they can become known as the Lib Dem "Spokesperson for London". It will take time for that person to build a profile but it will allow us to start building some coherent opposition to Johnson.

For Labour, assuming they are in Opposition at Westminster, re-gaining the London Mayoralty would be the first sign of a fightback. They need a credible candidate who would mount a serious challenge to Johnson. My idea of that candidate - David Lammy.

What price David Lammy to win the 2012 election ?

Wasting My Vote on May 1st

2008-04-13T14:30:00.002Z

It's with a heavy heart and a sense of foreboding I approach the London Mayoral election on May 1st. For those of you unfamiliar with the vagaries of the London voting system, every voter has two votes, a first and second preference.

This system has worked well in the past for Ken Livingstone, the Labour candidate now and in 2004 but an Independent in 2000. He picked up a lot of second preference votes from Lib Dem, Green and other party supporters. Conversely, the system has previously disadvantaged the Conservatives who picked up markedly fewer second preferences. Most second preferences went to the Lib Dem or Green or UKIP candidates last time but as these candidates weren't getting enough first preferences, it made no overall difference.

As a Lib Dem supporter, therefore, the vote that counts is NOT my first preference but my second preference. In 2000, I voted for Ken Livingstone as my second preference, in 2004 I voted Green as my second preference but what will I do on May 1st 2008 ?

My view is that Brian Paddick is far and away the best candidate on offer and I would recommend anyone reading this blog who has a vote in the London mayoral election to give Paddick your FIRST preference.

The choice for a second preference is far less inspiring but let's briefly consider the runners:

Richard Barnbrook (BNP) - may become the first BNP Council leader in 2010. Currently Opposition leader on Barking & Dagenham BC. Possibly one of the more politically astute candidates, but the BNP is socially authoritarian and economically illiterate so I couldn't vote for them.

Gerard Batten (UKIP) - senior member of UKIP and an MEP for London. UKIP fails to realise the relationship between the City, the rest of London and European financial institutions. A withdrawal from the EU would damage the City and London whatever other benefits it may bring. Not the right candidate at all.

Sian Berry (Green) - supports Green Left and is therefore an eco-socialist. The Greens of 2008 are not the cuddly environmentalists of 1989. They have become relentlessly authoritarian and could be better described as eco-fascists. The voting "pact" with Livingstone was the last straw for me - the Lib Dems are once again the only sensible environmental party.

Alan Craig (CPA) - the candidate most local to me as he lives just down the road from me in Canning Town. Became a Newham Councillor in 2002 and was third in the Newham Mayoral election in 2006. He is, however, a Christian Democrat and has taken a strongly anti-Muslim pro-Christian stance on a number of local issues. While I respect Alan's local record, I find his social policies illiberal and inappropriate in a cosmopolitan City like London.

Lindsay German (Left List) - has emerged from the wreckage of Respect as the candidate of the Far Left. Formerly a Trotskysist, she stood in West Ham in 2005 and got about 20% of the vote. Since the departure of Galloway, Respect has effectively imploded. Her left-wing politics do nothing for me.

Boris Johnson (Con) - I've said plenty about him. He is far too light-weight and inexperienced for this job. There are other Conservatives I might have considered giving my second preference vote to but he isn't one of them. His boorish attitude exemplifies much of what I dislike about the Tories and his performance on Newsnight was lamentable. Some Lib Dems might be tempted to vote for him to vote against Ken Livingstone. I wouldn't.

Ken Livingstone (Lab) - Again, I've said a lot about him too. A long-time London political operator, he took control of the GLC in a post-election putsch in 1982. Labour MP for Brent East but left the Labour party after a long-standing feud with Tony Blair. Ran as an Independent in 2000 for new London Mayoralty and won. After eight years, there is a sense in which his immediate circle is tainted with corruption. Back in the Labour party, he won a closer contest in 2004 but is now suffering with the rest of Labour. I would welcome his defeat though I would also acknowledge he has done much that is positive for London such as the Oyster card.

Winston McKenzie - a political chameleon having been a member of Labour, the Conservatives, UKIP and Veritas. He joined the Tories after David Cameron became leader but whether he expected to become the Tory candidate for Mayor I don't know. Since failing to get that nomination, he has gone off to become an Independent. I have no idea what policies he has (if any). Not for me.

Matt O'Connor (Eng Dems) - better known as the leader of the pressure group Fathers4Justice which has carried out a number of high-profile publicity stunts. The English Democrats, despite their fine-sounding words, are unpleasant nationalists with a strongly authoritarian streak. They would, I suspect, like nothing once than to break up the Union and have an independent England conveniently forgetting how well England has done out of the Union.

As you can see, with this rag tag of assorted dimwits, halfwits, nitwits and racists (delete as appropriate), Londoners like me have a spectacularly poor choice of Mayoral candidates.

I cannot, in truth, give any of the above my second preference so I face the reality of wasting my vote on May 1st. It's a sad state of affairs for me but it will be far worse for London whichever of these non-entities the people of London are stupid enough or angry enough to vote for (more ironic given that the turnout is probably going to be around 40%).

Why the Tories won't sort out Immigration..

2008-04-13T14:25:00.001Z

Beyond the Westminster goldfish bowl, there’s plenty of evidence that immigration remains one of the main issues of concern among the electorate. The first part of the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary gave us plenty of evidence, both verbal and from polling, confirming this.

This is of course nothing new – people have been worried about immigration for over fifty years. It is forty years since Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech. Back then, while ostracised by many, Powell found some unlikely supporters among the white working-class of East London. Perhaps some of them lived in the part of East Ham I live in now, they would doubtless find it very different.

Many now think that a new Conservative Government will sort out the mess that Labour has created on immigration. There are widespread calls for a moratorium on further immigration and while repatriation remains well below the surface, it is never far from some minds. None of this will of course happen – a David Cameron Government will talk tough on immigration and perhaps bring in some legislation, which will sound tough and convince people that it is acting tough.

Those who believe this will happen are foolish, naïve and wrong.

Immigration isn’t challenged by changes of Government but rather by changes in international and global economics. In this respect, the Tories may be likely but let no one be fooled into thinking they will do or say anything noticeably different from Labour under Gordon Brown.

For the reasons why, it’s time for a quick economics and history lesson:

First, the economics – we live in a capitalist economy and two of the basic preconditions for the functioning of a capitalist economy are the free movement of capital and the free movement of labour. The former allows entrepreneurs to set up where they want and the latter provides a work force for them to make and sell goods and services. Economies where one or other condition does not exist run into trouble. If, for example, there is a shortage of labour, business has to pay workers more, which it passes on to consumers in the form of increased prices fuelling inflation. Business is always seeking ways to cut costs and one of the biggest costs is wages. If, in one area, you have to pay £10 and hour to a worker and in another it’s only £2 a hour, logic dictates you will hire the worker to whom you can pay £2 or perhaps £2.50.

Right, let’s consider the history. The Industrial Revolution in Britain and elsewhere was predicated on the movement of workers and their families from agricultural areas to the new factories. For many farm workers, a job in a factory, brutal as it would seem to us now, was far better paid than labouring in the countryside.

This movement of population within countries continues to this day and is particularly evident in China where a wholesale migration of people from country to town has caused enormous social upheaval (especially when combined with the infamous “one child” policy).

British industrial development was therefore based on the movement of population from the countryside into the new towns and factory areas. In the 19th Century, this began to draw in people from further afield such as Ireland and Scotland. Later, those persecuted in other countries were made welcome as contributors of both capital and labour to the British economy so we saw Jews, Russians and a myriad of other Europeans and others come to especially East London.

As the economy was rebuilding after 1945, it soon became evident that the war had left a shortage of labour. In addition, the imposition of the Iron Curtain had cut off one of the traditional sources of cheap capital and labour so Britain, and other former colonial powers, sought to bring in cheap labour from the former Empire. Thus we saw large-scale immigration from the Caribbean in the 1950s and 1960s and from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in the 1960s and 1970s. The French brought in people from North Africa while the West Germans, lacking any Imperial subjects of their own, used “guest workers” from Turkey and Yugoslavia.

When the Iron Curtain came down in 1989-90, a new market for capital and labour was opened up and it was little surprise that conservatives, socialists and liberals all saw the benefit of bringing the newly-liberated East European countries into the western economic orbit. Conservatives, in particular, saw these countries as a bulwark against what was seen as the creeping Euro-federalism of France, Germany and Benelux.

Thus was the stage set for the incorporation of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and others into the EU. This coincided with benign economic circumstances in Western Europe as defence spending was slashed and the first influx of cheap goods from China began keeping inflation and interest rates low. As in the 1980s, the British economy, especially in London and the Home Counties, was in dire need of cheap labour and with wages high by Polish standards, the influx of skilled and unskilled labour was inevitable and so it has continued incorporating people from the Baltic States and latterly Romania and Bulgaria.

This unprecedented wave of migration and immigration is causing dangerous social and demographic imbalance in Eastern Europe but in Britain it fuelled the economic boom of the mid-90s, late 90s and early 00s. Of course, the social and cultural impact of large numbers of migrants weren’t anticipated or bothered about to be honest. The priority is and always has been the maintenance of economic growth – it was in the 18th Century, the 19th and the 20th and is still the case in the 21st.

The problem now is the rise in worldwide energy and raw material prices combined with the credit crunch have thrown the economy into trouble and successive media stories of doom and gloom have created a febrile atmosphere of hysteria and concern. Suddenly, the “immigrants”, who we are quite happy to see doing the jobs we won’t do for the wages we wouldn’t accept, are a “problem”. In a contracting or stagnating economy, unemployment becomes an issue as does job competition.

There are already signs that some of the Poles have made their money and are going home while emigration from the British Isles (rarely mentioned) continues to increase. It may well be that the global downturn will act as a buffer against further immigration but it’s too early to tell.

Of one thing we can be certain – David Cameron and his ilk know that economic growth is predicated on cheap labour. Cutting off sources of cheap labour just because people are worried about immigration simply isn’t going to happen – no Government or serious political party plays with economic prosperity that way. So the election of David Cameron will change nothing. A recession will halt immigration; Tory bluster won’t though they will work hard to convince voters it will.

Why Boris will win on May 1st

2008-04-01T18:40:00.005Z

With just two and a half weeks until the Mayoral election, it looks increasingly likely that Ken Livingstone's reign as Mayor of London will come to a bloody conclusion with defeat at the hands of Conservative candidate, Boris Johnson.

Livingstone's campaign looks increasingly desperate and with Labour in the doldrums, the support needed in the Inner Suburbs to hold back the Tory-voting Outer suburbs just isn't there. Conversely, the Conservatives are motivated in the Outer suburbs in a way they weren't in either 2000 or 2004.

I welcome the departure of Livingstone - the stench of corruption hangs heavy over City Hall along with the sense that Ken is "yesterday's man". That doesn't of course mean I welcome the election of Boris Johnson. I think Londoners will swiftly come to regret entrusting this highly-intelligent but deeply flawed individual to such an important job. I'm strongly of the view that Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat Mayoral candidate, is the best on offer and recent debates including both the Evening Standard debate and the Newsnight debate showed Paddick to be more than a match for Ken and Boris.

So why will Boris win ?

There are some obvious reasons: the loss of trust in Livingstone, the national decline in Labour and advance of the Conservatives which is especially strong in London and the simple argument that is "time for a change" but there is another, less obvious reason.

Livingstone is quite a dour, serious personality with seemingly little charm or charisma. There are times when these qualities are valuable - I thought one of Ken's finest hours was following the July 2005 terrorist attack - but in times of impending economic hardship when the right-wing press in particular are daily trumpetting a message of doom and gloom, I think people look for a less serious, lighter alternative.

Johnson provides less serious in spades. No one can blame him for the "credit crunch" but he will keep us entertained in the difficult times ahead. He will bumble around smiling and joking which will be an antidote if (as seems likely) a period of belt-tightening is in order.

Boris will win not because he's the best candidate - he isn't. He'll win because he has tapped into a mood music or zeitgeist. That mood says "things are bad, they're getting to get worse. We don't need a dour, sour-faced leader telling us how bad things are, we want someone to keep us entertained".

The problem with electing an entertainer is that there may be nothing other than the act. London faces some serious challenges in the next four years, not least in preparing for the 2012 Olympics. I remain deeply sceptical as to whether Boris is the man for the challenge. London is prepared to give him a chance - I wouldn't.

Middle England battening down the Hatches...

2008-03-29T17:17:00.002Z

My view has always been that if you want to find "Middle England" just go to your nearest Garden Centre on a March or April Sunday. On the other hand, as I discovered today with Mrs Loadofoldstodge, you can also find Middle England at the Ideal Home Exhibition at Earls Court.

I've never been before though Mrs Loadofoldstodge is a veteran of these things. The first thing to observe is that it is an overwhelmingly white, middle-class event (just like the Sunday Garden Centre). The second irony is that the event is sponsored by the Daily Mail which is the nations' favourite centre-right doom-monger. Today's paper is a fine example of Labour-baiting (special attention for Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper) and a page full of economic doom and gloom.

The Ideal Home Exhibition was therefore full of economically nervous people - were they spending ? Undoubtedly, yes, but the show itself is a curiousity. On the one hand, kitchen gadgets and health gadgets are peddled ruthlessly to the gullable and needy. At the other end of the show, vastly expensive spa pools and overpriced interior design jostle for space. I suspect some of these high-end providers may be the first to feel the economic chill being predicted by the Daily Mail. Who wants an outdoor jacuzzi/spa pool if they can't pay the mortgage ?

On the day when the residents of Newham got their first leaflet from Boris Johnson, David Cameron might have found many friends at Ideal Home. However, polling evidence shows much less than fulsome enthausiasm for the Conservatives especially when it comes to the economy. Confidence in Brown/Darling has dissipated and no wonder but few really believe Cameron/Osborne have the answers. If the Daily Mail is correct, it may be a long time before Middle England has much to smile at at the Garden Centre or anywhere else.

I've argued for some time that expectations will be Cameron's main problem once he reaches No.10. I suspect Middle England will be unforgiving if he doesn't quickly deliver better economic times.

The Politics of Economics

2008-03-18T17:48:00.002Z

While some Conservative activists might have hoped that the ICM poll in the Guardian showing their Party 13% ahead of Labour would receive more coverage this morning, the news was dominated by the global financial turmoil. Frankly, some of last night's coverage bordered on the sensationalist and apocalyptic.

Today, as might have been expected, the FTSE100 index has rebounded more than 190 points while the Dow Jones is up over 290 points. Of course, the Tuesday rally is nowhere near as newsworthy as the Monday slump while falls in the gold and oil prices are much less interesting than the rises above $1,000 an ounce and $110 a barrel respectively.

In many ways, yesterday's coverage represented the media talking the economy into recession, instilling fear and uncertainty into millions of people and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of reduced economic activity and recession. That was also irresponsible.

Now, I'm no naive optimist - the collapse of Bear Stearns is serious and we all have a right to be concerned if the stupidity of the banking sector comes back to bite us all. Douglas Moffatt made the not unreasonable observation on Sky News that since the average debt per household (excluding mortgages) was £21k, it might not be a bad idea for people to start reducing that burden first.

It's also fair to say that while inflation is officially 2.5%, many believe the true figure to be much higher given rises in energy costs in particular. On the larger scale, it was inevitable that as China reached a point where its people started wanting the better things in life (and the money to pay for them) we would all come to see the end of the era of cheap energy and cheap goods. China has also begun the economic exploitation of the last cheap market, Africa, and while that may bring a short period of improvement, it won't last forever.

Structurally and mentally, we may have to adjust to a future with more inflation than we have been used to and less access to credit than we have been used to. That might seem like austerity to many but it is manageable even though collectively and individually, we may have to curb our materialism a wee bit.

It is perhaps this sense of insecurity and uncertainty that is behind the apparent shift in political fortunes. Labour is seen as the party of the days of plenty while the Conservatives are, rightly or wrongly, perceived as more in tune with a change in personal expectations and aspirations. The problem is, as the weekend's events showed, that David Cameron seems not to have the slightest idea of how to manage this "new economy". There is a clear call for spending cuts and indeed tax cuts but Cameron is offering neither.

As a liberal, I often see Labour and Conservative as two sides of the same coin. Both parties are natural centralisers and both want to tell people how to live their lives. As a liberal, the new economic realities dictate that individuals need to have a maximum of available income in order to reduce levels of personal debt. We need no lessons in economic mismanagement from a Government which was squandered up to £43 billion and we need no lessons in economic mismanagement from a Party which threw away £13 billion of reserves in a single day and which is seemingly committed to maintaining the high-spending folly of Labour.

It is really time to ask the question - what's the point of voting Tory next time ? Nothing will change or improve - it is the electoral equivalent of moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. Cameron is a boy sent on a man's errand - he can smile and is doubtless wonderful company but that doesn't make him fit to run the country.

It will be a damning epitaph for Gordon Brown if his greatest achievement turns out to be to make people want to vote for David Cameron.

A Taxing Problem for Cameron

2008-03-16T21:10:00.002Z

After the overnight polls showing the Conservatives 9-16% ahead, it was strange to see a highly-cautious headline in the Sunday Telegraph with Philip Hammond, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, claiming that tax cuts might not be possible until a SECOND Cameron administration.

This extraordinary admission represents a huge attempt to damp down expectations, raised by the media and some on the Tory Right, that an incoming Conservative Government would quickly start cutting both public spending and taxes. Today's news has also drawn anger from pro-Tory columnists such as Iain Martin.

Now I have some sympathy for Hammond and David Cameron, I suspect they know that the state of the public finances is and will be far worse than most believe to be the case. Public sector debt is running out of control and any incoming Government will be severely constrained but a ccommitment to match Labour spending levels not only further constrains George Osborne but also seems surprisingly timid.

Let's rewind a little....

In 1992, John Major secured a fourth term for the Conservatives primarily because people believed that an incoming Labour Government would fund its massive spending commitments through tax rises (remember the £1,000 "double whammy" posters). The mood then was insecure - the recession was still in full flow and people were terrified at the prospect of losing more money. They voted with their wallets and Major romped home.

By 1997, the messages and the mood were very different. With the economy recovering and people more financially secure, there was a widespread perception that money now needed to be spent on public services and infrastructure. Tony Blair read the mood perfectly and his commitment not to raise income tax was probably unnecessary. People were ready to see money spent on public services and would, I think, have accepted a small tax increase if required.

In 2008, the mood music has changed again. The dark clouds of recession seem to be gathering, aided of course by the doom-mongers in the media. People are financially insecure and the perception is that public services are bloated and inefficent. Polls have shown clear support for spending cuts and tax cuts so I don't know why the Conservatives are being so timid.

In 1979, the incoming Conservative Government found the public finances in a disastrous state but moved ahead with a radical financial overhaul cuminating in the 1981 Budget with its huge switch to indirect taxation. Margaret Thatcher recognised the need to be radical in spite of the financial constraints but David Cameron seems to lack that radical edge.

This leaves the Liberal Democrat plan for a cut in basic rate tax from 20p to 16p as the most radical game in town. IF Vince Cable and his team can come up with some well-argued and costed spending plans that recognise the need to rein in some areas of Government excess, the Liberal Democrats may yet steal an advantage in a key area.

Is It "Game Over" for Gordon ?

2008-03-15T19:54:00.003Z

Two opinion polls tonight have got the Conservative activists who now dominate politicalbetting.com buzzing. ICM shows the Tories nine points ahead (40-31) while YouGov reportedly shows the Conservatives a massive sixteen points clear (43-27). The Liberal Democrats are on 16% with YouGov and 20% with ICM.

Clearly, if the YouGov figures were repeated in a General Election, the Conservatives would win a large majority -possibly a landslide but ICM's figures would leave the Tories with a tiny majority or just short of a majority.

The other "given" on these figures is that the General Election is off until the summer of 2010. This may of course merely prolong the agony for Labour but it also offers Gordon Brown two years to turn things round. To me, the Conservative advantage is very far from being "locked in". We have seen the Tories over 40% before but it simply hasn't been sustained - even last week ICM had the party slipping back to 37%. Some might argue that with a prolonged period of "quiet", Labour will recover and as it does so, the pressure will shift to David Cameron who will have to manage the expectations of a Party that, if some of its more febrile activists are to be believed, believes it is certain to win and win big.

For Liberal Democrats, the key is to preserve and, if possible, strengthen the parliamentary base at the next election. When the Conservatives won in 1970 and 1979 it was predicated on a collapse in Liberal votes and seats - down to six in 1970 and just fourteen in 1979. While I don't expect or believe there will be a similar wipeout in 2010, I'm fully expecting the loss of maybe a third of the party's seats so down to 40 or so.

I am also convinced that the incoming Cameron Government will run into trouble within 18-30 months as it has to ride the twin tigers of the public and party faithful's expectations of change/improvement and the disastrous state of the public finances which, I suspect, will preclude Osborne from doing anything too radical. Of course, there will be a change of personnel in Government but change that is meaningful to the public takes time (think a turning supertanker) and the question is whether people will have the patience.

This is where the Liberal Democrats may have their next "opportunity". In both 1972-73 and 1981-82, it was the Liberals, rather than Labour, who took advantage of Tory misfortunes (remember Sutton & Cheam and of course Crosby). As Cameron's Government, either through ineptitude or misfortune, hits trouble, the Liberal Democrats must be placed to take full advantage if a defeated Labour party enters a prolonged period of internal re-evaluation.

This is one of the reasons I think the Party made the right choice in choosing Nick Clegg as leader. The world won't end (I hope) with the 2010 General Election and the Liberal Democrats have to think beyond that to the politics of the Cameron era. With Labour in probable disarray, the opposition to Cameron will come from the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg.

By 2012-13, it may well be that tonight's mood of unrestrained hubris among Tory activists will be a distant memory as the truth about politics begins to dawn. Politics is as much about the management of failure (yours) as against the management of expectation (the public's). The electorate may soon forget why they voted for you and will soon find lots of reasons why they won't.

However, anyone who thinks Samantha Cameron should be measuring curtains for 10 Downing Street forgets the power of an incumbent Government. Gordon Brown may already have the giveaway Budgets of 2009 and 2010 in mind but he now needs stability, a few "quiet" months - it may be part of his "misfortune" that he doesn't get them..

Stormy Monday

2008-03-06T21:38:00.001Z

I'm getting early indications that there could be a serious weather event for large parts of the country on Monday. A major storm of unusual strength is expected to cross Britain during Monday with very strong winds and heavy rain.

Now, forecasters remain uncertain as to the exact track of this storm - some believe it will cross Scotland with the strongest winds over northern England but the GFS (American weather service) put the storm at a remarkable 945 MB crossing central England with storm force winds for the south Midlands and southern England.

This may be nothing or it could be one of the biggest events since the storm of January 25th 1990. Keep watching the forecasts over the weekend.

It's The Stupid Economy !!

2008-03-06T21:20:00.002Z

It was the successful Bill Clinton Presidential campaign in 1992 which allegedly launched the phrase "It's The Economy, Stupid" as a way of making sure the campaign concentrated on what the Americans call "pocketbook" issues.

This afternoon, I was in a meeting with the Chief Executive of a prominent southeastern local authority and this man, paid I would imagine in excess of £100k per year, was struggling with the most basic concepts of information management and business continuity. It suddenly occurred to me that if he knew how to do his job, I wouldn't have a job myself. In other words, my economic wellbeing was a direct result of this man's stupidity.

It then occurred to me that millions of other jobs wouldn't exist if people were sensible. Would we need as many policemen, doctors, nurses, firemen and ambulance crew if people didn't either act stupidly or endanger their lives via stupidity ? Would we need a plethora of laws, rules and regulations if more people used a fraction more commonsense ?

It's probably true to say many people aren't competent at the jobs they do but are able to get away with it because there is no one intelligent enough to realise they can't cope or can't do sometimes the most basic things.

Perhaps the real truth is that it's only stupidity that keeps the economy going....

Nick Clegg is too sane to be in Politics...

2008-03-05T15:17:00.003Z

This is not going to be a good day for the Liberal Democrats or for Nick Clegg. over on politicalbetting.com, Tory activists are one after another taking pot-shots at the party and Nick over the issue of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Sky News are reporting that three frontbench spokespeople, named as Tim Farron, David Heath and Alastair Carmichael, are all going to resign and defy Nick Clegg by voting FOR a Conservative amendment calling for a referendum on Lisbon. I suspect the true number of "rebels" in the party may be somewhat larger - a dozen or more. On the other hand, and the Tory activists on politicalbetting.com are very quiet about this, at least four and maybe more Tory MPs will defy David Cameron and vote AGAINST the Conservative amendment.

Labour also have their problems with rebel MPs and it all adds up to a messy and difficult day and while all three Party leaders have their problems, Nick Clegg looks in the worst mess.

My view is and always been that we need a referendum on the EU. There is no question that while many British people are broadly in favour of some form of relationship with Europe, there is a growing disquiet/concern/panic (delete as appropriate) that somehow things have gone "too far" and that too much national sovereignty (whatever that means) has been given away without consultation to Brussels.

Of course, no one believes for a nanosecond that any referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would have anything to do with the minutiae of the Treaty itself. It would be a referendum based on people's perception (accurate or otherwise) of what the EU is and what Britain's political relationship is. There's little doubt that decades of continuous anti-EU propaganda have left a serious sense of distrust in British public opinion but the EU has done little or nothing to counter this torrent of negative publicity.

The other side of this question is the degree to which politicians and parties should be accountable for the promises they make. The Liberal Democrat manifesto of 2005 gave an unequivocal commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (as did both the Labour and Conservative manifestos). Now, one could argue that holding any Party in 2008 to a commitment made in a rejected Manifesto seems unnecessarily harsh but that isn't really the point as Nick Clegg should have realised.

Clegg's response has been to try and rationalise his way out of it and, to be fair, the Lib Dem position is probably more coherent than the Conservative position and I think it's fair to ask, given the disastrous non-negotiation stance of the Major Government from 1995-97, how and in what way a future Conservative Government would comport itself with regard to the rest of Europe. There may be serious distaste for the EU but I doubt anyone wants us to be America's lapdog as we have appeared to be in recent times.

The problem with trying to be rational about Europe is that most people have gone beyond reason when it comes to Europe and the EU. Decades of media-induced mistrust have left such an ingrained sense of illwill that trying to have a sensible argument with most other people over Europe is pointless. Manifesto commitments which on other issues wouldn't matter become totemic when it comes to Europe and this is where Nick Clegg has got it wrong. The politics of the current situation defy any rational analysis.

People are screaming for a referendum because they either want to have an ill-informed rant about Europe, kick the Government or hope it will begin the process by which we leave the EU altogether (delete as appropriate). National interest has been sacrificed on the altar of short-term political opportunism. If we accept that we need to redefine our political and economic relationship with the EU, then that needs to happen in a calm atmosphere and with a clear sense of what kind of relationship we want and that's where the pro-referendum coalition falls apart.

There are those who want out of the EU completely, those who want an EFTA-like relationship and those who are enthausiastic about Europe but recognise the need for democratic and polular assent on the journey toward political and economic union. Trying to get these and other disparate elements to agree a common attitude toward social and employment issues, let alone the institutions, is impossible.

Noen of this of course will help Nick Clegg who, rather like David Cameron and grammar schools last summer, has found that political leadership requires an understanding of when and when not to be too rational.

Or, to put it another way, you don't have to be mad to be a political leader but it helps...

Whether the Weather be Hot (or Cold)...

2008-02-28T20:37:00.002Z

It's said that interest in the weather is a part of being British and I think that's true. We talk about it constantly and we are perhaps more aware of it here than in many other parts of the world. The topic of "climate change" unfortunately generates a deal more heat than light, so to speak. It has been another mild winter here in NW Europe - there has been no snow in London and only a few days of frost and fog.

While January 2007 was the mildest since 1916, January 2008 was incredibly wet. February 2008 has been one of the sunniest ever and, of course, above the long-term average in terms of temperature. However, while this winter has been mild over Britain and Scandinavia, it has been much colder and snowier over North America and China. Indeed, levels of Arctic sea ice have increased considerably and, aided by a pool of exceptionally cold air over NW Greenland, sea ice has expanded and thickened too.

Those who argue against what they see as the "myth" of climate change have jumped on these facts as proof that man-made climate change is false and that solar activity (or the lack of it) is a far more significant factor. We will soon know if global cooling can be directly connected to solar activity as we are scheduled to move into a decreasing level of sunspot activity from 2012. If the "solar theorists" are right, the mild winter experienced by Britain will be an anomaly and snow will return.

More reasoned climatologists, while not disputing the role of the Sun in shaping our weather, consider other factors. One gaining more importance is the jet stream. The main Northern Hemisphere jet has been proved to have a huge influence on Britain's weather. In the summer of 2007, the jet remained close to the UK. Depressions or atlantic storms were forced near to the British Isles and the result was extensive and considerbale rainfall. This winter, the main jet has generally been well to the north leaving Britain on the "warm" side of the jet keeping our weather mild and benign.

The existence of the jet stream has only been known since the Second World War. Scientists are struggling to understand how the jet stream behaved in past historical times. Where was it during the Little Ice Age for example ? Can the LIA purely be explained in terms of decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity or were changes in the jet stream a factor ?

The question is one of cause and effect - we see the jet stream oscillate frequently today and now understand the role of Rossby Waves but what happened in the past ?

I see this blizzard (as it were) of scientific argument and data and remain confused and concerned as to the future and it's not surprising the non-scientific community is equally uncertain as to how to respond. What concerns me first of all is the rate of climate change - temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising at a phenomenal (in geological terms) rate. Even if the "solar theorists" are right and the Earth will start to cool, it's arguable that damage has already been done and that will manifest itself episodically in the decades to come.

The fact also remains that a mild winter doesn't mean a lot in terms of spring or summer. While it seems improbable that summer 2008 will be as severe as summer 2007, the next danger comes from heat. It seems inevitable to me that London will face a prolonged heatwave at some point in the next five to ten years and this may very well cause thousands of deaths in a city which seems chronically ill-prepared for such an eventuality.

We must also encourage science to redouble its efforts to understand the complex mechanism that is our climate. Detailed and accurate forecasting of future trends and probablilities is vital if politicians are to take appropriate action.

The Lib Dems and the Eu...

2008-02-28T19:56:00.002Z

Over on the highly-focussed world that is politicalbetting.com, it isn't long into each day before one of the regular correspondents vents his spleen over Europe and especially the Liberal Democrat position on Europe. When reminded that a) he's as far removed from a Lib Dem supporter as it's possible to be and b) that no one cares about Europe, he tends to become ever more cantankerous and spews various epithets in the style of a verbal flamethrower.

The fact remains that the Lib Dem position on the EU and the Lisbon Treaty has caused some consternation, primarily, it has to be said, among opposition activists. This culminated in Ed Davey being ordered out of the chamber of the House of Commons and being followed by the entire Lib Dem Parliamentary Party.

Ed's crime was to ask the Deputy Speaker to consider a Lib Dem amendment calling for a simple vote on continuing Britain's membership of the EU. When this was refused, Ed got a little unparliamentary and was suspended from the sitting.

Let's be clear - the Lib Dem position has changed since 2005 when the manifesto called for a referendum on any future Treaty. This position was similar to that of both Labour and Conservative parties at the time. The world has moved on...in 2008, even the Conservatives are not entirely committed to a referendum - they would have one now if they could but their 198 MPs aren't going to get their way and of course David Cameron knows it. Cameron has also failed to give an unequivocal commitment to a referendum on Lisbon in 2009 or 2010 reasoning (quite correctly) that the Treaty will either be in effect or will have fallen due to opposition elsewhere.

If Cameron is being realistic, what of Nick Clegg ? I have to say, as a Lib Dem member and supporter, I struggle with the policy currently on offer which appears to be to offer a referendum based simply on the question of whether Britain remains in the EU. I find this disappointing and transparent. There is of course a vocal but, I suspect, very small minority who want us out of the EU completely. There is also, I suppose, a small minority who aspire to full political and economic union within Europe, the creation of a United States of Europe and common usage of the Euro.

The significant majority of British opinion, of course, favours neither option and there are huge shades of grey. Most wish to preserve the pound and have no interest in greater political union though do recognise the benefits of the single market though concern about the full implications of the free movement of capital AND labour within the EU are growing with the influx of economic migration from Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and other places.

The perception within British opinion is that the EU has gone too far and that some powers need to be repatriated back to national Parliaments. For all its faults, the nation-state is still regarded more fondly than the supra-national institution. There is a growing sense that aspects of the EU are or at risk of becoming corrupt and that those working within the EU (both politicians and civil servants) are as interested in personal accumulation of wealth as in doing "good things" for the citizens of the EU.

For Nick Clegg, a "yes" vote might be easy but for me and, I supect, many others, the implication of a "yes" vote would not only be to give a green light to the current EU institution with all its faults but also to give the same green light to future deeper political and economic integration.

My view, for some time, has been that while membership of the EU has been and remains in Britain's national interest, the institution that the EU has become is in need of root-and-branch reform. The fear is that while Britain masy push for this, other countries may be more relaxed about the current state of affairs and would be less amenable to a radical overhaul.

Hindsight tells me we should have had referenda on both the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty and Conservatives, who breate the Lib Dems, would do well to remember that their party has consistently ignored calls for referenda on a range of issues including Scottish and Welsh devolution when pro-devolution candidates clearly represented the majority of Scottish and Welsh opinion. Much of what Cameron and the Conservatives say now is predicated on political opportunism and it's interesting to note that Cameron is far more vague about offering refrenda in the event of a Conservative Government than he is while in opposition.

The one aspect of Clegg and Davey's display has been to give the Lib Dems a sharper edge which has been long needed. This was promised by Clegg in the leadership campaign and while it has been ridiculed by some Tory activists, we can and should ignore their opinions because they aren't going to have anything nice to say anyway.

Time to Think about Drink...

2008-02-24T23:20:00.003Z

I rarely point you at something and suggest you read it but the opinion page of last Friday's Independent was the most coherent and well-argued piece on the issue of drinking in this country I've ever read:

At a time when what passes for journalism seems more about the demonisation of various groups such as immigrants, muslims, labour MPs, anyone connected with the Government, public sector workers, the young, it's gratifying to see something well argued and considered on a social issue.

There's Nothing Easy about Equidistance..

2008-02-08T23:09:00.000Z

The Conservative activists who dominate politicalbetting.com these days have tried to make capital out of this article from ft.com

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3cd97142-d5aa-11dc-8b56-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

My first thought is that most of them haven't bothered to read it. They've read the headline and jumped to the wrong conclusion as they usually do. Let's look at what Nick Clegg actually says:

"I don't care who produces a more liberal document for Government" - now if that's not a statement of equidistance then I don't know what is. The problem for the Tories is that Sir Menzies Campbell made life easier for them with his speech at Harrogate which, although carefully crafted, was spun by the Tories as a commitment to support Labour in the event of a Hung Parliament.

Now, Nick Clegg has come along and equidistance is back in town. Now, of course, both Labour and the Conservatives will spend the next two years arguing that a Lib Dem vote will let the other side in. We also know that this won't be easy for the Liberal Democrats to refute but the Clegg line which is basically "show me how bad you want me" is the only way.

Strategically and tactically, it is impossible for Nick Clegg to "sell" an illiberal vision to his Party by which I mean that if both Labour AND the Conservatives offer a fundamentally illiberal Queen's Speech, they can hardly expect Lib Dem support. The "mood music" from Project Cameron has been of course to stress Dave's "liberal conservative" credentials and Cameron has been able to "talk the liberal talk" but he's going to have to offer a whole lot more than platitudes if he wants a deal.

But Clegg's problem is, as I have argued elsewhere, is that IF the Conservatives are the largest party, he won't need Clegg or anyone else. He will be safe while Labour begins its process of internal recrimination and re-organisation.

IF Labour are the largest party, Nick Clegg's challenge will be to join the Conservatives in the "no" lobby and see what will happen. There are two scenarios - one is another election, the other is a Conservative minority Government relying on Lib Dem support. It is this latter option that Clegg is playing for but it's a high risk game. Knocking over an illiberal Labour Queen's Speech would be one thing but would the Conservative alternative be any more palatable and would Clegg then be willing to risk a second General Election ?

That's the thing with equidistance - no one ever said it was easy...

What can Brown learn from New Hampshire ?

2008-01-11T22:31:00.000Z

Well, it's been a remarkable political week in the United States. The New Hampshire Primary held on Tuesday has transformed the political landscape for both the Republicans and the Democrats and, I believe, could be a crucial pointer to future events in Britain.

Last weekend, Barack Obama appeared to have plenty going for him. After a convincing eight-point win in the Iowa caucus on January 3rd, early post-Iowa polls suggested Obama had cruised past Hillary Clinton and one infamous poll suggested he had opened up a massive thirteen-point lead. Clinton, on the other hand, looked to be a busted flush with rumours of dissent in her campaign and the suspicion that an Obama victory in New Hampshire would cause the Clinton campaign to unravel.

As we now know, Hillary Clinton defied the polls and in a remarkable and often bruising night for exchange players (at one point Clinton's odds of winning New Hampshire were 250/1) scored a narrow but decisive victory defeating Barack Obama by 39% to 36% and effectively knocking John Edwards out of the race.

How did this happen ?

Exit polling on the day of the primary told a fascinating story. Hillary Clinton had drawn her support from older people, women (especially single women) and low wage earners (under $25,000). Looking at it another way, Clinton won among those voters aged over forty while Obama held sway among the younger voters. The victory has energised the Clinton campaign and while it is far from over for Obama, he faces an uphill battle in the upcoming Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina primaries.

Yet it also appears another factor worked in Clinton's favour. The evidence (and I've only seen this reported in the Racing Post in Britain) is that many in New Hampshire had waited until the televised debates before deciding and the perception was that Hillary Clinton had decisively won the debate. Indeed, it seems that Hillary Clinton did a superb job in demolishing Barack Obama's credentials for "change".

This is the key message for British politics and for Gordon Brown. If I were Brown, I would get a copy of the debate, watch Clinton's performance and work out how a similar demolition job could be done on David Cameron. Perhaps for the first time, we are seeing some evidence that the generation of "new leaders" I mentioned in my last post might be vulnerable to the more experienced politicians.

None of this of course means that Hillary Clinton will be the next American President. She has hardly secured the nomination and, as I've argued before, the GOP will be far happier taking her on than Barack Obama though that might not look the case now.

On the Republican side, all the momentum is now with John McCain who won the New Hampshire Republican primary effectively ending Mitt Romney's hopes - Romney had gambled on winning both Iowa and New Hampshire to build momentum for later battles. Two second places just doesn't cut it. Huckabee was well back in third but must have better prospects in the southern states. Meanwhile, rumours in the blogsphere suggest all is not well with Rudi Giuliani's campaign and a poll from New York apparently suggests McCain rapidly closing the gap. IF McCain wins big in Michigan and South Carolina, the GOP race will effectively be down to just McCain and Giuliani but nothing is certain.

If the GOP choose John McCain it will clearly place them in the "pro-Iraq" camp and McCain's conservative credentials have been criticised across the conservative media and blogsphere. Nonetheless, it won't be difficult for conservatives to rally around McCain against Hillary Clinton - against Obama, it might not be so easy.

There's plenty of twists and turns ahead on the road starting in Michigan on Tuesday which is also my birthday.

Coming Soon...it's the Barack and David (and Kevin and John) Show.

2008-01-05T20:43:00.000Z

On New Year's Day 2011, it's not inconceivable that Barack Obama will be President of the United States, David Cameron will be British Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd will be Australian Prime Minister and John Key will be New Zealand Prime Minister.

They have a lot in common. They are all within ten years of each other (Rudd was born in 1957, Obama and Key within five days of each other in August 1961, which puts them close to William Hague as well while Cameron was born in October 1966). They are photogenic family men and all will follow long-serving leaders (George W.Bush, the Blair/Brown Government, John Howard and Helen Clark respectively).

What then can we expect from this "new generation" of leaders of the leading WASP countries and why have they all come to the fore ?

In politics, there is frequently a dynamic for "change" in the electorate. This is as much to do with unrealised expectation, unrealistic expectation and a confusion or fear about society's problems. All the "new" leaders will or have come to power on a wave of popular acclaim and all promise "change".

But what kind of "change" do these leaders offer ? It's actually very vague and steers well clear of the deeply contentious issues such as immigration and social dysfunction. These men are more about a "change of management" (style, tone, emphasis) than about radical political and social change.

In a globalised liberal capitalist world, the room for change is incredibly limited. The Daily Mail continually bleats on about "the decline of Britain" and rails against the "liberal establishment" but each of the new leaders are products of that establishment. They would (and doubtless will) work well together but will any of us really notice the difference ?

If we read the conservative press, society and communities are on the verge of collapse with the State more interested in snooping on us and taxing us than protecting us and providing good services. Needless to say, examples of "waste" and the vitriol of columnists play this perception to the hilt.

The truth of course is far more complex - societies are changing, my part of East London is changing and those who want their communities to remain like flies in amber are going to be out of luck. The future is not about trying to turn back the clock - it will be about managing change and dealing with new crises in global affairs.

The community terrorised by yobs won't get anything more than platitudes from Obama, Clinton, Rudd or Key. They know, as I do, that communities cannot rely on politicians or political change to lead change. Ultimately, communities have to be self-changing and self-reliant. However, those who try to lead at local level face the twin problems of an over-zealous State and the negativity of the media.

Local Councillors are frequently vilified as being "corrupt" based usually on low voter turnout but the negativity reinforces apathy. Only by giving back genuine authority and responsibility to local Councils and Councillors will communities once again feel empowered and individuals within communities will feel empowered enough to make a stand against those undermining social cohesion.

For Obama, Clinton, Rudd and Key, the world stage will be an appealing place. The fact is, however, that if these leaders are sincere about "change", they will need to do far more than work well with each other - they will need to work well with us.

Looking Ahead to 2008...

2008-01-03T12:29:00.000Z

First, belated New Year greetings to everyone and in a way it was good to get back to normal (or what passes for normal) yesterday.

Following on my astonishing second place in the 2007 politicalbetting.com competition, the site this morning is full of predictions, prognostication and punditry (so no change there !).

The big political event of 2008 should be the US Presidential election. As I've said before, this is an election unlike any other in recent American history with neither the incumbent President nor Vice-President contesting. This means that BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans have to find a candidate and neither has a clear-cut frontrunner as the process begins today with the Iowa caucuses.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney, Rudi Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and John McCain look the frontrunners with Fred Thompson and Ron Paul appearing to be also-rans. The first four named will be the players through the early stages and it may be some time (if at all) before a clear leader emerges. This may not be a pleasant process - my guess is that Rudi Giuliani will emerge from the "sea of electoral hazard" as the GOP candidate.

On the Democrat side, it's slightly more straightforward with Hillary Clinton facing a strong challenge from Barrack Obama and a lesser challenge from John Edwards. I think the Democrat choice is pivotal to this contest. Put simply, if the Dems want to win the White House, they will choose Obama - if they want to lose, they'll pick Clinton.

Hillary Clinton, while adored by many Democratic activists, is loathed by the powerful conservative media machine and seems, to me, quite unable to gain support from the ex-GOP supporters who voted for Democrat Senate and Congressional candidates in 2006. Faced with the conservative anti-Clinton barrage, these key voters will either return to the Republicans or abstain.

Barrack Obama is something new and while much of his message is vague and incoherent, there is little doubt he has been able to attract support from former GOP supporters. IF he can persuade enough Democrats that his appeal is more important than Hillary's experience, I believe he will be the next President of the United States.

There will be many twists and turns starting tonight but it should be fascinating to watch..

In Britain, meanwhile, this may be a year of "marking time" for the main parties. Thanks largely to a catalogue of misjudgements, blunders and downright incompetence, the Conservatives find themselves in a pre-eminent position but how much this is a vote of confidence in David Cameron and how much a verdict on Gordon Brown remains to be seen. There have been signs in the most recent polls of a small recovery in Labour fortunes and I suspect this will continue during the year despite the economic doom-sayers (such as the Mail on Sunday) predicting all kinds of fiscal armageddon.

Of course, the continuing strength of oil prices will be a worry though it may not be as bad in a couple of weeks as it appears now assuming calm in Pakistan and milder weather in the Northern Hemisphere but there will doubtless be other "shocks" during the year. Interest rates will fall but more slowly than most homeowners would like while the decline of the pound will continue.

MY prediction is that by year-end the Conservatives will only be 3-5% ahead of Labour with the Lib Dems under Nick Clegg trading in the 15-19% range.

Elsewhere, there are elections in Spain and New Zealand. I have no strong view on the former but in Wellington, time is running out for Helen Clark and the Labour Government. They trail the National Party by fifteen points which, if repeated in the autumn, would produce a massive landslide for National. Still, nothing is certain as we know.

Other predictions - Godolphin to win the Derby for the first time and Italy to win the Euro 2008 football championships but there'll be plenty to comment on through the year.

Clegg's In Charge !! (or Nick nicks it !)

2007-12-21T20:26:00.000Z

First, let me wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a peaceful and prosperous New Year. I've finally escaped work for a few days and with Mrs Loadofoldstodge having organised the Christmas shopping with military precision, we are stacked, stocked and ready to scoff.

In the political week, Nick Clegg scraped home in the Liberal Democrat leadership election, winning by just 511 votes in an incredibly tight race. I voted for Nick for reasons I explained a couple of posts ago and won't repeat. However, there's no doubt Chris Huhne "won" the campaign and had it not been for the "Calamity Clegg" episode, might well have won the leadership.

Nick has moved to re-shuffle the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary team and it's good to see Vince Cable keeping his role as Treasury Spokesman while Chris Huhne gets the important Home Affairs post. The promotion of Ed Davey is significant and it will be interesting to see how the MP for Kingston & Surbiton fares in this role.

The polls have become more volatile - after YouGov showed a twelve point lead for the Conservatives, tonight's ICM poll for The Guardian has slashed that to a five-point lead with a strong recovery for Labour built, I think, on falling interest rates and a general sense of Christmas "goodwill".

As might have been expected, the Conservative activists who now dominate politicalbetting.com have expressed their myriad strands of "disappointment" with Nick but they can be ignored with confidence. Mike Smithson thinks the party should have received a boost from Clegg's election - er, why, Mike ? Most people have been thinking or worrying about Christmas - I doubt that belong LD members and political anoraks, anyone has realised that there is a new Lib Dem leader.

Nick Clegg has it to prove - that's beyond question - and the first few PMQs will be significant though I remember that neither Charles Kennedy nor Paddy Ashdown impressed at the start of their respective leaderships. Perhaps of more interest has been Nick's comment that he "does not believe in God". Putting aside the faux outrage from political opponents, I think this is hugely interesting. I don't believe in God either and neither do I think that as we approach 2008 we can have the Church of England enjoying its current privileged role. The dissestablishment of the CofE is long overdue and it's something I support.

Anyway, politics remains interesting and will be more so next year. I suspect some of the Tory activists who have believed victory to be certain will have their confidence shaken next year. There's all to play for then but let's enjoy Christmas now...

Should be Beware of Tories bearing gifts ?

2007-12-17T10:12:00.000Z

As widely reported in yesterday's Observer and on the Conservative Party website and picked up on politicalbetting.com, David Cameron made an "offer" to both the Liberal Democrats and Greens to support a decentralising agenda in 2008.

The timing of this is clearly significant with the result of the Liberal Democrat leadership election due tomorrow and the Green Party in the throes of changing its leadership. Chris Huhne has already rejected Cameron's overtures out of hand but I haven't yet seen a comment from Nick Clegg. If, as I suspect and hope, Clegg becomes the new Liberal Democrat leader, life will be a little less comfortable for David Cameron but a potential historic opportunity comes into view.

What Cameron is NOT talking about (at least explicitly) is an arrangement/coalition/deal (delete as appropriate) in the event of a Hung Parliament but that's where all the political pundits think this is going. Although the current polls (including the most recent YouGov poll) show the Conservatives winning a majority alone, the fact remains that the Tories have a lot to do to go from their current 198 seats to a working majority. The key to a Conservative "victory" is more about taking seats from Labour than it is taking seats from the Lib Dems. Every seat lost by the Government to the Opposition is therefore of greater significance than seats changing hands within the Opposition and Cameron will also know that if Labour regain seats lost to the Liberal Democrats, that undoes a gain made by the Conservatives from Labour.

I suspect that Cameron knows that a block of 30-40 Liberal Democrat MPs will survive the next election and that could be significant (along with perhaps a Green MP elected in Brighton) in building a non-Labour majority in the next Parliament.

Cameron "talks the talk" about decentralisation but, the Sustainable Communities Act notwithstanding (which had some Labour support too), we have seen little concrete in terms of REAL devolution or decentralisation. Indeed, the recent co-operative schools initiative suggested less a return to control by directly-elected and accountable local authorities than the flagrant takeover of school governing bodies by Conservative Party activists. While Nick Clegg can and should welcome Cameron's support for decentralisation, he should be bold enough to say that we need to see concrete and costed proposals from the Conservatives.

Some Liberal Democrat members and activists will find the thought of co-operating in any way with the Conservatives reprehensible and I agree the watchword should be caution but strategically and tactically, the Party cannot afford to be seen as a backdoor vehicle for Labour. We heartd similar initiatives from "New Labour" in the mid-90s and although Paddy Ashdown may have seen sympathetic to Blair, the fact was that once Labour won a landslide in 1997, any thoughts of collaboration were abandoned and the same would be true of David Cameron and the Conservatives.

The danger for David Cameron lurking in the background is that Nick Clegg turns out to be an effective Liberal Democrat leader. There remains, in my view, plenty of evidence that behind the smooth facade, David Cameron is a weak and brittle character - in many ways, as "flawed" as Gordon Brown. I don't relish the thought of him and his baying acolytes governing this country with any kind of majority. Anything which can ameliorate that prospect is therefore to be welcomed.

I'll comment on the LD leadership election result when I'm next allowed time off Christmas shopping.

Making My Mind Up - I need a Bucks' Fizz

2007-12-02T19:44:00.000Z

Well, the first definitive poll on the Liberal Democrat leadership election has been issued. The headline figure showing Nick Clegg leading Chris Huhne by 56 to 44 is a little misleading so I go by the more reliable 43-33 figure. This is nonetheless a strong poll for Nick Clegg and will be disappointing for Chris Huhne who must now hope to win the overwhelming majority of the undecideds in order to close the gap.

I've been following the Lib Dem blogsphere closely since last Tuesday's London Hustings and while Rob Fenwick clearly saw the evening differently to me, the arguments from both sides have been in a much better spirit than was the case a couple of Sundays ago.

The polling data continues to show encouragement for the Party with YouGov on Friday and even ICM's poll today (up on the previous Sunday Telegraph poll but down on the Guardian ICM survey from earlier in the week) suggesting the Party moving back toward the higher teens/twenty per cent. Labour slumps while the Tories hover around 40-42% - a strong poll for them but not "game over" by any means.

In terms of the leadership contest, I have weighed the pros and cons of the two candidates in the past few days. I have reservations about both men - both have many strengths but both have problems in key areas. I would willingly be a member of a Party led by either and the choice has done nothing for me other than to illustrate the incredible gulf between the strength of the Lib Dem Parliamentary party and most of the vacuous wastes-of-space that are David Cameron's team.

Nick Clegg hasn't impressed me at times in the campaign and I remain very concerned about his ability to make an instant impression. In the bearpit that is Prime Minister's Questions, you get one chance to shine - do it well, as Vince Cable did on Wednesday, and the media will love you. Fluff it, as Sir Menzies did, and the knives will be sharpened. There is no time to fish for words and no substitute for calm and confident preparation and presentation. IF Nick Clegg can do well at PMQs, he will be in a strong position as he is unquestionnably a strong tv performer, articulate and engaging.

Chris Huhne is, as I have said, the finished article politically. The "Calamity Clegg" incident was a serious error of judgement which worries me. It may be that we need a "nasty" leader who will shake things up and court controversy but I remain unconvinced as to how Chris will reach out to the disillusioned ex-Labour supporters who are considering voting Tory (without, I believe, any shred of conviction) and offer them a reason to come to us. I fear that with Chris we would be stuck in the 15-25% box.

It is perhaps the sense in which Nick Clegg offers the Party the chance to be something more than we are or we have become comfortable with that may be for me the deciding factor. David Cameron has, to his credit, taken an often unwilling Conservative Party on a journey and has faced dissent and criticism at many points. Nick Clegg too will face internal critics if it is seen that he is considering some policies that some "statist" LD activists may struggle with. Instinctively, liberals believe in smaller Government but that doesn't mean an abdication of responsibility to those less fortunate.

Where I part company with conservatives is the inherent conservative paternalist need to tell people how they should live their lives. Behind every Tory is, in my view, a moraliser and often a hypocrite. This was evident in the Thatcher/Major years and is the case with David Cameron who has a clear view of how people should live and the role of the Conservative Party in communities (the effective takeover of school governing bodies by loyal Tory activists is a classic example). Cameron's Conservatives are as keen on control and micro-management as Major's Conservatives or the Blair/Brown Labour Party.

I think there is a general view now that there is too much Government "involvement" or "interference" in people's lives. I believe that with the Conservatives, that would continue in different forms. That's why I'm a liberal and proud to be one.

Both Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne would be proud standard-bearers for the liberal tradition but at the Hustings Q&A, I felt Nick Clegg had more imaginative and compelling ideas and resolutions to problems than Chris who was too often closing down too much in order to please the activists. In the end, while a Party leader has to have the support of the activists, he or she also has to lead and for me Chris Huhne would be the activists' friend.

For these and other reasons, I have decided to vote for Nick Clegg to be the next Liberal Democrat leader.