Aloadofoldstodge

Do You "No" Where You're Going To ?

2011-12-09T18:51:00.000Z

I thought it was time to get back into circulation after a bit of a break and what an auspicious day as Prime Minister David Cameron returns from Brussels NOT carrying a piece of paper. History's wheel turns - in 1957, Europe said "No" to us and in 2011 Britain has said "No" to Europe.

The Little Englanders that swarm like insects around the blogsphere and have burrowed deep into the carcass of a Conservative Party that was once the champion of European co-opertation, are triumphalist in their glee and gloating. Britain stands alone, against perfidious Europe, it's 1940, I can almost hear Vera Lynn clearing her throat..

This kind of half-baked jingoistic ranting tells, as usual, only part of the story.

Twenty years of prearication, obfuscation, hesitation, opt-outs and the like came down last night to David Cameron being faced down by French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel and facing a simple choice - "Yes" or "No".

To have said "Yes" would have been tantamount to signing his own political death warrant and in any case Cameron's friends in the City, who effectively bankrolled the party back to power, would have disowned it and him. Cameron said "No" to protect the City of London which is fair enough. The City is important and a Tobin Tax would have been ruinous for many firms.

Yet, today Cameron has been talking about "Britain's interest".

Let's be straight - the only two interests which mattered to David Cameron in the early hours of the morning were the interests of the Conservative Party and its allies in the City. Faced with a Treaty which would have destroyed the latter and plunged the former into civil war, Cameron walked away.

The Eurozone and indeed the rest of Europe, including those countries in the EU but not in the Euro, will move toward a tighter fiscal union. It's symptomatic of the grotesque failure of Cameron and above all William Hague's diplomatic policy that not a single other European country stood by us - not Poland, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Hungary or any other of the countries courted by the British Government in the past few days. Even countries like Serbia and Croatia see their future within the EU and the Eurozone.

Though its demise seems devoutly to be wished by some, it's clear the Euro isn't going to break up anytime soon. It will be tough, very tough indeed, for a number of the European countries but none seem to want to follow Britain into self-imposed isolation.

Yet nor does Cameron seem ready to consider our continued membership of the EU. We are as much part of the community as the man whose neighbour and all his friends are having a party but hasn't been invited. He can hear the talk and smell the food but that's all. Europe will go on without us.

The emboldended Eurosceptics may cheer Cameron for a while but the issue of a referendum isn't going to go away. The problem is that neither the option of staying on nor the option of leraving look attractive now. Thanks to a generation of narrow-minded populist obstructionism, we are stuck in a limbo - wanting to be in the club but not wanting to abide by the rules.

Those who cheer Cameron today will need to consider what the reality of withdrawal would be - there would be no reason why Washington would want us in NAFTA or even for the likes of Norway (small population, large reserves of gas and oil) or Switzerland (small population, big money) would want to associate themselves with us.

Some argue for Britain as a kind of European "Hong Kong" with very low taxes and a presumably "sweat-shop" economy. This presumably means the return of unrestricted immigration in order to provide the cheap labour necessary. This kind of right-wing paradise would be desperately difficult for the vast majority of the British people who simply aren't wedded to unrestricted entreprenaurialism.

The British economy has enormous issues of its own and a Eurozone plunged into the darkness of recession does us no favours. We have already seen concerted international action (involving the Bank of England) aimed at restoring market confidence. In a global economy, the self-imposed isolation of one nation makes no difference.

I think our Prime Minister deserves no plaudits or cheers - he took the only action he could to save his Party and his friends. We will have to live with the consequences of his actions for years to come.

The Voices of the Frustrated...

2011-10-05T16:23:00.002Z

It's been fascinating to hear some Conservatives talking this week. Some of them, you would think, believe they are really still in Opposition. These are the anti-Coalition Conservatives, those who blame David Cameron not only for failing to win a majority at last year'e election but also for the unpardonable sin of going into Government with the Liberal Democrats.

Since May 2010, the anti-Coalition Tories have existed in a frustrated limbo - there are Conservatives in Government but it's not a Conservative Government. Their mouthpiece, the Daily Mail, and its witless non-entity columnists like Amanda Platell, Iain Martin and Dominic Sanbrook, whose weekly pleadings for a "Conservative" Government are becoming increasingly desperate and pathetic, writhes and wriggles in its frustration.

Nick Clegg is singled out for vitriolic abuse, the Liberal Democrats are mocked and derided weekly yet in the same breath they are accused of being the real masters and that somehow "conservatives" aren't being heard. On a range of issues, such as abortion and the 50p tax rate, the anti-Coalition Tories line up against the Coalition and hope that someone will listen to their pleadings but no one does.

Then, the anti-Coalition Tories idolise those Conservatives who appear to espouse proper Conservative values so Boris Johnson and Pritti Patel, neither of whom, let's face it, have much prospect of Cabinet office and neither of whom have much in the way of talent, are lauded while Ken Clarke is the subject of muted scorn.

The anti-Coalition Tories don't know how to respond to Cameron of course. Privately, I suspect, they regard himself as a closet Lib Dem or even a Heathite but they can't say that publically so apart from the constant exhortations to sound more like a conservative, or should that be Mrs Thatcher, the anti-Coalition Tories keep their counsel.

Come 2015 and short of a Conservative majority, they would actually prefer a Labour Majority Government to another Coalition - that's the depth of their frustration and the height of their lunacy.

They have a disproportionately loud voice but no one needs to listen to them - the liberal conservatives are doing very well, thank you. The Thatcherites have had their day.

Things are Looking up for Nick Clegg...

2011-08-28T17:32:00.003Z

It's been a tough year and a half or so for Nick Clegg. From pre-election obscurity to the triumph of the election debates, then to the disaapointment of the election itself and the formation of the Coalition and all that has followed, it's fair to say Nick has had more publicity than any third-party leader since David Lloyd George.

Government too has been tough - the tuition fees debacle and the anger of those on the Left who had naturally assumed we would back Labour come hell or high water and then discovered that the Liberal Democrats weren't the left-wing patsies they had assumed.

For senior Party members becoming Ministers has been tough - a steep learning curve and coming into office with an economy in trouble and public finances ruined by the outgoing Labour administration. Some have suffered, others have thrived.

The Party has faced a mixture of reactions from the Conservative side - some Tories have been supportive and friendly but others have been downright hostile and there is a large-section of the right-wing media which hates the Liberal Democrats and the Coalition with a healthy passion.

The Party has at times looked lost and broken and suffered badly in the May elections especially in the Scottish heartland.

And yet, throughout this pounding and the most vicious media onslaught suffered by any politician since Neil Kinnock, Nick Clegg has remained resolute, prepared to argue his case and that of the Government and not afraid to face down the Tory critics.

It has been the making of him as a leader and no one seriously believes he won't lead the Party into the 2015 election. The experience of Government at both local and national level has changed the party into a serious force which, although diminished, is more credible and is paid more attention than at any time since the 1920s.

There are for the first time in many months encouraging signs on the horizon - a couple of strong by-election wins off the Conservatives in local contests and a clutch of polls showing the ludicrous 9-10% rating of the useless daily YouGov poll to be well off the mark. MORI put the party on 15% and ICM on 17%. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats are establishing a clear identity as a modifying force to the hard-right neo-Thatcherism of the hardline Conservatives.

Far from the Coalition splitting the Liberal Democrats, I believe it is the Conservatives who will face the tough questions as 2015 approaches - will the Right try to break free or will Cameron hold his army of the frustrated and the disgruntled together and what if they fail again to achieve their goal of an overall majority and what if they do and scrape home with a majority of 1-5 seats ?

Nick Clegg still faces a deal of anger out there but he can afford himself a smile as the Party Conference season approaches.

Lockdown Lynch Mob London - Day 4

2011-08-12T17:35:00.003Z

It's been four days since there was any serious public disorder in London and as 16,000 Metropolitan Police continue to rack up the overtime patrolling the streets, there are some signs of normality tonight. The City bars seemed to be coming back to life and while a residue of tension remains, there is the very strong sense that the storm has passed for now.

On blogs such as politicalbetting the baying lynch mob continues to gloat at the destruction of lives as summary justice is meted out to those arrested following the disorder - whether stealing a bottle of water or setting a building on fire makes little difference, mercy is in short supply and our already overcrowded prisons look set to receive a new generation of students looking to get a career qualification in lifelong criminality.

Make no mistake, a moment's madness or a stupid decision to follow a crowd is going to destroy lives and blight prospects long after all this has been forgotten. The criminalising of the rioters will benefit no longer as lives are needlessly destroyed - career and educational prospects will be blighted in a disproportionate and ill-considered frenzy of lynch-mob justice which is both obscene and disturbing.

Yes, let's punish by all means but let's not criminalise.

For now, rational debate and argument are in short supply and the retributionist tiger is in full flow - one which even David Cameron is finding hard to ride as he squares up to the Police on the questions of tactics and cuts to Police budgets. Yet tonight the Police will again be out in force earning their overtime.

The deeper arguments about how we live as a society and the kind of morality we have ourselves and which we pass to our children are issues which few want to discuss at the moment. One or two have tried to claim this as a "crisis of liberalism" but it is no such thing. As the pathetic victims of their own stupidity and greed pass before us for condemnation and abuse, it appears we are looking at ourselves, a microcosm of society. They have failed and therefore we have failed them.

They are rich, poor, working-class, middle class and classless but mostly young and mostly male. Some are already saying (and doubtless tomorrow's Daily Mail will be at its sanctimonious and pompous) that the failed children are the result of failed adults, that sixty years of welfare, fifty years of permissiveness and forty years of liberal education have brought us to this point.

Yet conservatives have no answer - they hark on about romanticised values of discipline and order in some far-off time when respect was king and the beatings handed out to children by teachers, parents and other authority figures were "all part of growing up". The Church will be slammed for failing to provide moral guidance as will the BBC and underneath it all will be the insidious, nasty undercurrent of immigration.

In an evolving post-industrial society, morality cannot be imposed. I've always believed that personal morality is just that, personal. It's nothing to do with social standing or creed. Some of the most polite and courteous people I know are appalling bigots when it comes to homosexuality and abortion while others have a more generous and tolerant attitude.

We cannot turn back the clock or put the genie in the bottle. The world is a fast-changing place and we need to adapt to that and recognise that adaptation isn't easy for some. The anger toward the looters is as much an anger toward ourselves, a recognition that as a society we are not as developed as we should be or as enlightened as we can be. True liberal advances are held back by the suffocating blanket of fretful conservatism, fearful of change and anxious to avoid a radical redistribution of expectation and opportunity.

The fault, as the phrase has it, lies not in the stars but in ourselves.

What's Worse - the Riot or the Revenge ?

2011-08-10T15:34:00.003Z

The British people can be a vicious bunch at times. Apparently 32% would have been quite happy to see the looters or rioters gunned down at the weekend - David Cameron as Bashir Assad would have been laughable if it hadn't been so tragic.

The vengeful spirit of retribution abroad on blogs like politicalbetting sickens me. For all the wrong they have done and let's face it, they have done wrong, we are systematically destroying the lives of hundreds of people through the courts. Magistrates, who are either eagerly or less eagerly following the Prime Minister's edict to be harsh on rioters, are casually locking people up. E-Petitions are gathering thousands of supporters calling for benefits to be revoked, others want life sentences.

Meanwhile, the Police, enjoying public and popular support, are strutting round the streets "enforcing order" i.e: pushing people around they don't like and generally acting with the swagger of an occupying army. It's quite clear many of them wanted to "go in hard" on Saturday and Sunday nights but weren't able to. The consequences of "going in hard" would have likely meant deaths on the streets and let's not forget the death of Mark Duggan which still needs to be properly investigated and those responsible brought to book.

Unfortunately, the public are at their most vengeful and unpleasant right now. No one seems willing to listen to more rational arguments or to address the root causes of the looting nor even to consider the political and operational failures that allowed the disorder to proliferate. Instead, there is gloating at the potential destruction of lives for these people will be forever tarnished with their indiscretion. For them, employment and credit will be that much harder to obtain and their life prospects will be hugely damaged for what for most was a moment of madness.

Proportionality is or should be part of the legal system - it isn't worth destroying someone's life or propsects for a pair of trainers but that seems to be the public mood right now. One of the qualities for which the British used to be regarded was our sense of fair play - that seems to have gone up in smoke with a few shops.

Pickles makes an Ass(et) of Himself..

2011-08-07T17:45:00.002Z

Before the riots and during the worldwide meltdown of the markets, there was a curious diversion as Local Government Minister Eric Pickles authorised the release of a website map from his Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) website. The map purported to show the location and existence of property assets owned and held by local authorities.

The release of this information prompted a response of self-righteous indignation from the usual suspects bit also betrayed the gross ignorance surrounding why and how local authorities hold property. In essence, authorities have property assets for two reasons:

1)Because they have to - the property is held to enable an authority to provide the services which it is statutorily required to provide.

2)Because they want to – Councils hold property because they can derive an income or because there is substantial potential capital receipt in a future disposal in the event of planning changes.

If you take the average County Council for example, around 80-85% of the value of its assets is tied up in Schools and effectively that potential capital is out of reach. It is possible for an authority to merge two neighbouring schools on one site and dispose of the other site but the income from the sale will be used to refurbish and rebuild the combined site.

The emergence of the Academy School has been, from an asset perspective, a disaster for local authorities. As schools seek to become Academies, Head Teachers have been endeavouring to grab land around their school as they can sell that off in the future as an alternative source of income. This land is of course public land and Councils face having to give it away to Head Teachers and Academy Trusts who seem as interested in property speculation as they do the educational development of their children.

The Coalition is committed to alternative models of service delivery for local services but a library run by volunteers will still need to be maintained, repaired, heated and lit and who pays for all that – the volunteers, a local charity? In truth, getting some volunteers to hand out books is the least of the issue when it comes to providing services. Will the same hold true for Youth Centres and Adult Education? No one is suggesting volunteers will run the local Fire Service but all these properties need to be held and maintained.
Offices are a big overhead for authorities and it may well be that as Councils share back office provision, we will see a reduction in the size of their office accommodation. There is the issue of a glut of relinquished commercial property coming on to the local markets of many large towns depressing the overall value and it may be that some former Council office premises will have to remain vacant until market conditions improve.

Councils also hold property because they make money from that property – owning the Freehold of sites of car parks, shopping centres, renting out units as small business ventures – all these are sources of income. In addition, the more thoughtful and far-sighted authorities actually chose to invest in property in 2008 when prices were depressed. Acquiring cheap commercial property at a time of poor market conditions is of huge long-term benefit to any organisation and the expressions of ignorant outrage from some show just how little those who complain about local Councils actually understand how they work.

Indeed, it’s generally accepted that local authority work has done much to keep the construction industry going in the recession, preventing more people losing their jobs and the consequent draw on Government expenditure and fall in tax income. In addition, the continuing high demand for school places (completely unaddressed by proponents of free schools and Academies) mean local Councils will have to buy land to build more schools. I don’t see groups of right-minded but muddle-headed parents stumping up £1.5 million to buy a site for a new school let alone funding its construction.

No one has also explained to me what would happen IF an Academy suffered a fire and its buildings were lost – who would replace them? The local authority, the Academy Trust – as with other Government proposals, the ideological desire to improve education (entirely laudable) fails to appreciate the more practical considerations and the ideology allows public money to be squandered and public land and buildings to be given away.

Indeed, looking at a map like the one on the DCLG website serves only to increase incomprehension rather than improve and inform. Eric Pickles (the George Whitebread of this Government) also puts ideology in front of informing the public debate. Whether it’s through the use of God or the use of ideology, politicians who fail to inform the debate and pander to misconceptions and prejudice deserve to fail.

The Fantastic Four..

2011-07-21T19:26:00.002Z

As a Liberal Democrat Member in London, I received details of the runners and riders for the race to be the Mayoral Candidate in 2012. There are four runners, three of whom are known to me and an interesting outsider.

In no particular order:

Lembit Opik: - ex-MP, minor celebrity and general eccentric. Probably the best known and most recognised of the potential candidates but regarded frankly as a "joke". In a contest where every other candidate will be struggling to get a look-in next to Boris and Ken, Lembit can do it. He is the "sacrificial lamb" candidate - someone who can come a bad third while more serious candidates wait for more favourable conditions as it seems probable that NEITHER Boris nor Ken will be in the field in 2016.

Brian Paddick: I saw Brian on the Saturday evening before the 2008 Mayoral election camapigning in Soho and he cut a pretty desolate figure to be honest. A deeply intelligent and honest man, he lacks the political nous to be a candidate in this kind of media-frenzy election. He'd be the perfect candidate for a suburban council by-election.

Mike Tuffrey: long-time Councillor and GLA Member. It's a pity Caroline Pidgeon isn't in the running (she would be my ideal candidate in 2016) and he is as near to a London political presence as anyone in the field. To be honest, he looks like Lembit to me so on that basis we might as well choose Lembit. Mike is clearly the Establishment Candidate.

Brian Haley: unknown to me and the "dark horse" in evety sense but his election address reads very well. He's an ex-Labour Councillor but he sounds like a committed Liberal Democrat and would be a useful contrast to Boris and Ken.

So, how will I vote? At the moment, I'm inclined to give Haley my first preference and Lembit Opik my second preference. We may as well have a candidate who is different to Boris and Ken and with Lembit hamstrung by his own celebrity, I'm going to give Brian Haley a chance to be our candidate and articulate the messages and rise above the boring Ken/Boris double act.

Madness, Madness, they call it Madness...

2011-07-20T11:24:00.003Z

Anyone dropping into politicalbetting.com today would be convinced that aliens had infected the human race with the insanity virus. The ongoing "Hackgate" scandal has developed a life of its own and despite few new developments, it remains the main topic for conversation and what passes for debate on what used to be an enjoyable site.

Politically, there has clearly been damage to David Cameron and the Conservatives. Cameron's relationship with former News of the World Editor Andy Coulson was useful at the time - it clearly helped Cameron win the critical support of Murdoch and his newspapers and the interconnection of relationships between the top levels of Cameron's inner circle and senior members of News International played no small part in the Conservative success of 2010.

However, Coulson clearly came with a health warning and there's no doubt certain people said this at the time to David Cameron yet Cameron chose to appoint Coulson clearly because his value to him and the Conservative Party outweighed the risk.

Once in office, Coulson was abandoned but as the scandal has exploded, the judgement of Cameron in appointing Coulson and having him as close to the centre of power has been called in question. Does it seem unwise now? No, it wasn't an error of judgement as some have described - it was a calculated act designed to help the Conservatives win the election and Cameron to become Prime Minister.

Yet suppling with the Devil requires the longest of spoons and while I certainly can't see a smoking gun which will bring him down, Cameron's actions with Coulson are so reminiscent of Blair's with Bernie Ecclestone. It was the use of influence to win the reality of power.

Beyond that, we are seeing the laying-bare of a political culture which has flourished in the past 20-30 years under successive Governments based on a triangle of politicians, press and police at each apex and the flow of information in the middle.

Knowledge is power and the acquisition, manipulation and dissemination of that knowledge is central to how the modern political world operates. In the 1980s and 1990s, the influence of powerful media editors and owners, at a time when circulation figures suggested the not-inconsiderable power newspaper proprietors and their editors had on public opinion, was sought by Conservative and Labour politicians alike.

The Thatcher years were bolstered by a phalanx of supportive newspapers but once she went, the support of many of these newspapers ebbed away. David Cameron sought to rebuild that influence and win the greatest prize, the support of News International, but journalists themselves, eager to outdo each other to get exclusives to boost circulation, began to move into darker areas.

The advent of mobile phones offered a fantastic opportunity for eavesdropping and hacking on a scale previously not available. Those seeking the information were bolstered by editors and owners who saw circulation figures as being dependent on the salacious, the innuendo and the elevation (and destruction) of celebrities.

And we lapped it up and didn't care if holiday snaps or texts or phone calls were obtained but with Milly Dowler, a line was crossed.

Politicians were too close to journalists and journalists too close to those who obtained information through dubious means and elements of the Police who turned a blind eye or were actually complicit in the obtaining of this information.

The need to weed out corrupt or criminal elements in the Police and among journalists is now paramount and it is to be hoped ongoing investigations will accomplish this but the relationship between politicians and journalists and the media in general needs to be reviewed and overhauled.

It's fascinating to watch those on the Right arguing against press restrictions and claiming a "free" press would be at risk. We do not of course have a free press in this country. Media power is not derived from Government but it comes from wealth. The wealthy control the media and it is the opinions of the wealthy (who usually favour the Right) which predominate and populate. The Right rail against balance because they enjoy majority opinion - a more level playing field with a greater plurality and diversity of opinion would dilute them and weaken their political and economic leverage.

Plurality won't be easy and a balance has to be struck. A new culture needs to emerge from the wrckage of the old and relationships must change and be seen to change. A robust, diverse Press holding those in power to account is to be welcome. It did exist here once but we moved away from it. Recapturing that world won't be easy but sometimes the past is a good place to start building the future.

As for the politics, Blair was contrite when the Ecclestone/F1 story got out and still won two more elections. Nothing yet will stop Cameron winning again in 2015 but part of his aura of invincibility has been shattered and things will never be the same again.

Move Along, Nothing to see Here...

2011-07-17T19:47:00.002Z

And so Sir Paul Stephenson, Britain's most senior Police officer, is gone following Rebekah Brooks as the fallout from "Hackergate" or whatever you want to call it, continues. The increasingly irrational and febrile atmosphere on politicalbetting suggests a mood of growing crisis.

So why don't I feel that bothered?

The individuals aren't that important - the clipping of Rupert Murdoch's wings is good news for all of us who believe that democracy should be free AND fair and that elections shouldn't be at the behest of the man whose opinions come with the biggest circulation or wallet.

What we are seeing is the unravelling of a culture - a culture in which it seems journalists, police officers and politicians all co-existed, intermingled and collaborated to do down opponents and dish the dirt on celebrities and each other. The maintenance of the status quo publicum was predicated on the suppression of damaging information on some and the active character assassination of others.

As with politicians' expenses two years ago, the unmasking of this sub-culture damages all those involved - the Police are discredited, journalists discredited and politicians discredited. David Cameron, whose sole error of judgement was to realise that you needed to sup with the Devil and not be too bothered about the length of the spoon, is being dragged down by his associations.

Yet, as we fiddle, the EuroZone burns. The stress test on Friday evening may yet cause panic in the European markets tomorrow and ultimately we will be more affected by that than the weaknesses and foibles of a few and the complicity of the many.

Keeping Coul(son)...

2011-07-08T19:14:00.002Z

And so the hacking scandal or, as it is now becoming known, "Hackgate", rumbles on for another day. The Prime Minister is forced to defend his former Head of Communications, Andy Coulson, whose appointment in Opposition looks like a dreadful error of judgement though the end result was to help put Cameron in Downing Street so perhaps not such an error at all..

Meanwhile, as the tortuous goings-on at Wapping continue to unravel, the more sinister aspect to all this, that police officers may have been paid by journalists to provide information, lurks uncomfortably in the background. The reputation of journalists and politicians was already so but that of the Police looks set to be hit hard if the allegations turn out to be valid.

As for the News of the World, I still shed few tears. Yes, it has brought some murky activities to light such as the Pakistan cricket match-fixing but it has also "trapped" vulnerable individuals and its political agenda was never one I could support. In its death throes, it has gone beyond any measure of morality or decency in order to gain circulation. I can imagine the pressures put on journalists by senior people to achieve a favourable outcome for the paper but that crossed the line.

David Cameron will survive - his reputation tarnished and his judgement questionned. Labour and Ed Milliband have awkward questions to answer about how much they knew and how much they acquiesced but ultimately this is about the overweaning power of Rupert Murdoch, whose opprobium could destroy careers and whose favour could make them. To see that kind of man humbled and that kind of influence excised from the body politic will be a rare positive out of this shambles.

Goodbye News of the World..

2011-07-07T18:22:00.002Z

Politicalbetting has of course gone into meltdown following the announcement of the closure of the News of the World. As with the Sporting Life, Daily Sketch and News Chronicle, it disappears into history and to be honest there's not a lot to lose a lot of sleep over.

The cynic in me notes the considerable behind-the-scenes preparation to launch the Sun as a seven-day newspaper and one is tempted to argue all this is a giant convenient smoke screen ahead of that event.

The pro-Conservative partisans are rushing to blame the left-wing press and of course Ed Milliband and saying he should be more sympathetic for the 200 redundancies (albeit getting three months full pay first) at the newspaper. Perhaps the Right should be more sympathetic toward Shropshire County Council staff, faced with the sack unless they agree to a 5% pay cut but as always, one set of workers is more important than another when it suits.

As to how the hacking scandal will play out in the medium term, it may be that it undermines the reputation of the written media as the expenses scandal has for politicians. As to whether this scandal's victims will include people in the political sphere, time will tell. It has exposed some disgraceful practicces in areas of investigative journalism and the degree to which new technology has not only liberated its users but also its listeners.

Marking Milliband...

2011-07-07T13:38:00.002Z

While all the sad obsessives on politicalbetting.com try and get their heads and thoughts around the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, it has at least spared the rest of us having to endure their infantile posturing on the question of Labour leader, Ed Milliband. The routine and almost daily denunciation of the Labour leader has passed for the moment so it’s probably a good time for more coherent comment.

Any political party leader has a tough task – going in to the job after losing an election is doubly difficult, going into the job after losing an election following thirteen years of Government is as close to a thankless task as you can get – just ask William Hague or even Edward Heath.

Labour in 2010 was, like the Conservatives in 1997, intellectually exhausted – extended periods in power does that. Intellectual renewal in office is impossible – time for reflection and reconsideration is needed and that requires time outside the daily detritus of Government.

It takes parties who have been in Government for a long period time to acclimatise to Opposition. The Conservatives arguably took six years before they began to think seriously about returning to Government – Labour, which has more experience of Opposition and probably manages the culture of Opposition better than the Conservatives, won’t need that long but they will need some time.

Nobody is listening to Labour’s policies or ideas at the moment – the next election is the best part of four years away and there’ll be plenty of time for that later. Thinking can go on behind the scenes but what then is the principal task of Opposition? It is NOT to defend what went before – there’s no point, it’s happened. It is to hold the new Government to account for its actions and its legislation even if there isn’t much of a counter-argument present.

There is a clear schism between that section of the electorate which broadly supports “the cuts” including those who think they don’t go nearly far enough and those completely opposed to any kind of public expenditure reduction and reduction in the terms and conditions of public sector workers. There are about 40% in each camp with 20% broadly on the fence.

Now, when the TUC organised its latest round of public sector strikes, Ed Milliband, despite being sponsored by UNITE, refused to back the action. Some criticised his Blairite attempt at triangulation but I thought it was clever politics – the 40% backing the strikes have nowhere else to go politically and for the Labour leader to sound cautious and to be seen to be rising above the militants is probably good politics for the 20% of fence sitters. With Cameron looking vulnerable due to his relationships with News International, Milliband has an opportunity to sound and look Prime Ministerial and while that won’t count for much now, it stores up credit for later.

Mistakes have been made and the comparison with his brother David is going to be a problem until and unless there is reconciliation but after barely a year in the job, Ed Milliband deserves far more credit than the Conservative partisans on politicalbetting will offer. Compared with William Hague in 1998, Ed Milliband already looks like a towering political figure. One thing he will need to consider is the party’s future relationship with the Liberal Democrats. There’s no guarantee the Coalition will continue after 2015 but one way to ensure that it does would be for Labour to reject any and all dealings with the party.

The fact is Labour may not win an overall majority next time and unless enough progress is made to make a second Conservative – Liberal Democrat deal impossible, Labour might find itself winning more seats but remaining out in the cold.

Time to Reflect...

2011-06-29T13:18:00.003Z

Unlike those who feel they have to keep the world informed of every idea (or someone's else idea) that passes through their cerebellum whether by tweeting, blogging or going on to forums like Political Betting and repeating their turgid ill-considered nonsense ad nauseam, I've had nothing much to say over the past month so I've not bothered the world.

I've been on the wonderful Alternatehistory.com writing my two British political counterfactuals and engaging with a much thoughtful and interesting crowd. The Politics Forum has its share of nitwits from whom an insult is as close to a reasoned argument as they can get.

I've been trying to compose my thoughts on the Coalition - A Year On. The thing is, I can't decide what to say. It's so much a work in progress that I'm going to wait a year or so before passing judgement. There's little point trying to engage a lot of the morons in the blogsphere. This is the problem with the Internet - it may open our eyes but it doesn't open our minds.

Coming from America (Part 2)

2011-05-27T03:57:00.003Z

It's always good to go to the USA because it offers a different perspective on how world events are viewed. In America, the day-to-day meanderings of British politics hardly merit a mention and Libya is a sideshow. Even President Obama's visit to Ireland and the UK was pushed off the main headlines by the terrible events in Joplin, Missouri and elsewhere in the Midwest.

Two political stories dominated the news coverage - the first was President Obama's speech on the Middle East and his call for Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. This was an astonishing challenge and even more so given the visit by Israeli Prime Minister Binjamin Netanyahu to Washington. It's fair to say Israel has plenty of friends in high places and it's also fair to say plenty of those friendly to Israel are inherently hostile to Obama. Thus, Netanyahu was able to enjoy a particularly ingratiating interview from the odious Sean Hannity on Fox News but as we know in politics, it's always easier to make your case in the court of your friends rather than your enemies.

The sheer intractability of this issue compels all sides to think outside their narrow partisan confines. Of course, Israel has a right to exist - no one denies that and it must have borders that are internationally and regionally recognised and guaranteed. That doesn't mean it has an unalienable right to vast tracts of land based either on religious belief or on military might. A solution to the West Bank and of course the future status of Jerusalem needs leaders who are willing to face down radical elements in their own countries. The "Arab Spring" is a huge threat to Israel who was probably quite happy to see the old Arab dictators stay in power. Antagonistic dictatorships are one thing but antagonisitic regimes enjoying popular legitimacy are much harder to challnege. Reform in Cairo and above all Damascus won't make life easier for Tel Aviv but the Israelis should be the first to recognise that the Arab people have a right to political reform and freedom.

Obama is probably right in saying that a return to pre-1967 borders is a good starting point but Netanyahu, who governs with the support of extreme Orthodox parties committing to building Jewish settlemtns on the West Bank, has little room for manoeuvre. The fate of Rabin shows how extreme elements in Israeli society manage any notion of betrayal.

Ultimately, political and economic investment in post-dictatorial Arab states is the long-term answer. Prosperous states are more inclined to keep the peace than unstable ones and I fail to understand why the oil-rich Arab states have consistently failed to invest in their neighbours. Having a brutally poor Gaza or West Bank close to the unimaginable wealth of Saudi Arabia or Bahrain makes no sense.

Obama is right to keep the pressure on Israel but the solution resides not in forcing Israel to accept change but in inspiring the Arab world to lead change and create an economic, political and social stability that would in itself be a far greater guarantor for peace in the region than any pieces of paper of UN resolutions.

The second item of poilitical interest was the state of the 2012 Presidential contest on the Republican side. After the GOP's strong performance in the 2010 midterms and with Obams atruggling to make an impact, it seemed possible the Republicans had a real shot at unseating an incumbent Democrat much as they had done in 1980.

However, the death of Bin Laden gave Obama a huge boost and he has been further aided by the implosion of the Republicans who have got bogged down on arguing about managing the colossal US debt issue and threatening to being the Government to a halt in early August. The ludicrous Donald Trump caught the eye of Fox News but proved himself to be a master of spin rather than substance. Mike Huckabee has decided he can't win the nomination and in a more serious blow, Indian Governor Mitch Daniels announced he wouldn't run. It seems likely his wife was opposed to a Presidential bid.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich entered the race but shot himself in both feet by publically criticising the Republican budget plans put forward by the increasingly influential Paul Ryan. The internal GOP backlash has more or less killed his campaign.

So, who's left? While I was in Vegas, Mitt Romney held a huge fundraising rally at the Venetian/Palazzo Hotel and raised some $10 million in a single day. He's a likely front runner, has considerable GOP establishment support, has already put forward a health plan in Massachusetts which is almost the same as the current Obama plan so vilified by the pro-GOP media and has all the charisma of a cup of cold tea.

Tim Pawlenty has joined the race as has some loudmouth called Herman Cain while the Tea Party faction has to decide between Michelle Bachmann and the reticent Sarah Palin. Chris Christie has ruled himself out and cost me £20 in the process.

My guess is Romney will win the GOP nomination but will be forced to either have a Tea Party running mate (Bachmann ?) or be compelled to accept a number of Tea Party policies on the GOP programme which will be torn to shreds by the powerful Obama machine which is already hoovering up vast sums for the re-election camapign.

Some GOP pundits on Fox and elsewhere are talking tough but this isn't 1979 and there is no Reagan or Nixon in the wings. The GOP field looks weak and fragmented - the conservatives will struggle to unite behind Romney, Pawlenty doesn't look up to it and Bachmnann will be the "Goldwater" option - a candidate likely to win the party activists but lose the country.

Obama isn't home and dry of course - a major foreign or doestic reversal could yet give the GOP candidate an opportunity - but a fudged resolution to the budget and a reasonable economic recovery look to be the keys that will unlock the door for a second term for Barack Obama. The interesting question is whether Joe Biden will stay as VP or whether we will begin to see the 2016 Democrat field take shape. As we saw in 2008, a field without an incumbent President or Vice-President offers all sorts of possibilities on both sides but that's a long way off.

Coming from America (part 1)

2011-05-27T03:27:00.002Z

I've just got back from a ten day break to the United States with Mrs Stodge and most enjoyable Las Vegas was once again. It's my kind of place - relaxing and invigorating at the same time though it's not to everyone's taste. Nor do I think that it in any way "represents" the "real" America though plenty of real Americans live and visit.

As always, there is the paradox of enormous wealth sitting cheek-by-jowl with enormous poverty. You don't need to go too far from the Strip to see that all is not well with Las Vegas and indeed even on the Strip itself, the incomplete Fontainebleau and Echelon sites as well as the closure of the famous Sahara Hotel on May 16th illustrate that the big gaming operators see the future in Macau and Singapore, not Vegas. Behind the Strip lie unfinished or empty estates and large numbers of foreclosure sales, the fallout of the economic implosion of 2007-09 and the bursting of the Veagas property/asset bubble.

I'm convinced that I've seen the best of Vegas and that the resort is now in a period of decline - the issue of water supply lurks on the horizon and while the weekend visitors will still come, the Convention numbers are weak and the big players, you sense, are already moving off to South-East Asia where Macau, for example, reminds me of what Vegas was in its early pioneer days rather than the bloated haven it is now. Yes, the food in Vegas is fantastic and the place is sill wonderful for those seeking large-scale luxury and small-scale gambling but it's a city that ride the asset boom and crashed big time and I suspect the monuments to that ruination will be rusting on the Strip for decades to come.

Royal Wedding - Are We Bovvered?

2011-04-29T18:08:00.002Z

Well, today's been the day. William has married Kate and they are now the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and over on politicalbetting the tired old zombies of the Right are claiming the patriotic moral high ground from the Left.

Ho hum..

It would be easy to assume from the cheering crowds that the Monarchy have recovered their pre-eminent status in the public affections but as I walked down East Ham High Street with the shoppers this morning, I had the very real sense of a disconnection between the events in Westminster Abbey and the events in my High Street.

The intellectually lazy (which is usually but not exclusively the preserve of the Right) argument has been that if you don't love, worship or genuflect in the presence of the Royal Family, you're some rabid republican but it's more complex than that. I suspect the majority of the British people chose to ignore today's events - yes, they enjoyed the Bank Holiday (we all work far too hard as it is) but that didn't translate into a desire for celebration or the dreaded "street party".

Indeed, the false bonhomie of the ads and media has been even more nauseating than usual of late - for big business, the wedding is indeed a cause for celebration as they seek to wring more money out of consumers while the wedding is used by Government as an instrument of social control and conformity.

I ignored the wedding, not because I'm a republican or because I don't wish William and Kate well but because I have better things to do with my precious free time than participate in some Government-directed show of national celebration. We still live in a free country and if I choose to ignore the royal nuptials, so be it. I'm not a fan of the Monarchy and would shed no tears if they disappeared tomorrow but I recognise the role they play in the nation and around the world.

I would have liked William to have chosen a career other than the military - I suspect he doesn't have the mental faculties to cut it in a proper job so he gets put in the army with people like himself which is again regrettable but inevitable. I also suspect Kate set her sights on William from an early stage and has put up with more from him than she would have from another boyfriend - I'm reminded of the classic question "what first attracted you to the multi-billionaire Hugh Hefner?". I may be wrong but she strikes me as being little different from the girls and women who pursue footballers around the clubs of Mayfair.

The problems of the rest of the world go on - Syria, Libya and of course the tornadoes in the US as well as our own domestic challenges - and we do them a disservice by concentrating so much on this relatively trivial event. I am convinced Govenrments use events like this as a deliberate ploy to draw attention away from the real and much less pleasant and much more intractable problems confronting us.

Nonetheless. I can but hope ny cynicism is misplaced. We are not the people we were in 1981 and we have seen the fairytale turn sour and end in tragedy. I don't get the same sense of unreality about today but I do think the supporters of Monarchy need to appreciate their support is a mile wide and an inch deep and while that doesn't mean the cause of republicanism has serious traction, it does mean the deference to the Royal Family is largely gone (that may be no bad thing).

Most people don't care - their own lives will always come best however much they my occasionally look at the castle on the hill and wonder about the people living there.

One Cheer on the Economy...

2011-04-27T15:56:00.003Z

As the numbskulls aho now proliferate walkingdead.com (or politicalbetting as it used to be called) get tied up in knots about a comment from David Cameron and the pros and (to them) mostly cons of AV, the first quarter early GDP figures were announced.

As expected, they showed the economy grew in the first quarter but by a disappointing 0.5% which means, when combined with the -0.5% figure from the fourth quarter of 2010, that the economy has been flat for the past six months with no growth at all.

The first caveat is that this is a first figure and will doubtless be revised up or down slightly as more data becomes available but it's a mildly disappointing number for the Coalition which must have hoped for perhaps 0.7 or 0.8%. At 0.5%, we are looking at annual growth of 2% which is pretty mediocre to be honest and when mixed with rising inflation, has allowed the prophets of stagflation to have a field day.

The figures also show wide disparities in the economy with some sectors doing well and others still struggling. Construction still seems in the doldrums and retail sales are unsurprisingly flat but manufacturing and services have rebounded.

Today's figures will likely mean a continuing hold for interest rates and defers what seems set to be the next delicate balancing act. As the economy recovers, there will be huge pressure to raise interest rates but that runs the risk of stopping that economic recovery in its tracks as households (and especially those which have done well out of the recession through lower mortgage payments) rein in spending.

Politically, Ed Balls was at his ascerbic best in interviews and claimed the Coalition was cutting too far too fast but the Government has two cards to play - one is time, it doesn't need to seek a new mandate until 2015 and the second is the possibility of windfall profits from the sale of shares in RBS, Lloyds TSB and other banks which could be used either to offset the deficit or possibly as ammunition for pre-election tax cuts.

This was always going to be the nadir, the depths of the pit, for the Coalition and rock bottom will be reached next week after the elections but from then on, the signs do look better and as the saying goes, it is always darkest before the dawn.

I suspect Q1 figures will be revised upward and Q2 will show steady if unspectacular growth continuing with borrowing slowly falling.

KIlling Off the Coalition?

2011-04-25T15:25:00.002Z

The usual predictable drivel masquerading as comment on politicalbetting this afternoon but little surprise as the forces opposed to the Coalition must now realise their optimum moment to derail the Cameron/Clegg project is at hand.

The anti-Coalition forces on both Left (Polly Toynbee) and Right (the odious Tim Montgomerie) have penned vacuous articles claiming the defeat of the AV referendum offers David Cameron a golden opportunity to cut and run from the Coalition and call a General Election which would see the Liberal Democrats trounced and the Conservatives returned with an overall majority thus enabling them, as the Montgomeries of this world would see it, to govern as "true Conservatives" i.e: Thatcherites.

The anti-Coalition forces also know if the Coalition survives the AV referendum and the likely "No" vote, it will likely survive almost anything and probably endure until 2015. The anti-Coalition forces on the Conservative side have showed their own brand of duplicity and treachery by seizing on the slightest Liberal Democrat sign of discontent while ignoring the appalling literature of the Tory-supported "No" campaign. At least, the Labour side are being merely opportunistic as they think an election can be won if the Coalition collapses in acrimony.

For both these dubious fellow travellers, all that matters is the restoration of the power political duopoly which the Coalition has threatened and upset.

Posturing aside, have the anti-Coalition forces called this right? IF David Cameron voluntarily abandoned the Coalition, what then? Would he seek to continue leading a minority administration or would he go to the country to seek a full mandate? The anti-Coalition right-whingers want another election because they think they can win a majority but what if they don't?

Any chance of a renewed Conservative-Liberal Democrat partnership would be shattered by the rank duplicity of David Cameron which would leave the Liberal Democrats (possibly under a different leader) more amenable to Labour overtures. In any case, who would ever trust the Conservatives and their leader again?

The stakes are high and the next fortnight will be very difficult for the Coalition but I am always reminded that if the likes of Tim Montgomerie and Polly Toynbee think something should happen and is a good idea it's a better bet it isn't and it shouldn't.

Perception on Politicalbetting...

2011-04-23T14:01:00.002Z

An interesting contribution this morning from David Herdson, a rarity on politicalbetting these days, a thoughtful and coherent Conbservative. His subject is the Tory poll number which, in most polls, is similar or slightly higher to the Conservative performance in 2010. It's worth mentioning of course that the recent ICM had the Conservatives at 35% compared with the 38-40% shown in other polls.

David's analysis splits the reason for continuing high Conservative poll numbers is threefold: first is the "Honeymoon Period". I don't think David has this quite right. The Conservative shares fell below 30% in 1981-82 and in 1985-86 but recovered substantially to win elections. To argue that the Conservatives didn't really lose support until 1993 isn't quite right.

I think we can argue that the "softness" of the Lib Dem vote has meant that a significant portion was lost quickly (perhaps half, certainly more than a third). The experience of the 1979-97 period suggests the fallback in Conservative numbers doesn't begin until the second year of the Government so I think next year will be worse for the Tories than this year. The key is whether the loss in support can be recovered by 2015 - previous evicence suggests it will and the mid-term fall off is a "protest" which, with the Liberal Democrats in Government, might go to UKIP.

The second point in a way reinforces the first and is about the impact of public spending cuts. David argues accurately that expenditure cuts haven't hit yet but protests against them are developing whether it be the fight to save the local library or anger against perceived "perks" in the public sector. Again, we can argue from past experience that whereas "positive" developments (tax cuts) can have an immediate impact on poll numbers, "negative" news can take longer to filter through. We see petrol now at all-time high prices (132.9p per litre at my local Tesco's) yet the political fallout hasn't been that sharp as yet. By this time next year, and especially if a second round of cuts looks likely, things may look different. It's a difficult one to argue but I think people will accept short-term privations in exchange for a better future but if the better future keeps receding, that sense of willingness to accept privation may well recede with it.

The final point is arguably the most interesting - that the Conservative constituency has been won over by the argument that "something has to be done" about the deficit and that the consequences of inaction would be disastrous. They are forced to the Coalition because Labour appears, at least under Ed Milliband, to reject the notion that the deficit needs to be tackled (or at least pro-Conservative propaganda suggests that). When Ed Milliband spoke to the TUC rally at the end of March, he reinforced the perception that Labour stood against the cuts and against tackling the deficit - a big strategic mistake.

I'm interested in this part of David's analysis because it shows how much there is still to play for. David suggests that were Labour to accept the Conservative analysis that the deficit problem needs to be tackled, they would be back in the game and it's hard not to argue. Tony Blair's greatest achievement was to persuade a significant portion of the British electorate in 1997 that Labour was no longer a socialist party but a progressive party of the centre or centre-left and it was a party against which millions of Conservatives felt unable to vote.

There is an opportunity for the Liberal Democrats too and some deft repositioning for Nick Clegg which could pay huge dividends. No one doubts that the Liberal Democrats understand and support the need to bring the deficit under control but the Liberal Democrat role is as much to mitigate the excesses of the most austere of the Conservatives as much as to counter the Labour argument of inertia. David Herdson argues that the majority of the "Cameron Coalition" aren't in favour of draconian cuts either but support a measured and appropriate response which curbs the perecived excesses of the public sector but doesn't denude public services which would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

This "middleway" (or third-way) approach looks like the sensible approach but will it achieve the end of bringing down the deficit? Yes, but probably not as quickly as George Osborne or some others would like but the key point is that while there may be an appetite for curbing the excesses of the public sector, there is no appetite for viundictive service reductions.

IF Labour can move to a position of being seen to be managing the process of deficit reduction and public service reform better (ie: more fairly) then the Conservatives, it will provide them with a huge opportunity to regain the political initiative by 2015 but, as so often happens to parties going into Opposition after long periods in Government, it takes the message that the body is moving in the wrong direction a long time to reach the brain.

It's tempting to fight yesterday's battles and defend yesterday's record but politics is about present and future far more than the past.

"No" to AV - so what?

2011-04-20T08:52:00.003Z

The anti-Coalition majority on politicalbetting.com are in triumphalist mode at present as successive ICM and YouGov polls suggest the referendum on the voting system on May 5th is going to result in a decisive rejection of the Alternate Vote (AV) system and the retention of the First Past the Post (FPTP) system by some 58% to 42%.

As I suggested in an earlier piece, the rejection is being led by the elderly who, the polls, suggest, are likely to vote at least 3-1 against AV.

Mike Smithson suggests the AV campaign has failed to get its message across but I think that's half the story. At a time of uncertainty and in difficult economic times, people are insecure, defensive and fearful of any change. The response to any proposal to close a library and the outcry against proposals to transfer forests to private hands suggests an almost pathologiocal desire to keep the ststus quo even if the arguments for change are overwhelming. Through low interest rates, the elderly have suffered badly from the recession and a defensive, insecure and worried electorate are always going to be resistant to change and open to suggestions on cost and impact that would otherwise be ignored.

Nick Clegg got the referendum but misjudged how unwilling a worried public might be to accept any sort of change. Had such a referendum been held in 1997, I think it would have carried. In better times, people will be willing to accept change, in bad times, they won't.

The anti-Coalition Right are already proclaiming the "No" vote a slap in the face for Nick Clegg and the death-knell of the Coalition while commentators like the odious Iain Martin in the Daily Mail are only too happy to kick Nick Clegg and berate David Cameron for not being conservative enough.

Such simplistic analysis misses the point which is no more than I would suspect from such weak thinkers. The truth is that most Liberal Democrats are not supporters of AV, the party has long backed STV and I suspect many Liberal Democrats are as opposed to AV as they are to FPTP. This won't help Nick Clegg in the short-term but with the distraction of AV removed, it will enable the party to rally decisively around STV as the only viable option,

Indeed, future dealings with both the Conservative and Labour parties can now be underpinned by a desire to introduce STV which is a much more attractive and sellable option than AV or like-minded options. It's fair to say that the other two parties only support FPTP because they believe they can win absolute majorities unsing it. When one of the parties realises they can't win under FPTP, they'll drop it like the hottest of potatoes.

The second important consequence of a "No" vote is that it will take away the distraction of voting systems and allow the Liberal Democrats to get on with the business of Government and there's more than enough to be getting on with in that regard. Questions about the intervention in Libya and the strength of the economy remain and need to be tackled.

There's nothing much for Liberal Democrats to be worried about from a "No" vote on May 5th though the Council election results (as well as the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections) the same day are likely to be poor. Removing the distraction of AV doesn't end the process of electoral reform and STV will be on the table in any future Coalition. The priority is for the Liberal Democrat proposals to be enacted and for the country to be a better place by 2015. A good start has been made.

AV - What's Your Position?

2011-04-17T18:27:00.002Z

Let's get to the point - the AV referendum isn't about electoral systems - it's about sex because HOW your vote says a lot about the kind of sexual society you live in and how guilty/repressed/free when it comes to sex.

First Past The Post: This is the option for those who feel guilty or repressed about sex. It's quick, you soon know the outcome and you don't have to worry about it again for four or five years.

It's all safe, monogamous and uncomplicated.

Alternative Vote: This is the system for the more adventurous. You get to choose not only your partner but your fantasy gets a go as you get to choose who else you want to be with.

You can rank them in terms of performance and you win whether your first choice wins or your second choice. It's the system for the flirt, the risk-taker, the person who wants to appear respectable but deep down likes a bit of sleaze.

Single Transferrable Vote: For the sexually liberated society, this is the system for you. Plenty of partners, plenty for choice, choose one or choose all and the good thing is, you get to have plenty of tries because STV means plenty of elections and plenty of votes.

So, it's FPTP for the sexually repressed, AV for the guilty and STV for the liberated swinger.

Immigration - the Elephant in the Room..

2011-04-14T12:35:00.003Z

Over 500 responses to a thread on politicalbetting.com and I thought soething important and significant had occurred.

Er, no - David Cameron made a speech on immigration and Vince Cable didn't like the tone. Suddenly, the air is full of splits, recriminations and those opposed to the Coalition, both on the Labour side and within the Conservative side, are seeking to exploit and amplify this for their own ends and agendas.

In politics, t'was ever thus...

Immigration goes beyond statistics and quotas - in many ways, it's about individual perceptions which can be influenced by the media or personal experience. A bad word here, an ill-considered gesture there and a lifetime of prejudice and misconception can be created.

There are those who genuinely believe that immigration threatens our way of life and it must be resisted. There are others who simply don't like people whose skin colour is different - there are others who don't understand or want to be around cultures and lifestyles other than their own. These people are often branded "racist" - I prefer to call them "frightened". That fear manifests itself in aggression toward non-indigenous people and support for political parties which support the "defence" of native cultures and people. Stopping immigrants coming in to areas or countries is seen as a defensive mechanism to preserve the indigenous culture and way of life.

Of course, there is a form of economic apartheid concerning immigration - immigrants tend to have little and will work for less so they gravitate to the poorer areas and create ghettoes. Over time, as they become prosperous and integrate more, they gravitate to other areas where they often face greater hostility than they are used to.

Britain has grown on waves of immigration and emigration from the Huguenots coming here to convicts leaving for Australia. British culture and society has been influenced and has evolved as a result of these movements but the pace of immigration has increased over the past thirty or forty years given the legacy of Empire and the ending of the division of Europe.

I live in East Ham in East London which is about as cosmopolitan as it gets. You don't hear English on the streets that often but it is the lingua franca and the children use it to talk to each other. Cultures of all kinds co-exist yet there is an underside to the immigrant dream as the groups of Lithauanians waiting every morning outside the tube station at 7.30am for a ride in a van to a farm or a building site to work will testify.

Yet, the money they earn gives them a standard of life and opportunities that are only provided by a dynamic city like London and we need them to do the jobs we won't do for the money we won't accept. It was true in the 1950s when we brought over Afro-Caribbeans to drive the buses, sweep the streets and do a range of other menial jobs that the indigenous British were no longer prepared to do for the money available.

The truth is that every period of sustained economic growth since 1945 (and indeed before) has been predicated on the availability of cheap labour to do menial tasks for long hours at low wages which enables the price of products and services to be kept affordably low so they are bought or used by more people. The periods of "bust" coincide with waves of anti-immigrant feeling and concern over immigration - it happened in the 1970s and is happening now. The whole debate about immigration would be pushed to the margins if economic growth is restored but that's not where we are now.

This is the paradox of immigration - it makes the good times but is a problem in the bad times. We want people to come to this country, to work and to spend but not be part of us and for some the preservation of "Britishness" is akin to a fly preserved in amber whereas British society has been successful because it has evolved.

Stagnant societies are doomed - societies which are unwilling or unable to embrace a changing world and changing ways are doomed. Yes, immigration and its demands on services can be managed better but we won't preserve our culture or way of life by hauling up the drawbridge. Britain brought so much to the rest of the world - it's a shame we seem no longer to want what the world can offer us.

Things I Hate About Summer...

2011-04-07T19:58:00.005Z

To be honest, it's hard not to enjoy warm and sunny weather. However, it has brought the first indications of the misery that a fine summer brings to those of us unfortunte enough to have to enjoy "summer in the city".

1) The "Open Window" Orchestra - as soon as the weather gets warm, we get home and car windows thrown open to the world and regrettably that usually means horrible bass-loaded rap music, often in languages other than English, blaring into the atmosphere. It's strange that individuals who like to throw the word "respect" around seem to have a lot of difficulty comprehending it.

2) Hayfever Hell - thanks to the cold winter of 2009-10, it wasn't too bad a hayfever season for me last year but this year I've not been so lucky. My allergy isn't so much to pollen but as to pollen mixed with pollution but as pollution is now prevalent everywhere, there's very little escape.

3) Motor Vehicle Mayhem - As soon as it gets warm, out come the motor bikes and quad bikes and any bit of spare ground or footpath becomes a racetrack for these cretins who have no conception of the noise they produce or the misery they create for others who would simply like to enjoy the warm weather in peace and quiet.

4) Clothing Atrocities - it's bad enough men thinking showing their Calvin Klein underwear is the height of fashion but once summer comes, both men and women think bare flesh is de rigeur. Most people shouldn't wear shorts and especially short shorts. In many instances, it's either like looking at last week's chicken or something worse - the advice to cover up shouldn't just be to protect against sunburn.

5) Sporting Patriotism - for 50 weeks of the year, we ignore tennis. Along comes Wimbledon and everyone's an expert. Once it was "Tiger" Tim Henman, now it's Andy Murray who is British when he wins and Scottish when he loses. It's not quite as bad as following English football at tournaments like the World Cup or European Championships but in the summer our objectivity goes out of the window, we become gormless patriots and forget how lucky we are to having sporting legends such as Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer gracing our shores.

Fortunately, it looks as though it will be more unsettled and cooler next week so summer will be postponed for a little while yet with any luck.

The Tyranny of the Mature...

2011-04-07T19:18:00.004Z

The author and playwright Michael Frayn was famously asked in 1974 who he was going to vote for in the General Election. He said Labour because, as he put it, "was going to protect the unfortunate from the tyranny of the fortunate".

This paraphrasing and juxtaposing of Bertrand Russell's famous comment on the nature of capitalism came back to me the other day when looking at the polling of the AV referendum and other polling data provided by Mike Smithson on politicalbetting.com. This data also informs the Coalition Government and its policies far more than is generally known.

Last May, it was the so-called "grey vote" which won the election for the Conservatives or rather lost it for Labour. The 65+ age group voted Tory by a big majority and this age group was also over-represented in terms of turnout. Anyone who has been in politics for any length of time will know the truism that the elderly tend to vote and they tend to vote Tory. Research by Ipsos-Mori shows the 65+ age group voted 44% Tory, 31% Labour and 16% Liberal Democrat but 76% of them voted compared with just 44% of 18-24 year olds and 65% overall.

Thus, the older voters voted in numbers and voted Conservative and that's why David Cameron did as well as he did and he knows that - the Coalition's policy agenda since May 2010 has been predicated on NOT upsetting the elderly so pensions have been improved and the elderly have arguably been protected from the worst of the cuts.

In the AV referendum, it seems a similar schism is developing - the "No" campaign has its strongest support among older people while the "Yes" campaign is strongest among the young. It's little wonder the bulk of the Tories identify with the elderly and support a "No" vote.

I find the prospect of a demographic conservative block against reform deeply worrying and depressing and I also consider the pro-elderly policies of the Coalition wrong. We were once told that "we were all in this together" but the detail of the economic policies suggests that isn't always the case.

Nonetheless, reform-minded politicians in all parties have to work out how they will sell a message of change to a deeply conservative yet motivated section of the electorate. Resolving that challenge will be a major factor in the emergence of a coherent response to Cameron's "liberal conservatism".

To constantly reject and demotivate the legitimate aspirations of the younger age groups is also unwise and risks undermining the political process. Occasionally, democratic societies need to put aside inherent conservative tendencies and embrace reform and change.

On May 5th, I will be voting "Yes" to protect the immature from the tyranny of the mature.

Sinking into the Libyan Quagmire...

2011-03-29T19:34:00.006Z

I'll comment on the Budget soon but I'm so excited about a 1p cut in fuel duty I can barely think straight. Anyway, in Libya, events have moved pretty much as I thought they would a week or so ago. After a few days of airstrikes, a British-led assault on Gaddafi's forces near Adjabiya led to a general pursuit of retreating pro-Gaddafi forces round the Gulf of Sirte coastline.

For a moment over the weekend, it seemed possible the rebel advance might go all the way to Sirte and yesterday morning, the rebels claimed improbably Sirte's capture. Sirte is Gaddafi's birthplace and a powerbase of his support and while there had been a withdrawal of sorts on Sunday evening, the Gaddafi forces were able to halt the rebel advance well to the east of Sirte and even throw it back to Bin Jawaad earlier today.

None of this suggests a Gaddafi army on the point of collapse or a rebel force capable of achieving operational success on the ground without significant air interdiction from NATO forces.

And that's the problem...

Resolution 1973 allows for air strikes to protect civilians from Gaddafi's forces and that's fair enough and can be used to justify for example airstrikes on Gaddafi's armour around Misratah and the implementation of the no-fly zone has clearly helped the rebels withstand the Gaddafi regime's attacks. However, the Resolution doesn't allow for airstrikes to actively assist the rebel advance where there are no civilians involved so that would seem to preclude an attack on the Gaddafi positions facing the rebels west of Bin Jawaad in the open desert.

With the rebels seemingly unable to threaten Sirte though secure to the east and the Gaddafi regime holding firm in Tripoli but unable to recapture the ground lost to the rebels, there is every chance of a prolonged stalemate and de facto division of the country. It is that prospect which must be troubling David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and other NATO leaders while a US intelligence report tonight suggesting there were "flickers" of Al Qaeda and Hizbollah presence among the rebels has got conservatives in the US spooked.

The disingenuous nature of the Republican and conservative position on Libya is quite breathtaking. Hostile as they have been to Gaddafi over the years, it now seems American conservatives are simply trying to oppose anything and everything President Obama does. There are notable exceptions such as John McCain but Libya has shown the total inadequacy of the Republicans in particular and US conservatives in general.

That's not to say NATO and the other partners don't have some tough questions to confront in the days ahead. No one wants to see Libya degenerate into another Somalia and with turmoil growing in the hugely-important state of Syria, the impetus behind regime change and the opportunity such change offers for the entire region cannot be overlooked. It may be that Resolution 1973 will have to be bent a little in the hours and days ahead but the overall possibility of evicting Gaddafi and possibility dismantling the Syrian Ba'athists would pay such huge dividends for the region and the world that it may be a risk worth taking.

Of Revolutions and Realpolitik. (Part 3)

2011-03-21T11:13:00.002Z

So, less than a year after beoming Prime Minister, David Cameron gets a go at some gravitas - it's foreign adventure (or misadventure) time as the man who derided both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for the Iraq imbroglio, decides it's time for a spot of liberal interventionism in Libya.

It was real "nick of time" (sorry, Mr Clegg) stuff as had intervention been delayed another 48 hours, it seems probable the pro-Gaddafi forces would have captured Benghazi and the rebellion would have been on the cusp of disintegration.

The neutralising of Libya's air defence capability was significant, the destruction of tanks and military vehicles on the outskirts of Benghazi far more so and according to Al-Jazeera this morning, the rebels have regained over 100 miles of territory securing Benghazi and with real prospects of recapturing Brega and Ras Lanuf. Unfortunately, there seems little information coming out of Misrata in the west which Libyan tanks were believed to have entered over the weekend.

The Gaddafi Government has played a deft hand with misinformation, disinformation and methods such as a ceasefire in an attempt to wrongfoot and divide its opponents and the Secretary of the Arab League didn't help with his intervention yesterday (though that may be as much for internal Egyptian consumption as it is for the international audience).

This is all fine - the immediate threat to the rebellion in Cyrenaica (as the eastern part of Libya was known in Roman and Ottoman times) has been limited and the rebels are free to advance westward without having to contend with airstrikes, artillery and tanks.

That doesn't mean they will stroll down the coast to Tripoli by any means. Sirte is a Gaddafi stronghold as is the region around Tripoli itself and while some towns further west have also joined the revolt, there seems plenty of evidence of ongoing support for Gaddafi though a lot of this is clearly orchestrated and it's more than likely the vast majority of Tripoli residents will also cheer if Gaddafi and his cronies were to be defeated.

That doesn't look likely soon and the coalition of countries ranged against Gaddafi must be acutely aware of the Iraq experience. Some on politicalbetting and other forums have claimed the US had no plan for Iraq after Saddam - this is wrong. There was a plan, there was even a putative leader, an Iraqi exile, but the problem was no one in Iraq knew who he was and he had mnassively overestimated his support in Iraq. The post-Saddam vacumn was, as we know, filled by elements with varying and different agendas and the legacy of that misjudgement was years of violence not only for the invading armies but largely for the Iraqi people.

Trying to put together a stable Libya post-Gaddafi doesn't look easy. He has been in power over 40 years and the roots of his authority are deep within Libyan tribal society. For the majority of Libyans, he is the only leader they have ever known and concepts of democracy and pluralist politics are totally alien to most in what is a country dominated by young people. That said, I'm sure with time Libyan society can and will evolve but there is no viable alternative political or governmental structure in place to supplant Gaddafi.

It may be that a successful rebel advance will encourage some elements who have always supported Gaddafi to abandon him and seek whatever accommodation they can with the opposition while the hated mercenaries will doubtless flee back to Niger, Chad or wherever.

That must be the best-case scenario - the alternative is the de facto division of the country and a protracted struggle against a resilient despot determined to stand his ground. We have intervened to save lives in eastern Libya - we have to ensure we don't simply move the bloodletting a few hundred miles west.

Bad Night in Barnsley...but for Who ?

2011-03-05T21:30:00.004Z

Those elements of the media and the blogsphere who have nothing but an irrational dislike bordering on hatred for the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg have had a field day in the past 48 hours since the declaration of the Barnsley Central by-election.

Let's be honest, finishing sixth in a by-election is nothing of which to be proud though it happened to the Liberal Democrats in Hamilton South back in 1999. It didn't end the party then and this result won't either. The world is of course a different place - back then, the Liberal Democrats had 46 seats and Labour had 419. It didn't matter.

Now, the Liberal Democrats are in Government and there to be kicked the same way the Party used to kick both the Conservative and Labour parties before the Coalition.

The loathing for Clegg on the left and from the anti-Coalition Right is as tedious as it is vacuous - the former are angry because the Lib Dems had the audacity NOT to go into Government with Labour while the latter believe the Coalition is destroying their beloved Right-wing unpleasant unelectable Conservative Party by dragging it to some (as they see it) mushy soft liberal centre.

One of the Coalition parties has done badly and has been lambasted but what of the other partner ? The Conservatives didn't do well in Oldham East & Saddleworth but that could be excused. This was a much more worrying and disturbing result for them as UKIP has threatened to do what no other party has been able to do and establish itself as a serious and credible rival on the Right or centre-Right flank. Indeed, many of UKIP's leading activists and supporters are or were former Conservatives.

However, while it might be possible to argue that UKIP could be a potent challenger in a Conservative-held seat, it seemed much less so in a seat like Barnsley. The answer is that UKIP has become what the Liberal Democrats were - a repository for protest voters who cannot stomach voting for the main opposition party, in this case, Labour. The salient lesson from this is that those protest voters usually returned back to the "home" party at a General Election.

If UKIP is destined to become nothing more than a place of protest for disillusioned ex-Tories and ex-Liberal Democrats, then the other parties have little or nothing to worry about. The real threat to the Conservatives would be for UKIP to establish itself as more conservative than the Conservatives and that just doesn't mean being more Eurosceptic than David Cameron but also being more severe on public spending and more in favour of tax cuts as well as adopting more socially conservative positions. This could lose them support from disaffected Lib Dems but that would be more than compensated by the threat they would pose to David Cameron.

Barnsley has little short-term or even long-term significance as it stands. The battered Conservatives and Liberal Democrats know that IF the Coalition is seen to have delivered economic and social renewal by 2015, both parties will be rewarded. Labour must also know that making hay in this kind of environment is easy - the test will come when it has to prevent itself as an alternative Government.

For UKIP, the question is whether it wants to achieve short-term success by being the new "party of protest" safe in the knowledge that will mean long-term failure or whether it will see the opportunity to establish itself as a potent challenger on the Right and centre-Right. Were that strategy to be successful, the potential dividends could be enormous.

Of Revolutions and Realpolitik. (Part 2)

2011-03-02T10:40:00.002Z

The more I think about the situation in Libya in the past 36 hours, the more I think we are seeing a repeat of events in Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991. Back then, the Iraqi Shi'a and the marsh Arabs, who lived in the south of Iraq, along with the Kurds, who lived in the north, rose in revolt on the presumption, backed by radio broadcasts from the US, that American troops would intervene in support.

That didn't happen and Saddam Hussein was able to rally his forces and attack the rebels from the air using helicopter gunships, unmolested by allied forces. The retribution was savage - thousands were killed and the marsh Arabs saw their ancient homeland drained and destroyed.

It would be many years before Saddam was finally removed and the legacy of that failure left a bitter taste in the south of Iraq and undoubtedly contributed to the problems faced by British forces in Basra which turned out to be a less than glorious episode.

The failure to intervene in support of the Iraqi rebels in the spring of 1991 was caused by a number of factors - the Arab nations who were willing to support and be part of the liberation of Kuwait as backed by the UN were not prepared to intervene and overhrow Saddam Hussein, for which there was no UN mandate.

However, there was a second crucial calculation. The West, though initially supportive, backed away from the rebels when it became clear Saddam would not be toppled. Paradoxically, the West came to believe that a coherent whole Iraq under Saddam Hussein's repression was a better option in terms of regional stability than a fragmented country with ongoing violence.

In addition, the West and neighbouring countries came to have serious issues with the Iraqi rebels. The northern Kurdish rebels would, if successful, have encouraged Kurdish minorities in Turkey, Syria and elsewhere to rise up safe in the knowledge Iraqi Kurdistan would be a base to which the rebels from other countries could retreat, regroup and organise.

The Shi'a rebels in the south were considered too close to Iran and if there was one thing feared by the US more than Saddam Hussein running Iraq, it was a pro-Iranian Government running the oil installations of Basra and Abajan.

In the end, the rebels weren't the right sort of rebels and they were abandoned.

Now, in Libya, we have a similar situation. Gaddafi has been driven from the east and other parts of Libya - Benghazi and Tobruk and other major towns are unde rebel control but Gaddafi remains entrenched in Tripoli. Oil production has been interrupted with a consequent rise in world oil prices and the equally not-insignificant concerns nfor the fledgling and weak economic recovery in Europe and the US.

Equally, there is concern over who these rebels are and what kind of Libya they want post-Gaddafi. The vox pops from Benghazi and Tobruk don't paint a picture of a pro-western future for this vital part of North Africa. Yes, the rebels want a say, they want democracy but they also hold the West responsible for the perpetuation of Gaddafi's terror and that won't easily be forgotten.

The final calculation is humanitarian - the breakdown of Gaddafi's rule has prompted tens of thousands of Libyans to flee the country, mainly through Tunisia. Apart from the immediate humanitarian crisis on the Libya/Tunisia border, there is the longer-term concern that a destabilisation of North Africa might send tens of thousands of migrants across the Mediterranean toward Italy, Malta and ultimately France where their arrival would have huge social, political and economic ramifications.

The calaculations of realpolitik therefore offer the possibility that it might very well be in Europe's interest to maintain Gaddafi in power, albeit weakened, with the oil flowing and repression in place. The alternative - a bloody struggle for Tripoli, protracted civil war, huge waves of refugees and a post-Gaddafi Libya not wholly favourable to the West, are all options with problems.

I fear then that the Governments in the West are preparing to abandon the rebels of Benghazi and Tobruk to their fate at the hands of Gaddafi, his odious son and his repellant followers. There will be much wringing of hands about no-fly zones, there will be humanitarian efforts in Tunisia and eventually Egypt but Libya and its oil will remain united and flowing under the murderous hand of Gaddafi.

There is a line about not letting go of nurse for fear of something worse and Gaddafi functions as nurse. He is odious to his own people but internationally, he is valuable as a unifying factor. The Chinese and Europe will continue to do business with him and eventually his son and the nightmare won't end for the Libyan people.

We won't intervene and will wring our hands when the Gaddafi tanks drive back into Benghazi and elsewhere.

That's realpolitik - it's not nice but it's how the world works.

Are We AV-ing a Proper Debate ?

2011-02-22T20:56:00.003Z

Those opposed to the introduction of the Alternative Vote (AV) have drawn encouragement from two polls, one from ICM and another from YouGov, which have shown a previous strong advantage for the "Yes" vote wiped out and now the "No" side opening up a substantial lead (43-32, I think) as the referendum draws closer on May 5th.

Unfortunately, the well-financed "No" camp has already resorted to negative campaigning and downright lies to further its case and obviously, in lieu of having no substantive argument to offer, are going wholly on an anti-Clegg ticket mixed with innuendo and disingenuous messages.

One such, running on poster sites on A13 (strangely the same ones used by the Conservatives during last year's election campaign), witters on about how the £250 million it will apparently cost to introduce and run the AV system (no mention of how this figure is arrived at) could be better spent on providing body armour for soldiers and maternity care.

This kind of emotive slush and garbage is what the "No" camp offers as argument and the "Yes" camp needs to fight back and quickly. Of course, money can always be better spent but if we follow the "No" camp's argument, we would never hold any elections at all as we could always justify the expense somewhere else.

I'm not a huge fan of AV and there are plenty of scenarios which can be devised which make it as bad if not worse than STV but now I've seen the odious campaigning tactics of the "No" campaign, I'm determined to vote "Yes" just in order to rub the noses of reactionary and small-minded people like Tim Montgomerie who is unelected, unaccountable and sees himself as the keeper of the Thatcherite flame, in the dirt.

Vote "Yes" on May 5th.

Of Revolutions and Realpolitik...

2011-02-19T19:31:00.005Z

It's been fascinating to watch the coverage of the popular unrest or "uprisings" across the Arab world in recent times as it says a lot about the perception of protest and the realpolitik of supporting dictators.

Tunisia isn't that important so we could cheer on the protesters who toppled Ben Ali last month without really thinking too hard about who the protesters were and what agenda they had. Their demands seemed reasonable and they behaved reasonably for the most part. The "bad guys" - the Police and Army - eventually backed down and the President was forced into exile.

Then came Egypt and things got complicated. Egypt is a big and significant country and Mubarak was a "friend" - he had moved away from the more pro-Soviet line of Nasser and Sadat and had become a valued ally of the USA and the West. Yet he was a dictator who had cracked down ruthlessly on previous episodes of discontent. During the Cold war, the West had backed a number of unpleasant dictators whose sole benefit was that they were anti-Communist such as Mobutu in Zaire and Marcos in the Phillipines. The end of the Cold War meant these thugs had outlived their usefulness but Mubarak became in turn a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism and his principal political opponents were more often than not perceived as being Islamicist in nature.

This time, the uprising has been on a much larger scale and has appeared to be a mucvh broader-based movement. In some respects, it has been a conservative uprising (ironically, because American conservatives like Glenn Beck have been the biggest fear-mongers) as it has preserved the cronyism and corruption of the Army against the dynastic and possibly reformist ideas of Mubarak's son Gamal and more junior officers. It seems probable little will change in Egypt - the Army will still be in charge and eventually some new charismatic figure will emerge.

Now, we see trouble erupting in Libya and here, because we are dealing with Gaddafi, we can seemingly universally hail the protesters as "heroes" though I have no idea who they are, what you want and who they represent. Shots have been fired and people killed and again there's a dynastic element here with Gaddafii's son seemingly set to take over.

Bahrain is more problematic for the West - the island is strategically vital and its ruling family has strong connections to Britain. However, the minority Sunni have dominated the majority Shi'a for some time using a system that is a form of economic and political apartheid more akin to Ulster in the 1950s than a modern state.

The problem for the West is that the Shi'a in Bahrain are of the same religious grouping as those across the Persian Gulf in Iran and the fear is that the reasonable demands of the Bahrani protesters now are a cover for a more Islamist pro-Iranian agenda which would be seen as destabilising in the West (and the fear of that destablisation has already caused a spike in oil prices). The attempts of the Bahrani rulers to quash the protest by military means on Friday appear to have backfired disastrously and it may be that the radicalisation of the protest has now pushed the agenda beyond mere internalo change and possibly toward a sea change involving the end of the rule of the Sunni royal family.

Revolutions or popular protest have a patchy record - we cheered on the anti-Communist protesters in Prague, Berlin, Bucharest and Beijing in 1989 but neither Czechoslovakia nor East Germany survived the revolution, the Chinese protesters were crushed and in Romania, the dictator was killed but his cronies took over for a while.

Revolutions aren't either pleasant or clear-cut as history shows us. The American revolution ushered in a protracted period of internal conflict, first with the British and later between the States. The French Revolution led to Napoleon Bonaparte, the Russian Revolution to Stalin and the Chinese Revolution to Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution.

That's NOT an argument in favour of dictatorship but a recognition that initially reasonable demands for limited or unspecified change can easily be corrupted or radicalised by events. Those in the US who fear any kind of popular discontent as a backdoor for militant Islamism do so from the luxury of a stable, democratic and fair society. To live in a society without the freedom of expression is to seek that freedom as a basic demand.

As a liberal, I find dictatorship of any kind repellant and democracies preferrable even if the Government chosen freely and fairly by the voters isn't one that I would like. The freedom to choose and the upholding of that right must come before the realpolitik of having friendly Governments in key parts of the world. It may well mean that the West will have problems in its future relations with the likes of Bahrain but it might also mean a new beginning for Libya and Yemen. It also forces us to confront the policies by which we have armed and supported oppressors and dictators mainly because they are our oppressors and dictators.

Time to do the "Con-Con"

2011-02-12T18:04:00.002Z

The issue of allowing prisoners the vote has been one of the big domestic political stories of the week. I had the misfortune to listen to the shrill rantings of the sad Thatcher-lite Pritti Patel on Thursday. Her sense of self-righteous indignation convinced me that she is completely on the wrong side of this argument.

In Britain, we lock up a larger proportion of the adult population than any other western European country and we bask in the perception that ALL criminals require punishment and the more severe the better. The coherent arguments about rehabilitation and recidivism are swept away in the tornado of moral dystopia surrounding this issue.

Of course, there must be punishment but our prisons are too often full of people who shouldn't be there - petty thieves, people who don't pay their fines and others who probably need mental and educational care and time rather than custodial sentences. To disenfranchise people like that is clearly wrong and needs to be addressed.

As for more serious offenders, such as murderers and rapists, it's a more difficult issue but our system is one of universal franchise and the key word is "universal". We should all have the right to have a say about our country and its future. You don't lose your vote if you've lost your reason through dementia but you do if you are a criminal and that seems illogical.

The irony is that it's probable a number of prisoners might be Conservative voters but that's not the issue either. The argument that taking a life forfeits the right is powerful but I don't see where the line can or should be drawn. In any case, a liberal, as distinct from "muscular liberal" society is defined by values such as tolerance and inclusivity. To exclude a group from a fundamental democratic right, no matter how heinous their offence (for which they are punished within the criminal justice system) when they can, for example, work and earn money, seems illogical.

We need to look beyond retribution and anger and consider how inclusion within democratic activity might be a tiny step toward inclusion within the rest of society.

Of Cuts and Councils..

2011-02-10T10:50:00.002Z

A letter from a number of Liberal Democrat Councillors and Council leaders in this morning's Guardian has, of course, been interpreted by the anti-Coalition Right as an attack on Nick Clegg's leadership of the Party.

It is probably fair to say that while the Government must have known that some Councils would have to make painful decisions on reducing services and cutting jobs, the volume of announcements and the scale of the cuts may have come as a surprise.

Before the election, the Conservative propaganda machine, supported by the Daily Mail and others, fed the image of local Councils stuffed with staff doing "non-jobs" such as Diversity Officers. It would be easy, the argument went, for these posts to be deleted and cuts to be made without any impact on services.

The truth, of course, is more complex. Even if 2011/12 funding had been frozen at 2010/11 numbers, Councils would have faced a 3.5% cut in real terms based on ambient inflation and especially inflation in key sectors relating to long-term care for children and the elderly. Actual reductions in central Government funding have combined with a freeze in local income to provide real deep cuts for many authorities.

The problem is that providing services is basically what Councils do and providing them for the most vulnerable in society is pretty much at the heart of it so ANY reduction in funding is going to impact services and the users of these services. Wisely, key frontline services such as the provision of social care and adult/child protection have been safeguarded and, given that cuts have to be made somewhere, it's back-office staff and then non-essential services.

Every community wants to defend its library and even its public toilets and no doubt some backbench Conservative MPs may find themselves in choppy waters locally.

The fact is the Conservative elements came to believe their own propaganda and that's dangerous and foolish for any group. Councils have been for the most part run effectively and efficiently over the past two decades despite constant Government interference and edict. Local factors can make a Council bad or good but overall most Councillors and public servants are only trying to do their best for their communities.

Time to Put Up or Bulk Up...

2011-02-05T18:43:00.002Z

David Cameron's speech on multiculturalism to a conference in Munich has provoked a deal of discussion back in the UK. Some say he has signed the death warrant of multi-culteralism, others that he has fanned the flames of intolerance and bigotry.

I'm less convinced. Cameron is a man who has always spoken well but has an over-romanticised sense of national identity. He makes a distinction between "passive tolerance" and "muscular liberalism" as though they are diametrically opposed concepts but of course they aren't. One of the main components of a liberal society is tolerance and an acceptance that certain cultures have certain values that don't conform to a Christian or Anglo-Saxon way of life.

Yet, it is equally the case that if you want to live in Rome, you have to try and enjoy pasta and for migrants or immigrants seeking to live in Britain, there has to be the recognition that IF you want to come and make a life here, there has to be an implicit acceptance of the British "way of life" and a recognition that while much of other cultures is perfectly acceptable and reasonable, there are undercurrents such as female mutiliation and forced marriage and honour killings which have as little place in British society as the persecution of homosexuals.

Societies evolve and change - I'm concerned Cameron, like John Major and many other Tories, has a suburban English idealised notion of Britishness. In East Ham, it's a much more diffuse concept but that doesn't make the people who live here any less British. There is a rush to work, to achieve and develop, to make something of one's life and I'm sure the Prime Minister identifies with that but at the same time the Hindu or Romanian culture survives and thrives.

I've never understood the opposition to multi-culturalism. The Hindu men chase girls, smoke and drive fast cars yet I suspect in their own families, they are suitably deferential and respectful. They have the same network of identities we all do - the person we are to our families, our friends, our work colleagues, our lovers etc, etc.

At the back of Cameron's speech lies the elephant of immigration in the societal room. The suggestion that large-scale immigration from the Middle East has allowed extreme Islamism to take root and flourish is an undercurrent. To be fair, there cannot be a simple demonisation of Islam which is practiced peacefully by millions worldwide and has much to recommend it in the respect of encouraging the individual to take an active and positive role in the family and community.

Yet, a perversion of the Islamic faith, characterised by a grotesque moral conservatism and an antipathy to western ideas, has taken root among a small minority who have seen it as an alternative to a lifestyle they find impossible to reconcile with their socially conservative viewpoint or perhaps that of their parents though it's obviously not always the case.

At the bottom of this is the question of what kind of "Britain" we want. Cameron's view is not mine though I agree with much of what he says. Living where I do, I have no option but to recognise the paradox between the diversity of cultural origin and the homogenity of cultural aspiration that creates the melting pot. I've always believed liberalism and liberal thinking isn't and can't be passive though it engages with reality far more than conservatism and is much less doctrinaire than socialism.

If Cameron is a "muscular liberal" then he doesn't understand a key tenet of liberalism which is a tolerance for and recognition of cultural diversity within the framework of British law.

Perspective...

2011-01-28T18:35:00.002Z

I've had a crap day at work but I've had a real dose of perspective from watching the protests in Egypt. Thousands of people are on the streets defying State violence and seeking reform and good luck to them. After the turmoil in Tunisia, it is to be hoped that we are seeing the end of another despot who was subverted democracy and established an authoritarian rule. People have also marched in Yemen.

I would shed no tears for the departure of Hosni Mubarak and his thugs any more than I did for Ben Ali in Tunisia. Some fear that the relatively pro-western Mubarak would be replaced by an Islamist regime as happened in Iran in 1979. Others hope that a stable democratic Egypt will emerge from the chaos.

The West needs to decide whether fundamental principles are more important than realpolitik. The longer authoritarian pro-western Governments are propped up, the more severe the nati-western backlash when these Governments are inevitably replaced. Ultimately, the fundamental rights of a people to freely and fairly choose their Government must be more important than a despotic friend.

A Cold Economic Snap...

2011-01-26T10:49:00.002Z

Uncharacteristic humility from Allister Heath in this morning's City AM and it's fair to say yesterday's GDP figures were a sharp return to winter after what had been or had seemed like a relatively benign few weeks. Indeed, the ICM poll from Tuesday's Guardian had also suggested a return of some Liberal Democrat support with the Coalition parties continuing to enjoy the advantage over Labour.

The GDP figure was a real shock though as Allister Heath points out, there was some sign that December had been a particularly poor month. The economy, as we know, is often paradoxical in nature with some sectors doing well as others do badly. As I've pointed out before, for those with mortgages and secure employment, it's not been that bad a recession. Yes, wages have stalled and asset prices have declined a little but it has been a huge opportunity to either pay down personal and household debt. Indeed, the reduction in monthly mortgage interest payments has more than offset real declines in monthly income.

The impact of the VAT and fuel rises on inflation is a concern and the general outlook for inflation remains worrying. It could well be that consumer spending will be suppressed for the first quarter and there's plenty of evidence that while the run-up to Christmas was poor for retailers, the immediate post-Christmas period was much stronger.

The hawks like Allister Heath who wanted to see an immediate rise in interest rates have been silenced for now and I suspect it will be later this year before we see any substantive movement upwards. Those who think we were heading for a double-dip recession have some ammunition but I share the view of those who regard the Q4 2010 figures as bad but not perhaps as bad as the initial estimates. I expect a slight upward revision and for Q1 2011 to show us back in positive growth but possibly suggesting a year-on-year growth rate of 2.5% at best.

Politically, it's been bad for George Osborne and there is just a sense in which, after a torrid six months for the Liberal Democrat side of the Coalition, it is now the Conservatives' turn to feel the heat. The ICM poll rating of 35%, coming on the back of the disappointing Oldham East by-election result, shows that the electorate are looking at those areas for which the Conservatives look primarily responsible. Longer-term, a recovering economy and a reduced deficit are probably the routes to a good 2015 election for BOTH the Coalition partners.

The problem for the Coalition is that they have to listen to the sniping of Ed Balls safe in the knowledge there is no Plan B if the recovery falters. There is plenty of evidence the recovery, while fragile, is ongoing. Some pundits think the spending cuts will have a severely deleterious effect on the economy and clearly the shake out of public sector jobs isn't going to be helpful. The theory has always been that the private sector could pick up the slack and re-employ the ex-public servants. That theory already seems flawed as many of the new private sector jobs being created are not only part-time and on minimum wage but are also being filled by migrants.

The next six months are going to be absolutely critical.

A Game of Texas Oldham ?

2011-01-14T16:24:00.003Z

Last night's Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election contains both good and bad news for all three main parties. In many senses, it tells us nothing or very little since its circumstances (the disqualification of Phil Woolas) are not "usual".

In the end, Labour comfortably retained the seat with a solid 3,558 majority as the weekend polls had predicted. Their vote share was up over 10% and in terms of actual votes cast this was a solid performance though of course for an Opposition defending a seat against an unpopular Government it wasn't perhaps that remarkable. Indeed, it could be argued this was a disappointing performance for a Labour Party establishing a solid national poll lead.

For the Liberal Democrats, it was an unremarkable effort at face value but perhaps a recognition that sometimes a lot of effort may not achieve what you do want rather than preventing what you don't. Third place wasn't impossible and a vote share of over 30% represents a solid effort for a party which in YouGov polls has plunged to 7% though still at 11-13% with other pollsters. Perhaps the overriding emotion in Lib Dem circles today should be relief rather than joy.

The Conservatives have, on the face of it, suffered most with their vote share halved and their total vote numbers well down. That would, I think, be misleading. Two factors were at play here - the strong Conservsative performance in May probably stopped Elwyn Watkins taking the seat and once the Liberal Democrats had been established in second place, it was always going to be difficult for their candidate.

The second factor is perhaps the darker side of the Coalition - many on the anti-Coalition wing of the Conservative Party are saying insufficient effort was put in by CCHQ and that the seat was winnable. There seems some evidence to support this and indeed many on the Tory Right might argue that there was an implicit call for Conservatives to back the Liberal Democrat candidate. I'm not on the ground - I don't know if the Conservative campaign was lacklustre or not. David Cameron certainly visited the Constituency and supported the Conservative candidate but there is still a sense of unease in Conservative circles.

Of perhaps more concern was or were the strong performances by UKIP and BNP respectively who captured just over 10% between them and suggests that opposition to the Coalition parties may not just simply fall to Labour but could fragment elsewhere.

As with most by-elections, cause for celebration (or relief) mixed with cause for concern all round. The next contest at Barnsley Central may well be similar though I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives finished second with the Liberal Democrats a bad third.

VAT's It All About ?

2011-01-09T15:37:00.002Z

As often happens, though not for those with birthdays mid-month, the first week of January is often deeply depressing for many people. After a couple of weeks of indolence at worst or doing what you want at best, it's back to "normal" be that work, school or whatever.

It's also a time when we tend to get a sharp slap in the face from the cold fish of reality. The increase in VAT to 20%, combined with a 1p rise in petrol duty to propel fuel prices to record levels - up to 126.9p per litre at my local Tesco's. Of course, taking inflation into account, petrol has cost much more in the past but the prospect of £1.50 a litre cannot now be discounted and while the queues at the petrol station this afternoon looked as long as ever, there is some slight evidence that there is a slight falloff in car driving starting.

For those of us who use public transport, however, it's been an equally difficult week with sharp rises in rail, tube and bus fares and this gas brought the Labour Party in East Ham back to life with a leaflet issued on Friday evening expressly blaming Boris Johnson and George Osborne for the higher fares.

I resisted an Oyster card for a long time but it's now very difficult to get around London without one. They work by the cardholder "touching in and out" using pads at the beginning and end of each journey. Transport for London have always warned you that you will be charged full fare if you don't touch out BUT they don't make it easy with some exit terminals not well placed or sometimes defective. All this means TFL are raking in £67 million in excess fares from Londoners and others and that's nice work if you can get it.

The message of this week seems to be that people aren't happy which is understandable but they will accept tax and fare increases if they are applied fairly and sensibly. It's the apparent unfairness of huge bank bonuses or "stealth" taxes such as excess fares that angers so many and rightly so.

David Cameron once claimed "we are all in this together". Fair enough but in the bleak midwinter it isn't just a question of applying fairness and equity but also of providing some sense that this will all be worthwhile for just as that which keeps winter tolerable is the certainty of spring and summer the Coalition can't just be about short-term pain and misery - Cameron, Clegg and the whole Government also have to emphasise the positive aspects of paying down the deficit, getting the public finances back under control and restoring economic growth.

They need to start accentuating the positives and not just revelling in the negatives.

Rumblings from the Right...

2011-01-02T13:25:00.002Z

The first weekend of the New Year has seen an outbreak of grumbling and whingeing from the anti-Coalition Conservatives in their house magazine, the Daily Mail. Saturday's edition of that newspaper saw the deeply unpleasant Amanda Platell and the odious Dominic Sandbrook both take potshots at Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.

Platell is described by the paper as "waspish" which is short-hand for unpleasant and abusive while Sandbrook seems to be a man wallowing in romanticised nostalgia possessing extremely right-wing views. Both dislike the Coalition and while they have to be careful and coded in their criticism of David Cameron, they treat Nick Clegg as badly as any Labour figure.

This morning, they have been joined by Mark Pritchard, Conservative MP for The Wrekin. Now, I don't know anything about him but one look at his website and seeing him wrapped in the Union Jack, tells me all I need to know. His article is a robust response to remarks from Sir John Major, Nick Boles and others suggesting the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats might field joint "Coalition" candidates at the 2015 election.

The Major/Boles approach is actually quite subtle and attractive for Liberal Democrats facing poor poll ratings at present and it's a throwback to the days of Liberal Nationals and National Liberals which saw part of the then Liberal party absorbed into the Conservatives. The Conservative Party was a different beast back then of course. That said, the fielding of "Coalition" candidates would also be analogous to the 1918 elections after the Lloyd George/Asquith split. Such a proposal would be guaranteed to split the Liberal Democrats asunder so it's clever politics.

Pritchard is of course a Thatcherite oaf who wouldn't know subtlety if it came up and bit him on the nose. He is probably opposed to the Coalition and it would be nice if an undercover journalist recorded some of HIS verbal indiscretions. Anyway, his article, which reads more like the ramblings of a right-wing acxtivist than the coherent musings of a senior Conservative MP, rejects any notion of joint "Coalition" candidates and is a thinly veiled challenge to David Cameron urging him to restore the primacy of the Right in the party and to go for a Conservative overall majority in 2015.

Needless to say, Pritchard and his ilk are manna from heaven for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats as they seek to preserve the Party's identity and relevance. One only has to imagine the likes of Pritchard in Government to see what a disaster they would be for the country. One of the great successes of the Coalition (and one of the huge benefits for David Cameron) is that it has muzzled the ogres on the Right much as Tony Blair was able to silence the nutters in his own Party by the landslide of 1997.

Developments are going to be subtle but, as I've argued before, the Coalition is going to change the Conservative Party every bit as much as the Liberal Democrats if not more. As European democracies have discovered, it's perfectly possible for independent political parties to both compete at elections and collaborate in Government and IF the Coalition succeeds in its radical and audacious programme of social improvement and economic renewal, we COULD be looking at an extended period of centre-right Government.

The other option, of course, depends on how Labour reacts to developments. At the moment, Ed Milliband is enjoying being an Opposition leader and spends his time complaining and whingeing just like the anti-Coalition Conservatives. Eventually, he will need to confront those who ask him (quite reasonably) what he would do in Government. Labour might think, as after 1992, that they can win in 2015 with "one big heave" but 1955, Feb 1974 and 1983 suggest the Labour vote share is much more likely to fall than rise and a more pragmatic leader might be thinking now about a rapprochement with the Liberal Democrats. In West Germany, the FDP switched sides (without changing leader) in 1982 and as long as the personality of the politics doesn't get in the way, a Labour-Liberal Democrat Coalition could yet be an option.

In any case, the grumblings of Pritchard show how far the Coalition has travelled since May and while I'm sure the discontent will continue and the sniping against Clegg will intensify in the months to come (and especially up to and after the AV referendum), Cameron can rest easy in the fact that there is no one on the anti-Coalition Conservative side with the cojones to challenge or defect. Yes, they will all campaign against AV and cheer if and when the refrendum fails but that won't break the Coalition though it may make life uncomfortable.

The 2010 Stodgies...

2010-12-31T12:30:00.003Z

Yes, folks, it's time for the last and least significant awards ceremony as the great and good are gathering for the 2010 Stodgies, my awards for the deserving and not-so-deserving of the past twelve months and with it believing an election year AND a World Cup failure year, the quality and quantity of nominees has been well uip to standard.

So here we go...

Song of the Year: Not a vintage year musically for me. I'm looking forward to listening to Bryan Ferry's new album "Olympia" but as far as pop singles go, the fivesome of Take That with "The Flood" are a late runner but the overall winner for me is the infectiously catchy "Bad Romance" by Lady Gaga so step forward for your prize.

Word of The Year: This is an easy one because although "Kindle" gets on to the short-list, the winner is "Coalition" which I don't find easy to type but which has been the defining development of the year.

Analyst of the Year: In a year when the election and its aftermath wrongfooted many of the finest pundits and commentators, I've gone for Simon Jenkins who writes in the Evening Standard and The Guardian among others. His critique of Coalition policies, particularly regarding the Cameronian "Big Society" has been far more thoughtful and incisive than most of what the anti-Coalition forces have produced since the election. I look forward to reading more from him in 2011.

Read of the Year: Two very close runners fighting out this one - the new "I+" newspaper from the Independent has been very good and is great value at just 20p but I just tip this one to The Economist which provides an international perspective sadly absent from much of the British media.

Bet of the Year: I enjoy spotting novice hurdle winners at Lingfield and Nick Gifford's No Turn paid a few pre-Christmas expenses at 14s.

International Person of the Year: A particularly weak field this year suggesting this hasn't been the best year for the world in general. Aung Saan Syu Kyi would be a well-deserved winner given her incredible dignity during her years of house arrest but I can't deny the resurgence of Russia and it has to be Vladimir Putin who gets the nod.

International Numpty of the Year: A packed field as always but having got on to the podium last year, the FoxNews analyst Glenn Beck gets the vote. I can't decide if he's a doom-monger or an evangelist. He wraps the American Constitution round himself and seems to claim to have exclusivity in its interpretation. His coverage of overseas stories is used solely to bolster his own increasingly irrational arguments.

Blogger of the Year: No individual wins this but I'm a ban of the Netweather Forum which contains some serious weather experts and I read them to improve my own knowledge.

British Numpty of the Year: A packed field as always and more so with an election to digest. The winners this year aren't individuals but newspapers and this less-than-prestiguous award goes jointly to the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail whose sour grapes over the election result and the formation of the Coalition has both pushed the former down some very dark paths in the name of investigative journalism but has made the latter a pleasure to read as it performs its weekly contortions in which Amanda Platell is a particular joy.

Person of the Year: As always, the final three in reverse order:

3. Matt Smith -I thought David Tennant would be an impossible act to follow as Doctor Who but Smith has been superb. He's taken out some of the humour and made the character more "alien" - less action hero and more troubled enigma. I'd like to see the current Doctor brought back more into the Tennant continuum and I'm far from sold on the Amy Pond character but Matt Smith has done well.

2. David Cameron - I've been a critic of Cameron's ever since he became Conservative leader in 2005 and I thought he would rather try and lead a minority Government than try to reach a deal with the Liberal Democrats but his speech on the afternoon after the election transformed the political landscape and may have been the most significant moment since the death of John Smith in 1994. Cameron showed political courage and acumen that afternoon and has made a sound start as Prime Minister.

1. Nick Clegg - I've absolutely no hesitation in giving the top award to the Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader. When I voted for him over Chris Huhne in 2007, I thought he was made of sterner stuff then seemed evident. Like all Liberal Democrat leaders, he has been tested in the fire and come out immeasurably stronger.

The election debate was a game-changer and for a moment, the possibility of something greater loomed but it didn't happen this time and despite the obvious fatigue and disappointment, Nick comported himself in the immediate aftermath of the election with skill throwing the challenge down to David Cameron and then working with the Conservatives to form a new Government.

It's not perfect but it's starting to work well and while some in the party are still struggling to come to terms with what has happened and the tuition fees issue was a nasty boil which needed to be lanced publically, the future, despite the current poll numbers, looks surprisingly bright.

The Conservatives are and will be changed by the experience of Coalition and IF the AV referendum can be passed next year as a step on the road to STV, the future of elections will be changed too. It's been a real rollercoaster year for Nick Clegg and he deserves a break with his family in Spain. He also deserves the accolade of "Person of the Year"

Finally, New Year greetings from me to whoever you are and wherever you are reading this.

A Challenging Week...

2010-12-26T15:01:00.003Z

The week before Christmas is usually a time to wind down and get ready for some quality time with the people you love or, failing that, your family. For the Coalition though, it's been a week which started bad, got worse and has finished with a twist in the Boxing Day tail.

It all started with a "sting", perpetrated by that bastion of anti-Coalition Conservatism, the Daily Telegraph. This desperate rag, whose circulation has been steadily falling over the years, has turned its ire in rencent times on politicians. It was at the forefront of the expenses revelations in the spring of 2009 which damaged a number of leading political figures and ultimately brought three ex-Labour MPs to trial on various charges relating to fraud.

That was arguably a public service though as it turned out much of the opprobium heaped on MPs was unjustified as very few had actually done anything wrong. The system under which expenses were claimed was fundamentally flawed and the Telegraph performed a service in bringing this failure to light and instigating change but from there the paper developed an appetite for the witchh-hunt in which all MPs, even those claiming expenses for which they were reasonably justified, were pilloried.

Now, the paper has turned on Liberal Democrat Ministers within the Coalition Government. The Telegraph has an agenda here - it doesn't really like the Coalition. As it is led by a Conservative Prime Minister, it is obliged to be supportive but the Telegraph hates the idea of Liberal Democrats working with Conservatives in a Coalition presumably because the paper thinks the Liberal Democrats are diluting the true conservative nature of the Government.

The Telegraph, along with the Mail, Express and other parts of the pro-Conservative media desperately wanted a Conservative overall majority at the General Election. They would even have lived with a Conservative minority Government but the current Coalition is something they find hard to support. For elements such as these, breaking up the Coalition, preferrably by inciting the Liberal Democrats to walk away, would be the best option as another election would lead to a Conservative overall majority and keep the Liberal Democrats out of Government for a generation.

Hence the unprincipled sting - get female reporters, masquerading as Liberal Democrats supporters using false names and addresses, to contact their "local" Liberal Democrat MP and get them to talk, in the perceived privacy of their Constituency office, about their "concerns" about the Coalition.

The most damaging comments came from Business Secretary Vince Cable and they were about his attitude to Rupert Murdoch and the proposed takeover of BskyB by News International on which he (Cable) had to adjudicate. Stating that he had "declared war on Murdoch" was foolish and stupid and for that I'm afraid he should have resigned. While a Minister is entitled to his private view, these views cannot in any way be seen to be allowed to influence any decision-making. It probably hasn't helped that the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, to whom the responsibility for adjudicating in the matter was transferred, is equally suspect owing to his outrageously pro-Murdoch views.

Cable was publically humilated and really should have quit. The other comments made by Liberal Democrat MPs were slightly embarrassing but no more. They reveal some of the tensions within the Coalition but it does seem that working relationships WITHIN Government Departments between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have been very good and there have been some surprising "alliances" eg: Nick Clegg and Iain Duncan-Smith are rumoured to have a particularly good working relationship. Equally unsurprisingly, there are those who do not get along so well. This happens in ALL organisations and happened in majority one-party Governments in the past - remember the feuds between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and John Major calling some of his Cabinet colleagues "bastards".

Indeed, one could argue that the Coalition has been more harmonious internally than some had expected and while areas of policy have proved very difficult (tuition fees being the prime example but also law and order) and the political handling of these issues has been fraught, there's no sense in which the Coalition itself is in any danger. Indeed, David Cameron and Nick Clegg stood up well under heavy media fire at their joint Press Conference earlier in the week.

Today the Sunday Telegraph puts the cat among the pigeons with an unnamed Conservative Minister, supposedly close to David Cameron, suggesting there could be "Coalition" candidates at the 2015 General Election. Now, this is red-reg stuff for the bulls in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties and could be construed as a bit of mischief-making. At this time, I don't detect any appetite in either party to go down the route of joint candidates. There are many in the Conservative activist camp who don't like what appears to be a move by the leadership to prevent the Conservative winning in Oldham East & Saddleworth on January 13th. There are plenty of Tories who would relish seeing the Liberal Democrats finish a poor third even if Labour win if that was the alternative to a Liberal Democrat victory.

The Coalition is still a new thing - barely eight months old - and there is a long way to go and a l0t of heavy water to pass through. The referendum on AV next May will be a huge test - many Conservatives will actively campaign and vote to retain FPTP while Labour supporters will be torn between their desire to break the Coalition and the likelihood that AV (if passed) will likely prevent a Conservative majority ever happening again.

The impact of the spending cuts will be hard to assess - the economy is growing but that growth is slaready showing signs of faltering and the bad weather leading up to Christmas will be a real problem for some businesses.

It will be a tough 2011 for the Coalition and there are some dark days ahead especially for the Liberal Democrats but beyond that there's a real prospect of a sustainable and lasting if modest recovery and a growing perception that the Government has done what it set out to do.

(Look out for the annual "Stodgies" awards this Friday, New Years Eve).

Christmas Time...

2010-12-24T20:35:00.002Z

Just a line to wish all readers of my ramblings the very best Christmas.

I'll probably post some thoughts on the indiscretions of certain Liberal Democrats in the next few days and of course the highpoint of the year - the Loadofoldstodge awards coming on New Year's Eve.

We Want to Break Free...

2010-12-13T20:42:00.003Z

An interesting report cited on politicalbetting.com has piqued my curiousity. The report looks at the regional inbalances across the United Kingdom and concludes, not unreasonably, that London and the South contribute to the UK economy while everyone else are net "takers" from the economic pot.

It occurred to me that instead of Scotland or Wales talking about independence, the real debate should be over whether London and the South should go it alone.

Imagine an independent Wessex (let's call it that for now) incorporating the City and the south of England. It would have a vibrant economy, would presumably stay outside the EU and become a low-tax high-earning centre - a kind of Switzerland-on-Thames as it were but blessed with a generally temperate climate and a perpetual conservative or liberal Government.

It could change its timezone to be in synch with the rest of Western Europe and already has excellent transport infrastructure which would be augmented by Crossrail.

Sounds an attractive option...

A Word on the Economy...

2010-12-10T18:12:00.002Z

After the heat and anguish of yesterday's tuition fees vote, a thoughful piece on the economy this morning from Allister Heath in City AM. Heath is on much firmer ground than airing his ludicrous political views - he is an unreconstructed Thatcherite.

Heath has long been on the side of those looking to reduce the size of the State and indeed I suspect Heath would have the Coalition go much further. However, his most convincing arguments were not when quoting the size of the public sector as a share of GDP but when looking at what all the new State spending has actually achieved. The OCED ranks England 25th in reading (down from 7th), 27th in maths (down from 8th) and 16th in science (down from 4th). The decay in Britain's primary and secondary education system has accelerated despite a vast infusion of investment and is far more of a scandal than University tuition fees.

The other eye-opening statistic from Heath is the true figure of unemployment based on those not only on the dole but on those living off one of the four main benefits including incapacity benefits. Heath claims 5,870,000 adults (or a shade under one sixth of the adult workforce) is not working. Compare that with the "official" figure of 2.47 million unemployed and it's obvious why the welfare bill has rocketed and that something needs to be done.

An underclass now clearly exists of families who have never worked and whole areas on estates with small numbers in work and majorities not working and never having worked. This is a damning statistic for any society and any Government.

To be honest, set against challenges such as these, arguing over tuition fees seems trivial in the extreme. Those Liberal Democrat activists who have closen publically to flounce from the Party in a huff over the tuition fees issue could do a lot worse than reconsider, stay in the party and argue for new solutions to the twin problems of our failing education and welfare systems.

The Conservative solutions on offer seem poorly defined and it's a pity an all-party concensus led by such radical thinkers as Iain Duncan-Smith, Steve Webb and Frank Field can't begin to move toward a genuinely liberal response to these problems. In education, too, the solution just can't be left to Michael Gove - it needs some serious liberal thinking as to howe we pull our educational standards back up.

It seems for some activists protecting the status quo and appeasing small groups of voters has become more important than arguing for and supporting liberal thinking and policy.

The Breaking or Making of Parties...

2010-12-07T20:51:00.002Z

It's no fun seeing the party you have supported and of which you have been a member for over thirty years seemingly tearing itself apart though I well remember the merger period of 1987-88 as a blacker time. Tonight, the Lib Dem Parliamentary Party tore itself in three with roughly half backing the Government move to raise tuition fees to £9k, eight abstaining and twenty-one voting against the Government.

The measure carried by a majority of 21 (323-302).

For Nick Clegg, it is time to rebuild and reflect on what has been a bruising fortnight but which ultimately may prove to have more significance than many believe. Politicians, like the rest of us, are occasionally tested in the fire and it can either make or break them. Nick Clegg seems to have some of the same steel for which his home city of Sheffield is well known.

David Cameron will also have been embarrassed by six of his MPs joining the revolt but it is the Lib Dems who have taken the flak for this proposal which, while unpopular with some students, is perhaps less unpopular with students than generally realised.

It's been a fortnight of almost unremitting hostility for Clegg, especially from the Labour side, and the decision of a significant minority to vote against the proposal doesn't help. The Coalition Agreement, which superceded every other document INCLUDING the Election Manifesto in terms of a policy programme, allowed for an abstention and that's fine so 36 MPs supported the Agreement as it stood.

In some ways, this whole experience could be hugely beneficial for the party in the medium to long term. First, it shows the dangers and futility of comfortable irresponsible Opposition where you can advocate anything and agree to sign any pledge safe in the knowledge you won't be accountable for it. The Liberal Democrats fell into that not insignificant trap on this issue and have paid a heavy price but if it means that future policy-making is established on a more realistic stance, that can only be for the good of the party.

In addition, the Party is being tested in the fires of unpopularity in Government. It must learn and gain strength from the experience in the knowledge that credibility comes from these experiences. The other point is that it's clear there is no relationship with Labour at the moment though that may change over time and especially if economic growth revitalises the Coalition and its political prospects.

Every day the Party spends in Government is valuable experience and though in popularity the party is well down there is a huge potential reservoir of supporters among those who have previously voted mainly Conservative. I believe a significant part of this vote is far more anti-Labour than pro-Conservative and the argument the Conservatives have used in every election at recent times (a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Labour) has been destroyed. There's a big vote for grabs if Nick Clegg has the courage to go for it.

For now, though, it's about riding out the storm and holding the Party together. That son't be easy but if I've learned nothing else in politics, hanging together is infinitely better than hanging separately.

There's Snow Point Complaining...

2010-12-02T08:50:00.002Z

Well, the snow has finally reached East London overnight - about 4" down, not as bad as Feb 2009 or even earlier this year. Mrs Stodge has braved the conditions to venture to work while I will toil alone here in the realtive warmth.

As usual, the industry that is whingeing about the snow has gone into overdrive once it's reached the London area. Some buffoon journalist from the Daily Mirror who was on Sky News complained about how it was possible for the Prime Minister to get back from Zurich where it was snowy.

Now, Zurich is in Switzerland where it snows EVERY YEAR and they manage accordingly. Snow in this country, despite recent events, isn't that common especially in the south and Boris Johnson wa superb in his defence of current arrangements earlier in the year. For extreme events which occur rarely (and they wouldn't be considered extreme if they occurred all the time), it would be irresponsible for any Government to invest millions of pounds in equipment which might be unused for years.

Those parts of the country more used to snow are coping perfectly well but it is the more densely populated areas such as London and the South-East which are suffering this morning and so it's news. A few problem areas which do seem more evident this time are the vulnerability of road haulage - images of miles of lorries stuck suggest an issue with how we move goods round the country. Trains seem vulnerable though some companies seem to be coping better than others.

A longer-term issue seems to be how we are still, even in this technological age, a desk-based work culture. I'm able to work at home and I suspect millions of others COULD but there is a huge and deep-seated cultural reluctance from many organisations to allow workers to work at places other than offices. Individuals are also reluctant as for many they want a clear distinction between their work lives and home lives.

Nonetheless, with public transport systems buckling under not only normal demand but bad weather conditions, it's time for Government and industry and workers to take a renewed look at the work-life balance (an early idea of the Prime Minister) and actively promote (perhaps through tax incentives) the concept of flexible working. For organisations, there are clear gains as property costs are reduced but balanced by the expense of rolling out improved technology to staff.

In an era of Broadband and wireless networking, the notions of remote, flexible or home working should all be much more advanced. The unfortunate truth is that while senior staff have tended to embrace these new work practices, inherent problems centred round cultures of present-ism which prevail in many organisations have prevented the same being rolled out to lower-ranked staff. Larger organisations are starting to see the light but regrettably Mrs Stodge's wealthy American bank isn't one of them,

Once this is all over, it will be business as usual until the next snowfall when unfortunately the snow-whingers will be back in business.

Days of Anger...

2010-11-25T11:28:00.002Z

Another Wednesday, another set of student protests but am I alone in thinking everyone has missed the point of this ?

In Kingston, there was no sign of protest outside the University and my guess is the bulk of the 18,000 students are more interested in working hard to get a degree and to get a good job either here or (regrettably) overseas. It is typical of the poor quality of media reporting that a few anarchists and troublemakers in London are portrayed as being representative of all students.

Of course, students are angry but the world has moved on and as I resent those who have retired with huge redundancy and pension pay-offs in the past ten years to which I will never be entitled, there is for me that recognition that the world has changed. The student of 2010 cannot expect the same as the student of 1980 if, for no other reason than the sheer numbers of young people going into University has increased exponentially.

The anger achieves nothing, Nick Clegg has railed at the victimisation and it was politically naive to advocate the ending of tuition fees at a time of national financial austerity but the argument has been lost and student life will have to adapt much as it hears it has adapted to prosperity. If the well-heeled students of Kingston are any guide and the large number of expensive cars at the Halls of Residence are any guide, it appears student life has already moved on.

Deconstructing Durkin...

2010-11-25T11:16:00.003Z

I watched Martin Durkin's recent programme about Britain's debt on Channel 4. From the same director as "The Great Global Warming Swindle" it was always going to be a challenging argument. There's nothing wrong with film-makers or anyone else challenging orthodoxy but any argument needs to have some kind oif credible evidence.

Durkin's latest work was a homily to Thatcherism. His leading contributors were former Conservative Chancellors Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson as well as Allister Heath of City AM and Mark Littlewood of the IEA. All are Thatcherites unreconstructed.

The figure of £4.6 trillion of debt was plucked out of the air in an attempt to shock and awe but it conveniently forgets that most countries run deficits most of the time. Britain has had crippling deficits in the recent past, notably after WW2 when we were effectively bankrupt and propped up by the Americans.

The Thatcherite assault on the public sector was also predicated on dubious statistics and tired arguments. We are to believe that the public sector employs seven million people which is patent nonsense. We were also then encouraged to believe that future prosperity lay in taking the route of Hong Kong.

Now, I've been to Hong Kong and it is a highly-regulated and bureaucratic country and needs to be with so many people in such a small space. Hong Kong also had the advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour from mainland China. Now, this is in itself a strong argument FOR immigration and indeed I would argue that the booms of the 1950s, 1980s and 2000s have all been predicated on an influx of cheap labour from the Caribbean, Indian Sub-Continent and Eastern Europe respectively. It is incredibly short-sighted and pandering to populist propaganda for the Coalition to be looking to cap immigration.

Durkin's argument was a sentimental eulogy for an economic credo long since discredited and an aspiration unachievable. For the more simple-minded on the Right, it has been portrayed as "the answer" but instead it was a 90-minute cul-de-sac of half-truths, misconceptions and inaccuracies that discredit a usually good film-maker.

Fancy a Game of Texas "Oldham" ?

2010-11-14T20:01:00.003Z

Politics is sometimes like poker -it's possible to win a hand with nothing if you can bluff with conviction. The forthcoming by-election in Oldham East & Saddleworth, caused by the disqualification of Phil Woolas, has become a game of managing expectations and an excuse for the pointless partisans to strut around on political blogs and forums asserting that only they know what will happen.

Of course, a by-election in a three-way marginal like Oldham East & Saddleworth carries huge risks for all three main parties and it's the first real political test for the Coalition.

If Labour wins and wins well, no one will be surprised - the polls suggest that would be the likely outcome.

If the Liberal Democrats win it will be a huge fillip for Nick Clegg at a time when his leadership is under pressure.

If the Conservatives win it would be a big boost for David Cameron and would encourage those in his party who think they can win an outright majority in 2015.

If Labour loses it will be a huge blow for Ed Milliband in his first by-election as leader.

If the Liberal Democrats finish a bad second or third, it will encourage those in the party who see no future in the Coalition and will intensify the fears of many MPs that they will lose their seats in an anti-Coalition backlash.

If the Conservatives finish second to Labour, they will be fairly happy and secretly delighted to have pushed the Liberal Democrats into third. If the Conservatives finish second to the Liberal Democrats, they will be pleased. If they finish third to the Liberal Democrats, there will be some disappointment but nothing more.

It's clear that ALL three main parties have a lot to gain but also plenty to lose in the forthcoming contest.

Is the Force with us ?

2010-11-14T19:18:00.004Z

As always, it's impossible in Remembrance Week (when did that start ?) to get away from members of the Armed Forces, young and old. As we approach the centenary of the end of the first War, those who participated in the second are dying off steadily and yet the country seems even more wedded than ever to the symbolism of Remembrance - we now have TWO 2-minute silences, one on the 11th itself and another on the following Sunday.

At times, we almost wallow in it as if those who have not had to fight in a war feel they have missed something. The unquestioning eulogising of our Armed Forces is not yet on a par with the United States where the odious Glenn Beck struts around portraying himself and by extension the Tea Party as the forces' friend.

Take That are berated for daring to put out their album at the same time as a group of Chelsea pensioners singing out a collection of wartime standards and woe betide anyone in the public eye who forgets to wear their poppy (with leaf these days).

Let's be clear - no one is forced to join the Army, Navy or RAF and anyone who does should be well aware that not only is he or she going to go to some dangerous places but also that they run a risk of being killed doing their job. To be honest, policemen and firemen also run a risk but there is none of that uncritical adulation. Indeed, firemen in London were widely castigated for going on strike recently and the wretched Daily Mail devoted column inches to the fact that many firemen have to do two jobs to make ends meet.

Of course, much of what has happened stems from the lack of clarity or success over the role of the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, actions which are far from widely supported and which in my opinion largely exist to give the Armed Forces something to do. Without such an obvious justification of their own rationale, questions might be asked as to whether we need such a large army, navy or air force.

The challenge from militant Islam doesn't just exist there - as the attack on Stephen Timms shows, the radicalisation of Muslims is effected via YouTube as easily as via training camps in the Hindu Kush and elsewhere. Indeed, Yemen seems a more obvious target for those wanting to eradicate Al-Qaeda these days than Iraq. Long-term, as one soldier opined, this kind of radicalisation is overcome by education and economic prosperity rather than guns.

We must of course ensure that the Armed Forces have the equipment and support they need and I share the criticism of the Ministry of Defence which seems more interested in defence procurement and its friends in the arms industry than in the plight of serving service personnel and the issue of war widows is another difficult one.

We are fortunately not yet like America where uncritical adulation of any servicemen and servicewomen is the norm - this is a hangover from the post-Vietnam experience. I admire what the soldiers, sailors and airmen do and it's no coincidence that serving in the Armed Forces provides a better quality of education and skill training than almost anywhere else. Indeed, if the argument about tuition fees is that students should pay because graduates earn more and have more job opportunities in the future because of their time at University, it's probably valid to argue that the skills a serviceman or woman picks up during their time should stand them in better stead in civilian life.

We can wallow for a week or so in this post-militarist nostalgia but soldiers and their families face serious problems all year round. The debate about the relationship between the Armed Forces and the rest of society is a proper and serious one - it deserves to be conducted in such a way. However, in a climate where the Armed Forces are seen as being unable to do wrong and are perpetually viewed as being disadvantaged by Government, such a debate is impossible.

I've long thought that talking about tax is one of the great taboos in political debate. Discussing the Armed Forces from a critical stanbdpoint seems to be similarly off-limits.

The Autumn of their Discontent...

2010-11-10T20:35:00.003Z

Today's events at Millbank have got the political blogsphere into a right frenzy. The various halfwits, nitwits and knuckleheads that now form the majority of those posting on sites like politicalbetting and politicsforum have been exchanging insults in the manner of two sad old pugilists at the circus.

In the annals of civil unrest, today was small potatoes. Yes, the building housing the Conservative Party HQ got slightly damaged and a few windows were broken but compared to the Poll Tax riot of 1990, it was nothing yet it has got the activist hotheads foaming at the mouth.

I don't condone rioting and criminal damage though I do support the right to protest. IF today's march was hijacked by a group of anarchists and others, the Police should have enough evidence on a plethors of mobile and CCTV cameras to catch the wrongdoers and prosecute.

On the substantive issue of fees, I have little sympathy for the student line. Kingston University has no less than 18,000 students on its roll and those I see don't look on the cusp of poverty compared with my days as a stuident thirty years ago. Indeed, I've had plenty of anecdotal evidence that the Halls of Residence are crammed with fast cars and designer clothes.

Ok, no one wants anyone to starve or to go without but there's clearly capacity for students who can to make a contribution toward an education from which they will benefit in the longer term. Fees of £9,000 are expesnive though not compared to private education fees at any number of schools. In any case, not all Universities will want or be able to charge the maximum fees and nor is anyone suggesting that those who genuinely cannot pay the fees will have to until they are able.

No grievance condones the kind of violence (reminiscent of the anti-globalist protests) we've seen today. Those who are implacably opposed to the Liberal Democrats (and especially those who continue to fail to understand why the party is in coalition with the Conservatives) have claimed the Lib Dems have betrayed students and it was probably bad politics to sign up to the NUS tuition fees before the election.

However, that was then - now, those opposed to the Government have to explain away the violence. In a democracy. the right to protest within the law is sacrosanct but there is also the right of property and no one who condones today's antics must believe they have advanced their argument.

It remains to be seen if today is a foretaste of problems to come next year as public spending cuts begin to bite. It's already evident there will be an uneven approach across the country. Tonight's Evening Standard reports that some London Boroughs will be closing up to half their libraries yet Hillingdon won't be closing any. It may well be that the financial mismanagement or otherwise of local authorities (which generally transcends political stripe) will become more transparent in the months ahead.

Poll Tax wasn't killed by the riots in London but by the dignified protesters of suburban and rural England. That is where the Coalition's greatest challenge lies.

The Crisis of Political Debate...

2010-11-09T20:28:00.002Z

I have never been so despairing of political debate in this country as I am at present. The blogsphere has seen the decline of debate and reasoned argument in favour of the mindless tirade of the partisan.

We now see on sites like politicalbetting.com debate dominated by abuse and by rancour. Original thought has been replaced by the plagarising of other people's articles and the selective use of cut-and-paste to support a viewpoint and a total inability to be self-critical of one's own party or viewpoint.

This decline in civility and the quality of debate has accelerated since the Election. There are those who vitriol against the Liberal Democrats for joining a Coalition with the Conservatives is matched only by their lack of comprehension as to why it happened and equal lack of comprehension regardingt the Liberal Democrats and their beliefs. The "angry centre" now dominates the debate but their anger leaves them not only impotent but with nothing of value to add to the debate.

Reasoned critique and mea culpa is slowly emerging from Labour ranks but these things take time while the Conservatives continuie to throw blame at Labour and are only slowly coming to terms with the fact that in Government there has to be some responsibility for decisions.

The forthcoming AV referendum is already polarising opinions and there remain some whose anger at May's events (and they include anti-Coalition Conservatives) won't easily fade.

Politics is a rough trade as John Major once opined but that doesn't excuse or condone abuse or inflexibility of opinion. No one has a monopoly on being right any more than they have a monopoly on being wrong.

The blogsphere should be encouraging aqn exchange of ideas and opinions in a constructive atmosphere - instead, it is the domain of sad inadequate partisans for whom the anger is all they have and nothing constructive to add.

And we all suffer...

Why I Don't Wear A Poppy...

2010-11-09T20:07:00.002Z

I don't wear a poppy for November 11th - I haven't for many years. I notice that many young people and almost all non-British people don't. Walk down East Ham High Street for example and you won't see many poppies on display.

Yet anyone in the public eye who doesn't wear one is castigated by the establishment media and their populist lapdogs.

Why don't I wear one ? It's complex but at its heart is my refusal to be part of the institutionalisation of war. In recent years, there has been an attempt, led by elements of the media, to change the relationship between the Armed Forces and the rest of the population. I have no connection to the military though I'm convinced the bulk of the professional forces are far more to the Right politically than I am and are probably a strong bastion of homophobia.

That's not a reason to refuse to wear a poppy and nor is my opposition to Britain's military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and to elements of our conduct in these countries and others. I don't subscribe to the view that the Armed Forces are all "heroes" who can do no wrong. Yes, there are plenty of examples of conspicuous gallantry but if you join the Armed Forces the logical conclusion is that you are going to have to fight, kill and die. I've more respect for the unarmed Police and those who die at the hands of criminals are every bit as heroic.

Again, that's not a reason to abstain from wearing a poppy. It's vital we remember the sacrifices of those who have fallen in wars especially the two global conflicts of the last Century. Whatever some may think of the threat of radical Islamism it's nothing compared to the days of German tanks parked 22 miles from Dover and the very real threat of invasion. We should also remember ALL who have fallen in conflict as much as the British dead.

So, why not wear a poppy ? I'm back to the institutionalising of war and remembrance - we shouldn't just think about it for a couple of weeks each year but it should be an integral part of the nation's psyche. That means expecting high moral and behavioural standards from our Armed Forces and a rigorous and proper analysis of conduct and attitude. They represent us and who we are abroad and must comport themselves appropriately.

More and more, it's less about fighting and more about peacekeeping and disaster relief. Indeed, the future may see less of a need for infantrymen and more of a call on specialist engineers and field medics to go at very short notice to parts of the world afflicted by calamity. It's not about aircraft carriers or nuclear missiles but far more about helicopters and specialist vehicles.

The unquestionning eulogising of the Armed Forces is as wrong as the relentless criticism of public sector workers. If people feel coerced by peer pressure to wear poppies, then that's as wrong as individuals NOT being allowed to wear poppies by organisations. As a liberal, I support the right of the individual to choose in the dace of pressure from the State or any other group.

I stand for that right as I believe our armies have done through the ages - the real basis of the struggle against totalitarianism in all its forms is the struggle of the individual to live in freedom and to be free to make their own decisions. Remembrance via coercion is false and denigrates this - I respect the sacrifice made by our soldiers, sailors and air forces through the decades in preservation of our individual and collective freedom to live our lives as we choose. I exercise my freedom to choose by contributing to the appeal without wearing the "badge" of the poppy.

That's what they died for, that's what I live by. That's how I honour them all.

The Economic Tide Turns...

2010-11-06T21:17:00.002Z

Saturday and Mrs Stodge drags me to Lakeside for a day's Christmas shopping and it's a salutary experience for those thinking we are on the cusp of another recession with consumer confidence in tatters.

The shops and restaurants were jammed, people were spending and the number of empty units had been cut to almost zero. This may not have been a return to the boom times of the early noughties but was far removed from the recessionary gloom of 2008-09.

Today's anecdotal data and a far more significant raft of meaningful statistics illustrate an economy recovering well and starting to grow strongly. It's more than likely that the coming spending cuts will take the edge off this recovery and that may be no bad thing as inflation rather than deflation is the real risk. Talk of double-dip recession is wide of the mark and those who argue that interest rates may have to rise sooner rather than later may have a point.

The recession of the early 90s was particularly tough for those with mortgages with interest rates stubbornly high while savers did well. This time, it's the complete opposite and it's the mortgage-paying families who are doing best - indeed, if you have a mortgage and secure employment, you'd hardly think there was a recession at all. Mortgage payments have been slashed and the astute have been paying off their debt securing their medium to long-term financial future. For savers, and this includes many of the elderly, it's been a tough time with income slashed with interest rates.

The Coalition will be the beneficiary of the return of optimism and confidence though to be fair Labour would have done something similar had they still been in Government. Labour and other anti-Coalition elements have been hoping for economic malaise as a way of breaking the Government and splitting the parties but it will be the return of growth which will end Labour's prospects of returning to power.

Indeed, I am now confident that while there will be short-term unpopularity for the Coalition, opposition elements had better enjoy it - the medium to long term prospects for the Government are very good and re-election in 2015 looks to me to be a near certainty.

Yes, external events could change all this but today has shown me that the worst of the recession is over and while the spending cuts will have an impact, the longer-term prospects for growth are good and if current conditions are maintained, the Coalition will look much stronger by 2013-14 and Labour's position of kneejerk oppositionalism much weaker.

The Dawn of the Super-Council

2010-10-29T16:51:00.003Z

One of Stodge's laws of politics - number eight if memory serves - is that the quality of your argument is directly proportional to the seniority of the rebuttal. In other words, if someone powerful has to be wheeled out to refute your argument, you've made a strong argument and rattled a few cages.

Simon Jenkins, a columnist growing in my estimations as one of the few who is able to constructively criticise Coalition policies without lapsing into Labourist polemic, wrote a fascinating article in Tuesday's Evening Standard. I commend it as a valuable counter-argument to the prevailing maxim that the way forward for cash-strapped local authorities is through collaboration, resource sharing and downright merging.

Words like collaboration and partnership are the new lingua franca of local councils. Faced with cuts from 20 to 40% in budgets over the next four years, there has been a febrile hunt to find areas which can be cut back without affecting frontline services. Many Councils have hit on the idea of collaborative working especially in the back office environment.

However, groups like the South East Seven, West London Alliance and the more formalised merger of the structures of Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea and Hammersmith & Fulham hint at something rather more profound and worrying. As Jenkins argues, the NHS experience doesn't bode well for these new "super authorities" with a bureaucracy increasingly disconnected from the general population.

Then we have the Councils themselves or should that be the Councillors. For a group of politically like-minded authorities, collaboration will make sense but there's no guarantee of ongoing political stability and if you have two Conservative authorities merging then one becomes Liberal Democrat after a set of elections, there's no guarantee new administrations will want to continue the policies and processes of their predecessors.

I can see the argument for merging back office functions but that's about all and it's probably fair to take a long look at how Councillors themselves operate. In many Authorities, only a small number have any real decision-making power and if you ask most Officers, they will tell you some of these Members wield their power without being all that effective.

Jenkins's article drew responses from both Colin Barrow, leader of Westminster Council and Bob Neill, former leader of the Conservative Group on the GLA. They were not surprisingly supportive of the concept of Councils merging but neither were really able to discount Jenkins's basic arguments regarding accountability and the danger of an expanding bureaucracy.

Once Councils see just how much their grants will be cut next month, we may well get a clearer idea of the evolution of local Government over the next few years.

A “Green” of Truth ?

2010-10-13T20:04:00.001Z

Sir Philip Green’s long-awaited report into Government waste has been seized on by many in Conservative circles as proof-positive of a culture of mismanagement and evidence (if any were needed) that there is or will be huge scope for savings and expenditure reductions.

The Green report tells a story but it’s less about waste and more about the nature of Government itself. As an interested observer from the local Government world, the Green report took me back some ten or fifteen years when the same faults of procurement and property mismanagement were prevalent within most local authorities. Individual Council departments functioned as autonomous fiefdoms operating as almost standalone businesses and taking decisions predicated purely on their own Service needs and ignorant (whether by accident or design) of what the rest of the Council was doing.

In the past decade or so, most Councils have undergone a fundamental transformation in their internal practices and procedures. Procurement and property mismanagement as well as a range of other services have been coordinated and centralised and huge efficiency savings have been made. The use of technology such as ERP systems has further streamlined the payment of invoices and the management of finances.

Green paints a picture of Government that few will recognise. There is a misconception of Government as a monolithic entity which the less charitable might view as a kind of inebriated dinosaur thrashing ineffectually through society. The true is more prosaic – Government is a loose confederation of (often) warring tribes much as Britain was before the Romans.

The paradox now confronting the Coalition is that making Government more efficient and driving efficiency savings will require a more concerted effort at centralisation than that attempted and failed by successive Conservative and Labour Governments. At the same time, the Coalition is pledged to devolve decision-making down to communities. Squaring the demand for efficiency with the commitment to decentralise won’t be easy.

In addition, the attempt to better manage property by driving out efficiency savings through co-location of services and the relinquishing of under-utilised assets is not without problems. A fragile commercial property market would be disrupted by a glut of ex-public sector property coming on to the market and the likely effect is to drive down values and thereby reduce potential receipts and savings.

There’s much to commend the Green report and plenty for everyone to think about but while the template for a more effective central Government machine can be seen in the way best-practice Councils operate, the journey to a more effective and efficient Government won’t be quick or easy and it will have significant ramifications in other areas of the economy and society.

Labour Moves On (or Back) to the Future ?

2010-09-28T16:59:00.001Z

Congratulations to Ed Miliband on becoming the new Labour leader and only the 17th man to hold that title (apparently). In a tight election, he defeated his brother David by 50.65% to 49.35% by dint of winning most supporters among the Unions.

The manner of his election has (not surprisingly) drawn considerable fire from the Conservative partisan herd on sites like politicalbetting and elsewhere who have spent the last 72 hours in an almost continuous vitriolic onslaught on the man, his personal life and his policies.

No surprise there of course and of course the few Labour supporters have rallied to Ed’s defence in similar vituperative terms.

It is of course far too early to pass any kind of judgement on the man who is now leader of the Opposition. It is always better to win a clear-cut victory in any kind of electoral process than to scramble across the line in a near photo-finish but that won’t matter for long. The relationship of ANY Labour leader with the Unions is of significance given their huge financial involvement in the party. It’s little surprise that after the Blair years which saw the Unions marginalised that the movement has been making a comeback.

Despite the dreadful defeat (in terms of vote share) suffered by Labour in May, there seem no shortage of optimists in the anti-Coalition camp (both Labour and Conservative) who think that Ed Miliband could well be the next Prime Minister and they may well be right though much would depend on engineering an early downfall of said Coalition.

Interesting to note Ed Miliband’s support for AV and there’s little doubt that were Labour to stand wholeheartedly behind the AV campaign, it would have a good chance of success and it would begin the process of rebuilding relationships between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, ruptured as they were by the events of May. Pragmatic Lib Dems know that nothing lasts for ever and a coalition with Labour is a far from impossible future scenario under AV.

Miliband is going to suffer more vitriol in opposition than any leader since Neil Kinnock and it will be an unpleasant and demeaning experience but if he endures it, he will be all the stronger for it.

Conservative activists apparently opened the bubbly on the news of Ed Miliband’s victory on Saturday night but celebrations may turn out to have been premature.

Local Government Faces A New Reality…

2010-09-24T19:42:00.001Z

A couple of developments which seem to have passed without much comment generally but which will have a huge impact on the future of local Government and local services need some analysis.

First is the Coalition Government’s decision NOT to proceed with a revaluation of properties for Council Tax. This is a cowardly and disappointing move and undermines those who have praised Communities Secretary Eric Pickles on blogs like politicalbetting and elsewhere. The Council Tax is at its core a property-based tax and was established in a panic by the Major Government in the spring of 1991 as their solution to the widely-derided Poll Tax, opposition to which had done much to fuel the fire which ultimately burned Mrs Thatcher.

The “solution” was a property tax, supported by a £140 grant to each Council from the Government. It meant that for every £1 spent by local Government, 80p would come from central Government and 20p from the rates. Properties were valued and banded with the median “D” band set at £160,000 and the eight bands arranged in blocks of £20k around the median.

The plan was for revaluations every five years and this would have been fine had the median moved with house price inflation. In other words, if your property goes up 10% in value and the national price rise is 5% you risk moving up a band but that’s fair enough as your capital has increased in value. Successive Governments have feared the political impact of a revaluation in England which would probably see houses in London and the South East rise through the bands while other parts of the country see bands stay the same or even fall but that’s reasonable given the appreciation in capital.

The other aspect is that rising house prices would allow Councils to raise a greater proportion of their income locally and be less reliant on central Government. Under the gerrymandered funding formulae of John Prescott, the Home Counties were progressively denied central Government funds leaving them now raising 60p of every £1 they spend locally and using central Government funding for the other 40p.

Other Authorities, notably urban Labour councils, are conversely almost wholly reliant on central Government grant and when these funds are withdrawn, they will feel the worst of the pain and that’s where the jobs will be lost and the most services cut.

Had successive Governments set up an independent revaluation process based on national house price inflation and applied this across England, things would be very different and Council Tax would be a very different beast. As it is, it is a tax frozen in time bearing very little relationship to the current property world and not allowing Councils to become less reliant on central Government largesse.

The second main development is the announcement by Suffolk County Council of a plan to outsource most if not all the Council’s activities. Now, we’ve heard this kind of language from other Authorities but they’ve always backed away from such a radical action.

The problem is there are those on the Conservative side who believe passionately that private enterprise can run public services better than local Councils. Now, I will gladly admit I don’t really care who provides the services but as they are public services paid for by residents and as such there has to be accountability if the service isn’t being delivered properly.

My experience of observing private companies running public services doesn’t fill me with confidence. The main problem is the contract under which the service is outsourced. In many instances, the Council acts from a position of naïveté and the private contractor runs rings around the local authority making it almost impossible for the Council to sack them or penalise them.

Another example is the naïveté from the private side. The Contractor thinks they can take the work, do it more efficiently and make a profit but they underestimate the amount of work the Council generates and they finish up either making a loss or having to go cap-in-hand to the Council for more money. The latter happened frequently in the dark days of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) when Councils had to accept the lowest offer for any work package.

More recently, I’ve seen instances of where Councils, believing they can achieve an economy of scale, have moved away from using a network of local Contractors for maintenance work, to a single national provider. In theory, a good idea but in practice the national Contractor, because they have a monopoly, start to overcharge for things like feasibility studies and basic repairs and the Council finishes up spending more than they would have by using local Contractors.

The secret of successful outsourcing is for the Council to operate a robust and expert client regimen and this may not be as cheap as the average Council would like or hope. I can only hope Suffolk, if they decide to go down the outsourcing route, look at each activity separately. The temptation will be to package a host of activities and offer them to a group like Capita but that is also fraught with risk and is far from being the cost-saver the Council might hope.

My final observation is that you can’t outsource a problem and expect it to go away. If there are problems with the service, externalising the service merely gives the problem to someone else. Robust client management and Member involvement is essential if accountability and service viability are to be maintained.

I wouldn’t say outsourcing is NEVER the answer but it’s not a panacea. Done properly and managed well, it’s an effective way of delivering public services in partnership and may allow several neighbouring authorities to co-ordinate and manage a common activity but it can go wrong with inadequate Contract preparation and inadequate Contract management. At best, the Contractor can run rings round the Council, at worst public funds can be needlessly squandered.

A Good Week for Nick Clegg..

2010-09-22T10:34:00.001Z

It’s been a pretty good week for the Liberal Democrats and their leader, Nick Clegg. Many on the Labour side and among anti-Coalition Conservatives were predicting a bloodbath dominated by defections and discontent from activists.

That hasn’t happened.

Nick Clegg gave an extraordinary speech to Conference on Monday afternoon. Gone was the rhetoric, the empty points scoring and the aspiration. This wasn’t a speech attacking the Government and saying what it SHOULD be doing. For the first time, I heard a Liberal Democrat defending a Government’s record and saying what it WOULD be doing over the next five years. The reality of being in Government hit home for me during that speech. At last, we have the opportunity to get things we want done – not everything, that’s the nature of Coalition but as Simon Hughes offered, it’s better being on the pitch and playing the game than sitting on the touchline powerless.

Simon Hughes was excellent in support and other Ministers have spoken powerfully. Of course, the anti-Coalition media has tried to exploit the slightest anti-Government comment and this morning Vince Cable is in the spotlight. Vince has always been a thorn in the side of the Conservatives because he comprehensively outshone George Osborne during the worst of the recession. The attacks on Vince have become more vitriolic since the coming of the Coalition as Cable, who is ex-Labour and ex-SDP, is identified as a weak link.

Nonetheless, Cable has effectively verbalised the anger many have felt toward the banks and bankers and while there’s no doubt Government policy played a large part in the recession, there’s little doubt practices within banks played a role too and the behaviour of banks since the recession – not lending and accumulating large profits which, in some instances, have been paid out in bonuses to staff some of whom at least have been embarrassed by the largesse and the excess.

To be opposed to the excesses of the system is NOT to be opposed to business or capitalism or banks. However, those supporting the status quo have tried to portray the former Chief Economist of Shell as somehow being anti-capitalist.

It’s this kind of ridiculous distorted misrepresentation that passes for debate and analysis in parts of the anti-Coalition right-wing media.

It’s been a good week for the Liberal Democrats overall – elements of the party may be struggling with the transition from Opposition to Government but there is a real energy and passion in the party and a renewed desire to see the opportunity of enacting legislation taken up.

The Dawn of the Nerdocracy….

2010-09-17T16:46:00.001Z

There were those who foolishly believed the Internet would lead to a new renaissance for participative and inclusive democracy. The open environment of cyberspace would lead to a new exchange of ideas and new thinking in the political world.

Alas, as a long-time blogger and contributor to political forums, that simply hasn’t happened. There WAS a time when politicalbetting.com and sites like it were full of heated debate, passionate argument and witty banter.

No longer I fear. The occasional intelligent and thought-provoking contribution is washed away in a tidal wave of abuse and repetitive tedious rhetoric. Each and every day the same old people come on and spout their tired old clichés and prejudices and pick fights with the same old other people who argue the opposite and decry each other’s viewpoint.

To make matters worse, not only are the arguments stale and boring, they aren’t even original. The Internet and blogosphere is plagiarised and ravaged 24/7 by individuals seeking some more erudite support for their worn-out inadequate thinking. Articles in any way supportive of an individual’s viewpoint are either produced verbatim or selectively edited to support the viewpoint of the contributor.

This is no longer democracy, it’s a nerdocracy where intellectual rigour is replaced by a good search engine and original debate and discourse is abandoned for repetitive tribal insults and partisan flag-waving. It’s little wonder the same old tired individuals post day in day out, the rest of us have given up and gone elsewhere…

Those who run sites like politicalbetting.com and other similar forums are as much to blame. They sit back in the relaxing armchair of free speech and claim there’s nothing they can do. Nonsense.

It’s time to moderate, to censor if need be because the quality of the debate and the quality of our democracy is too important to be sacrificed on the altar of free speech for a few sad individuals.

The blogosphere was meant to be in the vanguard of the revolution of our democracy – let it be so !!

Cutting to the Truth…

2010-09-13T11:42:00.001Z

Nick Clegg, who continued to grow in stature as Deputy Prime Minister, sought last week to offer reassurance to those worried about the forthcoming spending review and the likely cuts in public spending. Indeed there was more than a hint that the cuts would be nowhere near as severe or radical as those on the Left fear and those on the Right hope.

The media coverage of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and its outcomes has been nothing short of lamentable. The received wisdom seems to be that there will be a 25% across-the-board next year with more cuts in the years to come. This was probably predicated on the leaked announcement earlier in the summer that Government departments had been tasked with looking at a range of cuts from 25-40%.

No one is seriously suggesting a 25% cut in 2011-12, least of all George Osborne. The cuts are due to take place across a four-year timescale with the aim of achieving a 25% reduction at the end of 2014-15 i.e.: by the next election.

Now, there is more than one way to skin a cat and if you have to reduce from 100 to 80 in four steps, there are a number of ways to achieve this. You could cut straight to 80 in step 1 and then stay at that level, you could cut from 100 to 95 to 90 to 85 and finally 80 which is another valid approach or you could cut from 100 to 90 to 80 and then stay at 80 in the last two steps and so on.

There are sound practical and political reasons why the first two (and seemingly most obvious options) won’t work. An immediate across-the-board 25% cut would be a severe shock to a fragile economy. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost in the public sector with the resulting impact on consumer spending, supporting industries and the cutting of Contracts would severely harm elements in the private sector. Whether you like the public sector or not (and many on the Right clearly don’t), it has a symbiotic relationship with the rest of the economy. If the public sector sneezes, the private sector suffers too.

The risk of a severe slowdown and possible double-dip recession would be enhanced with all that would flow from it and I can’t see the rationale for that.

The more gradual approach is superficially attractive – it would certainly allow the economy more time to absorb the impact and mitigate some of the worse effects but there’s a political problem. The Coalition faces an election in May 2015 – I suspect David Cameron and Nick Clegg would like to go into the election on an optimistic with the cuts done, the deficit under control, the economy growing and even some room for the odd giveaway (perhaps a reduction in VAT back to 17.5%). If the cuts are still happening in 2014-15, it won’t augur well for the Coalition or its political prospects.

What we are likely to see then is a route somewhere between the two with the cuts front-loaded to the next two years and then easing thereafter. Will it be enough to prevent a double-dip recession ? Opinion is divided but I’m in the bullish camp and while growth will doubtless slow, talk of a second recession (unless some dramatic external event intervenes) looks overdone. Jobs will be lost and possibly many thousand in the public sector and there will be many unpleasant months ahead but over time it’s possible to argue that improved growth will create new job opportunities.

Politically, the next 12 months are going to be very tough for the Coalition parties and last Thursday’s elections in Exeter and Norwich showed just how bad the political impact might be but in the longer term I’m hopeful, even confident, that the improved economy will swing voters away from the narrow obstructionism and negativity of Labour and ensure BOTH Coalition parties do well in the 2015 General Election.

The Advantage of Being Boris…

2010-09-13T11:01:00.001Z

I’m no Conservative as you know and at the last London Mayoral election, I found the contest between Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone a fairly unenlightening spectacle but it was the contest the media wanted and lapped up to the exclusion of more able candidates such as the Liberal Democrat Brian Paddick.

Boris duly won and has announced his desire to run again. Any objective assessment of Boris’s tenure at City Hall would argue that while he has taken significantly more powers for himself than Ken Livingstone ever did (Boris now runs Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police as well as the GLA), he has actually done very little apart from a handful of gimmicks and has continued the major projects started by Ken Livingstone.

Now, life and politics aren't fair as we know – the Millennium Dome is widely regarded as a New Labour folly but it was commissioned and begun by John Major’s Conservative Government and Michael Heseltine was one of its biggest supporters.

Yet Boris remains popular and has a high approval rate among Londoners – why ? I’ve come to the view that Boris Johnson was the right man for the time when he became Mayor – he fitted the zeitgeist beautifully. At a time when the capital was heading in to recession, jobs were being lost and the general economic outlook was bleak, at a time when dour men like Gordon Brown and Ken Livingstone were in charge, Boris was a breath of fresh air. He offered if not hope then a positive antidote to the problems facing individuals but more than that he embodies the spirit of the modern Londoner – fun-loving, easygoing, not bothered by rules and regulations. Nothing seems to happen but things keep going and that sums up how many Londoners live in the early 21st century. It’s ordered by virtue of being disordered, a kind of unplanned progress.

Reading the vox pops in Friday’s Evening Standard, it’s clear that many, particularly in Outer London, still identify with Boris. Ken Livingstone, especially when he was an Independent and standing up to the Blair Government, was respected if not liked. Everyone could see he cared about London but his methods became too intrusive, his regulations grated on a population which needs, indeed demands, a light touch and likes to live its life without edict.

A Labour candidate like Ken Livingstone won’t beat Boris – Oona King will struggle though she may make a better fist of it. Were I trying to find a candidate to beat Boris, I’d look for a female, well-known, media-savvy type, not daunted by Boris’s dubious charisma but able to point out the lack of action in key areas. Oddly enough, someone like Kate Garraway, who is married to Labour’s Derek Draper.

Another option would be a totally independent character – a kind of Martin Bell but with edge. This would be a candidate who could attack Boris but would be difficult to attack. Such a candidate, ideally a born-and-bred Londoner, would offer an alternative vision light on specifics but would bring a more London focus. Such a candidate would have to appeal to Outer London as much as Inner London and reassure the suburbs that it would not be Livingstone Mark 2.

In the absence of such a person and in spite of the tough spending cuts to come, Boris Johnson must still be strong favourite to retain the London Mayoralty next year.

London Calling…

2010-09-13T10:23:00.001Z

This is the first of what I hope will be a regular series of updates discussing the current political scene in London in the run-up to the 2012 Mayoral election.

The Borough Elections, held on General Election day, were a triumph for Labour. They swept out the BNP in Barking & Dagenham and trounced the Liberal Democrats in Camden and Islington but their main successes were against the Conservatives in areas as diverse as Brent, Ealing, Lewisham, Waltham Forest and Harrow where Conservative majority or joint control was replaced with huge Labour majorities. In Croydon, Labour came close to ousting the Tories and in Merton Labour ended Conservative majority control and formed their own minority administration.

The Liberal Democrats held Sutton and Kingston but lost Richmond to the Conservatives but broke on to Hammersmith & Fulham for the first time.

Overall, Labour did much better in London than pre-election polls had suggested and some argue that it was London that prevented an overall Conservative majority.

The success of Labour resonated into the Mayoral pre-campaign and electrified the Labour selection process which has developed into a straight fight between former Mayor Ken Livingstone, who lost to Boris Johnson in 2008 and Oona King, former Labour MP for Bethnal Green & Bow until her defeat by George Galloway in 2005.

On the Conservative side, the received wisdom has been that Boris Johnson will go for a second term but recent speculation has suggested he is far from happy with proposed budget cuts to his beloved CrossRail project and has even led Boris to threaten a return to the Commons where he would be a thorn in the side for David Cameron while leaving the Tories the problem of finding a replacement.

The Liberal Democrats face a real problem – in a Ken vs Boris rematch, any candidate is likely to suffer the fate of Brian Paddick and be ignored. Despite the fact of the Coalition, it still seems likely the Lib Dems will want to put up a candidate and names such as Floella Benjamin and Lembit Opik have been mentioned and Floella Benjamin might be a useful contrast to the Ken vs Boris show but it will be an uphill battle for ANY candidate facing “the big two”,

Tube Strikes – Bob Crow 1 Boris Johnson 0

2010-09-13T09:42:00.001Z

The first Tube strike last week was widely viewed as a trial of strength between Boris Johnson, head of Transport for London (a position his predecessor, Ken Livingstone, never took) and Bob Crow, head of the RMT union. The dispute, which pitted the RMT and the TSSA union against TFL, is ostensibly over ticket offices and proposals to reduce staff and close offices because (as Boris claims) everyone uses their Oyster card and no one buys tickets any more.

The strike was surprisingly effective. Of course, TFL talked in glowing terms about running 40% of all trains (the main drivers union, ASLEF, is not involved in the dispute and worked normally) and claimed to have beaten the strike. Unfortunately, it’s all very well running trains but not much use if stations are closed and people can’t get on or off the trains.

Mrs Stodge wasn’t able to get off her train at Monument and had to travel all the way to Embankment in order to get back to the City. Her normal 45-minute journey took over two hours and the closure of key London stations such as Holborn would have been every bit as disruptive as stopping the trains at all so in these terms Bob Crow probably won Round 1 of this battle.

The London-based media, led by City AM and the Evening Standard, have been vitriolic in their condemnation of the RMT and especially Bob Crow, whose opinions seem to hark back to a different time but he does represent a strand of opinion which has grown and hardened with the coming of the Coalition and the likelihood of spending cuts. It’s quite possible that even if this dispute is resolved, Crow and the RMT will be back during the winter or early spring. My view was that any RMT or ASLEF prolonged strike would swiftly collapse but in a more adversarial atmosphere and with the sceptre of redundancies, I suspect future industrial action will or would be more solid.

The next planned strike is in three weeks time at the start of the Conservative Party Conference and it remains to be seen whether a fudged solution can be cobbled together to prevent a Round 2 but Crow and the RMT undoubtedly won Round 1.

Thoughts of the Week…

2010-08-28T17:28:00.001Z

Just an opportunity to brain-dump my thoughts on a few of the week’s events:

The Persecution of Mary Bale: the woman who was filmed stroking a cat and then putting it in a wheelie-bin in a Coventry street rapidly become Britain’s most-hated person thanks to the wonders of CCTV and the media.

Now, don’t get me wrong – what she did was inexcusable and only she can explain why she did it. The cat survived – fortunately. None of that is terribly edifying but far worse was the “mob justice” of the written and broadcast media who tracked Mary down, besieged her in her home and hounded her and her innocent mother as they tried to go out and get on with their lives.

I don’t think anyone, especially the media, comes out of this with any credit. What gives the media the right to be judge and jury ? Trial by CCTV or YouTube reveals only what little power the individual has in modern society when a video can be seen by thousands in minutes and a website can accuse and condemn in the same way.

Free speech is used by both Right and Left as a totem around which they can hang their views, however distasteful but in a mature society free speech has to be responsible as well as responsive.

The Coalition and Cuts: a report by an independent think-tank claiming George Osborne’s Budget plans would hit the poorest hardest was seized on especially by Labour and other left-minded activists as a stick with which to beat the Coalition and especially the Liberal Democrats.

As a liberal, I’m loath to see any Government policy victimise those least able to cope. There is at times a mood akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater on the Right when it comes to welfare and benefits.

That said, abuse of benefits has to be stamped out but the deserving and justifiably entitled also need protecting and getting the balance right is vital. The Lib Dem policy of raising personal allowances to take people out of tax is a huge positive but would be undermined by indiscriminate benefit cuts. The VAT rise doesn’t help either and it’s to be hoped that the Coalition will be able one day to reduce VAT levels.

Tube Strikes: Along with most Londoners, Mrs Stodge and I use the Tube regularly and when it works, it’s tolerable but along with signal failures and weekend engineering works, we also face the regular problem of Bob Crow and the RMT threatening strike action.

The current dispute over ticket office staff has escalated to a likely strike on September 6th. Now, I support the right to strike and making sure stations are adequately staffed especially at night is important but I despair of the constant resort to strike action from the RMT.

It does take two to tango, however, and the intransigence and public posturing of London Underground does no one any favours. Both sides claim they want to provide a better Underground service but we need a little less heat and a little more light.

Redefining the relationship…

2010-08-27T20:04:00.001Z

One of the intellectual foundations of the Coalition and the new liberal-conservatism is the concept of the “Big Society” which, it should be remembered, isn’t just about a bigger society but also smaller Government.

At its heart, therefore, is a redefinition of the relationship between the individual and the State, whether it be in terms of the central Government or the local Council. I attended a seminar this afternoon which covered the latter and it was fascinating to listen to representatives of local Government from both County and District Councils considering these issues. All were ambitious that the outcome of the spending review in October would be a huge factor going ahead. Many are bracing for bad news with cuts of 25-40% in the offing.

The likelihood of such drastic cuts is triggering a fundamental re-appraisal of the relationship between Councils and their customers. Some Authorities are already looking at services like Adult Education and Youth and trying to see if they might be able to completely end this provision. Others are looking hard at in-house activities and processes for savings. There is reluctance to look at wide-scale externalisation because the experience has not been uniformly positive. Indeed, some have in-sourced activities having discovered it to be a cheaper option.

Thinking along the lines of collaborative working isn’t well developed in some areas but more so in others. Some of the more radical thinking looked at taking functions currently scattered in two-tier environments and consolidating them. In effect, we could be seeing the evolution of unitary authorities by function if not administration.

Unfortunately, the general view was bleak and almost all Authorities were convinced that redundancies would be inevitable though a few hoped the numbers would be lower than feared. The fear was that valuable knowledge and experience would be lost while one representative from a County Council expressed the view to me that his senior officers and Members were “in a state of denial” and feared a panic slash-and-burn round of job losses in the New Year.

Another said to me privately during coffee that the mood in his Authority was “like the phoney war of 1939-40. They have no idea what is coming over the horizon towards them”.

What concerned me most listening to these experienced Officers was the lack of time for planning. The publication of spending details in October or November leaves little or no time for constructive thought or planning. Individual Councils will be left to respond in isolation as the tidal wave of austerity hits.

It won’t be pleasant…

How Big is the Univers-ity ?

2010-08-19T11:26:00.001Z

This morning’s “A”-level results tell us very little we didn’t already know with improving grades and more evidence that girls are smarter than boys.

The problem now is what to do with all these aspiring students. Universities have been forced to cut back on places due to budget cuts and it’s estimated that some 150,000 potential students will not find a place with the old standby of UCCA swamped by enquiries and only 18,000 course places on offer.

One option is for students to get some form of work – ideally paid but this is an opportunity for employers to offer work experience for students. It’s fashionable for the young and wealthy to have a “gap” year and go off travelling round the world but an equally constructive alternative would be to take up placements in local businesses.

Should we be encouraging students to look at business as an alternative to University ? Three years of study and a huge student loan might have its attractions and at present paid work is hard to come by but should we not reward companies and businesses that offer meaningful placements for students and shouldn’t we reward the students themselves who take them up with a credit against their fees ?

Beg, Steal but (don’t) Borrow…

2010-08-19T11:20:00.001Z

Some encouraging economic news for the Coalition this morning with the monthly public borrowing numbers for July coming in much better than expected on the back of a jump in tax receipts. My view has long been that the problem with the public finances has been as much about the amounts of money coming in as the amounts going out. Yes, spending got out of control under Labour but the onset of the recession had a particularly severe impact on tax receipts, notably Corporation Tax, as companies retrenched.

The rebound in tax receipts shows business is coming out of the worst of the slump and suggests that George Osborne’s ambition of bringing borrowing and debt under control in the lifetime of the Coalition is far from unrealistic.

Retail sales also advanced nicely in July while discount retailer Poundland is expecting to create 2,000 new jobs. Now, none of this means there won’t be tough times ahead and the full impact of public spending cuts is likely to be a drag on the economy in 2011 but I’m more convinced than ever (and City AM’s Allister Heath has argued this for a while) that we will NOT see a double-dip recession in the UK.

All in all, good news for Nick Clegg and the Government.

We’ll keep the (Lib Dem) Flag Flying Here…

2010-08-18T17:58:00.001Z

Comments made and misreported by Deputy Liberal Democrat leader Simon Hughes have caused the usual blasts of bile and vitriol from the usual suspects over on politicalbetting.com and elsewhere.

Simon Hughes was and remains a strong supporter of the Coalition but he has a vital role within the Party as a conduit for the justifiable concerns of the party membership up to Nick Clegg. It’s not been an easy three months for the party and although ICM showed party support still at 18%, it’s clear some former supporters have flounced off in dismay at the Coalition with the Conservatives.

In amongst the usual banal dross from what passes for political journalism these days, there have been two more interesting pieces. One, in the Guardian by Jonathan Freedland, is a sober and realistic assessment of the Coalition so far which makes thoughtful reading while the other, from Laura Kuennsberg on the BBC website, asks what might have happened had the Coalition deal not happened and the two most likely alternatives – a Labour-Lib Dem Coalition or a Conservative minority Government, come to pass.

I recommend them both.

As for Simon Hughes, he was NOT asking for a Lib Dem veto on Coalition policy but he was seeking a vote on those matters not agreed within the original Coalition document. Indeed, the original document recognises some areas of difference (Trident) between the two parties. In these and other areas, it will rightly be up to Parliament and whichever side can gain a majority of MPs. The Conservatives cannot manage that alone and they may need to court support from elsewhere as indeed would any Labour-Lib Dem proposal.

The other more interesting part of Hughes’s comments relate to the possibility of a Labour-Liberal Democrat after the 2015 General Election. Here there may be a more substantive difference of view between Hughes and Clegg. I don’t believe Nick Clegg ever thought a deal with Labour was possible in May even though many in the party wanted one. The attitude of Labour and the Labour negotiators was a huge disappointment to those supportive of a deal. Hughes is right to point out that in 2015 there will be a different Labour leader and the atmosphere might not be so corrosive but it seems at present that the sense of “betrayal” felt by Labour is very strong. We can but hope cooler heads and time prevail but I don’t see it and indeed Nick Clegg may well want to continue the Coalition into a second term which won’t please many Tories.

The Liberal Democrats may feel under the cosh now but there is a huge prize out there waiting for them especially IF the Coalition is successful in restoring public finances and economic growth. The Conservative-labour duopoly survived for decades on the basis they were the only game in town and that other parties were not serious about power.

The Liberal Democrats suffered for years from the tag of not being a “serious” party and that undoubtedly cost the party a lot of the support it got from the debates in mid-April. I believe there are many Conservative and Labour supporters who vote for their party out of fear of the other party. With the Liberal Democrats now a serious party of Government and able to restrain the ideological excesses of the extremes in both the other parties, the argument for supporting both the other parties fades and the argument FOR supporting the Liberal Democrats grows.

Indeed, I would predict that if by 2015 the Coalition is perceived as having been a success, the Liberal Democrats will gain both votes and seats from the Conservative and Labour parties.

It’s hard going now – Simon Hughes is doing a good job and that’s not appreciated by many, least of all those in the media intrinsically hostile to the party.

101 Days and All’s (Mostly) Well..

2010-08-17T20:31:00.001Z

Tonight, the Guardian has published an ICM poll showing the Conservatives and Labour level on 37% and the Liberal Democrats on 18%. The key move since the election has been a shift of 6% from the Lib Dems to Labour but overall the Coalition retains 55% support, a phenomenal figure for any Government.

It’s been just over 100 days since the conclusion of those remarkable five days in May which saw politics transformed and the emergence of a new partnership Government. The honeymoon hasn’t lasted and the new Government faces some very tough decisions. The Osborne Budget in June set the tone and the spending review, due in October, is likely to prove hugely unpleasant and divisive but the need to rein in runaway public spending and reduce the deficit was and remains acute. The Markets have backed the Coalition thus far but volatility and uncertainty remain.

Politically, the new Government faces three disparate forces of Opposition:

1) The Labour Opposition: not surprisingly, the defeated Labour Party has rediscovered its taste for opposition politics and the post-Brown leadership contenders seem to spend more time attacking the Government than discussing not only why Labour lost but what the road ahead is for Labour.

The problem for whoever wins the Labour leadership (Ed or David Miliband) is trying to define what Labour would be like back in Government. It’s fair to say that had Gordon Brown won the election, the Labour Government would be moving ahead with its own programme of cuts and the rationale for voting Labour in 2015 is far from clear. There’s no future in simply being the voice of those opposed to the Coalition because, IF the Coalition is successful and can for example offer tax cuts in 2014-15, the argument FOR voting Labour will be very hard.

On electoral reform, Labour continue to flip-flop. Having offered AV to the Liberal Democrats in the post-election negotiations, the leadership contenders are prevaricating and uncertain. They are clearly torn between the rock of a reform which would help them and the hard place of opportunism and the opportunity of damaging the Coalition.

2) The Conservative Opposition – sites like politicalbetting.com have illustrated the anger among some Conservative activists at events since May. If Labour supporters are struggling to come to terms with why they lost, Conservative activists have yet to come to terms with why they didn’t win. Initial support for the Liberal Democrats in joining forces with their party has quickly turned into spiteful hostility.

They feel it isn’t THEIR Government and every time they see Nick Clegg or Vince Cable, it’s a reminder of their failure and even David Cameron isn’t immune from their anger. Supported by media such as the Express and Mail, for whom a Conservative majority Government was the only desirable result, they spend their days sniping at the Liberal Democrats and privately hoping the Coalition will collapse even if that propels Labour into Government.

In their dishonest and immature sniping, they find common cause with the Labour Opposition and these Duopolists want nothing more than to see the Liberal Democrats smashed and the certainties of the Tory-Labour pendulum restored.

3) The Liberal Democrat Opposition – those who thought going into Coalition would lead to a flood of defections from MPs and Councillors have been proved wrong so far. It’s true that some activists, such as Nich Starling, were and remain deeply disillusioned with events. For those who joined in the Thatcher/Major years, the Conservatives were always “the enemy” but thirteen years of Labour authoritarianism and financial mismanagement have brought a convergence of liberalism and Cameronite Conservatism and this was the catalyst to Coalition.

Some in the Liberal Democrats failed to see the way the wind was blowing and this process began with Sir Menzies Campbell’s leadership and has continued under Nick Clegg who is arguably the most liberal leader since Jo Grimond.

Perhaps the angriest group of all has been those who voted Lib Dem on May 5th and then found the party they supported in the ballot box joining forces with the Tories. This sense of betrayal and anger is very real and palpable and won’t be easily replaced but it may be that IF the Coalition gets it right and Labour is seen to be an irrelevance, some will come back.

There has been a huge upheaval of political forces since May 5th and the prospect of meaningful realignment is perversely closer now than at any time since the autumn of 2003. For decades, re-alignment was seen in terms of a change on the Left with a new non-socialist progressive force coming to challenge the Conservatives. Both the SDP and the Blairite Labour party offered that but failed to achieve a permanent change.

Since the events of 2003, the climate has switched to the possibility of re-alignment on the Right with a new non-Conservative centre party emerging to take on Labour. For Conservatives, the unpleasant truth is that while traditional Conservative leaders and policies failed in 1997, 2001 and 2005, the more liberal approach was only a limited success in 2010. That said, liberal-conservatism, if successful, will look a more attractive option than conservatism and the risk of a schism in Tory ranks will grow.

The new Government has made mistakes – the departure of David Laws was a serious setback while both Michael Gove and Liam Fox have struggled to make a positive impact and Theresa May has disappointed some of the more strident conservative activists. However, the core relationship between Cameron and Clegg remains strong. Longer-term, this Government, like most of its predecessors, will likely see a conflict between numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Cameron-Osborne relationship fracture under the impact of the spending cuts.

It’s the first time in my adult life I’ve supported the Government – it’s new and strange for me and I’m not the only one struggling to adjust.

You’re AVing a Laugh ?

2010-07-04T19:07:00.001Z

In the warmth of midsummer, it’s tempting to take a more positive view of the world but not so this year. The Budget, the unexpected and humiliating exit of England from the World Cup, Andy Murray’s failure at Wimbledon and continued international jitters have combined to create an anxious public mood.

Tensions within the Coalition Government and between the two governing parties have also continued. Some Liberal Democrats have found the VAT rise to 20% in the Budget very difficult to accept but the rebellion was limited to just two MPs. Yet if the Liberal Democrats have tensions, so do the Conservatives. We know of differences between Prime Minister David Cameron and Defence Secretary Liam Fox and in the background there is the constant low-level sniping against the Liberal Democrats led by pointless propaganda rags like the Daily Mail and supported by some Tory activists.

This faction of Conservative opinion doesn’t want or like the Coalition and would prefer five years in Opposition under a Labour Government to a continuation of the current arrangements. They hope somehow that the Liberal Democrats will be destroyed at the next election and that the Conservatives can govern alone with a majority.

This group, which seems to be led de facto by George Osborne is opposed by David Cameron and this widening schism within the Conservatives suggests it is they rather than the Liberal Democrats who will be most profoundly affected by the experience of Coalition.

The announcement of a referendum on changing the voting system next May has caused the anti-Lib Dem faction in the Conservative Party to swing foursquare behind the current electoral system. Cameron has said he opposes change to the voting system which is fair enough but he will NOT actively campaign for a “No” vote.

Deputy Prime Minster Nick Clegg will find some Tories willing to campaign for a “Yes” vote while Labour finds itself (as it has been since mid-May) out-manoeuvred and irrelevant. With the Coalition comfortable with both sides of the argument, Labour finds itself unable to carve out a distinct position. Do they join forces with Cameron and vote “no” which will be strange considering Labour were supporters of AV in their manifesto or do they join forces with Nick Clegg and back a change ?

AV is NOT proportional – it’s not the answer (STV is the answer) but it’s better than FPTP. More proportional systems would have produced very different results to FPTP. The common theme is that the Conservatives did best under FPTP while the Liberal Democrats would have done better under any other system.

AV tends to exaggerate majorities and concentrate closeness. Analysis of previous results shows that the Labour majorities in 1997 and 2001 would have been larger but so would the Conservative majorities of 1983 and 1987. 1992 would have seen John Major returned with a majority of 5 rather than 21.

The Conservative argument AGAINST AV seems to consist purely of a hostility to the fact that it treats the Liberal Democrats better. Look at STV for 2010 and you see BOTH the Conservatives and Labour losing out by 60 and 50 seats respectively.

The battle lines are being drawn – Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, a few Tories and rather more Labour supporters in the “Yes” camp and the bulk of the Conservatives with a few Labour people in the “No” camp. The “No” camp will have a significant financial advantage and is likely to have strong media support with papers like the Mail, Sun and Express likely to be on their side. The “Yes” camp will probably have more people on the ground and it is to be hoped that “Yes” will win next May.

Some believe a “No” vote will hasten the demise of the Coalition but that’s stupid and naive. The Liberal Democrats have already got a lot out of the Coalition and they are going to get more as time goes on. The role of the conscience of the Coalition is theirs and as the really unpleasant and vindictive side of the hard Conservatives gets more and more evident, I believe the electorate will look to the Liberal Democrats as the vital check-and-balance to the vengeful Right.

The truth of the Coalition is the truth of a potential re-alignment of the centre and centre-right of politics. It’s not what many or indeed most thought re-alignment would look like but the war for the heart and soul of the Conservative Party has been joined. AV is just one battle.

Of Apprehension and Austerity…

2010-06-22T10:47:00.001Z

It’s an apprehensive time and the mood of tension and dread is almost palpable. Today is the long-awaited emergency Budget presented by George Osborne and tomorrow England’s footballers face Slovenia. Both events are essentially make-or-break and both will shape the national mood and mind-set for years to come.

Both will last around 90 minutes (the Budget will probably be a little shorter) and both will be unpleasant to watch and listen to. It’s little wonder that people are both anxious and nervous with trepidation very much the order of the day.

As far as the Budget is concerned, today marks a significant turning of the page. It is in many ways Day 1 of Austerity Britain and the end of the period of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and rising asset prices which sustained us with barely a pause from 1992 to 2007. Since 2007, we have lived in a disconnected world with the private sector suffering and global markets crashing before recovering on the back of substantial Government support. For many, though, the good times have continued. Interest rates are at an all-time low and for those in secure work, it’s been a great time to pay down those mortgages or pay off those debts.

Since 1999, the public sector has enjoyed the not-inconsiderable largesse of Government spending but the binge of spending collided head-on with the recession and the result has been spiralling debt and spending which now looks unsustainable. Like an alcoholic waking up after a bender or a drug user coming down, the smell and sound and taste of reality is far from pleasant.

The unpalatable truth is that all political parties rode the gravy train, all backed higher spending and therefore singling out Labour is unfair. Yes, Brown made matters worse with his spending binge but that binge was universally supported in 1999 and for years after.

Austerity Britain rewrites the rules and we should draw a line under the history. Today is the day we begin to sober up, clean up our act, go straight etc, etc. Going “cold turkey” won’t be easy – jobs will be lost, lives destroyed, families blighted, communities ravaged and above all hope and confidence undermined.

As Matthew d’Ancona, who seems to ply his trade writing pro-Conservative pieces for any rag that will take his incoherent ramblings, opined in a rare moment of wisdom in yesterday’s Evening Standard: “If Osborne looks like he is enjoying himself, all will be lost”. There are elements in the Conservative Party who are positively ecstatic about cuts in the public sector and who take as perverse pleasure in seeing public sector workers (who they believe, wrongly, to be Labour voters) out on the streets.

There are other pro-Conservative factions in the City who have argued for mercy from tax rises, especially Capital Gains Tax. I do see some merit in limiting CGT rates where it would discourage savings or where it impacts the elderly but I see no argument for the spivs or speculators to be spared.

In my field of expertise, local Government, a number of Councils have already instigated additional cuts within this financial year. Some are getting out of leasehold property, others looking to lose jobs. The next few years will be especially painful for those Councils who have derived the greater part of their funding from central Government while those which have planned or derive more of their income locally may do better.

More than anything else, today’s Budget needs to mark the beginning of a change in the country’s economic culture. We need to move away from a consumption and debt-based economic and social model to a model predicated on saving and creating a mindset where we buy only the goods and services we can afford. That doesn’t mean we should never borrow but that borrowing should be an avenue of last resort rather than an avenue of first choice and that means the financial services industry acting with far more responsibility than it did in the good times.

As for the football tomorrow, failure to qualify for the last 16 will be a catastrophic psychological and emotional blow for England. Fabio Capello will resign or be sacked and questions will be asked not only about the team selection and tactics but whether in an age of Austerity, individuals who are paid so much and achieve so little are genuinely worth the enormous sums they are paid. We could well see a backlash against excessive wages in football which would not be a uniformly bad thing.

For now, all we can do is wait – the Budget is barely an hour away. Reckoning is at hand.

Expenses Spared…

2010-06-06T18:58:00.001Z

I’ve crossed a bit of a mental rubicon on the issue of MPs expenses following the sad resignation of David Laws and the Telegraph’s attack on his successor, Danny Alexander.

What started perhaps as a genuine attempt to seek out doubtful practices among some MPs evolved not only into an anti-politician and anti-politics witch-hunt but also became a political weapon used by the Telegraph against both non-Conservatives and those Tories not in the mould of the followers of David Cameron.

The roots of the expenses scandal lie in the cultural response to the onset of recession and the ending of the long-lasting economic boom of the 90s and 2000s. The response to the end of plenty has been an outbreak of neo-puritanism with venomous attacks on the pay of Council officers and other public servants and an almost pathological desire to find “waste” with public money. This has seen the growth of odious groups such as the Taxpayers Alliance whose sole raison d'être seems to be a sanctimonious approach to how public money is spent.

We all bought in, individually and collectively, to the economic culture and zeitgeist of the good times. Cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and rising house prices created a culture in which excess was not to be ashamed of and there was a sense of well-being and a genuine belief that it would and could go on for ever. Those who saw claim they saw it all coming were memorable only for their silence and, as I’ve argued elsewhere, insight is more valuable than hindsight.

Politicians were part of this economic culture too and no one questioned the process of expenses at the time. To be fair, the vast majority of MPs were not actually breaking laws but doing what many other people would do and have done in these situations – bend the rules and utilise the system to their own advantage. Being an MP shouldn’t be a job for the independently wealthy. It’s a job with long hours, lots of travelling and unless you live in a safe seat, precious little job security.

Yet the sky has fallen in and now the neo-puritans want their pound of flesh. The release of MP expenses at a time of falling stocks and shares and huge instability and uncertainty was guaranteed to produce a torrent of vitriolic responses. I’m sure the Telegraph believed its moralising attitude would work to the advantage of the Conservatives as day after day seemed to be attacks on mainly Labour MPs.

Yes, let’s have a sensible and transparent system for MPs to obtain the support they need to do their job and let’s crack down and deal strongly with obvious criminality but the current witch-hunt has done far more harm than good. Democracy is not well served by a Parliament of politically and financially emasculated saints more frightened of the media than their electorate. We must also create every opportunity for anyone and everyone to seek to become an MP.

The David Laws case has shown the power of the witch-hunt and the damage such an attitude can do. A man, accepted by all (including his opponents) as intelligent and the best man for the job has been hounded from his job and his private life laid bare for an amount of money which, in contrast to the deficit he was tasked with tackling, was pitifully insignificant.

It’s time to end the moralising, the self-righteous sanctimonious holier-than-thou witch-hunt and judge our politicians on how they run the country and the governance they provide not on what expenses they claim. It’s time to start moving the economic culture on and looking at how the 2010s are going to be for us all not just the wealthy, the needy and the greedy.

Laws Broken ?

2010-05-30T17:52:00.001Z

The last forty-eight hours have been pretty traumatic for the Government and in particular for David Laws, who was forced to resign last night from his post as Chief Secretary to the Treasury following newspaper revelations about his expenses and his living arrangements with his partner who seemed also to be his landlord.

It’s been difficult in the blizzard of partisan opinion and counter-opinion to get too close to the “facts” and it’s been fascinating to see those who have been “kind” to Laws (who have tended to be supporters of the Government) and those who have not (who have tended not to be friendly to the coalition).

I approach this from two angles – the first has been what has clearly been a deeply uncomfortable and distressing public self-outing by Laws. He strikes me as an intensely private man (nothing wrong with that) whose homosexuality, if an “open secret” around Westminster, wasn’t widely known even to those closest to him. I get the impression that he was extraordinarily uncomfortable with public knowledge of his private life and part of why he did what he did was to cover the tracks of his private life. In other words, to protect his own privacy, he either broke or severely bent the rules.

Although we are constantly told we live in an open, tolerant society where sexuality is no longer an issue, there is clearly an undercurrent of, if not, outright homophobia then a climate in which open homosexuality remains largely taboo. Laws clearly felt he could not reveal his sexual life for reasons I can only guess though his career in the City might have precluded him toward discretion.

Set against all that is the financial reality of his lifestyle which involved claiming large sums in expenses on a monthly basis for living arrangements which do not seem to be supported by the expenses system. Now, his defenders argue with some conviction that Laws has done nothing “wrong” i.e. he has not contravened the rules nor personally benefitted from the claims unlike some.

The problem with that (setting aside Laws’ own considerable personal wealth) is the extent to which his partner may have benefitted. Again, we are dealing with a “partner” not a wife or a relationship within the confines of the expenses system.

I suspect Laws will be cleared by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner though I also expect a reprimand of some severity.

The “problem” with all this from my perspective is how David Laws, a man of not inconsiderable intelligence and acumen (and regarded as so by ally and adversary alike) could have possibly believed he would get away with it indefinitely. Was he so scared of the public consequences of the revelation of his sexuality that he perpetrated a financial relationship which in the current climate would have been considered by most, if not all, as “dubious” ? I assume neither Nick Clegg nor David Cameron knew any of this until it broke on Friday night and while I suspect they wanted him to tough it out, the unique nature of his political position made his position untenable.

But they can come back – Mandelson did so twice. There will be those who draw the conclusion that “they are all the same” and will use this as a stick to beat Government in general. When the time came, David Laws walked away and did so with more than a modicum of honour and humility.

The anti-coalition elements on both the Right and Left have had a field day and are already sharpening their knifes for Danny Alexander, Laws’s successor. The twin tragedies are Laws personally but also the fact that the Government and country are going to be denied a man of talent and knowledge at a time when these qualities are arguably most needed.

And yet…we are locked in to a mindset that our politicians must be above reproach and free of any kind of blemish on their character. I’m more inclined to the view that a Parliament of Saints is not a thing to be desired – the Sinners need representation too. Yes, there are actions that are and should be unacceptable but I cannot put what David Laws has done in that capacity.

The country has lost a man of talent at a time when that talent is most needed not because of a grotesque mistake or self-serving error but because of the clarion cries of the hypocritical, the mewlish rantings of the homophobic and the self-serving antics of the opportunists.

I hope David Laws can be brought back to Government as soon as the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner exonerates him and we can get on with the task at hand.

Are Academies the Answer ?

2010-05-28T21:25:00.001Z

One of the more radical policies of the new coalition Government announced this week is the proposal to allow schools to leave Local Education Authority (LEA) control and become wholly State-supported bodies able to draw on both Government and private funding sources. The very best schools would also be able to avoid Ofsted inspections as well.

Putting the politics to one side, the proposals are likely to have a huge impact on a number of local authorities. For some, the schools estate represents by value up to 85% of the authority’s entire property portfolio. The “loss” of that value of asset would be catastrophic for the viability of the authority and would question the continued viability of the two-tier system in many parts of England.

Let’s look at the practical impact of what is being proposed. Currently, schools within the LEA may be owned by the LEA or possibly by a Diocesan body or possibly by a Trust (known as a Foundation School). Whatever their ownership, all schools exist under the LEA banner and are funded or helped by the LEA. In most instances, the LEA pays the running costs and many schools are maintained by the LEA.

The maintenance of school buildings deserves a mention – when a number of schools opted out of the LEA system and became “Grant Maintained” in the early 1990s, they accepted State money instead of LEA funds and this was fine for a while but the Government money began to dry up and when the schools came back to the LEA after the Labour election victory in 1997, the LEA discovered that the schools had in many cases done nothing to improve the fabric but had spent the money on books and teachers. The latter are all well and good but the failure to maintain school buildings adequately left a legacy of hundreds of thousands of pounds of backlog maintenance which the LEA had to try to address.

The other problem is that the piecemeal funding of schools meant that schools never got enough to do the big jobs such as replace boilers and repair roofs. The LEA serves a useful function in being able to pool monies to carry out the large-scale tasks. In effect, most schools see little or no maintenance in any given year but some will get a major project (usually during the summer holidays). Some LEAs even pool the Delegated Formula Capital (DFC) funding in order to fund major projects such as extensions and rebuilds.

Individual schools with small pots of money won’t be able to carry out the large-scale maintenance tasks so there will be consolidation within the academy structure. This will happen in one of two ways – either a single private company will come in and take over the running of a number of schools and will effectively do what the LEA does or schools will form into “clusters” where a secondary school will take on the running of a clutch of satellite primary schools and admit pupils from these schools only.

Indeed, if schools become academies on a considerable scale, questions may be asked about the viability of the current two-tier local Government structure in England.

For a local authority employing 25,000 people, the loss of the schools will translate to a reduction in headcount to around 3,000 so that’s the emasculation of authorities like Kent, Hampshire, Surrey and Essex.

In many ways Michael Gove’s plans are far more radical and revolutionary than anything envisaged by previous local Government organisations and while the concept of taking schools out of LEA control is understandably attractive, I have another concern.

In the Academy system, the Board of Governors of a school will have considerable power. It’s known that in opposition, the Conservatives saw school Governing bodies as a way of keeping their hands on the levers of power even if Labour or the Liberal Democrats swept the Conservatives off Councils. Indeed, the plan was explicitly to stuff school governing bodies with Conservative supporters and activists to ensure schools followed the Tory agenda into the future.

In other areas, we see a commitment to local accountability but will we see the same in our schools ? Will we see annual elections to school governing bodies encompassing local communities and ensuring a properly representative and accountable system of school control ?

I’m not convinced – behind the veneer of Gove’s plan is an insidious and dangerous attempt to subvert local democracies and communities.

Questions need to be asked of Gove as to what he is really planning.

North Yorkshire offers Food for Thought….

2010-05-28T19:17:00.001Z

I once enjoyed a superb breakfast at the Golden Fleece Hotel in the centre of Thirsk before an enjoyable afternoon’s racing and yesterday’s by-election in Thirsk & Malton offers, I think, considerable food for thought for the main political parties. The by-election was regarded by some as a referendum on the new Liberal Democrat-Conservative Coalition and by others as a postscript to the 2010 General Election.

The figures, with comparison to notional numbers from 2005 (the seat is a new one created out of the former constituencies of Ryedale and Vale of York) are interesting and I’m indebted to politicalbetting.com:

Party	2005	2010	Change
Conservative	51.9%	52.9%	+1.0%
Labour	23.4%	13.5%	-9.9%
Liberal Democrat	18.8%	23.3%	+4.5%
UKIP	3.1%	6.6%	+3.5%

The big losers are clearly Labour and while it’s tempting to suggest Thirsk wouldn’t be ideal Labour country (and that would be true), the slump in the vote suggests those who are not happy with the coalition are a long way from seeing Labour once again as a viable alternative. Indeed, it confirms my suspicion that while Labour did remarkably well on May 6th, it has had nothing to say about events since. Indeed, history shows that Labour is likely to lose further ground and seats at the next election as they did in 1955, Feb 1974 and 1983 after a period of non-Labour Government.

I would argue that the other losers on the night were the Conservatives. That may seem odd with the vote share up (albeit narrowly) and a comfortable majority of just shy of 12,000 but I think there are signs that all may not be well for the blue camp.

I was expecting a better result from the Tories – an increased vote share of maybe 5-7% with votes taken from the Liberal Democrats as well as Labour. Instead, there are signs that not only were the Liberal Democrats able to take votes from Labour but that the Conservatives lost support to UKIP who more than doubled their vote share.

So, what happened and what does it mean for the future ? The Liberal Democrats fought a good local campaign but many had predicted that the party’s vote would be squeezed with coalition supporters rallying to the Conservatives but the early evidence suggests something else is going on. I suspect ex-Labour supporters are turning to the Liberal Democrats as a mechanism for modifying the harsher aspects of the Conservative programme. A strong Liberal Democrat presence and vote within the coalition guarantees that the worst excesses of Conservative policy are held at bay. There was some evidence that anti-Tory tactical voting was still alive and kicking on May 6th and this result confirms its new role – as a mechanism to counteract the excesses of the right-wing Tories.

The other side of this is the performance of UKIP. Though polling poorly on May 6th and with their leader, Nigel Farage, a humiliating third in Buckingham, it seemed that UKIP was on the way out but it has re-discovered a place as a forum for protest votes from disenchanted anti-coalition Conservatives. Elements of the Tory-supporting media have condemned David Cameron for giving too much away to Nick Clegg and for abandoning key Conservative principles in order to broker a deal. The mood of discontent has clearly permeated parts of the Tory vote and while it’s not a lot now, it will be fascinating to see whether UKIP candidates in later by-elections can capitalise on the mood within the Conservative vote.

The Liberal Democrats did well last night and are establishing themselves as the soul, if not the heart, of the coalition. By this I mean that Nick Clegg’s primary role will be to articulate the softer aspects of the coalition programme and ensure that the more excessive policy ideas of the right-wing are kept out of Government. There is a big constituency of pro-Coalition supporters who do not want a red-blooded Tory Government but are happy to see the Conservatives managing the Government.

All in all, a good night for the Coalition and the Liberal Democrats and also for UKIP but a worrying night for the Conservatives and a downright bad night for Labour.

Days of New Realities..

2010-05-13T16:10:00.001Z

The political world has been transformed by the Liberal Democrat – Conservative Coalition and its arrival in office. Yesterday’s press conference held by Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg showed just how important the relationship between the two leaders is going to be for the long-term stability of the new Government.

The early indications are promising but there will be some very tough decisions to be made and some very difficult days ahead. The decision to hold the coalition together until 2015 is a hugely positive development and while the Westminster and media cynics are still struggling to come to terms with events and suggest the coalition will collapse within a year or two I am much more optimistic.

The forces arranged against the coalition are a disparate bunch of the frustrated and the angry. Elements of the Conservative-supporting media such as the Mail and the Sun and Tory hardliners such as Allister Heath of City AM are finding it difficult to accept that the Conservatives failed to win the election direct and resent having to support a Government with the despised Liberal Democrats sitting round the Cabinet table. In the short-term they might think collapsing the coalition will put the Tories in power but in the medium-term I suspect they will see that the only immediate alternative to supporting the coalition is a Labour Government.

The stench of sour grapes pervades much of the media and the BBC and Sky are al;so struggling to come to terms with the new narrative.

Within the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, there is some concern. I suspect there will be a tiny vociferous minority of Conservatives, primarily in the media, who will stand opposed to the coalition and leave the party. The Liberal Democrats face a different problem – the potential detractors are more numerous but probably quieter.

As a card-carrying Liberal Democrat, I would merely say that the point of being in politics is to get the things done that we believe in and it doesn’t really matter whether that happens under a Liberal Democrat Government or not. Compromise has had to be made but the Labour option was never a runner – the prospective “progressive” coalition neither had the votes nor, with another unelected Prime Minister, would it have had any real legitimacy. The option of doing nothing was a recipe for instability and the country cannot afford that instability at this time.

Those opposed to the coalition will naturally coalesce around Labour but it remains to be seen what coherent alternative Labour can offer in 2015. By then, the coalition will hopefully have done enough to ensure its continuation.

The next two or three years will be very difficult for the coalition and its constituent elements. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Lib Dems fall to 10% or lower in polls but politics is about staying the course. Indeed, the essence of what has happened in the past few days (whether revolutionary or not) is not only the transformation of the Liberal Democrats into a party of Government but the beginning of the transformation of the Conservative Party and David Cameron has to take a lot of the credit for the pragmatism and realism he has shown.

It wasn’t just about making the Tories electable, it was always about making them relevant and fit for Government. The journey won’t be easy for them either but both Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties are in a period of transition. No one is suggesting the parties will merge in the short-term or even the long-term but the concept of the Conservatives on the centre-right facing two parties on the centre-left is dead. The argument that a vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for Labour is also dead.

There are those who fear the Liberal Democrat vote will splinter as the “progressive” side fragments and goes back to Labour but that misses the point. There were, I believe, a significant number of voters who wanted to vote Lib Dem last Thursday but were scared into voting Tory by the media-driven fear of the Liberal Democrats propping up a Labour Government. It is that bloc of voters plus others that is the new prize for the Liberal Democrats.

I’m encouraged by the start of the coalition – there seems genuine goodwill on the part of many of the key players to make it work. The media won’t help – for them, the duopoly was easy and vitriolic attacks on Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats part of the game.

Here’s a newsflash, guys – the game has changed and you’ve not caught up yet.

Am I now a Government Supporter ?

2010-05-11T15:27:00.001Z

Indications this afternoon suggest that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat “deal” is close to being concluded. Those opposed to it from across the political spectrum have been making mischief and in particular vitriolic attacks have been launched on Nick Clegg for apparently negotiating with both Labour and the Conservatives at the same time.

As the actual negotiations have been shrouded in a veil of non-disclosure, it’s allowed the conspiracy theorists and those bored by the repetition of the 24-hour news cycle to come up with all kinds of explanations. People in this country who are used to the continuity of Government seem to struggle with the concept of negotiation and compromise and accuse Nick Clegg of “holding the country to ransom”.

This twaddle that passes for analysis ignores the fact that the Liberal Democrats merely offered the Conservatives first refusal, not exclusivity. Labour wanted talks and there was no reason to refuse the offer. Indeed, the Labour media machine probably made far more of the talks than the reality which was clearly more an exercise of going through the motions.

The very act of talking to Labour seems to have got some people agitated but nobody, now or in the future, can argue that the Liberal Democrats didn’t play fair by both sides. However, the likelihood of a deal with the Conservatives has always been there and while the offer of a referendum on the Alternative Vote system is a step in the right direction, there have been other areas of compromise but the detail will become clearer later.

The impatience of the Tory media has been lamentable and the prognostications of disaster from people like Allister Heath equally ill-informed nonsense. Time has been taken and the language of senior Conservatives such as Michael Gove and William Hague has been welcome and conciliatory. The deal won’t please everyone but it will be the basis of a prolonged period of stable and decisive Government from which I believe both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will ultimately benefit.

There is also another coalition forming – of those opposed to the new Government. This is a disparate bunch ranging from those Tories and Liberal Democrats who cannot stomach the thought of their parties working together through Labour, many of whose representatives have acquitted themselves honourably in the past few days, to more fringe elements. This group, apart from being angry with Nick Clegg for spurning Labour and the so-called “progressive alliance” is also peddling the view that the new Government will collapse swiftly and there will be another election.

I don’t subscribe to that view at all – I hope that the new agreement is for the duration of the parliament and that with that stability assured, the new Government will be able to move ahead with the tough economic measures required and instigate a comprehensive programme of political reform.

It won’t be easy and I suspect one or two Lib Dem MPs, peers and some high-profile members will flounce off in disgust but the country cannot afford the luxury of ideological purity at this time. Frustration over the past 72 hours will soon pass and the new Government will have the authority to begin its work.

I wish it well.

Taking Time and Getting It Right…

2010-05-08T19:25:00.001Z

The Daily Mail was a curious mix of frustration and anticipation this morning. The grudging admission that the Conservatives had NOT won the election (and a number of columns saying the Tories would have won if they’d followed the advice of the Mail) was mixed with a curious combination of Lib-Dem bashing and half-hearted admiration for Nick Clegg.

As I write, negotiations between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are ongoing. My view has not changed since last evening. I’m wary of the party joining a formal coalition with the Conservatives and would prefer a less formal arrangement.

I’m suspicious of Cameron’s motives but do accept that the country needs a period of stable Government in order to move forward with the painful medicine of spending cuts and tax rises for which a large minority voted last Thursday.

On PR, it’s never been a deal-breaker for me and clearly many Conservatives fear it and oppose it but we cannot go on like this though I can see why Conservatives prefer the status quo. Mealy-mouthed commitments to commissions and inquiries don’t cut it, however. What’s needed is an unequivocal commitment to a referendum on a change of voting system and we will all have to learn to live with the outcome.

The right-wing media are already using Greece as a reason for besmirching PR but that’s a ridiculous and spurious notion. However, as we’ve seen, the right-wing media are perhaps the biggest obstacle to reform in this country – perhaps Nick Clegg should have a word with David Cameron about the media company he keeps.

Oh, What A Night…And Day…

2010-05-07T21:25:00.001Z

Well, it’s been 24 hours since the polls close and the country is still digesting the outcome of the 2010 General Election. Gordon Brown is still in Downing Street but for how much longer ?

A day that started in some gloom in Lib Dem circles has ended with much anticipation and trepidation following David Cameron’s unprecedented “big” offer to the party in mid-afternoon.

Let’s be honest – the election result was disappointing for the party and the vote share in particular was disappointing after the 26-28% vote shares being shown even in the late polls. There were a number of factors at play which I’ll discuss another time.

For now, Nick Clegg and the slightly reduced parliamentary party meet tomorrow to consider their options and in particular David Cameron’s offer of negotiation. Some (I suspect Simon Hughes) will be diametrically opposed to any accommodation with the Conservatives, others will be more pragmatic.

My view this morning was that the Liberal Democrats should avoid deals or arrangements with BOTH Labour and the Conservatives and I’m still of that mind. David Cameron isn’t playing an entirely straight hand here, I think. He knows there are some tough decisions ahead and he’s looking for someone else to share the blame and shore up vulnerable Conservative seats. As a party, the Liberal Democrats cannot be seen to be too close to the Conservatives in the medium to long term.

In the shorter term, IF there are areas within any legislation that the party is able to support, so be it. Otherwise, it can seek to amend the legislation or could support Labour amendments. I understand where Cameron is coming from but it’s not for us to act as his Government’s stabiliser.

In addition, the Conservatives are offering next to nothing on electoral reform despite yesterday’s result once again illustrating the bankruptcy of FPTP – 36% of the vote should not get you 47% of the seats. A mealy-mouthed commitment to an inquiry is less than nothing. I’m sure Conservative concerns on Europe and defence could be accommodated but electoral reform is huge for the party.

There’s a strategic argument against coalition especially when it’s going to get very tough for any new Government. That said, if parties agree on legislation, there’s no need for formal arrangements.

We can quickly dismiss the blandishments of Gordon Brown, who already looks irrelevant. Labour has stormed back in the local elections in London and clearly there is plenty of fight in the party. If the Liberal Democrats join with the Conservatives, Labour will swiftly become the alternative Government-in-waiting.

The option of supporting a minority Cameron Government without a formal arrangement may not suit David Cameron and it might not even suit Nick Clegg but the medium-term prospects for the party could be best served by a little distance – not perhaps equidistance but a respectful distance nonetheless.

It is also vitally important the party stays united and cohesive in the coming days. There is a clear path of accountability within the process but Nick Clegg must be allowed room to manoeuvre and to see what other concessions he can wring out of Cameron.

If it must be failure, far better that it be seen to be Cameron’s failure to deliver his team than Clegg fail to deliver his.

Late Polls Suggest Close Finish

2010-05-05T19:56:00.001Z

A veritable blizzard of polls tonight suggest the General Election is on track for a close finish. The Conservatives lead with around 35% of the vote but while that shouldn’t be enough for a majority, a poll of marginal seats suggests the Tories are doing well enough to take up to 100 Labour seats though it seems prospects of substantial Conservative advances in Lib Dem seats seem remote and the Lib Dems might even pick up the odd Conservative seat.

Labour are hovering in the 27-29% though the pollster Angus Reid has them at 24% which would be catastrophic.

The Liberal Democrats are around 26-28% suggesting a photo finish for second place but the possibility of Liberal Democrat gains from Labour.

Mike Smithson on politicalbetting.com has betting on a Conservative overall majority, presumably on the basis of the site’s pollster, Angus Reid and the Conservative herd on the site are joyously calling the result.

I’m much less convinced – IF the Conservatives are around 35-36%, that’s barely 3.5% up on 2005. If the Angus Reid poll is right and Labour are down to 25%, that will be enough for a majority but all other pollsters have Labour higher. The unknown factor is the Lib Dem vote – will it be diffused or will it come out in the seats where it matters ?

I’m hoping for a block of 100 Liberal Democrat MPs after this election which would be fantastic in a Parliament with 300 Conservatives and 200 Labour (roughly). David Cameron would be Prime Minister but his Government would be tenuous.

The other possibility is the Liberal Democrats finishing second in the popular vote ahead of Labour. Tonight’s polls show it as a real possibility. I think it will happen in England but if you include Scotland and Wales it’s more doubtful. IF the party can finish second in terms of the popular vote it would be a huge achievement and offer the very real possibility of substantial gains against the Conservatives in 2014-15.

Tomorrow will tell us everything – let’s hope for a good turnout and a good result.

VOTE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

The Calm Before The Storm…

2010-05-05T16:43:00.001Z

For political activists, the day before an election is a curious time. There may be some last eve-of-poll leaflets to deliver but that should be it. The “Good Morning” leaflets should be ready to go but not yet. It’s a time for relaxation and rest before the exigencies of Polling Day take over.

Last Saturday night, the polls suggested the Conservatives were on their way to a majority but the polls of the last 48 hours have been much less certain. Yes, the Conservatives lead and the YouGov poll last night suggested the Lib Dem vote was falling away but not to the Tories but rather to Labour which seemed to have hit rock bottom and to be fighting back.

The final clutch of polls tonight might tell a different story once again but it’s perhaps more a tale of 650 stories rather than one story so to speak. We may well see a surprising diversity of outcome tomorrow night with neighbouring seats performing differently from each other. The regional poll information on politicshome.com showed a fascinating story of Lib Dem strength in the East Midlands and the South West with Labour perhaps coming back in their northern heartlands.

So, what will happen tomorrow ?

Well, there are three battles or sets of battles out there which will determine the result of the election so it’s best to consider each one separately:

Labour vs Conservative: The key battleground in terms of seats at least numerically. A number of seats narrowly won by Labour in 2005 will fall this time and there is evidence the Conservatives are doing well in those seats where Labour are 6-10% ahead. That said, a recovering Labour vote at the expense of the Liberal Democrats might change this. Seats like Halesowen & Rowley Regis and Nuneaton could be worth watching.

I wouldn’t be surprised if safer seats than this fell – one of particular interest is Morley & Outwood, the seat of Education Secretary, Ed Balls, where the Tories need a 10.5% swing to win. If seats at this level fall en bloc, David Cameron may well be on the way to an overall majority. If they stay Labour, it’s Hung Parliament territory.

It seems improbable Labour will gain any seats from the Conservatives this time.

Conservative vs Liberal Democrat: This is the “other” battle of the election. Before the debates, it was generally thought the Conservatives would pick off a large number of LD seats and sites like politicalbetting.com were full of the “taxi for the Lib Dems” but the debates changed all that. I’ve worked in seats such as Carshalton & Wallington and Orpington and while some of the more eccentric claims of possible gains from the Conservatives may no longer be realistic, it does look as though the Liberal Democrats will hold most of their seats and maybe pick up the odd one or two.

Seats to watch here include Carshalton & Wallington – if the Conservatives take this and nearby Sutton, they will be on course for a good result but Lib Dem holds will make the Conservative job of building a majority that much harder. If the Liberal Democrats take seats like Meon Valley and Harborough it will be a good night for them and a difficult night for the Tories.

Labour vs Liberal Democrat: In many ways, the forgotten battle of this election. On paper, the Liberal Democrats have a lot to do to overcome some large Labour majorities in all but a fair areas. Encouraging poll numbers in London suggest progress for the Liberal Democrats in the capital. Indeed, I’d go as far as to mention Lewisham West & Penge as one to watch for a possible Lib Dem gain. Elsewhere, early indications suggested a strong Lib Dem performance in Newcastle – that may have been blunted in recent days but there could still be some good results.

Scotland and Wales: Some of the earlier and more outlandish claims for the SNP and Conservatives respectively look to have been blunted and indeed the Conservatives in Scotland may do worse than in 2005. The seats in Edinburgh look particularly interesting with Labour under threat from the Liberal Democrats while in Wales, the Conservatives look set to make some headway in places like Bridgend but look also for results from Swansea and Newport for a Liberal Democrat challenge.

London Boroughs: It’s also local election day in London and it will be fascinating to see if the Liberal Democrat upswing will be reflected in Council election results in places like Kingston, Sutton and Richmond. Will Labour perversely begin its fight back by improving on its 2006 results in the capital ? The current scores in terms of Councillors are Conservative 783, Labour 673 and Liberal Democrat 324.

I expect the Liberal Democrat figure to be nearer 400 by Friday evening. I’m looking for advances in Lambeth, Lewisham, Haringey and Waltham Forest and I think it’s not impossible for the Liberal Democrats to take overall control of three of those Boroughs.

Anyway. I’m on the graveyard shift at a polling station tomorrow morning so good luck to all for tomorrow and I’m sure to be back here chewing over the results on Friday.

It’s Goalless with ten minutes to go…

2010-04-30T20:39:00.001Z

You’d be forgiven, if you read this morning’s Daily Mail, Sun, Times and Telegraph for thinking that after last night’s televised debate, David Cameron had already won the election and was set to be Prime Minister.

Indeed, the mood was positively triumphalist in some quarters and the usual vitriol was heaped on Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg. However, the various post-debate polls showed that while David Cameron was ahead on most measurements, Populus had him tied with Nick Clegg and another pollster had the gap at just a couple of points. In terms of vote share, the debate seemed to have made less difference to intentions than Gordon Brown’s gaffe of the previous day.

I think those who have watched every minute of all three debates were strongest in their praise of Cameron who did perform better last night after an apparent shaky start. Clegg has not repeated his victory of the first debate but he continues to impress a significant minority and those who saw him perform for the first time last night seemed to have been most impressed.

I’ve not mentioned Brown because he’s frankly irrelevant – this is now a two-horse race between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats with Labour seemingly on the cusp of collapse. Yes, Labour will retain a substantial number of seats but this election now looks set to deliver the worst performance for Labour since 1918.

Nick Clegg wasn’t in top form last night – immigration is always going to be difficult for a liberal party which finds itself on the wrong side of public opinion. However, it’s often the case that being on the wrong side of opinion doesn’t make you wrong – it often makes you right but it’s harder to persuade the doubters and it’s easier for your opponents to misrepresent your policies.

David Cameron may want to reflect on the very real possibility that in five years time he will be where Gordon Brown is now – having to defend unpopular policies and face tough questioning from a hostile audience. He may want to reflect on how he will deal with that instead of the friendly crowds and groups which are easy to deal with.

So, with just five days to go, we find the Conservatives battling the Liberal Democrats. The former have seemingly unlimited resources, especially of money, and doubtless nothing will be left to chance that money cannot resolve. They also have substantial allies in the media able to put out the Conservative line without critique and devote vast spaces to rubbishing and misrepresenting the policies and leadership of their opponents. The latter have hugely limited resources and no substantial outlet to rebut or refute the allegations of the Conservative-dominated media.

Yet tonight the Conservatives are polling at 2005 levels and are just 1% of their opponents.

It is akin to Chelsea or Manchester United being held 0-0 at home by Blue Square South opponents with just 10 minutes. You “know” the big club is going to win and probably has a £20m substitute waiting on the bench but they haven’t settled the game yet.

Tomorrow night’s polls are going to be fascinating – IF the Labour collapse breaks to the Liberal Democrats ands the party is close to or even leading the Conservatives, we will be in for a frenzied final four days.

“A Wonderful, Anxious Uncertainty”

2010-04-29T11:44:00.001Z

That’s how I described the current political situation on politicalbetting.com a few minutes ago and that’s exactly how it is with just six days of campaigning left and the last of the televised debates tonight.

For David Cameron, this campaign has not gone to plan at all. He probably expected to dominate the debates and have the kind of procession around pre-arranged photo-opportunities that Mrs Thatcher enjoyed in 1983 and 1987. Supported by large opinion poll leads, he could be relaxed and comfortable and await the move to Downing Street via Buckingham Palace on the morning of May 6th.

The first debate two weeks ago changed all that – Cameron was lacklustre and completely outshone by Nick Clegg. The surge in the Liberal Democrat vote has left pre-election predictions of a Conservative landslide in tatters and forced an urgent re-assessment of the campaign and a change in focus which took some days to deliver. The Conservative media such as the Sun and the Mail have led the onslaught on Clegg and the Liberal Democrats which has checked the Lib Dem advance to some extent.

With Nick Clegg in the ascendant, David Cameron has seemed sidelined and even subdued. He speaks well and his performance in last week’s debate was much better but he now has an equally charming and telegenic rival and life has got much harder. The Conservative financial advantage means the ground war still works in their favour but the advent of the televised debates has blunted that advantage to some extent. The battle in the Con-LD and LD-Con remains fierce and there will be many close finishes next week.

For Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, the campaign has gone far better than they could ever have imagined. From a start of around 20%, the post-first debate surge carried them briefly to opinion poll leads and 33%. Since then, the poll level has eased back to 28-30% under the media onslaught but it’s still a big step up on 2005. However, the potential vote is soft and a good performance by Nick Clegg in tonight’s debate is vital to carry the momentum into next week. The party is struggling to make best use of the volunteers and to maximise the effectiveness of the vote. Potential for considerable gains in Labour-held seats is balanced by anxiety over the many battles with the Conservatives.

Gordon Brown had a dreadful day today and needs a game-changing performance tonight. For a governing party to be third in an election with a week to go and still going down is about as bad as it gets and there are signs of the Labour campaign being held together only by the force of will of Peter Mandelson. The Tory media are already anticipating the post-election bloodbath but for now Labour has a mountain to climb albeit our corrupt electoral system seems set to provide an ample number of Labour MPs albeit on a share of the vote comparable to the disaster of 1983, if not worse.

So, there we are…seven days of uncertainty – frightening, memorable and wonderful.

Buckle up and enjoy the ride !!

If a Week is a Long TIme in Politics...

2010-04-25T17:10:00.002Z

Well, it's good to be back after a fortnight's holiday in Las Vegas which remains one of the most relaxing cities on the planet even if many of the people there aren't.

When I left on Monday April 11th, the ICM poll for that day's Guardian had the Conservatives on 37%, Labour on 31% and the Liberal Democrats on 20%. This morning, a Sunday Telegraph poll by the same organisation had the Conservatives on 35%, the Labour on 26% and the Liberal Democrats on 31%.

It's a lot to take in but here goes...I decided to vote for Nick Clegg as Liberal Democrat leader after I saw him in a debate with his opponent, Chris Huhne, at a hustings in London on a dark November night in 2007. Basically, he sounded more authoritative and comfortable and confident than Huhne and that seemed important at the time and even more so now.

The televised debates were always going to be an opportunity for Clegg and he took it with both hands in the first encounter. Last Thursday was less clear-cut but Clegg did nothing wrong.

So, where are we just 10 days from polling day ? The Liberal Democrats are in a position they have never been in - 30% in tonight's Sun YouGov poll. This provides a tremendous challenge as much as an opportunity. The pro-Conservative media have launched an unprecedented and vitriolic assault on Nick Clegg of a kind not seen since the attacks on Neil Kinnock in 1992.

This should come as no surprise - the mutually-sustaining duopoly of Conservative and Labour fears, above all, an interloper. The last time I recall the Conservative dogs being turned on the third party was in early 1987 after the Greenwich by-election when a series of polls put the then-Alliance parties second. David Steel and David Owen were subjected to a period of intense and vitriolic abuse from the Tory press.

The Conservative activists in the blogsphere are clearly rattled - this was the election they were going to win and win big. Now, they are fighting for their lives with poll sshowing they have made little or no progress since 2005. The Conservative press, led by the odious Daily Mail, has now realised Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are the real threat so we are witnessing a sustained barrage against the party and the leader. The Tories may claim this is fair play and may even cite similar anti-Tory leaflets but the fact remains the Liberal Democrats do not have the media power to rebut the allegations and the snide innuendo and the partisan critiques disguised as objective analysis.

Steve Richards offered the sober assessment in yesterday's Independent that it would take more to achieve real change and this may be so. IF the Liberal Democrats poll 30% on May 6th, it may be that the vote will be spread too evenly to push the party up to more than 100 seats but we simply don't know. It may well be that the Liberal Democrat advance will pick up more seats from Labour and hold more against the Conservatives than the straight-line poll analyses suggest.

For Labour, to be third in a General Election ten days out and to be still falling is about as bad as it gets. That said, even 26% of the vote would likely yield around 200 seats which tells you all you need to know about the corrupt electoral system so lovingly backed by both Conservative and Labour parties.

There are those on the Conservative side who claim the Lib Dem vote is soft and people don't really know the detail of Liberal Democrat polcies but the truth is much simpler - most people don't vote FOR a party but AGAINST other parties:

You vote Conservative if you're against Labour
You vote Labour if you're against the Conservatives
You vote Liberal Democrat if you're against BOTH Labour AND the Conservatives

I Fear For Our Country if Cameron Wins…

2010-04-11T18:41:00.001Z

As the election campaign unfolds, we are finding out more about David Cameron the man and what kind of Prime Minister he would make and what kind of Britain he wants to build…

It’s not pretty, in fact it’s more than a little scary. In any other election and under almost any other circumstances, his campaign would have unravelled completely by now and he would be fighting for his political life but facing Gordon Brown and under the shadow of a near economic collapse and an actual collapse in the public finances, he looks set to win.

The unpalatable truth is that many of the electorate are so desperate for change and so anxious to be rid of Gordon Brown and New Labour that they are prepared to vote for almost anyone who offers them a different and even slightly positive message.

The other truth is that the Conservatives will say and do almost everything to get elected and we have already seen a number of policy changes such as the decision to promise to cancel the increase in National Insurance Contributions (NIC) and now we have seen a change on the issue of tax relief for married couples.

With this latter policy shift we have seen the true face of David Cameron, the Conservative populist. Implementing a policy close to the heart of the Daily Mail may go down well with the Mail readership but it removes the last lingering pretence that Cameron is a “liberal conservative”.

Here’s the truth – Cameron is a Conservative on social matters. He believes in telling people how they should live their lives and what lifestyle they should adopt. He believes in the sanctity of marriage and is almost obsesses with the notion of “family”.

At last liberals recognise the community of interest between conservatives and socialists. Whether it’s the sanctimonious moralising of leaders or by using the levers of State, the truth is that BOTH Conservative and Labour Parties are at heart controlling and authoritarian who wish to control people’s lives, lifestyles and morality.

I’ve followed David Cameron since he became Conservative leader and while he comes over as a “nice guy”, he is, in my view, a deeply inflexible individual whose facade hides a ruthless, yet brittle character. quick to anger and slow to compromise. By any reasonable measure, he has none of the traits that a successful Prime Minister needs and the very fact he is likely to be elected illustrates the paucity of his opponents.

In office, I suspect he will become an isolated figure once the polls turn against him and the “Bunker” mentality will be stronger with him than with either Brown or Blair for his heroine is the Margaret Thatcher and his mantra is “the gentleman’s not for turning”.

I think he could very well destroy the Conservative Party in its current form and if he doesn’t manage that, he will preside over a rapid return to Opposition having not only failed to improve the country but he could very well make things a good deal worse.

So Far...So What ?

2010-04-08T21:19:00.002Z

Four weeks tonight, it'll be over.

I suspect some of the frantic Tory activists on politicalbetting.com won't make it if they carry on as they have been since Tuesday.

To be honest, very little has happened yet outside the "air war". Here in East Ham, we had leaflets today from BOTH Labour and the Liberal Democrats and most campaigns will be in a major literature phase rather than door-knocking at this stage.

This is all "phoney war" stuff and while tonight's YouGov poll shows a small move back toward the Tories, the reaction to any poll showing a strong Conservative number from the activists only tells me just how worried they are.

Yes, the Conservatives have had a good start though their National Insurance policy, like today's ludicrous "Citizen's Army" idea, is hampered by the nagging prospect of it having to be paid for at a time of (apparent) national stringency.

George Osborne claims he won't have to raise income tax or VAT and the public finances can be restored by "efficiency savings" in the public sector. Within local Government, most Councils have been operating a 3% year-on-year saving for a number of years.

The Conservative press are too busy eulogising Cameron and Osborne to offer any serious insight into these proposals so it's up to the centre and centre-left to ask the questions and tell the unpalatable truth.

The Conservative plans to cut public spending make no sense. To claim that the deficit can be slashed without any kind of tax rise is laughable economics. To talk about uncosted promises such as "Citizen's Armies" is irresponsible populist nonsense.

Any real financial credibility the Conservatives might have had has been destroyed in the past 72 hours. As the campaign goes on and the questions start being asked, the Tories will have to come up with more than platitudes.

Mourning Poor Journalism…

2010-04-06T20:05:00.001Z

I’ve often praised City AM Editor Allister Heath on this blog and rightly so. His expert analysis of the financial impact of the recession and the financial impact of the political and economic response were and continue to be required reading for anyone trying to make sense of the global financial situation.

In the world of politics, however, Heath’s touch deserts him. He has made no secret of his contempt for the Labour Government and the Liberal Democrat Opposition and regularly criticises Alistair Darling and Vince Cable.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, get more sympathetic treatment and Heath fairly eulogised when George Osborne pledged to reverse the Labour National Insurance tax rise despite there being no options provided to meet the shortfall.

Today, however, Heath hit a new low, selectively quoting the YouGov poll from the Sun and using it to build a vacuous piece on the Conservatives repeating their 1980s landslides and what a good thing it would be. Then, to cover himself, he pretended to take the moral higher ground claiming that the paper would look impartially at the policy claims and ideas of all the main parties.

Totally unconvincing, Allister.

Why did you not mention the ICM poll with its four-point Conservative advantage suggesting that, contrary to your hyperbole, Labour was closing the gap steadily ?

Why can you not come out and say what everyone knows – you are a Conservative supporter and an unreconstructed Thatcherite. You will doubtless exhort your readership to vote Conservative on May 6th but why not say so now and stop hiding behind your vacuous platitudes ?

Perhaps you should stick to the finance and leave the politics to the experts.

Why the Conservatives will win on May 6th

2010-04-06T19:44:00.001Z

As expected, the campaign is on and, as usual because it only happens every four or five years, people have already forgotten that this is a marathon not a sprint. The three main leaders are already out and about and the activist blogosphere is commenting on every nuance of every word of every sentence.

None of it matters at this time – the first key event is the first televised debate on April 15th. Until then, it will be all posturing and presentation.

The pro-Tory press are in confident mood and the YouGov poll in the Sun with a 41% Conservative rating and a 10-point lead was widely and selectively reported. The ICM poll with its four-point Conservative advantage got much more coverage outside the Tory press.

Again, polls at this stage matter very little though I am now tending to the view that, volatility notwithstanding, what we see now won’t be too far off the final result.

The Conservative Party will win the General Election on May 6th and form a Government with a small overall majority of between 1 and 20 seats and David Cameron as Prime Minister.

Why, as a Liberal Democrat, do I think this will happen ?

1) The Conservatives have a huge advantage in terms of national funding and resources over the other parties. While they can be matched locally in terms of the “ground campaign”, in terms of posters, targeted mail shots and a raft of other activities, they are miles ahead and this will pay dividends later in the campaign. Nothing will be left to chance that money cannot affect or influence.

2) The mood is for “change”. Gordon Brown is widely hated and held responsible for the recession (unfairly) and the disastrous state of the public finances (fairly). Let’s be clear – there is limited enthusiasm at best for the Conservative message but as they are NOT Labour that won’t matter and the message is very hard to fight against as, to be honest, the record isn’t much to defend.

3) The Conservatives have a huge advantage in the print media with the Sun, Mail, Times and Express all on their sides leaving only the Mirror to fight the Labour corner. Day after day, the Tory press will waste no opportunity to put the boot into Brown and Labour and magnify every Labour “gaffe” while giving the Conservatives an easy ride.

The one thing I think is already evident is that many people are disinterested and wall-to-wall coverage of every nuance of the campaign isn’t going to engage a disillusioned electorate. Past experience also indicates that Tory-Labour feuding turns off the electorate and plays well for the Liberal Democrats and other parties. With the two spin and rebuttal machines in full swing, there will be plenty of opportunity for campaign spats to become major rows from which neither of the two main parties benefit.

The Polling Storm Breaks…

2010-04-05T19:09:00.001Z

With an election likely to be called tomorrow, tonight’s polls paint a very mixed bag and are of course being interpreted in whatever way suits each member of the partisan blogosphere.

An ICM poll in tomorrow’s Guardian shows the gap between Labour and Conservatives down to just four points while Omnium in the Tory-leaning Daily Express has the gap at a solid ten points (39/29/17) while rumours suggest the nightly YouGov poll will also show a strong Conservative lead.

ICM has long been regarded as the most reliable of pollsters but it occasionally throws out an “outlier” number for one of the parties, possibly caused by sampling or weighting methodologies and the Labour figure might be down to this or it might show a genuine recovery in the party’s support as the election campaign dawns.

Omnium has its detractors and we’ll see if its numbers stack up on Polling Day while YouGov is also widely criticised though usually by the party or parties on the wrong end of one of its polls.

Sharp divergences in poll numbers always lead to agitation and a heady mix of euphoria and despair on sites like politicalbetting.com.

The fact remains that on the ICM numbers Brown has a chance while on the other numbers he has no chance.

The other key statistic is that 60% of the electorate (and most of those intending to vote I suspect) will watch the first of the television debates in just ten days time. Nick Clegg has a real opportunity as he is “first” in the debate.

IF he can perform and set the tone, this election may well have some twists and turns even yet.

The Days of Whine and Skirmishes…

2010-04-05T08:23:00.001Z

There’s an election coming – it might even be triggered by Gordon Brown tomorrow – but even if it isn’t, the pre-campaign skirmishing has reached a crescendo in the past 72 hours.

It’s been a bad week for Labour, or rather a bad twelve days since the Budget. Caught between a financial rock and an electoral hard place, Alastair Darling not only said very little but managed to annoy a lot of people by saying it or not saying it. As has been the tradition in recent times, the Budget went down badly, helped, it must be said, by a blizzard of negative spin from the media and the pro-Conservative blogosphere.

The “Chancellors Debate” last Monday was widely viewed as a “win” for Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman, and the fact that the Sun, which usually ignores the Lib Dems, has turned its fire on the party this morning, suggests the Conservatives have concerns on that flank.

This weekend, we have had the “Gene Hunt” poster, a Labour poster depicting David Cameron as the eponymous anti-hero of the “Life on Mars” and “Ashes to Ashes” series. This appears to have backfired as the Tory spinners immediately claimed “Hunt” as one of their own and the character, although deeply unpleasant, has resonated with those in the electorate who have been convinced by media such as the Daily Mail that institutions such as the Police are drowning in bureaucracy and political correctness.

Finally, comments made by Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling in support of a couple of B&B owners who refused accommodation to a homosexual couple, exploded into an all-out row. Grayling is the weakest of the senior Conservative spokesmen and my view is that were he facing someone other than Alan Johnson, he would be in deep trouble. As it is, he will survive this but I suspect his long-term future in a Conservative administration is limited.

On top of this, we have the first signs of the oncoming snowstorm of polls. Having closed the gap to as little as two points in the run-up to the Budget, Labour has lost ground again and is back to around 30%. The Conservatives have recovered from their flirtation with the mid-30s and are again around 38-39% while the Liberal Democrats are steady at around 20% having polled 23% with ICM earlier in the week. We will now see tiny, statistically insignificant moves hyped into huge swings of opinion, starting probably tomorrow.

The fundamentals haven’t changed. The Conservatives have money and resources and will deploy them in the seats they need to win (and probably elsewhere too). Only in the ground war on a local basis will they be out-fought by Liberal Democrat local activists. The Tory activists in East Ham are a pretty poor bunch – polite and respectful but as green as grass. I was canvassed on Saturday and held two of them up for ten minutes. I wish I had had those kind of resources when I was an Agent !!

Labour are in desperate trouble and they must know it – the debates are probably the last opportunity for Brown to convince with gravitas but the “mood for change” narrative is incredibly hard to fight. I’m far from convinced about David Cameron as you will know. He’s a “nice guy” (which is why the Gene Hunt poster simply doesn’t work) but, like Blair, he doesn’t like being unpopular or on the wrong side of the argument whereas I think Margaret Thatcher was the opposite – she revelled in her unpopularity and hated being liked.

When things get tough as the fiscal tightening bites and the public sector cuts kick in, Cameron will face the kind of pressure that Brown has faced since the autumn of 2007 and we’ll see then what kind of man he is.

For now, as the campaign proper dawns, he can enjoy the next month. He and his party are going to win, not by much I suspect, but by enough. In two or three years time, he may need to remember the mood of April and May 2010 because that may be as good as it gets.

Is Smithson calling it right on a Hung Parliament ?

2010-03-20T21:46:00.000Z

Mike Smithson, the host of politicalbetting.com, is always good company and always worth listening to. He reads the political runes far more astutely than most so, with talk of Hung Parliaments in the air, I was intrigued by this comment posted by him this evening:

As to whether I personally want a hung parliament - like most serious Lib Dems who have thought about it the answer is no. The best outcome is a very small Tory majority in a parliament with more Lib Dem MPs

History of course tells us that Hung Parliaments are a recipe for disaster for Liberals – 1923 and 1974 serve as salutary reminders that it’s the larger parties that call the tune and the Liberals are the fall guys.

The problem of course is that a Hung Parliament is a statistical accident rather than a desired outcome. IF it happens, the party has to be prepared.

The other aspect of the Smithson hypothesis is that it implies the heaviest possible defeat for Labour. For the Conservatives to gain a majority and for the Liberal Democrats to advance to say 70 seats would mean bringing Labour down to around 200-220 MPs. Now, Mike has been persistently bearish about Labour prospects and has argued, with polling evidence, that the worst poll for Labour at any time is the best reflection of the party’s true position but that theory hasn’t been tested in an election where Labour is on the wrong side so we’ll see.

Should such a result occur, it’s not hard to see an emboldened Nick Clegg becoming the main voice of Opposition to the Cameron Government while Labour goes through a period of renewal and reflection.

I think Mike has probably got this right – the scenarios around a Hung Parliament and a Labour win don’t end well for the Liberal Democrats while a Conservative landslide would likely result in a diminished Lib Dem presence which would give Team Cameron a decade in power before the return of Labour.

Breaking the duopoly won’t be easy but a Liberal Democrat advance against the backdrop of a small Tory win would be an important step which would be built on in the years following.

A “Nich” Success..

2010-03-19T20:42:00.001Z

Congratulations to the 2009 Blogger of the Year, Nich Starling, who was elected yesterday as Councillor for Taverham North on Broadland District Council winning 630 votes and comfortably winning the seat off the Conservatives.

Broadland remains strongly Tory with the Conservatives having 34 Councillors to the Liberal Democrats’ 12 but it’s the sort of area which could see a real mid-term Conservative collapse.

Over the past year or two, we’ve seen some big Lib Dem gains from both the Conservative and Labour parties where the work on the ground has been put in. The polls are perking up too with the Liberal Democrats nearer 20% and on 21% with Angus Reid. The Conservative figure is diverging between 36% on YouGov and 39-40% with other pollsters.

The REAL Conservative Nightmare…

2010-03-18T20:47:00.000Z

Today’s poll conducted by Angus Reid for politicalbetting.com shows the Conservatives no less than thirteen points ahead of Labour (39-26) with the Liberal Democrats close behind on 21%.

One or two posters speculated that the REAL battle in the forthcoming General Election campaign wouldn’t be for victory but for second place between Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

This provoked some interest but it’s not a thought that thoughtful Conservatives would relish – indeed, it’s the very stuff of Tory nightmares.

In 1987, there was a by-election in Greenwich. I worked for the Alliance candidate and what happened was fascinating. Once it became clear the SDP was second and the Conservatives were nowhere, the Tory vote disintegrated but, more interestingly, as the SDP advanced, the Labour vote fell back too as voters jumped on the bandwagon and the final swing of around 16% from Labour to the SDP was far greater than anyone expected.

What happened ? Put simply, the reason for the political duopoly was exploded from the within in this one locale. The Conservative and Labour parties enjoy a symbiotic existence – for most Conservatives, the rationale for voting Tory is to keep Labour out while for Labour supporters the main reason for voting Labour is to keep the Conservatives out. The logic of that is that IF the rationale for voting for one of the parties is removed, the rationale for voting for the other goes with it.

Therefore, it serves the Conservatives to keep Labour as a viable threat because it justifies their own existence and the same is true for Labour. The cosy duopoly remains as long as the two parties keep each other as the principal threat and focus and therefore each has a reason for keeping the other alive.

IF it became clear and generally accepted that Labour were in third and stood no chance of winning nationally, two things would happen:

1) The Labour vote would disintegrate further.

2) The Conservative vote would start to fall in sympathy.

The nightmare for David Cameron would be for a set of polls ten days before polling showing the Conservatives ten to twelve points ahead of the Liberal Democrats with Labour back in third. As the perception spread with growing media coverage, Cameron would find his own lead failing as his supporters come to realise they could vote Liberal Democrat safe in the knowledge Labour wouldn’t win.

By polling day, the Liberal Democrat bandwagon could have rolled right over Mr Cameron and Nick Clegg could be heading to Downing Street.

It probably won’t happen but watch how the Conservative and Labour parties support each other if it even looks possible….

Will the Lib Dems be well “Hung” ?

2010-03-17T20:19:00.001Z

It’s been an interesting few days for Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, as the pre-election campaign skirmishing intensifies. Some ribald commentary about the past career of the Liberal Democrat PPC for Gravesham notwithstanding, the serious questions about the party’s attitude to a Hung Parliament have caused a degree of nervousness which the party needs to address.

There’s little doubt there are two distinct strands currently at work in the Liberal Democrats. One is a quite traditional liberal standpoint as advanced by Nick Clegg himself and the likes of David Laws. it emphasises liberal positions on the economy and society and is in many ways a reversion to the ideas of the 1950s and 1960s as advanced by Jo Grimond before David Steel took the party in a more interventionist direction.

The other, as advanced by Vince Cable, is part of the social democrat tradition and is instinctively more interventionist. This tradition, oddly enough, won the initial battle of ideas within the newly-merged Liberal Democrats in the early 90s as there was a general move away from neo-liberal laissez-faire economics to a more interventionist direction.

This reached its zenith in the Blair-Ashdown negotiations as both parties moved toward a common policy programme which might have found its way to a coalition but the Labour landslide and the duplicity of Tony Blair ended those hopes. The resulting failure of interventionist social democracy has seen a resurgence of traditional liberalism as evoked by many of the younger Lib Dems and now these two different philosophical streams are washing round each other.

There’s little doubt some Liberal Democrats would rather crawl over broken glass than have anything to do with the Conservatives while others consider Labour morally bankrupt and mired in its own authoritarian quagmire.

In some ways, it won’t matter as David Cameron almost certainly won’t pick up the phone so the question becomes – how will the party react to any prospective deal with Labour ?

Clegg cannot act in isolation and neither can the Parliamentary party. The “triple lock” introduced following the Blair-Ashdown negotiations effectively forces the decision back to the Conference, made up, as it is, of constituency activists. The argument against this is that it would take too long and cause Government paralysis but without that legitimacy, Clegg risks tearing the party apart.

For my part, I would resign my party membership were Nick Clegg to go in to coalition without proper consultation with the party and I would personally be opposed to ANY deal with Labour. That said, if the party chose to go into coalition with Labour, I think a number of members would leave.

In some ways, refusing to do a deal with Labour and allowing the Conservatives to form a minority Government might be the best the Liberal Democrats can expect from a Hung Parliament but it will leave them in a good position when the Tories run into their mid-term problems.

A Foot Misses by a Mile

2010-03-07T16:31:00.001Z

In Saturday’s Daily Mail, Andrew Roberts penned a (possibly slightly) tongue-in-cheek article speculating about what would have happened if Michael Foot had become Prime Minister in 1983

To be honest, it’s a massive insult to the serious study of counterfactual history and instead panders to the prejudices of the Daily Mail readership which is daily bombarded by the odious propaganda line that anything to do with Labour is bad and most things to do with the Conservatives are good.

In truth, the Daily Mail is a deeply unpleasant newspaper which, while claiming to speak for some fictitious moral majority somewhere in “Middle England”, instead panders to the basest of prejudices, opinions and preconceptions. Celebrities are regularly trashed, individuals vilified and the clarion tone is of a rather pompous, superior and one might even say smug and priggish tome which believes in nothing other than its own moral superiority.

The assault on Michael Foot, who is of course now dead and cannot defend himself (the fact is the Daily Mail seems to pick on those individuals and organisations which cannot defend themselves) is dressed up as some form of wacky alternate history which makes a serious of grotesque assumptions about how Michael Foot might have behaved and how, by inference, Labour would have destroyed Britain and thank God we had the Blessed Margaret who saved us all from the nasty “lefties”.

The serious study of alternate history makes no such assumptions or moral judgements. We do not know what a Foot administration would have looked like or how it would have behaved. One could take the example of Bob Hawke’s Australia is one of a country which elected a left-wing Government which presided over the economic transformation of the country. The Daily Mail assumes that the Left is always wrong about everything and that the Left, in power, would make a mess but that’s not a valid assumption when considering historical events.

One could argue that a Labour Government in the 1980s would have been different to the Thatcher Governments but there might have been similarities too. We simply don’t know.

In the same way, it is often argued that had the Nazis invaded and occupied Britain in July 1940 and gone on to win the second world war, the future would have been unspeakably horrific. Again, while it’s possible to argue that in many ways that could be true, the ultimate failure of Soviet Communism leads credence to the argument that over time the ideological excesses of Naziism might have eased and something more akin to democracy might have evolved out of the wreckage but that’s not a view which would have wide support.

The counterfactual historian has to eschew prejudice or moral judgement and consider the unpalatable. Had Labour governed Britain in the 1980s, it would be a different country now – recognisable, still British, but different. It MIGHT even be better than the country we live in now in some ways. To assume that in every way it would be worse is as foolish as saying that in every way it would be better.

RIP Michael Foot – you deserve much better than this.

Clegg's and the City...

2010-02-25T20:21:00.002Z

When I was a political activist, one of the things I learnt was that it's best to go into hostile territory early on. It's good for your canvassers as it shows them how hard they have to work and it rattles the opposition as they don't like seeing you in their heartland.

I suspect Nick Clegg was playing the same game when the Liberal Democrat leader was interviewed by City AM earlier this week. It's probably fair to say the paper's Editor, Allister Heath, didn't agree with much of what Clegg said but then of course Nick Clegg isn't necessarily courting votes among the financiers, most of whom, I would assume, are Conservatives.

Nonetheless, Heath is part of the ideological Right and his recent activities, apart from the usual rubbishing of the EU over the bailout of Greece, seem more concerned with defending the role of his readership or an integral part of it, the bankers.

He trots out a series of arguments and statistics in their defence and completely misses the point. The point about the bonuses being paid to bankers is two-fold: first, most people don't get bonuses. I don't get a bonus and many in the wider electorate must be asking why the bankers get the huge bonuses that they seem to get. Now, I appreciate bonuses are part of banking culture but in a time of stringency, can such payments be justified ?

The second point is that in the good times the bankers flaunted their wealth. They were ostentatious to the point of effrontery about what they could buy and how much they could spend. This Gekko-esque culture of conspicuous consumption was appalling at best and offensive at worst. Scenes of drunk City workers in packed bars flaunting their excesses did much and have done much to demonise the City in many eyes.

I should also add that Allister Heath frequently argues that "banks should be allowed to fail". Fair enough, but it's hard to think that had a major British retail bank failed, the consequences would have been anything other than devastating. Queues of desperate savers outside bank branches would doubtless have led to civil disorder let alone the economic panic that might have ensued with others rushing to withdraw savings triggering further banking failures.

Yes, the banking crisis was bad but it could have been a whole lot worse and oddly enough I think Alastair Darling did pretty well in the dark days of Autumn 2008.

Allister Heath may not like what Nick Clegg had to say but Clegg is closer to the electorate than Heath and while not wanting to be anti-banker, there has to be a recognition that banking culture has to change and that the days of excess have to end.

Nick Clegg will also have been pleased with poll ratings up to 22% in today's Harris poll in the Metro. It seemed scarcely credible a few months ago but the very real possibility now exists that the Liberal Democrats might actually improve on their 2005 vote share. Were this to happen and the party to end up close to the current seat total, I and many others would regard this as a huge step forward.

Of Cleggs and Coalitions...

2010-02-15T21:39:00.002Z

A report in today's Guardian suggesting the view that Nick Clegg neither favours a coalition with Labour nor with the Conservatives was a good start to my week. It also seems to have found favour with many activists if postings on LibDemVoice are any guide.

Unfortunately, it appears that while the story itself read well, it wasn't true and the Liberal Democrat Party machine has dismissed it with the line being that nothing has been ruled in or out.

Stephen Tall, a Lib Dem blogger of considerable repute, put this on the Guardian website and it's well worth a read. As Stephen says "Influence you can believe in" may not be the most catchy slogan ever but it says it all.

As an LD member, I'm with the majority who want us to stay out of coalitions. The history of the party's involvement with other parties in Government at Westminster is far from glorious and while the Holyrood experience of Jim Wallace and the much-lamented Donald Dewar was a more positive experience, that was arguably a unique circumstance and various pacts at local council level just aren't the same.

Support in favour of or more likely opposition to particular pieces of legislation looks the best route forward for the Party though it relies on a Parliamentary arithmetic that may not be there.

So much depends now on the campaign and whether the Lib Dems can hold or even move on from their current 20-21% in the polls. It was once said Charles Kennedy would have sold his soul for 50 seats and 20% in 2001 - Nick Clegg may have to settle for something similar in 2010. That won't denote a lack of progress by any means - past experience of Conservative victories after periods of Labour Government would have offered 15-16% of the vote and maybe 35 seats as a target so what's on offer looks far better.

In addition, IF the Conservatives win in 2010 with 38% or lower, it will continue their historic decline from 46% in 1970 and 42% in 1979.

I think the Conservatives will win a big majority on a very low turnout but that will mask some big swings in key marginals but that's only my view.

Saturday Night at the Polls (part 2)

2010-02-13T20:13:00.001Z

Tonight’s ComRes poll for tomorrow’s Independent on Sunday makes good reading for BOTH Nick Clegg and David Cameron on one side but has a lot of worrying data for those of us interested in the future of democracy (which I’m certain includes Messrs Cameron and Clegg).

The headline figures are:

Conservative 40%

Labour 29%

Liberal Democrat 21%

The real problems lie in the detail with only 44% “absolutely certain to vote” compared with 56% in February 2005. The biggest fall is in the DE social group with only 13% “absolutely certain to vote” compared to 24% in February 2005. What we seem to be seeing then is a recovery in Conservative numbers aided by a substantial fall in Labour numbers. In the ABC1 social groups, I think we are seeing two anti-Labour forces at work – on the one hand, a number of Conservative supporters who haven’t voted since 1997 are coming back to the fold while the “Blair Labour” voters have fragmented to the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives or are abstaining.

In the DE group, it’s simpler – the Labour voters are leaving the party but not going elsewhere readily.

Trying to read all this into election numbers isn’t easy – I suspect the BNP won’t be making a breakthrough nor will the Liberal Democrats do as badly as some suspect. The Conservatives look set for huge gains primarily in the type of seats Labour gained in 1997 and has held since and could even regain seats lost in 1992 on that basis. The Lib Dem – Conservative battle is far harder to call and the war is on for the ex-Labour voters in these seats.

None of this matters as much as the frightening prospect of another low turnout – perhaps 55% or even lower with strong numbers in Conservative seats and perhaps 30% turnout in some Labour seats.

This is unhealthy for our democracy and illustrates the damage the political process has suffered from recent events. Irrespective of who forms the next Government, that administration must have the restoration of confidence in the political process as one of its highest priorities. In my view, this has to begin with a concerted and far-reaching overhaul of the process of Government itself beginning with the repatriation of powers from Westminster, Whitehall and quangos to directly-elected and accountable local authorities.

A View From The Ground War…

2010-02-01T18:21:00.000Z

Yesterday, we received a leaflet from the local Conservatives, the first for some time. Now, I live in the hardly-marginal constituency of East Ham and in the even less marginal London Borough of Newham.

The leaflet itself, and I write as no friend of the Conservatives, is a pretty amateurish effort with only one line of attack and that is or are the expenses of the Labour Mayor and Councillors and the expenditure of the Council itself.

Now, there are doubtless legitimate questions to be asked about Councillors’ expenses but my first thought was “Is that the best you can do ?”. Nor was there any iota of a commitment that a Conservative administration in Newham would scrap or reduce these allowances.

Asking questions about how much the Council spends on electricity in its buildings shows that someone knows how to ask a Freedom of Information question but little else. Reducing energy costs in Council buildings is far better achieved through a ruthless quest to source electricity from willing suppliers in a competitive market – one Council has achieved a 40% reduction in its gas and electricity costs by switching supplier – than by turning off a few lights.

Of course, the Conservatives won’t win control of Newham in May and nor will Paul Shea capture the East Ham seat though he’ll probably finish second. The point is that the line of attack is weak and nowhere in the leaflet is there a mention of David Cameron.

Is Cameron Clever on Cuts ?

2010-02-01T17:22:00.002Z

Since David Cameron and George Osborne commented at Davos that in Government they would NOT be instigating a policy of rapid and deep spending cuts, the Conservative blogsphere has worked itself into a real frenzy.

In addition with a couple of weekend polls hinting at the first signs of slippage in the Conservative lead, we are perhaps seeing the first signs of real nerves in Tory ranks as we close in on the start of the real election campaign itself.

The problems for the Conservatives began with the publication of the terrible Q4 GDP figures last week. At just 0.1%, the "growth" figure was far worse than expected and points to ongoing serious problems for the economy. The other consequence of the weak economy is the real risk that rapid and deep spending cuts, while helping the public finances, would have the effect of pushing the country back into recession by weakening economic activity.

On the other side of the coin, analysts such as Allister Heath from City AM have continued to warn of the consequences in the markets of the continued weakness of the public finances. These include problems for sterling, problems with gilts and the very real risk of the downgrading of the country's credit status and all the issues that would follow. Heath has been persistent in his call for any new Government to take rapid action to cut public spending and reduce borrowing.

For the Conservatives, there is another dimension. While an overt policy promising rapid spending cuts might suit the markets, it doesn't resonate well with many voters and lays the party open to the traditional charges of wanting to destroy public services and the undercurrent of that still resonates with voters familiar with the Thatcher and Major years.

In his desperate attempt to hold the Cameron Coalition together, the Tory leader is determined to say and do nothing which will alienate his coalition of followers. He can be hard on crime, immigration, benefit scroungers and the like because that's what his supporters want him to be
but the same supporters are much less disposed toward cuts in public services and indeed Cameron has gone out of his way to be seen to be protecting the NHS for example.

Thus, Cameron is caught between a rock and a hard place and it remains to be seen how the markets will respond to this apparent indecision. Indeed, Labour and the Liberal Democrats now seem much more convincing on the public finances than the Conservatives and this has to be a concern.

The public mood however seems determined to be "anyone but Labour" and this is hardly surprising. I have long had doubts about an incoming Conservative Government and this has only increased my worries. I have no time for Labour's authoritarian policies but I am just as unconvinced by the current Conservative indecision.

There is a real vacumn in the debate now which Nick Clegg should be seeking to exploit and it's disappointing that he seems unable to break through though his speech at Barnado's yesterday had a raft of interesting ideas which played to the well-worn theme of taking the lower-paid out of tax and taking more tax from the wealthy. Not perhaps a vote-winner but entirely sensible.