Tim McLoughlin

Why I'm a progressive

2012-01-25T18:51:00.002Z

Progress or stagnation? That is the sort of question politicians like to pose at election time. The one asking the question is usually the one who thinks they will provide progress, while tainting their opponents as the bastions of stagnation. That language framed the 2010 general election. David Cameron told us he offered change and progress, while the then incumbent, Gordon Brown and Labour, offered stagnation.

Nearly two years later, what have Cameron's Tories delivered?

Almost nothing. But stagnation. The economy was growing when they came to power. Now it is contracting. In total that has left Britain with a paltry 0.3% growth since George Osborne's spending review.

Disturbing. Pathetic. Very worrying.

Any fool knows you need people in work, paying taxes, spending their wages to guarantee growth and pay off government debts. Everyone except Cameron and Osborne that is.

There is an alternative. That is why I'm a progressive.

Ken V Boris: too close to call, dirty, exciting

2012-01-23T13:29:00.000Z

After last week's YouGov poll put Ken Livingstone ahead of incumbent mayor Boris Johnson in the race to lead London, LBC and ComRes have released their own poll. This again gives the former mayor a slender lead of 51% to 49%.

This is remarkable for a candidate who lost the mayoralty in 2008 after looking tired, disinterested and didn't focus on the issues mattering most to voters, as his rival Johnson managed to. As the likes of Adam Bienkov point out, that position is now reversed. Johnson is the one talking about protecting bankers, while Livingstone is talking about the rising cost of living and transport fares.

Interestingly, Livingstone is under performing against Labour's expected polling in London, while Johnson is more popular than the Tories. Despite that, Labour's candidate will be far happier as we enter the last 100 days of the campaign.

The Back Boris campaign is in a bit of a mess. Complacency about victory must have evaporated, along with his poll lead. I quick scan of London news sites and blogs shows a campaign not in control, clutching at straws or making false claims.

Mayor Watch today reports that Back Boris is claiming Johnson began and implemented London Overground, when in fact, as the TfL website points out, Livingstone started it in 2007, a year before the buffoon took power
Left Foot Forward highlights that Johnson used his Telegraph column to blame young people and their lack of skills for sky high youth unemployment
Boris Watch notes that Johnson's primary vanity project, his new bus, is getting ever more expensive, with another prototype being ordered at a staggering £547,000

It is all getting very political. The first new bus for London is due on our streets in May 2012, election month. TfL are running an advertising campaign to highlight improvements over the last three years, which conveniently coincides with BJ's mayoral term.

Our old pal and former Livingstone nemesis, Andrew Gilligan, now at the Telegraph, is at it again with a regular column of Livingstone-loathing. Fortunately fewer potential Labour voters read the Telegraph than the Evening Standard, his former home, so his distortive effect may be limited this time.

What does this leave us with? A content that is too close to call, will inevitably turn dirty and one that will be great to watch.

Ken versus Boris: too close to call

2012-01-19T13:20:00.001Z

I'd been intrigued to see what the latest opinion polling thought about the impending London mayoral election, incumbent Boris Johnson, versus former mayor Ken Livingstone, after last summer's polls suggested a commanding lead for BJ. Today's YouGov poll puts Ken 2% ahead, 51-49.

A surprisingly large number of Labour voters had previously said they'd vote Tory last June, though that has now fallen. That suggests that Livingstone's unpopularity among some after a long career has waned. That could be a result of his powerful campaign to cut transport fares.

Conservative Home's Tim Montgomery recently warned Tories not to let their previous poll lead lure them into a false sense of security, dubbing it "dangerously complacent". That message will have come shattering home today. For the Tories, with BJ more popular than his party, the focus must be personality. Their man picks up votes because he is well known and seen as likeable. People seem to put to one side that they don't think he understands the issues. For example, only 13% see Boris as someone who is in touch with the concerns of ordinary people, compared to 40% for Ken.

For Labour, the election has to be focused on the Tories. Boris is a Tory, not an independent. He is someone who makes the cost of living in London higher and isn't going to protect Londoners from the worst of a possible recession.

Ken and his Labour team look like they will stick to that message. They should as it has worked so far.

Ed Miliband and the unions

2012-01-17T18:49:00.001Z

Ed Miliband today came in for criticism from trade union leaders for backing Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls who said Labour cannot promise to reverse all Tory cuts if it got in power again. This seem like such an obvious point from Balls and Miliband that I find it quite absurd that he has come in for today's flak.

It is in no way a betrayal of ordinary people or an acceptance that the Tories are right. It is just sensible real-politik.

The unions will simply alienate people from Labour by attempting to pull Miliband's puppet strings so publicly.

Of course, this is a problem for Miliband for he so openly used the unions to get the Labour leadership in the first place. What happens next will be interesting to see if Miliband has the balls to stand up to them or if the unions call in their favours.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Boris Johnson plans Thames tunnel after scrapping Thames Gateway Bridge

2012-01-12T14:08:00.002Z

London Mayor Boris Johnson is going to announce plans to build a Thames tunnel linking Silvertown in East London and the Greenwich peninsula, somewhere on the map below:

As useful as this link would undoubtedly prove this comes just a few years after the same mayor, Boris Johnson, scrapped plans by the previous mayor, Ken Livingstone, for a Thames Gateway Bridge, just a bit further east along the river.

Apparently there was no funding for that. Given that tunnels cost a great deal more than bridges, where is the money for the tunnel? I suspect that the bridge was scrapped simply because it was proposed by a Labour mayor.

In his early days, Boris didn't see much point in being mayor and did little to propose major projects to change the fabric of the city. After a few years in the throne he has changed his tune and is getting to quite like vanity projects:

There is his expensive new Routemaster, the world's most expensive bus at an eye-watering £1.6m each
A loss making cable car - it cost £60m to build and has attracted only £36m in sponsorship
And the popular but loss making cycle hire scheme. Over six years this cost TfL £140 to build but Barclays sponsorship only claws back about a quarter of that, while usage fees are estimated to bring in about £1m a year. Clearly not enough

The latter of course was a plan started by the previous mayor.

In 2008 Boris Johnson promised to give Londoners more bang for their buck. He has succeeded only in giving us more bang for more bucks. Not quite the same thing.

Will Ed Miliband make a difference?

2012-01-10T13:07:00.000Z

Ed Miliband's speech today suggesting that Labour can't rely on splashing the cash if in government again picked up from recent articles and posts by the likes of Peter Watt and Gavin Kelly. The latter two were as criticising Miliband, despite his likely agreement with them.

Ed Balls and Miliband have been trying to get across the argument that growth should be used to cut the deficit. Today was the first time I've seen Miliband explain this in simple language, that you need people working and paying taxes to pay off the deficit, not claiming benefits. This is promising though the problem with Miliband's leadership has rarely been about what he has said, which is getting better all the time, more about two things:

Perception
Clear alternative

Miliband's perception problem hasn't gone away. His personal poll ratings are very bad at the moment though he is getting much more media coverage. Having a clear alternative set of policies to the government isn't easy but will become very necessary. There were a smattering of new proposals today though nothing fundamental. His theme of the "squeezed middle" has stuck with both Tories and Lib Dems trying to steal parts of his rhetoric. He proposes to promote changed business practice, like an end to quarterly reporting, to develop a long term investment based capitalism.

Aside from his personal perception problems, Miliband faces difficulty in persuading voters that he understands the severity of the government deficit and knows how to get rid of it without unnecessarily and adversely affecting their way of life. He hasn't done that yet, people are just not believing Labour at the moment.

Balls and Miliband have to convince people other than me that they should be taken seriously on the deficit and the economy. It hasn't worked so far, today's speech won't change it overnight either. At the moment it is all too esay to attack them for being involved in the last Labour government and to stop listening. There is some great stuff in the detail but most people don't bother with that. Not least when a hostile media doesn't tell them.

Ken Livingstone dubs Borish Johnson a "pickpocket"

2012-01-10T09:45:00.000Z

In the latest swipe of what is developing into a rather juicy personality clash, Ken Livingstone is today running advertising in the Evening Standard dubbing his rival Boris Johnson as a pickpocket:

This highlights the rising cost of using public transport in London since Boris came to power in 2008. This includes a single bus fare increasing by 50%.

Oh mayor, where art thou?

2012-01-05T16:40:00.000Z

Given the volume of important and difficult events in London this week one would expect the mayor to be in-situ, in charge and on top of his brief. Unfortunately London has Boris Johnson as mayor. He is skiing in the Alps so hasn't been on hand to provide leadership for London through a difficult week.

The week he put transport fares up again, with the single bus fare now up 50% since he came to power in 2008, to pay for his lovely new bus. He was ignoring the fast shrinking pockets of ordinary Londoners by skiing. Mind you, his six figure "chicken feed" salary from the Daily Telegraph for his column must help, even just a bit.

Two people were finally sent down for the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. He eventually put out a statement but was slow off the mark.

Many Londoners want to know whether Boris really cares about London. On this week's behaviour I can only conclude that he has other things more important things on his mind.

Where has all the money gone Boris?

2012-01-03T14:04:00.000Z

Thousands of London commuters were met on their way to work this morning by two things: another round of jaw-dropping fare increases from mayor Boris Johnson and an alternative offer from Labour's campaign team. According to the campaign and quoted by BBC, 500,000 leaflets were distributed.

Key to the campaign is that Boris as mayor is making life worse for Londoners in an already tough economic environment. Under Boris fares have gone up between 20% for a weekly zones 1-6 travelcard and 50% for a single Oyster bus fare.

Boris's riposte is that the extra fare revenue is there to pay for tube improvements. This isn't entirely true as Transport for London has built up hefty reserves in the last few years, £728m according to the Evening Standard.

So the key question must be why Boris wants to continue hitting Londoners in the pocket with a stealth tax rise when he doesn't have to?

Trip to Rio de Janeiro

2011-12-21T12:08:00.000Z

I've spent the last few weeks in Rio de Janeiro. It is always odd for a northern hemispherite such as myself to spend part of the Christmas period somewhere hot and sunny, but a very good thing.

I went to see two football matches, seeing Vasco de Gama nearly win the Brasiliero, only to draw with a Ronaldinho inspired Flamengo. Given that the Olympic stadium isn't in the nicer end of the city it will be interesting to see how the Rio authorities deal with that in time for 2016. I suspect there will be a bit of bulldozing to tidy up the short journey from the station to the stadium with scant regard for the locals, but we shall see.

Rio is an odd city. Naturally blessed with stunning beauty. It is hard not to enjoy yourself there because the Cariocas are incredibly friendly and always ready to party. Some districts, Ipanema, Lagoa and Leblon, are home to extremely wealthy people who would be able to afford to live in Kensington or Knightsbridge. The shops that support this very smart part of the city are priced appropriately. Then there is a burgeoning middle class living in apartment blocks. Beyond that there are people living in sometimes extreme poverty.

Brazil is gaining new found wealth from the discovery of new natural oil and gas. What remains to be seen is whether that wealth transposes itself into an improved infrastructure, education system and opportunity for the masses or whether it ends up in the hands of corrupt politicians and international businesses.

I also visited the stunning Ilha Grande, Brazil's biggest island. It has no cars or roads, just mountains, treks and unbelievably ideallic beraches, like Lopes Mendes. Being there was dreamlike. So much so that while there I bumped into Goodbye Lenin and Edukators German actor Daniel Bruhl.

The last thing I did was go to see Jesus, Cristo Redentor, atop the Corcovado mountain. I'll leave you with some rather stunning views.

More racist Tories

2011-11-23T13:46:00.001Z

When will the Tories learn that racism is bad, immoral and just plain wrong?

The St Andrews University student society burnt an effigy of Barack Obama. The conveyor belt continues.

When politicians and civil servants clash

2011-11-15T16:02:00.001Z

The toppled head of the UK Border Agency Brodie Clark hit back at his former ministerial boss Theresa May today, claiming that despite her claims, he had never exceeded his authority. This amounts to a stinging attack and suggests that May misled parliament in claiming otherwise, to save her own skin.

Neutral civil servants hate being politicised or being pushed into political storms. I see their point. Secretaries of state are there to carry the political can, not their servants. In a reversal of historical assumptions that the civil service is naturally conservative, their current Tory masters view their servants with great scepticism.

This row reminds me of one that rumbled on and on in the early days of New Labour's second term.

When Stephen Byers' Labour special advisor Jo Moore famously thought 9-11 a "good day to bury bad news" the email was leaked and a political row erupted. The neutral head of departmental communications Martin Sixsmith got fed up and later said "Princess Margaret is being buried [on Friday]. I will absolutely not allow anything else to be".

Sixsmith was eventually forced to quit over the row, together with Moore.

After quitting the civil service Sixsmith made no secret of his unhappiness at being forced out. His autobiography was blocked, so he turned it into a novel, Spin, released in 2004, two years after he left his job. He has since written several books and contributed to Armando Ianucci's superb political satire The Thick of It.

Has May created a spurned civil servant and in the process done the very opposite of saving her skin? Time will tell but it seems likely that she will only come out of this row looking worse.

Tories hitting you in the pocket

2011-11-07T16:58:00.001Z

Here is an example from 1974 that shows how the Tories have always made life more expensive:

Racist Tory weekly #9

2011-11-04T13:46:00.001Z

Regular readers will know all about Southend Tory councillor Blaine Robin who was filmed attending an English Defence League meeting recently. He was suspended by his party pending an investigation. That investigation has now closed and Robin has been reinstated.

Worryingly for the Tories this shows that they are happy to be a party that borders on the fringes of such extremist groups, like the EDL. AS the party gets ever more anti immigration and anti European will such liaisons become more frequent?

This can't be what David Cameron had in mind when he tried to create a compassionate conservatism in 2005.

David Cameron is the new Ramsay MacDonald

2011-11-02T14:31:00.000Z

At last nights tenth Aneurin Bevan Society lecture, Ed Balls likened David Cameron's economic policy to former Labour then national government PM Ramsay MacDonald. Piling austerity measures onto a struggling economy stifled and lengthened recovery from depression then and threatens to do so again.

Cameron won't end up with the same fate as MacDonald, hated for history by almost all in his party. At the moment Cameron is only riled by some of his party but not to the extent that MacDonald is by Labour people.

Balls suggested that the binding nature of the Tory Lib Dem coalition agreement, that prioritises deficit reduction over all else, is creating an inflexibility stopping the government from being able to change path. Further, their ideological attachment to shrinking the state means that whatever the economic indicators tell us, the coalition won't change policy.

Politically, Balls said, the Tories are fuelling cynicism and pessimism because they tell us that there is no alternative to their chosen path. That means we should accept that stagnation, falling living standards and rising unemployment are an unavoidable medicine we all have to endure.

If people believe there to be no alternative to their lives getting worse thanks to government policy that will only turn them away from politics. What is the point in voting if it doesn't achieve anything?

Progress of UK recessions

It doesn't have to be like that, argued Balls. Government is capable of making people's lives easier and managing the deficit at the same time. This is the Labour alternative.

The chart above shows the UK economy improving until the middle of 2010 when the Tories got in. Since then growth has been non existent. Without people in jobs, shopping, paying taxes and contributing to GDP as unemployment rises the deficit will get bigger, as demonstrated by the extra £46bn of borrowing under the Cameron-Osborne axis. This is simply because former tax payers and shoppers are now being paid benefits and are not paying tax or creating anything for the economy. Simple stuff.

Bevan understood that nothing was possible without power. Balls gets that too. He needs to get his message across to the country to ensure voters get it.

VAT hits the poorest hardest

2011-11-01T16:04:00.002Z

The Tories and their Lib Dem pals would never admit it, but we all know that VAT costs poorer people harder than rich. As a flat tax, paying the same fee as a sales tax will always be a greater portion of a lower paid person's income than someone with higher earnings.

George Eaton at the New Statesman aptly demonstrates:

Spending patterns differ between people with different earnings. That was the riposte I received from both Tories and Lib Dems when debating this after the election. Their smugness shielded them from the reality.

Eaton's analysis of the ONS work shows that the poorest 20% of earners are spending the equivalent of 10% on their income on VAT. Thise in the top 20% pay just 6%.

The Tories are a risk you cannot afford. They cost you more. We're not all in this together.

The attack of the Trip Advisors

2011-11-01T13:38:00.000Z

Last night's Channel 4 documentary the "Attack of the Trip Advisors" showed a ranged of disgruntled businesses who felt unfairly treated by customer review sites.

This probably strikes a chord with politicians who frequently complain about media attention, some fairly, sometimes not so. Social media has increased the intensity by widening the scope of people who comment and hold both businesses and politicians to account.

Recent complaints about the media from politicians include Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Liam Fox.

Hoteliers and restaurateurs complaining about social media review sites publicly airing criticism of their businesses strikes me as rather out of touch. In the past people would have had no redress if they didn't like the service. Now they can stop others from suffering the same fate. It also gives businesses more opportunity to rectify problems because they get feedback they wouldn't otherwise have had.

Hotels, restaurants, shops or politicians should be no different from each other. Feedback and being held to account should enable you to become stronger, offer a better service, closer to what people actually want.

For people in positions of authority, or business owners, social media can seem like the extension of the surveillance society. I'm sure there are unfair or unrepresentative reviews, just as there are in any situation. For the bigger brands and well known politicians there tends to be a critical mass where those that offer a good service tend to be highly regarded online. Those with customer service problems tend to suffer negative sentiment.

The hotels, restaurants or banks that tend to get it right tend to get good reviews. Most reviews are positive, with an average Trip Advisor score of 4/5. Politically most blogs are partisan, with each side attacking the other and defending their own.

I don't have a problem with it and I don't think anyone else should. All of those under scrutiny need to get with the times.

Nick Clegg calls for referendum on Europe

2011-10-27T16:54:00.000+01:00

The big story of the last week has been the potential rift in the coalition between the anti-Europe Tories and the pro-Europe Lib Dems. Driving a wedge between his party and his location partners Nick Clegg said to the Daily Telegraph:

"For as long as I've been in politics, the Conservative Party has had a bee in its bonnet about Europe.

"I think eurosceptics need to be careful what they wish for. We as a country are massively dependent on a successful Europe for our own prosperity, British jobs, for money in people's pockets. Every step towards the exit sign will lead to lower confidence in the British economy.

Given that and how the media continually portrayed the Lib Dems as the only party united on Europe, in favour of great British participation in the EU and against a referendum on membership, many will wonder why Clegg was pledging a referendum himself just last year.

This is not just a surprise for everyone who thought Clegg was against a referendum on EU membership but also highlights, if we really needed to do it again, the duplicitous nature of Clegg's "i'll do anything for a vote" Lib Dem opportunists.

Remember that the same 2010 election was the one in which Clegg and his candidates personally signed pledges not to increase student tuition fees. No this. Voters will be left wondering what Clegg really stands for? It certainly isn't clarity or consistency.

Homelessness could rise

2011-10-27T16:29:00.003+01:00

Housing minister Grant Schapps today launched his social housing "swap" scheme. What struck me about that was the obvious questions, isn't there already a swap scheme? There is indeed.

There is an acute housing shortage. In places like Islington there is a huge lack of family sized affordable homes. Private rents are the highest in London. Overcrowding is rife. More housebuilding is needed, yet the Tory government has cut capital finding to build new social homes from £8.4bn to £4.4bn this year.

The average age of first time buyers has now reached 35 because of high prices and a lack of credit from banks.

Fewer homes will get build while a return of right to buy will mean an ever diminishing supply. The problem will only get worse under the Tories. Worsening economics, higher unemployment, will this also mean more homeless people?

Racist Tory rumours

2011-10-26T15:40:00.000+01:00

The Barnet Eye blog reports that a Tory Barnet councillor, John Hart "BA (Hons) MA" has been hauled before the borough's standards committee for allegedly making racist comments to constituents at the Hendon and District residents' forum.

That sounds unwise, out of touch and very stupid. Why is it that there still seems to be a catalogue of Tories who believe this rubbish? Why is it that they think it is OK to spout such nonsense in public?

If he is found guilty, what punishment will the standards committee bestow on him? What about the Tory party? There have been far too many Tories caught making similar comments, who have apologised for being either misquoted, misunderstood or unaware that what they said is wrong.

It is time to draw the line and show that the Cameroons are different. Unlike many of the Tory party's representatives.

Should we have a referendum on EU membership?

2011-10-24T15:55:00.000+01:00

Every time I hear a Europhobic Tory MP tell us how the country is crying out for a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU I wonder which people they are talking about. I really don't think most ordinary people worry about it that much.

Tory MPs are not ordinary people though and they are absolutely obsessed with the EU. The last two elections have seen a marked increased in anti-Europe MPs being elected for the Tories, making them a much more anti-party today than they were in the 1990s when the issue ripped John Major's government to pieces. That and the sex scandals.

Just after the 2010 election I appeared on a LBC radio debate. I sat opposite rather smug looking Tory and Lib Dems. They congratulated each other on how the coalition agreement was going to lead to seamless and untroubled governing. I thought otherwise. There is only so much you can pro-actively predict. I suggested then that something would come along, divide the coalition and the Tory party. That would be Europe.

They laughed at me.

How I laugh now.

Whenever opinion polls have asked people whether they want to pull out of the EU, as those Tories calling for a referendum do - this isn't about "choice", it is about going solo - they show a spit country. Today that shows 49% in favour of pulling out and 40% want to keep the status quo. Whether that result would stay the same once people were properly educated about the pros and cons of EU membership is quite another matter.

What we can be certain of is that David Cameron is going to have to waste significant political energy on the issue. This will eat away at energy better spent on fixing a rather broken EU and a creaking British economy. And for him, on trying to stop becoming an ever more unpopular prime minister.

Those anti-European Tories probably don't care about damaging their leader, because in their eyes, he betrayed them by signing up with the Lib Dems.

Crime up again under the Tories

2011-10-20T17:15:00.001+01:00

In the 1980s and 1990s crime kept going up. At the time we thought it was just the way society was going. Then in the early 2000s crime started to go down. In the last year, crime has started to go up again. There is a common theme here:

1980s: crime up under the Tories
1990s: crime up under the Tories - peaking in 1992
2000s: crime down under Labour
2011: crime up again under the Tories

When I was growing up the Tories were meant to be the party of law and order. How is that so when the reality is so starkly different?

Two polls, two stories

2011-10-18T16:31:00.001+01:00

Opinion polls can't decide whether the Tories are unpopular or not. At the weekend YouGov, the most accurate at recent elections, put Labour and the Tories only three points apart. If that is so, Labour could be screwed. Unless things get a lot worse, which they look like doing.

According to Populus for yesterday's Times, Labour has romped to an eight point lead over the Tories, leading 41% - 33%. What does this all mean?

Polling isn't accurate. We know that already. We also know that the election isn't for several years. In that time Ed Miliband will or won't make an impact with voters. The economy will get worse and might, but probably won't get better again.

Economic pain and the unpopularity of the Tories and Lib Dems won't be enough for Labour. The big problem is that while people don't like government cuts and hate recessions because it means they get poorer and could lose their jobs, they might not blame the Tories.

Labour is to blame for the economic mess. That is what many will say. The Tories freely offered that line time and again, backed up by the Lib Dems. When they talk about the problems we face now, as things get worse, this is somehow related to a different global economic slump to the one we found ourselves in 2008/9. The Tory message has stuck and Labour hasn't been able to shift it.

Lots of voters still blame Labour. Until an alternative message sticks Labour's poll leads will look vulnerable, especially when boundary changes loaded in favour of the Tories come into effect. Labour is skint too. That means a decent election campaign is beyond the party as it simply can't afford the staff.

Both Labour and the Tories leave much to be desired in the eyes of voters. We have an unpopular government and an untrusted opposition both fighting to get heard. Labour has reasons to worry, as Mark Ferguson and Olly Parker outlined at Labour List, while the Tories do too, as outlined by Tim Montgomerie.

Does this mean Labour supporters should be depressed? Of course not. It simply means that there is everything to play for.

The unknown world of political lobbying

2011-10-17T15:21:00.000+01:00

Today's newspaper headlines about attempting to uncover what is being painted as a "murky" world of political lobbying actually says something quite stark about politics. Lobbying isn't new and is a big money business.

Every major company in the world employs lobbyists, as do all the major charities. Some of the biggest PR firms also have specialist lobbying functions, such as Edelman and Weber Shandwick. What these headlines reveal is an ignorance to the reality and perhaps a faux naivety about the level of business involvement in politics.

A quick glance at the Association for Professional Political Consultants (APPC), the lobbying trade body for the UK lists 64 member companies and hundreds of staff. While it purports to "ban on any financial relationship with politicians" though clearly we can all see that the lines are blurred. What counts as a financial relationship? A politician might not be getting paid by a lobbyist but will be receiving information, briefings or hospitality. As a £2bn industry, the money has to be paying for something.

As someone who has lots of friends who work as both politicians and lobbyists I've been slightly surprised by the public's shock about this. I thought everyone knew. Clearly that isn't so. I've worked in PR for a number of years, before my recent move into advertising, and it was clear to me that the PR industry, often at the hand of the same companies that lobby politicians, was responsible for influencing journalists to write nice things about them. Yet I don't think most people realise this.

There is a big difference between the rather unpleasant web of influence that Liam Fox and Adam Werrity's close working relationship through Atlantic Bridge has revealed, and that of companies or charities seeking to inform the policy making process legitimately through lobbying.

When David Cameron predicted that lobbying would be the "next big scandal" he was right. Though I don't think he hoped it would afflict his own party. He then said he wanted politics to "come clean about who is buying power and influence." As that picture starts to reveal a rather sinister edge to his party, is he so sure he wants the public to know?

The public need to be educated about what actually happens. Politicians then need to decide whether they are happy to continue as they are. The more people learn about lobbying the less they may like. I hope that the legitimate side of lobbying that really does improve and inform government policy making, isn't thrown out with the bath water.

Liam Fox and Dave the ditherer

2011-10-14T10:29:00.000+01:00

Every day this week has seen a new litany of allegations against defence secretary Liam Fox. His boss David Cameron says that he is doing a "good job", as if that matters when he has been involved in some seriously questionable behaviour.

Today The Times details the people who have funded Adam Werrity's globe trotting trips to be at his chum Fox's side. The Guardian outlines how Fox and Werrity went to Dubai for Fox's official special advisor Luke Coffrey's stag do, funded by the taxpayer. When Fox is sacking thousands from the military, despite their service to the country, this is deeply offensive.

The big question that leaves a rather dirty stench around the whole affair is why was Werrity a health "expert" when Fox was shadow health secretary, then suddenly changed to become an "expert" in defence when his idol moved to defence?

There is so much circumstantial evidence that should worry Cameron. That this has now been joined by a litany of rich businessmen and foreign officials who have provided concrete evidence to firm this up means Fox has to go.Or the growing list of activities that directly oppose official Foreign Office policy in Sri Lanka that he has supported.

Cameron has spectacularly failed to show himself to be any better than his predecessor, Gordon Brown. Cameron made great political capital out of dubbing Brown a "ditherer". Given how long Cameron dithered over firing the corrupt media man Andy Coulson and now the questionable Fox, who is the ditherer now Dave?

David Cameron, Liam Fox, Andy Coulson: spot the difference

2011-10-12T16:52:00.002+01:00

David Cameron is resisting rising pressure to fire his Defence Secretary Liam Fox. The allegations that Fox and his associate Adam Werrity had a rather unhealthy working relationship continue to dominate the news and to undermine Fox's initial claims that there was nothing in them.

Cameron is trying to divert us all by highlighting what (he believes) a good job Fox is doing. That is irrelevant when Fox has lied and broken the ministerial code. It also marks a distinct change of approach from former PM Tony Blair's management of scandals.

Under Blair and Alistair Campbell's rule, anyone who was making bad headlines for more than two days had to quit. It happened to Peter Mandelson despite him later being found to have done nothing wrong. Fox has whispered a hugely caveated apology, that he clearly felt no reason to give.

The question here is how long will Cameron hang on to a minster in Fox who is now responsible for more than a week of damaging headlines? Cameron has form, after employing Andy Coulson in the first place and then clinging on to him by his fingernails despite a growing storm around him about phone hacking.

What was Cameron's defence? At the time he said Coulson was doing a "good job."

We've heard this before. How many more times will a less than convincing Cameron utter them before cutting his losses with Fox?

London Olympic stadium farce

2011-10-11T14:21:00.001+01:00

The London Olympic Legacy Company is no longer selling the 2012 stadium to West Ham. Cue sigh of relief to West Ham fans. Cue worry from Spurs fans. Cue a sigh of relief and worry from Leyton Orient fans. As a football whore I fall into the latter two categories.

Fans of none of the clubs want to watch football behind a running track. Spurs fans don't want to move to East London and Orient fans deserve better. Having a bigger club dump themselves on your doorstep and then give away thousands of free or reduced tickets to fill an overly large stadium threatens Orient's very existence.

The football authorities should know better. They got it badly wrong in letting Wimbledon "move" and become a new club, with a ready made football league place, with MK Dons in 2004. Letting either West Ham or Spurs move in just a mile away from Orient would be a disaster. Orient are a fantastic example of a community club, having won awards for their work with the locality.

Spurs are playing a game of high brinkmanship. They want to get as much money provided from the public purse for improvements to the Edmonton area to make their own Northumberland Park stadium project "viable". At the same time they don't want anyone else getting a helping hand. They are of course technically right that Newham's proposed £40m loan to West Ham looks very much like a "state aid" (government hand out) to a private company, which is banned by EU law.

The mayor and Olympic legacy company won't want an empty stadium to rot after 2012. That looks likely if a deal for West Ham to rent the stadium doesn't come through. That leaves the same problems, that will be unpopular with fans because the running track will remain and threatens the future of one of London's oldest clubs.

Throughout the whole saga nobody has successfully argued how a 60,000 capacity athletics stadium would be viable in London. I just don't believe there are enough people in London that would want to pay to watch athletics live more than once or twice a year.

The scramble for the Olympic stadium is a race that will have losers whatever the outcome:

West Ham move in: Orient struggle, Hammers fans bemoan lack of atmosphere
Spurs move in: Orient struggle a bit less, Spurs fans upset at move east
Orient move in: Orient struggle in huge stadium
Athletics only: huge, over capacity stadium rarely used, taxpayer loses

Racist Tory weekly: issue #7

2011-10-07T11:41:00.001+01:00

Two updates this week. First up is an old "friend", Dover councillor Bob Frost, who posted that rioters were "jungle bunnies" on Facebook. This was enough to see him leave his teaching job, but not enough to get him kicked out of the Tory party.

He has this week been reprimanded and warned about his future conduct. Is that it? Someone who doesn't understand that sort of statement to be deeply offensive without having it explained to him doesn't deserve to hold office. It is insulting to the people of Dover that the Tory party are letting him.

Frost himself said, after the event:

"“Looking at the dictionary it would appear that the term jungle bunnies is pejorative and is a racist slur relating to African-Americans. I did not mean to use any offensive racist term and was referring to the urban jungle. As for the bunny bit it was originally ‘animals’ but I thought people might object to me calling fellow humans this so I chose something I thought was innocent and also cuddly.”

Can anyone really believe that?

Next up the one of the faces of the Tory become a councillor campaign. I can't claim the "scoop" here, that is the excellent Political Scrapbook's. Southend councillor Blaine Robin was called out and praised at a meeting of Southend EDL:

When will someone clear out this rubbish from the Tory party or does the leadership not care?

#cpc11 Cameron & Osborne have no plan B, sort of

2011-10-06T14:28:00.001+01:00

The key messages of this week's Tory conference were that the government will stick forthrightly to its debt reduction plan. There will not be any loosening of the purse strings in an attempt to stem the nosediving growth figures.

That much was to be expected. The deficit reduction programme overrides everything else. It seems that it does even when the IMF, economists suck as Irwin Stelzer and the public think it is the wrong approach. Put simply, cutting government spending so sharply has turned off the life support to may parts of the economy. That means companies lose income from government contracts, rising unemployment means government is paying to support people rather than having them pay taxes.

That George Osborne has allowed the Bank of England to enact another raft of quantitative easing today is very surprising. I'm pleased he did, but it is far from expected. Osborne's single track approach to our economic woes has been to focus on cutting spending and getting the deficit down. Nothing else. He hasn't shown much concern for collapsing consumer demand, so anything like this that seeks to stimulate is, isn't from his manifesto.

Politically this shows Osborne's weakness. While we've seen a show of confidence and strength from the Tories in Manchester this week, scratching the surface reveals a worried party. The Tories are worried that the economy won't get better by 2015. If that happens then nobody will thank them for their harsh medicine of austerity.

Their worries about popularity have led to U-turns on the NHS and now quantitative easing. In 2009 Osborne said:

"(quantitative easing) an admission of failure and carries considerable risk"

You can see for yourself what Osborne thinks of his own policy on the Conservative Party website. At the very least you'd have thought someone would have thought to take it down to hide a bit of embarrassment before announcing their U-turn and show of weakness wouldn't you?

#cpc11 Nothing new from David Cameron's big speech

2011-10-05T16:09:00.002+01:00

David Cameron focused his attention on Labour and Ed Balls in particular, again dubbing him, and Labour, deficit deniers. Balls was the only Labour politician mentioned. This narrative has already stuck and will continue to do so. Labour's fightback is important and very necessary. Cameron tried to tarnish Labour with creating a poor education system, poor immigration and housing systems.

He tried very hard to tarnish Labour's fairness image. The Tories,according to him, are the party of fairness. I doubt anyone will actually believe that. Nevertheless, it is remarkable to hear all the major parties talk about housing so much when it has been ignored for so long. The message from implementing gay marriage was important as it means to show that the Tories are still compassionate.

Unfortunately for all the grand ambition of Cameron's words to make Britain fairer, I just don't believe it. The toxicity of the Tory brand continues and many others won't believe Cameron either.

His delivery was impressive. That sets him apart from Ed Miliband, though the robustness of their respective policies will be what sets them apart in the end, especially when much of their rhetoric was the same.

There wasn't a great deal of substance in his speech.The messaging was more important. Responsibility, for country and community. Unlike the Blair/Brown years we don't seem to get politicians reeling off lists of new initiatives in their big speeches any more.

There was precious little that suggested how Britain's economy will start growing again. This is the major issue facing the country and the answers he gave were weak. Deficit, deficit., deficit. That is all Cameron and the Tories care about. This supersedes helping people struggling with unemployment and rising cost of living.

The expected lack of anything new means we're in for more of the same. The slog is just beginning. A stuttering economy. Party leaders battling over the same, centre ground. Ordinary people struggling. Tough and arduous times are ahead.

Latest polling shows Labour and Tories unchanged

2011-10-05T09:30:00.000+01:00

The latest YouGov poll for The Sun shows that the party conference season has done nothing at all to change support for the main parties:

This reinforces my expectation that we're in for a long, muddy, groggy, slog over the next three and a half years. None of the main parties has hauled themselves away from the 2010 election that they all lost. Each has major reasons to worry and as yet, none are showing that they have the answers to haul themselves clear of their rivals.

Of course, this matters very little. The election isn't tomorrow so there is plenty of time left for the Tories to become more unpopular and to regain popularity if the economy somehow gets better. There is plenty of time too for Ed Miliband to start landing blows on the Tories and to gain credibility with the electorate.

All we know at the moment is that there are a lot of unknowns still there and there is a lot of work to be done to resolve that.

#cpc11 The Tory band is toxic

2011-10-04T16:05:00.003+01:00

The Tories spent a long time telling us all that they had learnt from their mistakes in power. That usually meant saying that they had learnt from their mistakes when in power. Little else. Once they got their swagger back and were given a bit of power they reverted to type.

David Cameron put so much effort into trying to build a compassionate Conservative brand. Remember "hug a hoodie"? Yet when it comes to proving it by what you do in power they show themselves to be a very different beast. That beast is very similar to the one we all remember from the 1980s and 1990s. People didn't like it then and they don't like it now.

New Statesman research suggests that up to 60% of voters would not vote Tory at the next election.

This follows a recent Guardian survey with similar results. That found that 42% of people would never vote Tory, while only 30% would never vote Labour:

Add in the toxicity of the Tory brand to females, who are bearing the brunt of most Tory cuts to family support and benefits and the picture isn't that rosy. The Tories will swagger, but underneath is the nervousness that shows in the frequent U-turns and falling public confidence.

The Tories: slick, confident, in government and unpopular

2011-10-03T16:50:00.002+01:00

George Osborne's Conservative Party Conference speech today, like yesterday's press interviews exuded confidence. The Tories are presenting themselves in a slick and confident manner. They know where they are going and they won't flinch or falter. They have more money from a wide range of rich financiers, as shown over the weekend, and they are using it to put on a thoroughly polished show.

What you won't hear this week is the anxiety they clearly feel about the worsening economy. Worse still, the effect that will have on the likelihood of them winning in 2015 will not reach our screens.

Being in power gives the Tories a confidence that was missing from 1992 until about 2008. The money that follows power boosts it further. Many of their front bench are also much better TV performers than many in Labour's front bench.

All of this public schoolboy self assurance though doesn't mean they are confident about either the economy or their own prospects. Neither look good. The economy has flat-lined, the unpopularity of their policies will deepen.

People shouldn't be fooled by Tory bravado. I don't expect them to. They exuded this almost complacent sense of triumph before the election as Labour stuttered and they controlled the news agenda. Yet it didn't let them walk into power with the automatic victory they expected.

The Tory compromises and U-turns over the NHS, quantitative easing and whatever else comes up (there will be more) shows they worry about their popularity. It also shows that their "plan" isn't cast iron. Talk of sticking to "plan-A" is the public, conference line, but the reality shows a weak and vulnerable government.

This only matters if Labour can rebuild its own strength up to a position where it can take advantage of Tory weakness. There were many occasions during New Labour's reign when it was weak but continued to govern, almost unchallenged, because the Tory opposition was completely ineffective.

To find that out, we will have to roll on to the next six months and see whether Miliband can strike repeated blows against his cocky opponent, Cameron. Only if that happens do I think the smile will be wiped off Cameron and Osborne's faces. Otherwise they'll continue to exude that public confidence that belies the worries within.

Three and a half years is a long time in politics

2011-10-02T20:55:00.001+01:00

The coalition is committed to spending a full I've years in power. They are unpopular and the economy is getting worse. Thy have little option but to hold out for as long as possible in the hope that things get a bit better and that voters thank them for that. This also gives Labour plenty of time in which to sort itself out and to regain credibility. All three parties lost the last election. Labour lost power, the Tories failed to win the election and the Lib Dems failed to take advantage of Cleggmania and lost many seats. At the moment voters are yet to be convinced by Ed Miliband, dislike the Tories and ate struggling to see the point of the Lib Dems. The economy means Labour has to come up with something credible and popular that doesn't cost money they were not able to do that very often in government when Brown was keen to announce new spending on a regular basis as the economy continued to grow. The Tories have little wriggle room. The economy is getting worse. This deprives them of their hoped-for recovery that would erase the bitter memory if austerity from voters' minds. Cameron, like Milband, needs to show radicalism to fans a chance of winning in 2015. That would in turn risk the ire of his own party if he was deemed to be too left wing. It would pease the Lib Dems and also expose them by showing that heir influence is unnecessary to achieve radical policies. Radical would be something we wouldn't normally expect from Tories. More council homes could be the one though given the time it takes to plan and build them I doubt it. Could 2015 follow 2010 to be the election nobody wants to win?

Ed Miliband: evolution not revolution

2011-09-29T19:15:00.001+01:00

Ed Miliband's conference speech this week didn't represent a breakthrough moment. It shows that he is a leader who has growing potential but he isn't a galactico.

Opinion on both the quality of his speech, its content and plans differ. I noted that many of those who were at the conference we much more impressed than those outside. Of course, many at the conference work closely with Ed and are therefore more likely to agree with him. They often ignored the wooden and unglitzy delivery of the speech. They focused instead on what Ed had to say. Ed, rightly, emphasised at a question and answer session yesterday that he cares more about substance than style. Ultimately that is all that will matter if he gets into power. To reach that point though his delivery and public demeanor will need to continue improving so that voters, people who will never meet him one to one, get to see a bit of the Ed that all those who do meet him know. He cares, gets "it" and is highly personable, much more than his brother. Between them they'd make a perfect leader.

Many of those outside the conference centre and his opponents in the right wing media have kept the question marks up against Ed's leadership. As a result, for the second year running Ed was forced to spend the day after his set piece speech defending himself to the media. Last year it was against the "Red Ed" tags and this year it was stating that he is not anti-business. This is disappointing because it would have been better to have got it right first time and to have planned for the backlash and addressed this directly in the speech.

The content of Ed's speech saw him focus on his values. They are ones that most people will easily be able to identify with, though I'm not sure he can present himself as an "outsider" when he has hardly come from a difficult background. His speech and question and answer session yesterday show that he does understand the key issues voters worry about. His answers also showed someone who knows politically where he needs Labour to fight: against the Tories and for Tory votes, in the centre and not on the left of the political spectrum.

I hope this speech represents the first steps in the right direction for a four to five year journey to a commanding poll lead and election victory. As a leader of potential rather than as a ready made star I don't yet know if that will happen. I hope it does.

More racist Tories

2011-09-28T16:47:00.001+01:00

Last week's round up of recent racist Tory comments was I admit, a bit of a cheap shot. There wasn't anything new. This week we have some new content to report. Whoops. Two weeks was obviously too long before it happened again.

The Scottish Herald reported that the editor of a Scottish Conservative site, Stewart Green, had to apologise after making allegedly racist remarks on the Tory Hoose blog, reportedly a Scottish version of Conservative Home.

An example of Green's tasteless tweets included:

“An Asian festival is taking place a few doors up, either that or several cats are being strangled. Can’t quite decide which.”

Why is the Tory party home to such disgusting people?

#Lab 11 Ed Miliband's speech

2011-09-27T15:33:00.003+01:00

Four years from an election the polls don't really matter but they do consistently show that Ed Miliband's leadership is yet to make a breakthrough. In today's speech Labour supporters like me were looking for a breakthrough from Ed.

Winning back voters trust is central to Labour winning again. Miliband was calm and clear, his delivery has improved and he shows that he understands the issues that worry most ordinary people at the moment. There was a great deal from Ed about what is wrong in Britain at the moment. He cited the likes of Fred Goodwin of RBS as the wrong face of Britain.

A new bargain for our economy, the something for something deal. "Producers versus predators". Suggested changing tax and regulation of the economy. A system that incentivises those that produce sounds great. Ed made great play of being on the side of business. That is crucial and it was clear that Ed wanted to talk more about business than unions. He then went on to hit the energy companies, moments after hitting bankers. He spoke of wanting to open the "closed circles" of opportunity.

His delivery was calm and methodical and gave the feeling that he cared. There were lots of promising signs and he has clearly grown into the job.

A great line was hidden in the middle of his speech. Contrasting the VAT rise with Tory attempts to cut the 50% top tax rate, he said that only David Cameron would make "ordinary people work harder by making them poorer and richest work harder by making them richer."

I can't help feeling that there wasn't enough. Delegates applauded loudly when he said you can't trust the Tories with the NHS. Fine. But this speech needed to be about what the Tories are doing wrong and how Ed's Labour will be better.

He closed by saying he wanted to fulfil the promise of Britain. Today's speech showed me he knows what is wrong and has some ideas of how to change this. For me this wasn't a breakthrough moment. It was a steady and promising speech, one of potential rather than that of a star who is already there.

Next for the media reaction...

Tony Blair and Channel 4's Dispatches hatchet

2011-09-27T09:46:00.000+01:00

When I was growing up I looked forward to investigative political programmes on TV such as ITV's World in Action, BBC's Panorama and Channel 4's Dispatches. Unfortunately there isn't much left of that once great axis of investigative journalism. Last night's Dispatches about former PM Tony Blair's activities since leaving politics is a sad example of that decline, a cheap re-hash of similar Daily Mail articles by the same author.

I've been used to Channel 4 giving up its Dispatches programme for biased political hatchet jobs over recent years. Ken Livingstone, Boris Johnson and climate change have all been victims of poorly researched, politically motivated attacks. Oborne, like many committed Tories is a fervent Blair opponent, much as Polly Toynbee doesn't like David Cameron very much. Imagine the right wing derision if she led a documentary against their Tory pals?

Blair is an easy target because many people hate Labour, hate Labour being successful and hate Blair for his role in that. Some dislike him for the Iraq war too, which I understand. Right wing Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph writer Peter Oborne likes to link the two, for political purposes.

In last night's programme Oborne claimed that Blair has lobbied on behalf of Palestinian telecom firm Wataniya because of links with investment bank JP Morgan. This is untrue. In his role acting for the Quartet, Blair is charged with enhancing the Palestinian economy. Therefore attracting foreign investment for the project is part of his role, one he has been asked to undertake by the Palestinians. One can read about this on Blair's website.

Oborne was critical of the sums Blair is meant to have earned after leaving politics. Blair's advisers have confirmed to me that these figures are incorrect. Aside from that I don't think it is anyone's business what someone earns after leaving politics - provided they are not in conflict with their previous jobs.

In the light of the Libyan revolution it has become easy to hit Blair for trying to build bridges with the former regime when he was in power. I'm sure Blair would have preferred a more democratic regime to have been in place, but he had to deal with the situation as it was. He should be praised for helping to persuade Gaddafi to give up his chemical and nuclear weapons programme. It is also preposterous to suggest he had anything to do with the release of Megrahi. Blair has also never had any commercial relationship with any part of the Libyan government or company.

John Major has made millions since leaving office in his role as a director of the Carlyle Group that made a mint from privatised British defence contracts. Where is the Dispatches about that?

Oborne is obsessed with Blair and has been peddling many of this nonsense for several years in his Daily Mail and Telegraph columns. It disappoints me that Channel 4 thought it worthy of an hour of their airtime last night.

#Lab11 Ed Balls at conference: state is still the answer

2011-09-26T12:44:00.000+01:00

Ed Balls attacked the Tories. His speech was well received by the conference. He repeated his attacks that rising unemployment will stop the deficit being paid off. He said that voters are not interested in Labour's previous record, they worry about making ends meet.

Balls cited Labour's mistakes when in power. Mistakes: 10 tax abolition, tougher migration controls needed, wasted spending and not enough banking regulation.

Nevertheless he went on the attack: "Don't let anyone tell you Labour went into the recession being profligate with public money". British debt was lower than elsewhere. He blamed the economic crisis on bankers, not on public spending. He blamed the worsening economic position on the Tories. He said that "austerity is an abdication of responsibility" by the government and one that hits the poorest hardest.

He equalised Labour's mistakes with bigger Tory mistakes: included wasting billions on unnecessary NHS reorganisation, which is choking off the recovery when it needs it least.

Balls' gung-ho approach can win over people already committed to Labour. Will it win over those voters who switch between Labour and Tory? Labour needs their support to win power. That depends on who they believe was responsible for the Tory framed debt crisis. It also depends on if they believe Labour can make their lives better and protect their standard of living in the future.

Balls listed five steps he called on the government to take, which they won't. More taxes on bankers to support young people into work. Invest in infrastructure. Cut VAT on home improvements. Reverse VAT rise.National Insurance tax break for small businesses taking on new workers.

This is the first time under Ed Miliband's leadership we've heard specific commitments that takes account of the lack of money available but still offers to help people in difficult times. It is clear that he still believes the state is the answer to both the economic and cost of living problems we face.

Balls on the attack is the most ferocious member of the shadow cabinet. It is clear he can achieve the cut through with the media that perhaps his boss, Miliband, hasn't been able to. Both of them suffer from a closeness to Brown. Balls has to convince voters he has the answers for the future and that he understands the analysis of the past that says Labour didn't get it all right.

"Britain is no safe haven" under the Tories he repeated. He is clearly going to take the argument to them.

Refounding Labour @ #Lab11

2011-09-26T09:44:00.005+01:00

The Labour Party desperately needed a new lease of life by the time 2010 brought election defeat. Being a party member means different things to different people but it is clear that whatever your view the structures and rules of the party needed a refresh. Ed Miliband's response was Refounding Labour, a wide consultation asking members for their views about how the party should work.

Personally I find it tiresome that being a Labour member often means spending at least one evening a week at a meeting. It is important that the Labour Party provides members an opportunity to debate local and political issues and I understand that there is always a certain level of administration, news and decision making that any local party needs to get through.

Unfortunately though I feel this structure of ward meetings, consistency general meetings, constituency executive meetings, local government meetings added to campaign meetings and whatever else one might have volunteered for leads to boredom and fatigue.

Given the many pressures on most peoples' time these meetings put a strain on how much time people can give to the party. If I go to all of these meetings and I want to also remain committed to my job, family, have a social life and commit enough time to sorting out my own personal administration there isn't much left. And people wonder why members don't attend meetings.

After attending all of these meetings I then have no time left to go campaigning. If Labour doesn't campaign Labour doesn't win and it doesn't meet the electorate. The meeting culture makes being a member almost self defeating because it doesn't prioritise the most important aspect - campaigning.

Peter Hain's conference speech yesterday alluded to changing the party to be focused on campaigning. This is encouraging but Refounding Labour needs to bring about a huge cultural shift in the party too. Making sure councillors and MPs campaign is a start but it isn't enough.

I'm looking for Miliband and Hain to bring about wholesale changes though I suspect that won't happen, which disappoints me greatly.

The racist Tory weekly

2011-09-23T15:46:00.000+01:00

The Friday racist Tory bulletin is become a regular feature on this site. Over recent weeks I've featured:

Dover councillor Bob Frost who referred to rioters as "jungle bunnies"
Sexist comments from Tory activists on Twitter
Brighton councillor Lynda Hyde was forced to apologise after being informed that her jokes were racist
~~Lib Dem~~ Tory John Cleese complained about the number of foreigners in London
Boris Johnson's Deputy Mayor Richard Barnes is alleged to have made racist comments about Irish people and rioters

Could I really make it five weeks in a row? Unfortunately not. The Tories have given me a week off as they prepare for their party conference. Instead Tory run Basildon council is facing claims that its action against the illegal traveller site at Dale Farm is racist from many. Though the issue isn't easy for any council is should and could have been handled much better.

Does the UK work the longest hours in Europe?

2011-09-21T10:52:00.000+01:00

I'd traditionally been led to believe that the UK worked the longest hours in Europe. This made us grumpy, tired and less productive than our European cousins. Finland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Czech Republic and Slovakia all work more hours each year than us in the UK. Obviously, people in France do work far fewer hours than us, so some stereotypes are true...

via

Ed Miliband's conference message

2011-09-20T15:01:00.000+01:00

I have just received Ed Miliband's pre-conference message. Watch it.

He sets out the key values that we should be hearing much more about over the next couple of weeks.

Do party conferences matter?

2011-09-19T11:50:00.001+01:00

Conference season traditionally gives each of the main parties a week of owning the news and, they hope, a poll boost. They are also the time when leaders with something still to prove are expected to show they mean business. A bad conference can damage both credibility and popularity.

Gordon Brown had several "make or break" conferences, according to the commentariat anyway. It didn't make any difference. His first as leader saw him hint at a snap election, only to back down and to gain him the unwanted reputation as a "ditherer". He was unable to shift that tag.

Ed Miliband will enter his first conference as leader level in the polls with the Tories, or with a small lead, depending on which one you read. Your interpretation also flavours the results. Miliband's approval ratings might have gone down recently, but he is still the least unpopular between himself, Clegg and Cameron. His personal ratings are also similar to those Cameron received when he'd been in charge for a year.

A good speech will help his image, which has been a problem. The only way he'll really make headway in voters' minds though is through consistently saying the right thing and responding effectively to political events. He did well during the outbreak of the hacking scandal, more is needed. The political village gets excited every week at prime ministers questions, while it passes much of the country by. Conference season is little different.

Clegg's Lib Dems are failing to reap the benefit of being in coalition, with poll after poll still showing that around half of those who voted for them at the last election won't do so again. Lib Dem conference won't do anything to change that. Much as a bad conference for Miliband will lead to the same headlines being trotted out about his "poor leadership" and a good one will excite his friends and go unnoticed by most people.

Racist Tory...again

2011-09-16T13:44:00.001+01:00

Every Friday for the last month I've Googled "racist Tory" and every week news of another inappropriate comment has emerged. How long will this go on for? What does it say about Cameron's Conservatives that they seem stuck with a party full of old men with a 1950s colonialist racist attitude to the world?

Another Friday and another report of racist comments made by a Tory. This time it is the slightly more significant Deputy Mayor Richard Barnes who is having his judgement and ethics being questioned. According to the Daily Mirror, Barnes is alleged to have said, in the wake of the London riots, a highly sensitive time for the city: "why did police put Persil in the water cannon? To stop the colours running."

Not funny and plain racist.

After a member of staff complained Barnes is now under investigation.

Remember that Barnes is the same Deputy Mayor that you will remember recently made racist comments about Irish people, so this is potentially his second offence in just three months.

How long before Boris Johnson cuts him adrift? Or would he rather keep a racist deputy than lose yet another, having already lost three?

Unfare

2011-09-15T11:23:00.002+01:00

Bus fares when Boris Johnson came into power in 2008 were 90p per journey. In January he is putting them up to £1.40. That is a staggering 56% increase. Over the same period retail price inflation was just 13%.Tube and train fares in London will also go up by about 7-8%.

In 2008 my zones one and two Oyster single from Finsbury Park to Moorgate costed me £2. It now costs £2.50 and in January will cost me £2.70. That is an increase of 35%. You can see details of all next year's fares on the Mayor's site.

Stacking rises onto bus journeys, as BJ has done hits the poorest Londoners hardest as they rely more heavily on the cheapest form of public transport and make shorter journeys.

We all understand that government budgets are under increased pressure at the moment. That in itself though doesn't excuse Boris' eye-watering fares hike. Unfortunately, despite promising in 2008 to give Londoners "more bang for their buck" Johnson hasn't delivered.

Wasteful Boris is squandering our cash on a host of vanity projects at the very time when we can least afford them:

The new routemaster, more expensive and carries fewer passengers than bendy buses - and where are they? £2.27m per bus, plus all the costs of ending bendy bus contracts early...
Thames cable car - who wanted this? Entertainment group AEG were happy to pay for their own when bidding for the dome, but now Boris is getting us to pay for it - at least £57m at latest estimates
Cycle hire scheme - reports suggest that this loses £10m a year
Squandering up to £70m of revenue by scrapping the Western extension of the congestion charge to appease his Tory buddies in zone one Kensington and Chelsea

The Tories hit you in the pocket. Their supposed fiscal expertise comes down to stealth taxes and an increased cost of living. That's OK though as the millionaires in David Cameron's cabinet and Boris Johnson don't use public transport anyway, so at least they are going to be OK.

Shirley Porter would be loving this

2011-09-13T21:26:00.001+01:00

Politicos have long anticipated the Tory instigated boundary review and seat reduction. Now that the provisional plans have been released, they show what those of us on the left suspected: a reduction in seats benefits the Tories. Britain's political boundaries, like those in many other countries such as the USA, mix geographical areas with common identities together with artificial political boundaries. That these are being shaken up doesn't matter that much as people will get used to the change. What matters is the motivation behind these changes. To this end I can only see political advantage to the Tories driving this. Citing a reduced cost of politics might sound amiable but it doesn't work when set against a higher social cost of having fewer MPs. This is especially so in urban areas, where most of the reduction is happening. This is why Labour and the Lib Dems are facing the greatest losses. Modern MPs who do their jobs properly act as social workers for their constituents dealing with a host of problems, from immigration cases to housing. Lengthening the queues to see the remaining MPs doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make democratic sense as it takes our representatives further away from voters. With his supposed classical liberal credentials I wonder how Nick Clegg let this through. Then I remember how he gambled everything to get the AV referendum. He lost that, his party will lose from the seat reduction. Unfortunately voters will too. - Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Racist Tory sacked

2011-09-09T15:52:00.002+01:00

Dover Tory cllr Bob Frost who recently claimed he didn't realise calling rioters "jungle bunnies" was racist and offensive has lost his job as a secondary school teacher. Fair enough. Why is the local Tory party still "investigating"? What he said was clearly racist, he has shown he didn't understand that by not apologising "unreservedly" as he claims by sticking in the disclaimer "I did not mean to use any racist term."

He is either naive or more likely telling fibs.

Time for the Tories to show that they understand what Frost doesn't and give him the boot.

Will Cameron take Britain out of the EU?

2011-09-07T14:34:00.000+01:00

The profile of Tory MPs is now weighted towards those in favour of the UK pulling out of the EU. As news reports show them getting more serious about organising their anti-European campaigning, will David Cameron be made to pay for buying their votes to win his leadership election?

At today's prime minister's questions, when asked by Tory MP Mark Reckless if Britain should pull out of the EU Cameron repeated his oft muttered line that the UK needs to re-assess its relationship with the EU to get the best deal from it.

What does this mean for Britain's future relationship with the EU? Anti-Europe Tory MPs want out and they are a sizeable bunch. They are already frustrated at the influence of the pro-European Lib Dems on a government they'd prefer to be pure-Tory. This leaves them without influence both because Cameron has to compromise with his coalition partners to stay in power and also because those Lib Dem votes mean he doesn't need to compromise with his own Tory right wing to get his legislation through.

My expectation is that their calls for a drastic pull out will fall on deaf ears as Cameron like those before him realises that to do so isn't easy or advisable. Continued problems in the Eurozone will weaken the current EU model but not fatally. The stronger northern European economies such as Germany, Britain and the Nordics will be able to exert more influence than those which have been ripped apart by the collapse of their economies.

This means Britain can become more powerful and gain more from throwing its weight around. I expect Cameron to make the most of that but to keep Britain in the EU. If he wins a slim majority at a 2015 election his position will be weakened and that of the anti-Europeans in his party strengthened leaving the prospect of am more anti-European government than that of John Major who had more pro-Europeans for support than Cameron will have.

Cameron doesn't want to take Britain out of the EU but his party wants him to. At the moment they don't have the power but that could all change.

Captain Darling's weapon

2011-09-06T12:59:00.000+01:00

Anthony Seldon's article in yesterday's Evening Standard was spot on in its analysis of Gordon Brown's strengths and weaknesses, in the news again following the release of Alistair Darling's book.

Darling has told us that Brown had no plan for government after spending years focusing on ousting Tony Blair. Brown was a nightmare to work with at times. Most of the cabinet except Ed Balls wanted Brown to quit but didn't force him out. This much we know. He also reacted to the global financial crisis superbly and led an international response. This much many of us knew and many dispute for political reasons.

Darling's book is interesting because he is such a reserved, measured and careful politician. Anything he says has to be taken seriously. Though there doesn't look to be much revelatory content in his book it does bring the Brown years to live in even more detail. It also gives the Tories a bit more mud to sling at Ed Balls who has again been heavily implicated in much of the negativity attributed to Brown.

Politically Labour still has work to do to establish economic credibility. That Darling and Brown disagreed with be played out as Balls making the wrong call. Balls is big enough to deal wit the blows he now expects to receive. It is going to be interesting to see how this is played out in the polls and whether voters really care about arguments that bother those in the Westminster bubble.

The greatest newspaper in the world

2011-09-02T15:35:00.000+01:00

The Daily Express is according to itself. It seems to have moved on from Princess Diana's untimely death and is back to competing with the Daily Mail about scroungers. Today's front page made me chuckle:

I agree that it is scandalous that so many don't have work. What does the Express think we should do about it? Either this is, as the Express claims, because of a culture of welfare dependency, or perhaps a symptom of post recession rising unemployment. Something that is happening worldwide.

I'm worried about John Cleese too. Has he only just noticed that London is an international city or that it is in Britain?

A Lib Dem future?

2011-09-01T13:31:00.001+01:00

Ed Miliband and many in the Labour Party still feel that an olive branch to disaffected Lib Dems is a path back to redemption. There are votes to be had at the Lib Dem's expense though I doubt these will be sufficient. Recent Guardian/ICM polling shows that Labour and the Tories are neck and neck. Something else needs to give Labour the poll surge it needs to stand a chance at the next election.

Tories on the right will be keen to drive open divisions in the coalition as it still rankles with them that they don't rule alone.

The Lib Dems claim they are exerting a moderating influence on the Tories. The polls suggest people think otherwise.

Lord Adonis told Politics.co.uk that he wants Labour and the lefty Lib Dems to be closer aligned. Despite not fitting in with their Orange Book colleagues, these MPs and supporters find it difficult to reconcile their differences with Labour, either because they hold a 1980s grudge or because they feel that Labour in government was too authoritarian.

I can't envisage any significant shifts in the party political boundaries in the near future. The Tories are keen to show that their tough medicine will help the country in the long term and want to win and govern alone at the next election. The Labour Party needs to be attractive enough to win votes from Tory voters in addition to the demotivated on the left. The Lib Dems are desperately trying to hold their nerve in government in the hope that people thank them in the end. As Rafael Behr points out, Nick Clegg "can't be ignored." Labour and the Tories hope voters think otherwise and that still seems likely.

Politics is bankrupt

2011-08-31T17:34:00.000+01:00

Labour is £10m in debt and the proposed changes to party political funding threaten its future further. If donations are capped at £50k then the party, so heavily reliant on trade union funding, wouldn't be able to operate.

Blair tried to move away from the union dependency, unsuccessfully. He instead sought funding from wealthy businesses. That ended in tears with the cash for honours "scandal." Rob Marchant highlights that Blair regretted not reforming the party more to put it on a more stable future footing. That opportunity was missed, leaving the party vulnerable to a Tory Lib Dem pincer movement.

The simple reform that would have stopped this becoming a problem of debt and trade union funding would have been state funding of political parties. This was the favoured option of the man who led the most recent investigation into political funding in the UK, Sir Christopher Kelly. Yet his recommendations were deemed unpalatable.

Given that politics is already largely funded by state money in paying for MP's researchers and caseworkers, plus opposition support and civil servants it would be more honest to do this properly and openly. I'm sure most voters don't realise this at all. It is unhelpful that many of these costs are currently described as MPs' expenses, when office costs and those for moat cleaning are quite different.

That the Tories and Lib Dems are even in a position to push through a chance that would have such a one sided impact on party politics shows how wrong the system is. We need something fair and independent of parties that means politicians and favour can't be bought. Yet nobody seems to be making this case.

Politics will become morally and financially bankrupt if this happens. It leaves the door open for a future scandal. That in turn will only put people off politics even more and close the opportunity for the only honest solution available.

Where is your society Cameron?

2011-08-25T13:20:00.000+01:00

Cameron expressed shock and anger at the riots, like us all. Unfortunately he has talked Britain and our sense of community down since. Now that the initial shock should have passed we need to focus on understanding what happened and why. Bringing back the cheap slogan of "Broken Britain" won't help that.

Tony Blair's response to the riots was right and highlighted where David Cameron has failed to understand British society. Blair highlighted that the reaction to rioting, with mass clean ups and funds to help victims tells us more about our society than the rioters do.

"Broken Britain" turns a society where community is valued to one where there is no community. Cameron's rhetoric has echoes of Margaret Thatcher's claim that "there is no such thing as society." Perhaps that is because Cameron and his millionaire cabinet colleagues have never lived in an ordinary community.

Cheap jibes at the expense of community from Cameron doesn't surprise me as he is a Thatcherite to the core but it goes against the compassionate Conservatism language he used a couple of years ago. This shows that to be acting and that he has now reverted to type.

What British society needs is a reaffirmation of community. Talking it down, denigrating the sense of togetherness that most people feel about where they live won't make things better. If we all bar our windows and stay at home every night for fear of a feral youth attacking us there will be no point in living in any of our cities.

If Cameron wants to lead he needs to show that he has moved on from the opportunist rhetoric of opposition drawn up by Andy Coulson and start to show he has a positive vision of the country. Panic and derision will only lead us into the gutter.

Bigot bandwagon goes on

2011-08-25T09:54:00.000+01:00

Setting up a news search for racist comments by Tory councillors is throwing up a conveyor belt of examples. The latest to join the club is Brighton councillor Lynda Hyde. She has been forced to apologise for emailing "offensive" "jokes." When will they learn?

Does a social site extend your campaign reach?

2011-08-23T15:41:00.000+01:00

To much comment among the Labour twitterati Ken Livingstone yesterday launched his social campaigning site Your Ken. Building on the social media success of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign has been the holy grail of political campaigning everywhere else since. does Your Ken do the trick?

Other attempts to create new political social networking sites have failed because they haven't been better than Facebook or Twitter. They also failed because people didn't follow and use the sites. That led to sites such as Labour's Members Net being little more than empty shells. In attempting to draw younger members together through social networks local groups have preferred to create their own Facebook groups or to create a sense of belonging through Twitter hashtags, such as #labourdoorstep.

Whether Your Ken becomes another empty shell or not depends on whether there is enough reason for people to dwell on the site. Will there be enough exclusive content? Will activists be able to interact in a way that they are not able to elsewhere? Will activists want to compete for the prize of the leading activist?

Even if all that happens what may not happen is that Your Ken opens up his campaign to anyone who wasn't already interested. If the site can enthuse new activists and get more out of existing activists it will have been a success.

Gaining the London mayoralty might not be the same status as President of the United States but to a Labour supported denied power nationally it would be a great start.

Tory conveyor belt of bigotry rolls on

2011-08-19T16:25:00.000+01:00

Yesterday's Tory news of the Dover councillor who dubbed rioters "jungle bunnies" has now apologised though still hasn't shown that he understands why his remarks are so offensive. Unfortunately today sees more Tories showing how out of touch they are with the modern world:

Tory tweeter @londonistar shows a startling mistrust for women in politics. I wonder what she thinks about Margaret Thatcher?

Conveyor belt of bigotry

2011-08-18T17:11:00.000+01:00

A few times a year a Tory somewhere comes out with something racist. The latest on the conveyor belt of bigotry is 49 year old Dover councillor Bob Frost. He referred to rioters as "jungle bunnies" on Facebook.

Nasty man.

He responded to the accusations:

"'Looking at the dictionary it would appear that the term jungle bunnies is perjorative [sic] and is a racist slur relating to African-Americans. Needless to say I did not mean to use any offensive racist term and was referring to the urban jungle."

His faux naivety would be endearing if his comments were not so despicable and offensive. His non apology just twists his bigoted knife further.

How does Cameron's "compassionate Conservatives" continue to allow this type to represent them in the first place?

Political blog awards

2011-08-17T12:50:00.000+01:00

It is that time of year when you get to vote in the Total Politics blog awards. I'd love it, just love it, if you voted for me.

Phone hacking: a story

2011-08-16T14:19:00.000+01:00

A tabloid newspaper journalist walks into his Monday morning editorial meeting.
He editor asks him what stories he is running that week.
He says he has an exclusive that a famous person is having an affair.
The editor says great, lets run that on our Sunday front page.
"One thing" he says to the journalist, "is our evidence reliable? I don't want us to get sued."
"That's OK" replies the journalist, "we've got recorded evidence of the two people discussing the affair."
"How did you get that?" asks the editor.
"From their mobile phones" says the journalist.
"Oh" says the editor, realising that phone tapping or hacking is illegal. "Lets run the story anyway and never discuss this again. Good work."

It couldn't happen could it? An editor would never sanction that for the sake of an exclusive would they?

Clive Goodman's letter confirming that the editors of the News of the World knew about phone hacking should be no surprise. Andy Coulson knew, so I'm sure did Rebbekah Wade and James Murdoch.

The cuts in this story get deeper, making it even more absurd that David Cameron still felt it OK to employ Coulson even though he knew this had happened on his watch. The more this story goes on, the more the wagging finger wags at Cameron.

Cameron thought News International support was more important than keeping his office clean, so he overrode any concerns. This was naive and he will continue to suffer for it.

Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime

2011-08-11T12:12:00.000+01:00

Tony Blair's words of 1993 are as prophetic as ever in setting out what we do as a society to tackle this huge problem of urban unrest. We need to come down on rioters and looters hard. People don't want that and those involved need to know that there is no place for that behaviour.

People will speculate about the causes of the riots. Nobody will ever agree. A poverty of ambition and aspiration among the criminal rioters seems prevalent. This comes despite many years of additional education funding and opportunity. That obviously wasn't enough. Taking away much of that, as the Tories have done and are doing, won't help. It explains but doesn't excuse.

Today's parliamentary debate saw some agreement between David Cameron and Ed Miliband. That is promising. If this tragedy is turned into a political game of ping pong nothing will get done. A lot needs to get done.

It would send out the wrong signal to cut police numbers and budgets now. It did anyway but eve more so now. Otherwise how will the authorities react in future if something like this happens again? Cameron still wants to cut budgets which threatens to roll back the progress made over recent years to reduce crime and make our streets safer. In London I've personally felt the benefit from Safer Neighbourhood Teams. Cuts to those in this context will show that the Tories really just don't get it and don't have the backs of ordinary Londoners covered.

The key challenge is to ensure that the right words now don't filter away as they did in the 1980s and in the USA after Hurricane Katrina. We need to show that we've learnt from that. Cameron needs to show that Conservatism really is compassionate and that it won't just be tough on crime, but also its causes. This means that budget cuts should never take precedence, as they seem to be, over public safety or rebuilding our communities.

Cameron isn't Blair yet and never will be.

Cameron as Jim Callaghan

2011-08-09T07:42:00.000+01:00

Now that the leading Tories are all heading back to the UK with their tails between their legs serious questions had I be asked as to why it took them so long. With serious unrest breaking out over London and other cities over the weekend it was clear that politicians needed to take charge.

People need their leaders to take their problems seriously and show they care. The Tories failed to show that leadership and that they've belatedly woken up to the scale of the rioting crisis begs big questions.

Why has it taken them so long? Did they really care? Their PR advice if they had any has been woeful. It reminds me of former PM Jim Callaghan returning from holiday during the 1978 winter of discontent and being dubbed 'Sunny Jim' while also being derided for playing down the crisis. He was misquoted as saying 'crisis, what crisis?' the mud stuck.

Reacting slowly to the hacking crisis and now rioting, Cameron needs to be careful. That man who had his finger on the nation's political pulse and reacted quickly to the MP expenses scandal has gone AWOL. Cameron needs to find that skill again and sort out this mess.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Hacking: what did they know?

2011-07-22T15:50:00.000+01:00

If the Murdochs thought their appearance before the parliamentary culture committee would have sated those waiting for their blood, they are wring. Today's revelations that James Murdoch knew about the payments to Gordon Taylor when he claimed otherwise is likely only the start of an unravelling of their defence.

What Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks said they knew abut hacking in public seems flimsy. What David Cameron knew about what Andy Coulson knew also isn't clear and poses questions about why the then prospective PM was so desperate to employ the ex- News of the World man when it was clear there were doubts about his suitability.

The Tories have tried to divert attention to Labour and Ed Miliband's press chief Tom Baldwin. There is no evidence that The Times acted improperly, or that Baldwin did. That he worked at a News International title isn't enough to sling mud. It is quite different to Andy Coulson who had already been forced to resign from his editorship of the News of the World because of phone hacking. The Tory attacks on Baldwin smack of desperation.

The questions about the Murdochs will continue and so will those to Cameron. Why wasn't Coulson properly vetted? Again, the suspicion that Cameron knew more than he is letting on still smoulders. Hacking has damaged Cameron's credibility permanently and has awakened Miliband from his slumber. The political sparring between the two should be different now. The Telegraph is no longer unconditionally supportive of Cameron.

While it is clear that those at the top of News International, the police and government probably knew more about this than they have let on, who ends up paying the ultimate price for hacking is unclear. The police have paid a heavy price and that will only get worse as the investigation into bribes uncovers more corruption. The price for Cameron hasn't been set.

Cameron can only hope that what he gained in employing Coulson, the support of News International and a helping hand into government, is worth what he could lose when eventually the dirty laundry has all been aired in public.

Cameron and Coulson: no smoke without fire?

2011-07-19T10:48:00.000+01:00

As I wrote yesterday, if the top brass of the Metropolitan Police have resigned because of the "smoke" caused by association with News International staff, why is David Cameron excluded from this charge? Surely his association with Andy Coulson is worse than the police association with Neil Wallis? At the very least it requires the same level of scrutiny.

So far Cameron has rejected criticism that he could have avoided bringing himself and the centre of government into this scandal by not employing Coulson. When he employed Coulson he had already quit his job as News of the World editor following the jailing of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman for phone hacking in 2007. The Met Police can claim ignorance of Wallis' involvement as at that stage he hadn't been implicated, but they did the right thing and quit anyway after facing growing doubts about their impartiality.

Given Paul Stephenson and Andy Yates' resignations the focus will inevitbalby shift closer to Cameron. At some point he is going to have to open himself up to scrutiny and answer these questions. I suspect that he was so in thrall with the power of News International when in opposition that he thought the benefit of employing Coulson outweighed the risk.

The Sun's support for the Tories was much publicised in late 2009

The Tories had been out of power for (eventually) 13 years and were desperate to get back in. News International support was obviously deemed critical to that. The Sun's switch to the Tories after Gordon Brown's last conference speech was the denouement of that relationship. Pat McFadden at Progress gives a good account of how Labour had courted the same support in the 1990s, then seen as critical to gaining power.

Cameron got himself into power but at what price?

His traditional media support base at The Daily Telegraph is no longer supporting him. Their editorial today states:

"Mr Cameron wants to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, his relationship with Mrs Brooks and Mr Coulson, and on the other, the police's relationship with Mr Wallis. But this simply won't wash."

The New Statesman points out that Cameron "cannot afford to keep up his silence much longer". The drip, drip, drip of accusations will continue until Cameron puts them to bed. Nothing else is going to make them go away, only he can do that and should have put out the flames of innuendo quickly. By now he could have been in the recovery phase but instead he remains vulnerable and the "smoke" wafts around him as he continues to fan the flames.

The hacking web widens

2011-07-18T16:13:00.000+01:00

David Cameron continues to be incredibly vulnerable on phone hacking. I still don't understand why he felt it necessary to appoint Andy Coulson after he'd been forced to quit the News of the World about hacking, well before we even knew the full extend of the nasty practice.

Cameron has still refused to cede ground that employing Coulson was a mistake. Some of the victims in the hacking scandal we may find to be unfortunate to have been implicated by association. Cameron had the choice whether to involve himself in this or not and chose to do so.

The problem is that the police have taken illegal bribes from corrupt newspapers. The prime minister has involved himself by association unnecessarily. As the resignations build up the focus shifts to others. The top of the police have gone and parts of News International are crumbling.

I having continued to meet with Coulson and to defend his appointment I can't see Cameron backing down now. All that does is ensure that an ever growing amount of mud will stick to him over hacking. When it didn't need to.

As the web widens the focus will shift to James Murdoch and Cameron. There will be so many more revelations before proper investigations even begin.

Brown bites back, Cameron retreats

2011-07-14T13:06:00.000+01:00

An initial Parliamentary love in yesterday when all sides agreed to investigation and inquiries became partisan as dirty politics reared it's head again. Former PM Gordon Brown hit back at critics who claimed he should have done more when in power to investigate hacking.

Brown's searing attack on News International showed he feels emotion about what happened politically and to his family. Fair enough too. The speech showed that there is more to him than many people gave him credit for when PM. That he took the civil service advice not to investigate further perhaps shows that he wasn't always the decisive PM who would take a decision whatever anyone else said. We knew that anyway, but what is different is seeing a former leader show "regret" for something like this so quickly afterwards. They never do this. Can you imagine Blair or Thatcher doing the same?

Ed Miliband's requests for inquiries and investigations, together with the end of Murdoch's bid to buy back more of Sky have all been heeded. He has had a good couple of weeks.

David Cameron has accepted what has been thrown at him. Except when it involves Andy Coulson. He is still vulnerable here. He will continue to be so until the election as investigations and inquiries are going to take years to uncover what happened. The drip, drip, drip is likely to weaken and infuriate him as Labour and the rest of the media continue to question his judgement.

This is all Cameron's fault though as whether he knew what Coulson had really been up to he knew it was an avoidable risk in employing him and chose to take it. The price is getting dearer by the day.

Will Miliband pay for his attacks on Murdoch?

2011-07-12T10:54:00.000+01:00

He is playing a dangerous game, one that put paid to Neil Kinnock's chances of being PM almost 20 years ago. If Murdoch is fundamentally weakened then Miliband will get away with it. If his power remains he could find himself up against an insurmountable barrier of opposition from Murdoch.

Even before hackgate really kicked off in the last few weeks, is the Murdoch media empire as powerful as it once was? Politicians clearly think so. Given that Murdoch will continue to control a significant level of British media, across the newspaper titles, Sky News and BSkyB. He still matters whether we like it or not. Many of the British public might not like the hacking of murder victims' phones or the Queen's private details but I don't expect them to stop buying Murdoch products.

Miliband has grown during this crisis. He has been saying the right things and doing so with more gravitas. The media has also been keen to give him prominence. It is going to be interesting to see whether this translates into improved personal poll ratings for him as this impact has been lacking so far.

Miliband's future success depends largely on how strongly the government come down on media owners. Their presumption is to step away, which is being challenged by recent events. If the Tories revert to type as the brouhaha dies down it will strengthen their own position by strengthening Murdoch and knocking Miliband.

These are interesting times in British politics. The goalposts are shifting every time I look at the news. Will they shift enough to force the Tories to limit the size of a media market owned by one person? I'm not sure they will, which puts Miliband in a vulnerable position.

None of this will be worked out for some time. There are clearly more revelations to come, especially about how much David Cameron knew about Andy Coulson's involvement, about severe corruption in the police and about more people who were compromised by News International. Enquiries and police investigations will all take time too. Projecting forward I would not be surprised if this was still rumbling on in two years time or more . Just as we head towards another general election.

Will anybody care then who The Sun backs? Cameron will, Miliband has already shown he doesn't.

Cameron and Coulson: ticking time bomb

2011-07-08T16:21:00.000+01:00

Peter Oborne has speculated this could be Cameron's black Wednesday. This story has a lot of legs left and will run. The longer it does the more Cameron's credibility will be damaged. Cameron has said that he is responsible personally for bringing Coulson into the centre of politics, therefore he has to take the blame.

Cameron won't quit so instead this issue will continue to be a distraction as Labour should continue to bring it up time and again. To paraphrase Oborne, this mud has stuck to Cameron and won't go away. Ever.

Thinking about hacking, my suspicion is that the police didn't open up or expose the full scale of the scandal because they had a vested interest in keeping it quiet. The focus to date has been on the newspaper and not on the police. I'm more worried about the police being corrupt than I am about journalists. The police are meant to be whiter than white as public guardians but have taken serious sums in bribes.

There is trouble ahead for the police and for David Cameron. I suspect he won't be able to safely defuse the ticking bomb.

Hacking: implications for Cameron

2011-07-06T11:42:00.000+01:00

The ever more sickening News International phone hacking scandal is bringing several media regulatory and political issues to a head.

The government says it wants to reduce media regulation by abolishing or drastically cutting back Ofcom but at the same time is planning a raft of additional rules for advertising. This inconsistency shows that the government hasn't thought its proposals through, like much of the plans they have rowed back on in the face of opposition. Critically, can we really afford to cut back on regulation further when the phone hacking scandal shows us that self regulation of the press has failed so spectacularly?

The LSE's Damian Tambini suggests we need to go further. Many people will now agree. The only way big media owners follow is if there is insurmountable political and public pressure on them to accept this.

Labour can ratchet up the pressure on the Tories to announce a full public enquiry out of which a more robust regulatory regime needs to emergy. Labour has little to lose in attacking what has happened because it has almost no support at News International at present. I'd love to hear what Ed Miliband's press chief Tom Baldwain, ex of The Times, has to say about this. At the moment there is no evidence to suggest that hacking was happening organisation wide, rather than just at one NI title.

Six months ago when Andy Coulson quit, after a sustained drip feed of suggestins that he knew more than he admitted to about this, serious questions have been raised about David Cameron's judgement in appointing the News of the World's former editor.

If a journalist comes to the editor of a newspaper with a new, exclusive story the first question their boss will ask is "what is your evidence?" I can't believe that Coulson and Rebekah Brooks didn't know about this. How else will they have been able to explain the source of exclusive after exclusive to their legal team?

If we assume they did know then Cameron should have been aware too. He must have done some sort of due diligence on Coulson before appointing him and should have been aware that doing so opened him up to risks of association. If he didn't do his research, why not? Either way, his judgement has been shown to be poor.

I suspect Cameron was too desperate to gain a poll lead to worry about this. It is unlikely he was aware how sickeningly deep this scandal actually went. Coulson's tabloid friendly leadership helped to get the Tories into power, even though it wasn't enough to win them the election.

Cameron is deeply implicated in this. He can wriggle his way out by announcing a full public enquiry and putting a stop to a culture of self regulation, collusion and acceptance of dreadful malpractice.He might not because to do so would mean an admittance of the scale of the problem, that he is himself implicated in.

Mandelson meddling again?

2011-06-21T17:51:00.000+01:00

Peter Mandelson's speech to Progress yesterday was a predictable, right and honest appraisal of the Labour Party's current predicament.

It isn't news that Labour needs to make a bigger impact on voters after a natural period of reflection following defeat a year ago. It isn't news that Labour is skint either, but how exactly the party is going to fund itself is a rather large, unaswered question. At the moment the reliance on trade union funding is stark and quite worrying. A return to the days of big business donations is also unlikely as a party of opposition is far less attractive a proposition.

His lesson is that what Labour learnt in the 1980s and 1990s - that it must focus on appealing to voters first and last is as true today. That is why the real lesson of New Labour, which is about having an honest centre left appeal to people that is based on an understanding of what people actually want, stands as true today as it did in 1994.

Personalities may change but the principle should remain exactly the same.

Changes do need to be made to the wording. Party structure and policies need to change to reflect that we are not in 1994, 1997 or 2005 any more. The game has changed and will have done so further after at least five years of Tory destruction. The relationship between state and individual will be completely different in 2015 to the one Labour left behind.

As Ed Miliband said in one of his first speeches as leader, we need to be the optimists. Labour need to show the country that we can improve public services and offer better value for money. We also need to stand up for services that improve people's lives, protect the environment, enhance opportunity and create opportunities for business. The Tories are pessimists who don't believe it is even worth trying to achieve many of these goals. Labour needs to show that things can be different.

Mandelson's speech demonstrates there is a lot of work to be done to get Labour into a winning position again. He also shows that by sticking to the principles that made the party so successful not that long ago, it doesn't have to be that difficult.

A poor week for all the parties

2011-06-17T13:32:00.000+01:00

It is popular to remark that the Tories are undergoing a series of policy and political retreats. It is also popular to opine that this is a result of the Lib Dems restreating to their lefty safe territory after their local election wipe out.

Some of this is true. We wouldn't have had the NHS reform listening exercise or the changes to the programme if there wasn't something different about it. The real difference isn't in the policy changes that may or may not happen, I expect wholesale changes to the NHS to happen anyway.

What this all demonstrates is that the Tories feel politically weak. They are allowing both the Lib Dems and the risk of unpopularity with the electorate to force their hand. The Tories should feel stronger than they do because even if the Lib Dems want to flex their muscles, they too are week and facing oblivion.

The Tories know that the NHS is an historic weakness. People don't trust them with it so they can't take the risk losing whatever credibility they have with the health service. This also demonstrates political naiivity. Properly researched and planned before being announced, these changes could have met the needs of the health service in the first place and avoided talk of u-turns and retreats. This suggests that in the quest for taking power the coalition partners didn't work their way through all the detail. If the Lib Dems really were so opposed to all of this why didn't they say so when they had real power - at the coalition negoatiation phase.

This will be presented as a Lib Dem victory. The danger is that this will appeal to some of the Lib Dems lost voters but will further antagonise their coalition partners and masters, the Tories.

Nick Clegg needs to be very careful, while Cameron has more political strength than he realises. Ed Miliband should do everything to exploit a Clegg clinging on for life and a Cameron who is weak and reactiving the poltical environment rather than shaping it.

Where now for Ed?

2011-06-13T11:09:00.000+01:00

It is too early to properly judge Ed Miliband’s leadership of the Labour Party after only eight months. He still has time to prove his doubters wrong because there won’t be another general election for four years. Unfortunately the minds of many in the party and media have already been made up. Ed was on the back foot from the moment he was elected. First he had to defend himself from the “Red Ed” tags and has since been fending off a succession of polls that show he hasn’t yet convinced voters to back him.

Given that he hasn’t made the most convincing start but still has time, how can Ed show people he really is leadership material? He needs to have a plan for the country and needs to communicate that. His vision must be clear and show that he understands that the country doesn’t want a lurch to the left but does want Labour to offer them protection against the rising cost of living and understands their concerns about crime and immigration.

The plan needs to come quickly to enable Ed to gain positive momentum in time for party conference in September. He has to convince a sceptical party he can get them back into government. Will he? I hope so, though that depends on whether he gives himself the chance.

Does the Archbishop of Canterbury really matter?

2011-06-09T17:27:00.001+01:00

There has been a lot of brouhaha about the Archbishop of Canterbury's political comments today. It has been the leading story on most news sites. Does this mean anything and does it show that the Church of England is still important socially and politically?

I don't think it does. I think the level of news space given to Rowan Williams' comments owes everything to the media desire to open up a political debate rather than the status of the church. Clearly the church has some status, otherwise Williams' comments would have passed us all by and they didn't.
Williams' comments have held the government to account to some extent. First Vince Cable and now David Cameron have defended their government's record.

I remember the then Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie criticising Margaret Thatcher’s (lack of ) social policy in the late 1980s. Then as now it will do nothing unless the attack resonates with enough ordinary people to create political change. If the church really had status it could do that. As much as I agree with Williams, I don't expect that to happen.

The church getting involved in politics reminds me of Prince Charles commenting on modern architecture. It triggers a debate but a few days later everyone settles down again and forgets all about it.

Can Ed Miliband succeed where Tony Blair failed?

2011-06-08T13:38:00.001+01:00

The Labour Party has surveyed voters' views as part of the major policy review. This has shown that voters want Labour to be strong on immigration, protect British interests first in Europe and international affairs, propose welfare reform and be tough on crime. This sounds remarkably like Tony Blair's rights and responsibilities policy agenda. It should surprise nobody.

This is no surprise because the country moved to the right at the last election. These are issues that are typically hard for Labour to campaign on as the party finds it easier to talk about subjects that matter to lefties. These leftie issues are unlikely to be enough to win Labour an election. However, these are the bread and butter working class issues and Ed Miliband needs to seize control of this agenda.
The Labour survey also showed that voters want the party to be tough on bankers and to soften the market. This is Miliband's natural territory. I don't think he'll find it easy to be talking about crime and immigration but it is an absolute must. That he hasn't yet can in part explain Labour's failure to secure first place in the English local elections.
Miliband's challenge is the tough, classic one faced by all Labour leaders. Talk tough on crime and immigration and lose support of the party and win votes, or do the opposite. If he can find a happy equilibrium he will strike gold.

NHS reform will press ahead

2011-06-07T17:16:00.000+01:00

After being criticised by GPs, doctors, nurses, trade unions, the lap-dog Lib-Dems and Labour, David Cameron today unveiled sweeping changes to NHS reforms. Is this a significant political moment as it shows that the coalition isn't quite steaming ahead with its agenda as it would have liked?

I'm not sure the changes are as big as Cameron makes out. The fundamental changes to the NHS will still happen, even if a bit later than planned. GPs will still take over the commissioning of services from primary care trusts. Greater competition will still take place with private sector providers. I accept that the plans have been watered down but the fundamentals remain.
The reform process is ill thought out and suggests a dogmatic wish to return to the John Major days of GP fund-holding. I don't really understand on what basis the Tories decided that GP commissioning would be the answer to the NHS ills. There is no reason at all for this form of service delivery to be more efficient. On the contrary, spending swathes of scarce cash on a major reorganisation at a time when funds are so scarce seems completely foolhardy. For a Tory party that is so bent on cutting public spending to do this now shows how committed they are to the changes and demonstrates an ideological commitment to them.
The delays and changes show how hard Cameron is finding it to run his party and get his legislation through. I expect him to overcome these obstacles and press ahead with an unnecessary and costly reorganisation of the NHS just when it needed it least.

What has Boris Johnson actually achieved?

2011-06-01T14:26:00.000+01:00

Mayor Boris Johnson is in campaign mode and is wasting no time in telling us all about his achievements. Unfortunately his "achievements" are not that at all, as has been widely pointed out.

BJ is claiming credit for Crossrail, the tube upgrade and obviously the cycle hire scheme. All of these schemes were under way well before his election in 2008. He also claims credit for the Olympic park, again something that has been finished while he has been in power but was secured by the previous mayor, Ken Livingstone.

As the race for London (mayor) 2012 hots up I wonder how many more half truths BJ will be peddling? Quite why he tries to cling on to power so hard when he does nothing with it is beyond me. It all seems quite pointless, much like his mayoralty.

Party funding debate has be impartial

2011-05-29T13:13:00.001+01:00

After last week's revealing of the party accounts showed Labour falling back on it's trade union partners and the Tories on wealthy individuals for support, today's newspapers report again that the Tories want to put a £50,000 cap on donations.

The Tories and Lib Dems claim such a move would remove big money from politics. It would also rip the historic heart out of the Labour Party. The party was formed from trade unions and ordinary working people have a say in the party as affiliated members. Taking that away would create an artificial imbalance in UK politics. I can't believe that the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life will settle for this.

Unfortunately I don't expect the committee to recommend the only radical change that would stop cash for favours on all sides, state funding.

The Tories always paint the union link to Labour as some sort of sinister connection. The union link makes Labour more democratic and representative of more ordinary people than the other UK parties.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

The state of political party finances

2011-05-26T15:39:00.000+01:00

This morning's newspapers were full of reports of who was funding our political parties. Labour, £10m in debt, is even more reliant on trade union funding than before. The Tories have continued to rely on wealthy businessmen. The Lib Dems didn't have that much at all.

I also read that Tory super-doner Lord Ashcroft has just been given responsibility for reviewing Britain's considerable military presence in Cyprus. The Lib Dems are not happy about that. Ashcroft has bought his influence.

That these two stories appeared on the same day further stoked the strong but little heard argument for state funding of political parties in the UK. While big business or trade unions bankroll politics there will always be the accusation that they buy influence. Cash for questions, cash for honours, Ashcroft. The list of suspicious political funding has a long history and won't stop any time soon.

The only argument I hear against state funding is that voters who don't like politicians will like paying for them even less. That doesn't wash. Voters hate dirty politics and if paying a small amount to fund political parties and election campaigns cleans it up, then it is a price worth paying.

Finding the Tory switchers

2011-05-25T13:41:00.000+01:00

I wrote yesterday of how Labour needs to target Tory voters to stand any chance of winning power again. The reduction in the number of MPs will only strengthen the need to focus on this. It is only by winning seats from Tories that Labour will stand a chance.

As much as I and many others have revelled in the pitiful state of the Lib Dems, the real enemy has always been their Tory masters.

Caroline Flint wrote for Progress that Labour has "to reach out beyond our traditional heartlands" to create a real progressive majority. She points out that of the top 100 Labour target seats, 83 are currently Tory. Appealing to these Tory voters has to be the central plank of Labour policy and communications in the next couple of years. Looking at the recent English local election results it is clear that the party is not reaching these people currently.

Ed Miliband will have to blend to aspects as he attempts to drive Labour forward. They are often viewed as mutually exclusive, but I don't agree. Renewing the left of Britain and making Labour a party that rewards talent, is at the centre of our communities, campaigns (and doesn't just talk in dull meetings) can sit hand in hand with appealing to England's centre ground - being aspirational, fair on immigration and winning the economic argument back from the Tories.

Re-founding Labour is a good start but won't be enough as the party has to revitalise without and within.

Miliband to woo Tories?

2011-05-24T18:06:00.000+01:00

I always find it interesting when someone suggests that the cure to all of the Labour Party's ills is to copy what Tony Blair did. This interests me because I generally agree but also because doing that is so difficult when finding a leader as talented as he is very difficult.

Aping Blair's style might not be right almost twenty years later but Dan Hodges is right that we would do well to heed political lessons from him. Quite simply people who vote Tory need to vote Labour instead. Wealthy people and those in the south. Picking up votes from disgruntled lefties will be insufficient and likely to end in a William Hague-esque core vote strategy. This is even more important if Labour can't win in Wales and Scotland, traditional suppliers of swathes of Labour MPs in Westminster.

How is this going to happen? Labour needs to be realistic about how it plans to win and smell the coffee. That will tell them that it needs to win in England and it needs to win over Tories, otherwise it is curtains.

The NHS:The end of the public service ethos

2011-05-16T17:13:00.001+01:00

The point of the NHS is that it is free at the point of use. Nobody is expected to pay directly for their healthcare, it is paid out of central taxation. Another central principle is that the NHS doesn't exist for profit. What we pay in taxes shouldn't be creamed off to pay dividends instead of patient care. This is the pubic service ethos. The Tories plans for the NHS eat away at this.

Today's reports that one of David Cameron's aides Mark Britnell would be a "big opportunity" for the private sector show that the government's (not publicly stated) aim is to chip away at the public service ethos in the NHS. It strikes me that the point in these reforms is to allow the private sector a greater role in NHS service provision. This makes it likely that the private sector will cream off the profitable parts and leave the state to pick up and pay for the rest. Chipping away at the public service ethos is also likely to chip away at the quality of care given to patients as the profit motive encourages the cutting of corners.

Politicallly Britnell's comments demonstrate an extreme naivety about how people feel about the NHS. It also suggests that Cameron's proclaimed "love" for the NHS isn't the same love shared by the rest of the country. Cameron's advisor's comments were not off guard, off the record or mis-quoted. They show what the Tories really want to do to the NHS. They want to part privatise it.

The "pause" in the NHS reforms were just that. Nothing will change, the same reforms will happen, just a little later. Politically the result will be the same. As the Mirror reports that 62% of people are against the reforms, added to all of the professional bodies, this is yet another unpopular and unnecessary Tory policy. How will the Lib Dems react? They won't be able to stop it no matter how vociferous their complaints. Cameron is ploughing on regardless.

At least today's comments showed the Tories' true intentions, nobody can say they didn't realise what they were planning to do when the NHS gets sold off.

A year in Condemnation

2011-05-12T11:11:00.000+01:00

The Liberal Demolition shows no sign of letting up. First there were the glory day(s) in the Rose garden at number ten. Then the betrayals, then the bickering, then the elections.

While repeated blows have landed on the Lib Dems and while they have been serious the victim is more likely to suffer a slow and drawn out death than a knock out punch. The Lib Dems will last to 2015 because whatever happens between now and the next election, like John Major's rebel turkeys, his disgruntled party can't risk a general election that would see them wiped out.

After founding of the coalition David Laws did his best to show that this wasn't "Cleggameron's" new politics as he thieved the taxpayer for several years for rent he didn't have to pay. That Clegg placed the his party's integrity at the behest of what he would have known would be a very unpopular Tory government shows how much he wanted to give his party their raison d'etre: electoral reform. He gambled everything for this. He lost. What has he got left? He has his party to save.

How can Clegg do this? Strong words in public but capitulations in private letting the Tories get their way will only weaken their cause. The real test is whether they can stem the Tory zeal for deep public spending cuts, especially as economic indicators worsen in the coming 12 months.

There is little Cameron will want to do to change the coalition. His government retains control of policy, the top jobs and the blame for anything bad always sits with the Lib Dems. After the initial disappointment of failing to get a majority at the general election a year ago, things could hardly be better for Cameron and his Tories.

Boris Johnson = trash

2011-05-10T21:03:00.001+01:00

I find it somewhat odd that mayor Boris Johnson today praised the Transport for London management for negotiating an end to next week's planned tube strikes with the RMT.

Remember that this is the mayor which I liken to a boxer before a big bout. Great on the trash talk. Unfortunately for London, he failed to deliver on this. Remember that this is the mayor that promised to end strikes on the tube and has since been too politically pig headed to hold even a single meeting with any of the tube unions. Responsible governing means he should have done this, despite his political hatred of all the RMT stand for.

Today's statement from Johnson was just another load of trash from a mayor who has achieved nothing for London. He deserves to be knocked out in 2012.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Three Tory graphs

2011-04-28T11:03:00.000+01:00

After yesterday's disappointing growth figures that showed the economy hasn't grown at all in the last six months, opinion polls continue to show Labour in the lead and strong disapproval for the government's work.

Courtesy of Mark Ferguson at Labour List

AV rows rumble on and I swing

2011-04-26T16:05:00.001+01:00

Differences of opinion between the Tories and Lib Dems about AV continue to attract press attention. What was meant to be an apolitical issue has been fashioned into a party political affair. Peter Mandelson has suggested that Labour supporters should vote yes to hinder the Tories' potential electoral dominance. The no campaign have used Nick Clegg's unpopularity to encourage Labour supporters to vote no.

The recent sniping between the Lib Dems and Tories, plus interventions from Labour's heavyweights has added a little oomph to a rather dull and dry referendum campaign that will have passed most voters by.

The "row" has been the story rather than AV. That is much easier to report and shows a media appetite for tittle tattle over trying to educate the readership. There has been a great deal of nonsense thrown about by both sides. The no campaign have dubbed AV confusing, unfair and expensive. The yes campaign have dismissed the no campaign as the Tory old guard hanging onto the levers of power.

Both sides have tried to score party political points on the other. The no campaign calling on voters to deal a blow to Clegg, the yes campaign to David Cameron. If I'm going to be party political about the AV referendum, I'd like to deal a blow to both but voting for short term gain isn't necessarily going to deliver the best political outcome in the long term.

As usual Channel 4's Fact Check comes to the rescue bringing together the claims and demystifying the myths. AV won't be expensive and will ensure all MPs will be elected on some type of 50%+ support. AV wouldn't have altered many recent UK elections and would have exaggerated many recent results, like 1997.

I feel myself becoming a swing voter for the first time in my life. I've never approached an election and not been totally sure of how I would vote, but I am about AV. I want a fair system, a simple one and any change must be fair to all parties. Will AV be that change? I'm not convinced but it might be.

A coalition of convenience

2011-04-25T09:53:00.001+01:00

The increasing tensions between the Tories and their coalition lap-dogs the Lib Dems over AV shows all is not as rosy as Dave and Nick like to make out.

'Leading' Lib Dems Chris Huhne and Vince Cable have both been playing to their gallery of party members and upset former voters by breaking ranks and criticising their big daddy. Under normal circumstances such behaviour would be met with a fell swoop of cabinet reshuffle. That isn't possible because the party has been guaranteed a certain number of cabinet posts. When there are only 57 MPs to choose from there isn't much choice. That Clegg himself is getting in on the act means cracks in the coalition will remain.

I still expect the coalition to last because both parties have a vested interest in making it. The Tories want to get their cuts programme through and the Lib Dems are desperate to cling on to whatever power they can. For Clegg needs to wait as long as possible in the hope that his party's plummeting poll ratings eventually reverse. I'm not site try will. They badly need AV to go through to show even a slight glimpse that the future might be even the slightest bit yellow.
Lib Dems won't be winning here for a while but that doesn't really matter as long as they continue to prop up the Tories.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Vince Cable on the slide

2011-04-14T17:27:00.000+01:00

Vince Cable is doing his best to get himself sacked from the cabinet. After calling David Cameron's immigration speech "unwise" today he added another feather to his Lib Dem Tory hating cap. The only problem is that he signed up to this in the first place. It is also a problem that the Lib Dems are guaranteed a specific number of cabinet posts and if old Vince is kicked out, who replaces him?

I agree with Vince. Capping immigration could be damaging for business, which needs to recruit the best people to get our economy going again. Setting an arbitrary cap means this might not happen.

His antics remind me of a Channel 4 comedy programme from a few years ago where two contestants, each starting a new job, had to get themselves sacked. The winner got a week's dole money. The only catch was that they were not allowed to do anything obvious, like swear, use violence, steal or not turn up. They had to be creative and provoke their boss to getting rid of them. The winner got sacked from his job in an expensive clothes shop after dressing up in fancy dress and juggling the shoes.

Vince is juggling with his career, I'm not sure he cares. Vince is looking good for his £67.50.

Lib Dems: the indefensible

2011-04-12T11:00:00.000+01:00

Poor Warren Bradley has been here before. His outburst at Nick Clegg suggests a man clearly worried about his own future. He is apparently sick of "defending the indefensible" with the latter being the Lib Dem coalition with the Tories.

Is it the VAT rise his party campaigned against? Is it the rise in tuition fees his party campaigned against? Is it the public sector cuts his party campaigned against?

For some time the Tories have had no presence in the north of England, which his Lib Dems profited from. People won't vote Tory there but when Labour has deserved a bloody nose the nice little yellow party has been there to step in. Bradley ended up as leader of Liverpool council, while the party was also victorious in other traditionally Labour strongholds such as Sheffield and Leeds. Now that many voters see the Lib Dems and Tories as a single entity it is highly probable that the pockets of northern support for the Lib Dems will go the same way as that for the Tories.

At least Bradley has been consistent. He might care about his party or he might only care about his own future. Which doesn't really matter at this time. He was one of the first and more high profile members of his party to warn about the effect doing a deal with the Tories nationally might have on the party's future. Speaking in July, just after the coalition was formed he said "we’re in a weak coalition, that will deliver nothing to the Lib-Dems except total electoral decimation. I give you that absolute guarantee, we will be wiped out by Labour in the North and the Tories in the South." In three weeks we'll find out.

Bradleys's current analysis may be robust but he misses a key point that many voters who were fooled into thinking Bradley's Lib Dems were a left wing party. Across England they have repeatedly gone into coalition with the Tories whenever it has suited their ends, as Bradley's email to Clegg points out, to get power

Highlights of Tory-Lib Dem coalition include:

Bradley needs to look back a bit further into his party's recent history. Perhaps then he'd realise that the "indefensible" has been party policy for some time. Time for a new job Bradley?

Londoners suffer the most from the Tories cuts

2011-04-08T17:08:00.000+01:00

As we head into an avoidable cost of living crisis caused by the Tories' tax rises and cuts, evidence shows that Londoners will lose badly. The poorest will be worse off than the wealthy. Yet more evidence that we're not "all in this together" after all, but its much more a case of "I'm alright Jack" from George Osborne.

The cost of living is so much higher in London than elsewhere in the UK that any hits to living standards will be harshly felt. As the graphic shows, Londoners get a raw deal from the cuts. Couples with children will lose 8% of their income by 2014/15. The poorest Londoners will be 7% worse off, the wealthiest only 5%.

Ed Miliband's job is to make this clear, in simple language to ordinary people. The cuts are not fair or even. The Tories hit those who can afford it least in the pocket.

Is Vince Cable a joke?

2011-04-07T15:50:00.000+01:00

I don't quite know how Vince Cable can live with himself. He has been absent from the news recently after a series of gaffes relating to News International's attempt to buy back a bigger share of Sky.

Low paid workers are facing a two-pronged hit to their living standards after Cable announced that the minimum wage is increasing by a below inflation 15 pence an hour. Couple this with a 2.5% increase in VAT and the rise in personal income tax allowances will be completely wiped out. Even though food isn't included in VAT, the cost of fuel is meaning the cost of food and essential items increase anyway.

Recently Cable was responsible for the trebling of tuition fees. He then has the cheek to suggest he will cut teaching grants to universities for poor performing universities that charge the highest fees, ignoring that he has cut the teaching grants meaning fees have to fill the gap. Universities have no choice but to levy maximum fees. They don't get any extra money for this, it just replaces lost central government funding. There are arguments on both sides about the demerits of the new student funding system that are best argued in a dedicated post.

His red tape challenge reminds me of John Major's cones hotline. Surely Cable can use his own scissors to cut business red tape? This is little more than a gimmick.

Cable was once the darling of the Lib Dems for his foresight in predicting the global financial crisis. He was all over their election leaflets as he was seen as more marketable than the then very popular Nick Clegg. How times change. He was given a deliberately difficult ministerial post by the Tories who clearly saw him as a threat. He is still the most likely Lib Dem to resign from the coalition.

Labour by default

2011-04-05T13:48:00.001+01:00

Labour's lead in opinion polls remains consistently at a minimum of five points over the Tories with the Lib Dems around or below 10%.

Looking back over the polls between Labour's disastrous 1983 election and resounding defeat in 1987 shows a similar pattern. A year after the election Labour were consistently ahead of the Tories but the failure of the party to earn the trust of voters saw this gradually eroded by the 1987 election day. The same thing happened again between 1987 and 1992. Until Ed Miliband starts to get a strong and positive recognition from voters I fear that 2015 may lead to a similar result as 1987 or 1992.

It feels a bit like the 1980s at the moment. An unpopular Tory government, cuts, protests and a dodgy economy. Miliband's job is easier than Kinnock's though as there is no major internal party strife to deal with. It is an opportunity and a crucial one for the country at a time when the Tories are getting cockier by the day with Climate Change minster Greg Barker saying the current government's cuts are what "Thatcher could only have dreamed of." That's very different to the official line and faux sombre faces of George Osborne and Danny Alexander every time they announce more cuts - this is sad and bad but necessary. Miliband needs to make people realise his feelings are real.

London's never had it so good

2011-04-04T17:16:00.000+01:00

According to Mayor Boris Johnson London's never had it so good. The sun shines and everything is fine. He might think it is but I don't share his optimism. He belittled Ed Miliband's chief spin doctor Tom Baldwain for having to paint the world around him as in a "complete mess" whatever the circumstances.

Here are a few reasons why:

Living costs are going up
Tax is going up
Vital government services are being cut
London tube and bus fares are going up
Thousands of jobs are going to be lost, hurting families and the economy

Perhaps Boris would like to do the honourable thing and add himself to the rising toll of jobless next year? After all, his pal George Osborne did say, "we're all in this together."

Poor to pay for the Tories

2011-03-31T17:44:00.000+01:00

I love Channel 4's Fact Check. IT provides independent analysis of political rhetoric and gets behind the crap and tells it like it is. Like most politicians find it difficult to do.

Housing Minister Grant Schapps suggested a few weeks ago that councils that make the biggest cuts must be badly managed and those who cut less must be more inefficient. Tosh. What that ignores is that councils like Islington have to pay out more to those on benefits and get less tax in return from council tax payers (as there are fewer of them) than in a place like Richmond. Richer areas have more council tax payers and few benefit recipients. That means Richmond receives a smaller central government subsidy than somewhere like Islington. Thast is quite basic and something I learnt very early on at university.

Fact Checker sets this and Schapps straight. Councils like Islington and Manchester are facing far more cuts than just that to the main central government grant. This means they have no choice but to cut more severely than councils in better off areas. They say:

"it’s clear that deprived areas are worst affected.

"As a poor inner-city authority that gets more Government money than council tax, Manchester’s spending power is down 8.8 per cent in this financial year and 6.7 per cent in 2012/13. In Trafford it’s only 3.8 per cent this year and 3.4 next year."

The poorest pay most under the Tories. Despicable.

AV: We all dream of a team of Nick Cleggs

2011-03-30T13:31:00.000+01:00

I've found the campaign for the alternative vote underwhelming. I really should care much more than I do. Growing up in the 1980s with a dominant Tory party governing on 40% of the vote like they had 100% I looked to a "fairer" voting system to stop that happening again. Labour wanted it, Labour won and no longer cared. I'm not caring that much. I probably should.

The vote presents us a with a critical juncture, to go with change and start to create a much vaunted "new politics" or stick with the status quo. In principle giving more people a little bit of what they want is a good thing. Making more parliamentary seats realistically contested is also a good thing.

On the downside, AV will mean Nick Clegg will always be in power even though he is the least popular of the three leaders Does he deserve to be kingmaker? Neither the Tories or Labour are likely to ever get more than 50% of the total vote ever again, which means the third party will always hold the balance of power. I don't like the idea of smaller parties holding others to ransom.

From a partisan political point of view I like the idea of the referendum failing because it will land a huge blow to the Lib Dems, who have staked their reputation on this single issue. Why do the Lib Dems care so much? Only because it suits their own partisan political ends. They would be the only winners from reform.

I'll vote no because I don't believe that Nick Clegg's desire for AV is one for genuine fairness. I believe it is for selfish political gain. We would be much better off with a full and proper review and the prospect of a truly fair voting system. AV isn't it. AV was a rushed compromise given to the Lib Dems by the Tories to bribe them into coalition.

Nick Clegg put it best himself when he dubbed AV a "miserable little compromise."

Policing of TUC march

2011-03-29T16:45:00.000+01:00

Yesterday I gave my comments to the Sunday Times and praised the way that the Metropolitan Police managed Saturday's main TUC march. I know there are other issues regarding the UK Uncut protesters and how they were policed. One problem with the latter is that some people were committing crimes which gave the police an excuse to arrest many of them. Back on the main march there was a family, almost carnival, but serious, atmosphere.

The police clearly tried harder here than they did with previous protests. The Met also tried to embrace social media to give marchers the opportunity to feed back their views on how they were being policed. Commendable, but it didn't work as the survey that they tweeted went down on Saturday morning. It only went up again when the Sunday Times contacted the company running the survey.

The police have moved on and demonstrated willing by opening themselves up to feedback. However, when an organisation takes first steps into social media they have to do it properly. Now the Met have paint on their face, just like their officers, as their foray failed.

If you pay for The Times you can read the article. If you don't, here is what I said:

Labour blogger and social media expert Tim McLoughlin, who was on Saturday’s march and praised the way it was policed, said the Met had much to learn about using the internet to communicate with the public.

“As someone who helps companies embrace social media getting the police to use it to better communicate with the public is commendable. However it is only worth doing if you know how to use it and that the survey site was down at the weekend suggests a lack of thought went into the Met's efforts,” he said.

McLoughlin also criticised the nature of the survey, which is based around multiplechoice questions and offers no opportunity for written answers.

“The survey doesn't give much scope for people to deviate from the small number of set questions asked or to give other feedback. For that the traditional, non-social, channels are the only means to communicate this to the Met.”

Marching on together

2011-03-28T14:02:00.000+01:00

I marched on Saturday for the first time in my life. I doubt anything will change, the Tories will hold their nerve and carry on cutting regardless. What Saturday did show was a great resolve and commitment to show that the country doesn't support what is happening.

Living standards are falling substantially. Taxes are going up, which will hit the poorest hardest. The government is putting thousands of people onto the dole. That won't help as taxpayers then become a burden on the state. It is clear that the burden of paying for the deficit to be reduced won't be borne by those with the "broadest shoulders". How can it be when VAT is up and the top rate of income tax will be cut?

I got the feeling that large numbers of the people marching on Saturday, like myself, were not natural protesters. There was a fantastic family atmosphere on the main march with lots of fancy dress and music. That belied the serious issues behind the march but showed that it was nothing like the previous student protests.

What now? There'll be more of the same from the Tories while Nick Clegg will continue to make himself unpopular. In an interview with the Financial Times today he says that a Liberal Democrat budget would have been "very close" to last week's. This hot on the tails of Clegg being caught on microphone saying that there is little for his party and their Tory chums to disagree on.

Labour needs to take advantage of the swell of support for an alternative to the government agenda. According to a YouGov survey the public backs the TUC and the march, with 52% in favour and 31% against. That shows a country divided but one in which the majority is against what is happening. The biggest question is whether this translates to election results in May. It probably will and the government will brush it off as mid-term blues and say they expected the result.

For the march and the elections to mean anything they have to be the start of consistent knock-backs for the government. If that happens their confidence might suffer and the next general election would be much more interesting. Protest was the easy part. The hardest part is keeping public confidence for an alternative and winning that support in the long term.

Dirty Den Dover

2011-03-24T17:35:00.000Z

The European Parliament gravy train hit the buffers with a huge bang today for disgraced Tory MEP Den Dover. He has stolen £345,000 from the taxpayer. That is fraud on a huge scale. Theft. Dover should be
locked up, though that will cost taxpayers even more money.

After being found guilty two years ago thief Dover refused to pay the money back. Of course he should pay it back. That isn't enough. I can't quite understand how officials, whether they are politicians or other public servants, can steal from the public purse and then just offer to pay it back. I'm quite sure most shoplifters get prosecuted when they get caught rather than just saying: "fair enough, you caught me, I'll just give all that stuff I nicked back and we'll call it quits." Somehow these people think that is OK. It isn't.

Budget 2011: plus ca change

2011-03-23T16:08:00.000Z

Today's budget has done little more than tinker around the edges of plans already announced by the Tories' emergency budget. The Tories are not about to change tack on the economy and today's budget demonstrated that. There was some window dressing, such as painting changes to personal and fuel tax as reductions when they are far from that. Tomorrow's newspapers with personal budget calculators will show that.

Pickpocket Gideon Osborne has some nerve. When he claims that moving personal allowances for tax will mean we will be better off. We're all paying more in VAT, higher fuel costs and the inflation it causes. Everyone pays VAT. VAT goes on fuel so even though some items like food are excluded the cost of food goes up as the fuel required to get food to consumers costs more. VAT on fuel means any tinkering with fuel duty is more than wiped out.

Ed Miliband's response highlighted the holes in the Tories' strategy. Their medicine is painful. Disposable income, earnings and living standards are falling while unemployment and inflation are rising. Gideon wants people to thank him once this aggressive treatment has worked. I'm not sure it will and whatever happens most people won't thank him for hitting them in the pocket.

If ever there was an example of why you can't afford the Tories, this is it.

Lembit Opik is a joke

2011-03-22T13:32:00.000Z

Lembit Opik's "Citizen Lem" video is meant to promote his bid to become London mayor next year. It is meant in jest but unfortunately the joke is on and not with Lem.

Citizen Lem from Mancha Productions on Vimeo.

The Lib Dems have never been serious contenders in any of the London mayoral elections and Lembit's "bid" symbolises a party lurching from disaster to laughing stock.

Mark Pack points out that no Lib Dem London assembly members, council leaders or MPs are backing the bid. That doesn't mean much though as there are only three Lib Dem assembly members, two council leaders and seven MPs after poor results for the party in 2010.

Before propping up the Tories nationally the Lib Dems already lost support across London. Before last year's election Lembit could have solicited support from eight council leaders. Give it another year after the regional elections on Soctland and Wales, locals in England and the London assembly elections and we'll see how much is left for the Lib Dems.

Poor Lembit. He makes great video, just not quite on topic.

Do problems lurk for Labour?

2011-03-21T13:59:00.000Z

Which Ed will succeed in making Labour credible again? Ed Miliband is continuing to grow into leadership and fight for his status while Ed Balls is carrying Labour's fight to the Tories.

Last week saw discussion about whether Miliband's lack of support will damage Labour's chances of success under him. The jury is still out. It is clear that the media will continue to paint Miliband fatal to the party's chances of success. This early into the job and with so many unknowns ahead it is hard to say. There is the reduction in the number of MPs, the AV referendum and the risk of a double-dip recession. It is certain the political landscape will change dramatically over the next two to three years. Many paint this is a huge threat to Labour but Miliband should see this as a huge opportunity.

Much of Tim Montgomerie's weekend Telegraph article resonated with me. Yes, he writes for the Telegraph and runs Conservativehome. Yes, he is also right even though he is a Tory. He highlighted several issues that Labour needs to address to succeed, one of which included Miliband himself, but also:

Are Labour too reliant on Tory failure to grant them success by default
How will Labour win in the South? Just as Cameron had to win outside the South
Ed Balls seems to have the answers that (he suggests) Miliband lacks

The Labour Party has to address these problems. The party cannot rely on the other side messing up - that is not a long-term and stable basis for power. It might work in the short term but will only lead to problems. If you win by default you will have nothing positive to offer the country with your power.

Continuing to highlight falling living standards and hammering home that it doesn't have to be like this is one part of that strategy. There needs to be more, which includes fighting the claim, that currently sticks, that Labour and not the global financial crisis is to blame for the country's deficit.

Which Ed comes out of that struggle with the most to show isn't clear. They can do it together, or one of them could do it alone. Could it be that another Ed scuppers the other Miliband's chances of leading Labour in the future?