Category: politics

You’ve got to hand it to Gordon Brown. He’s royally fucked David Cameron with all the general election talk.

Gordon leaves his party conference ahead in the polls and firmly in charge of his party. Cameron on the other hand is faced with opening his party conference behind in the polls and plagued by election rumours.

All the choices are Gordon’s. All the risks are Cameron’s. To ice the cake all Gordon needs is a plum defection from the Tories to Labour. He pulled off the Quentin Davies defection just before he became Prime Minister. Can he do it again ?

Cameron

David Cameron is a slick political PR man, but he’s got zero experience of government. He is much more presentation than substance. ‘Woy’ Hattersley got Cameron just right in his recent article in the Guardian. We just don’t want people like this running the place anymore.

And the results are in….

What a night. Managed to hang in there until 3.30ish to see the election results roll in.

Once Putney had fallen to the Conservatives it looked like Labour was going to lose a lot of metropolitan seats, especially in London.

As the night progressed it seemed the Tories were doing well, capturing seats from New Labour. Iraq seemed to be the major issue. With many voters actively protesting against the war.

George Galloway took Bethnal Green & Bow and Stephen Twigg lost Enfield Southgate, a seat he spectacularly took from Michael Portillio in 1997.

Barbara Roche lost in Hornsey and Wood Green and Oliver Letwin managed to hang on in Dorset West.

The final results are Labour 355, Conservative 197, Liberal Democrat 62 with 642 of the 646 seats declared.

Tony Blair has delivered an historic third term for New Labour.

20 years ago this would have been inconceivable and is a tremendous achievement.

However, Blair has seen his majority cut from 167 in 2001 to 66. This will result in a different, more conciliatory style of government. He will have to govern by consensus, rather than dictat. Those backbench rebels suddenly have a lot more power. In reality, this result can only hasten his plans to step aside for Gordon Brown.

The big Tory news is their revival started in 2005. They gained seats and will take heart from the results. Michael Howard, citing his age, has decided to step down and the search for a new Conservative leader is on… again !

The Liberal Democrats had a great election and gained seats at Labour’s expense. They have reason to celebrate the largest number of Liberal seats since the 1920s.

As expected UKIP and Veritas bombed and it’s unlikely we’ll hear from them again.

So, all change. Blair has had his wings clipped and is likely to step aside sooner rather than later. The winners are Gordon Brown and the Liberal Democrats. The Tories can only hope that they have turned the corner.

Election Day….

Well, it’s election day. Today the politicians fall silent and the people decide. I love elections. I like the fact that politicians, cabinet ministers, campaigners and lobbyists now have to wait. There’s nothing they can do. There are no strings left to pull, promises to make, arms to twist or deals to do. This time the big decision, and their future, is in the people’s hands. The powerful are rendered powerless for a day. I like that.

It’s been a strangely dull campaign. Perhaps because many feel it’s not a proper contest, and Labour will get in again. It’s not like the recent knife-edge US election. I followed it closely and the future direction of America seemed to be at stake. In contrast, I haven’t really been that caught up in the UK election. Probably, because I’ve always known who I support. I’m a Labour man, through and through. Even though I’ve had to vote Lib Dem on the last two occasions. Where I live it’s a straight race between the Tories and Liberal Democrats. So, I’ve voted Lib-Dem as a tactical choice to keep the Tory out.

Looking back at the campaigns, the Conservatives have run a very negative operation. They scored some points at the start, but I’m surprised they chose that route. They’ve hammered on about immigration, asylum, MRSA and have even called Tony Blair a liar over Iraq. Their message has been about dangers and threats, risks and fears. They’ve used scare tactics, and it doesn’t seem to have worked. We know what they’re against, but are still unsure what they’re really for.

Michael Howard has been the face of the Tory campaign. The rest of the cabinet haven’t really featured. Howard has never been a popular politician. His term as Home Secretary seemed to characterise all the negative aspects of the last Tory government. The infamous Paxman interview, where he failed to answer a question put to him 17 times, and Anne Widdecombe’s famous phrase that Howard ‘had something of the night’ about him, has stuck.

The Tory spending plans always looked a bit shaky. They claimed they could cut billions worth of ‘waste’ from the public sector while magically delivering tax cuts. The old Tory argument of cutting the public sector to fund tax cuts no longer washes. Cuts never deliver the savings promised, and whoever gains power will have to raise taxes anyway. There was always the sense that the Tory figures didn’t quite work. On paper they looked promising, in power they wouldn’t add up.

The Tories may actually do worse this time than in the last election. Why they went negative, why they focussed so much on Michael Howard and why they failed to put forward convincing financial plans will be the talk of the party as they face another lengthy term in opposition.

In contrast, the Liberal Democrats have run a positive campaign with Charles Kennedy appearing honest and likeable. They have also been consistent in their opposition to the Iraq war, which has proved popular on the doorstep. Charles Kennedy may have slipped up on a tax question at their policy briefing, but this was probably down to sleep deprivation after the birth of his new baby son !

Interestingly, Liberal Democrat policies have not been seriously scrutinised. Their treasury plans involve significant tax rises and their idea of a local income tax to replace the hated council tax seems poorly thought through. Their promise to scrap tuition fees, no doubt popular with students, doesn’t come with a convincing alternative for funding higher education. But somehow this doesn’t seem to matter. I guess, most people think the Lib Dems won’t get into power so their policy arguments aren’t subject to the same level of scrutiny. For some, the Liberal Democrats aren’t the Tories or Labour and that’s a good enough reason to vote for them.

It’ll be interesting to see how successful their so called ‘decapitation strategy’ will be. The Lib Dems are challenging a number of senior Tories in marginal seats and some, like Oliver Letwin, may be toppled. Under Lord Rennard, the formidable Liberal Democrat strategist, the party has developed an efficient local election machine which they have used to great effect. I think they will achieve significant gains this evening. Maybe reaching as many as 60-70 seats.

Labour have run a good energetic campaign. Emphasising their record of economic management and public service investment. Significantly, their effort has been fronted by both Blair and Brown. Their double act has characterised the Labour drive for a third term. They look like a party of government and put forward detailed policy arguments. I was particularly impressed by their joint press conference on the Tory tax plans. They were both in command of the detail and put forward a withering critique of Oliver Letwin’s election budget.

Their problem, however, has been twofold. The first is the unpopularity of the Iraq invasion and the feeling that Blair misled the country to go to war alongside George Bush. The second is a burden all two-term incumbents experience: the accusation that public services are not improving and the governing party are not delivering on their promises.

On Iraq, Blair faced an incredibly difficult call. He was caught between a Bush administration running a timetable for war and key European allies who condemned the invasion and refused to take part. Blair frequently aspired to be the bridge between Europe and America. On Iraq the two camps were too far apart to be bridged. Reconciliation proved impossible and Blair had to decide whether to side with America or Europe.

Once the prospect of a second UN resolution was lost, there was no middle ground left and Blair sided with Bush. In doing so he chose an unpopular, risky war as America’s junior partner. He must have agonised over that and known it would cost him support. The unanswered question is whether he privately promised Bush that he would back the invasion no matter what. The public perception is that he did.

The problem with the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war is it relies on advanced warning of a threat. You need good intelligence to warn of enemies and their intentions. We now know that American and British intelligence on Iraq was shockingly poor in quality and detail. CIA Director George Tenet’s childish claim that it was a “slam-dunk” that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was a fiction. We now know all the intelligence claims on Iraqi WMD were wrong. Their information was poor and their conclusions incorrect. He had no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

However, at the time, the politicians were being told that Saddam had stocks of deadly weapons. Here’s the question Blair had to ask himself: if terrorists could get WMD, would they use them ? Looking at 9/11, the answer must be yes. Once you have reached that conclusion, and believe that Saddam had WMD and might supply them to terrorists, the only answer must be to disarm him. Not to do so would be irresponsible. Blair didn’t know what we know now about WMD in Iraq. He read the reports and intelligence assessments and decided it was in Britain’s interest to invade.

Did Blair ‘sex up’ the intelligence ? That’s a big question which goes to the heart of his trustworthiness in the election campaign. Did he embellish the intelligence reports to ensure Britain went to war alongside America ? Did he make the threat from Saddam look more conclusive and dangerous (the 45 minute claim) that it really was ? The enquiries say he didn’t, but the public think he did.

In the election campaign, Blair has been accused of lying over Iraq and his trustworthiness has become a real election issue. His credibility and personal standing have suffered as a result. During the campaign, the Attorney-General’s full advice on the legality of war has emerged and another British soldier has just been killed in Iraq. Blair’s political standing has taken a real knock. Iraq will always hang over him and, despite Labour’s focus on economic and domestic issues, it will cost the Labour party votes and seats.

As the party in power, Labour have been blamed for a lack of public service improvement and for not delivering on key promises. In this, Labour have fallen victim to their own key public service pledges. They said they would plough more money and resources into the NHS, schools, police and other services. Many still feel this promise has been broken and public services have not significantly improved.

It is amazing how accusatory, even rude, some of the public questioning of Tony Blair has been. Sometimes he seems more like a besieged customer service manager facing angry shoppers. Exasperated consumers of government services take it out on a beleaguered Prime Minister. ‘Why hasn’t my son got a place at school ?’; ‘Why has my hip operation taken so long…?’; ‘Why am I scared to go out at night ?’; ‘Why can’t I get a doctor’s appointment…?’. The subtext being, ‘you promised, you promised, you promised…’.

Blair faces them, trying to explain that he can’t really comment on specific cases without the facts. He assures them that more money has been spent on public services and they are improving. Strangely, he simply isn’t believed and has been booed and heckled. I suppose Blair has to face up to the reality of sceptical individual opinions which have been distorted by endless negative tabloid stories. It’s not easy to cut through it all and explain your points objectively.

Labour will win, despite opposition to the war and scepticism over public service improvements. They will lose seats, but the only question is by what majority will they govern. It is an historic achievement for a Labour government to win a third term. That cannot be forgotten. Will their majority be below 100 ? That’s the only question in town.

As for the other parties, UKIP and Kilroy’s barmy Veritas, they haven’t even registered on the radar. They form the lunatic fringe of Euro sceptic fantasy. It’s unlikely they’ll win a seat. Their moment was the last European election. They will fade and eventually die out as a political force. George Galloway with his anti-war Respect party has taken on Oona King in Bethnal Green and Bow. He may win.

The nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland focus on local issues and regional power bases. They may gain a seat here or lose a constituency there. They are local and will remain so.

The one interesting area is Northern Ireland. Firstly, the mainland parties don’t figure in Ulster. The people of Northern Ireland have their own political traditions and fight elections along tribal and sectarian lines. The ones to watch are Sinn Fein and how they fare after the impact of the McCartney sisters and IRA disarmament as part of the peace process. Also, the DUP and UUP contest for unionist leadership will shape the future of the Northen Ireland peace process. It looks like Paisley will remain the principal negotiator for unionism.

There is one other election participant that needs to be considered. The BBC. Of all the media coverage, the BBC’s has been the most comprehensive and universal. Over the course of the campaign they have given all the parties equal air time, travelled the country with election buses, staged leaders question times and helicoptered reporters to every corner of the nation. Paxman has done his best to interrogate the party leaders and Michael Crick has dug around for the scandal and gossip.

The BBC coverage has been awesome. Their online election services include seat by seat breakdowns, all the poll information you could want and daily analysis and commentary, complete with blogs and election swingometers. It’s been truly brilliant.

On TV, Andrew Marr has been great. His campaign summaries and election analysis have been succinct and informative. Having just read his excellent new book, I may be a bit biased ! But, I thought his contribution and that of the BBC newsrooms, journalists and commentators were excellent. Just what public service broadcasting should be.

As their cartoon advert for the BBC election coverage claims, they covered every angle and all of the issues. The BBC are so huge and omnipresent that they inevitably become a crucial intermediary in the election process. Basically, they are an election player, whether they like it or not.

So, to conclude, my feeling is that Labour will win, albeit with a reduced majority. The Liberal Democrats will gain seats and the Conservatives will broadly stand still.

I’ll stay up as long as I can to see the results come in. I love election night and always watch the coverage. The great thing is, no one really knows what will happen…

Why not to vote Conservative…

Ahh, it’s election time again and the parties are falling over themselves to secure our vote. It’s interesting that this election is all about management – who will manage public services, and public finances, better. It’s not really about political ideology, left versus right or the big questions. It’s about administrative competence. Who will run things better.

The two main parties are competing for the middle ground and their policies and financial proposals are reasonably similar. Give or take a few billion here and there, the Tories and New Labour are in the same ball park. The Lib Dems, no doubt very nice people, aren’t really contenders.

The Tories have so far run a good campaign. They have succeeded in dominating the headlines and attacking the government at every opportunity. However, I have a big problem with their stance on immigration and Europe. On both they are dangerously misguided and driven by unfounded ideological bias.

In reality, immigration in Britain is not a big problem. If anything, we as a country are net beneficiaries. The idea that waves of people are flooding our shores is utter nonsense. It’s simply not true. It’s a Daily Mail fantasy which the Tories have adopted. It’s populist, but it’s rubbish. It’s one of those curious issues where what people believe is radically different from what’s actually happening.

Time Magazine recently did a piece on Britain and immigration titled, ‘Immigration works far better for Britain than Britons realize. A hard look at the facts’. Read it. Forget the Daily Mail, they’re writing biased nonsense. The problem is the Tories have now turned this into policy. Yes, some people enter Britain illegally. You would expect the world’s 4th largest economy to attract economic migrants. But the ‘waves’ and ‘floods’ of tabloid lore simply do not exist. They are phantom threats, conjured up by biased journalists and right-wing commentators. To campaign on a deception and play upon people’s fears is not acceptable.

We should be in Europe and play a leading role at the heart of the European Union. It is our future. The Tories are by nature anti-European. The issue of Europe has split and divided the Conservative party for at least 40 years. Their conservative instincts say No, No, No. Their current European policies emphasise re-negotiating treaties and ‘saving the pound’. We do not want them negotiating on our behalf at the European top table, especially at this crucial juncture in the evolution of the EU.

The recent expansion to 25 means that Europe will inevitably develop along a more open, decentralised path. It is simply not practical to standardise governance from Portugal to Poland. Diversity, deregulation, regional autonomy are inevitably Europe’s future. France and Germany are just realising this. It has been a triumph of British European policy that Europe is now so large that the old centralising Franco-German tendencies cannot work any longer.

Europe is ours to play for and we do not want a backward looking Tory party in the driving seat during this crucial phase. A Conservative government with its ridiculous position of re-negotiating agreed treaties will only result in a bad deal for Britain.

The Tories are yesterday’s men and should be treated as such. We don’t want the likes of Michael Howard or John Redwood running the place. It would be a disaster. A throw back to the bad old days of Tory rule. Keep the Tory out…

State Opening of Parliament

Decided on a crafty ‘working from home’ day today.

The alarm went off at the usual time and I just thought, ‘Na, not today…’

Had the TV on in the background this morning and the State Opening of Parliament came on.

What a weird and wonderful way to announce government business !

One of the great features of the British is their almost pathological need to ritualise tradition. The State Opening of Parliament is a brilliant example of this. A wonderfully over the top gothic pantomime of State ritual and performance. Just a wee bit kitsch too.

The Queen processed in state to the Houses of Parliament in a glittering coach, flanked by ranks of household cavalry. In an elaborate ceremony with all the Crown Jewels on display, she read out a list of government bills from the throne in the House of Lords.

Only the British could still be doing this sort of thing in the 21st century ! Either the Brits or some tin-pot dictator with galloping delusions of grandeur !

Nevertheless, it’s a colourful ceremony of seemingly ancient rituals where all the symbols and offices of the constitution come together under one roof.

The Lords gather in their ermine robes and the Commons are summoned to attend in a famous door-slamming ritual played out by Black Rod. It is amazing how little things have changed in parliament over the last two centuries !

It’s a grand pageant set in elaborate 17th century costumes of wigs, breeches, tights and ruffs. Pure high camp drama. The Crown, Cap of Maintenance (the what ?!) and the Sword of State make an appearance along with officials with extravagant titles like Garter King of Arms and, a particular favourite, Rouge Dragon Pursuivant.

Interestingly the military play a part in the spectacle. In many parts of the world a military presence in Parliament, albeit ceremonial, would not be taken lightly. In Britain, it’s all part of the show.

The camp splendour of the royal procession through Parliament is quite a sight. The uniforms, gowns, robes and the Crown jewels themselves are spectacular. More Ruritanian pantomime than serious government procedure.

The Queen finally takes her place on the Throne in the House of Lords and the Commons rowdily file into the chamber. Many Labour ministers and MPs looking suitably bewildered by the occasion. The speech is a turgid list of Government business and legislation, prefaced with a regal, “My government will…”. It’s dull and no one pretends otherwise. As soon as the speech is complete, the Queen processes all the way back again and the politicians get down to the serious business of the debates.

The one thing you can’t help noticing is how undemocratic the whole thing looks. Only a third of this arrangement, the House of Commons, is elected. The rest is hereditary or appointed. Within the ceremony, the Commons are conspicuously the least prominent. During the speech MPs stand at the back of the room. You could argue that any ceremony that makes politicians stand at the back must be a good thing !

There is one element that is totally missing from the procedure. The people. Any government presentation outlining upcoming intentions and priorities should, in the modern world, be aimed at us, the electorate. Strip away the constitutional flummery and you’re left with a governing party stating what it’s going to do in the upcoming parliament. That’s important, and it should be presented to the people in a clear, unambiguous way.

It’s strange that a day of such high politics should start with an archaic royal ritual. You’ve gotta wonder how long it’ll last. Will we see a radical overhaul at the end of the current reign ? Will a forward looking King William scale it down or abolish it all together ? Probably.

OK, so it’s a bit of constitutional glitter and pomp and pageantry junkies love it. But, does it really add any value to government in the 21st century ?

Would we not be better off with a State of the Union style speech to parliament and people by the Prime Minister ?

fox hunting

Fox hunting has climbed to the top of the political agenda again.

Do we ban it or not ? It’s time to decide…

Westminster is full of Country Alliance protesters fighting the last battle of this long drawn out war on hunting with dogs.

MPs are voting today and it looks like a total ban within 2 years.

I don’t mind if they hunt foxes with dogs and I don’t mind if they don’t. I don’t see it as a big issue.

Animal cruelty is wrong.

But, if animal welfare is the aim, Parliament should be legislating on intensive animal farming methods and battery chickens raised in windowless warehouses.

Where do people think all our cheap meat comes from ?

What about keeping animals and birds in cages – that has to be cruel.

I suspect the real reason is something to do with posh people in red jackets on horseback. Class war still gets some people’s back up !

George Monbiot penned a brilliant article on hunting in The Guardian yesterday. He argued that fox hunting is a class issue and eradicating social class is why it should be banned.

It was brilliant.

You can just imagine the Colonel Blimps and Tory grandees fuming into their stirrup cups on this one.

Am half tempted to fax the article round a few home counties Conservative Associations and sit back to watch the fuss – a few swollowed false teeth and guffaws about lefties taking over the place no doubt !!!

Having said that, rural folk are not the protesting type. Farmers and country people don’t tend to take to the streets or organise protest marches. Passions are high and they must feel under threat. Perhaps the state of the rural economy and farming incomes should be investigated by Parliament instead of whether we hunt foxes or not ?

on the buses

I now commute to work on the bus….

more comfortable than the damn train and much cheaper !!

I got a neat little Sony Walkman radio for Christmas and happily listen away to the Today programme on the way into work.

This morning, news was breaking about a new ‘killer flu virus’ which has just appeared in Asia.

The New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clarke, was reported as saying that it may be as catastrophic as the flu epidemic of 1918 which killed millions.

The news bulletin then moved on to report on the impending invasion of Iraq, threatened resignations from Blair’s cabinet and falling global stock markets.

Sitting on the top deck of my bus in London listening to the unfolding news stories, the outlook did not look good.

On my way home, after a good day at work, I plugged into the radio again and was soon updated on the day’s events:

  • war is now inevitable
  • the first case of the flu virus had been discovered in Britain
  • Robin Cook had resigned from the Cabinet.