Saturday, May 10, 2008

The Scottish Wendyrendum

"Wee Wendy" Alexander appears to have declared independence for Scottish Labour. She has called for an early referendum (or "Wendyrendum" as it is being called) on the calculation that it more likely to produce a "No" vote. Gordon was reduced at PMQ's to denying that Wendy said what she patently did say ("bring it on" is hardly ambiguous). Presumably he felt compelled to do this because the only alternative is to admit that he has lost control of his party. (Cameron taunted him with just that). But it made Gordon look like a moron (And it seems that no one has yet told him to look straight ahead at PMQ's inside of sideways. How can he get such a simple thing wrong?). Alex Salmond prefers a later referendum (2010 or 2011); he thinks that, if the Tories win the election, the Scots are more likely to opt for independence (if the alternative is to be governed by a lot of Eton toffs). Both Wendy and Alex are probably right; but the Wendy strategy is - for Labour - a bit risky. Voters have a reputation for not always voting on what they should e.g. using local elections to deliver a verdict on national goverment (odd, isn't it, that after all these years of enmity between Gordon and Ken, that Gordon finally finished off Ken by supporting him?) and they may use a referendum to do the same. In any case, it now seems clear that, sooner or later, there will be a Scottish referendum on independence. Labour is, of course, terrified of this: if Scotland becomes independent they would lose around 40 MP's at Westminster. The poor bloody English would end up with near-permanent Tory government.

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Why has it all gone wrong for Gordon?

Why has it all gone wrong for Gordon?

Politaholic thinks there are 5 key reasons:

1 “It’s the economy, stupid”. Following on the Northern Rock fiasco, the credit crunch, and stalling/falling house prices, Middle England is feeling the pinch. It could be argued that it is a tad unfair to blame the government for all of this (Gordon is hardly to blame for the “US sub-prime market”), but then again, uncontrolled borrowing and runaway house price inflation (the latter the God-given right of the middle-classes to get something for nothing) have been as much a feature of the UK as the US economy (this did not begin when Gordon became PM but he was, after all, Chancellor). What’s more, Gordon seems to have bottomless pockets when it comes to bailing out Northern Crock executives (whose belief in market forces seems to have evaporated) and that hardly sits well with hitting the lowest paid by removing the 10p tax band. In any case, what has fairness to do with politics? When the economy goes arse-over-tit it is the government that (usually) gets the blame (unless they can convince the voters to “hold onto nurse for fear of something worse”). The Tories are benefiting from this even although it is obvious they have no magic solution.

2. Gordon himself:

(i) He is a Scot (and the English don’t like it: the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula play well in the suburbs and send the Tory Bloggers into paroxysms of rage, poor dears).
(ii) He simply does not have Blair’s communication skills and the middle-class English just don’t like him. For all that we hear he is warm and humorous in private, put him in front of a camera and he comes across as if he has just landed from another planet. He is at his worst when he tries to appear ordinary: talking about his “young children” and his “love of sport”. In an age of celebocracy, he just can’t cut it. A sad comment on our times, really.
(iii) His style of leadership: government by cabal, intolerance – indeed, incomprehension - of any criticism, a lack of ease: all of which leaks out and tends to repel voters. There he is: powerful, at the top of the greasy pole, a hugely successful politician (Chancellor for 10 years and now PM) and the overwhelming impression one gets is of a lack of self-confidence disguised by a blustering style.

3. “Too clever by half”: Brown seems addicted to seemingly clever political positioning which routinely backfires: inheritance tax (looked opportunist), election-that-never-was (looked indecisive, opportunist, and duplicitous); removing 10p tax band to fund 1p tax cut (looked like a blatant attempt to bribe Middle England); 42 days (pathetic attempt to look tough); Northern Rock (delayed nationalisation to avoid looking like Old Labour, then eventually bailed them out); did-and-didn’t go to the launch of the European Reform Treaty (looked ridiculous) and on and on. Even the “Government of all the talents” which worked well in the press was a gimmick. The “Not Flash, Just Gordon” was a sound PR strategy – it could have worked – but it requires an appearance of straight dealing, and Brown has blown it with his inability to avoid short-term gimmickry. All tactics, no strategy.

4: “Time for a change”. Every government runs out of steam, becomes tired, loses direction, begins to look jaded. Voters think it is time to “give the others a chance”. Brown’s task was always going to be more difficult than Blair’s: winning a fourth term. When a government has been in office for ten years or so it cannot plausibly blame its predecessor when things go wrong. Brown – as Chancellor for 10 years – cannot claim to be a “fresh face”. At the same time he faces a Conservative Party which has been given a new coat of paint (still the same thing underneath of course but looking different, with a crowd-pleasing PR man at the helm).

5: No sense of direction. Blair at least knew what he wanted to do: placate Middle England, privatise everything in sight, triangulate to avoid ever being outflanked on the right by the Tories, cold shoulder trades unions and Labour core voters. Brown can’t make up his mind: does he think “Best when we are Labour” or is it “New Labour Redux”? He can’t decide: it is neither one thing nor the other, neither this nor that, no theme, no “narrative”, no bloody idea of what he wants to do. As several commentators have observed, here is a guy who spent decades plotting to become PM who hasn’t a clue what to do now he is PM.

What can be done?
Nothing probably. I can’t see a change of Leader happening. If Gordon were Tory Leader they would cut his throat and throw him in the nearest canal alongside the rotting carcass of Iain Duncan-Smith, but Labour lacks such ruthlessness (it is too deferential). In any case, changing Leader will not suddenly reverse Labour’s fortunes. It might make things worse: it would certainly look panicky. And who would take his place? David-the-Geek? Postman-Alan? Is either really going to sweep all before him? No, it’s Gordon until the next election, for better or worse.

What will happen?
Well, a week is a long time in politics. But the tide is running against Labour and it looks bad. Tony must be smirking; and Cherie must be in seventh heaven.

Saturday, May 03, 2008

"The Jackal" Triumphs

Politaholic has not been able to post much recently: I had to go into hospital for an operation on my arm and it is my busiest time of year at work. But the triumph of Boris "The Jackal" merits some comment. I could never really quite believe the opinion polls. Surely no one would actually vote for this clown? But, yes, they have and the Tories are cock-a-hoop (this morning Boris's sister was crowing on Radio 4, apparently fresh from a champagne, oysters and caviar party). The local election results are, for Labour, truly dreadful. Gordon Brown seems completely out of his depth (who would have thought the "great clunking fist" could be so irresolute?). I suppose it could be worse: in Rome they have just elected a Nazi as Mayor (and Blair's buddy Berlusconi has proclaimed "We are the new Falange"). Politaholic is going to drink beer today; lots of it.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Jack and Ed: "Rumble in the Jungle"?

The latest YouGov poll for the Sunday Times has the Conservatives on 44% to Labour’s 28%. The Conservatives have been ahead in the polls now since last October. The papers are full of reports of panic on the backbenches as perhaps 100 Labour MP’s contemplate eviction at the next election. The Cabinet is bickering with, amazingly, near fisticuffs between Jack Straw and Ed Balls (who would have thought Straw had it in him?). There are also reports that Charles Clarke is collecting signatures – 71 are needed - for a “stalking-horse” leadership challenge if Labour does badly in the May local elections. There is discontent on the back-benches over the abolition of the 10p tax rate (which is about to kick-in) and it looks like Brown is heading for defeat over the 42-days detention proposal. Brown appears to be consolidating his reputation as a “ditherer”: he will attend the closing but not the opening ceremony in Beijing (He says that was the plan all along. Maybe. But it looks like a repeat of his performance over the European Reform Treaty: both there and not there, neither one thing nor the other). Probably the Blairites are right; Brown was not the man to be PM. Oddly, the “not flash, just Gordon” pitch was wide of the mark. He is a crowd-pleaser (what else is the 42 days about?) but an inept one. Yet I doubt if Brown will be replaced before the next election. Labour does not (despite Blair being hurried towards the exit) have a reputation for ruthlessness vis-à-vis failing Leaders (unlike the less sentimental Tories). Of course, the election is a long way off and recovery is not impossible; but it looks more and more unlikely. The trouble is that Cameron and his coterie are, I suspect, a great deal more right-wing than all his tree-hugging suggests...

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Prezza: 27 Pork Pies every day




MP's are allowed an "additional costs allowance" of up to £22,000, which is supposed to pay for the cost of maintaining a second home. As a result of the efforts of the indefatigable Heather Brooke, we now know how some high profile MP's claim they spend this money. Some claimed more than others: "Dave" Cameron £21,359 and "Ming" Campbell £11,611. They also seem to have spent the money on different things: Cameron spent it all on mortgage payments (here you can see "ordinary Dave's" Oxfordshire pad) whereas John Prescott appears to have spent a fair amount on grub: £4,000 in 2003-04. (At Sainsbury 4 Crusty Bake Pork Pies cost £1.65; so that's that's nearly 27 pork pies a day. Quite an achievement, even for Prezzo). Mark Oaten apparently spent nearly £2,400 on "white goods and soft furnishings". Now behave yourself...

Saturday, April 05, 2008

Former PM may be interested in EU Presidency

The former Prime Minister has not ruled out an interest in becoming President of the European Council (if the Reform Treaty is ratified the President will serve a two-and-a-half year term). The PM is still, for a politician, a relatively young man: still in his fifties. He was elected Leader of his party in 1994, and after the 1997 General Election became his country's youngest ever Prime Minister. He is a charismatic, approachable politician. Around the world he is being lauded for the role he played in helping to broker the Good Friday Agreement.

No, not Tony. Bertie Ahern has just resigned as Taoiseach and will be succeeded by his Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) and Minister for Finance, Brian Cowen. Asked about the Presidency of the Council Ahern said he would "certainly like to be considered for a position like that" but he would "have to think about it". Has he a chance? Hard to say. The circumstances of his resignation - the Mahon Tribunal revelations vis-a-vis his rather irregular personal finances - are not perhaps very helpful.

Cleggover

Nick Clegg did say he's bonked thirty women didn't he? Or, rather, "no more than thirty" (which I suppose could be one, since one is less than thirty; but I think he is suggesting 20-something). Now: he did refer to women. If he had said thirty "sexual encounters" well, he could easily have been referring to his time at public school (Nick is almost as posh as Dave). Why did Nick disclose this to us? Presumably he thought it would make him seem honest, down-to-earth, a bit of a lad, and so on. Perhaps he doesn't want anyone to think he is of the Mark Oaten tendency (also a happily married man). And the Oprah-ish confessional seems de rigueur these days. Didn't Cherie say that Tony was "always up for it" and a "five times a night man"? One good thing about Gordon. I just can't see him humouring such a question. In the Commons he apparently muttered something about "British reserve" ...Quite. Then again, I'm not sure which is more sad, that Clegg thinks it appropriate to answer a question like this, or that he appears to have meticulously kept count...

Sunday, March 30, 2008

In praise of...the NHS


Politaholic is typing this one-handed with his arm in a sling following a cycling accident (dislocated shoulder, it was agony). We take so much for granted. I walked into the A and E at Manchester Royal Infirmary, told them I was in great pain. They saw me within 10 minutes. A nurse first looked at me; then I had to wait for an x-ray for what seemed ages, but probably wasn't really that long. Then two nurses and a doctor gave me some morphine, attached various bit of equipment to me to monitor heart beat, took my blood pressure, manipulated the arm, then another x-ray before being allowed home. Walk in, walk out. Competent, sympathetic staff. As I took a taxi home I thought: "Thank God I don't live in Detroit". The NHS truly is a marvellous achievement. As I say, we take so much for granted. The picture shows Nye Bevan with the first NHS patient, Sylvia Diggory.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Apathy? Who Cares?

The Hansard Society annual audit on political engagement (the fifth) has just been published and is available on their web-site. The key findings are:
  • Only 13% say they are "very interested" in politics; 19% say they are "not at all" interested. Just 51% say they are "interested".
  • Only 53% say they are certain to vote at the next election.
  • Only 41% say they have discussed politics with friends or family in the last two years.
  • Only 31% believe that "when people like me get involved in politics, they really can change the way the country is run".
  • Young people are less likley to be interested in politics; so are those in social class DE, readers of tabloid "newspapers", people who belong to an ethnic-minority and - for some reason - the Welsh (!).
  • 12% say they know "nothing at all" about politics and 45% "not very much".
  • Only 23% of 18-24 year-olds say that they will vote.

Polly Toynbee in the Guardian argues that "what makes people vote is having something worth voting for - and something to vote against". There is something in this: turnout in last year's French Presidential election (where voters were presented with a clear choice) was fairly high (over 80%). The old refrain that politicians are "all the same" is, Toynbee argues, "not wrong in these strange political times". There are many reasons why people don't vote. Those who favour a "cyclical" explanation argue that, if an election is closely contested, turnout will go up. On the other hand, turnout at the next election would have to rise by an astonishing 17.6% to match the 1950-66 average and by 10% to match the turnout in 1997. That seems to me unlikely. Toynbee advocates electoral reform - she argues AV (a "small change") could be introduced in time for the next election. The trouble is, if AV were introducted, this change would probably block what might be called "proper" electoral reform: the introduction of a PR system. In any case, it is hardly a remedy for the deeper malaise Toynbee identifies: the feeling - that many people have - that it doesn't really matter who wins, it will be "business as usual" for the corporate fat cats, that political engagement is simply futile. I can't see that changing any time soon. Prediction? turnout will go up next time; but will fall far short of 70%.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Is Brown Butch or Sundance? Neither.


The long-awaited draft Constitutional Renewal Bill presented by Jack Straw to the Commons appears to be a damp squib. Simon Carr in The Independent accurately described it as "a self-defeating mish-mash of bilge, bollocks and fudge". Lords reform has been put on the long finger yet again. The Attorney-General is to remain in the Cabinet and continue to act as the government's legal adviser and, where "national security" is concerned retains the power to halt prosecutions. The royal prerogative power to declare war will be transferred to Parliament, but when "special forces" are deployed no Parliamentary vote will be required...and on it goes. The good Lord gives with one hand and takes away with another (much like a Brown budget). Brown seems to have a fatal weakness for finessing everything out of existence. Allowing a free vote on some amendments to the Bill on embryo research but not on the Third Reading is an example of this. It looks clever. Maybe in Parliamentary terms it is. But to the wider public it looks like talking out of both sides of your mouth at once. Too clever by half is the phrase that springs to mind. It looks at if, for all their half-heartedness, the bold measures of constitutional change occurred under a (reluctant) Blair: devolution to Scotland and Wales, the Human Rights Act, the removal of the hereditaries from the Lords. Brown signalled that he intended to step up the pace; but it doesn't look at though this intention has survived a few months in office. In the Guardian Jonathan Freedland recommends a "Butch and Sundance" strategy to Brown. Even if Labour loses the next election they can go out fighting. Go out in "a blaze of glory as they pursue one last change - a democratic second chamber, a written constitution, an improved voting system...". Fat chance. The cautious, calculating, hesistant, dithering Brown is not the man for that. He will weigh the pros and cons and produce something so balanced and hedged around with qualifications and exceptions as to be as inspiring as a bowl of cold porridge.

Bling Wars



















The King of Bling (Nicolas Sarkozy) met the Queen of Bling (Elizabeth Windsor) yesterday and it was no contest. When it comes to vulgar displays of ostentatious wealth he is a mere amateur. But the real star of the show was of course Carla Bruni-Sarkozy. Was it just me or did the Commons collectively swoon at PMQ’s yesterday when Brown welcomed President Sarkozy and his wife to Britain? And well they might. Here are two photos of the striking Carla. One with some of her clothes on. She was dressed a little more demurely yesterday.

Monday, March 24, 2008

Obama's Pastor Plays the Race Card

The Clinton's have been getting a pasting in the media for allegedly playing the race card. The evidence? Hillary apparenly denigrated Martin Luther King (by pointing out that it was Lyndon Johnson who pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress) and Bill pointed out that Jesse Jackson won primaries in the south in the 1980's. Pretty tame stuff, really. The ringing phone ad was apparently racist also, although I can't see it. Well, here is the race card played for real by Obama's pastor (Obama has attended his church for 20 years yet says he never heard Pastor Wright say anything like this before). It isn't that there isn't some truth in what the Pastor says (about poor black folk and rich white folk). It is, rather, the whole tone and manner of it. Hillary Clinton may be many things but she doesn't really deserve this. One of the pleasing things about this video is that, if you look closely, the audience seems divided and some appear to be trying to remonstrate with Pastor Wright, although we can't hear what they say because he has the microphone. Not everyone is applauding. There were some - black people - even in the Church, who appear to think he was, as they say, "out of order". It is, of course, damaging Obama (this morning's Guardian reports white votes ebbing away) and, should he win the Democratic nomination, this - and Pastor Wright's "God damn America" together with Michelle's embarassing gaffe - will be used relentlessly by the Republicans. They are both already all over YouTube and the blogosphere.