Hogarth's Happy Hour

Hogarth's Happy Hour is on the move...

2010-11-02T14:10:00.003Z

I'm moving on... It's me not you... Breaking up is so hard to do... It's terrible news, I've decided to move Hogarth's Happy Hour from its current home (here) to my new blog here.

Even Glenn Beck is upset...

However, the move is an exciting one... Just search around for Ben Glover's Blog.

Do We Get The Politicians We Deserve?

2010-05-27T17:33:00.000+01:00

The Fourth Estate has always been a powerful force in British politics; the concept that the free press will serve as a watchman against the hubris of the political caste is as comforting as it is essential for democracy to thrive. Witness the checks and balances offered by the Washington Post during the Watergate scandal that ultimately led to the downfall of the Nixon Administration or the exposition of MP's expenses by the Daily Telegraph and Heather Brooke. Political journalists can, and often do, offer a vital service to the public who rely upon their investigative abilities.

However, for every Heather Brooke or Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, there are many more political journalists that believe the only way to expose the truth from a politician is by claiming it from their cold, dead hands after besting them in an interview. This is a far cry from the political interviews of Harold Macmillan's generation, a more reverential era in which journalists would allow the politicians to make any claim without any form of intellectual challenge, therefore it was impossible for politicians to be held to account by the general electorate. Now political interviews are more a game of cat and mouse, in which the journalist will attempt to trip up a politician by a series of "hard" questions, whilst the politician will attempt to stay "on message" for as long as possible. The end result is a less glamorous, political version of Gladiators, sadly without John Fashanu and Ulrika Jonsson.

The issue is - politicians in many instances can only speak in insincere, vague half-truths that have been dictated to them by the Communications Director or the Party Whip; the new policy initiative might be contrary to personal beliefs or previous statements but the individual politician has to support it. The interviewer is fully aware of any internal conflict that the politician maybe suffering and spends the whole interview labouring around one specific point. Often there is no winner and the general public are none the wiser about any new policy initiative that the politician is attempting to promote.

Furthermore, there is a great dichotomy for any politician - how much of the truth can you divulge? A major theme during the last General Election was the news reporting, via vox pops and radio phone-ins, people just wanted the truth, the unadulterated truth; the general electorate where ready to hear the Uncomfortable Truth. Sadly, the quickest way for a politician or party to become unelectable is for them to start telling the public how it is; if during the election campaign any of the three main parties said that Britain was going to suffer a prolonged period of austerity in which VAT will rise to 20%, inflation would pass 5%, unemployment would continue to increase and many thousands of public sector jobs would be cut, how many people would actually vote for them? How many media outlets would utterly destroy that politician?

People would rather vote for Mary Poppins telling them that a spoon full of sugar will help the medicine go down, than for Private Frazer from Dad's Army tell us that "We doomed, I tell ye!". It is only natural...

So why are there so many bland and inter-changeable politicians? Well, as Darwin's theories on evolution state, the most successful species are the ones that are the quickest to adapt to their environment. The politicians we have now are the politicians that are the quickest to adapt to their environment, that is, they are the most electable - we get the politicians we deserve. As Jack Nicholson points out in the film A Few Good Men, "you want the truth, you want the truth... YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

And sometimes the politicians get the Paxman they deserve...

The Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse

2010-05-23T19:22:00.004+01:00

"And I looked, and beheld a pale horse, and the name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him" (Book of Revelations 6:8)

There are many horrors that keep little children awake; the monsters under the bed, the bogeyman or images of the Chuckle Brothers. My own personal tormentor was Struwwelpeter, a series of stories in which various protagonists are punished for their petty misdemeanours in a horrifically disproportionate manner. For years it gave me sleepless nights and an unhealthy fear of tailors, however I digress. But as teenagers and adults, our irrational fears of the petty and the unknown are replaced by something more tangible... something more real.

For economists, elected representative and stockbrokers, this one graph represents every monster under the bed, every bogeyman and every Struwwelpeter that they can image. On 6th May 2010, the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index dropped a staggering 9.2%, without a single identifiable reason. This news barely reached our shores due to the General Election, but had most American commentators reaching for their Valium. The consequences could have be dire; a system based on the confidence of investors could have reacted irrationally and began panic-selling their stock, which in turn may have sent one of the oldest and most respected financial institutions into economic meltdown. Many economic commentators have insisted that this stock market 'shock' was due to a perfect storm of economic variables that aligned to create the biggest single day drop in the Dow Jones' history; a mixture of 'Fat Finger Trade', exchange rate issues, insider trading, the large purchase of put options and the financial crisis in Greece.

The Greek financial crisis is possibly the most interesting and significant of these economic variables. There is no doubt that the Greek economy has been build on very weak and unstable foundations; in which the Government was receiving less in tax receipts than it was spending in the public sector, additionally the current strength of the Euro significantly exasperated the situation. However, the crisis was intensified by the international credit rating agencies Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch Ratings negatively re-evaluating the credit worthiness of the Greek economy. The impact was devastating on the Greek economy and questions are now raised concerning other European economies. However, questions need to be asked about these credit rating agencies - how can these undemocratic institutions exert so much power and influence over international affairs?

Surely it is a huge conflict of interests that the companies, institutions, governments, hedge funds and investors that pay these credit rating agencies to evaluate the economies of various countries are the same companies, etc that benefit if Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch Ratings devalue a credit rating since they can charge a higher APR. They are masquerading as an independent advice support system that enables their clients to make informed choices for their investments; but in actuality they are acting as hunters, killing off weak prey for investment vultures to feed on the carcasses of the nearly dead. There are many examples of these credit rating agencies threatening to downgrade a country's credit worthiness for no apparent reason, costing a country millions, if not billions, in higher interest charges.

Given the economic crisis of the past few years there needs to be a significant re-evaluation of global economic priorities - no longer should companies like Standard & Poor's be able to act with impunity, there must be stricter regulations on all financial systems in which short-term financial gambling and market manipulation can not prosper. Furthermore, the needs to be a clear delineation between Governments, financial regulatory institutions and the private sector, otherwise we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of the past, and next time the consequences maybe worse than a deep recession.

Fascinating Interview with Amartya Sen

2010-05-21T13:01:00.001+01:00

Amartya Sen: This Open-Ended “Year of India”

Coalition Programme For Government

2010-05-20T16:47:00.002+01:00

David Cameron and Nick Clegg introduce their full programme for government for the next five years... Let's see how the odd couple get on...

Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon have got nothing on these two.

And The Winner Is...

2010-05-19T15:11:00.001+01:00

As the dust settles on the battlefield that was the 2010 General Election, it is now possible to identify some big political winners and losers. The election promised to be a bloody encounter, with the aftermath resembling the Battle of Naseby, but for all its pre-match hype the election descended into a bizarre episode of It's a Knockout, where the result is rather inconsequential, but everyone enjoyed the ride. With Sky News' "political heavyweight" Adam Boulton as the over overexcited Stuart Hall, demeaning the contestants at every given opportunity as they attempt to carefully manoeuvre themselves through a political obstacle course.

On the surface it is possible to assert that David Cameron and the Conservative Party won the election, they won more seats and more of the popular vote than their rivals. However, given the unpopularity of the incumbent Prime Minister and government, the state of the economy, unemployment and the spectre of the Iraq War, this Tory victory almost feels like a defeat. The result - an unsatisfactory coalition with the Liberal Democrats and an election that the Bank of England Governor Mervyn King believes will leave the winning Party out of power for a generation due to the unpopularity of the necessary austerity measures. Parallels could be drawn with the 1992 General Election, in which neither the Labour or the Conservative Parties particularly wanted to win due to the gathering economic storm, and ultimately Labour's short term defeat was their long term gain.

Again a case could be made for the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg as the big winners of the 2010 General Election; an increase in their share of the popular vote, increased exposure on a national level and the possibility to influence legislation at a cabinet level. But, and there was always going to be a big but, are the Liberal Democrats trading short term influence for long term obscurity . Many voters feel betrayed that the Lib Dems are propping up a Tory administration that are ideologically significantly separate and are going to be used are a tool for David Cameron to modernise his own party. It will be too easy at the next general election for the Conservative Party to blame the Liberal Democrats for the failings of this current administration. Damned by both sides of the party, the Liberal Democrats could spend another thirty years waiting for a taste of power.

If there is a significant loser in this election there is little argument that Gordon Brown has achieved this most dubious of accolades. But it always was likely to happen, any incumbent Prime Minister has a record to defend and Gordon Brown just was not that good at defending his legacy. However, the Labour Party could be the big winners of the election in the long term, even though the electorate roundly rejected their current reincarnation. There obviously is a will amongst the British electorate for a progressive policy agenda, and probably the Labour Party would have polled better if Gordon Brown was not in power, but the loss was not a rout as many commentators had predicted. If the Labour Party reorganise and realign themselves during their period in opposition the next election could be a significant success - if Mervyn King is to be believed.

And the winner is... No one!

Orwell Was Right...

2010-05-19T13:44:00.002+01:00

"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question,
now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside
looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again;
but already it was impossible to say which was which." - George Orwell (Animal Farm)

Mano-A-Mano

2010-05-11T11:23:00.000+01:00

I do not know how, but Adam Boulton manages to make Alastair Campbell look reasonable and genuine... These are strange times we are living in.

What Price Power?

2010-05-11T02:20:00.002+01:00

One of the most noticeable changes in British politics over the last five years has been David Cameron's attempts to shift the Conservative Party to the centre-right of the political spectrum. The party of Michael Howard, Iain Duncan Smith and David Davies seemed a distant memory for many new Tory supporters, the ideology of a small state and the infallibility of the economic marketplace was replaced by protection of many New Labour initiatives and strengthening many regulatory bodies (however, this was probably inevitable after the banking crisis).

So with rumours abound that David Cameron has ceded to many Liberal Democrat policy demands in order to have the strength to form the next government, what price has he paid for the acquiescence of the "right wing" of the Conservative Party? Obviously, there is a price to be paid, even the slightest suggestion of the EU normally has the Tory Party split down the middle, so forming a government with the most Pro-European party can be perceived as forming an unholy alliance.There has to be a sweetener for the Right Wing Tories to swallow the bitterest of pills. The suggestion is that for the silence of the Right, David Cameron has agreed that certain senior cabinet positions will be filled by the aforementioned Michael Howard, David Davies and, possibly most surprisingly Iain Duncan Smith.

Their reintroduction back into the front line of British politics will surely shorten the shelf life of any coalition government, but it also raises important questions concerning the direction of new Conservative Party policy. The British electorate overwhelmingly voted for centre left, progressive parties (over half the country at the last count), but the influence of these Right Wingers at cabinet level will surely result in an unpopular shift towards the Right of the political spectrum.

Aneurin Bevan once commented after brokering the deal between the Ministry of Health and the BMA for the NHS, that the concessions he had to give was akin to "stuffing their mouths with gold". David Cameron probably has a lot of sympathy for Nye's sentiments...

Faustian Deal or No Deal...

2010-05-10T16:36:00.000+01:00

With rumour and counter rumour, the General Election malaise continues to remain unresolved. The central issues surrounds the options available to Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats; it would not be overstating the issue by pronouncing that Mr Clegg and his advisers have a chance to revolutionize British politics. The Lib Dems are a party standing on the edge of the precipice, one ill advised step the party could become an irrelevant side show for another 90 years, alternatively if they carefully plot their way through this political minefield the Liberal Democrats could conceivably become a genuine third party.

The warnings are clear and well signposted - join a Conservative coalition and risk alienating most of the core support, join a Labour coalition and be perceived to have no mandate from the electorate whilst becoming the crutch for an ailing Prime Minster (damnation by association, if you will). Yet the easiest road to follow could be the hardest for the general public to forgive, that is do nothing - allow the Conservative Party to form a minority administration and pass a Queen's Speech, but only provide support on an ad-hoc basis. If the economy begins to struggle the Conservative Party and Tory supporting press will have the perfect whipping boy to blame for the indecision in the market - that is the Lib Dems refused to help the nation during difficult times because of petty partisan politics. But if there is a significant improvement in the economy David Cameron can take all the credit for leading Good Ship Britannia through the worst of economic storms despite the hindrance of the "unpatriotic" Mr Clegg.

However, the "do nothing" option is quite tempting for many Liberal Democrats, it would not alienate the core support, allowing the party leadership to only pass legislation that was politically palatable, it would also allow the Labour Party to regain some of their former strength with a brief period of opposition (i.e. sack Gordon Brown) and with the prospect of an autumn general election due to a weak government the Lib Dems could form a coalition with their more natural bedfellows the Labour Party. This is a long shot, but a risk/reward calculation could provide the Liberal Democrats with an opportunity that seems to arise once every hundred years - the opportunity to redefine the political caste.

Overall Election Result 2010

2010-05-06T10:47:00.005+01:00

By taking into account all opinion polls, boundary changes, local issues, MPs Expenses and all MPs stepping; I have produced a political map that we might wake up to on 7th May 2010. To find your constituency simply select your region on the blog archive, press Control plus F and enter constituency name...

Party	Prediction
Conservative	304
Labour	224
Liberal Democrat	97
SNP	10
Plaid Cymru	4
DUP	7
SDLP	3
Sinn Fein	4
UUP	2
Independent	5

Turnout - 67.3%

Election 2010 - England Prediction

2010-05-06T10:36:00.005+01:00

England

Constituency	Incumbent Party	Prediction
Aldershot	Conservative	Conservative
Aldridge-Brownhills	Conservative	Conservative
Altrincham and Sale West	Conservative	Conservative
Amber Valley	Labour	Conservative
Arundel and South Downs	Conservative	Conservative
Ashfield	Labour	Labour
Ashford	Conservative	Conservative
Ashton-under-Lyne	Labour	Labour
Aylesbury	Conservative	Conservative
Banbury	Conservative	Conservative
Barking	Labour	Labour
Barnsley Central	Labour	Labour
Barnsley East (formerly Barnsley East and Mexborough)	Labour	Labour
Barrow and Furness	Labour	Conservative
Basildon and Billericay (formerly Billericay)	Conservative	Conservative
Basingstoke	Conservative	Conservative
Bassetlaw	Labour	Labour
Bath	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Batley and Spen	Labour	Labour
Battersea	Labour	Conservative
Beaconsfield	Conservative	Conservative
Beckenham	Conservative	Conservative
Bedford	Labour	Conservative
Bermonsey and Old Southwark (formerly North Southwark and Bermondsey)	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Berwick-upon-Tweed	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Bethnal Green and Bow	Respect	Labour
Beverley and Holderness	Conservative	Conservative
Bexhill and Battle	Conservative	Conservative
Bexleyheath and Crayford	Conservative	Conservative
Birkenhead	Labour	Labour
Birmingham Edgbaston	Labour	Conservative
Birmingham Erdington	Labour	Labour
Birmingham Hall Green	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Birmingham Hodge Hill	Labour	Labour
Birmingham Ladywood	Labour	Labour
Birmingham Northfield	Labour	Labour
Birmingham Perry Barr	Labour	Labour
Birmingham Selly Oak	Labour	Labour
Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Abolished)	Labour
Birmingham Yardley	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Bishop Auckland	Labour	Labour
Blackburn	Labour	Labour
Blackley and Broughton (formerly Manchester Blackley)	Labour	Labour
Blackpool North and Cleveleys (formerly Fleetwood)	Labour	Conservative
Blackpool South	Labour	Labour
Blaydon	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Blyth Valley	Labour	Labour
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton	Conservative	Conservative
Bolsover	Labour	Labour
Bolton North East	Labour	Conservative
Bolton South East	Labour	Labour
Bolton West	Labour	Conservative
Bootle	Labour	Labour
Boston and Skegness	Conservative	Conservative
Bosworth	Conservative	Conservative
Bournemouth East	Conservative	Conservative
Bournemouth West	Conservative	Liberal Democrat
Bracknell	Conservative	Conservative
Bradford East (formerly Bradford North)	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Bradford South	Labour	Labour
Bradford West	Labour	Conservative
Braintree	Conservative	Conservative
Brent Central (formerly Brent East)	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Brent North	Labour	Labour
Brentford and Isleworth	Labour	Conservative
Brentwood and Ongar	Conservative	Conservative
Bridgwater and West Somerset (formerly Bridgwater)	Conservative	Conservative
Brigg and Goole	Labour	Conservative
Brighton Kemptown	Labour	Conservative
Brighton Pavilion	Labour	Green
Bristol East	Labour	Labour
Bristol North West	Labour	Labour
Bristol South	Labour	Conservative
Bristol West	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Broadland (formerly Mid Norfolk)	Conservative	Conservative
Bromley and Chislehurst	Conservative	Conservative
Bromsgrove	Conservative	Conservative
Broxbourne	Conservative	Conservative
Broxtowe	Labour	Conservative
Buckingham	Conservative	Speaker
Burnley	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Burton	Labour	Conservative
Bury North	Labour	Conservative
Bury South	Labour	Labour
Bury St Edmunds	Conservative	Conservative
Calder Valley	Labour	Conservative
Camberwell and Peckham	Labour	Labour
Camborne and Redruth (formerly Falmouth and Camborne)	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Cambridge	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Cannock Chase	Labour	Labour
Canterbury	Conservative	Conservative
Carlisle	Labour	Conservative
Carshalton and Wallington	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Castle Point	Conservative	Conservative
Central Devon - New Constituency		Conservative
Central Suffolk and North Ipswich	Conservative	Conservative
Charnwood	Conservative	Conservative
Chatham and Aylesford	Labour	Conservative
Cheadle	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Chelmsford (formerly West Chelmsford)	Conservative	Conservative
Chelsea and Fulham (formerly Hammersmith and Fulham)	Conservative	Conservative
Cheltenham	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Chesham and Amersham	Conservative	Conservative
Chesterfield	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Chichester	Conservative	Conservative
Chingford and Woodford Green	Conservative	Conservative
Chippenham - New Constituency		Liberal Democrat
Chipping Barnet	Conservative	Conservative
Chorley	Labour	Labour
Christchurch	Conservative	Conservative
Cities of London and Westminster	Conservative	Conservative
City of Chester	Labour	Conservative
City of Durham	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Clacton (formerly Harwich)	Conservative	Conservative
Cleethorpes	Labour	Conservative
Colchester	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Colne Valley	Labour	Conservative
Congleton	Conservative	Conservative
Constituency Abolished - Liverpool Garston
Constituency Abolished - Pontefract and Castleford	Labour
Copeland	Labour	Labour
Corby	Labour	Conservative
Coventry North East	Labour	Labour
Coventry North West	Labour	Labour
Coventry South	Labour	Conservative
Crawley	Labour	Conservative
Crewe and Nantwich	Conservative	Conservative
Croydon Central	Conservative	Conservative
Croydon North	Labour	Labour
Croydon South	Conservative	Conservative
Dagenham and Rainham (formerly Dagenham)	Labour	Labour
Darlington	Labour	Labour
Dartford	Labour	Conservative
Daventry	Conservative	Conservative
Denton and Reddish	Labour	Labour
Derby North	Labour	Conservative
Derby South	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Derbyshire Dales (formerly West Derbyshire)	Conservative	Conservative
Devizes	Conservative	Conservative
Dewsbury	Labour	Conservative
Don Valley	Labour	Labour
Doncaster Central	Labour	Labour
Doncaster North	Labour	Labour
Dover	Labour	Conservative
Dudley North	Labour	Conservative
Dudley South	Labour	Conservative
Dulwich and West Norwood	Labour	Labour
Ealing Central and Acton - New Constituency		Conservative
Ealing North	Labour	Labour
Ealing Southall	Labour	Labour
Easington	Labour	Labour
East Devon	Conservative	Conservative
East Ham	Labour	Labour
East Hampshire	Conservative	Conservative
East Surrey	Conservative	Conservative
East Worthing and Shoreham	Conservative	Conservative
East Yorkshire	Conservative	Conservative
Eastbourne	Conservative	Conservative
Eastleigh	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Eddisbury	Conservative	Conservative
Edmonton	Labour	Labour
Ellesmere Port and Neston	Labour	Labour
Elmet and Rothwell (formerly Elmet)	Labour	Conservative
Eltham	Labour	Conservative
Enfield North	Labour	Conservative
Enfield Southgate	Conservative	Conservative
Epping Forest	Conservative	Conservative
Epsom and Ewell	Conservative	Conservative
Erewash	Labour	Labour
Erith and Thamesmead	Labour	Labour
Esher and Walton	Conservative	Conservative
Exeter	Labour	Labour
Fareham	Conservative	Conservative
Faversham and Mid Kent	Conservative	Conservative
Feltham and Heston	Labour	Labour
Filton and Bradley Stoke - New Constituency		Liberal Democrat
Finchley and Golders Green	Labour	Conservative
Folkestone and Hythe	Conservative	Conservative
Forest of Dean	Conservative	Conservative
Fylde	Conservative	Conservative
Gainsborough	Conservative	Conservative
Garston and Halewood (formerly Knowsley South)	Labour	Labour
Gateshead (formerly Gateshead East and Washington West)	Labour	Labour
Gedling	Labour	Conservative
Gillingham and Rainham (formerly Gillingham)	Labour	Conservative
Gloucester	Labour	Conservative
Gosport	Conservative	Conservative
Grantham and Stamford	Conservative	Conservative
Gravesham	Conservative	Conservative
Great Grimsby	Labour	Labour
Great Yarmouth	Labour	Conservative
Greenwich and Woolwich	Labour	Labour
Guildford	Conservative	Liberal Democrat
Hackney North and Stoke Newington	Labour	Labour
Hackney South and Shoreditch	Labour	Labour
Halesowen and Rowley Regis	Labour	Conservative
Halifax	Labour	Conservative
Haltemprice and Howden	Conservative	Conservative
Halton	Labour	Labour
Hammersmith (formerly Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)	Labour	Conservative
Hampstead and Highgate (Now Hampstead and Kilburn)
Hampstead and Kilburn (formerly Brent South)	Labour	Labour
Harborough	Conservative	Conservative
Harlow	Labour	Conservative
Harrogate and Knaresborough	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Harrow East	Labour	Conservative
Harrow West	Labour	Labour
Hartlepool	Labour	Labour
Harwich and North Essex (formerly North Essex)	Conservative	Conservative
Hastings and Rye	Labour	Conservative
Havant	Conservative	Conservative
Hayes and Harlington	Labour	Labour
Hazel Grove	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrats
Hemel Hempstead	Conservative	Conservative
Hemsworth	Labour	Labour
Hendon	Labour	Conservative
Henley	Conservative	Conservative
Hereford and South Herefordshire (formerly Hereford)	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrats
Hertford and Stortford	Conservative	Conservative
Hertsmere	Conservative	Conservative
Hexham	Conservative	Conservative
Heywood and Middleton	Labour	Labour
High Peak	Labour	Conservative
Hitchin and Harpenden	Conservative	Conservative
Holborn and St. Pancras	Labour	Labour
Hornchurch and Upminster (formerly Hornchurch)	Conservative	Conservative
Hornsey and Wood Green	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrats
Horsham	Conservative	Conservative
Houghton and Sunderland South (formerly Houghton and Washington East)	Labour	Labour
Hove	Labour	Conservative
Huddersfield	Labour	Labour
Huntingdon	Conservative	Conservative
Hyndburn	Labour	Labour
Ilford North	Conservative	Conservative
Ilford South	Labour	Labour
Ipswich	Labour	Labour
Isle of Wight	Conservative	Conservative
Islington North	Labour	Labour
Islington South and Finsbury	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Jarrow	Labour	Labour
Keighley	Labour	Conservative
Kenilworth and Southam (formerly Rugby and Kenilworth)	Conservative	Conservative
Kensington (formerly Kensington and Chelsea)	Conservative	Conservative
Kettering	Conservative	Conservative
Kingston and Surbiton	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Kingston upon Hull East	Labour	Labour
Kingston upon Hull North	Labour	Labour
Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle	Labour	Labour
Kingswood	Labour	Labour
Knowsley (formerly Knowsley North and Sefton East)	Labour	Labour
Lancaster and Fleetwood - New Constituency		Labour
Leeds Central	Labour	Labour
Leeds East	Labour	Labour
Leeds North East	Labour	Labour
Leeds North West	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Leeds West	Labour	Labour
Leicester East	Labour	Labour
Leicester South	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Leicester West	Labour	Labour
Leigh	Labour	Labour
Lewes	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Lewisham Deptford	Labour	Labour
Lewisham East	Labour	Labour
Lewisham West and Penge (formerly Lewisham West)	Labour	Labour
Leyton and Wanstead	Labour	Labour
Lichfield	Conservative	Conservative
Lincoln	Labour	Conservative
Liverpool Riverside	Labour	Labour
Liverpool Walton	Labour	Labour
Liverpool Wavertree	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Liverpool West Derby	Labour	Labour
Loughborough	Labour	Conservative
Louth and Horncastle	Conservative	Conservative
Ludlow	Conservative	Conservative
Luton North	Labour	Labour
Luton South	Labour	Conservative
Macclesfield	Conservative	Conservative
Maidenhead	Conservative	Conservative
Maidstone and The Weald	Conservative	Conservative
Makerfield	Labour	Labour
Maldon (formerly Maldon and East Chelmsford)	Conservative	Conservative
Manchester Central	Labour	Labour
Manchester Gorton	Labour	Labour
Manchester Withington	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Mansfield	Labour	Labour
Meon Valley - New Constituency		Liberal Democrat
Meriden	Conservative	Conservative
Mid Bedfordshire	Conservative	Conservative
Mid Derbyshire - New Constituency		Conservative
Mid Dorset and North Poole	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Mid Sussex	Conservative	Conservative
Mid Worcestershire	Conservative	Conservative
Middlesbrough	Labour	Labour
Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland	Labour	Labour
Milton Keynes South (formerly Milton Keynes South West)	Labour	Conservative
Mitcham and Morden	Labour	Labour
Mole Valley	Conservative	Conservative
Morecambe and Lunesdale	Labour	Conservative
Morley and Outwood (formerly Morley and Rothwell)	Labour	Labour
New Forest East	Conservative	Conservative
New Forest West	Conservative	Conservative
Newark	Conservative	Conservative
Newbury	Conservative	Conservative
Newcastle upon Tyne Central	Labour	Labour
Newcastle Upon Tyne East (formerly N'e upon Tyne East and Wallsend)	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Newcastle upon Tyne North	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Newcastle-under-Lyme	Labour	Labour
Newton Abbott (formerly Teignbridge)	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (formerly Normanton)	Labour	Labour
North Cornwall	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
North Devon	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
North Dorset	Conservative	Liberal Democrat
North Durham	Labour	Labour
North East Bedfordshire	Conservative	Conservative
North East Cambridgeshire	Conservative	Conservative
North East Derbyshire	Labour	Labour
North East Hampshire	Conservative	Conservative
North East Hertfordshire	Conservative	Conservative
North East Somerset (formerly Wansdyke)	Labour	Conservative
North Herefordshire (formerly Leominster)	Conservative	Conservative
North Milton Keynes (formerly North East Milton Keynes)	Conservative	Conservative
North Norfolk	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
North Shropshire	Conservative	Conservative
North Somerset (formerly Woodspring)	Conservative	Conservative
North Swindon	Labour	Conservative
North Thanet	Conservative	Conservative
North Tyneside	Labour	Labour
North Warwickshire	Labour	Labour
North West Cambridgeshire	Conservative	Conservative
North West Durham	Labour	Labour
North West Hampshire	Conservative	Conservative
North West Leicestershire	Labour	Conservative
North West Norfolk	Conservative	Conservative
North Wiltshire	Conservative	Conservative
Northampton North	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Northampton South	Conservative	Conservative
Norwich North	Conservative	Conservative
Norwich South	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Nottingham East	Labour	Labour
Nottingham North	Labour	Labour
Nottingham South	Labour	Labour
Nuneaton	Labour	Labour
Old Bexley and Sidcup	Conservative	Conservative
Oldham East and Saddleworth	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Oldham West and Royton	Labour	Labour
Orpington	Conservative	Conservative
Oxford East	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Oxford West and Abingdon	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Pendle	Labour	Conservative
Penistone and Stockbridge (Formerly Barnsley West)	Labour	Labour
Penrith and The Border	Conservative	Conservative
Peterborough	Conservative	Conservative
Plymouth Moor View (formerly Plymouth Devonport)	Labour	Labour
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (formerly Plymouth Sutton)	Labour	Conservative
Poole	Conservative	Conservative
Poplar and Limehouse (formerly Poplar and Canning Town)	Labour	Conservative
Portsmouth North	Labour	Conservative
Portsmouth South	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Preston	Labour	Labour
Pudsey	Labour	Conservative
Putney	Conservative	Conservative
Rayleigh and Wickford (formerly Rayleigh)	Conservative	Conservative
Reading East	Conservative	Conservative
Reading West	Labour	Conservative
Redcar	Labour	Labour
Redditch	Labour	Conservative
Reigate	Conservative	Conservative
Ribble Valley	Conservative	Conservative
Richmond (Yorks)	Conservative	Conservative
Richmond Park	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Rochdale	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Rochester and Strood (formerly Medway)	Labour	Conservative
Rochford and Southend East	Conservative	Conservative
Romford	Conservative	Conservative
Romsey and Southampton North (formerly Romsey)	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Rossendale and Darwen	Labour	Conservative
Rother Valley	Labour	Labour
Rotherham	Labour	Labour
Rugby - New Constituency		Conservative
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (formerly Ruislip-Northwood)	Conservative	Conservative
Runnymede and Weybridge	Conservative	Conservative
Rushcliffe	Conservative	Conservative
Rutland and Melton	Conservative	Conservative
Ryedale - Abolished
Saffron Walden	Conservative	Conservative
Salford and Eccles (formerly Salford)	Labour	Labour
Salisbury	Conservative	Conservative
Scarborough and Whitby	Conservative	Conservative
Scunthorpe	Labour	Labour
Sedgefield	Labour	Labour
Sefton Central (formerly Crosby)	Labour	Conservative
Selby and Ainsty (formerly Selby)	Labour	Conservative
Sevenoaks	Conservative	Conservative
Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (formerly Sheffield Brightside)	Labour	Labour
Sheffield Central	Labour	Labour
Sheffield Hallam	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Sheffield Heeley	Labour	Labour
Sheffield Hillsborough - Constituency Abolished	Labour
Sheffield South East (formerly Sheffield Attercliffe)	Labour	Labour
Sherwood	Labour	Labour
Shipley	Conservative	Conservative
Shrewsbury and Atcham	Conservative	Conservative
Sittingbourne and Sheppey	Labour	Conservative
Skipton and Ripon	Conservative	Conservative
Sleaford and North Hykeham	Conservative	Conservative
Slough	Labour	Labour
Solihull	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Somerton and Frome	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
South Basildon and East Thurrock (Formerly Basildon)	Labour	Conservative
South Cambridgeshire	Conservative	Conservative
South Derbyshire	Labour	Conservative
South Dorset	Labour	Conservative
South East Cambridgeshire	Conservative	Conservative
South East Cornwall	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
South Holland and The Deepings	Conservative	Conservative
South Leicestershire (formerly Blaby)	Conservative	Conservative
South Norfolk	Conservative	Conservative
South Northamptonshire (New Constituency)		Conservative
South Ribble	Labour	Conservative
South Shields	Labour	Labour
South Staffordshire	Conservative	Conservative
South Suffolk	Conservative	Conservative
South Swindon	Labour	Conservative
South Thanet	Labour	Conservative
South West Bedfordshire	Conservative	Conservative
South West Devon	Conservative	Conservative
South West Hertfordshire	Conservative	Conservative
South West Norfolk	Conservative	Conservative
South West Surrey	Conservative	Conservative
South West Wiltshire (formerly Westbury)	Conservative	Conservative
Southampton Itchen	Labour	Labour
Southampton Test	Labour	Labour
Southend West	Conservative	Conservative
Southport	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Spelthorne	Conservative	Conservative
St Albans	Conservative	Conservative
St Austell and Newquay - New Constituency		Liberal Democrat
St Helens North	Labour	Labour
St Helens South and Whiston (formerly St Helens South)	Labour	Labour
St Ives	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Stafford	Labour	Conservative
Staffordshire Moorlands	Labour	Conservative
Stalybridge and Hyde	Labour	Labour
Stevenage	Labour	Conservative
Stockport	Labour	Labour
Stockton North	Labour	Labour
Stockton South	Labour	Conservative
Stoke-on-Trent Central	Labour	Labour
Stoke-on-Trent North	Labour	Labour
Stoke-on-Trent South	Labour	Labour
Stone	Conservative	Conservative
Stourbridge	Labour	Conservative
Stratford-on-Avon	Conservative	Conservative
Streatham	Labour	Labour
Stretford and Urmston	Labour	Labour
Stroud	Labour	Conservative
Suffolk Coastal	Conservative	Conservative
Sunderland Central (formerly Sunderland North)	Labour	Labour
Sunderland South - Constituency Abolished	Labour
Surrey Heath	Conservative	Conservative
Sutton and Cheam	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Sutton Coldfield	Conservative	Conservative
Tamworth	Labour	Conservative
Tatton	Conservative	Conservative
Taunton Deane (formerly Taunton)	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Telford	Labour	Labour
Tewkesbury	Conservative	Conservative
The Cotswolds (formerly Cotswold)	Conservative	Conservative
The Wrekin	Conservative	Conservative
Thirsk and Malton (formerly Vale of York)	Conservative	Conservative
Thornbury and Yate (formerly Northavon)	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Thurrock	Labour	Labour
Tiverton and Honiton	Conservative	Conservative
Tonbridge and Malling	Conservative	Conservative
Tooting	Labour	Conservative
Torbay	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Torridge and West Devon	Conservative	Liberal Democrat
Totnes	Conservative	Liberal Democrat
Tottenham	Labour	Labour
Truro and Falmouth (formerly Truro and St Austell)	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Tunbridge Wells	Conservative	Conservative
Twickenham	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Tyne Bridge - Constituency Abolished	Labour
Tynemouth	Labour	Conservative
Upminster - Constituency Abolished	Conservative
Uxbridge and South Ruislip (formerly Uxbridge)	Conservative	Conservative
Vauxhall	Labour	Labour
Wakefield	Labour	Labour
Wallasey	Labour	Labour
Walsall North	Labour	Labour
Walsall South	Labour	Labour
Walthamstow	Labour	Labour
Wansbeck	Labour	Labour
Wantage	Conservative	Conservative
Warley	Labour	Labour
Warrington North	Labour	Labour
Warrington South	Labour	Conservative
Warwick and Leamington	Labour	Conservative
Washington and Sunderland West - New Constituency		Labour
Watford	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Waveney	Labour	Labour
Wealden	Conservative	Conservative
Weaver Vale	Labour	Labour
Wellingborough	Conservative	Conservative
Wells	Conservative	Liberal Democrat
Welwyn Hatfield	Conservative	Conservative
Wentworth and Dearne (formerly Wentworth)	Labour	Labour
West Bromwich East	Labour	Labour
West Bromwich West	Labour	Labour
West Dorset	Conservative	Liberal Democrat
West Ham	Labour	Labour
West Lancashire	Labour	Labour
West Suffolk	Conservative	Conservative
West Worcestershire	Conservative	Conservative
Westminster North (formerly Regent's Park and Kensington North)	Labour	Conservative
Westmorland and Lonsdale	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Weston-Super-Mare	Conservative	Liberal Democrat
Wigan	Labour	Labour
Wimbledon	Conservative	Conservative
Winchester	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Windsor	Conservative	Conservative
Wirral South	Labour	Conservative
Wirral West	Labour	Conservative
Witham - New Constituency		Conservative
Witney	Conservative	Conservative
Woking	Conservative	Conservative
Wokingham	Conservative	Conservative
Wolverhampton North East	Labour	Labour
Wolverhampton South East	Labour	Labour
Wolverhampton South West	Labour	Conservative
Worcester	Labour	Conservative
Workington	Labour	Labour
Worsley - Constituency Abolished	Labour
Worsley and Eccles South (formerly Eccles)	Labour	Labour
Worthing West	Conservative	Conservative
Wycombe	Conservative	Conservative
Wyre and Preston North (formerly Lancaster and Wyre)	Conservative	Conservative
Wyre Forest	Independent	Conservative
Wythenshawe and Sale East	Labour	Labour
Yeovil	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
York Central (formerly City of York)	Labour	Labour
York Outer (New Constituency)		Liberal Democrat

Election 2010 - Northern Ireland Prediction

2010-05-06T10:33:00.004+01:00

Northern Ireland

Constituency	Incumbent Party	Prediction
Belfast East	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
Belfast North	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
Belfast South	SDLP	SDLP
Belfast West	Sinn Fein	Sinn Fein
East Antrim	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
East Londonderry	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
Fermanagh & South Tyrone	Sinn Fein	Independent
Foyle	SDLP	SDLP
Lagan Valley	Ulster Unionist	Ulster Unionist
Mid Ulster	Sinn Fein	Sinn Fein
Newry & Armagh	Sinn Fein	Sinn Fein
North Antrim	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
North Down	Ulster Unionist	Independent
South Antrim	Democratic Unionist	Ulster Unionist
South Down	SDLP	SDLP
Strangford	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
Upper Bann	Democratic Unionist	Democratic Unionist
West Tyrone	Sinn Fein	Sinn Fein

Election 2010 - Scotland Prediction

2010-05-06T10:32:00.004+01:00

Scotland

Constituency	Incumbent Party	Prediction
Aberdeen North	Labour	Labour
Aberdeen South	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Airdrie and Shotts	Labour	Labour
Angus	SNP	SNP
Argyll and Bute	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock	Labour	Labour
Banff and Buchan	SNP	SNP
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Central Ayrshire	Labour	Labour
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill	Labour	Labour
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East	Labour	Labour
Dumfries and Galloway	Labour	Conservative
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale	Conversative	Conservative
Dundee East	SNP	SNP
Dundee West	Labour	SNP
Dunfermline and West Fife	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
East Dunbartonshire	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow	Labour	Labour
East Lothian	Labour	Labour
East Renfrewshire	Labour	Labour
Edinburgh East	Labour	Labour
Edinburgh North and Leith	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Edinburgh South	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Edinburgh South West	Labour	Labour
Edinburgh West	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Falkirk	Labour	Labour
Glasgow Central	Labour	Labour
Glasgow East	SNP	Labour
Glasgow North	Labour	Labour
Glasgow North East	Labour	Labour
Glasgow North West	Labour	Labour
Glasgow South	Labour	Labour
Glasgow South West	Labour	Labour
Glenrothes	Labour	Labour
Gordon	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Inverclyde	Labour	Labour
Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Kilmarnock and Loudoun	Labour	Labour
Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath	Labour	Labour
Lanark and Hamilton East	Labour	Labour
Linlithgow and East Falkirk	Labour	Labour
Livingston	Labour	SNP
Midlothian	Labour	Labour
Moray	SNP	SNP
Motherwell and Wishaw	Labour	Labour
Na h-Eileanan an Iar	SNP	SNP
North Ayrshire and Arran	Labour	Labour
North East Fife	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Ochil and South Perthshire	Labour	SNP
Orkney and Shetland	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Paisley and Renfrewshire North	Labour	Labour
Paisley and Renfrewshire South	Labour	Labour
Perth and North Perthshire	SNP	SNP
Ross, Skye and Lochaber	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Rutherglen and Hamilton West	Labour	Labour
Stirling	Labour	Labour
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
West Dunbartonshire	Labour	SNP

Election 2010 - Wales Prediction

2010-05-05T17:01:00.005+01:00

Constituency	Incumbent Party	Prediction
Aberavon	Labour	Labour
Aberconwy (formerly Conwy)	Labour	Conservative
Arfon (formerly Caernarfon)	Plaid Cymru	Plaid Cymru
Alyn and Deeside	Labour	Labour
Blaenau Gwent	Independent	Independent
Brecon and Radnorshire	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Bridgend	Labour	Labour
Caerphilly	Labour	Labour
Cardiff Central	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Cardiff North	Labour	Conservative
Cardiff South and Penarth	Labour	Labour
Cardiff West	Labour	Labour
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr	Plaid Cymru	Plaid Cymru
Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire	Labour	Conservative
Ceredigion	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Clwyd South	Labour	Labour
Clwyd West	Conservative	Conservative
Cynon Valley	Labour	Labour
Delyn	Labour	Labour
Dwyfor Meirionnydd (formerly Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)	Plaid Cymru	Plaid Cymru
Gower	Labour	Labour
Islwyn	Labour	Labour
Llanelli	Labour	Labour
Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney	Labour	Labour
Monmouth	Conservative	Conservative
Montgomeryshire	Liberal Democrat	Liberal Democrat
Neath	Labour	Labour
Newport East	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Newport West	Labour	Labour
Ogmore	Labour	Labour
Pontypridd	Labour	Labour
Preseli Pembrokeshire	Conservative	Conservative
Rhondda	Labour	Labour
Swansea East	Labour	Labour
Swansea West	Labour	Liberal Democrat
Torfaen	Labour	Labour
Vale of Clwyd	Labour	Conservative
Vale of Glamorgan	Labour	Conservative
Wrexham	Labour	Labour
Ynys Môn (formerly Anglesey)	Labour	Plaid Cymru

Ratf*****g - UK Style

2010-04-22T10:12:00.001+01:00

There is a new style of politics developing in Britain, to anyone that has just a passing interest in US politics, the insidious sniping and constant mudslinging are all too familiar. It is not surprising that Nick Clegg has become a serious threat to the Conservatives and Labour, his performance on the first Leaders debate was accomplished in this X-Factor driven society, and his bounce in the opinion polls came as shock to everyone that had not seen Will Young beat Gareth Gates in Pop Idol.

Therefore it is only to be expected that the Right of Centre press has reacted to Nick Clegg in a way that is normally only reserved for war criminals and paedophiles. These personal attacks are shameful, they add nothing to the political debate, just contribute to atmosphere of cheap politics in the minds of the public. By all means attack the policies of the other parties, that is what the election is about - but personal slurs reduce this election to a substandard US election run on a shoe string budget.

Furthermore, the election debate is dragged further down into the mire when organisations like ConservativeHome, run "advertisements" like this:

Firstly, this is amazing from a party that, during the MPs Expenses scandal, claimed for duck houses and moat cleaning. Secondly and probably more importantly, it cheapens the Conservative message. At least in America they throw a bit of money at their slurs (see below):

The Kingmaker and I

2010-04-21T12:15:00.000+01:00

In the run up to a general election, party leaders can be forgiven for making some pretty rash statements, the pressure and punishing schedule will inevitably cause a lack of focus. But to base your entire election campaign and manifesto around these pretty rash statements is disingenuous and fool hardy at best. Both Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party have taken centre stage this week with their manifesto launch and some pretty dubious claims concerning how they will use their influence in a hung parliament to gain concessions for their respective countries.

The claims themselves are not particularly dubious, every small party or independent will sell their vote on certain issues to gain influence in other areas, it is the way of a Westminster Parliamentary System. The disingenuous aspect to their claims is the misrepresentation and exaggeration to the electorate of the likelihood of these events; in essence they are suffering from small dog syndrome - they believe they are bigger than they are.

Currently the SNP have seven Members of Parliament whilst Plaid have three out of the total of 646, this represents 1.5% of the elected representatives at the House of Commons. This has always been traditionally adequate to contribute to debates, influence policy and potentially effect some legislation, but to now suggest that the national parties will have undue influence on any potentially weak or coalition government after this current election is simply not feasible.

According to the latest Populus Poll the current voting intentions are as follows:

Conservatives - 32%
Labour - 28%
Liberal Democrat - 31%
Other - 9%

If this was the result on 6th May, the potential breakdown of seats in the House of Commons would look something like this according to the BBC (the winning number of seats is 326):

Conservatives - 234 seats
Labour - 278 seats
Liberal Democrat - 109 seats
Other - 29 seats (SNP - 8 seats, Plaid - 3)

There is no conceivable calculation that would allow the national parties the influence they claim they will exert over the legislative process. The best case scenario for both Plaid and the SNP is that a minority government is formed by the Conservatives in which they control approximately 320 seats, this is the only outcome that would allow them the influence they desire. If Labour form a minority government the Lib Dems will probably become the kingmakers, either by way of coalition or by supporting only specific aspects of legislation.

However, this issue perfectly highlights the incredible inequities in our current electoral system and the bias that the incumbent administration can command over redrawing constituency boundaries to make marginal seats safer.

Fear and Loathing on the 2010 Tory Campaign Trail...

2010-04-20T13:46:00.001+01:00

Harold Wilson once perfectly defined the British political landscape with his truism that a "week is a long time in politics", and for David Cameron the last week has possibly felt more like an epoch rather than just a long time. The only other person that can truly relate to this incredible sense of time distortion is the Chinese tanker Captain who crashed into the (not so insignificant) Great Barrier Reef, after sailing through illegal shipping lanes, causing untold environmental damage. He knew the outcome a long time before the accident happened, but he still tried in vain to turn the ship around, but those tankers take a lot of turning and the crash was inevitable.

This general election has already thrown up a few surprises (the Lib Dems second in YouGov latest opinion poll, anyone?), but the biggest surprise of the whole election campaign is the Tories inability to gain any significant political momentum. Given the economic conditions and the unpopularity of the incumbent government, the Tories must have believed that the election would be an easier fight than it has been...

The constant media references to the similarities between David Cameron and Tony Blair, have been somewhat misleading - giving the impression that the 2010 general election was going to be an inverse repeat of 1997, in which Labour swept to power on a popular tide of goodwill and hope. Probably a more insightful comparison would be to compare this election with 1992: the opposition in both examples are trying to reinvent themselves, attempting to throw off the shackles of negative public opinion and a lack of trust. Plus the rising spectre of increasing tough economic conditions, in which the harsh realities of a global recession will come to bear - the public may just be comforted by the devil they know.

There are several key factors which are impacting upon the Conservatives inability to gain a significant lead in the opinion polls:

The Shadow Cabinet is weak and unable to connect with the public - in 1997 the Labour Shadow Cabinet was a significant strength of Tony Blair's election strategy, whether it was Robin Cook, Mo Mowlam, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw or David Blunkett; the Cabinet was prompted as a 'Cabinet of Talent'. Currently the Conservatives are appearing to focus solely on David Cameron and George Osborne, sidelining the poor(!) Chris Grayling for fear of costly gaffes. Even John Prescott was given meaningful airtime in comparison.

Lack of a coherent message - the main focus of the Conservatives' election manifesto is the 'Big Society' in which the public can effect the running and management of many public institutions. The issues for most people are rooted in real problems, employment, transport or education, but the Tories have proposed an abstract concept that generates few pragmatic solutions for real issues. The Labour Party in 1997 offered a tangible response to the genuine concerns of the nation. The 'Big Society' is perceived as empty rhetoric, from the party that once claimed that "there is no such thing as society".

Whilst other parties are weak on the topic of Europe, the Conservatives can not exploit their advantage - in the public's opinion the European Union is at a particularly low point, the rise of UKIP is testimony to this fact. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are potentially committed to further European integration, but David Cameron is wary of using the populist EU stick to beat his opponents for fear that it may open old wounds, in the Conservative Party, that have only been plastered over - not healed. Witness the undercurrent of discontent at the 2009 Conservative Party conference, with David Cameron's pledge that if the Lisbon Treaty was ratified the next Tory government would work within its parameters.

David Cameron's inability to connect with many of the electorate - whether this is due to old fashion class prejudice or the perception that he is style over substance, David Cameron has struggled to find a voice that speaks to a majority of people. This is not helped by an advertising campaign, organised by Andy Coulson, that appears to be confused and artificial. Most elections that are fought on the concept of 'change' have their vanguard amongst a section of the population that have been under-represented in previous regimes; youth, working class or ethnic sections of the community. It is difficult for the general public to believe that a privileged and wealthy white man is sincere about significant change - also it is not a typical election pledge by a party that is perceived to be more concerned with the conservation of society rather than its radical overhaul.

The inability of the Conservative Party to reassure the public that the recession would have been better under their guidance - even though there are significant differences between Labour and Tory economic policy, it would have been impossible for the Conservative Party to have claimed that they would have avoided the recession with tighter regulations of the banking sector. After all it was the Conservative Party that actively encouraged deregulation of the finance sector allowing 'bankers' the freedom to recklessly gamble the country's economic stability by chasing larger profits.

The Chinese tanker Captain and David Cameron have both discovered something important in the last fortnight - big ships take a long time to turn so it's vital to make sure that you have plotted correct course before you sail.

Clause 76

2010-04-15T08:49:00.002+01:00

General Election Live TV Leaders Debates Rules

Audience selection

1. The objective is to select an audience which is broadly a demographic cross section of the country.

2. The audience to be made up of roughly 200 people, subject to venue capacity.

3. ICM has been appointed as an external recruitment agency and the methods of recruitment are based on their expert advice. In broad terms, we will aim to:

4. Recruit within a 30 mile radius of the host city, mindful of administrative borders on either side of that radius based on the revised ICM list of constituencies.

5. Recruit according to gender, age, ethnicity and social class to best reflect the broader voting-age population. The recruitment procedure will be transparent, and its methodology will be available to the parties for comment.

6. Ensure around 80% of the audience is made up of voters who express a voting intention at the time of recruitment.

7. These will be subdivided into ratios which reflect a ratio of 7 Labour, 7 Conservative, 5 Lib Dem .The political ratios will take precedence over the demographic in the final selection of the audience by ICM.

8. Within the 80% (see point 6) the broadcasters retain the right to recruit some audience members who express an intention to vote for smaller parties.

9. Ensure that around 20% of the audience will be undecided but will be politically engaged. ICM's definition of undecided voters to be the basis of this selection.

10. Reserve a small number of seats for participants from outside the ICM selected audience, whose questions have been pre-submitted and selected by the broadcaster's editorial panel. The broadcasters may use a variety of methods to encourage the submission of such questions from across the UK in the build up to the debates.

11. The number of questions from outside the ICM selected audience will be a maximum of four per debate.

12. Over-recruit by a small margin to accommodate "drop outs" or "no shows"

13. Issue audience members with a protocol of rules, including security procedures for entry and conduct during the debates. The protocol will be agreed by the parties.

Audience role

14. The objective is to ensure maximum debate between the party leaders - the distinctive characteristic of these programmes - whilst allowing the audience's voices to be heard directly posing questions.

15. Each broadcaster will nominate a panel to choose the questions for its debate. The panel's membership will be public, but they will meet in private.

16. Each selection panel will include a member to oversee compliance. List of names of panel members attached

17. The objective of each panel shall be to ensure fair question selection in order to frame a balanced debate within the rules of our agreements.

18. The panel will meet confidentially in the weeks running up to their debate.

19. All questions submitted by the ICM selected audience will be seen by a member of the panel. Email questions will be sifted and a selection given to the panel.

20. Initially, each panel will sift through a selection of questions drawn from those submitted by members of the public.

21. They will narrow down their selections in a series of meetings up to and including the day of the debate.

22. Each panel will have five to seven members, including a designated chair who would have a casting vote if necessary.

23. The panel cannot be quorate with fewer than three of its members present.

24. In selecting its questions, the panel will take full account of the following:

25. Each question will be relevant to all three party leaders.

26. No question shall focus on one party or one leader.

27. All questions will be based on election issues

28. Audience members will be made aware of these rules before submitting their final questions.

29. Half the programme will be based on the agreed theme. Within that portion of the programme, a maximum of three questions will be selected on a single sub-theme (as listed in point 65 of this document).

30. Half the programme will be unthemed. In this portion of the programme, a maximum of two questions will be selected on a single subject.

31. The range of questions chosen will reflect the broadcasters' legal and compliance responsibilities for due impartiality and fairness.

32. The panel will use its editorial judgement to select questions and will take into account factors such as the prominence of certain issues in the campaign, the distinctiveness of the different parties' policies on election issues, voters' interest and issues relevant to the role of the Prime Minister.

33. Within these rules, the editorial independence of the panel shall be paramount, because each broadcaster is answerable to its regulator for its programme content.

34. Questions may be selected by the editorial selection panel up to the start of the debate.

35. The selected questions will not be shown to anyone outside the editorial team in advance of the programmes.

36. Members of the audience will ask their questions. The moderator will ask the leaders to respond. The moderator may read email questions.

37. All questions will be addressed to and answered by all three leaders.

38. The audience members will be restricted to asking the selected questions.

39. There will be an option of viewer involvement via emails read by the moderator.

40. In order to maximise the time available for viewers to hear the leaders discussing election issues with each other, the studio audience will be asked not to applaud during the debate. There will be opportunities to do so both at the beginning and at the end of each programme.

Structure of programme

41. The programme will start with all three leaders on set and standing at their podiums.

42. The moderator will have a podium/desk and will move within a small area to allow eyeline with the audience and the leaders.

43. The moderator will introduce the leaders,

44. The first half of the programme will be on the agreed theme but with the agreement of all the parties, in case of a major national or international event not included in the theme of the debate, the moderator will ask the leaders for their reaction to the development at the start of the programme before moving on to the theme.

45. The time taken for the reaction to such an event will be added to the time available for the themed part of the debate, unless the event is clearly part of the theme of the debate, in which case the reaction will be counted as part of the time allotted to the theme.

46. Each leader will make an opening statement on the theme of the debate lasting for 1 minute. After the three opening statements the moderator will take the first question on the agreed theme. There will be closing statements of 1 minute 30 seconds from all three leaders at the end of the 90 minutes.

47. Each leader will have 1 minute to answer the question.

48. Each leader will then have 1 minute to respond to the answers.

49. The moderator may then open the discussion to free debate between the leaders for up to 4 minutes on merit.

50. The length of the debate on each question will be decided by the programme editor.

51. The programme editor will use their best endeavours to keep to the 4 minute time allowance but it may need to be extended in the interest of equality of treatment.

52. Questions will be taken on the theme until around half way through the programme, depending on timing and ensuring fair treatment of all three leaders.

53. At the end of the themed period, the moderator will open the debate to general questions selected by the broadcaster's panel from the audience or via email.

54. The same timing format will apply to the general questions i.e. each leader will have 1 minute to answer the question. Each leader will then have 1 minute to respond. The moderator will then open the discussion to free debate between the leaders for up to 4 minutes on merit

55. There will be a clock indicating the time remaining for statements, answers to questions and responses. This will be visible to the candidates and moderator but not to the audience in the debate or on screen.

56. The order of speakers, based on an agreed grid, has been determined by the parties drawing lots.

57. At the end of the programme the three leaders will shake hands.

Role of the moderator

58. To moderate the programme

59. To keep the leaders to the agreed time limits

60. To ensure free-flowing debate being fair to all candidates over the course of the programme.

61. To ensure fairness on the direction of the programme editor

62. To seek factual clarification where necessary

63. It is not the moderator's role to criticise or comment on the leaders' answers.

64. The candidates accept the authority of the moderator to referee the rules on stage and ensure a free flowing, fair debate conducted within the agreed rules

Themes

65. Order of themed debates. The order of the themes for the first half of each programme was determined by the broadcasters drawing lots. The order is as follows:

1.Domestic affairs including but not exclusively: NHS; Education; Immigration; Law and Order; Family; Constitution; Trust in politics; Political reform;

2.International affairs including but not exclusively; International relations; Afghanistan; Iraq; Iran; Middle East; UK defence; International terrorism; Europe; Climate change; China; International Development

3.Economic affairs including but not exclusively: financing of public services; Taxation; Debt; Deficit; Public finances; Recession; Recovery; Banking and finance; Business; Pensions; Jobs;

Set

66. The leaders will stand at podiums throughout the debate. The positions of the three leaders during the debates are to be determined by agreement with all parties.

67. The moderator will have a podium/desk and will move within a small area to allow eyeline with the audience and the leaders.

68. Each broadcaster responsible for their own titles, music, branding etc.

Audience cutaways

69. The purpose of the programmes are for the viewers to see and hear the party leaders engaging in debate with each other and answering questions from the audience. The audience is a key element of the programmes and has to be seen by the viewers but there will not be undue concentration of the reactions of individual audience members.

70. There will be a close up of the questioner while he/she is asking a question.

71. There will be no close-up cutaways of a single individual audience member while the leaders are speaking.

72. However if one of the leaders directly addresses an individual audience member, a close-up shot of that individual can be shown e.g. if a leader answers a question by directly addressing the questioner.

73. There may be group shots and wide shots of the audience during the programme.

74. The programme will be confined to events inside the debate studio.

75. Breaking News straps will not be put over live coverage of the debate. On news channels (Sky News, BBC News channel), the scrolling news tickers will offer other news but will not cover breaking news lines from the debates while the debates are taking place.

76. Each party will have the right to recall the negotiating panel made up of representatives from the broadcasters and the parties, during the campaign to discuss issues arising from the debates

A Plague On Both Your Houses...

2010-03-23T15:34:00.001Z

Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon have done it again. They are amongst three Senior Labour MPs that have been exposed in the Channel 4 documentary 'Dispatches' as touting for large sums of money in exchange for advice on the legislative process, with the implication that they can exert undue influence on current policy decisions on their benefactor's behalf. The deadly duo seem intent on destroying any chance that the Labour Party have of re-election, whether it is unsuccessful coup d'etat or getting themselves embroiled in a scandal, they seem hell bent on becoming a tag team wrecking crew aimed solely at maintaining their semi-celebrity status.

However in all seriousness, these latest allegations against both the Houses of Parliament call in to question the nature of the British democracy. A democracy that allows: MPs to maintain more than one job; that allows lobbying of special interest groups directly to individual MPs; a bicameral system that in every respect is not bicameral; and a democracy that allows MPs not to follow the best interests of their constituencies or the country, but of their own self-serving requirements. How can any Cabinet member, former Cabinet member or individual MP, be allowed to take money for direct influence upon the legislative process?

This really begs the question; who runs this country?

MPs: Apparently not - they are willing to sell their political capital to feather their own nests
The People: Not a chance - our ability to effect the political process is marginalised to once every five years
The Media: To a certain extent - campaigns can have an influence, but their impact is often over stated by themselves
Corporations: Probably - through offering big money directorships, sponsorships and through paying MPs for advocacy, corporations often wield undue influence over the political process in Britain

There is something far more sinister about this scandal in comparison to the relatively benign expenses fracas; which was essentially a minor scandal that revolved around most MPs over claiming on expenses within a predetermined and legal system. Most were greedy, but not dishonest.

There should be no difference in perception when considering the lobby system of paying for the advocacy of MPs and MPs undertaking a second, third or fourth job. Just because one is slightly more transparent than the other does not make either of them acceptable.

Furthermore, David Cameron has already attempted to gain political capital off this scandal, but a word of warning: a year ago, the Conservative Party Shadow Cabinet had twenty-six members and between them they had one hundred and fifteen non-executive directorships. Now whose interest are they going to serve - the electorate or the companies that are paying very well for their services?

The solution is relatively simple, but a tough pill to swallow. MPs should be paid more, but on a few conditions: the expenses system is completely over hauled (see earlier post), no secondary employment can be undertaken and there can be no paid consultancy between MPs and lobbyists. MPs can only have one master - and that is the British public.

Michael Foot 1913 - 2010

2010-03-03T13:09:00.000Z

Today witnessed the passing of a true maverick of 20th century parliamentary life, Michael Foot sadly passed away at the age of 96 years. As a committed Member of Parliament and socialist, Michael Foot represented the Plymouth Devonport and the Ebbw Vale constituencies for 45 years in the House of Commons, including 3 years as Leader of the Labour Party between 1980 and 1983.

Bill Jones describes the essence of Michael Foot:

"Possibly the most brilliant public speaker and parliamentarian of his day as well as one of the most cultured and civilised politicians of the century, he was widely popular in many sections of the party, but suffered from a poor media image."

A politician that was respected by both sides of the House; a man of principles that cared more for the content of people's character than the image they portrayed in the media. He was a person that could teach many current MPs many valuable lessons about a politician's conduct in public life.

The Power of the Communications Director

2010-02-25T17:35:00.002Z

Nick Davies and Andrew Sparrow, published in today's Guardian, have investigated the role of Andy Coulson (David Cameron's Communications Director) in the use of illegal journalistic practices, whilst he was Editor of News of the World. The article claims that Andy Coulson, in both his Editor and Deputy Editor roles, hired at least four private investigators with dubious criminal histories to research stories through various semi-legal and illegal methods. Mr Coulson has completely denied all knowledge and involvement in any illegal practices.

The power of these media gurus is worrying, but also it belies a presidential trend in British politics that started in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher and Bernard Ingham, and which has grown in significance ever since. This relationship between Prime Minister and Communication Director is inversely proportional to the power of the political party in parliament; as the power of the PM's closest advisers increases, the power of the political party has diminished. The Prime Minister has become to believe that on their shoulders alone does the fate of the party rest - reality or extreme hubris, only the perspective of history will allow full comprehension.

The diminishing role of the political parties can be attributed to a number of sources; the centralization of government, the focus of the media and the strength of the Government's majority. But the most significant factor is the rise of the career politician; a politician that is a product of the party machine, a politician that is more a voice for the party in the local constituency, rather than a voice for their constituency in Parliament.

Without the collective will and strength of the public and Parliament combined, this worrying trend will continue unabated. The Prime Minister and their Cabinet will continue to collect Parliamentary and legislative power, at the expense of democracy, in the end the Prime Minister will become President in all but name.

It is becoming all too easy to substitute Andy Coulson and Alastair Campbell for Charles Colson and Karl Rove; in a system in which style and media presentation are far more important than actual facts, it is easy to believe that the Communications Director can really determine the collective reality.

National Bullying Helpline is Suspended

2010-02-24T11:32:00.004Z

The National Bullying Helpline has just released a statement concerning the future of the organization, in which it states:

"Due to the situation at this time we are temporarily suspending our helpline... We would assure you that we are not politically driven in any way... We are currently considering the future of the charity. Christine Pratt is prepared to resign if necessary."

How did the situation get to this point? How did a leading anti-bullying charity get caught up in a political tit-for-tat?

There have been many rumours circulating recently in the press that Gordon Brown is quick to anger; with unsavoury accusations of furniture kicking, mobile phone throwing and lapel ruffling, the actions of the Prime Minister have been more closely scrutinized than the private lives of Chelsea footballers.

The most recent accusations have been made by former Labour Special Adviser Lance Price in his book, 'Where the Power Lies: Prime Ministers Verses the Media' which was serialised in the Independent, and by Andrew Rawnsley in the book 'The End of the Party' which had extracts printed in the Observer. It is obvious why these newspapers released these stories now, it is the perfect time to maximise circulation ahead of a general election, and given the precarious financial situation of these publications, a much needed shot in the arm. Ditto for the authors, if these books were released in mid election cycle they would cause barely a ripple in the pond of political intrigue.

However, the motives for Christine Pratt's disclosures are much less obvious. Why did the CEO of the National Bullying Helpline break many aspects of their own confidentiality rule to reveal that she had received four to five calls from Downing Street staff complaining of working practices within Number 10? The reason that Mrs Pratt disclosed the information were at best a naive and ill judged attempt to garner national publicity for her charity or, at worst, a cynical, politically motivated attempt to further pressurize the Prime Minister and the Labour Party.

Without the highest level of confidentiality any helpline renders itself redundant. Therefore it is a shame that through whatever her motives, Mrs Pratt has discredited much of the good work that has been undertaken by the National Bullying Helpline over the years and also has deflected a considerable amount of the attention away from Gordon Brown and his 'confrontational' work practices.

Christine Pratt... Indeed.

Nick Davies Reveals Fleet Street's Dark Arts

2010-02-24T11:10:00.001Z

The New Issue of The Raconteur is Out

2010-02-24T10:59:00.002Z

The latest edition of the The Raconteur is released.

The Not So Gravy Train

2010-02-18T15:05:00.004Z

It is a continual source of amazement, and possibly amusement, that when a political party appears to be showing well in opinion polls, there is a tendency to self implode. Witness Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt's abortive attempt at a very British coup earlier this year, a blundering exercise that did not so much take off, but crashed in the hanger with the doors closed.

So it will come as no surprise that the latest opinion poll, released today, placed the Conservatives a commanding 9 points ahead of Labour, should be followed shortly by a ill judged outburst by veteran MP Sir Nicholas Winterton on BBC Radio 5 Live. The comments centred around the plans for MPs to travel standard class on trains, instead of the traditional first class, when travelling between their constituencies and Westminster. In a rant that appeared to reinforce every negative Conservative stereotype that David Cameron has attempted to eradicate, Sir Nicholas Winterton stated:

"If I was in standard class I would not do work because people would be looking over your shoulder the entire time, there would be noise, there would be distraction. They are a totally different type of people. There's lots of children, there's noise, there's activity. I like to have peace and quiet when I'm travelling."

This outburst was followed quickly by the denunciation of Sir Winterton by Tory Head Office as "the out-of-touch views of a soon-to-retire backbench MP". David Cameron feels he has worked too hard and too long at re-branding the Conservative Party for an "old Tory" to ruin it. It is not the first time that one of the Wintertons has started a train related controversy; Ann Winterton (wife of Sir Nicholas and fellow MP) told a racist joke involving a train in 2002, which ultimately cost her position in the shadow cabinet.

David Cameron is learning very quickly that it is impossible to control a parliamentary political party of the size of the "Big 3", in fact it is almost impossible to manage a political party of more than one.

Just ask Roger Knapman and Nigel Farage, who only had eleven other MEPs in their party and they still got mired in several controversies... but they did have to deal with Robert Kilroy-Silk, so they can be forgiven for taking their eyes of the political football.

Charlie Brooker's Take on Formulaic News Reporting

2010-02-05T12:20:00.001Z

How Long Is A Piece Of String In Afghanistan?

2009-11-06T13:28:00.005Z

Today Gordon Brown promised that Britain "cannot, must not and will not walk away" from Afghanistan, but this is an unusual war in many respects, and if Britain is willing to continue its missions in Afghanistan, then it must be prepared to complete any predefined objectives. In short, Britain, America and her NATO allies must be prepared to undertake what effectively is nation building.

This is as difficult as it sounds and the process will make the situation in Iraq look like a walk in the park on a mild summer's day. In any context the comparison with Iraq is a false one; since all the aspects required for completing nation building were already in situation in Iraq, whereas none are existent in Afghanistan.

As Francis Fukuyama describes in his book State Building;

"... [we] talk about the problem of 'getting to Denmark', where 'Denmark' stands generically for a developed country with well-functioning state institution. We know what 'Denmark' looks like, and something about how the actual Denmark came to be historically. But to what extent is that knowledge transferable to countries as far away historically and culturally from Denmark as Somalia or Moldova?"

In Afghanistan there is no history of a 'civil society', the rule of law that transcends tribal divisions, trusted institutions and any process that represents democratic continuity. It will take decades, if not centuries, for these institutions to mature and incorporated in to the concept of a "democratic Afghanistan".

Britain was a liberal country, in many aspects, centuries before it ever became a liberal democracy...

Britain and America must learn from the mistakes of leaving a power vacuum in Afghanistan as was allowed to happen after the Soviet Union's withdrawal in 1989, in which the Taliban were the only viable form of governance.

It's A New Dawn, But Same Day

2009-11-06T12:23:00.005Z

Another month and another indicator that the British economy is slowly lurching out of recession. The Halifax have announced that house prices in Britain have risen by 1.2% in October and which represents a slight fall of 1.5% compared to a year ago, which is the smallest decline in the year on year statistic since this credit crunch began.

This, as a simplistic statistic, can appear to be encouraging news for the economy, demand increasing which implies that more people have renewed faith in their economic futures. Also the access to credit is becoming more freely available, so good news all around...

Not quite. Beneath the encouraging facade of these statistic, lays an uncomfortable truth; the rise in house prices might indicate economic recovery, but they almost definitely indicate a huge shortage of new houses. This short fall distorts the simple concepts of supply and demand, in which demand is relativity constant and supply is so small that drives up the price to the extent that it matches demand.

Until recently, people in the UK needed relatively easy access to credit in order to purchase a modest property, this can be seen in the incredibly dangerous mortgage deals that allowed people to borrow at six times their own salary. The result was this only masked the housing short fall, but did not attempt to solve the underlying issues.

Furthermore, the low interest rates that mortgage holders are currently enjoying are further masking this most serious of problems. The Government has lacked a coherent housing policy since 1997, arguments between government and councils are common place, but it is the government that should display effective leadership on the matter.

If the government does not address the serious issues in their housing policy Britain is doomed to repeat the simple mistakes of the past...

Stuck in the Middle with CWU

2009-11-03T14:37:00.005Z

As the dark spectre of another set of postal strikes looms large over the nation, it seems increasingly unlikely that a resolution will be soon announced. With both sides seemingly more concerned about posturing and public opinion, than resolution, a winter of discontent lurches ever closer to people and businesses that rely on the monopoly that the Royal Mail provides.

Amidst this maelstrom is a passive government, refusing to publicly denounce, support or offer any context for reconciliation to either party; with Lord Mandelson seemingly more intent to disrupt any immediate possible solution. It is unsurprising that the government is taking such a publicly quiet stance, since how can it possibly remain objective when it is constantly pursuing potential suitors to privatize the Royal Mail.

However, it was refreshing to hear Clive James' pragmatic appraisal of the dispute, in which he argues that British management and workers must find a 'happy' equilibrium in which both sides have equal involvement in a successful company. He states,

"A labour-management concord was the solution in Germany and Japan and one way or another it will be the solution here - it's just slow to come. Making the slowness slower, alas, is the still lingering twin effect - weaker now but not dead yet - of a conservatism that thinks the workers are out to wreck the nation and a radicalism that would like to see the nation wrecked, as if some kind of purity could ensue if people no longer had to work for a living."

With representatives of the workers on the board of a company, such as the Royal Mail, the workers would feel as if they had a stake in modernization and the management would have a more efficient and stable company.

It is when management and workers converse as equal partners, rather than historic rivals, that synergy can potentially produced.

Why did Alan Johnson Sack Expert?

2009-11-02T14:32:00.004Z

In a period where the Government is being attacked for the majority of its new policy initiatives, from almost every angle, it is surprising that it opted to pursue a political risky strategy by sacking Professor David Nutt from his role as Head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).

This strategy of sacking the Chairman of a quasi-independent public Council is baffling at best and at worst creates a unwelcoming precedence in which the Government is willing to ignore (and often contradict) scientific advise in favour of winning support from tabloid media outlets. There are three potential political reasons for Home Secretary Alan Johnson to sack Prof David Nutt:

Alan Johnson believes that Prof David Nutt's claim concerning cannabis, ecstasy and LSD is contradicting Government advice, and therefore his position became untenable.
The Government wished to create a smoke screen for the criticism it faces concerning the reduction in funding for the Armed Forces and the TA. Funding for the Armed Forces and the TA is becoming a central plank for both the Labour and Conservative Party in the run up to the forthcoming election. Any perceived weakening in either party's commitment to the troops will be political suicide.
The Government wanted to appear to be tough on drugs to appeal to the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the tabloids.

The decision whether the reclassification of these drugs is correct is a matter for debate. But the main issue to arise from Prof David Nutt's sacking, is the Government's willingness to ignore independent, scientific and evidence based reasoning in favour of pursuing an ideological or political decisions designed to carry favour with current columnists and editors of newspapers.

The purpose of a quasi-independent body, such as, the ACMD is to advise the Government on their areas of expertise, not to becoming a whipping boy of the ministers to demonstrate how tough the Government can be on controversial issues.

As Margaret Thatcher famously said "Advisers advise and ministers decide".

The PM Disappears After Afghan Criticism - Again

2009-09-10T20:38:00.004+01:00

What a difference a day makes in politics. Yesterday there was an air of "mission accomplished" surrounding the release of Stephen Farrell, an Anglo-Irish journalist with the New York Times, from four days of captivity with the Taliban. However, the battle for Mr Farrell's release came at a price, four fatalities including a British Serviceman and an Afghan journalist. The Prime Minister was quick to release a statement, full of platitudes and stoic references claiming, in essence, that no one will be left behind. No one.

However, as more facts emerge today from Mr Farrell's ordeal, including his blog account, the clear delineation of Mr Brown's statement begin to blur. The successful attempt to free Mr Farrell was, in fact, the second attempt and the decision to send in the troops was made by the Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth. A purely political decision...

In addition, there is growing unrest in Afghanistan concerning the conduct of the British troops who attempted the rescue, there are many claims of racism and inconsideration of the Afghan people. It has also emerged that the local Afghan authorities were in the process of negotiations with the Taliban, and are increasing frustrated with NATO's brash tactics.

It is obvious that both David Miliband and Bob Ainsworth driving motivation was the safe release of Mr Farrell. But also a defining factor that led them into ordering a fatal rescue attempt was that if Mr Farrell had appeared in the future, still a captive, in a orange jumpsuit surrounded by the Taliban or Al Qaeda. They knew that the war would be a lot harder to justify to a impatient public...

There is a familiar pattern emerging here - when there is a possibility to bask in the reflected glory of a sports team, Gordon Brown is incredibly quick to respond, however, any criticism that requires an immediate response there is tumble weed rolling outside 10 Downing Street.

Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me...

2009-09-09T12:11:00.005+01:00

In many respects the housing crisis was a significant contributing factor in the recent recession; the over inflated price of property was considered an investment rather than a short fall in supply, which led to many people feeling pressured into burdening themselves with an unrealistic mortgage just to get on the property ladder before it was to late. It is well documented that these toxic debts on both sides of the Atlantic were partly responsible for the near collapse of the financial sector.

It has seemed for many years that the simple concepts of supply and demand did not apply within the housing sector, with property being considered a guaranteed investment that would return 5% a year. But as population increases at a higher rate than housing capacity, the property price will inevitably rise and demand will consequently outstrip supply. It seems a logical argument, it obeys all the economic laws by which our economy is determined, so why has it been ignored for so long...

It is due in part to the trust Margaret Thatcher placed in the marketplace to reach equilibrium and to the culture of home ownership that she encouraged. This has been further reinforced by the considerable amount of vacuous property programmes on TV that facilitated the myth that property prices do not obey the laws of economics. It is these programmes that would have claimed that Newton's Apple did not obey the laws of physics and therefore was of higher value than other fruit.

Therefore, it is unforgivable that governments, both Conservative and Labour, has consistently ignored demands for more new homes to be built. Also, there is a perverse sense of relief that is expressed by many that house prices are increasing again after the credit crunch.

It is an economic imperative that the government begin to increase the stock of new build houses in the UK if another recession is to be avoided in the near future. The 2,000 new council houses announced today is a small start, but more needs to be done to encourage private and public investors in the housing market.

Cameron has gone a Courtin'

2009-09-09T10:33:00.003+01:00

Whether it is the frivolity of summer still lingering in the air or a concerted effort, but David Cameron's first major speech after the summer recess was insightful in a number of respects. The speech itself was not incendiary or that demanding of its audience; in fact it was a pretty unspectacular opening gambit to the new parliamentary session. However, the speech shows a new target audience and tactic for the Leader of the Opposition.

The speech centred around the necessity for spending cuts and fiscal prudence, but rather than discuss any number of viable and significant spending efficiencies, Mr Cameron chose to target the 'bourgeois' MPs (it is ironic given it is only weeks after Alan Duncan's Oliver Twist impersonation) with a tabloid centric attack. Giving the newspapers an easy headline and easier target is nothing new for any politician, but the time and the style of the new attack is significant.

It signals David Cameron's attempt to court the tabloid audience in the election year with a performance that would not have been out of place at last month's Edinburgh's Fringe Festival. It is also significant that Mr Cameron has chosen a policy area that is the responsibility of the House of Commons instead of a government policy, in this respect David Cameron should share in some of the criticism that he has apportion.

The tabloid audience is not the usual target of the Conservative Party, most Tories would rather keep them at arms length, but political will is determined by political necessity and in election year every voter counts. It will be interesting to see if David Cameron pursues the tabloids with as much vigour as Tony Blair did.

On the positive side, the newly announced Conservative plan would shave a massive 0.002% off the national debt.

Review of Summer 2009

2009-09-08T13:32:00.000+01:00

As the party political conference seasons creaks into life and party faithful get one last jolly before winter, it is important to review the summer and the issues that will no doubt dominate the news agenda until the end of September.

Labour – The Labour Party, and more specifically Gordon Brown, could not wait for the Parliamentary recess at the beginning of July. At the end of the last parliamentary session the Prime Minister and the whole of the Labour Party were close to cracking; Mr Brown must have been hoping that the magical powers of the summer time would heal some very deep and self inflicted wounds.

Instead the recess has reinforced the popular perception of the stricken Prime Minister, that of a weak leader that reacts only when constantly pursued and too often is seen to be behind the events instead of ahead of them. The failure of Mr Brown to envisage the public furore concern the release of Abdulbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, is more the rule than the exception. Heavy is the head that wears the crown.

The only event which may have given the Prime Minister a wry smile was seeing Hazel Blears’ car vandalised. It might only be a small victory, but a victory nevertheless.

Conservative – A summer of missed opportunities has plagued the Conservative Party. Just as the Labour Party were dominating the headlines for all the wrong reasons, the Tories would march straight into the spotlight of public scrutiny with a series of incredibly ill judged gaffes.

David Cameron has worked hard to altered the public image of the Conservative Party; gone is the party divide over Europe, gone is the idea that the NHS is too big and needs to stripped back and gone is the public perception of wealth businessmen out of touch with reality. No, not really, Mr Cameron just hid them all along.

However, David Cameron, unlike the Prime Minister, reacted quickly and affirmatively to reassure the public that these MPs and MEPs are just mavericks and in no way representative of the Conservative Party. It is comforting to know that the party that is likely to be asked to form the next government is a party of mavericks and loose cannons.

Liberal Democrats – If the summer was a series of missed opportunities for the Conservative party, it was a summer of increasing toil for the Lib Dems. As much as Nick Clegg tried, the media coverage was sparse and inconsequential mainly due to the main party’s domination of the airwaves.

If the Lib Dems are to capitalise on the gains made due to the Credit Crunch, Nick Clegg must handover more of the limelight to Vince Cable and attack the apparent weaknesses of any future incarnation of the FSA. With both other main parties lacking the public’s support over economic matters, the Lib Dems could make highly significant inroads.

SNP – Whether through design or default, the SNP have dominated not just the local and national debate, but have demanded a fair portion of international attention over the summer. Regardless of the rights or the wrongs of the compassionate release of Abdulbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the SNP have attempted to assert the concept of an independent Scotland with the claims that Scotland is ready to make the “tough” choices.

It is still unclear whether the decision of Kenny MacAskill was political or independent; what is clear is the success of the SNP to keep the debate concerning Scottish independence firmly in the public gaze.

Man Bites Dog - The Summer of Silliness '09

2009-09-08T13:25:00.005+01:00

Traditionally the summer news correspondents have been typified by the cliché of “silly season”, cyclical news reports to maintain readership have been commonplace for many years. The news daily’s reproducing gossip and rumour as fact has been a staple of media output in the summer months since the mass media was created.

There is no better example than last bastions of truth and exposition the Daily Mail and Daily Express as the purveyors of this silly season. These papers have single-handedly keep the public “informed” about the latest conspiracies concern the death of Lady Diana for nearly twelve years. Using trite stories, with sensational headlines and the overuse of the phrases such as “a source close to…” or “an insider revealed…”, the summer was a time of lazy journalism and even lazier readers.

However, this year has been slightly unusual in many respects; there has been a feast of news issues that have dominated the media over the summer - Afghanistan, Libya, the NHS, MPs living in poverty, the FSA and possibly the end of the recession. The media has avoided the temptation of heavily relying upon emotional stories to sell papers; instead they have preferred to report the news – now that really is a silly season.

The Return of Hogarth's Happy Hour

2009-09-08T13:23:00.002+01:00

Hogarth's Happy Hour has returned after a summer recess...

Quango and Cash

2009-07-07T14:09:00.003+01:00

The quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation (or for simplicity sake the Quango) has again become the political focus of a party in opposition. These organisations have always been an easy target due to their size, power and budgets; according to The Guardian there are 790 Quangos with a combined budget in excess of £34 billion.

Quangos are a simple target for the opposition as proven by Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and now David Cameron. Since the Quango, like the Civil Service, must remain politically impartial it becomes very simply to score political points off these organisations. It is similar to winning a debating competition where one participant has gagged and chained their opponent.

Furthermore, there has been little in the way of inspiration leadership from David Cameron, recently it almost seems that he is playing 'leader-of-the-opposition by numbers';

first attack the Governments public spending plans,
then mention how the opposition will increase efficiency of the public sector therefore saving the tax payer billions,
and finally attack Quangos

But like all leaders of the opposition before him, Mr Cameron has yet to outline what will replace these megaliths. It is very easy for Mr Cameron to comment that he will reduce the number of Quangos, but these institutions were created for a reason and currently do serve a purpose. So any organisation that replaces these Quangos will potentially have similar budgets and be similarly accountable.

Admittedly there needs to be reform of the system of Quangos, in terms of accountability and transparency, but to return them to their original government department would create a similar megalith just under a different guise and in a different place.

The result would be the next leader of the opposition would attack the size of the bureaucracy and government. Now that is a vicious circle...

Wales leading the Way?

2009-07-07T13:12:00.003+01:00

If a week is a long time in politics, then a month must be akin to an epoch. On June 3rd a draft timetable was being constructed by rebel Labour MPs to usurp Gordon Brown from his position as Prime Minister. A combination of dire predictions concerning EU and local elections results, combined with the lack of leadership shown over MPs' expenses, led most political commentators to agreed that Mr Brown had one reshuffle to save his career.

How swiftly the press focus can be distracted by a new speaker and the promise of "serious reform", to the extent that all that remains in the public consciousness is bitter taste and a significant distrust of all politicians.

However, the National Assembly of Wales has quickly learnt the lessons from its Westminster colleague and produced a list of proposals that will potentially negate a similar scandal. These proposals include:

Assembly Members (AM) to rent not buy second homes
Second homes for 25 instead of 51 out of the 60 AMs
Receipt for every claim
£30.65 overnight (food) allowance scrapped
No employment of AMs' family members in future
No more claims for furniture or fittings on second homes
Independent valuation of office rent payments by AMs to political parties
AMs' pay linked to average earnings not MPs' salaries

Whether these proposals have been developed with a spirit of competition between two competing legislatures or whether it is a genuine attempt by the National Assembly to demonstrate that there is 'clear blue water' (to borrow a phrase) between London and Cardiff, does not matter.

What matters is that a new standard in public service can be discovered by Parliament from the regions; and hopefully a new trust can be developed between the public and their elected representatives.

Second, Third, Fourth Job.

2009-06-25T15:40:00.003+01:00

This Westminster saga might feel like the Big Brother series from hell, thankfully without Davina McCall, but the MPs' expenses scandal is still rumbling on. On July 1st 2009, MPs will be forced to reveal all their various other "interests", this means that any MP with a second (and in many cases third and fourth) job must openly publicize their incomes and hours worked away from Parliament.

Apparently this is to create an atmosphere of transparency and openness in Parliament. However the only logical consequence is the exposing of more revelations concerning MPs lack of dedication to their constituency.

For instance, sixteen of the twenty-two frontbench Conservative MPs have second jobs; these range from non executive directorships at big financial institutions, such as Oliver Letwin at NM Rothschild, to writing newspaper columns like William Hague. In total the Shadow Cabinet consists of twenty-six members who currently hold one hundred and fifteen directorships (yes that is right: 115) between them.

Obviously is not just confined to the Tory Frontbench, it is endemic across all parties, but as an example it illustrates the point perfectly.

How can this beneficial to the country and their constituency? As a shadow cabinet their main purpose is to scrutinize the policy and actions of the incumbent government, rather than feathering their own nests. There have been many occasions that the current Tory Frontbench have failed to hold the government to account recently, and it has fallen to the Lib Dems and the press to expose government policy.

This point is illustrated by a previous blog post; The Rise and Fall of the Career Politician.

Christopher Kelly is currently investigating all aspects of MPs' expenses and outside interests, as part of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Hopefully, this will draw the only logical conclusion possible; that it is a conflict of interests for a current Member of Parliament to hold any permanent position outside Westminster. Furthermore, if any MPs wish to continue working in the private sector, then they would be forced to step down as an MP.

There are some obvious comparisons between the House of Commons and Big Brother, but at least in Big Brother it is possible to vote out certain housemates. However, it is doubtful that many MPs would be shown their "best bits"...

PMQs and all that...

2009-06-24T15:14:00.002+01:00

John Bercow, the new Speaker in the House of Commons, chaired his first Prime Minister's Questions earlier today with a quiet assertiveness that was almost refreshing to witness. With a mixture of casual authority and stern consistency, Mr Bercow seemed to resemble the new Headteacher of Grange Hill, rather than a traditional Speaker of the House of Commons.

As refreshing as Mr Bercow's performance was, the election of a new Speaker will only paper over the cracks in the Parliamentary system, as opposed to the reform of political structures needed. MPs now believe themselves to be secure in their position now that they have replaced the sacrificial lamb of Michael Martin, and lost some of the dead weight MPs, through the expenses scandal.

It is obvious that Parliament flinches at the mention of reform, therefore this window dressing allows MPs to carry on their normal routines almost unhindered. But this culture of the Westminster Village, which has developed from 1688, is irrelevant in the modern context of society. Outdated and outmoded, Parliament seems almost oblivious to lack of relevance to the electorate.

The traditions which MPs cling to, such as dragging the Speaker to his position, clearly alienate the majority of the population who do not understand the significance of these little "in jokes".

The new Speaker has promised a lot of minor reforms, tinkering around the edges if you will, but will all these minor changes result in any significant difference? It is doubtful.

Order, Order!

2009-06-22T15:52:00.004+01:00

Today, the House of Commons elects its new Speaker. With a short list of ten candidates Parliament hopes that a new Speaker and a summer recess will placate the public's demand for true reform; or better still most people forget the expenses debacle.

Rather than this being an auspicious event, ushering in a new order and a new style of politics, this election signifies a victory for the status quo. The list of candidates offer little in the way of reformers and will be decided by party feuds or allegiances, an old style of politics that has cursed Westminster for a considerable time.

In the opening rounds the Conservative Party will vote to stop John Bercow assuming the role, probably by voting for the ex-Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett. Conversely, the Labour Party will vote for John Bercow to stop Margaret Beckett winning. The person most likely to benefit from this playgroundesque voting will be Sir George Young.

In a time when Parliament is deemed to be out of touch with the disenfranchised electorate, a straight forward debate and election should be held; this needs to be transparent and above party bickering.

For the public to reconnect to Parliament and in particular the politicians that reside within
there must be an honest review of reforms required. Not a sham of a Speaker's election in which the new Speaker will be chosen through party loyalty and personality, rather than commitment to reform and real change.

It is disappointing that Parliament is wasting chance after chance to prove it can understand what the public is demanding.

A Tale of Two Inquests.

2009-06-19T16:19:00.004+01:00

Last week Gordon Brown promised the Labour Party and the country a new candour in British governance, with the promises of openness and transparency, Mr Brown offered the keys of Parliament back to the electorate.

However, a week is apparently a long time in politics; with the lessons of last week having been quickly forgotten or ignored. Little more than ten days ago Gordon Brown promised the PLP a new start, in which he would consult, learn and listen with the Labour Party. Gone are the days, the PLP was told, of power politics, bullying and riding roughshod of MPs' concerns; this was a brave new world.

Instead, with the announcement of a private inquest into the war in Iraq and the two rail tragedies, the lessons seem little more than mythology. With Gordon Brown more secure in his position as Prime Minister, the veil of secrecy has been re-established and normal service has been resumed.

There is no requirement to have any of these inquests in private, in fact there is a requirement, no a necessity, that these are firmly under public scrutiny. All the private status allows is that the government can control the release of information and therefore control the news agenda to best suit there advantage. Without the luxury of owning or controlling the press, a private inquest is the next best thing; releasing or leaking information controls the news agenda.

It is almost as if Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell are in control of the Prime Minister's Press Office again...

The Daily Telegraph's Top Ten...

2009-06-19T13:51:00.004+01:00

Now that the expenses scandal is drawing to a close, much to Parliament's relief, there has been an air of nostalgic reflection amongst some sections in the media. The Daily Telegraph, for instance, has drawn up a "Top Ten" list of MPs' excuses and reaction to the scandal:

1. "Do you know what it's about? Jealousy". No, Sir Anthony Steen, we're afraid, it isn't.

2. Maybe a decent moat to keep commoners out didn't seem such a bad idea to Douglas Hogg after he was chased down the street by a mob of reporters.

3. Sir John Butterfill simply didn't have time to dig out the figures on how much his servants' quarters cost the taxpayer before his big Newsnight interview.

4. Speaker Michael Martin berates the hapless Kate Hoey in front of the entire Commons, and of course, the nation...

5. ... which turned out to be less than wise when Mr Martin was forced to resign a few days later.

6. Salford's pocket rocket Hazel Blears brandishes THAT cheque in a desperate bid for survival.

7. In one of the expenses saga's most excruciating moments Andrew MacKay and one of his constituents have a difference of opinion in front of the cameras.

8. Justice minister Shahid Malik makes a strident defence of his claims for a home entertainment system just hours before announcing his resignation.

9. David Cameron names and shames the Tories who will be paying a visit to the fees office to hand back the thousands they claimed .

10. Presenters of Radio 4's Today Programme are expected to keep a straight face even in the face of the most ridiculous duck-related stories. Pity nobody told Evan Davis.

The Telegraph missed Kitty Ussher's misjudged resignation in the belief that the expenses released yesterday would reveal her "flipping" first homes to avoid Capital Gains Tax. Sadly, the "redacted" expenses claims showed no incriminating information.

Is it Tetris? No, it is an MP's Expense Form.

2009-06-18T16:12:00.005+01:00

The MPs' expenses debate still rumbles on. Today the Parliament published the "full" list of expenses of all MPs in Parliament.

Notable by the vast swathes of blacked out information on the expenses claim form, the list reveals nothing that the public did not expect. Even the CIA would be embarrassed by the amount of content obscured from the public gaze.

This tactless editing will only infuriate the general public more, since all party leaders promised a more open and transparent system. The result is a perception that the MPs are still obscuring and blurring the lines of accountability for their own expenses. The declaration at the end of each of these expenses has now become obsolete:

"I confirm that the payments requested are in respect of costs incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of my parliamentary duties."

It is a shame that, at their lowest ebb, Parliament still attempts to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public and the media; instead it hides behind black squares and rectangles in the vain hope that it can collectively salvage some dignity.

This was the perfect opportunity for MPs to show that they had learnt the lessons of the past few months, but the public perception of ivory towers and gentleman's clubs still remains.

It is now obvious why Parliament wished for this list to be published in its entirety in July 2009. With Parliament in recess and most of the top political journalists on holiday, July would have provided a perfect opportunity to brush the scandal firmly under the carpet.

They would have got away with it, if it had not been for those pesky kids at the Telegraph...

Why is Iran Important?

2009-06-17T15:35:00.003+01:00

There has been much discussion in the British media since Thursday concerning the Presidential elections in Iran between Mir Hossein Mousavi and the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. With the increase in media coverage, there has also been an increase in the credence of the concept of a "Green Revolution", similar scope to the "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia.

It is too easy to let imaginations run wild at times of civil unrest; with the most pleasing or extreme results being offered up as almost certain outcomes. However, in Iran there is a chance for significant change, not the change George W. Bush would want; a pro-western government that is willing to sell the world its cheap oil. But change that the Iranian people would want; more civil liberties, more freedoms and most importantly, economic development.

These changes could potential occur in one of the most pivotal countries in the world.

Therefore it is curious that there have been calls from certain sections of the British media that there has been too much coverage of a foreign election. This reaction is surprising considering the significance of Iran on a regional and global scale. There are many reasons why a change in the style of government, by Iranian people, is significant to everyone in the world and not just on a local humanitarian level. Here are just a few:

Iran borders Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey. Any civil unrest that threatens the delicate balance in Iran could force a mass wave of refugees across any one of these borders which in turn could destabilise the whole region.
Iran is the second largest oil producer in OPEC and has significant reserves of natural gas. Any 'shock' to global oil supply can have significant impact upon a very fragile world economy.
The current Iranian regime has significant associations with a large variety of terrorist organizations across the Middle East region.
Iran in the near future will have an online nuclear facility. Even though this would no produce weapons grade nuclear material, it is a significant step in a dangerous direction.

There are a plethora of reasons why Iranian stability is vital to Britain, but to ignore it shows an alarming level of insularity. Whether some sections of the British media agree with it or not, every country's future is deeply intertwined with global stability and peace.

Sorry seems to be the easiest word...

2009-06-12T13:33:00.002+01:00

If only Hazel Blears was a little taller, she could have stab Gordon Brown properly in the back, rather than the backside.

Michael Portillo on 'This Week'

2009-06-12T12:32:00.004+01:00

Michael Portillo appeared on the BBC programme 'This Week' last night and blamed the "daft electoral system" for the BNP gaining two seats at the EU Parliament; he then stated that this situation would never occur with the more sensible "first-past-the-post" system.

This is true, the BNP would never have won any seats in an election with the current Westminster system, but what he fails to understand is that it is this very same dismissive attitude concerning people's voting preferences that caused the situation in the first place. It seems that Mr Portillo does not wish to have a truly representative Parliament, rather a Parliament in which the working class concerns are ignored and marginalised.

The BNP should be revealed for what they really are, not a democratically elected party, but a fascist and racist grouping that only wish to return Britain to the dark ages in the name of ethnic purity. People like Mr Portillo, a politician of many years, should want to understand why nearly a million people voted for the BNP.

Maybe it is because these working class voters were never his core electorate, or it is easier to ignore them, but Mr Portillo is walking a fine line by ignoring the issues that surround this unprecedented event. Or maybe Mr Portillo would prefer a oligarchy, in which the power resides with the elite and the working classes do not have the vote, since he dislikes any form of representative Parliament.

Education and enfranchisement of these voters is needed, rather than the arrogance to ignore them.

True Reform

2009-06-11T14:58:00.005+01:00

There has been much discussion concerning what reforms of Parliament and expenses will be introduced, if any at all. Here are a few ideas that could potentially spark a debate:-

Expenses

There is consensus that MPs must be adequately remunerated for the level of responsibility that is assumed. Here are a few thoughts on expenses reform:

Every MP has a "grace and favour" 2 bedroom residence that is centrally located within easy distance of Westminster. This will be minimally furnished - no moats, no duck ponds and no mock Tudor beams. There will be no rent, but no expenses can be charged for accommodation. This would have the advantages that if maintenance needs to be carried out it can be done via a central contract and therefore, cheaper.
The only expense that would be acceptable is travel to and from the constituency. The cost of this is paid at a standard class train or plane fare, if they wish to upgrade, then it is at their own expense.
The MPs wage will increase to £75,000. Any future cost of living increase will be decided upon by an independent panel which will not be responsible to Parliament.
No MP, whilst in office, can have any other form of employment that might compromise their role as a MP. Such examples can be found here. MPs are in Parliament to represent their constituents, not their interests.
Staff (Parliamentary and constituency based) to be paid centrally.
Tax-payers contributions to MPs' pension funds to be significantly reduced.

Parliamentary Reforms

Britain has probably the most archaic Parliamentary system in the western world, built on convention and precedence. Affectionately known as a elected dictatorship, the winning party in a general election commands the executive and the legislature, George W. Bush would have started Armageddon with this power. The second House is weak and ineffectual, filled with representatives of the current government. The situation demands reform:

Reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons, and have them elected via a form of proportional representation.
Make the House of Lords wholly elected. This could be done via a number of different routes, maybe a more representative federal system. Furthermore, rebuke the Parliament Act which allows the House of Commons to completely overrule the Lords, if it does not endorse a Bill.
MPs must have substantial links to the constituency that they represent. This will reduce the MP becoming the spokesman for the party in the constituency, rather than representing the constituency at a national level.
Devolve power away from Westminster to a local level within certain parameters.
Reduce the power of the party whip. This is probably wishful of all the points.

By instigating these reforms, Britain would become a more democratic country, with more people enfranchised. This is a true bicameral system that would build solutions on consensus and avoid landslides that allowed Britain to slip into war with Iraq.

Conservatives Announce Policies...

2009-06-10T16:55:00.005+01:00

There was a shocking revelation announced by the Conservative Health Spokesman Andrew Lansley on the Today programme, earlier today. Not that the Tories would plan to cut funding to "vital" areas in the NHS by 10%, even though this is quite shocking, but the revelation was that the Tories actually announced a concrete policy.

Sadly not, backtracking faster than Usain Bolt in a 100m sprint, the Conservatives said this was not a policy announcement, but a statement of Labour Party policy past 2011. It is approaching summer and the opening of the silly season, but this has to be one of the strangest exchanges of any Parliament.

First Andrew Lansley claims it was Tory Party policy
Then Gordon Brown attacks the Tories for destroying the NHS
David Cameron retorts by claiming it is actually Labour Party policy
Everyone starts pointing fingers claiming it is each others policy
And Nick Clegg changes the subject completely

That is democracy in action...

However, it is easy for the public to believe that it could be both a Labour policy and a Tory policy; since neither party has clearly stated any official economic policies or public spending projections for the next five years. This policy could well be the policy of both parties, but with the public still reeling from the MPs' expenses scandal neither Gordon Brown nor David Cameron wish to tell the public how bad things are going to be.

It is going to be a fun summer; playing policy hot potato...

Even Birds do not like Bankers.

2009-06-10T15:15:00.001+01:00

In San Francisco a black bird has been "terrorizing" people in the Financial Distict, what can you say, the bird has got principles:

Carpe Diem, Mr Brown.

2009-06-10T14:04:00.003+01:00

Today witnessed a wholly predictable speech by Gordon Brown on political reform, in which he stated:

"In the midst of all the rancour and recrimination, let us seize the moment to lift our politics to a higher standard."

This speech had more in common with Dead Poets Society than a serious attempt reform the electoral system in Britain. Although it will be a long time before his fellow Labour MPs will stand up in support of their "Captain! My Captain!"

Excuse the cynicism, but this has all been said before. It is a pantomime performance that every time a government is in danger of losing a forthcoming election, it changes its rhetoric to a populist tagline. How many times in the past eighteen years has a Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition promised to "clean up" British politics. If they were true to their word perhaps now there would be a workable system in place.

However, amongst the predictable rhetoric from both sides of the House, there is potential for significant and actual change in the British political culture, which could usher in a new dawn of transparency and accountability. There also needs to an important discussion concerning the disenfranchisement of great swathes of the electorate.

Soon it will be time to judge Gordon Brown on his actions, not just his words... Carpe Diem, indeed.

The Most Surprising Result.

2009-06-09T12:18:00.004+01:00

David Cameron appeared in the Welsh National Assembly yesterday, with all the pomp and circumstance of Rocky Balboa standing aloft the steps of Philadelphia City Hall. Whether it was the Labour vote staying home or the electorate genuinely voting Conservative, the shock waves of this result will resonate for sometime.

This, more than the BNP winning two MEP seats in the North of England, was the most surprising result of Sunday's EU election. Wales has been a stronghold for the Labour Party for nearly a hundred years, even during the dark days of 1979 and 1983, there was always a light on in Wales for the Labour Party. If Gordon Brown and the Labour Party can lose to the Conservatives in Wales then no constituency and MP is safe.

According to Dante there are seven deadly sins; Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Envy, Pride, Lust and Labour losing Wales to the Conservative Party. It is probably a natural progression, the Labour Party had committed the six other deadly sins during the MPs' expenses scandal, so losing Wales was the complete set.