Coalition Programme For Government

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...

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...

"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)

What Price Power?

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...

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

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

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...

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.

The Power of the Communications Director

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.

The Not So Gravy Train

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.

Cameron has gone a Courtin'

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.

Quango and Cash

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';

1. first attack the Governments public spending plans,
   
2. then mention how the opposition will increase efficiency of the public sector therefore saving the tax payer billions,
   
3. 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...

Conservatives Announce Policies...

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...

The Most Surprising Result.

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.

Revolutionary Leader

David Cameron has recently been championing himself as the revolutionary leader that will have the will and stomach to undertake the radical reforms that the public are demanding for at Westminster. There are two observations that can be made from this claim:

• Never trust a leader who wants power, but then is willing to relinquish it almost immediately. Tony Blair made similar fanciful claims when he was Opposition Leader.
  
• The tactic being employed by the Conservatives is a simple one, 'what ever the public wants'. This is a very dangerous strategy, without any defining ideology to guide their hand the Conservatives will potentially get backed into a corner of conflicting public opinion. Just do not mention the EU.

Hannah Arendt was correct when noting “The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.” We will see after the General Election.

Cameron salutes 'Girl Power'

It seems that David Cameron is really taking to heart the serious lessons of 1997; first it was the borrowing of the New Labour manifesto, now it is the teachings of the sage-like Spice Girls and ‘girl power’.

Even though Mr Cameron has introduced the media friendly, yet wholly vacuous policy of ‘people power’, he has still shied away from true reform of the political system – the House of Lords. Many political commentators have recently called for many reforms of the Westminster power structures; greater transparency, greater scrutiny, greater accessibility and the cessation of MPs expenses, but none have broached the subject of the Upper House.

Has the public missed something, has Parliament secretly passed a law that made the House of Lords the sacred cow of British politics, that no one is allowed to mention? Or is it a mad old uncle that everyone knows exists, but is too embarrassed to talk to them, just in case they say something controversial and there is a faint scent of wee?

Reform of the Upper House is the perfect opportunity to increase scrutiny and transparency, whilst at the same time affording Parliament greater credibility as the home of a true democracy. Reforms such as electing its members (this can not be that hard most other countries are doing it and they seem to be coping with the stress), and revoking the Parliament Act, which allows the government to bully bills through into law without consent of the Upper House.

Master and Apprentice

Today David Cameron showed all the cunning and opportunism that would have made his political mentor/nemesis proud. Writing in the Guardian, not his usual audience, Mr Cameron jumped on to the easiest of political bandwagons - reform of the political system.

In an article that conjures up vivid images of 1997, Mr Cameron calls for a radical transformation of Parliament, local government and the EU. And how is this to be done? By increasing transparency, using more referenda and empowering the electorate through redistribution of power to neighbourhoods and local government. Impressive rhetoric, especially for a Conservative leader, who until recently would have been committing political suicide even to mention the words "radical" and "reform" in the same sentence. But it has all been done before.

The Third Way and Tony Blair anyone?

Anthony Giddens, the foremost architect of New Labour's Third Way dream, outlines the six tenets of the Third Way:

• Reconstruction of Government (check)
  
• The cultivating of civil society (check)
  
• Reconstruction of the economy (check)
  
• Reform of the welfare state (check)
  
• Ecological modernization (check)
  
• Reform of the global system (check)
  

Amazing, it bears more than a passing similarity to a potential Conservative manifesto. No wonder many of the manufactures of the Third Way concept, such as Jack Straw, are falling over themselves to support David Cameron.

This sadly proves only one point; that the opposition before any election will provide the public with the aspirational dreams of a potential utopia, whilst the government must attempt to justify the current dystopia.