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.

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.

Wales leading the Way?

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.

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.

You turn if you want to, the Gurkha's not for turning!

Another day, another Telegraph exclusive. Parliament is wading through another scandal, with more frivolous claims on a MP's expenses account being revealed (to be fair I did not know that duck houses even existed before today), but the Government and opposition claimed a very public victory for the status quo of the current system.

The Gurkha's rightful victory today, against a post colonial relic of a law, has been championed by most as a perfect example of how the Westminster system can quickly react to public demand and opinion. Even quicker if you have a celebrity and national treasure campaigning in your corner.

The Gurkhas have fought many opponents in their illustrious history, many more vicious and many more tactically astute, but none more stubborn than the British Government.

Unexpectedly the opposition, rather than viscerally claiming a U-turn or another stolen policy, decided to support the Government's decision, claiming 'it was not a day for political point score'. Surprising since a few weeks ago the Conservatives would have been in hysterics if Gordon Brown had changed his mind about how many sugars he takes in his tea.

There appears to be a Blitz mentality surrounding Westminster recently, unholy alliances being formed in the most British of ways, as the Government churn out policy initiatives one after the other in a naive attempt to control the headlines.

So while the expenses bombs keep dropping all MPs will cower in their Anderson shelters, hugging each other close until normal service is resumed.