The PM Disappears After Afghan Criticism - Again

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...

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'

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

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

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

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

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...

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.

Second, Third, Fourth Job.

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...

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!

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.