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.

Michael Foot 1913 - 2010

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

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

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

The New Issue of The Raconteur is Out

The latest edition of the The Raconteur is released.

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.

Charlie Brooker's Take on Formulaic News Reporting

How Long Is A Piece Of String In Afghanistan?

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

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

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?

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:

1. Alan Johnson believes that Prof David Nutt's claim concerning cannabis, ecstasy and LSD is contradicting Government advice, and therefore his position became untenable.
   
2. 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.
3. 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

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.