Left Out Liberal

The End

2005-05-27T09:31:00.000+01:00

And so I finally make the decision to cease posting to this place. I said I was going to a few posts ago, but now I feel it is now time to bite the bullet and do it. But I won't do it without a final swipe.

British politics is a mess. The whole business of ID cards over the past few days is seriously depressing. We're sleepwalking into the database state, where everyone is viewed by a seriously bloated Executive - who technically no one elected to that role; we elected the legislature, which simply becomes the pawn of the executive - as a criminal waiting to happen and so must be monitored at all costs. It scares me that it is a Labour government that is doing this. I do not care about the "New" prefix Tony likes to use. He has destroyed my party. He has destroyed our party. It will never be the same.

I'm the first to admit that Labour needed to modernise. But to modernise, it didn't have to sell its soul. New Labour has driven British politics into a ditch and is determined to bring everyone else down with it. I refuse to be held to ransom any more with "but what about the minimum wage?" or "what about tax credits?" by devoted Labour supporters who refuse to see what is actually going on in their party, refuse to witness just what the New Labour project is doing to Britain. Every government does something good, no matter what colour it is. John Major's work on resolving the problems of Northern Ireland should be something appreciated by all people. Heck, even his law to allow workers to refuse work on Sunday can be pretty handy at times. But that didn't make me want to vote for him. I can apply this logic to almost any Prime Minister post-war.

I shudder to think what more draconian measures are going to emanate from Labour this term. The Queen's Speech was full of seriously bad bills, but there'll be plenty more beyond those that appear in coming years. I pray, for the sanity of this nation, that enough Labour backbenchers can come to their senses and realise just what is going on. I don't even care about Gordon Brown becoming leader any more. I don't seriously think he'll make any difference. All I want is to see this appalling government, filled with stooges and yes-men so much that you can just picture Cabinet discussions to be a procession of nodding donkeys (John Reid, Tessa Jowell, Patricia Hewitt, Geoff Hoon, Alastair Darling, John Prescott, Charles Clarke, David Blunkett, Charles Falconer, Margaret Beckett, Jack Straw, Peter Hain... the list makes me sick. They've never had an independent good idea in their lives) all lining up to support the latest back-of-a-fag-packet idea, successfully checked: suppressed in the defence of our liberal democracy.

British democracy is in crisis. When I reflect now, I believe it only could have been solved if the result of the election was a hung Parliament. It is very difficult to aim for such a result without the fear of missing it by just enough to cause a really bad result, so it's understandable that it wasn't forefront in many people's minds. What we got was not bad, but I believe it needed to be under 50 for New Labour to be forced to really listen. New Labour wouldn't know consensus government if it came up and gave it a good happy slapping. No. They only understand one thing - how to jump off a cliff and scream for its MPs to save it. Every vote is a vote of confidence in Tony Blair. Daring to think that there just might be life beyond Blair, or even New Labour, is enough to cast you into the eternal darkness of the backbenches forever.

And this is why I must stop. I know that if I continue I will only comment in exactly the same way on everything that happens. I don't want to sound like a broken record. I want to contribute something new, and I feel I have now done all I can. I'm hoping for a miracle to happen, but when I see the Tory Party also hoping for that same miracle, I can only grimace with dread. There really is nowhere left to go.

There is an outside chance I will post more to The Sharpener, which is shaping up to be a very useful and interesting blog. But not even my last post which obtained an impressive 27 responses is enough to encourage me that I have more to say and that people may be interested in it. It is satisfying that at least I have an outlet through which more people will read my writings, and I am grateful to The Sharpener for supplying me with that. That has perhaps been the greatest disappointment of blogging here... the lack of responses.

It just remains for me to say thank you to everyone who has read this blog, thank you to everyone who saw fit to comment on my posts, and I am honoured by the fact that many other bloggers chose to link to my site. Without their help I would never have even reached the levels of traffic. I appreciate that a lot.

This site will remain in place should I suddenly have a change of heart. But I would like it to stay simply as an archive of my writings. There are now a number of people who arrive here via search engines, and I wouldn't want to stop them reading. There are also more considerable pieces by me (such as the election analysis and my thoughts on the youth and student vote) that I would like to keep published.

Best wishes to all. Here's to 2009/2010!

Eddie

This Misguided Nation

2005-05-23T08:58:00.000+01:00

As a nation, the past few years we Brits have become pretty adept at getting wound up by things that, in the grand scheme of things, are not really that important. The march against the Iraq War was one of the few instances in which the British people did get something right. But since then, we've hardly done anything, and a lot of people have been naive enough to believe Tony Blair that Iraq really is better now. Such people need to consult Today In Iraq.

But this post isn't about Iraq. Iraq is the only exception to the thesis I am about to launch into. I believe that Britain has a problem. It's not one that people will be prepared to admit to, and it appears to be something buried deep within the psyche of the nation. The symptom of this problem is responsible for some of the problems we see in society in terms of a small minority of people (not just children) who have no respect for the law. On top of that, we have people who like the law only when it is on their side. But underneath all this is one of the problems: Britain's obsession with abuse; that violence solves all, and feeding a general culture of misguidance.

Let us begin with speed cameras. Adults crave for respect to the law. Yet, see a speed camera - or better yet a speeding fine - and most adults blood will boil. "It's just another government stealth tax!" they yell as they slip a cheque for £50 in an envelope to pay the fine. Once caught, most adults don't reform. Fines are a blunt instrument. We just resolve never to get caught again. Who hasn't driven through speed camera zones to see a remarkable reduction in speed just for a short while only for the engine to start revving again once you're out of danger?

So immediately, most adults have no right to preach observance to the rule of law while being hypocrites in their spare time. Law is not selective. It is, once passed, an objective standard or criteria by which officers of the law and the judiciary cast judgement. Speeding is breaking the law. Not wearing a seatbelt is breaking the law. Using a mobile phone while driving is breaking the law. You have no excuse if you are caught. You are a criminal.

It's those last four words that rile people. "I am not a criminal!" they shout. The aggression builds. How could you possibly be a criminal? You pay your taxes. You keep your garden tidy. You don't attack people in the street. You're the model citizen!

You aren't. Much as it pains me to say it given the experience of the poll tax, if you want people to respect the law, you'd better take a look at yourself first. If we accept that our government is legitimate, and it has the authority to act on our behalf - and we do - then we should not be surprised if we choose to take on that authority and lose. Building "respect" in society as part of the processes of socialisation start at home. There are far too many parents these days, and we're not just talking about inner-city parents here, who wash their hands of their children. The schools are there to do the educating! I have work to do feeding and clothing my child with the best hoodies. I'll let them work out what's what.

You're wrong. And that's the first step. Neglect. Neglect is abuse. In my last post I complained about the fact that we seem unable to engage lower generations in any kind of conversation. This problem starts at home. The rise of the two-income household is not inherently a bad thing. I have no problem with two parents in a household working hard and earning a living. The only problem is what follows on from that. Children within such families have a habit of disconnecting from their authority figures. The parents are too tired to deal with problems. That "problem" might even be just helping with homework. The stress levels in work are too high... you don't want to go home to have to engage with your adolescent (and now increasingly pre-adolescent) and demanding offspring.

Our problem is that we are forgetting what it was like to be young. From the ages of 10 onwards, children begin to realise that there is life beyond the home. Things start to get a bit complicated. A lot of wires in the brains are not fused yet to deal with adulthood, yet adulthood and its values are foisted and expected from such individuals from this increasingly early age. To guide you through this process of mental maturation - something far more important than physical maturity - we need support. We need our parent(s) to be there for us. Someone who can share their experience, give friendly advice, set clear boundaries, show what is expected of you, being flexible to situations and allowing more as the years go by. In other words, children need mentors and role-models.

Do you think the stressed out, exhausted workaholics in this nation can adequately supply that? Children and young adults naturally will get into trouble. There will always be some problem. And when that challenge arises, the adult's response to it will have a long lasting impact. Wave your hand and say, "I'm watching EastEnders!" and suddenly the child has been rejected. A rejection is a permanent black mark. Children will always bring problems, and more than likely at the most inconvenient time. If you can't be interested in your protégé's problems, and aren't prepared to drop everything at a moment's notice - thus setting an example of how we should interact with each other - then why should they give a damn for your authority? The seeds are sown.

In the meantime, the adults watch the news. They see a story about a police officer driving 159mph who gets away with it. Hoho! How bad is that? They shout abuse at the TV screen - "it's one rule for us and one rule for them!" they roar, conveniently forgetting their own selective interpretation of the law on speed. Children witness it... more disrespect is cultivated. It now looks like it's OK to oppose authority? If my parent(s) are doing it, then why should I? After all, these are the people who I look up to the most. I get it now.

Meanwhile, we miss the story demonstrating for all to see just how the police like to fit people up. But that doesn't matter. The kid probably deserved it. The police are normally right.

Bzzt. Error in logic. On the one hand we don't really care about police brutality. Some of us secretly crave that the police come decked out with AK47 assault rifles. We want the police to have the authority to implement their own version of justice out on the streets with their batons and stun guns. Some of us even want the army to do the police's job. By cracking that baton, some skulls, and maybe bringing back the birch, the cane and some capital punishment to go with it, all the problems would be solved.

But wait a minute? What about the copper at 159mph? What about the copper telling the kid how he'd "write it up properly"? If police officers don't even respect the law, why would you trust one implicitly to hold an assault rifle and accurately dole out justice 100% of the time?

The fact is the police are as corrupt as the rest of us. A lot of us have no respect for the police - I include myself here - for reasons that we find difficult to back up. Police corruption is normally kept hush-hush. Allegations of this kind of behaviour are normally investigated by fellow police forces. Coppers don't do another copper over. So if you accuse the police of being bent, you're only going to look like a criminal yourself. The classic, "The innocent ones have nothing to fear!" gets wheeled out. Would you like cameras throughout your house to make sure you don't beat your wife, or take drugs in your own home? Why not? I thought you were an innocent one?

This is the fundamental flaw in the British people. We encounter a problem and our first instinct is to lash out at it. We like to use our fists. We are a notoriously aggressive nation. We measure our worth in the amount of pints we can drink before we hit the floor, and then on how much we value brawn over brains. If people don't like who we are, then fuck them. We have bigger muscles than them. If our kids step out of line, then whack! - take that you little bastard. The headmaster isn't getting respect from the kids? Then why not give him back the cane, and belt the little shits back into line. That oughta teach 'em.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a fear culture. We have the government leading from the front in scaring is into isolation. We have a complicit media who like to do the same and then magnify the problem many times by clamouring for dictatorial measures to solve the problem.

There is a reason why we live in a liberal democracy. The principal tenets of the Liberal Revolutions of the 17-18th centuries were that we were fed up with autocratic leaders, making up the law as they go along, showing no respect for fellow members of society and putting themselves up on a plinth as somehow being morally superior by nature of their position. The rule of law was devised so that everyone had the same objective code to work from. We rejected dictators, because they had a habit of interfering here, there and everywhere for their own ends, and to be frank, a lot of them were psychotically deranged, taking pleasure in the beheading and torture of dissidents.

We decided we didn't want that. We created systems of government that kept them out of our lives as much as possible. That is why it is called liberal democracy. We believe that individuals, families and to some extent society should be empowered to solve its own problems. Governments only tend to mess things up.

Now we've encountered another problem. This seems to be reversing. Bring back national service. Ban hoodies. Ban children from congregating in groups more than two. Bring back the birch. Bring back the rope.

Authoritarian measures. Authoritarian measures to solve a general decline in respect.

Where I come from, respect is earned. Whoever heard of respecting the puny headmaster who gets his jollies out of thrashing the living daylights out of kids? Why was it that it was always the same people who ended up in front of the headmaster, week after week? Why we do we really think that abusing and assaulting children will restore respect to society?

Perhaps there is an ulterior motive. For respect, do we need to read fear? Do we want to get to a situation where the nation is constantly on edge for the police officer with an itchy trigger finger? Where adults have the right to violently assault their children, without understanding that the age-old maxim of "violence breeds violence" is true? Where adults violently assault each other to solve their problems?

I don't want that. I want us to be in a situation where people respect and tolerate the law not because of fear of being caught, whipped, brutalised or even summarily executed by police officers, but because they believe the law is right and in the best interests of society.

And the only way we can get to this position? Like I said, it all starts at home. Start with your own respect for the law. Then try to engage with other people from other generations. Your own kids would be a start. They need you in their corner: they don't want to be ignored, and they can't be told that everything they do is right either. You need to draw credible lines and boundaries. You need to offer support, attention, reassurance and an open door. Many children don't even bring problems to their parent(s) because they don't feel they'll get a fair hearing. Listen out for cries of help. Encourage those who don't want to ask to feel there is no shame in talking out problems. Communication is the best resolution. Parent(s) can't expect schools to teach this kind of thing. Our teachers are supposed to give children knowledge and information about the world. But only parent(s) can really impart wisdom.

Once we start to foster back the values of talking, debating, exchanging opinions and preparing solutions acceptable to all, then we also demonstrate the reason why we have politics, not just at a national level, but everywhere. The art of politics is all around.

It is the first solution from which all other solutions are derived.

It is the only solution.

New Labour, New Bullshit

2005-05-18T12:37:00.000+01:00

As we all know, we've heard a lot of nonsense talked about the issue of "respect" in society the past few days. Sure enough, it is a concern for many people, and I acknowledge that. But the "solutions" we've heard the past few days have been half-baked and mostly not worthy of any attention. The uniform for people on community service was the pinnacle of all these for so many reasons that it is more worthy analysing how a moron like Hazel Blears is in government, rather than consider how useful her "solution" might be.

But what is remarkable is that the media has let New Labour and Blair adjust recent history. The day Blair was elected for the third time was quite possibly the very first instance in which he mentioned the problem of "respect" in society. Since then he has talked about it endlessly, even getting the Queen to join in yesterday, complaining that she just wasn't getting her "props" any more, and the feral (suddenly the media's favourite word) youth just can't help but diss her.

Pardon me while I chuckle uneasily at the irony of an unelected symbol of all that is wrong with Britain's class culture is given words by the government to expound on the lack of respect in society. Fuck your deference and the horse and carriage she rode into Parliament on.

Blair's blather has now reached mountainous proportions. There's not a day that goes by where he tells everyone he is going to work hard to restore respect. Indeed, the more he says it, the more I think this is becoming outrageously shameless. New Labour are now claiming that they have a mandate to bring in everything in the Queen's Speech announced yesterday, and so it would be wrong for the Lords or anyone else, including those naughty rebellious backbenchers, to oppose it. Remarkably, this includes the issue of "respect".

I can count the number of times Blair complained about respect during the election, or indeed in the manfesto, on one hand. The word "respect" appears five times, and in only three of these cases does it actually refer to ensuring respect in the school classroom for example. It certainly does not make a case that there is a breakdown in social order from these so called "feral" youths.

So does New Labour have a mandate for this? After all, if they really had spent many days in the election talking on this issue, I can't help but feel that it would have played right into the Tories' hands, since this was a crucial part of their campaign. New Labour didn't talk about this issue for the simple reason that to do so would completely undermine everything they had done over the last eight years.

Instead, it was shamelessly stolen from the Conservatives. Indeed, so many things in yesterday's Queen's Speech were done so. School discipline. Cleaner hospitals. More police (OK, community service officers). Controlled immigration. Except the lower taxes bit, naturally. We've heard all of those before. They aren't particularly Conservative things, as we all know. But they are centrist, and they populist. So Blair grasps them with his greedy hands. Anything to stay in office.

The media is wrong for letting Blair blind us all that he has always been concerned with this issue. He only became concerned on May 5th, when he realised it's a good excuse for more ridiculous and badly drafted legislation, especially now there're 17 months of a Parliament to fill with the usual top-down, centrally controlled and high spin factor authoritarianism.

Here's to the next 4 (or 5 if we're unlucky) years!

British Mass Hysteria

2005-05-13T10:38:00.000+01:00

On the 1st of March I wrote a post complaining that the nation is slowly whipping itself up into a frenzy about ever smaller and smaller things in terms of national significance.

This hasn't been better summed up than in the nonsense of the past couple of days. I've been finding it hard to believe that people are seriously getting themselves worked up over an item of clothing, but when the Express announced its new "Crusade!" today that hoodies should be banned, I realised that this nation is in the grip of a seizure of stupidity, led by the moronic "free press". We love to hail our free press as the finest in the world, holding the government to account. But they sure are pillocks.

You would think this nation would tire of moral panicking on demand of the Express, the Mail, the Sun and the Mirror, but no... it seems we are just as eager for it as ever. The tiresome weekly demands from these papers never seem to come to anything, but they sure as hell create a fine excuse for a good few days of the worst journalism the country has to offer, where anything and everything can be linked back to the initial item of moral panic. The problem now is that we no longer have a government who can act as the voice of reason, ready to inject a little seriousness into the debate.

Instead, they roll over and prepare another crime and disorder bill for Parliament to digest. Another piece of badly thought out, poorly drafted legislation hurtles towards the statute books. Meanwhile, the real issues remain off the agenda, for they aren't vote winners. Let's face it: you either talk tough (and talk is cheap), gain support, ride to the rescue of the nation and then look like a saviour, or you could look at the real problems in the destruction of society from further isolation, which might cost a lot of money and also might look "weak".

There is no contest.

This government has also gone so far as to realise the power and the opportunity a good old fashioned moral panic creates. It even whips them up by itself now: witness the rubbish talked about the threat of terrorism during the passage of the "Anti-Terror" legislation. It's funny how since that passed, we've had nine or ten control orders placed on people and then absolutely nothing since then. Are we really expected to believe that the threat of terror was so high that nothing less than the suspension of Habeas Corpus was necessary to defeat these 10 individuals? Do we really need so much legislation to tackle every single ill in society? If there really was such a threat from terror, why have no more control orders been issued?

We have a government that is media obsessed. It is so focused on pandering to certain segments of society that it would drop its trousers for them if it was asked. As many people, including myself, warned about New Labour, it is not remotely interested in resolving the real problems of society. It seeks power purely for the sake of it, and when in government it will do as much as it can to hold onto power, even if it means selling itself down the river for the latest craze. The traditional Labour project is dead.

Meanwhile, Britain slides into fever over pieces of cotton. It is not the government's role to tell people what they can and cannot wear. There is no uniform for society. We must stop blaming the youth for everything and anything. There are problems, I admit, but they are vastly overstated. Attempting to demonise people wearing hoodies (criminalisation is not feasible) will only tend to make the problem worse. I have not worn a hoodie in many years, and now I'm getting the urge to go out and buy one just for the sake of rebellion. Now they have been given their official recognition as the Most Evil Item of Clothing, you can be sure that sales are going through the roof in stores nationwide. What better way to express your contempt of adulthood than to wear the Evil Garment and thus prove your rebel credentials?

Groupthink is bad for society. This is the problem. We are increasingly at risk of setting off intergenerational warfare in this country. We have adults - who have the power to stop this nonsense but choose not to - who believe that they are the last bastions of "normal" society. Only they can save us from certain doom. Meanwhile, there are children, ever more emancipated, who feel the oppression of adults on them on a permanent basis means they must be rebelled against at every chance, in order to disrupt the social order that adults want to inflict on them.

Neither position is correct. Neither group has the right to be obeyed. Mistrust breeds further mistrust, and we are already deep within this cycle that it looks increasingly difficult to get out of. There is far too much generalising in society. We've got to get back to realising we are dealing with individual cases here. Each individual case likely has an individual problem. Hoodie wearing may or may not be a symptom of a much wider problem, and it's blindingly obvious to say that the hoodie itself is not causing it. Sure, many individual cases will have similar problems, but the generalisation is unhelpful. Each one needs to be dealt with down at their level, in their language, and dealt with in a way that empowers the individual to choose to better themselves. Forcing the issue often makes the problem worse.

Having said that, there are a lot of adults who have serious problems too. The breakdown of deference in society is a very good thing. Class barriers are deeply wrong. That doesn't mean there should be a certain level of respect for fellow humans, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the people who start these crusades are middle and higher class members of society who are endlessly concerned that their rank on the social ladder is in serious jeopardy. Of course, this is a generalisation - something I have just said is bad. But it is a similarity that will occur time and time again. The individual adult cases will also vary.

But is there something that can be done to make some initial progress? Yes. It's very simple. It's also free.

Reopen lines of communication. Talk. Listen. React. Calmly. Restate. Debate. Resolve. There is a way to work out what the problem is for everyone, but be prepared to accept that you might also be a problem. Change is needed from every direction. Only when each side knows what the other wants, and has been able to cast aside all prejudices, can a genuine solution be worked upon. The solution might take time, effort and yes - even money. By doing this, we instantly work upon solving the first problem at the root of this whole business: the isolation and fragmentation of individuals and subcultures in society.

In this case, the government can set an example... perhaps even lead the way. But it chooses not to.

Another wasted opportunity, lost in a further mire of blustering authoritarianism. Thanks, Tone.

Normality

2005-05-13T10:12:00.000+01:00

Since the end of the election I've been unable to drive myself to post anything new or remotely interesting. I've been following the discussion about PR on certain blogs and injecting a note of caution that PR will not save the day in British politics. It is certainly a step I would like to see taken, but I just cannot decide between the plethora of systems available. All I can say is that I don't want to see a list system, and all those who are advocating STV are deluded. It may be good, but it's never going to be acceptable to politicians in this country. Even the Lib Dems professed support for it is probably not sincere.

The only options are for AV (which is still not proportional), AV+ (slightly more proportional, and probably more likely), or AMS (the most proportional of the three and retains a constituency link too), such as that in Germany, Scotland and Wales. I know I don't want AV, and I fear AV+ will be used to destroy the Tory party and not for genuine reasons. I like AMS, but it may be a sudden shock to the political culture of this country to see permanent coalition governments become the new order of the day. AMS is like a more inclusive version of FPTP... most countries with AMS end up with two blocks, one of the right wing, one on the left wing. Governments can be extracted, but at least now the new government would command more than 50% of support.

But we need more than PR. The politicians themselves could do with a good clearout. Michael Howard's new beauty contest Shadow Cabinet fills me with dread as to who we're going to be seeing a lot of in the next 20 years, and I fear that Blair has left his legacy on the Labour party for decades, or at least, now in his final term he will move to ensure that's the case. As for the Lib Dems, it's very tough to see where they go now. They will need a new leader eventually, and I just can't see who that might be.

In the face of this, AMS won't make much difference. We'll still get the three main parties holding a considerable majority of the seats. We might see a couple of Green MPs, UKIP MPs and very likely BNP MPs given their share of the vote at the last election. Veritas might even be lucky to scrape one. But it's just tinkering at the edges. British politics needs a much more radical reform, only I'm not sure how it can be achieved. A written constitution wouldn't go amiss. Perhaps it's time to bin the whole system and hold some elections to a constituent assembly, charged with redrawing British politics from scratch. That would certainly be more interesting.

Who am I trying to kid?

As for this blog, I am not going to continue it for much longer, I'm afraid. I know my many fans will be disappointed (ha!), but I just don't have the energy to continue ranting about the slow descent of the British into moral panics over the slightest things. Hooded tops, anyone?

More on that very soon...

Analysis: Overall

2005-05-07T12:00:00.000+01:00

Welcome to my General Election post-mortem. Here I will introduce the phases in my analysis that I will conduct.

Firstly, I will cover a quick reaction to the general picture of this election. This is part of this post.

I will then move on to examine the impact of the election for all three major parties, Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats.

I will also look at the wildly differential turnout and discuss whether or not tactical voting played an impact in this election.

Finally, I will conclude with a look at prospects for 2009/2010.

These six posts have been published in reverse so they read like a straight essay with sections. I didn't write them backwards as it would look if I published them one after the other... so I have altered the dates to improve its readability. Your comments will be very much appreciated, either as responses to the posts, or even in e-mail. Bear in mind that most of this is my opinion, so I could be wrong...

Enjoy.

2005's General Election was a fascinating result, despite a rather tired campaign. For those who stayed up overnight hoping that Blair's majority would be pegged significantly, most of us are now pretty pleased at the outcome. It was impressive that despite the inherent dangers of the First Past The Post (FPTP) system in producing rather disproportionate results, the electorate still managed to get exactly what they wanted.

All along, most people wanted Blair back... but they wanted it with a reduced majority. Labour spent months telling us that this was not possible and that we shouldn't "play games" with the electoral system. We can't get Labour in any other manner. It is mega majority, or no majority. If we want Labour, we have to vote for them.

And yet, that's exactly what we didn't do. 62.3% of those who turned out to vote didn't vote for Blair (excluding the four parties of Northern Ireland). We knew the dangers of FPTP, but by educating the electorate and making everyone aware of the situation their constituency was in, people were able to cast a more thoughtful vote than before to deliver exactly what was needed.

Of course, this has happened in the past. Parties never stop targetting constituencies very specifically. But now the electorate had access to the internet in a much wider manner than before, they were able to assess the situation for themselves, rather than rely on those dodgy graphs on Lib Dem leaflets that always manage to sum up the battle as "Only the Lib Dems can win here!". Even in seats that seemed quite a distant possibility, they were able to realise that the lie put about by Labour of "Vote Lib Dem get Michael Howard as PM" was exactly that, a lie. Sure there were seats where voting Lib Dem in this election actually has brought about a Lib Dem MP... but there was never a danger of a Tory government.

We the electorate were prepared to take a risk. We had faith the Tories were flatlining at 33% and in the end they went below that to just over 32%. Given that, it was safe to vote Lib Dem, thus sending a message to Labour that we don't want their mega majority, and that we are prepared to accept Conservative MPs in certain seats in order to achieve less dominance.

But the big surprise of the night was just how much people were prepared to vote Lib Dem. Wild, massive swings from Labour to the Lib Dems happened across the country... except surprisingly in seats were the Conservatives were challenging the Lib Dems or vice versa. The tide rose so high that it swept away dead wood in certain inner city constituencies who thought they were onto a cushy number. If only it had swept further to give some more Labour backbenchers a fright...

And that is the problem. It didn't. Yet, it could very easily have. Many people were prepared to vote Lib Dem, but there is no doubt that there were more. And what's even more annoying is the fact that had they done so - and perhaps they were fooled by Peter Hain's "back door" theory - given the Tory share of 32%, there was no danger of electing a Tory government. In fact, there would have come a point with an even greater swing where voting Lib Dem would have paid off great dividends.

Meanwhile, Labour MPs were spectacularly unseated. But the extra interesting part is that the gains were confined to very particular parts of the country. So particular, in fact, that the Tories could have a legitimacy problem by the next election if they do not broaden their support.

Nevertheless, the result came. We saw it and it was good. But it could have been so much better. A hung Parliament was a very distinct possibility. The average Labour to Lib Dem swing was 5%, but if this had been doubled Charles Clarke, Ruth Kelly and Phil Woolas would now be drawing the dole. Yet, in many constituencies it was doubled, even tripled.

So what gives? Why was this election such a mess? That's what I'm hoping to look at in my further posts. Read on, fair visitor!

Analysis of Labour's election result
Analysis of the Conservatives' election result
Analysis of the Lib Dems' election result
Assessment of tactical voting and turnout in this election
Looking to the future for politics in this country

Analysis: Labour Suffers

2005-05-07T11:59:00.000+01:00

A majority of 66 may be a struggle for Tony Blair. By historial standards, 66 should be enough to drive through most normal legislative programmes.

But this is not history. And Tony Blair's legislative programmes certainly are not "normal". They are aggressive, statist and authoritarian, something which doesn't sit too well with a lot of traditional Labour backbenchers. There is a culture of rebellion setting into the party. The last parliamentary session had unprecedented levels of it. Once you rebel once, it makes it easier next time. Notch up more than a couple, and you suddenly become a real troublemaker for the whips.

Hilary "Strongarm" Armstrong, still Blair's Chief Whip, is going to have a lot of work on her hands this Parliament. The reason for this is very simple...

1997 and 2001 elected tidal waves of new MPs. Most of these MPs are unquestioningly loyal to the New Labour project. They file through the lobbies without thinking, and a number of them are well equipped with Autopilot oratory, a la Dr John Reid, which allows them to open their mouths to release a stream of Blairite anti-Conservatism, anti-Lib Dems, authoritarian mumbo-jumbo and tired, worn out cliches about hard-working families and those who play by the rules. Such clowns were richly rewarded with government posts.

The trouble was that these people were those elected at the height of the Labour swing from the Conservatives and were sitting on tight majorities of no more than a few thousand. They were ripe for the chop if ever the circumstances were right.

But the Tories just flatlined. In some seats they could manage an extra 1 or 2%, but it wasn't enough to clinch it. So they needed some extra help.

The help was provided by the Lib Dems. Labour supporters who couldn't bring themselves to vote Tory were given plenty of reasons to vote Lib Dem, least of all the war in Iraq or the general issue of "Can we trust Tony?" but it went further than that. Given all that we had heard about the Lib Dem policies, I can't help but feel that many left-wingers will have been pretty keen on the 50% tax for over £100,000 income proposals, on top of student tuition fees, ID cards and others.

So traditionally loyal Labour voters deserted the party in their droves. More than a million people appear to have moved from Labour to the Lib Dems. Given turnout rose very little, it is hard to draw any other conclusion. The result...

47 Labour losses. And when you analyse these losses carefully, you may come to the same conclusion as me, that these were no great losses. In fact, if Labour had to lose anywhere, these are the best places in which it could happen.

Using TheyWorkForYou.com, I have analysed the MPs that lost their seats. Out of the 47, 11 were new candidates that had never been MPs before. Given that many of them will be parachutings in to replace retiring Labour MPs (who were more likely to rebel), these are no real worry.

In my classifications, 21 of the remaining 36, nearly 60%, would be classed as "uber-loyal"... that is they had moderate or strong support for every policy. Three of these were government ministers and one was an ex-minister. No more than a few of these uber-loyal MPs had dithered on Iraq, but they had all at some point expressed support. One of the greatest pleasures of the evening was seeing ultra Blair-bitch Lorna Fitzsimons be dethroned by a tidal wave of liberalism. Her vapid, fawning speeches in the Commons have been the source of much nausea for me.

Another 12 were classied as loyal or very loyal. These people may or may not have rebelled or dithered on Iraq. Some of them may also have voted against one other contentious policy. The remaining 2 - yes, just 2 - had rebelled more than twice and had anti-war credentials.

As I said, no great loss. This serves as an important rebalance to the fundamentals of the Parliamentary Labour Party. It puts more power in the hands of principled rebels who are not willing to see Blair riding roughshod over Parliament and the fundamental liberties of this country. ID cards could be difficult. More wars could be difficult if the Tories oppose. They will certainly hold out for fair deals on pension and welfare reform. This will force more consensus in government - a very good thing. As most other commentators have concluded, it will also ensure Blair does not survive the full four years. Challenges to the leadership are unlikely, unless the number of rebels prepared to pay the price is large... but Blair will find some point to hand over the reins of power for a quiet transition and coronation.

Blair has never governed with such a low majority before. Sure, he has lead a party in opposition, but as we all know, it is very easy to be against things. Back then they had a focus for their anger - John Major and the Conservatives - and it was very easy to traipse through those division lobbies against the government. But now they have to lead, and not everyone likes to be lead. There will be struggles and there will be battles... particularly if Labour continues to lead as if it did have a massive majority.

That is the issue. Labour's mandate in this election is very weak. The lowest percentage of the popular vote in history for a winning party which has translated into a pretty comfortably majority, and with a low turnout, this should make things more conciliatory. But Blair does not work like that. He has massive programmes of "reform" (that's what he thinks) and "great vision". The country has shown that it does not share that vision, regardless of the outcome.

Labour have suffered. Their response? An Orwellian creation of the ~~Ministry of Love~~ Department of Productivity, Energy and Industry will ensure that we all work hard to Deliver Labour's Key Third Term Reforms!

The next four years will prove very interesting for us all. We expect a different style. I hope we see it, for the sake of the country.

Analysis: Conservatives Stumble

2005-05-07T11:58:00.000+01:00

Those of us well versed in researching and checking to see if things are true before thinking a 66 majority is enough for New Labour to govern effectively will also realise that the Conservatives flatlined this election. In terms of the popular vote, they achieved an extra 0.6%, some of which will be subsumed by the 2% increase in turnout.

So how did they gain so many seats? First of all, it's not "so many" seats. They only gained 31 seats off Labour. The rest of the decline in Labour majority is down to the gains of the Lib Dems and Nationalists. If you look, around 14 of these seats were also only gained by Labour voters switching to the Lib Dems. This is either "tactical unwind" - i.e. traditional Lib Dem voters switching back to their own party after they decide they no longer wish to vote tactically to keep the Tory out, or Labour voters who have decided they want to support the Lib Dems in this election, for whatever reason.

Bear in mind that the Tories also lost three seats, including Solihull which is an immense shock. Parties that are preparing for government shouldn't be losing seats, no matter how few. But they did perform well to defend those that were under severe attack from the Lib Dems decapitation strategy. In fact, they managed to increase majorities significantly in these areas. Perhaps a sign that the Tories have managed to expose the flank of the Lib Dems and could make signficant further gains in future off the Lib Dems continue to be so left-wing. Of course, given how small the Lib Dems are, this is hardly fertile territory for becoming the government.

Other seats were gained with traditional hard graft. Hats off to the Tories, they performed extremely well in certain places. But that in itself is also a problem.

If you look at the electoral map of Britain, you can almost draw a line across it from the Bristol Channel to the Wash. Above this line, the Tories are mostly weak and are in fact weakening. If you look at the results for these regions, the Tory vote bucked the trend and either remained the same or declined in certain parts. It is significant that the only decapitation strategy that worked was in the constituency of Westmorland & Lonsdale, where Tory shadow minister Tim Collins was removed by the Lib Dems. Other decapitation efforts were also in the north, but these cases managed to succeed due to effectively getting out the Tory vote, and the failure of the Lib Dems to convince Labour voters to shift.

But below this imaginary line, the Tories grew above the average trend. The South and South East is slowly becoming very strong areas for Conservative growth. There are now very large numbers of marginals in the South East after this election that will fall with just two or three percent shifts to them. If the Tories strengthen, they will gain a very large number of seats next time. This is a very good omen for their future prospects. The South West, which was once a Lib Dem stronghold, is now home to a very large amount of very marginal Lib-Con seats. Further rises there will also reap dividends.

Another point of significance is that by the next election, England and Wales will see a redrawing of the boundaries. Since the population of this country seems to like conglomerating in the south and south east, there will be many new seats added there. Conversely, seats will disappear from the north as the population begins to decline. This is new fertile territory for the Conservatives; there will be plenty of new seats that will be naturally Blue. This could add 10 or 20 easy victories to the Conservative column without really trying.

But this trend should alarm the Conservatives. Do they really want to be a party for the South and South East? Will such a government not lack legitimacy and credibility? Would that not be embarassing that they cannot find any appeal for those in the North? We aren't exactly a block vote... in fact, we're pretty diverse. But enough of us just cannot see the merit in Tory principles.

The next leader of the Tory party is going to have to crack that nutshell, and not just by appealing to rural people like they always do. Until there are more than a majority of MPs below my imaginary line, they must appeal beyond this base. Economics really aren't everything. We are expecting much more. You can't rely on your immigration policy alone to mop up inner-city votes. Indeed, if this election showed anything it's that if you do that you actually drive up the votes of the BNP in such areas. Well done.

Much as it seems to have pained the Tories in recent years, the voters of Britain are in the centre. To win an election, they have to appeal to them. As a result, we should expect politics in this country to become even more meaningless than the five Conservative slogans we heard all throughout this campaign. This will not help turnout.

The Conservatives have stumbled. The Lib Dems tried to push them over in this election. Yet, by doing so, this seems to have accidently resulted in the Tories doing a magnificent somersault and finishing with a forward roll to finish much further ahead than they started. But however their wins come, they will take them. They now don't need to worry about electoral reform. Nice work again.

Analysis: Lib Dems - Where Now?

2005-05-07T11:57:00.000+01:00

This is a very disappointing result for the Lib Dems. Large amounts of resources were poured into their "decapitation strategy" and by the end of the night it weilded no more than the head of Tim Collins, whose impression on the electorate is so weak that his ineffective performances at the despatch box will hardly be seen as a great loss for the Conservatives. But a win is a win, isn't it?

Yes and no. Most people had already written off Oliver Letwin - he was doomed. David Davis was looking a little shaky. Theresa May was in trouble, and even Michael Howard could have paid the price. The strategy was simple: appeal to Labour voters in any way possible - they switch, they get a Lib Dem, and they get to celebrate in the fact that they ousted a top Tory. Pretty good deal, huh?

Yet it didn't turn out that way. In fact, in all of these constituencies, the majorities actually increased, and it took off significantly in a couple. But the media seems to have taken this as Lib Dem votes shifting away to the Tories because they're so left-wing.

But if you look at the numbers, this doesn't appear to be true. The Lib Dem vote generally holds steady. It is the Tory vote that takes off, while the Labour vote either goes down a fraction or stays steady. The possible scenarios:

- The media was right, and Lib Dem voters deserted for the Tories, but it was made up by Labour voters coming to the Lib Dems
- The Labour voter had already been squeezed to its maximum and all that was left is those who will vote Labour till they die.
- The Tories managed to perform extremely efficient "get out the vote" operations. This is borne out by the fact that turnout increased significantly in a lot of these places.

The final scenario is the most likely. The Tories had a too strong local machine.

Election night arrived, and the news was coming in from constituencies that the Lib Dems had failed to remove their targets. I became very glum.

Then it became apparent that there were big swings taking place. When Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central was declared with an 11% swing to the Lib Dems, and even after some significant swings in Sunderland just an hour before, it started to become clear that big things were happening in the country. I went from glum to angry.

The big things happened. Cardiff Central, Leeds North West... Manchester Withington! Rochdale, Hornsey, Bristol West, Cambridge... Solihull! Brent East!

Labour heartlands. Falling to massive, positively enormous swings to the Lib Dems. And they weren't only "just scraping them"... they were coming out with healthy majorities. It made for a fascinating night.

My anger turned to frustration. It was now clear: the Lib Dems had targeted the wrong seats. Many people were predicting protest votes from Labour to Lib Dem, but not on this kind of scale. All across the country, the Lib Dems took seats that appeared to be by accident rather than by design. Sure, the candidates will have worked hard, but no one would have ever expected so many people to change their mind. Perhaps if the Lib Dems had turned its resources away from the decapitation strategy and worked more on going after disaffected Labour supporters, they could have produced some deeply shocking results.

In many places, they have now become 2nd place to Labour. They have closed the gap, and if the swing were repeated next time now more people realise there is a genuine chance for change, they could continue to rise. But in many respects, there was a chance of a Lib Dem tectonic shift in Labour heartlands. If the effort had been put in, it could well have been achieved. It wasn't, and I feel this has been a missed opportunity. I fear that the electoral circumstances may never be this favourable again.

Meanwhile, their flank to the Tories has been exposed. There are many of them now sitting on wafer thin majorities, many of whom are key figures in the party. This presents a serious dilemma... move back to the centre in order to defend these once Lib Dem heartlands (including the South West which is now looking dangerous) ... or go for an all out assault on Labour - an assault which could bear massive dividends if it split the Labour movement between those who feel the Lib Dems are now holding their old socially progressive territory and those who want to hold the centre ground.

This is a dilemma they must quickly resolve. They now have four or five years to plug away at this. A new leader probably won't help... but the fact is that in 2009, Charles Kennedy will have been leader for 10 years. There must be some new talent rising through the party. They desperately need it if they are to continue their slow but steady rise in British politics.

They may have to accept that they're going to lose seats to the Tories. But there aren't many, and there is far more to gain by continuing to gun for Labour core support. But this is a very difficult future for them. They already look opportunistic when compared with the Liberal Democrats of old. There aren't too many committed libertarians any more within the Lib Dem movement - most of them are quite keen on state intervention in health and education. So there is a chance to remould the party into something quite different. But if Labour try to redress the balance, the Lib Dem seats on this front will topply like dominoes. Gordon Brown could be enough to bring the likes of Manchester Withington back into the fold, and if the Lib Dems then lose seats to the Tories, they could end up much smaller than when they started.

This is actually a very difficult time for the Lib Dems. Sure, more seats are good, but they still don't have a heartlands. We still don't know who the core vote of this party is. They need to start consolidating their gains more. I just wish I knew how...

Analysis: Turning Tactical

2005-05-07T11:56:00.000+01:00

I think a lot of us made big mistakes. I forecast that tactical voting could be a major issue in this election. I feel now that I was wrong.

The situation out in the country swung wildly over the evening. If ever anyone wanted to make a case for the argument that there is no such thing as national swing, then 2005 was your night to prove it. On the face of it, all those sensational swings could well have been the result of people voting tactically all over the place - that's the kind of odd thing you normally get with tactical voting.

But it's not. All of that was down to a more boring explanation: it was just conventional voting. People seemed in this election to continue to vote more for what they actually believed in. Many Labour voters were fed up with Labour, and so decided to switch to the Lib Dems. This may well have been a protest vote, but it isn't a tactical vote. People were prepared to vote for the Lib Dems regardless of how the seat ended up. Indeed, this voting pattern resulted in a number of Tory MPs - though not many - slipping in through Peter Hain's infamous back door. This is principled voting, something which we should be doing anyway if we had a better electoral system.

In seats where tactical voting could have played a role, such as in the Lib Dems decapitation strategy, it didn't seem to have any impact. The Labour vote refused to be squeezed even further than it already has been, indicating that there are limits to tactical voting eventually. It is possible the message was not put around well enough, but that is something I'd find it to difficult to believe.

It is possible that some people voted tactically for a Tory to rid themselves of a Labour candidate, as the Backing Blair website suggested many people do, but I don't think this was ever likely. If we're cynical, third parties were invented for tactical and protest voting purposes! That's what we use them for! There is anti-Tory tactical voting, but the Lib Dems are the main beneficiary.

But that seemed to unwind as well in this election. Lib Dems who may have voted Labour to keep a Tory out decided that the Tories were the lesser of two evils and so returned back to their home party. This is a step back for tactical voting in the election where it was supposed to take the giant leap forward.

This is both good and bad. I can see the merits in this concept given our electoral system. Change has to come from somewhere, and if this is the only way of making seats marginal, we have to use it. But it would be so much better if we could get true voting reform so that everyone really could vote for the party of their choice without being whipped into fear that their vote could have unintended side-effects.

We have not yet seen any data from those websites that were setup to encourage people to exchange votes for this election. Last time, tacticalvoter.net claimed that their efforts turfed out two Tories. I'm sure they will claim they were also responsible for some in this election, but it's not nearly enough. The fact remains that out of the Top 10 targets on Tacticalvoter, they only achieved the 1st one, and in many others the Tories managed to massively shore up their vote to defend against it. Given that there are so many more people on the internet now, you would have expected this to have made much more impact. The Lib Dems should have taken Orpington, that's for sure, but they ended up missing it by thousands. What happened?

Meanwhile, turnout was up slightly at 61.3% from 59.3%. Better than nothing, that's for sure. Yet, in certain parts of the country, turnout reached spectacular highs. Solihull in Birmingham managed to achieve an astonishing 83% turnout, up 20%! There are many theories in psephology (the science of elections!) that the more an election has salience, the more people turnout. I considered this theory in an essay I wrote recently, and I believe it to be one of the key factors, far and above the impact of education levels of the electorate.

In certain areas... and Solihull, being a middle-class constituency, is a good example... this election was very relevant to the electorate. The issue of trust resonates far more among certain demographics than others, and it is probably true to suggest that it did here. Iraq was the same, often dismissed as being of little interest to anyone other than the chattering classes who have the time and effort to worry themselves about legality and technicality.

Well, it seems they did. Time and again in similar constituencies, turnout was up between 5 and 10%... and in all of these places turnout was higher than the average anyway. Very impressive indeed. But if it wasn't because of the issues, then it was because the contest was close - as we saw in most of the marginals - i.e. because it was salient.

Turnout is still a problem - but now we can see clearly that it is beginning to be confined to inner cities, where the result is very predictable, and where the issues are not relevant or engaging to the electorate. They do not address their concerns or their issues. This rising disenchantment is a danger to our democracy, and the politicians must do something about it. It is part of the general decline in social cohesion which is felt most in the inner cities, and this problem requires much more than just a close election. Politics just isn't seen as relevant - it doesn't change anyone's lives in these areas. Well... it does, but it isn't seen like that.

Politicians need to be able to talk the language of these people. If they can do that... and perhaps the best way is by leaving inner city parties to select their own candidates, preferably one who is representative and has the ability to communicate with the disaffected masses (for they are masses in these areas), then they will begin to change the situation.

There is a lot to learn from this election beyond the result. Hopefully, I've been able to shed some light on two key issues.

Analysis: The Future

2005-05-07T11:55:00.000+01:00

I have already tried to extrapolate some of the trends in this election's results in the other articles themselves. It is hard to analyse the future, since by its very nature we don't know what it contains just yet... but let's speculate.

The Tories have a real chance in 2009/2010... but they must learn to make themselves more relevant to more people. Fate will be kind to them next time, and they will gain many more seats by default because of favourable demographic trends in the South and South East. This is very good for them. They will be a danger, especially if they can pick a leader that is capable of communicating better with the electorate. David Davis is not that man. He will fail the Tory party for the simple reason that he is too right wing.

If anything, this election has demonstrated that we are not comfortable with the agenda of the right. We may be worried about immigration - perhaps needlessly - but we still have an internal brake that will regulate it. The electorate seemed to agree with the Tories on immigration, but many people were concerned that they themselves were beginning to get racist, and so dismissed their negative thoughts by voting against them, even if they didn't feel that way.

It is hard to see where the next leader of the Conservatives is from. If I were them, I would consider taking a risk on David Cameron or George Osbourne. They have plumped for party old relics far too often, but now is the time for radical change. A new young leader would invigorate the party, and it would help them to forge a new image against the one that they are the party for aging cynics. Next election will be a nailbiter, and such a leader would make it so.

Labour have problems. They are no longer safe, and Blair should consider resigning after the EU constitution referendum, if France or someone else does not reject it before then. But he cannot serve more than two years. Any longer and it will leave Gordon Brown with little more than a fag-end of a lame duck Labour administration, giving him little time to look like he can lead the party to an unprecedented fourth term. This would play right into the Tories' hands, who by then could be looking very professional and modernising with a young leader, while Gordon Brown would now be approaching his 60s. It would almost be the reverse of the situation between Tony Blair and John Major, ironic though that may be.

Labour have seen that there is deep anger within the party. Peter Laws in Blaenau Gwent's election should be a clear message that the party grassroots are beginning to get fed up with bullying from the centre. His presence in the next Parliament will be a constant reminder that they must allow some decentralising. Either that, or they should stop trying to piss off so many people and instead of constantly battling against their own party, they should work with it. It seems so obvious, but people like Blair, Milburn and Mandelson have made a career out of opposing. If it is their style and they have no other mode of operation, then the simple answer is to remove them. The Parliamentary Labour Party now have more power to do that. They need to act sooner rather than later.

The Lib Dems are in a dilemma. They can advance, but they are at a junction. They can go forward and left... they can go straight on and try to defend their vulnerable position, or they can turn right to attack the Conservatives properly. This last one seems unlikely, and the first does too. But the second one is fraught with danger, as I have already considered. Sooner or later, however, they are going to need a new leader. But I can't see one who could fill Charlie's boots. They have a lot of work to do.

Meanwhile, the minor parties have a chance. I was hoping for a Green win in Brighton Pavilion, and they did indeed pull off a very respectable result. They can work on this for the next election. It would be nice if they achieved one or two MPs, and I would have encouraged all Lib Dems to vote Green there, just so some representation could be achieved for other points of view. But the Greens made the big mistake of fielding candidates in far too many constituencies, costing them vital money which could have been used in the two fights they focused on. Instead, they cost the Lib Dems a seat in Oxford East, and who knows what could have happened in Norwich South if they hadn't resisted the Lib Dems efforts to unseat Charles Clarke. All this nonsense leads us onto electoral reform...

Many people have joined the call for electoral reform, and it's a sentiment I would like to echo. Yet, I suspect we all want a more proportional electoral system. The question is, which one? Labour could well make soundings in this area by bringing back the Jenkins report and their proposal of AV+. Labour like this system because it will have an unhealthy tendency of killing off the Tories altogether, since Labour voters will vote 1-Labour, 2-Lib Dem... and Lib Dem voters will do the reverse, leaving the Tories very much out in the cold. There is no question that some reform is needed, but I remain to be convinced as to which is the best way. I strongly dislike list systems for the power it gives to party patronage. At least we have a chance to get rid of people we don't like under FPTP. Some people would stick around forever with party lists...

Whatever happens on this score, 2009/2010 will be a genuinely difficult election for all parties, possibly the first such slice of real battleground democracy since 1992. This can only help motivate people to come back to the political fray, something this country desperately needs in our growing isolationist society.

I hope you have enjoyed my attempt at analysing this election. All comments are welcome, either by responding to the comments section or by e-mailing me.

The Almost Landslide

2005-05-06T15:04:00.000+01:00

So the results are in. First off I will say that last night's election coverage from the BBC was both good and bad. Too many fluffs, too many mistakes and too many cuts to result announcements too late. But the number crunchers were intelligent and sensible, providing a good insight to what was going on. A partial well done. I stayed up till 6:30am this morning, decided to snatch four hours sleep and am now feeling pretty good. Surprising the limits you can push yourself to when you really need to.

But in terms of the result, I hope to conduct a very thorough analysis of the result by the end of the day. I had high expecations for the Lib Dems, probably too high, but under normal circumstances I would have been content with 62 MPs. Yet, given I now know what has happened, I am very disappointed.

The thrust of my analysis will be to look at what happened underneath the radar. As everyone has already concluded, this was a very weird election with some apparently random swings all over the place. It wasn't helped by the BBC's obsession with "Lab-Con" swing, which was irrelevant in many seats. We know the real story of this election is the disaffection of 1 million Labour voters who have turned their back on the party and voted Lib Dem. The Tories have gained seats, but in terms of actual vote numbers they have barely moved.

I will look at why this election result shows the Tories to perhaps be in more trouble than people think, and yet at the same time they are perhaps on the cusp of victory for 2009/2010 - a victory that would be very hollow indeed.

Then what of the future for all three parties? There will be an interesting few months ahead. Change is imminent within all three parties. What will the visions for the future be now?

And the final majority of 66? I can live with that, even if some particularly nasty Tories have managed to emerge out of the rotten party woodwork.

As for Bob Marshall-Andrews? He is, and always will remain, Left Out Liberal's Official Hero!

Check back later when I hope to start work on this detailed and hopefully interesting post-mortem.

Vote Early or Late. But Only Vote Once.

2005-05-05T12:11:00.000+01:00

My plea for electoral fraud to be low will naturally be ignored. I am not convinced that this election is going to be safe, and the fact that 20,000 people in Blackburn have requested postal ballots sounds incredibly suspicious.

But all we can do is make sure we cast our vote. I will be voting later and will take great pleasure in voting for Liberal Democrats, as I have said I would all along. I believe they have run a generally positive campaign, and the reaction Charles Kennedy gets is pretty good. It is possible that a little too much time was spent on Iraq in the closing days and not enough promoting their policies, but it's too late for that now. I urge you all to not waste this opportunity to restrict Blair. We all know what is coming in this next Parliament: ID cards, more "anti-terror" legislation, further privatisation and marketisation of education and the NHS, worsening social inequality and who knows what more international excursions are planned.

New Labour is not the party of Attlee, Wilson, Callaghan or even Kinnock. Kier Hardie would be turning in his grave at the way New Labour has turned its back on its roots. Regardless of the grassroots of the party at the moment, they have no control over the top. It is quite simply a party being lead from the front. It is therefore wrong to support New Labour because you think that "they're not all like that". I know that. Everyone knows that. But what matters is the 400 odd MPs they elect. The rest of the party is almost an irrelevance. They will not be writing the laws. They will not be executing them. Vote for what you can see - a sham party obsessed with authoritarianism - not for what you think Labour are. The two do not match, and they will never match while Tony is in power. They simply want power for the sake of it. They do not have a grand vision for the furtherment of society.

This is the last chance the British people will get to rid ourselves of him. New Labour is a sinister machine, desperate to cling onto power and desperate to have another whopping majority. We cannot allow this to happen. By the next election, so many more the freedoms we are used to in a liberal democracy will be curtailed in the name of protecting "the most important liberty: the right to life". Well excuse me for wanting to protect freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. What use is life if we are all zombies with no thought or ability to do anything about our objections?

Once political freedoms have gone, they don't come back. While we're in this perpetual state of war against an abstract noun, it is not in the interests of New Labour to let the people run wild and free. They can curtail all the liberties they like and the British people don't seem to mind. One day they will wake up and understand why the few of us concerned about these things spend our time endlessly worried about the quality of British democracy. Accept it. The war on terror has no ending. Habeas corpus has been suspended. Do you really think any government of any colour in the future is ever going to say, "The war on terror is over! We are victorious! And now you can have all your political freedoms back and we promise never to house arrest you again."

It's time to get real. This is the last chance to do so.

I shall now finish this general election blog with a quote from George Orwell's 1984. It is scarily relevant to our current situation and serves as a warning of the fact that we are slowly sleepwalking into a police state. It is a superb book and I highly recommend it. Beware of democratically elected and fully legitimised dictatorships.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"

George Orwell, 1984

Vote wisely...

The Blogosphere Bites

2005-05-05T09:36:00.000+01:00

Other bloggers seem to have saved the best till last. There are dozens of reasons for not voting for New Labour this election. Right now, Britain's finest bloggers have produced some of the greatest prose this campaign, summing exactly why you should reject Blair's politics of fear.

All of these are highly recommended:

Nick Barlow: vote for optimism

Blood and Treasure: Don't like Tony, but still want to vote Labour? Try this...

Chicken Yoghurt: Beware those who oppose the New Labour project, for they are undermining democracy!

Plenty more links via Bloggerheads

Here's to a good election.

Penultimania

2005-05-04T09:01:00.000+01:00

The final day of canvassing has arrived. And of course, that is cause to celebrate. All media outlets seem to be happy discussing the fact that the last day is here, and it's more of a news event than anything the politicians will actually do today.

So effectively, we have reached the end of the road. The papers are beginning to cast their endorsements, and none of them are a surprise. The Guardian is still sickeningly pro-Labour, despite the fact that for the past four years there has not been a day that has gone by without their editorial column criticising Labour for being too authoritarian, too illiberal or not progressive enough.

I wonder how much they were paid to be the mouthpiece of Blair for this campaign. It has been a remarkable, almost Damascene, conversion from their editorial staff. They've been commissioning op-eds from Polly Toynbee and David Aaronovitch left, right and centre to drum home the message that a vote for anyone other than Labour will be enough to let the Tories in. Yet, as A Big Stick and a Small Carrot has pointed out, what of Labour voters who voted Lib Dem tactically last time to keep a Tory out? If they vote Labour now, they could let a Tory in by the back door...

Just another quirk of our system, I guess, but no one seems to have taken Tony to task on this one. I digress.

I certainly will never be buying the Guardian again. You just know that as soon as the campaign is over, they will be back to gnashing their teeth about ID cards, civil liberties, education league tables, and even the war in Iraq will continue to fill their minds. So while the Guardian will be moaning about bloggers and their lack of impact this election (that article can only be a matter of days away; shame you can't copyright ideas or I could claim they stole mine when it arrives), I will be ensuring that they no longer get my readership. It's the Independent all the way for me.

Labour's party election broadcast last night has given me a sinking feeling, however. All the polls look the same; all the pundits are predicting little change. I fear we're going to sleepwalk into another landslide, and all the interest that I've developed in great clutch of individual exciting contests in the marginals could actually be a big disappointment. I've set my expectations too high, and I know I'm going to be very pissed off as the results come in over Thursday night.

But this is politics. We can't give up. Here's to 2009/2010.

Butter Wouldn't Melt

2005-05-03T13:10:00.000+01:00

This morning has seen seen Charles Kennedy electioneering in Michael Howard's seat of Folkestone & Hythe, where his 6,000 majority could be vulnerable if Labour voters vote tactically. By voting Lib Dem here, Labour voters would actually be closing all the doors of Number 10 to Michael Howard. In fact, they'd be closing the door of the House of Parliament to him. How do you like that, Tony? What happened to the back door theory?

My favourite part of all this, however, is the fact that Tories are getting all indignant about it. Theresa May on the Daily Politics called out her disgust at the Lib Dems for targeting a party leader - it was unheard of in Britain!

As I've said before, if we've been dealt this pathetic electoral system, then don't be surprised if we try to use it to cause a little upset. It's a bit rich for the Tories now to complain if their leader is vulnerable. After all, they don't want to change the electoral system. So in that case, why should leaders not have to fight an election just like everyone else?

What's amusing is the fact that had Tony Blair been sitting on a 1-5,000 majority with the Tories in 2nd, I have no absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Michael Howard would be in Sedgefield every day rallying for voters to switch and Lib Dems to vote tactically to rid the country of Blair. They're only complaining now because they're on the receiving end, and they are clearly at risk. There is much talk of a rising tidal wave of orange seeping over Folkestone, but it would surely be too much of a majority to turn over... but it could end up a mighty close thing. Yet another key marginal to watch carefully.

I also would like to further add my disgust at the lie - and yes, this one is a genuine lie - told by Local Government Minister Nick Raynsford, on yesterday's Daily Politics.

The usual story came out of Blair's mouthpiece, that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote to allow the Tories to slip to victory and an overall majority without even trying. Quite apart from the fact that this has been dismissed again and again, simply because the Tories are polling such low figures, Nick went on to warn the voters of Bristol West that by voting Lib Dem there they will let in a Tory via the back door.

Ever suspicious of this kind of spin, I decided to check the numbers. I do accept that in a seat where the Lib Dems are far behind, and Labour/Tory have just a few thousand between them, it is possible that a Labour voter switching to the Lib Dems will give a Tory win. But Bristol West is very different:

LAB: 20,000; LD: 16,000; TORY: 16,000

In this case, a Labour voter switching to a Lib Dem will quite clearly be contributing to bringing about a Lib Dem victory. There is no other way of arguing this one. A blatant lie from the minister, and malicious scaremongering once more. As usual, it's the typical whinge that Blair is worried his majority is going to be pegged back, so seats like this must be secured for Labour.

Perhaps Blair thinks he will struggle with under 100 majority. It is an intriguing thought that none of us knows how he will react when faced with more unfavourable parliamentary circumstances. All the more reason to try to bring it about for him...

Bank Holiday Blues

2005-05-02T10:13:00.000+01:00

A day off for most people, but the politicians continue to press on relentless. It's a shame there are some big stories today, since most people won't be paying much attention to the news. Greg Dyke has condemned Tony Blair and urged a vote for the Lib Dems.

Iraq is still bubbling, especially with the news this morning that a British soldier has been killed in action there. I suspect all parties will avoid this one for fear of looking insensitive, but to the rest of us it's just one further message of the failure of this war.

I have a busy few days ahead of revision and exams, so my postings may be few and far between until the 5th. In the meantime, I would just like to say thank you to everyone who has visited this blog so far - 1,500 visits and counting - and I hope you have enjoyed it. I still don't know whether to continue for more than a few days after the election, so words of encouragement or discouragement on that score would be welcome!

Have a nice day.

The Student Vote

2005-05-01T10:43:00.000+01:00

Since the media and the blogosphere seem to be suffering from immense all weekend hangovers, I thought it was about time I did what I promised some weeks ago and wrote about my thoughts on what the media likes to term the "student vote". This is the second (and possibly last) in my series looking at why the youth just don't want to vote.

In my last essay, I generalised about the scope of youth voting altogether - i.e. anyone between 18-24. This time, I'm going to narrow the focus just a little to pick up on those particular bunches of people who may have the good fortune of being registered in two constituencies and can pick which one to vote in based on where their vote will be more effective. Or they could even get a postal vote in one and then vote in person in a different constituency. Certainly puts new meaning to the phrase "Vote early and vote often!" But it can be done.

Because our university students are theoretically being educated, most people would expect that they might be more inclined to turn out as they should be more aware of current affairs. I suspect this is broadly true, but the impact is very small. We still mostly won't vote. Worse is the fact that the media seems to think that students vote in enormous blocks to deliver support for one party. Yes, the Lib Dems and the Greens will be disproportionately voted for in comparison with the rest of the population, but there are still significant chunks of support for Conservatives and Labour.

The other point to take into account is the fact that a lot of University students will not be on electoral rolls at their University address. Many students live in halls of residence for the first year, and hall wardens often register the students with the local council. This is not guaranteed. If not, then they will have to actively register themselves - which is not likely to produce much success.

Of those who are registered, they may well vote. Well done to them. But there's no guarantee it will be an informed vote. As per my previous article, we must remember that this is probably the first election they will vote in, and it's probably fair to say that a lot, but likely a minority, will vote as their parents do. Politics is a dim and distant thing. An adult thing. Students are adults, but they still like to "rebel" against the norm. What better way to do it than protest against the political system - especially a system that likes to label people and fit them into convenient pigeon-holes. A lot of them just simply aren't ready for party politics. They still have not been socialised into the political culture. As before, they're not long finished being children, so there's a lot of catching up to do in this area. Politics and all its baggage is a lot to digest, and it really does take time to absorb it.

So a lot of them won't vote at all. But first years are just a proportion of the student vote. There are other years in University, of course, but the difference here is that most of them will be living in their own houses.

And that means active registration. No one does it for you. The electoral roll call letter turns up in October, and it most likely gets chucked in the bin or put under a pile of books, magazines or computer games. A lot of student houses simply have no one registered to vote in them [based on a small unscientific survey I did]. Of course, there will be plenty who do register, and there is also the added fact that second and third years have an extra year or two of life experience. They may be more interested in politics now. But still, because of simple apathy or just plain forgetting (students are remarkably forgetful) many of them will not be registered at all.

A significant majority are still registered at home. If they were bothered, they could request a postal vote for there. But again, that requires effort, and no amount of shit adverts from the Electoral Commission is going to motivate them to download the form, fill it in, get an envelope, buy a stamp and post it.

These factors all come together to decide that a majority of students just will not vote. At all. But to those who do want to vote, there is still the issue of deciding who to vote for. Because of all the hoo-ha about tuition fees, a stereotype of students only interested in their own financial affairs is forming. Sure, that was probably there anyway, but people are beginning to tire of hearing about students whinging about having to pay their way through life.

They may well be true. But they apply to everyone. I've heard more than enough of the "Me First" economics in this election, or the politics of the Back Pocket as I like to call it. Kerching. Tax is too high! Pensions are too low! Everyone has money issues - even if they're financially solvent - and they demand solutions. So why criticise students for learning from the Expert Whingers of their elder generations?

But there's more to it than this. It is possible this is unintentional, but the fact remains that no matter how much complaining students do, they will not change the system for them while they are in University. It is too late. Even if they successfully lobby for change, they will have long since graduated before they get a chance to reap the benefits. Changes in student funding are normally planned so they do not hit those who are currently going through the system. It would be unfair.

So who are the students campaigning for? In many cases it is not understood, but most realise this fact that they are stuck with what they've got. So, in fact, they are campaigning on behalf of those who are still in school - those who don't have a voice. Student campaigns on tuition fees are actually because they want to ensure that future students don't suffer the way they have. In many respects, what looked like Me First economics is in fact selfless acts - which they won't be rewarded for - but, if they are successful, will help out all of those who come to University after them.

Maybe students are more concerned about social equality than everyone else, despite the growing stereotype of being only out for themselves. Perhaps they are in fact putting everyone else to shame. Maybe you don't have any right to look down your nose at them.

A plurality of students are going to support the Lib Dems this election. The last election was held in June 2001 - by which time most students have finished the academic year and have gone home. Thus, last time, there was almost no "student vote" to speak of.

This time, there will likely be 1,000 or more students in student constituencies who will vote. This figure will rise in areas that have been specifically targeted, such as Cardiff Central where the Lib Dems can taste victory. In isolated cases like this, there is a chance it will have an impact. But even in student constituencies, we're not going to see tectonic shifts in support.

What's frustrating is that if mobilised, this section of the electorate could deliver surprises. Norwich South - Charles Clarke's constituency - could be lost if one party made a concerted effort to get students registered and then relentlessly pulled for their vote on the big day with a push to get out the vote. Although they do split their vote many ways, in certain areas if they are targeted well, there is a signficant chance that they will come out to deliver an upset. After all, how many of us voters wouldn't turnout and tactically vote if there was a chance to ditch Clarke. But this effect is amplified with youth and student voters. The significant majority of students don't consider themselves affiliated to a party - and in that sense they are the most volatile of the electorate. It's not a great leap to vote for someone even if it's just to deliver a blow to the system.

This could have been exploited in this election. As it stands, the impact will be minimal. But it's one to bear in mind in the future. As I've said before - we have this ridiculous electoral system... we might as well have some fun with it.

Crash and Burn

2005-04-30T10:39:00.000+01:00

As the election campaign enters its final weekend - a bank holiday weekend no less - it is not surprising that the news headline this morning is a non-story about how Gordon Brown would like MPs to decide all future wars. Hardly a campaign pledge likely to win any votes.

It seems to me that interest in the General Election is now dying away. An unscientific analysis of my visitor logs shows pretty clearly that hits have been on a gentle decline since April 19th, when for some reason excitement hit its peak. Despite the Iraq rumblings returning, the electorate is still not charged up about this campaign. Indeed, it's possibly fair to argue that they may have been when it started, but are now utterly fed up.

Imagine if we had the USA system. This country probably couldn't stand two year election campaigns. Hardly surprising that turnout hits such lows over there.

But when you look at it, is it really surprising that this campaign is going to be remembered as one of the dullest? Why have the Tories, who started the campaign with immigration and asylum, come back to it for the closing days? I thought they wanted to demonstrate they weren't obsessed by it. Meanwhile, Howard has took a pasting for his views that "regime change plus" would have been a good basis for invading Iraq. His statements on Question Time actually make him more gung-ho than Tony Blair, now I look at it again.

The newspapers, however, seems to be revelling that at last the debate has turned to health. They are pleased that a real issue has emerged. They would say that, of course; they need something to fill their column inches after all. Actually, apart from MRSA - which is hardly a political issue - and now the GP 48 hour thing, the discussion on health has been extremely narrow. It is probably uninteresting to most people. Every time the three representatives of health issues from the main parties appear on TV, I find it incredibly difficult to see the difference. You couldn't fit a cigarette paper between all three parties stances on the NHS. Once more, it is unsurprising why this campaign has been so dull. No one is interested in talking about the future of NHS funding. There is no honest debate.

Thus, in the absence of anything more interesting it was inevitable that someone would end up doing a study about which politicians are the most attractive. That someone being the BBC. Even they are struggling to keep people engaged.

Before the election was called, I was predicting one of the lowest turnouts in history. I thought it would go below last time's low of 59%. On reflection, I believe this could be wrong. I have been mildly surprised about the amount of people who are politically motivated this time, and so I'm predicting a similar level, or perhaps just above at around 63%. But it's still a travesty that most people will not vote than vote for the winning party.

I also predicted that this election was gearing up to be the worst ever. It's not nice to be vindicated on such cynical statements.

Grill the Leaders

2005-04-29T10:22:00.000+01:00

Last night's TV grilling of all the leaders turned out to be a more interesting affair that I thought it would be. It actually worked out so well that each leader got equal time to answer questions on their policies, rather than sit there and be berated by the opposition every time they respond, that I think it was better than a US-presidential style debate after all.

Charles Kennedy had the easiest ride of the three, and he generally made it work well. The audience didn't ask him particularly tough questions, and when it got to Iraq I believe he put forward his response more aggressively and passionately than I've ever seen him. He was still a bit hazy on local income tax, but he has improved his style by elaborating. Notice that he struggled a bit in explaining that some people will pay more, but he was very careful to redirect the issue into economic fairness by pointing out the rich pay less as a proportion of their income than the poor, which gained a significant applause from the audience.

That's the strategy other politicians use: they are asked a question, they sort of dodge it, and then go beyond it. I believe Kennedy went one better last night: he answered most questions straight, and then went beyond to justify it by putting it in context of their goal of a "fair society". Much better.

Michael Howard arrived and I noticed how the atmosphere changed. People do realise that Charles Kennedy is not going to be the next PM, and the more relaxed audience suddenly turned very critical. They appreciated the fact that Howard could be next in Number 10... and grilled him accordingly. Perhaps unfair to set different standards, but the spectacle was enjoyable.

He struggled to square the circle on Iraq. He tried to explain his immigration policies, but the audience was often very mean. I personally don't think his policies are racist (although they could appeal to racists), but a number of audience members called it that. He smoothly went through tax and spend, which possibly won him votes, but overall the hostile audience made his term in the chair rather difficult. He didn't do badly, but he could have done better.

Blair put in the worst performance, when this used to be the thing he shined the most at. The audience turned up the hostility another notch, and he was given very little opportunity to wheel out the classics of low inflation, low interest rates, record investment in public services, etc. Instead, the audience demonstrated to Blair that they are concerned about the situation in Iraq. For weeks he has refused to believe that this is an issue that resonates in the country, but he was forced to eat his words last night.

He looked a little nervous, and the sweat started pouring off his head. The audience groaned when he said again that we shouldn't expect tax rises, and was put on the defensive by some incisive questioning on student tuition fees. Then the bombshell was dropped about his targets distorting clinical priorities - which he didn't seem to understand was going on. His response was the usual "I will take personal charge and investigate this!" but Hero Tony coming to Save The Day doesn't wash with the public as much as it used to.

All in all, Charles Kennedy probably came out top - but perhaps only because he had an easy ride from the audience - with Howard second and Blair bottom. It reminded me why I hate Blair so much, and I'm sure other people found it useful to confirm or change their votes. It won't make a massive difference, but it was an entertaining spectacle nevertheless.

The other interesting point to conclude is that last night's debate clearly showed that people are interested in Iraq. We're constantly being told it's not an issue "on the doorsteps" (wherever that may be) but it was good to see all three of them getting at least 10 minutes on it. I'm sure a lot of people made up their mind last night. I was pleased that the audience seemed to be well informed and weren't taken aback by the first answer given to their question. A lot of people aren't buying the "But if I had taken your view, Saddam would still be in power!" blackmail, particularly if you consider that Iraqis likely don't give a shit about the glorious (and very corrupt) government they have elected. They would take peace, security and growing prosperity however it was delivered.

If the new Iraqi government does not deliver on these issues very soon, democracy will begin to be seen as a white elephant. Right now, there are still dozens of people dying in Iraq every day. There is still not enough electricity or water supplies, but the oil is free flowing out the country with not much coming back. Democracy is having its reputation tarnished right now. Just because a country has an elected government, it doesn't automatically follow that it is a success. This seems to be Blair's Blackmail, but we must resist being bribed with it.

This time next week we will all know the result of the election. The past few days could still make it interesting. I live in hope.

In Summary

2005-04-28T09:29:00.000+01:00

Lord Goldsmith and his "Legal Opinions 4 U" department have been up all night trying to defend themselves from the charges being placed against them thanks to the leaking last night of his advice on the legality of the war given to Tony Blair on March 7th, 2003.

It's good to see that at least he had backbone at some point. As many people have already pointed out, very few events happened between the 7th and the 17th of March when the AG told the country that the war was legal. But the defence for him changing is mind is simply that "events" made it clear Saddam was not complying.

Slowly but surely, the whole case for the war is unravelling. Leaving aside any myths being perpetuated about the wonderfulness of Iraq and Afghanistan (both of which have been blown apart in some superb posts over a couple of days by Justin at Chicken Yoghurt) and how toppling Saddam is apparently enough justification for the war, it is becoming apparent that those of us who were deeply cynical about this whole farce at the time because of the sudden rush to war were onto something.

Something did happen in those 10 days and we have yet to find out what. The fact is that this war was either legal or illegal; there is no shade of grey. If you have doubts, then the status quo must prevail. The AG had doubts on the 7th of May. Those doubts should be enough for most people to conclude that action is illegal. If the war was illegal, then the whole case falls. The bringing of "Freedom" and "Liberation" to the Iraqis becomes irrelevant... they are no longer defences for the action, since British troops could be prosecuted, and the ignorance for international rule of law will have been set.

This is why the government is desperate to keep this off the agenda. Right now they can wriggle and squirm and say "Saddam was a bad man and we got rid of him" and make it difficult for those of us who were opposed to continue to do so without looking like a Saddam-luvvie. But if it is shown to be illegal, then they can no longer hide behind this, because it means they had no right to enforce regime change. Riding roughshod over international law will give carte-blanche for other nations to do the same. Sure, Israel has been doing it for decades. But now other countries can botch some evidence of a threat, freely invade each other and install their own puppet regimes. The precedent is set.

However, even if we accept that the war was legal, we are then faced with another dilemma. If international law has now been cast that the doctrine of pre-emption is admissable, and toppling of regimes in order to preserve some arbitrary standard of human rights (who makes this decision is as yet unclear) is wholly legitimate, then there is now reasonable grounds for invading the following countries:

Iran
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
North Korea
China
Uzbekistan

The list doubtless continues. But the fact remains that a number of these countries are strong allies. Others are keeping the US economy afloat. There are occasionally token gestures made against some saying that they "must respect human rights". However, we would never dream of invading any of these.

Once again, it brings us back to what the rush to war was. Was there another reason hidden behind the public spectacle? In the absence of anything else, is hardly surprising that people leap to the conclusion that the war was for seeking control of Iraq's oil supplies. I feel that this must have been involved somewhere, but there was more to it. There were already a quarter of a million troops amassed down there, waiting to go. It's clear there was some sort of timetable in action, and they couldn't wait any longer. The inspectors were getting compliance - and so the only justification for war in international law: i.e. the disobedience of UN Security Council resolutions was also flawed. The UN is the only judge we have. Member states execute UN resolutions. They do not have the authority to judge them as well.

Of course, the other important point to consider is the fact that before the war Blair was claiming that if Saddam "fully complied" with the UN resolutions, then there would be no war in the first place. This also rather makes a mockery of the fact that we should celebrate Saddam's demise, since Blair would appear to have been quite happy to leave him in power if Iraq complied with the resolutions. Blair had no interest in the human rights angle before the war, simply because to build a case on it would have led to the war being called illegal openly. Only afterwards did this response emerge as a way of smearing opponents who had a principled opposition to the war.

What this whole sorry affair rests on is that no one dare challenge the authority of the United States and the UK as its chum. No one wants to find out if it was illegal or not, because if they did they would suffer severe diplomatic and economic consequences. It's clear that regardless of international law, we have set precedents in the past for other arguably illegal conflicts. But we are allowed to make it up as we go along, since we have the ability and the position to do so. It would take someone with nothing to lose to bring a case.

A country like the "Democratic" Republic of Congo. Can you imagine the hypocrisy of such a country bringing a case against the UK to the International Criminal Court? But they are signed and ratified to the ICC. There's no reason why they couldn't.

And this is why we no longer have a shred of moral authority. Our actions on the international stage and our disregard for the the rule of law has brought us this low - that our records could be challenged by the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Either way we have a problem. Legal, then we have a precedent set for upholding human rights across the world, a standard that we can arbitrarily set and interfere with nations as we see fit. Except, we don't. Making us hypocrites. If we accept that, then why are only the Iraqi people important? Why should only they be "free"? We have now appointed ourselves world police. We have to uphold that. The UN becomes irrelevant, because we can now write, execute and judge the law.

Illegal, and the consequences are dire. The world order collapses. The UN is still irrelevant. Nations can blast each other back to the stone age and it won't really matter, because international law is irrelevant. After all, if the UK can selectively ignore it, why not everyone else? Now anyone can write, execute and judge the law. Rule of law was established by liberals in the 19th and 20th centuries to protect everyone from the arbitrary rule of Kings claiming they have divinity. What's to stop anyone from doing the same?

All this comes courtesy of our Tone.
So don't forget to thank him for it on May 5th.

Another day, another accusation...

2005-04-27T09:26:00.000+01:00

It seems the days don't go by at the moment without Michael Howard taking his time to carefully point out to everyone that Tony Blair is a liar. Of course, most sensible people already know this, so Howard is achieving nothing new. By banging on about it, he is beginning to look rather opportunistic. At least last week we were being told about his policies; this week we're just being told why Tony Blair is bad and how he shouldn't be given another chance. Negativity everywhere.

This morning is no exception; Howard has done it again. Meanwhile, Charles Kennedy is telling everyone the party is in the best mood since 1983. They're going to look stupid on election day if it transpires they gain very few seats while they were wasting valuable campaign time harking back to the "heady days" of the SDP.

There's a distinct sense of "here we go again" setting in everywhere. Most bloggers have stepped back a gear, and even the mainstream media is apparently tiring with little to offer in terms of new insight. The problem is that we've completely exhausted the debates on immigration and the economy. Yet, there are so many things in this campaign that have not been touched on. Education is still shockingly absent, although Labour are trying to raise the issue today. Health is barely given a mention apart from letting us all know that Miserable Matron and the MRSA "battle" is on the way back.

The bandwagons cannot roll on with accusations alone. The more we hear someone is a liar, the more we become desensitised to the word. It would have been big news to call another politician a liar even just a decade ago. Now it's a daily event, and it isn't shocking any more. We simply expect to hear this about our politicians, thus further fueling our cynicism of the whole damn process.

The system is rotten. That has been the case from the very beginning, and it's what I discussed yesterday. But now it appears that everyone who resides within it is just as bad. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the quicker we're out of this current election cycle so we can give it a good post-mortem, the better.

The Tories are writhing in pain, and the electorate is waiting to step forth with the lethal injection to put it out of its misery. Unfortunately, it still looks like another landslide is on the cards. I'd rather we just had it now to get it over with than keep waiting and hearing the latest garbage about the Tories slipping in via the back door. Then we can finally see the end of this tawdry affair and the lazy ~~campaigning~~ mud-slinging from all parties. Next Thursday can't come too soon.

We The People Suckers

2005-04-26T08:42:00.000+01:00

Last night I watched Channel 4's Dispatches programme on why politicians cannot tell the truth. It was presented by Peter Oborne, journalist for the Spectator. He did one of these programmes for the US Presidential election too which was very good, so I was expecting a similar standard.

He achieved it, and went way beyond. The angle of the programme was that politics today is nothing but a targeted grab at the 800,000 voters in marginal constituencies liable to change via the modern marketing methods that sells political parties as if they were a choice between a Snickers, a Twix or a Mars Bar. Meanwhile, the serious issues that are going to affect this country - the future of NHS funding, global warming, etc. are ignored, because to discuss them would be political suicide, or as Tony Blair put it, "the political realities" constrain them.

This thesis is not a new one. However, the programme was brilliant in the fact that it carefully took its time to flesh out the argument, giving us a superb insight into the marketing tools such as the Tories "VoterVault" and the Mosaic consumer profiling that the politicians use to send exactly the right message to the owners of the house. Families? Send them leaflets on childcare. Pensioners? Talk about the burden of council tax. It's slick. It's professional.

It's also killing politics. Unsurprisingly, Peter Oborne was unable to find anyone in the street who could disagree with the key planks of any party's strategy - and that is the point. The three parties are all fighting over the same ground. So much so that no one can actually tell the difference.

The demise of ideology is why people are finding it difficult to care about politics any more. There is no rallying call for anyone, apart from those who just so happen to have opinions that put them in the centre. These people are the lucky ones who matter. They can be summoned by everyone at the same time. For anyone out on the left or the right, we're pretty much stuffed. Our votes don't count because we don't change our minds enough - we're more steadfast when it comes to our ideology, sticking with it through thick and thin. Or in many cases, we just decide not to vote because no one matches what we want.

It made me wonder. Perhaps those of us who enjoy politics are actually the fools. We like to spend our time berating those who don't vote. We bemoan the fact that turnout is on a permanent downward spiral. We know best. We know politics is important.

Maybe we're the suckers. What if those who don't turnout are right? Perhaps they're the sensible ones for realising that the system is entirely flawed from top to bottom. While we spend our time endlessly bickering over who is the right party for Britain, we've been hoodwinked by the system for making us think that our vote actually means something. Those who don't vote have already cottoned onto all this - that no matter how you vote, you'll always get a government that reacts to events in a manner that doesn't piss off that nice little slice of middle England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't even come into the equation.

Before politicians knew about these people who Swing All Ways, they had to go on their gut feeling. They weren't to know what was going to be popular until they opened their mouths and said it. Now we have endless testing of policy to find what goes down the best in those little cosy living-room chats with the focus groupies. So before political marketing, politicians had no choice but to exploit ideological divisions. They were the only tools of political marketing. They were the only way to bring people together. They had visions for the future. Now, all politics is about the here and now. Tomorrow can wait, since it is always a day away.

Clement Attlee and his Labour government of 1945-1951 did not bring in the NHS because they thought it would go down an absolute storm in middle England, ensuring Labour dominance for the next decade. No. They did it because they thought it was best for Britain. They believed in it.

This is what is wrong with politics. We don't have politicians who genuinely want to do things that are best for Britain. We have politicians who want to take office and keep it at all costs. When Labour realised the Tories were winning middle England with their tough line on immigration, they came along and cloned their points system with very few differences. They didn't suddenly decide their ideology had been wrong all the time because it didn't have a points system for immigration. They don't honestly believe a points system is best for Britain. All they know is that a points system sounds tough, it sounds harsh, and it matches what middle England wants - therefore, it must be Right. They realised that they needed to close the gap with the Tories, as to not do so would put their future in jeopardy.

This pattern repeats itself infinitely across politics. It's tedious and tiresome. There is little solution. Even pure PR with a list system is not a saviour, since we still end up targeting the biggest and most electorally significant groups in society. The problem is terminal. The future consists of lurching from one problem to the next in ever more populist measures so that one group of people always remain happy.

But why should we complain? After all, all the parties are leading us to a Fair Society. A Just Society, forever going forward, watched over by the Loving Matron. With opportunities for all, including hard working families, and those who play by the rules. Doesn't that please everyone?

Better

2005-04-25T10:45:00.000+01:00

Much better. Well done Charles...

Kennedy seeks Iraq war 'justice'

Every Labour and Conservative candidate should be held to account by voters over the Iraq war, Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has argued.

Mr Kennedy said Tony Blair had taken the UK into an illegal war and voters could deliver "justice by the ballot box" at the general election.

I've been calling for this for some days now, and I'm glad to see he has grasped the opportunity the Mail on Sunday's article has presented. However, he must remain resolute. Sure, he can't bang on about it for the next week, but a couple of days reminder can't hurt anyone. Labour and the Tories are already trying to gloss over it, as they have both moved onto new issues this morning.

So the Lib Dems must try to keep the agenda focused on them. If they do so, it will mean that as is normal, Labour will present a press conference on something and the journalists will spend all the time after it asking questions on unrelated issues, and hopefully that will include Iraq.

Meanwhile, Labour's top brass has begun to steer the good ship Nuclear into a u-turn. Yes. Those membership cards for CND long buried deep in landfills, Tony Blair has decided it is time to reconsider nuclear power as the option for Saving the Day and meeting carbon dioxide reduction pledges.

A classic. Yet another principle sold down the river. More wavering and flip flopping that the opposition parties must capitalise on. Nuclear power is dangerous, and we still don't know what to do with the mountain of waste it produces. But old Blair doesn't want to rock the boat as he's fed up of local councils chucking all proposals for wind power in the bin. It seems the NIMBYs have won. Or have they? Perhaps they will now be pleased that the plans have turned to having a brand new Sellafield on their doorsteps!

This is yet another reason why the Lib Dems have my vote this time. This further u-turn, and the Lib Dems opposition to nuclear power, is a chance to remind all traditional Labour voters of exactly what Blair has done to their party. They must stop voting out of loyalty. Choose based on what you think is best for society. New Labour has no credibility in the causes of social justice; they are more concerned about fighting illegal wars in Iraq.

There can be no denying that New Labour is not the party it was. New Labour has offered token gestures to the old left, but they are few and far between. New Labour has no right to bear the name "Labour" and it might as well just change its name completely. Another day, another tenet of the party dead and buried.

That's New Labour.

Caution

2005-04-24T10:57:00.000+01:00

There will be many people willing today's article in the Mail on Sunday about the legality of the Iraq war to be true. I'm holding myself back from believing that they have an entire copy of the Government's legal advice from the Attorney-General simply because it is from the Mail on Sunday. Although they did support the war, they must see the benefits of embarassing Blair and what it can do electorally.

If it is true, it is naturally a scandal but not at all surprising to me and many others who've thought this whole Iraq war has been a catastrophe from start to finish. The news that it might well have been "illegal" is something that numerous international law experts have been saying for some time so it is hardly a groundbreaking moment in the long and appalling history of this whole charade.

But at the very least I hope this makes Iraq return to the headlines. The Lib Dems must use this opportunity to show their passion on this issue and remind everyone that they were the only party to have a principled opposition to it. If they can cause a fuss they can put Blair on the defensive once more. And if they can remind those 1-2 million who went on the anti-war march to vote for the best placed party to represent their views, then they could see a considerable rise in opinion poll results for them.

There are many things this election has not covered. Iraq is just one of them. People may say that this is because no one is interested any more. If that is true, then why has immigration been such an important part of this campaign? It is consistently pretty low down in polls of voter lists of priorities where they are asked open-ended questions, rather than ticking boxes on a closed-list. This is because it's not in the Conservatives' or Labour's best interests to stoke up the Iraq affair. The Lib Dems get very little chance to set the agenda, so now it has been raised by someone else they must take this opportunity and ride it all the way to polling day.

They must also strongly resist the Conservatives' sheer hypocrisy in their attempt to smear Blair over this issue. They wanted the war more than anyone. They do not have the right to criticise Blair over this, but they will get the headlines if the Lib Dems don't stand up and be counted.

In a week's time, the election will be drawing to a close. It's understandable that some smaller parties may not want to peak too early. But this is now the last chance for the Lib Dems. If they drop this now, it will be a serious opportunity missed and they may regret it for generations to come.

Paxman vs Howard

2005-04-23T09:29:00.000+01:00

In the concluding part of this three part series, Jeremy Paxman attempted to go medieval on Howard's arse this time. Paxman has been feigning indignation and looking rather smarmy all week, but Howard, like Blair, did not take the bait. On reflection, it seems that only Kennedy got shook up by Paxman's predictable bouts of foot-stomping.

Howard pulled off a pretty measured performance. The policies are a disgrace, but that doesn't mean he didn't dress them up appropriately. Out came the brand new Immigration pledge - an old classic in the 2001 campaign that ended up just a little too garish for the public. So Immigration 2005 got its umpteenth relaunch, as Howard flounced and pirouetted to the delight of the cameras - this time in bold, authoritative black. Paxman entered the dance floor with the full intention of tripping up this delightful dancer Howard with a carefully placed foot round the ankles as Howard pranced into full flow.

It was not to be. Howard played the issue carefully, but once more took up a considerable part of the interview in doing so. He got into a little bit of trouble on the age old question of how many immigrants would be the limit, but he brushed it aside with the usual "We're not in government" response. He run through the same old lines that he's said on many other occasions on other programmes, so we have heard it all before. If Paxman did achieve anything in this interview, it was to tie up the Tory leader with immigration for another 10 minutes chunk of his election campaign, thus keeping it on the front pages, and continuing with the theme that they are obsessed about it.

Of course, it won't help that this morning the CBI director Digby Jones has attacked the Tories plans for an economic migrant limit. He is right. This is not how Milton Friedman style Conservatives would run the party. I know a few who are desperate to have their party of economic freedom back.

Other parts of the interview were less exciting. The opening assault on Howard's credibility was worthy of being asked, and the usual admissions of the failure of the ERM were turned into positive aspects by Howard telling everyone how much it proves the Euro is destined to failure. It's clever, but again one we've heard before. I'd rather the discussion was on their current policies - not just for me to laugh at, but so that the electorate had a chance of hearing at least some analysis of what the Tories have planned for Britain. Apart from a reasonably interesting section on tax, where Howard proclaimed his Love for subsidising the private sector out of government finances, and the discussion on immigration, Paxman didn't go any further to look at their other policies.

Howard made a big play of their £4bn tax cut; a pittance in comparison with total budget finances. If they want to claim they are the party of lower taxation, I can't help but feel that they are going about it in a very odd way. They can argue the economy is struggling, but the plans for the initial budget are hardly revolutionary. Other Conservative parties in the past have made simple pledges on the rates of income tax, and not a whole plethora of issues designed to make the money spread as widely as possible. Their miniscule tax cuts they propose are not really worthy of the attention they are receiving.

Overall, it's a representation of the fact that most people probably aren't going to make up their mind on issues. It's going to be yet another development in the history of the more personality driven campaign. It's all about leadership, style and authoritativeness. Who do you trust?

On that score, Michael Howard may have won a few votes last night. And by God will he need them.

Immigration: The Truth Hurts

2005-04-22T12:35:00.000+01:00

Last night's Question Time was probably the most interesting I've seen in a long time, even though that's not saying anything given that the standard of this programme is normally appallingly low. Robin Cook's outbreak of loyalty to the party was expected, but it still annoyed the hell out of me.

It was encouraging to see a lot of positive focus on the asylum and immigration issues given, however. Shirley Williams for the Lib Dems and the Green MEP on last night both talked very positively and sometimes very movingly on particular cases they had come across.

This is the problem with the immigration debate. To coin a phrase that the Tories have made in vogue at the moment, none of what I'm about to say on this issue is rocket science, and most people will have heard it before. But I feel that it's getting lost in the mass of the same speeches being made day in day out by the same old politicians.

We need immigration. Unfortunately, and I'm not quite sure where this has come from, but the average man on the street is quite keen to tell you how immigrants and asylum seekers come over here and "take our jobs" and "our benefits". Such responses are wrong on so many levels, and I am very curious to know from where these ideas were planted in the first place. No politicians ever say it: to do so would mean certain failure. So who has fed this one?

Why is it wrong? Simple:

Immigrants: i.e. economic migrants cannot claim any benefits whatsoever. Before they are allowed to move here, they have to prove that they already have a job waiting for them, or they have a skill the country is desperate for. Alternatively, they must show that they have many thousands of pounds in resources to tide them over until they can find one. The system will not support them.

Economic migrants do take jobs. But the jobs they take are either very high on the job ladder, or at the bottom. The economy needs doctors, nurses, teachers, directors, etc. But these aren't the jobs your Average Joe in the street would be able to fulfil. No harm done. In fact, these economic migrants pay taxes and get little in return. They boost the Treasury coffers to a large extent. An extremely big plus for the country.

But at the other end of the scale is the menial jobs they fill. British people can endlessly moan about them "taking our jobs" - but how many British people you know are now beginning to turn their noses up at jobs because they are beneath them? Someone has to clean toilets. Someone has to staff the bars that we prop up all day. Someone has to listen to you bark your order at the McDonalds Drive-Thru. It's small wonder we have to take immigrants in. There are plenty of jobs available for British people to take. If we filled them all, then there likely wouldn't be any economic migration for such lower-end jobs. So perhaps the "flood" of immigrants is actually your Average Joe's fault in the first place.

Asylum seekers: genuine asylum seekers cannot work. They do not have National Insurance numbers, and are not allowed to apply for them. Employers could only take them on with cash-in-hand - i.e. illegally. Worse is the fact that such asylum seekers will often be exploited ruthlessly, working for under the minimum wage and with no statutory employment protection. And why do some of them get so desperate that they want to work illegally? Why, could it have anything to do with the fact that a single adult receives just £37.77 a week, plus accomodation?

Illegal immigrants: those who are smuggled into the UK. Since they are not on any systems, they also cannot work legitimately and so work for unscrupulous employers in the same way as asylum seekers. Next time you quaff down an oyster, don't forget to say thanks to the illegal immigrant getting paid £1/hour for picking the finest Morecambe has to offer. They're desperate to get here... and willing to pay thousands of pounds in the process, and sometimes even risking their lives. And what do they gain out of it? They eke out a miserable existence under the threat of constant exploitation from their employers. There is something desperately wrong with the system if it is driving people to such measures, and it certainly isn't because the system is too "weak".

Let's face it. Like America, this country is beginning to run on immigrant labour. Instead of moaning, we should either be doing the jobs ourselves - which we don't seem to want to do any more - or in fact thank the hard work and enormous economic benefit put into this country by immigrants.

We need to acknowledge that. Only then can we have a real debate that understands exactly what the implications of toying with this issue are.

The politicians are playing with fire.

Paxman vs Blair

2005-04-21T20:23:00.000+01:00

Continuing on the analysis of Paxman's "Big Interviews", it was Tony Blair's turn in the hot seat last night. But in this case, the only warmth on the seat may have been left over from Charles Kennedy's trembling rectum as Paxman delivered pounding blows to it on Monday.

Paxman had a go at Blair. It was remarkable that the first 10 minutes of the interview were taken up by Iraq. I'm pleased Paxman chose to do that, as the electorate perhaps do need a small reminder of all the lies and spin that took us to war, but Blair pulled off all the usual stops that we've heard before, meaning the whole conversation turned into little more than an exercise in futility. But it was remarkable because it has now been two years since the war, and only now is Tony Blair being put in a position to answer these questions. If anyone else asks him, you normally get accused of being a Saddam-loyalist. This time, at least we got to see him doing a small wriggle about the exaggeration of intelligence.

But what Blair did demonstrate in this interview was exactly what Charles Kennedy didn't. Within seconds of the grilling starting, Paxman asked whether Blair felt people had lost trust in him. Blair acknowledged there was a problem, but he immediately redirected the question to discuss the strengths of Labour's policies and the economic success they have brought since 1997. He didn't allow Paxman to bog him down over broken promises in both manifestoes. He pushed relentlessly all the way through for the New Labour line: opportunity and prosperity for all; forward not back.

This grand vision is what the Lib Dems lack. New Labour at least tell us where we're heading. It doesn't matter what happens along the way. I'm sure in 2009/2010, we'll be being told by Labour that "just one more win" is needed to further safeguard and secure New Labour policies so they go on "for ever". But that's what we were told in 2001 and have been told this time.

No one really knows what the big theme of the Lib Dems is. They are starting to click onto this with this "fairer society" thing. But with it only being a recent innovation, I feel it's probably too late to make the electorate remember it.

Paxman then spent a short while on tax - nothing new there but the usual evasion of the imminent rise in NI contributions - but then proceeded with what he probably thought to be a harsh attack on Blair's immigration policy, but in fact turned to be rather a tedious affair. We can't expect politicians to have all numbers at their fingertips, and Blair had a reasonable excuse for not knowing exactly how many failed asylum seekers are still in the country. In any case, the civil service does not have exact fingers for every single issue. Some things require research, and maybe a little more of that damned bureaucracy that apparently is such a disaster to the nation will be created to generate such new figures.

Blair had his excuse and rode it out. Paxman tried to score points, but Blair deftly dodged the issue by talking about the benefits of economic migration and our obligation to take asylum seekers. No votes lost there, since no mainstream party is against economic migration. Once again, nothing of any interest added to the debate.

It was a very narrow discussion. It's probably the nature of half hour interviews, but we still didn't get a chance to discuss education - which is still shockingly absent from this campaign. The NHS barely got a mention, but Blair alluded to both on occasion. You wouldn't think that these two issues still rank on the public's agenda as the most important. But no! Immigration is far more important!

Paxman vs Howard might be interesting on Friday.

No. Who am I kidding...

Vote Keys, Get Brown

2005-04-21T09:51:00.000+01:00

[Apologies for another lengthy post. But I hope you enjoy it...]

The media and the blogosphere alike seem to have reached a point in this campaign where things appear to be unravelling for all. Despite the Tories initial poll figures showing them moving in the right direction, suddenly Labour appear to have opened up a gap once more. In some cases, leads of 9-10%, which if produced on election day would be a travesty - allowing another Blair landslide and letting him claim the nation has given his disgusting Iraq invasion their ringing endorsement.

The Tories meanwhile spent yesterday defending the allegation that they are obsessed with immigration. I watched Michael Howard's despicable performance on the Ask the Leader programme on Monday night and it once more reminded me exactly why I don't want them to win. This is seriously harming their prospects. We all know what happened in 2001 and it's going to happen again. While people may like what they're saying, it is not going down well in the key marginals, and it certainly is not going to be the deciding factor in many people's votes. Moreover, the constant banging on about it just reinforces their image as the "nasty party".

So the rest of us worried about Tony getting another huge majority, while wanting to see the Conservatives isolated again, and at the same time wishing the Lib Dems could make a serious breakthrough are left pondering what to do now.

It seems to me there is just one solution left. It's a simple goal, but its achivement is largely improbable. It involves using the delights of the First Past the Post electoral system against those who seem to enjoy revelling in its disproportionality.

Vote Keys, Get Brown

In Tony's Sedgefield constituency, there is an unfortunate mass of opposition lined up against him, ensuring the anti-Blair vote gets split many ways and giving him another romping "majority". (Of course, the word "majority" is misleading in our system. It should actually be "plurality". Majority means more than 50%. The real majority in this seat is 15 percentage points.)

And that's what's wrong. Sure this is safe Labour territory, but there are so many opposition candidates that they are removing any chance of an election night shock. The cruel irony is that by all standing against him, they are actually ensuring that he romps home with another glorious majority.

Reg Keys is standing against Tony Blair in Sedgefield. Already he has a higher media profile than all the other independents, thanks to the media attention given to his heart-rending story over his son in Iraq, the endorsement of Martin Bell and the defection from Blair's constituency campaign of a senior member of his staff. He is standing on one issue - to hold Blair accountable for the disaster of our involvement in Iraq.

This is a chance. It is a difficult one, and probably a long shot at first glance, but when you consider this issue further, there could well be a window of opportunity opening.

The Tories and Lib Dems in this seat have no chance at all. Blair achieved 65% of the vote at the last election. The Tory candidate got 21% and the Lib Dem 9%. Blair's "majority" is large, but that's only because the word "majority" is not used correctly. A majority means to get more than 50%. Blair's actual majority in this constituency in some 15 percentage points.

It makes sense for both parties to stand aside and endorse Reg Keys' campaign. It also makes sense for all the other independents to do so. After all, this has happened before. A precedent was set when Labour and Lib Dem candidates stood aside on the issue of a worm who liked a little stuffed brown envelope action. This time, there is only the small matter of some 18,000 to 100,000 deaths directly attributable to this government's involvement in the Iraq campaign.

A direct face-off between Tony Blair and Reg Keys would enliven this campaign. Turnout in this constituency was 62% at the last election, and the media interest that would be generated from such a contest would likely ensure that would rise. Sure, some of it would be voters coming out to defend Blair, but more would be looking to take the opportunity of being able to cast a vote that's worth something. In safe seats of any colour, voters are less inclined to turn out. After all, what difference does it make?

Labour voters upset with the war should vote for Reg Keys anyway - there are plenty of good reasons for doing so. People who don't vote normally may be encouraged to by the campaign and the realisation that they could be the architects of another Portillo moment. But the appeal is wider:

Labour voters: by voting Keys and toppling Blair, the rise of Gordon Brown to the party leadership would be unstoppable. Labour will win the election anyway, and a swift coronation would be the outcome. A safe and easy way to get rid of Blair now and bring about a Brown premiership, which is much more popular with Labour voters. Success!

Conservative voters: The Conservatives have long wished for the arrival of someone new to challenge. They believe Brown is vulnerable on many issues, and he may struggle in moulding a new Cabinet in the first weeks, given them precious time to assault his style. It will also probably bring back the return of clear divisions between the parties, allowing them to present themselves once more as a genuine alternative. Voters will be able to see the difference, and will hopefully be more engaged.

Lib Dems voters: The demise of Blair will be celebrated for the ousting of an excessively authoritarian leader. This will then give them the opportunity to appeal for the key issues to be re-evaluated, and giving them the chance to put forward the liberal alternative for the debate on the issues that would likely follow the rise of Brown. They have no chance in this seat anyway, and by standing aside they could help ensure Blair's removal and punishment for his actions in Iraq.

Looking from a numbers point of view, this doesn't seem so impossible.

Blair achieved 65% of the vote last time. There is a 35% non-Labour vote. So some persuasion of Labour voters would be required in this hypothetical situation. Not impossible, given the fact that the campaign could imply the mantra of this post. They couldn't be explicit, but the fact that voting Keys could give them Brown as Prime Minister could well be a significant pull factor. They would also be encouraged to change based on the chance of punishing Blair for the Iraq war too.

Allowing for a non-Labour vote of 30%, and before considering the effects of turnout, it comes out as 1 in 3 Labour voters must be encouraged to change their mind. This is not impossible if all resources are concentrated behind one candidate. This figure also gets easier as the likely rise in turnout through the media spectacle this would create would benefit Keys and not Blair.

There is a real opportunity here; a chance to make Blair personally accountable. We have this flawed electoral system, so we might as well use it. Even if Blair only wins by a small margin, the fact will remain that he will be forced to fight for his political career. He will be distracted and have to spend time in Sedgefield canvassing - possibly for the first time ever. This will take a lot of energy out of the Labour campaign.

This is a chance. It's a slim one at the moment, but if people could unite and force Blair to listen, he could find he ends up with more than a fight on his hands. Blair cannot go on forever. He is not expecting to lose his seat. He is taking Sedgefield voters for granted. We can bring his premiership to a close much sooner than anyone anticipated.

A little surprise on election night could be just what this campaign and this country needs.

Vote Reg Keys for Sedgefield!

Thoughts on the new Pope

2005-04-20T10:38:00.000+01:00

I try to avoid religious issues; I'm a lapsed Catholic and think of myself as non-religious now. When Pope John Paul II died, however, I did mark his passing with a note of respect. There are numerous harsh criticisms of him out there which I mostly agree with. But there are 1.1 billion Catholics out there - most of them probably not practicing - but nevertheless it's still an important issue for them. For the rest of us is the curiosity of a new Pope.

Because like it or not, the Pope has a lot of influence and authority. It saddened me to see that for the last five years Pope John Paul II was completely immobile. I can't help but feel that people found it easier to ignore him now he was no longer the jetsetting Pope he used to be. He was strongly opposed to the war in Iraq, and it's a distinct possibility that if he was more vocal and able to attract more media attention by being mobile, he could have caused great embarassment to George Bush.

So in that respect, I'm glad the Catholic Church has a new leader who can travel the world once more. I think we should wait and see as to where his faith takes him on the issues of orthodoxy, but his background means we shouldn't expect much reform.

Yet - there is one thing that the Church can do. Even though the Pope lives in luxury, and the Church sits on assets of billions of pounds, it can promote and further the cause of social justice. If that's just one thing the new Pope can continue to encourage, then that will be a great step. From my point of view it's a shame that in some cases we need religion to encourage people to strive for social justice, but the end almost justifies the means in this case.

We all know the parable of the Good Samaritan. There are still good people out there, but I feel that the culture of excessive individualism is taking over the world. We should all be allowed to make up our own minds, preferably free of the influence of religion. But if that individualism turns into us closing ourselves off from our own communities, and becoming excessively suspicious of that single mid-aged man over the road because he "looks a bit funny", then we turn into a very paranoid bunch of people.

The Church has some noble goals that we can all agree on, religious or not. I can only hope that Benedict XVI will work on them for the good of everyone. Let's wait and see what happens.

Paxman vs Kennedy

2005-04-19T10:10:00.000+01:00

Justin over at Chicken Yoghurt is right to describe this spectacle last night as: "practically useless as a means of extracting information useful to the electorate and more an exercise in trying to make Kennedy look like a dickhead."

I stuck it out for the whole thirty minutes. Kennedy tried hard and put up a valiant effort against what I thought to be an extraordinarily attacking interview from Jeremy Paxman. It's just another reflection of the fact that the journalists like to be centre stage with their criticism, being the ones to score the points just because they've made the candidates wriggle rather than getting them to fully describe and analyse their own policies.

Paxman decided to follow up Kennedy's inability to have figures to hand for his local income tax policy that he demonstrated at the manifesto launch. Of course, it was ridiculous that Paxman expected Charles Kennedy to be prepared for any example thrown at him, and the nurse and fireman earning over £40,000 living in Cardiff Central was hardly (a) an example that Kennedy could have expected, and (b) probably extremely unlikely given the situation in Cardiff Central. He's not a calculator. He doesn't have the average council tax for a band D property in every council at his fingertips. But Paxman huffed and sneered when it became apparent that Kennedy had the audacity not to have a mastery of such numbers.

As predicted, also, Sir Ian Blair's comments on Sunday that I criticised were used in a neutral way to attack Charles Kennedy's principled opposition to ID cards. It's appaling that a partisan opinion has been dressed up as the neutral and thus clearly factually correct statement from a respected and authoritative academic. This is only the beginning, and Tony Blair will doubtless use the criticism against Charles Kennedy in future.

One of the disappointments of the debate was the fact that it generated more heat than light. Paxman decided to ask Charles Kennedy about Lib Dem party conference resolutions that are "officially" party policy under the party's constitution, but are not presented in the manifesto. Once Kennedy told Paxman that they are not in the manifesto and so are not going to be implemented in this Parliament if they win, the issue should have been stopped. Instead, Paxman went off on a discussion about giving the vote to prisoners and allowing 16 year olds to visit sex shops... neither of which the Lib Dems are offering this election.

But therein lies another problem, and it's the same one I was discussing yesterday that Paxman touched on at the end of the interview. He asked if Kennedy had the "killer instinct". Kennedy said he had, yet the interview had demonstrated in part the problem that he faces.

The interview did not discuss Lib Dem key policies. 50% tax on incomes over £100,000 was not mentioned. Student tuition fees were hardly mentioned. Free care for the elderly was not mentioned. Citizens pensions were ignored. Jeremy Paxman should have discussed all of these as part of giving the Lib Dems a chance to discuss their key issues, but when it became clear that Paxman was more interested in discussing giving prisoners the vote, the penny should have dropped in Kennedy's head that Paxman had no interest in discussing the Lib Dems real policies. All he was out to do was to prove the stereotype that the Lib Dems are a little weird and detached from reality.

From that point on, Kennedy should have took the interview by the horns and redirected it to the key issues that are certain vote-winners and are achieving consistently high approval in opinion polls, particularly the 50% income tax. It's a strategy that Blair had to use all the time in the run up to 1997. Instead, Kennedy just kept saying, "And that's an issue I hope we'll come back to." Paxman saw what he was doing and didn't let Kennedy back in. In a way he was proving to Charles just how easy it is for the media to set the agenda.

Charles needs to learn this lesson, and learn it fast. The election time is fast running out, and his best media opportunities in the next two weeks must be seized upon every time. He's got to keep hitting on the same policies again and again until we can all recite them off the top of our head. We can't afford to let people keep thinking, "I don't know what the Lib Dems stand for" when they have the best and most clearly recogniseable policies, distinguishable from both the other parties, for some decades.

This golden opportunity cannot be missed.

The Trouble with Charlie

2005-04-18T11:27:00.000+01:00

I pity the Lib Dems. I really do. Even though they get more coverage during an election campaign thanks to the Representation of the People Act, they still don't have the ability to set the agenda.

This morning, at 7:30am, the Lib Dems unveiled their strategy for tackling crime. I was checking the news at the time and noticed that it was the top story. At last, given the fuss with Sir Ian Blair's intervention yesterday, it seemed the Lib Dems had actually chosen to stay topical by responding in kind with their own crime-fighting strategy.

Little more than an hour later, the story has now been severely relegated down the BBC News website, trumped by Michael Howard and Tony Blair's new scuffle on health. We'd hardly heard anything about health plans yet this election, apart from Howard's lying leaflets about MRSA.

I'm glad the debate is moving on from tax and the economy, but it just goes to demonstrate how much difficulty the Lib Dems have in setting the agenda. Thinking they'd be topical, they decided to go on crime this morning. Yet, Labour and the Conservatives don't even feel the need to respond... they just go off in their own direction. So even though Charles Kennedy was probably leading on the right thing this morning, now it looks like he's all on his own again trying to campaign on issues that just aren't making the headlines.

This is very difficult for the Lib Dems. Not to mention the struggles with the electoral system, which Tim Hicks has further reflected on based on my post here about the mountain they have to climb, the Lib Dems also give the impression of being unable to control the news agenda - a vital task for any party.

So what's the solution? And more to the point, can this be blamed on any particular problem?

Matthew Parris wrote an article in the Times on Saturday, explaining what he thinks the problem is. He begins with an analysis of the current situation:

"In 19 days the Liberal Democrat leader and his party will have within their grasp an opportunity that may not return for another generation — which may never return. This is their time. This is their moment. This is the election upon which historians may pronounce that in the year 2005 a desperate Conservative Party threw all it had into one last-ditch attempt to renew its grip on British politics — and failed.

Now, Charlie — when a governing party and its leader have run out of ideas and lost our affection and when a principal Opposition has only fear to trade on — is the hour of your enemies’ greatest weakness. Now is the hour when a rising third party must strike. Now or maybe never."

He's right. This is a glorious opportunity for the Lib Dems. He goes on to explain why:

"We Tories are scared of you. We’re scared of the yawning gap between what the voters think of our ideas — they’re interested — and what they think of us — they’re not.

We’re scared of your belief in personal and economic freedom. We have some claim to have fought these corners... But now we’re all in a tangle with our other strong suit: authority. We have a leader whose affection for identity cards is strong, whose one-time support for what gained notoriety as “Section 28” is well documented; whose commitment to civil liberties is compromised; and whose opposition to the state is crippled by his party’s evident terror of shouting from the rooftops that the state does too much and costs too much.

We’re scared of your clean record of standing up for Britain against George W. Bush... We half-think the Iraq war was a blunder — and we’re half-afraid of sounding soft on terrorists. We know our own supporters, present and potential, are angrier about Iraq, angrier about Mr Blair’s deceit, than we have been. Your stand has worried us."

When you look at it this way, it is hard to see why the Lib Dems aren't taking away more votes from the Conservatives. They simply must. They are holding a lot of ground that traditional, dare I say it, One Nation Conservatives used to hold with great pride and defend with zeal.

Matthew Parris goes on to suggest that this could be Charles Kennedy's fault. I'm not sure I totally agree, but I do think he needs to be a little more aggressive. He holds all of the aces. Many of his policies are superb vote-winners. People are aware of a lot of what they propose. They have almost been sold to the electorate.

But he hasn't gone the final step. He hasn't gone far enough to convince people that he is able to lead. We may like him. He may be the only politician to have favourable ratings right now. But lots of us still think of him as little more than a sound guardian of our protest vote. We don't see him as a serious contender. We don't see a charismatic leader rising to lead his party to victory.

Some of this is down to money. Matthew Parris harshly criticises the strategy of the Lib Dems of extreme targetting of certain constituencies. Unfortunately, it is the only way they can advance. They don't have the money to go for a national campaign of demonstrating their credibility and coherency. They lack the discipline to carry this through.

But we aren't seeing enough passion from Charles. We aren't seeing a genuine anger at the way this country has been led. I fear it may be too late for him to change tack; it couldn't possibly look more opportunistic and out-of-character if he decided now to viciously pursue Blair on his record. We have all got used to the Chat Show Charlie persona that he seems to have been happy to cultivate.

The Lib Dems should be making a serious breakthrough this election. We know the system is loaded against them, but if they could equal the share of the vote that the Conservatives get, regardless of MPs won, I will see this as the minimum threshold for the success the Lib Dems should achieve.

Anything less and I fear that Charles Kennedy's time may be up.

Blurring The Lines

2005-04-17T09:58:00.000+01:00

This morning my best friend Sir Ian Blair has returned once more to give everyone something new to make them sleep uneasily in their beds every night.

Yes. Him. The government's favourite police chief and loyal sheep. Every week or so he likes to pop his head above the parapet and let everyone know he supports this government, he loves ID cards, he wants more power for the police and he wants more anti-terror legislation. But then again, what police officer doesn't want to be feared and "respected" by the loyal Citizens? It's hardly surprising he wants more power.

What's more worrying is the fact that he has not long took up this post and yet he is becoming a regular media commentator and mouthpiece for the government. It is inevitable that next time someone tries to tell Blair why ID cards won't work, he will tell everyone that the Chief of the Met wants ID cards, and who is better qualified than a Police Chief to tell us what we do or don't need.

Therein lies the problem. Sir Ian Blair has become a political figure. Remember the separation of powers? The good old principle that one arm of the state is not supposed to be able to ride roughshod over the others? Sure, we don't have an official separation of powers in this country, and in some cases it's hard to tell the difference between the legislature and the executive, but the principle is there and there are ways of exercising it.

The police force are a sub-branch of the Executive. The Home Office is an Executive department. The police force are an Executive agency - they are the agents of the Home Office and execute the laws in place.

Therefore, what follows is simple. The Police chief is not a legislator. He has no powers to legislate. Thus, for the chief of the Met to get involved in promoting and arguing laws - and there is no doubt Tony Blair will use his public statements to back up his case - there is a breach of the separation of powers. The police are there to execute the law. They are intended to be independent of government; if they start making the law up as they go along, then it almost seals the deal of the police state Charles Clarke and Blunkett seem to want to push us towards.

This is becoming a problem in our political culture at the moment. We've already seen how Labour's obsession with spin has blurred the lines between the civil service and party officials. The politicisation of the senior civil service is often talked about. Then we already have the declining legislature in the face of the mighty Executive. And now this: the police telling us what laws we should and shouldn't have.

Just another uncomfortable development of authoritarian governments.

Uneducated?

2005-04-16T17:32:00.000+01:00

There's a very good article on the BBC website at the moment from their education correspondent, Mike Baker, discussing where education has gone from this campaign. It's well worth a read, especially as it goes beyond this point to discuss how the media makes politicians dance to its own tune.

"It is an odd spectacle when the party leader and education spokesperson spend half an hour setting out their thoughts on education only to be immediately asked about immigration or national insurance.

Yet this is exactly what happens. Of course, as a journalist, I would defend the right of the media to ask politicians about whatever issue they think is important to their readers, viewers and listeners."

I've been wondering this too, and it doesn't just happen during an election. If you examine the transcripts of any of the PM's press conferences, you'll notice how Tony Blair will talk on a subject for a few minutes and then almost none of the subsequent questions will be related to it. The first question is often completely at a tangent, and it doesn't seem to fit together very well.

The article moves on:

"One of the worst aspects of journalism is the pack mentality - it is safer to hunt together than to rove independently. If the big beasts of the journalistic jungle are going on one issue, others will follow.

So, while they might like to test out the details of... policy, they dare not miss their one chance to try to wrong-foot the politicians on an issue that has cropped up elsewhere.

I fear, and I speak as a television journalist, that this problem is largely the consequence of the daily news conferences being broadcast live on 24-hour news media. Journalists like to get their questions on the air almost as much as they want to hear the answers."

There's more, but I leave that to you to read. It is a fine summary of the mess that politics has gotten into in this country. Because the whole object of presentational style is now to take advantage of the media, it's hardly surprising that the media have responded by taking the ultra-critical line on as many things as possible. And even if it isn't critical, it will use the "if we're sceptical and cynical about everything then it will still be fair" line.

This then feeds in to how we view the politicians, and it only adds to our deep-seated suspicion of everything they do.

But then again, I do feel the media does also bear a lot of the blame. They don't need to be this harsh. I'd like it if every now and then they actually asked questions on the issue the presentation is about, just as long as it clearly isn't an attempt to divert news away from another story. As citizens, we depend almost entirely on the media to know where parties stand on the issues. They have a lot of power, and it worries me that a hell of a lot is slipping under the radar that will be important to millions of voters. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see education as the top priority of all parties, but it's not getting the headlines.

The media is unaccountable. They should always remember that. They like to think they're doing an important job by scrutinising the elected politicians, but there are many tens of thousands of people out there who could do the job just as well and may even bring a different light to the story. But since we can't do that, they need to show a bit of humility. They've got to use their power wisely. It's OK for them... they can stir shit endlessly but if anyone ever pulls them up on it they have the retort, "I ask the questions!"

Makes you wonder. Just how much of this campaign is actually being dictated by the media? Who's to say the politicians are in control of anything?

The Youth Vote

2005-04-15T17:00:00.000+01:00

To turn away from the issues is usually a brave move to make. Today, I have decided to construct an essay on my assessment of youth voting in this country. It couldn't be further from the devastating news of the demise of Rover at the moment, but I feel that this is an issue that has not been considered properly by the media. So because this is totally untopical, I am not bothered about lack of comments to it. I simply feel that most of this needs to be said. Before I begin, I will declare an interest: I am a student. I will come back to the particular issue of student voting at another time.

The common view is that the youth is completely disengaged from politics. If you ask someone between 18-24 in the street who they are going to vote for, they are likely to tell you that they are not voting at all. We don't like politicians - they are slimy and untrustworthy. They are not interested in our issues. They prefer to pander to the elderly. It's a different world.

All of this is broadly true. If you're a manifesto junkie, you'll have noticed the perhaps undue prominence given to the "grey vote". Everyone wants to give the pensioners a little sweetener. Down here in the youth vote, we see the grey vote as being full of people more concerned about what they get off the government rather than what a government can do for society.

A harsh line to take, and not one I fully agree with, but it is a reasonable stereotype of the youth view. Even if it is true, it's hardly surprising given that we don't vote, so therefore why should the politicians ever take any notice of us? It's a vicious circle that we have started, and it shows no sign of slowing down.

But if you press the issue further, you notice something else. When we say we're not interested in politics, we don't actually mean it. Because the word "politics" comes with so much baggage, we assume that by "politics" you mean "party politics". We are not disengaged; we are genuinely interested in what is going on. We might even have an opinion on it! We just don't approve of this adult sport of clubbing together to shove leaflets through doors. Remember, most of us have not long finished being children. It's hardly surprising that we're not taking to extremely "adult" things like politics intuitively. We'll get round to party politics eventually. For now, we are more engaged by issues...

Issues are the key. We hear stories on the news. We hear friends talking about them. Even within the family events may happen that can cause a political interest. We listen, we agree, disagree or maybe offer an alternative perspective. All the while we are beginning to appreciate the concept of politics. It's hardly surprising that so few of us vote because we're not used to this process of political socialisation. It's a new thing in our lives. As new adults, we're only just getting used to adulthood and the concept of self-determination. There could be nothing worse to our new and growing senses of individuality than to club together in so called "parties" which are anything but.

It takes time before appreciation of majority rule comes in. More often than not, we find ourselves in the minority, and so we hate it as we're told what to do. But then we come to appreciate that sometimes we hold a majority view, and our imposition of it on a minority goes against our opposition to majority rule, but somehow it is still right. And so, an understanding of pragmatism comes in; that sometimes we need to trade off points of view. Otherwise nothing would get done. That's not to say I approve of the party whip system 100%, but I accept that parties are a necessary evil of the system. However, I do not think that the three party system adequately reflects the balance of opinions in my age group.

We do care about what's going on. We just don't think the party system reflects or represents us. We have views on issues, but they aren't consistent. We have ideologies, but most of us haven't realised it yet. Only given some time will be appreciate that our own experiences can be drawn upon to produce a reasonably coherent line of thought across many issues. Then we suddenly realise - mostly to our horror - that in fact we're not quite so different to the rest of the world after all.

Youth apathy is excuseable. We're still learning. The solution of it is to ensure that we're engaged in this kind of thing before 18, but this is not ideal. After all, when you're under 18, politics is the furthest thing away from what you really want to be doing. You're still a kid. You should be allowed to enjoy whatever childhood innocence you have left without having to worry too much about bigger pictures just yet.

Amongst all this, politicians should not be allowed to ignore the youth because they don't vote. It seems obvious, but today's youth is tomorrow's mature and educated (hopefully) electorate. Politicians cannot be left to just appeal to the older voters; they must have clear and consistent policies on youth that they can talk about to start the process of electoral engagement. Youth apathy has always been here, but it is getting worse as politicians permanently focus on electoral arithmetic and decide that it's not worth their effort trying to capture a disparate group when they can talk about the state pension and capture the attention of another disparate group - pensioners - but who nevertheless have one or two uniting factors that have much broader appeal.

Politicians have a role to play. They've got to communicate with us youth voters. The Conservatives have known this for some time, and their youth organisation is legendary. But the other parties must join the bandwagon, including all the non-mainstream ones who the youth often turn to first, such as the Greens or the Lib Dems.

So next time you hear someone moaning about the lack of a "youth vote", don't just tut and complain about them not being interested. We are. We want to get involved. We just don't want to play your game on your terms. We want to come together to "play the game" on terms we can all agree on. This may require some thought and effort. It may require you to offer an initial compromise to set the example of what politics should be about.

But never just blanket dismiss us as apathetic. We're just waiting for you to lead the way.

Interpretation

2005-04-14T09:53:00.000+01:00

From the result of the totally unscientific but nevertheless interesting quiz on who I should vote for, what shocks me is the distance between me and Labour. This is due to a combination of their lurch to the centre-right, and the moving of the Lib Dems to the centre-left, but it is saddening that the party I would naturally have voted for in the past has changed beyond all recognition.

Yesterday's manifesto was an appalling mix of privatise this, subsidise that and "give people greater choice". Normally, I quite like choice. I believe people should be as free as possible. But when it comes to education and healthcare, choice should not come into it. Everyone should have the opportunity to get the best available without having to choose between arbitrary two star and one star hospitals. I don't know about you, but next time I keel over in the street I certainly won't be using my dying breaths to shout, "Take me to St. Thomas' hospital! Only they have a four star rating in heart surgery! They will save me!"

I just want the local hospital to do the job and do it well. This is the failure of New Labour. Even for an outpatient appointment, I don't care that the hospital 50 miles down the road does better vasectomies than any in the land. How am I supposed to get there to take advantage of it? Why can't my hospital 5 miles away do it just as well?

Naturally, the people who gain from choice are those who can afford to exercise it. If you're poor and have no car, then you have no choice but to go to the nearest hospital anyway. So once more, we see another Labour policy that will only benefit those who are better off. In any case, regardless of wealth, it's still a hassle to be moving round the country. Why do we need choice when it comes to healthcare? All we want is a uniform standard NHS hospital close enough to everyone. Meanwhile, those "failing" hospitals will get less patients, and there may even come pressure to close them.

Worse is the fact that, if I'm reading this correctly, by 2009 patients will be able to choose from any hospital in the land, as long as that hospital can provide the operation to NHS standards and equivalent or better financial cost. So taxpayers money could theoretically be going nicely into the back pocket of private hospitals. Kerching! In that case, why not do away with the NHS and simply institute a national system of healthcare insurance?

Labour are taking us closer and closer to the privatisation of the NHS via Peter Hain's famous back door. Do not be under any illusions that this is the party of socialism. They are not even social democrats.

"Healthcare is too precious to be left to chance... This means defeating those who would dismantle the NHS" - Labour 2005 Manifesto

Yes, Tony. It is too precious to be left to chance. It is also too precious to be left in your heads. You are dismantling the NHS. You must be defeated.

Not a surprise...

2005-04-14T09:43:00.000+01:00

Since other bloggers are taking this test at the moment - and it's a useful guide to the simple components of each major party's principles - it's worth a go. My result was entirely expected:

Who should I vote for?

Your expected outcome:

Liberal Democrat

Your actual outcome:

Labour -18
Conservative -85
	Liberal Democrat 112
UK Independence Party -28
	Green 35

You should vote: Liberal Democrat

The LibDems take a strong stand against tax cuts and a strong one in favour of public services: they would make long-term residential care for the elderly free across the UK, and scrap university tuition fees. They are in favour of a ban on smoking in public places, but would relax laws on cannabis. They propose to change vehicle taxation to be based on usage rather than ownership.

Take the test at Who Should You Vote For

Of course, if this were a proportional representation system, then this would give a reasonably accurate guide as to how to vote. There are other issues of course, but the ones considered in this poll are those that are hitting the headlines. And it doesn't take into account the importance of tactical voting. Nevertheless, I do believe that a lot of ex-Labour voters who are considering tactically voting for the Lib Dems might find it worthwhile to take this test and see for themselves that the Lib Dems are more closely aligned to their views in the first place.

Tax and Bore

2005-04-13T09:43:00.000+01:00

As the discussions on whose economic plans will "lock in macroeconomic stability" continue, I can hear the yawns of a tired nation.

The interesting thing about all this is the fact that, in reality, no one is paying any attention to what figures are being bandied about. To be honest, I'm not even sure of calls of "black holes" make much difference either. The numbers are flying over everyone's heads, but the threats from Tony to "watch out for your interest rates" may land home more than anything. When it comes down to it, people are going to make a snap judgement based on who they think they can trust, rather than who they think are the competent economists.

If they think the 8 years of Labour have fattened their wallets, and they like that kind of thing, then they will continue voting Labour. One of the perhaps slightly concerning things I've been hearing during the campaign so far is the number of arch-Conservatives who voted Tory in 1997 and 2001 now saying they will vote Labour because they have been "surprised at how well the economy has been run". Go figure.

But I still think the impact of tax is being overplayed. In a fascinating poll for the Independent yesterday, NOP produced some surprising, and reassuring, results.

Only 25% of people want to cut taxes by £4bn, as the Tories promise. Out of Tory voters, this figure only rises to 30%. From both Labour and Lib Dem voters, only 18% of each want to cut tax, while 76% of each would prefer such money to be invested in the public services. Even 58% of Tory voters agree with that sentiment.

Then, when asked on the Lib Dems policy of a 50% tax band for £100,000+ earners, the figures show that 73% of all voters agree. 80% and 88% of Labour and Lib Dem voters respectively agree with this policy. And so do 61% of Conservative voters.

Yet, we are constantly being told to think by the Conservatives that the nation is drowning under an enormous Labour-inflicted tax burden; that they would come along and "ease the pain" of the country. It would seem that most people are reasonably pleased with the current position of the tax system, and tax cuts do not interest them... particularly as it looks certain that the Tory cuts will only go to pensioners anyway.

So the Tories could very well be barking up the wrong tree here. This is encouraging news, especially since I watched the Conservative party election broadcast last night and felt sick. The Labour one the night before was just as bad, naturally, but it reminded me that the country cannot afford a Tory government. And it can't afford another Blair government. What a predicament...

As for the imminent launch of Labour's manifesto today, I have no doubt that it's going to talk about the economy in great depth, and how Gordon Brown has Saved The Country when in reality a lot of the economic success is unplanned and unintentional. Economics is a funny thing. Politicians like to think they have it under control, but the market works in mysterious ways.

It's time to move on and discuss the real issues. Economic success is more often by accident than by design.

Beware of The Sun

2005-04-12T09:05:00.000+01:00

Trevor Kavanagh, the Sun's political editor, is no Labour supporter. There's no doubting in most people's minds that he's a keen Conservative voter, and you only need to read his articles to see this.

But of late, he's been getting more and more anti-Labour. There is a question in the works as to whether or not the Sun is on the verge of endorsing the Tories, and I think if it was left to Trevor there would be no doubt that they would. But Rupert Murdoch stands in the way, and he owes thanks for a lot of the media deregulation legislation to Tony Blair.

Today's editorial column in the Sun proclaims:

"The Tories have got to concentrate on tax CUTS. That isn’t rocket science, either, Mr Howard."

This is where I start to get suspicious...

A newspaper, claiming to represent the hard-working, oppressed and over-taxed working classes. The kind of people who don't pay that much tax in the first place. In fact, if they have families, it's likely they're also getting a lot of tax credits. Tax cuts are meaningless to them.

It's well documented that any tax cuts always benefit the richest. When Labour introduced the thin 10p tax band, the people who gained the most were those on higher incomes. It's why Gordon Brown refuses to move the tax allowances upwards, and instead uses targeted tax credits to bring the benefits to the lower earners. It may be confusing, and there might be less bureaucratic ways of doing it, but it is an attempt to redistribute via the back door. In other words, tax cuts should not really be the concern of those on incomes below £20-30,000.

So who is the Sun writing on behalf of when it demands tax cuts? It's certainly not its readership. They may get whipped up into a frenzy, pretending that they are being seriously strained by Labour's taxation policies, but in reality if they looked at their income it probably isn't much higher. People are easily influenced by the media.

Could it be, as before, that the Sun is demanding tax cuts on behalf of its hard-working, oppressed but high-earning journalists? The fat cats who feel the strain of any tax rise disproportionately? But what better way to get heard than to have all your naive readership eating out of the palm of your hand, chanting your editorial line, while you pocket the benefits.

It's the politics of the Back Pocket. And we've got to guard against it.

Right All The Time?

2005-04-11T09:37:00.000+01:00

Immigration has been forgotten by this morning. I Wuz Right!

The Tories have unveiled their election manifesto, which is the main reason why immigration didn't last quite so long. Of course, the content of the manifesto is irrelevant, since no one reads them and the political correspondents who do the elbow-work on our behalf only report selected fragments filtered via a mesh of cynicism.

But the event is more important than what it contains. It's a sure fire way of getting the headline media focus just for a day, and more attention for the personality politics of this election.

Predictably, the calls have come that the "sums don't add up." There's not a day that goes by without this allegation being hurled. Yesterday the Lib Dems sums didn't add up. The Tories like to say they are predicting certain doom in the economy if Labour is re-elected because "their sums don't add up." Even the Scottish Nationalists have got in on the act, and Labour have told them... you guessed it... that their "sums don't add up".

It's hardly surprising that people get fed up with politics. It's a tedious mass of the same old claptrap being bandied about day-by-day. And yet, no one is actually lying. They're simply selectively using data, or only disclosing a less than complete picture. Being economical with the truth.

Thus, politicians are allowed to live in this fantasy world where everyone is right and everyone is wrong simultaneously. It's no small wonder that people think they're from another planet.

If only we had the election tomorrow...

The Sunday That Wasn't

2005-04-10T18:15:00.000+01:00

The politicians have tried to stoke up the campaign today but with little success. The same old rubbish has been wheeled out about immigration, but it doesn't seem to have bitten. Labour have still not taken a decisive step to push the campaign in their direction, and they may pay the price for this. It looks like they'll wait until the manifesto launch at some time next week before beginning the big push, but they are spending too long the defensive.

However, maybe it doesn't matter. According to MORI, there has been a shocking turnaround in the polls, going from 5% Tory lead to 7% Labour. This is quite surprising, and it is possible that MORI have a rogue poll on their hands on both occasions. There's something not quite right here, since the electioneering of the last couple of weeks has not been particularly groundbreaking. However, the other figure showing that 61% are absolutely certain to vote (as well as a clutch of other data from these polls) makes for interesting reading.

Some of the more intriguing numbers in particular suggest that 56% of people would be happy to have tax rises if they went on health, education and welfare, and that 59% of people have either slight or strong support for the use of taxes being used to narrow the gap between rich and poor. It's these people that Labour are probably going to have to rely on to get through this election while staying silent on whether taxes are going to go up enough. Fortunately, this is more than enough to win an election, and it's strangely reassuring to learn that this nation has not yet descended into the Tory maelstrom of The Back Pocket is King.

But if there really are a lot of fickle people in this country, wavering between parties from one minute to the next, we can be sure that there will be a certain level of Labour supporters who just won't be able to vote for them again, no matter how much Peter Hain tries to scare us. Chicken Yoghurt, in a great post explaining just why we find it so difficult to support New Labour this time is well worthy of a read.

It makes you wonder... just what has happened to traditional Labour and liberal values? The government seems to have got lost in a lust for authoritarian measures. If there really is such support for these traditional "Old" Labour principles as the polls suggest, then why has the Labour party not made significant efforts to highlight their plans in these areas? Instead, they've been busy fighting wars, curtailing civil liberties and burning the ladders up which they climbed. It seems they're more interested in talking about the economy and appealing to that Old Back Pocket again. Isn't that the Tory way?

New Labour is not Labour, no matter what Peter Hain thinks.

Theoretically quiet

2005-04-09T08:40:00.000+01:00

This election "cease fire" is pissing me off. It's come at a far too convenient time. While Rover slips quickly into oblivion, causing potential electoral trouble in the West Midlands, all the parties are too busy avoiding the media unless it makes them look "statesmanlike" at the Pope's funeral.

Today will be no different. The Royal wedding will hopefully draw a low TV audience, but there will still be only very minimal campaigning. Another day lost. Sunday may hold something, but the "battle" will likely only resume on Monday, and thus another day is lost.

It is amazing how these co-incidences fall. Of course, Rover failing and the Pope's funeral being on the same day is nothing more than a co-incidence, but it seems to be fortunate for Labour in that they can keep it quiet and gloss over it for a few days while they prepare their stock answer to the questions. The Conservatives have naturally jumped on the bandwagon blaming everyone and saying they would support Rover, when a Thatcherite government of the past would only be more than happy to leave it to die. "Let the market decide!" would come the cry, and the jobs would vanish.

Rover's demise is not really an electoral issue and it shouldn't be because no one else would be able to do any better. There are 20,000 jobs at stake here, and these people and their families should be treated with respect not to allow this to turn into another political football. I have no doubt that people will feel very angry at Labour - the party of the Workers (allegedly) - but in truth it's not their fault. It's the inept management who seem to have done little to save the plant but a lot to fatten their wallets. The joys of unfettered capitalism are revealed once more.

So although the headlines may be dominated by other things, it doesn't mean there's nothing going on. As many commentators have declared, this could change the election in the West Midlands. So expect to see Tony Blair getting personally involved soon...

Back Door Action

2005-04-07T11:12:00.000+01:00

As Chicken Yoghurt has pointed out, Peter Hain is clearly the Minister for Anti-Tactical Voting this election. It seems to be his job to go around the country telling people that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Tories.

But my fuzzy memory is coming in here. The other day I was watching something - I can't for the life of me remember what is was - where the Conservative representative on the panel told everyone that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Labour.

It can't work both ways. Of course, the sight of Peter Hain and a short reminder to everyone how he has turned his back on his party (I'm convinced if the Guardian run this Turncoat poll again now he'd win handsomely) is probably enough to discourage people from voting Labour. I'm not quite sure anyone would happily listen to him and modify their views accordingly. I suspect if Labour want their core vote to listen, they'll have to send Gordon Brown out with the not-so-subtle message that voting Lib Dem might deny them the chance to see him in power. Would Tony be bold enough to let him do that? I think not...

But it is a sign of how Labour is fearful. This election is probably going to be unprecedented for the lack of a uniform swing. Intense local campaigning in the key marginals as well as more tactical voting than ever is going to make the results night reasonably interesting. I'm predicting that some constituencies are going to swing wildly many ways as people vote heavily against government and Conservative ministers in particular by rallying around one particular candidate. Letwin and Davis are surely very vulnerable.

So although yesterday I was particularly concerned that the surprise of this election would be that there are no surprises - i.e. that the national result is not going to change much - I do feel that at the edges tactical voting is going to go down very well, Hain or no Hain. It probably won't do much damage, but a couple of unusual swings - for example, a pro-Labour swing in Beverley & Holderness to dislodge the Conservative MP there - against what will probably be a national anti-Labour swing could be the defining memory from this election.

People are more prepared to vary their vote than ever. Us residents of safe seats will have the usual no impact on the election. But in these specialised cases, there could be a lot of intriguing results, even though the final total result will not change much.

The Mountain

2005-04-06T10:28:00.000+01:00

It's perhaps unsurprising that everyone, including myself and even the traditional news media have jumped on the blogging bandwagon for the election. The Guardian's Election 2005 blog will be a worthy read, but yesterday they seemed to be posting to it every half an hour. That's one way to get blogger burnout and to turn away the readers!

The BBC has also let loose its pretty impressive election site, and I couldn't resist playing with the swingometers. And their results surprised me...

Only yesterday I realised how high the threshold is for the Lib Dems to make any progress this election. Serious swings to them of 5-10% will only herald a handful of seats. Worse is the fact that most of them are from the Tories, which either means that they have to convince Tory voters to switch to them - not likely given the Lib Dems progressive programme - or, and this is probably the only option, to get even more Labour voters to tactically vote for them. This is more likely, but it's going to require extreme targeting of certain vital constituencies and a lot of effort to educate the local populace that they live in such a vital marginal.

The Lib Dems have no choice but to run a highly specialised campaign. They've got to forget wooing the Tory voters and instead concentrate on keeping their existing support - which is fragile given that a lot of existing voters are disaffected Conservatives in seats like Southport - and then build on stealing as many Labour voters as possible in a tactical way. It will not help anyone if they pile up the votes by getting protest votes in Labour strongholds, because the majorities are just too high to overturn.

It's very possible the Lib Dems stagnate this election, despite the general rise in support. They're going to need a significant vote-winning moment in the campaign, and this morning's news that Paul Marsden has defected back to Labour after defecting to the Lib Dems in 2001 is not going to help at all.

Are the wheels coming off already? It's not even worth considering the scale of the mountain the Tories have to climb even just to get a minority administration.

The results of this election could be surprising in that little will change, while everyone is expecting there to be a lot up for grabs. It would be cruel irony if the surprise this time is that Blair is elected with another landslide against low expectations and a country with little trust in him.

At last...

2005-04-05T09:08:00.000+01:00

The day is here. Barring some other calamity today, the election should be underway fairly soon. It came as no surprise yesterday that the Royal wedding was going to have to be rescheduled after all, despite them spending all morning denying that they would even if the Pope's funeral was on the same day.

It seems that the New Labour way of denying everything all the way along, saying there will be no compromise, and then suddenly giving in at the last second without acknowledging that only five minutes before you were still insistent on no change, has spread to the Royal media tactics too.

An interesting story has broke this morning that a Labour candidate has defected to the Lib Dems. It's hardly a surprise and I agree with the sentiment behind the defection. Blair has just gone too far in the wrong direction, but worse is the fact that he has burnt most of the bridges he's crossed, leaving most people uncertain as to what direction a Labour party post-Blair would take.

But if the election results go with a below 60 majority for Blair, then such factors would have to be considered sooner rather than later. If Labour win and Blair goes short way into the term, it could be disasterous for them if there is a huge leadership struggle while the party is in government. They need to resolve the leadership issue behinds the scenes now so that a clean transition to the next leader can be achieved. Otherwise, if they are caught up in months of infighting, they will be destined to lose the next election, meaning the next leader - remember, there is a clear chance that it might not be Brown - would be presiding over a lame duck government. They certainly wouldn't want that.

And just to add weight to these discussions, there is a raft of polls out today showing Labour's lead has declined and in some cases is behind the Tories. Regardless of the position, they all confirm the general trend that Labour's support has took a small drop of late.

This election really isn't over yet. But if all else fails, Blair's postal vote bandwagon will save the day!

The Phoney Election

2005-04-04T09:48:00.000+01:00

So the Monday arrives that everyone had been waiting for for some time... and it turns out to be yet another false start. As everyone knows by now, the election is likely to be called tomorrow, and lots of political reporters seem to be telling everyone that it will be a "sombre" start to the campaign because of the Pope's death.

I think this is going a bit too far. What does it matter if Blair goes on the attack tearing chunks out of Michael Howard tomorrow? The Pope's hardly in a condition to be offended or condemn Blair to Hell. It's going to happen anyway next week, so why wait for an arbitrary length of time to determine when it will be safe to start the offensive again? Why will it be inappropriate to insult each other on one day, and then the next it's OK again?

Seems a bit stupid, and it likely means the proper campaigning is probably not even going to begin when the election is called now, which will make this one of the shortest campaigns for some time.

I'm still hoping that the Royal wedding is going to be on the same day as the Pope's funeral as we could do with getting all of this over in one fell swoop. If they're on different days, it means the politicians will continue to tell us that it's "inappropriate" for them to campaign that day, which suits Tony Blair down to the ground. After all, while the campaigns are suspended, the polls will not be moving an inch.

Now then... I wonder how Blair is going to announce it tomorrow. Remember last time it was in a school where, co-incidentally, the entire media just happened to be invited? It has to look low-key tomorrow... and I'm sure the Blair spinmeisters have spent hours agonising over the right place to announce it for electoral bonuses. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Trouble

2005-04-03T10:26:00.000+01:00

So the Pope shuffles off this mortal coil. It might be interesting if the funeral happens to fall on the same day as the Royal ~~weeding~~ wedding. How will the BBC resolve such a dilemma? They only have one David Dimbleby, and he can't possibly be in Rome and Windsor Guildhall at the same time. RIP Pope John Paul II.

As life continues, so unfortunately does the life of Charles Clarke. Stirring up trouble once more this morning, Charlie is preparing to blame everyone but himself if his glorious ID cards bill dies when the election is called. I am hoping it falls for obvious reason, but also because it will be good fun to see him working himself up into a strop once more, just as he did during the passage of Terrorism Bill. It's clear he's a very angry man, and it seems the slightest provacation gets him denouncing opposition to his plans as "crazy".

Naturally, this kind of language is not conducive to compromise, but I don't think he understands that by personally insulting the opposition he's only going to harden their resolve against him. He is an extremely poor quality politician and I'd like to see him out on his ears (pun very much intended), but I suspect his 8,000+ majority in Norwich South is a bit too much to overturn. We can but hope.

However, there is still a chance. There's no doubt the bill will be reintroduced after the election. But, if we can keep Blair's majority down, there may be a realistic chance of the bill being defeated if enough rebellion can be encouraged, and the Tories decide to take a principled opposition to the bill. Post-election, they won't worry too much about being labelled "soft on terror" which allows them to play a freer hand. The same is true for any potential Labour rebels, who will be not so concerned about deselection with the next election being four to five years away.

Considering all these factors, I imagine Charles Clarke is going to make a very concerted effort to get this through next week. All we can hope is that the Lords stalls it enough to kill it by the expected dissolution of Parliament Friday.

Will Blair still call the election tomorrow in light of the Pope's death? I hope so. It's not as if Blair gave a toss about the Pope's strong opposition to the Iraq war, so why should he start caring now?

The Calm before the Storm

2005-04-02T09:45:00.000+01:00

Of course, with Pope John Paul II being on his last legs, there is little coverage of politics in the media at the moment. Understandable, though not intentional obviously. This event is giving us a brief respite from the pre-election politicking so that we can all be refreshed to start the campaign proper from Monday (!).

There are some stories rattling around behind the headlines at the moment, but they're hardly worth considering. Labour, just to confirm my point from yesterday, pulls out its latest "on-the-spot" fines for drinking patterns not in line with Official Party Diktat as if they're going to change anything. The solution is more medium-term, as usual, requiring a culture change and discouraging bars from running dirt cheap "all you can drink" promotions. Fining people left, right and centre, particularly bar staff, since by what objective measure do they decide people are drunk and if it's in line with police expectations, tends to lead to a lot of unpaid fines and a determination "not to get caught again" rather than to reform.

The Greens, meanwhile, are talking up their chances of getting MPs elected. I'm not up to date as to what their prospects are in the two seats they are after, but it would be nice to see another party getting through the hurdles of first-past-the-post as a new party would help to bring some fresh faces and a further dimension to British politics. I wish them luck, although they probably have very little chance.

But the headlines are still the Pope, and rightly so. He has had a lot of political impact on the world, and he should be respected for that. He has not received universal acclaim for all his doctrine, but that should be left to one side for the moment as this isn't the time for such disputes. May he rest in peace.

Just what is New Labour?

2005-04-01T08:55:00.000+01:00

After watching Margaret Hodge, the Labour "children's minister" on Question Time last night, I finally realised that there is no support for the programme of social justice within the Labour upper-ranks any more. Sure, I knew that it was mostly being left behind, but I really didn't think I'd hear a Labour minister push hard for strongly authoritarian "lock 'em up - it's the best form of rehabilitation!" policies on petty crime.

This morning, once more, we are treated to how Labour are going to use the economy as the centre of their election. We also have news of how Gordon Brown is going to make one million more homeowners.

Now, this in itself isn't bad. It is very difficult to get onto the housing ladder after all. But what I find alarming, and perhaps indicative of all that New Labour stands for now, is the fact that they are making this, and the economy, the number one and two priorities. Social justice, where are you?

It's dead and buried. I never thought I'd see the day where a Labour party spent the vast majority of its time appealing to the nation's back-pockets in the way the Tories have mastered for decades. It was Harold Macmillan, after all, we told us that we'd never had it so good. It was Thatcher who liked to proclaim that it was her who brought about the "homeowner democracy" and liberalising the economy.

Sure, no one is disputing that we need an economy doing well. But that is not all that Labour is about. Whatever happened to public services? Whatever happened to redistribution of wealth? Whatever happened to ironing out the injustices of society?

They're gone. And the worst of all this is that the party of the official Opposition don't give a stuff about any of those, and they're damn proud of it. Where is the choice going to be in this election? Can we ever trust Labour again?

Looks like we're going to have no choice.

Imminent

2005-03-31T08:58:00.000+01:00

Yes, those elections are finally here. While Blair and his chums in the Cabinet are preparing for battle, Robert Mugabe and his cronies are preparing to roll to another "landslide" in their rigged-as-usual "elections".

Zimbabwe is a travesty, as most people know. I don't think what's going on there is as bad as the atrocities in the Sudan, but still, I hope the British government finds time to condemn the lack of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe tonight. Even if we're embroiled in our own petty politicking, we must continue to place pressure on the failed democracy of Zimbabwe. After all, if we really did go into Iraq for human rights reasons, then it would only be right, surely, if Blair applied more serious pressure to a country that is currently actively suppressing them?

Back in Britain, Blair is about to hold his last Cabinet meeting where he will continue to pretend he doesn't know when the election will be. It's nice to see, however, that his little "face the media" sessions on Sky News yesterday have gone largely unreported beyond Murdoch's institutions. I've had more than enough of seeing his simpering, unapologetic face everywhere I turn.

As usual, it's still important to remember that Blair is a liar, and that that majority of his must be pinned back. I want to be able to see the light at the end of this tunnel in a post-Blair era, but I still feel it's beyond us. Only the voters (in marginal constituencies) can make it happen.

I just wish I didn't live in a dead-cert seat. Must be nice to be able to think of your vote having power. It's not something I'm used to...

Moving on

2005-03-30T09:06:00.000+01:00

It could be possible that yesterday is the last time that Howard Flight will top the news headlines. From the looks of the stories on offer this morning, it is probably saying something that if Jamie Oliver can get to the top of the news with the government's wholly electioneering pledge to increase the money spent on school dinners then the media probably have got bored with Mr Flight.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair will today face the "media" - aka. Sky News. It's remarkable how he can find the time to do these things, given that if anyone asks him when the election will be, he will still tell them that he has not yet decided. The announcement in theory should be a matter of less than a week away now, and it will be nice to get this properly underway. I'm getting the distinct impression that everyone's pre-election campaigns are rapidly running out of steam.

Of course, the TV interviews today will throw off more heat than light as Blair repeats the same old arguments we have all heard before and will doubtless be fed up with by May 5th. But it probably is a sign that he wants to retake the initiative. It's amazing how people may be tempted to vote against Blair, but his appearance on TV is always a fantastic reassurance to them and suddenly they're back on the New Labour "project" as if they had never been unfaithful in the first place.

Tony Blair is probably right when he talked about this being a "relationship" with him. It was a sickening speech, but when it comes to people's reactions to him in the country, it pretty much sums up the mood well. I could never trust him again - I think of myself as being something of a fool for ever trusting him in the first place - but there are still a lot of people on the edge out there who are up for grabs.

Coincidentally, most of them seem to live in the key marginal constituencies...

Flight comes in to land

2005-03-29T09:10:00.000+01:00

Howard Flight is still hitting the headlines for the Conservative party. I'm beginning to suspect that there is a bit of revenge wanting to be exacted by Mr Flight here. If he was a committed Conservative, then he would surely realise that his actions are very politically damaging to their election strategy. They are simply reminding people of those Major days when the Tory party was split right down the middle. And those were pretty dark days for them.

But instead, we're still being inflicted with this media circus. What I find so amusing here is that the media like to claim that it is not them who choose what news to display. All through yesterday, while Howard tried to talk about his proposals for childcare, the media were coming out with the classic, "He's trying to divert attention from Howard Flight and we won't let him!" as if somehow that Howard's actions would stop other news from happening. They like to make us believe that they merely report the news, but in fact they are only drawing the parallel between the two stories because they want to. It's important to remember how pivotal the role of the news editor is...

Meanwhile, Charles Kennedy this morning is to unveil his plan to tackle crime. Of course, it will all be ignored and dismissed by the big guns as "weak" and "lacking discipline". This forces the Lib Dems to overplay their hand by concentrating on exactly what all the other parties offer: more police. Of course the police have a role to play, but once again, tackling crime requires a grand vision, consistently applied, to defeat the root causes of it. This may or may not involve police officers at all.

So instead of talking up the genuine and very different policies they have, they are forced on the defensive by sounding exactly like every other party. "More bobbies on the beat!" is the usual rallying cry.

This is why there is no hope for the Liberal Democrats.

Devoid of a Plan

2005-03-28T09:32:00.000+01:00

I decided not to post anything yesterday for the simple fact that the news was dominated by Jim Callaghan's death, the Pope's struggle with Easter Sunday and the continued fallout from Howard Flight's gaffe. Enough has been said about those.

This morning, it seems Michael Howard is going to be out and about proposing how he would pledge extra maternity pay. An interesting proposal from the Tories... interesting in that it's the kind of thing old Mrs Thatcher would not be too impressed with.

The Tories are trying to paint the impression that they have changed. Maybe they have, but it is not from one ideology to another. It's one of my favourite subjects, but once more it demonstrates how parties have gone from one ideology to no ideology at all. Conservatism has always been pragmatic, so that would be their defence, but the past few weeks, with the Tories jumping on issues that might become popular, have just given credence to the fact that there is no grand vision or principle that can be seen behind any major party's plans any more.

It just makes voting that little bit tougher to decide. How are we supposed to believe what anyone says, when they present you with a set of ideas for dealing with today's problems? How are we supposed to judge how they are going to react to the problems of tomorrow? At least when there was ideology, we could see how they would consistently apply their fundamental principles and would have some idea where the solution would come from.

Perhaps this is how we have all been fooled by Tony Blair. We thought he'd be a social democrat when we elected him. Anyone who thought he was going to be a socialist was very naive. But in fact, he only presented us with faux-social-democrat solutions to the problems of 1997. Then once elected, he demonstrated how he was, in fact, an authoritarian democrat.

But we still kept on voting for him. And we're about to do it again...

Are You Thinking What [I'm] Thinking?

2005-03-26T16:17:00.000Z

I think most people are wholly unsurprised about the fact that the Dog of War has been unleashed today. Yes, I am talking about John Reid.

Just as expected, and right on cue, Mr Reid went on the offensive on Tory plans to slash and burn, or at least, those plans that were accidently leaked by the now sacked, de-selected and soon to be ex-MP Howard Flight. In one sentence, that man has single-handedly destroyed his entire political career! Just shows how carefully words have to be selected in this game...

None of that was a surprise, of course. Labour are going to drum this one home for the next five weeks, and if you aren't already bored about hearing about this, you certainly will be by the end of this campaign.

Meanwhile, the president of the NUT has also issued another nugget of truth, calling new Education Secretary Ruth Kelly "patronising" and "the wrong person... for the job". It's true, of course. I've already taken plenty of shots at Ms Kelly for her appalling spinelessness when presented with the chance to properly reform the education system, so these comments are great fun to read. It's always nice to see a professional organisation giving "professional" criticism to Cabinet members. They need to be kept on their toes.

Here's to a quiet Easter Sunday and Bank Holiday! If you have them, enjoy!

The Truth Will Out

2005-03-25T12:53:00.000Z

Surprise surprise, just like last time, a Tory has been exposed for what they really are - they want to cut far more than what they pledge. The press has been abuzz with this story since it first emerged last night, and now the broadcast media has got onto it, it is slowly turning into a one of the Tories first PR disasters of the campaign. I don't think they've been forced on the defensive for anything yet, but this story is the first chance Labour have had to go on a proper offensive.

Of course, anything that helps Labour is not necessarily a good thing. It would be nice if the Lib Dems could capitalise on this by emphasising how Labour's persistent efforts at PFI and PPPs are going to become a massive drain on the Treasury within a decade, or how Labour's target culture is responsible for many of the failings within public services, but instead, people are just going to naturally swing back to Labour.

But anything that helps destroy the image of the Tories is a good thing. People must be reminded that public services are never safe in their hands, and despite their public pledges to continue spending on the NHS and schools, it's pretty clear from today's evidence that there are a lot more sinister machinations going on behind the scenes. They can say what they like about it not being "official policy" but the fact remains there are people deep within the party who hold such views; we can hardly be expected to believe that he's the only Tory in the team who wants to cut back even further.

And all this coming after the most recent polls suggesting the gap is closing on Labour between likely voters from MORI and YouGov. I'm sure the Tories will do a lot of successful damage limitation this weekend, and this may prove to be little more than a storm in a teacup, but you can guarantee that Labour will keep using this event right up to the Election and beyond.

Roll on May 5th!

Trust Tony?

2005-03-24T16:01:00.000Z

The latest relevations on the Attorney General's flip-flopping between whether the war in Iraq was legal or not are rather interesting. The government is caught on this one, and the opposition has the potential to make a great deal of capital from it.

In an ideal world, they would publish everything. But of course, they cannot. The government pursues the line, and they have their justification for it, that no governments have to release their legal advice as they have legal-professional privilege, or something like that. This is their persistent defence.

It is a weak defence. It allows the debate to rumble on over whether Lord Goldsmith, the AG, was leant upon by Blair to support the war. I have a suspicion that he was, but it is just that - a suspicion. It all seems to be so convenient, the way everything falls into place just in time for the Commons debate on authorising the war. It continues to feed the cynicism of politics, and the continued basic lack of trust people feel in Blair's government.

And this is where the government is stuck. Disclose the advice, and perhaps just the tiniest nugget of information is revealed that confirms us cynics and sceptics were right all along. The proof positive that we cannot trust this government after all is granted.

On the flip side, they can continue to resist disclosure, thus fuelling the suspicions we have still further, while the government looks like it's stumbling with excuses of "convention"... and not giving consistent genuine reasons why they feel it would be a bad idea to disclose it. The circumstances of this event are unique, and so much is slowly eking away into the public domain anyway that this is going to rumble on for much longer. It would probably be better to get this all over and done with. Perhaps they would, but there's a damn pesky election standing in the way!

Either way, it is extremely damaging for the government. I feel that this one still has plenty of mileage. If the Conservatives weren't so stupid as to have supported the war, I feel they would have been in a much stronger position now, and the Lib Dems would be totally out of the picture. There were several sensible Conservatives, such as Douglas Hogg, who could clearly see that this was all going to be a complete disaster who held strong and still continue to pursue accountability of the government on this one, but otherwise, they were hopelessly ineffective, and thus the legacy of Iain Duncan-Smith persists.

But the simple fact is that this will be an issue. Perhaps not because people think of Iraq as very important to their daily lives, but because this along with many other issues, are fine illustrations of why they just cannot trust Tony Blair any more. If the opposition parties make this the key issue, then they just might pull off quite a surprise.

Tony Blair must go. It's as simple as that.

The Cat's Out The Bag

2005-03-23T09:13:00.000Z

You can always rely on the BBC's Andrew Marr to get hold of stories before anyone else does. As political editors go, I rate him as one of the best, even if he does go over the top with metaphors from time to time.

In this case, he has apparently learned that the election will be called on the 4th or 5th of April. It's going to push Parliament into overdrive as it desperately tries to get through its bills on serious organised crime and ID cards. I'm sure they'll get the former through, but the latter remains debatable. It's currently gone to Lords Committee, and there it could stay for some time.

But there are a lot of other bills that are going to die, as can be seen on the Parliament website. Clearly none of those matter so much to the government. It's possible even the Gambling Bill could be in trouble, which is a bit of a surprise given how much work has gone into it and the trouble it's caused.

I'm both looking forward to and dreading this campaign. I'll be glad when it finally gets underway so we can see just exactly what the parties are proposing, and how they conduct real election campaigns in the eyes of the media. But I'm dreading it because I suspect it will be one of the most tedious ever, with parties desperate to outbid each other on populist grounds, since there is no such thing as ideology any more.

And it will be crunch time for the Lib Dems. Given the expectations on them that they must make serious inroads, they have no choice but to hit the ground running and produce a top-quality campaign. Anything less will not get them they coverage they need to keep in the running.

But there's still a lot to play for. The rate of polls per day will increase significantly, and we'll finally get to see just how people's minds are changing day by day. From a purely political science point of view, this could be very interesting.

Not what we like to see...

2005-03-22T13:05:00.000Z

Tony Blair is off out courting the "Christian vote" this morning, whatever that is. In a country that is allegedly Christian, but with a significant majority of them non-practicing, there should really be no need to stick a label on a group as "the Christian vote" because it should theoretically be so wide and disparate that it's impossible to get hold of the lot of them.

So we know what this story is actually referring to - the small but devout core of Christians who put their faith central to any decision on public policy, and if the example of the US is anything to go by, also like to thrust their religious views on others.

Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy have recently been making speeches to this group too. So what is going on? Religion and politics do not mix. As I have written about before, we really must stop copying everything America does. This is Britain, and we play politics slightly differently here. No one has ever chose to make religion a key focus for policy or campaign strategy, despite the fact that Church and State are not disestablished, and we should do our utmost to remain that way. The only "religion" in politics should be those attached to ideology.

I'll be very disappointed if we stoke this any more and cause it to become a dangerous cleavage in the country, allowing a small but vocal minority to dictate the direction of discussion, as we have already seen when the issue of abortion was raised. This is totally avoidable, and the politicians should be wary that playing games with religion is not a path to be taken lightly.

Moving On

2005-03-21T11:13:00.000Z

It's rather difficult to move on when one story dominates the headlines for days. There's nothing worse than a speech for Monday being leaked on Sunday as it gives it far more coverage than what it should have got. Yes, Old Michael Howard is out today to finally give the speech on "travellers" that the world is desperate to hear.

By Wednesday this will be quiet again as Howard moves on to his next set of scapegoats who he can blame for the destruction of British society.

Meanwhile, some news has emerged that is being buried under the mass hysteria of the nation, orchestrated by our friends at the Mail, Express and the Sun.

Yes, it's that old ID cards thing again. Turns out Tony is going to try and slip this one through the Lords this week under all this kerfuffle. How timely then that the London School of Economics comes out with a report that blows the gaffe on this latest Nu Lab piece of garbage. "Too risky" they call it.

It's muted criticism. It doesn't go as far as I would have liked to so it would be more embarrasing for the government, but still, it is nice to see a piece of academic work claiming that all is not well with ID cards. The arguments against are well rehearsed, so I won't go through them here.

All government experiments with national databases tend to fail. They tend to fail with or without private help, so that doesn't seem to be a factor, but at the very least if it's public then it stops the private sector making obscene profits from an utter catastrophe. Our friends at Crapita, classic government contract winner, who run the Criminal Records Bureau, make lots of money from an organisation that doesn't know its arse from its elbow. There are plenty of other examples of failed national databases... Child Support Agency, Inland Revenue Tax Credit systems and the Police National Computer (funny how their name is just a singular) is horrendously incomplete thanks to failure to communicate between police forces.

ID cards will soon join that list, thanks to Tony's majority. The Bill will probably die because of the election, but we must do our best to ensure it doesn't resurface after it.

The best way to do that?

Slash that majority down to size.

Same Old Same Old #2

2005-03-20T10:38:00.000Z

It's a sign of how shockingly samey the electoral campaign is becoming that for the second day running I'm finding it difficult to find something new to write about. Sure, Michael Howard has stirred up the issue of "travellers" again by once more putting loads of adverts into the Sunday papers, but it's not a genuine policy, and it's little more than a further attempt to grab the headlines so he can set the agenda for the coming week.

If Labour want to do anything this election, their campaign team is really going to have to buck its ideas up. Sure, this is only the "pre-election" but it is certainly laying the groundwork for what we will expect to see in the campaign proper. And it's given Howard the opportunity to close the gap, while Charles Kennedy seems to be completely invisible. Given that it's the Lib Dems who have done the real opposing for the past few years, it's a bit of a travesty now that the Tories are able to capitalise on the work the Lib Dems have been putting in for years. Where have they been for so long?

Talking of elections, the declaration can only be a matter of weeks away now if it really is going to happen on May 5th. Some people expect it to be declared after Charles and Camilla's wedding, which somewhat makes sense. It would be too much of a distraction, even if the British people are mostly fed up with it. That wouldn't stop the tabloid press and the toadying BBC from running round-the-clock coverage of the preparations for the "big day".

Let's hope for a more interesting start to next week...

Same Old Same Old

2005-03-19T14:03:00.000Z

It looks like old Charlie Clarke is going to "get tough" on cannabis in order to escape from Tory allegations of being "soft on drugs".

Who is it that makes up all these ridiculous labels? And why do they work? I am assuming they work, because we hear enough of "soft on this" "tough on that" to mean that it must be helpful for some of the electorate to classify parties as something.

It's total rubbish in my mind. When you start accepting these labels that the other party has made up for their opposition, or even labels they've made up for themselves, then you have stopped thinking for yourself.

We old enough know to engage our own brains. We can look at policies proposed by parties and decide for ourselves which one we prefer. We don't need other people pigeonholing alternatives before we even get a chance to consider them.

Somehow or other, we really need to stop the spinmeisters. They are completely destroying politics. The country is already on the slippery slope down to the entire personalisation of politics that we see in America. Does it make sense to want to give it an extra push into its grave?

And this is why I think this will be the worst General Election ever.

Tory "cuts"?

2005-03-18T09:44:00.000Z

The question as to whether you can cut something that hasn't been spent yet is on everyone's lips at the moment. Yesterday, Tony Blair unveiled his latest posters (but they aren't for the election of course, oh no! No date has been decided yet, remember?) which talked about the Tories and their £35bn of cuts.

Of course, when the numbers are looked at closely, they are not quite cuts. They are still growths in spending, but just at a slower rate. So the Tories plans could more properly be termed "slightly less investment" than Labour. And in any case, Labour have not produced spending plans beyond 2008, making these projections somewhat hazy at best. It's difficult to predict the state of the economy that far ahead.

The simple solution to all of this is the one that most people apply on a daily basis: never trust politicians. It doesn't matter who they represent, this is just another example of why the British public have got so fed up with political spin. They've all been caught in a big lie once more, and so when they moan that they are "not given sufficient respect" while acting like butter wouldn't melt in their mouths, they would do well to reflect on their behaviour.

Perhaps then they'd understand why. They have lost our respect, and they aren't going to get it back until they show us they are worthy of it. If they think the negative campaigns they all have planned for the Election are going to change anything, then I guess they're a lot more naive than I thought they were...

Update: I wrote this post just hours before the story broke about how 8 out of 10 people don't trust politicians any more. Do I have my finger on the pulse or what! :)

Budget Reflection

2005-03-17T16:29:00.000Z

As I listened to the Budget yesterday, I couldn't help but agree with everything that Gordon Brown said. I don't know whether this is because I was genuinely being fooled by his wizardry, or if the words were registering in my head as being something I could support.

It was a good Budget. I liked the sound of his redistributive efforts with tax credits, his big idea that we should be in education of some form until 18 at the least, and despite the shameless attempts at getting the grey vote on side, it was quite a restrained piece of economics. It has once more reconfirmed to me that Brown is a pretty good guy in most of this. I'm not sure if he's the most charismatic man around, but his policies seem to be in the right place. I'm pretty sure, as long as he doesn't have a copy of Blair's authoritarian rashness hidden somewhere, I would be happy to return to a muted-Labour party supporter if if Brown were in charge.

Of course, the Lib Dems came back with the points on local income tax that do need stressing. It would be a much fairer system, and I support this over official Labour policy. There are many liberal (both with a big L and a small l) policies that I support over and above some of the traditional socialist ones.

I am a little concerned about the numbers. I have a feeling some form of major tax is going to rise at the post-election budget. Will it be National Insurance? Probably. But Brown has managed to get through these eight years with a near perfect record of growth and stability. He might not be the Chancellor after the election, which will ensure his image remains strong for a future leadership battle. But if things start taking a turn for the worse, his credibility will be on the line. Brown is not the certain next leader of Labour any more.

The coming few years will be interesting in that respect.

The Sign of Failure?

2005-03-16T09:24:00.000Z

Rather than discuss the Budget today before it has happened, I will wait until tomorrow and look back at what vote-grabbing measures Gordon Brown has sent our way. He will always deny that it's an election Budget, but he would be a fool not to use it to his advantage in setting himself up as a better leader of Labour.

Instead, I will take a brief look at this interesting story that broke yesterday, on how universities plan to use more "access tests" in future.

Essentially, their argument is that it's very difficult to distinguish between A-grade candidates now. I have some sympathy: people are doing better, teaching is improving, the modular nature of the A-level means resits can be targeted, and sadly, children are now being taught with simply the exam in mind, as a result of our total exam culture.

But the problem here is that there was a solution on the cards, one which had the backing of everyone across the educational establishment. Yes, it was that good old report by Mike Tomlinson that was shelved last month by the government. But they decided that they couldn't possibly tinker with the "Gold Standard!" that is A-Levels, especially with an election just around the corner. Oh no.

Of course, they have selective memories, as they "tinkered" with A-Levels when they introduced Curriculum 2000, bringing in the AS-Level.

It is still remarkable that they never pushed ahead with this. The reforms for a diploma were a simple solution, embraced by all, and could easily have been implemented thanks to the strength of the Labour majority. Yet they decided, entirely voluntarily, that they couldn't upset the applecart. The excuses given at the time were pathetic and they mostly came back to the usual "Gold Standard!" rubbish.

But we all know why.

Nothing beats a good election to focus the minds of a government. It's just a shame that this time they were focused the wrong way.

Poll Summons

2005-03-15T20:13:00.000Z

The other day I was moaning about there being a lack of polls, and so today the Independent published their latest figures, showing Labour's lead to be just 5%. I say "just" even though according to the article this gives Blair a majority still over 100. Which is unacceptable.

But even though I say that, I regret it, because I know that it means the Tories are going to take those seats that make up the difference between what we have now and what we will end up with. Of course, it's the usual travesty of our electoral system in operation; these kind of percentages would leave the country stuck fast in coalition governments if we had pure PR.

Of course, this poll puts the Conservatives further behind than the 2% gap predicted by MORI at the end of February. But at the very least, it gives further evidence to the claim that the Conservatives are indeed catching up, while the Lib Dems just cannot get past that 20% mark.

Things will hot up on this front once the election is finally called. Indeed, it cannot be many weeks away now. We've had so many false-starts already, I just wish we could finally get things underway. It's getting tedious seeing Blair engaging in electioneering and then denying that he knows when the date of the election is. In fact, it's just insulting.

One thing's for sure, abortion is not going to be an issue. People will try to make it so, but thankfully we realise that this should not be decided at elections. We have a tradition in this country that allows a free vote on such issues, therefore if a leader were to declare their stance, they risk polarising the issue and that does not assist there to be a sensible debate. Most people realise this. It's not often I defend Tony Blair, but in this case he is absolutely right to not comment.

In any case, it's not going to be what people bear in mind when they vote. All polls consistently show that public services and the economy are high on the agenda. Michael Howard isn't going to change that.

Howard's End ?

2005-03-14T23:29:00.000Z

It was slightly strange to see Michael Howard suddenly come out with his plans to reduce the abortion term-limit from 24 weeks to 20, in the sense that it was wholly unexpected.

Michael Howard has been doing this a lot lately. Suddenly he will make a speech or put an article in a newspaper on an issue no one has been talking about. This is clever electioneering. Kick up a fuss on one issue. Send out the dogs of war to blast the government who are caught on the back foot. They rush out anyone they can find (normally John Reid or Hazel Blears) to defend it in the usual "you can't trust Tories" way. The Tories respond in kind with accusations that Labour is fighting the election on past issues, when they want to talk about the future. Labour don't take the bait, the trouble dies down, or Howard quickly moves on to a fresh issue to start the process all over again.

Meanwhile, the Lib Dems get sidelined, even though Charles Kennedy made a speech today outlining how he would introduce more free prescriptions and dental and eye checks for all.

I must admit that Howard is doing a pretty good job of setting the agenda. He's creating positive headlines and making people think carefully about whether Labour really are going to ease to another landslide. Labour's strategy to defend against him has been poor, and Gordon Brown is once again making rumblings after giving some pretty major interviews on Newsnight, so there are clear signs of divisions in the Labour camp.

This election probably isn't so clear cut.

Animosity

2005-03-13T11:49:00.000Z

The Tories and Labour have been sending out their attack dogs all weekend now... even Norman Tebbit has been dug out to leap to the defence of Michael Howard. Yeah - that's really going to help the nation learn to love him.

It's quite clear that despite the consensus that finally emerged, this is going to be an issue for many weeks, and there will be many attempts to keep coming back to it. Security is doubtless going to be an election issue, which is pretty ironic given that most people really would naturally assume the Tories are going to be the toughest on things like this. It just goes to show how much the political landscape of Britain has changed and is changing before our very eyes.

Yesterday I was referred to a very intriguing site - So Now Who Do We Vote For? It's a travesty that this electoral system we have requires people to strategically analyse the way they vote, but given that we have it, we have to work within it. So efforts by sites like this could come in very handy. It provides, or at least it will when it's complete, a breakdown of every constituency and where it would be tactically sound to place a vote, bearing in mind the voting record of the sitting MP. After all, not all Labour MPs supported the Iraq War. Plus, it allows you to contribute your own view on the constituency... well worth a look.

Once again this raises the issue, could tactical voting be a major player in this election? Sure it was around last time, in the form of tacticalvoter.net... but its impact must have been minimal. Now, four years later, there are millions more people on the internet. Millions more are also pretty pissed off with Blair, and a hell of a lot has gone down over this last Parliament.

If sites like this can achieve popularity, it really could make people think carefully about where to place their vote. This is exactly what I was encouraging, and if there are resources available to assist people in getting all the information they need, I fully support them.

It would be nice if there were a few upsets this time...

The Game Is Up

2005-03-12T10:17:00.000Z

So the Lords wilted in the end. Or rather, the party leaders got caught out by Blair offering an almost "sunset clause", and as soon as one of the Tories or Lib Dems accepted it, the other would have no choice to back down as well.

The whole episode shows the dangers of having one party with a huge majority and control of both Houses. Thankfully, we at least have the Lords to act as some kind of the restraint on the Commons. And I do believe that the events of the past few days have set new precedents in our Constitution for allowing the Lords to resist for as long as they think fit, even in the face of the primacy of the Commons, if they believe the Commons is trying to permanently damage the liberties of this country by handing over excessive power to the Executive.

Max Hastings wrote an excellent article in the Guardian today talking about how we cannot trust this government with anything any more, and by trusting them to make a judgement on our civil liberties, we could be making a terrible mistake. He's absolutely right... this is just the thin end of the wedge and it's already quite a dent in the British way of life. The next step will be much worse.

The fact is that this one isn't ever going to leave the statute book. The Tories may claim they have a sunset clause in all but name, but they shouldn't have give up. I'm very disappointed that the Lib Dems and Tories dropped their opposition to this in the way they did. After the excitement of the whole day, and some excellent speeches, the end when it came was an anti-climax. The independent review will be a whitewash, with a few tinkerings at the edges to make it look like Charles Clarke Listens To Opposition And Is Good! - but the Act will stay forever.

The end of liberal democracy is nigh. We can't keep justifying the destruction of civil liberties with the excuse that "we're protecting the greatest liberty: life". That excuse can be used to do anything, including run a militaristic dictatorship. There is arguably little point to life if there are no liberties in to exercise in it.

Blair must be stopped. Fast.

Lords Not Lapdogs

2005-03-11T08:24:00.000Z

As I type, the House of Commons is once more considering the reasoned amendments made by the Lords when they met once more at 5am. As usual, there's a lot of disgraceful language being used in attempts to bully and scare those opposing, with all the usual "the blood will be on their hands if they do not destroy our centuries of liberty!" nonsense present. John Denham is one of the worst proponents of this kind of lie.

Nevertheless, it's been a fascinating 24 hours. The Lords continue to resist the Commons, and when I went to bed at 1am last night, I was expecting to wake up and check the news this morning to see the Lords had backed down.

Not so. The Lords are opposing, and we're entering constitutional unchartered territory. However, I believe that these issues touch upon vital civil liberties in this country, therefore the Lords is entirely justified in continuing to ask the Commons to think again. This is the nature of our unwritten constitution.

No one really knows where this is going to go. The sunset clause seems the most sensible thing here, and I am hoping the government will finally concede on this. It makes sense to force Parliament to entirely rewrite this piece of trash after one year. Doing so does not "increase the terrorist threat" or "show weakness to terrorists" as the Government is saying. This is one of the worst defences of a bad piece of law that I have ever seen, and it is making me more than a little suspicious that there is something more behind this Bill than the Government is letting on.

The Lords are telling the Commons to think again. Indeed, they are arguing that the Commons should have a chance to examine the Bill at all; all the amendments and proper consideration of the Bill in its current state have been made in the Lords, and the Commons have never had a chance to consider it line-by-line.

The majorities in the Lords are falling. I suspect many of them decided to go to bed, rather than have changed their mind. Hopefully, now it looks like this will return to the Lords later, they will return to cast their vote. They cannot back down on this: these are vital principles of liberty that we are on the brink of waving goodbye to, possibly forever, if no sunset clause is reached. Surely it doesn't make sense that we keep these laws, even if the terrorist threat (which is exaggerated anyway) ever were to disappear. The situation changes. We need this protection.

But these are interesting times. It's good to see a little bit of turmoil every now and then...

Intriguing times...

2005-03-10T15:00:00.000Z

As the Lords positions itself for another set-to with the Commons, once again we are left wondering where this is all going to go and whether there are ulterior motives behind it.

Peers are currently systematically changing parts of the Government's "anti-terror" Bill, and it could mean there are some tense moments later when someone finally decides to give in. I am hoping that the Government will allow the 12 month sunset clause that has just been voted through.

I've been watching the debate in the Lords for a couple of hours now on the Parliamentlive website and I've been very impressed with the way the Lords are dealing with it in a restrained, careful and thoughtful way. The quality of debate is much higher, and the atmosphere of civility is much better than the rubbish that generally passes for "scrutiny" in the Commons. If this episode ultimately achieves nothing, at least it will help in highlighting the flaws of the whipping system once more, in terms of how little opprtunities for genuine scrutiny it allows.

In that respect, the Lords is performing much better than the Commons these days. It's a strange situation that our elected representatives, supposedly the best we have to offer given that the people want them there, can be such a waste of time and money; and those who are the chums of party leaders, or even those 96 who did favours for the monarch many generations ago, can be the ones performing the most admirably in defending our way of life.

There are rumours floating around that if the Bill gets lost this evening, with the Lords refusing to give way, the government could decide to call a snap election entirely on the issue of security. I was already predicting an atrocious election campaign in April and May, but this would be beyond my worst fears. The scaremongering would be disgraceful, and the debate would be even more reduced to clichés than normal.

Having said that, I hope the Lords can give Blair and chums a bloody nose tonight. The Lords must not give in unless the concessions offered are genuine. The Lords are no fools, and they will not roll over unless the Government offers serious amendments. We will soon see.

Where have all the polls gone ?

2005-03-09T09:36:00.000Z

It's been some weeks now since an opinion poll came out. This is slightly annoying as a lot has gone on in the last few weeks. I'm very curious to know if any of the discussions on the "anti-terror" legislation are encouraging people to change their votes.

I suspect not. It's probable that the story of Margaret Dixon has done more to affect people's minds than Charles Clarke's chest-thumping. There's not really much political capital that can be made, although it is nice to see the Tories rallying around something and being able to call themselves an Opposition. It can only be good, unifiying experience which should improve their standing for the forthcoming "official" campaign.

It's funny how all the latest shenanigans on the domestic front have pushed out the continued carnage in Iraq. I suspect this is preferable for Blair. While Iraq is not topping the news, people forget and start to think that maybe things are getting better there. They aren't, and the Lib Dems will have to press this one hard to keep it on the agenda. People should not forget how much they were lied to be the government. It's nice to see the Independent are not going to let this go with their story this morning about how Blair broke the ministerial code to keep the legal advice on war from the Cabinet... but there are small voice in the wilderness.

It's perverse that the worse it gets in Iraq, the better it is for the Lib Dems. If anything, that really shows just how many people consider the Lib Dems as nothing more than a protest vote. They are going to struggle this election, and no mistake.

This bill will now self-destruct

2005-03-08T20:56:00.000Z

After the Lords had a jolly old second day of amending the bill it has left a lot of people wondering: why did the government propose this legislation in the first place?

It's a good question when you think about it. Now I look back, there was never any doubt that the bill was going to fail in the Lords. The surprise to all was just how high the strength of feeling was there, and the unusual names we saw rebelling. All good news, of course.

But if that's the case, surely the goverment also knew it? I'm convinced Charles Clarke and chums, with their continued "There will be no concessions!" rhetoric (while silently amending the bill) must have known that the Lords were not going to fall for it. They must have known they were going to have to eat humble pie at some point. I refuse to believe that New Labour would be that naive as to think this would go through with no trouble.

So what was it all about? Mere political grandstanding, giving them the chance to say the Tories and the Lib Dems are "soft on terror"? Perhaps they have planned this all along and intend to crash the bill in the next few days, releasing the Belmarsh detainees on March 13th and blaming the Tories and Lib Dems for not getting legislation in place to hold them, once again claiming that they are soft on terror?

The bill returns to the Commons tomorrow. That, and possibly even PMQs, should make it an interesting day.

Cheers Peers?

2005-03-07T21:27:00.000Z

The House of Lords has been doing some admirable work lately. It really is showing the government exactly how to properly scrutinise legislation, taking time and having serious considered debates before voting with a much relaxed whipping system.

And so they made progress in picking apart some of the key problem parts of the government's anti-terror Bill. I'm not normally a fan of the Lords, but right now I feel they are the country's last hope for defending itself against the lobby fodder Labour MPs.

It was even remarkable that Tony Blair's "mentor" Lord Irvine voted for the rebel amendments. I would have thought he'd be the last person to rebel. It's very good to see the smile wiped off his face, and Lord Falconer, another staunch Blairite.

Further amendments are likely to be made tomorrow. The bill is not going to be recogniseable by the time it reaches the floor of the Commons on Wednesday, where there will be a chance for MPs to consider the Lords amendments. I have no doubt that Charles "No Surrender!" Clarke will have to concede at least one of the amendments. I just hope that the Lords will press hard with their changes and refuse to allow the bill through until they get their way on more than 50% of the changes. I have no doubt that once the bill returns to the Commons, many Labour MPs will abandon the rebellion because they like to come out with the old "the will of the Commons must prevail and so I cannot continue rebelling!" excuse which is normally a sign that they have been leaned on by the whips.

It's going to be interesting to see how this one plays out. The end result will likely be very different to what we had at the beginning.

Same old Sunday

2005-03-06T22:20:00.000Z

Normally Sunday is a pretty big day politically. For some reason, lots of politicians like to use the Sunday newspapers, or worse, Breakfast with Frost, to announce their latest policy measure.

But not this Sunday. We had a rehash of everything we'd already heard during the week, and the Lib Dems finally decided that they were not going to support the anti-terror legislation barring serious amendment. It's just a shame him and 13 other Lib Dems didn't decide to do that when the government's majority was reduced to 14 the other day.

All week we had been hearing whispers of how the government was going to make "concessions". Then an hour later a spokesman, or a mouthpiece such as John Reid and chums would appear to insist there would be "no concessions". The Tories would get wound up and bay for blood, causing whispers of concessions to be passed around again.

The process repeats itself. It's been a pretty tedious week politically... and I have no doubt this cycle is going to keep going until this bill is finally killed in the Lords next week, or the Tories decide to lose any backbone they may have had and give in. Of course, we did have another chief policeman, Sir John Stevens stirring trouble up again on behalf of the government.

This is also getting stupid. The efforts to scare people into accepting this bill are relentless and they are not going to stop until the government gets its way. These tactics are disreputable and if we give in we're going to open the door to a flood of more of them in the run up to the election on the scale of the US Republican's presidential campaign.

Lib Dems - The Real Alternative?

2005-03-05T12:37:00.000Z

Charles Kennedy today is to unveil his party's slogan for the forthcoming General Election - "The Real Alternative". It is a reasonable comment to make, but unless they can start making headway in the polls over the next few weeks - getting consistently above 20%, they are always going to look less than that.

Charles Kennedy consistently comes out as being the party leader most people would trust. You could argue that that's because he doesn't get enough exposure, but that will be put to the test once the election is called and the equal access to the media becomes enforceable by statute.

As I have said in the past, the Lib Dems probably are the "best" alternative for disenfranchised, ex-Labour, social democratic and liberal voters like me. But we cannot afford to vote Lib Dem if that would risk a Conservative candidate taking the seat. So they are the best of the bunch. But are they a "real" alternative?

I don't think so. There is no chance they're going to get above 100 seats, and 80 maximum is probably more realistic. Most evidence shows the more people who vote Lib Dem, the more Tories get in through the back door. That's a problem of the electoral system, and it shows that they can never be a real alternative, unless 50% or more of the population is prepared to vote for them. So voters must think strategically, and take into account the most likely person to topple a Tory. They are still a dangerous party, and their organisation is much more widespread and resourceful than the Lib Dems. They can create headlines with ease, as we have seen in the past few weeks over immigration. The Lib Dems do not have that power.

If a party cannot get credibility with the media, then it is always going to struggle to get people to listen as they can't find the message in the first place. They must professionalise themselves... bring in strong and charismatic speakers to the front bench, who can hold their own in three-way debates, and ensure that they get their opinions across. People still have the stereotype that the Lib Dem speaker can be safely ignored as they always have "crazy ideas" for this country. But that is what people thought of Labour when Michael Foot was the leader.

Things can change. The Lib Dems can become a real alternative if Labour and the Tories continue to converge towards the centre ground. They will be able to act as a party that presents a real difference. It requires time, and the right balance of spokespeople. But it will have to be a target for the General Election beyond this one.

In the meantime, a few extra seats won't hurt anyone.

There's Always One

2005-03-04T10:24:00.000Z

In any kind of bureaucratic system, you are always going to be able to find the extreme and rare examples of failure, or even glowing success. It's the way it works unfortunately. There will always be people who suffer extreme bad luck.

It's never fun, however, when a politician decides to "take up the case" of one of them and try to blast the other party with it.

I'm talking, of course, of the case of Margaret Dixon - the women who has had her operation cancelled seven times. Or is it three? Yes, it is three.

So the lying has already been exposed. Parties don't have a good track record when it comes to highlighting individual cases and trying to portray them as the general picture because it's never true. I'm quite sure that Labour could find someone who managed to get their hip replaced in just a couple of weeks from initial diagnosis, and no one would believe that that was the general picture. That would be a "fluke"!

So why is it when we find an example of the very worst case we all go crazy with anger that the NHS is failing every single patient?

It's just another example of a right-wing media shitstorm that does nothing to help the morale of the thousands of doctors, nurses, carers, cleaners, and admin staff who do wonders in the NHS day in, day out.

We would all do well to remember that.

Failing Opposition

2005-03-03T23:16:00.000Z

I'm not quite sure why the Tories decided last night that they would support the Government's "anti-terror" legislation after all.

David Davis said:

"It is simply wrong under British law, British tradition, British freedom and British justice,"

But apparently, according to him, just because a bill is wrong it shouldn't stop it from getting onto the statute book!

Pathetic. Nothing more than electioneering since Charles Clarke had ramped up the rhetoric by telling the nation to effectively blame the Tories if there is a terrorist attack.

This is the worst "opposition" party this country has ever seen. They are badly organised, totally incoherent and have no backbone whatsoever. They are beginning to be worse than Labour on selling out their own principles. I would love to see the Tories delivered a killer blow in the next election, and the Lib Dems step to the plate as the real opposition.

Because something certainly needs to change in British politics. And soon.

Temper Temper...

2005-03-02T19:44:00.000Z

After a heated exchange at Prime Minister's Questions today, the media has been buzzing with whether the arguments between the PM and Michael Howard were particularly effective, especially as Tone seemed to get a little flustered. He certainly will not like the way the media have been painting him this evening. Unless this is all a clever double bluff.

See, that's the problem with Tony. Now we're all used to him, and the "trust me, I'm Tony" mantra has worn thin, we are all deeply cynical about anything he says. It's just one of the many reasons why it would be better for all concerned if he just left the party and made way for someone more sensible. But I have a feeling he has Thatcher's record in sight. Somebody Stop Him!

On the issue of the NHS, I think it is still very shaky ground for the Tories. There's no doubt in my mind that the service has improved, but certainly not in proportion to the money that has gone in. And all the bollocks about Foundation Hospitals has been a complete diversion. Soon Labour plan to give everyone the choice of hospital to go to. Sounds good, of course. But why not just have a good local hospital? Why should people have to travel far to get seen to in a nicer hospital? And who is more likely to take up these offers in the first place? Why, the people who can already afford to, of course!

Labour have been stealing Tory polices for eight years now. I don't trust either of them over the NHS. Labour are too caught up in setting targets and funding all the wrong hospitals. Surely it's the worst hospitals that need the cash the most desperately to appoint better managers and improve standards? It's pretty simple really.

But no one party will offer a realistic, but with a big vision, view of the NHS at the election. Not even the Lib Dems, who I have become fans of lately... at least at the national level.

To sum up today politically: nothing new. As our friend William Hague once said:

"It's all spin, and no delivery."

Scare Tactics

2005-03-01T13:16:00.000Z

The government has been on a relentless pursuit of scaring the nation into submission for the past few weeks now. Today we are told that a flu pandemic could be imminent and that we must begin preparing. Sure. That makes sense, although we should be well prepared by now as it's been so long since the last one.

Of course, for the past few days we have also been hearing so much about the threat of terrorism to the nation. Charles Clarke and his new chum, the new chief of the Met, Sir Ian Blair has been trying to scare the nation shitless for some time now over the "forthcoming" General Election.

Add to that the fact that we're constantly being told from all sides that violent crime is "out of control", and especially that gun crime, or even a "gun culture" is going to be the death of many. And woe betide you if you even so much as sneeze on a burglar entering your house!

Then those damn rebellious youth are, surprise surprise... "out of control" too. They're mugging old ladies, joyriding, binge drinking, sexually infecting and drug taking more than ever. Watch out, the next time you see a youth on the street, you could end up with chlamydia, find your wallet removed and get AIDS from a violent assault with a syringe.

Then the media frenzy over paedophiles. No one lets their children out to play any more... after all, who knows who lives next door! Better to keep kids locked up night and day so they never learn anything about real life or socialise with their own kind.

When you add all this up, you wonder why we haven't all already given up and resigned ourselves to living the rest of our lives in an air raid shelter at the bottom of the garden. Yet every day, people are apparently taking their lives into their own hands by stepping out their front doors and doing the things they've been doing for decades.

We really need to calm down. Sure there are problems. But let's stop this ridiculous knee-jerk reaction to everything. Life is not as simple as just stringing up all criminals and whipping kids into submission. That solves nothing. We need to gain a sense of perspective, and a sense of rationality. It's becoming quite desperate now.

The Honourable Members

2005-02-28T23:56:00.000Z

At least there are some sensible Labour MPs who realise that the governments plans for "control orders" are a travesty. The proceedings in the Commons yesterday were a farce and they show just how much contempt the government has for Parliamentary scrutiny. The whole thing has been badly managed, and with a bit of luck the Lords will either chuck it out, or make some serious and important amendments to it. No one doubts there is a threat, but our response must be proportional to it.

But to bring the majority down to 14 on a three-line whip is yet another example of a government that is seriously going to have trouble controlling its rebellious backbenchers if the majority falls below 100. What's more, most of the current Blairite lobby fodder are those currently placed in the marginal seats.

It might be best not to underestimate the enormous impact this election could have, even if Labour do get in with a comfortable majority.

U-turns on house arrest?

2005-02-27T12:59:00.000Z

Charles Clarke appears to be considering relenting on some of the major issues that are causing the widespread opposition to his plans for detaining suspected terrorists.

This is a good thing, and it's a sign of what united and strong opposition can do to a dictatorial government, even one with a huge majority. Yet, this is what oppositions are supposed to regularly and consistently. If only we'd had one of those for the past eight years.

That's why a considerable cut of Tony Blair's majority would be a reasonable result in this election.

But if Charles Clarke thinks he can fool people into believing he was always planning on listening, and this is not just a reaction to the fact that the plans were doomed to be killed in the House of Lords then he really must think we're all stupid.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke's parliamentary private secretary, Stephen McCabe, said Mr Clarke had been "seeking consensus from the outset" and was "continuing to listen to people".

Classic. An absolute classic.

You wouldn't have guessed an election was round the corner...

2005-02-27T12:44:00.000Z

Education Secretary Ruth Kelly unveils yet another crackdown on school truancy.

The simple fact of school truancy is that kids skip classes for a reason. They don't due it out of pure maliciousness. It's either something like: (i) they see the lesson as irrelevant, (ii) the teaching is very poor, (iii) they are having problems at home, or even (iv) the parents have took them on holiday.

It's not an easy issue to tackle. But it sure makes for good headlines in the right-wing press when you start talking about your latest crackdown on those sinful, wicked and naughty schoolchildren who have No Respect For Authority! Bring back the birch, etc. etc.

The children in question have already been, to use the carrot and stick approach, "sticked" out of school by one of the above factors. It doesn't help anyone, and it doesn't solve the problem in the long run by trying to whip the children into submission and sending them back to school. They have to be encouraged. An adult needs to sit down and have a sensible discussion with the child in question, work out the factors involved, explain the importance of school for achieving the child's goal, and motivate them back into the mainstream. Truancy disappears if children make the decision of their own accord to go to school because they know that by doing so they are going to ultimately improve their life in the future.

Of course, this can also be linked back with the missed opportunity for reforms in the 14-19 education system that Ruth Kelly shyed away from earlier this week. Giving children more opportunities to study a wider range of things would allow them to pick what they feel is the best area for them, especially when it comes to vocational qualifications.

But unfortunately, approaches like this take more money, more effort, more time, and political backbone. Something which is in very short supply at election time.

Saturday Slump

2005-02-26T15:35:00.000Z

You can tell there's not much going on on the domestic political front at the moment, given that the top story is a Tory pledge to ensure children get two hours free sports lessons a week.

I don't think there's much to be said on this. It's hardly a vote winner, and it's not going to motivate people to pay more attention to the political process. A reasonable policy, but hardly ground breaking. Labour are still selling off those playing fields just like the Tories did, so I hardly have any sympathy with them on this matter. But sport does need to keep being emphasised in schools... so if it's being talked about, it's better than nothing.

While more problems emerge in the Middle East, it is probably best if politicans tone down the politicking for a few days. But it has been suspiciously quiet of new policies for the past few days, so I'm rather expecting it to be slightly busier next week. Of course, the simple problem is that Middle East woes in Israel cannot be exploited electorally, so the Tories will have little to say on things like this.

I have always wondered what events like this, where the only reaction the media is interested in is one from the "office" of the Prime Minister, rather than one from the person holding the office - i.e. the message will be broadly non-partisan and representative of the nation. The problem is that this kind of event, reinforced by the media, makes people get used to seeing, as in this case, Tony Blair being the man with the Only British Opinion on this issue, which is normally one people can find it very difficult to disagree with.

In such cases like this, it gives a tiny edge to an incumbent government... because it allows people who may not normally agree with him a chance to actually agree with him! Perhaps this has an impact on what people's opinions are of him... "he's a nice man really" sort of thing.

Or maybe not.

The Dancing of Tony Blair

2005-02-25T20:26:00.000Z

It's always a bore to watch any press conference with Tony Blair involved, and in particular, the monthly briefing of the press by the PM is nothing more than a quasi-presidential facade that largely goes against the principle of collective responsibility that Cabinet government was the architect of over the centuries.

In addition to that though, they are always a fruitless exercise. The PM deftly dodges, weaves and pirouettes much to the delight of the assembled media and to the chagrin of the public watching. Today was no exception, as Blair once more reiterated his favourite arguments on the same subjects. There is no point asking the same questions to which we are only going to get a politician-style answer to again and again. Yet, that does not stop the journalists, of which there are many tens there, asking the same question over and over but with a slight variation to try to catch him out.

We didn't hear anything new on "control orders" or the legality of the Iraq war. However, we did hear about the increase in the minimum wage, which is possibly the greatest achievement of the Labour government that gets my complete support, but this has not really been picked up by the media as it's caught in the latest "is the Pope dead yet?" media cycle.

Sure, those soldiers have been jailed, but it surely isn't right that they will be the only ones to pay for these crimes, when it was quite clear the orders came from above? The damage has already been done to the British army, and some justice has been issued, but there's going to be a lot more of this in the coming months, and if we weren't already hated in Iraq as much as the Americans are, we will be by the end of the process.

Normal service will doubtless resume shortly.

Latest poll trends

2005-02-24T14:35:00.000Z

Labour's lead narrows to 2 percent according to latest MORI poll in the Financial Times.

I try not to get too excited over polls that give an indication the Tories are going to do reasonably well. Unfortunately, it also seems to imply that the Lib Dems will pretty much get a similar result to what they got in the 2001 Election, which could be a little risky given the wonders of our electoral system.

Another factor to consider is that MORI polls tend to overestimate support for Labour on a consistent basis. I don't have any factual evidence to back this up, but when I think back to previous elections I can recall MORI always seeming to give Labour 45% and above, when the election ended up nowhere near that.

Despite this closeness, the Labour majority will still be significant, not too far off the 100 mark.

There's an interesting part in the article where it talks about how bringing Tony Blair into the campaign seems to have had an impact on Labour voters. I think this is very true. Blair is something of a liability for Labour, particularly when it comes to the solid working class vote, and the fickle middle classes who stuck with Tony in 2001. Until very recently, you were very hard pressed to find an image of Blair on Labour's website, whereas the Tory and Lib Dem sites featured their leaders quite prominently. Says an awful lot, I thought.

If the Tories, and particularly the Lib Dems, can focus their entire campaigns on the untrustworthiness of Blair, and his "failure to deliver" in certain areas, and pursue it relentlessly, even if it requires some bending of the truth (and there will be plenty of that: we have already seen it over the immigration issue) ... then the mud will eventually stick.

It's already looking likely that turnout will be low. And if the polls start to show a considerable slide for Labour, then some things may not turn out as planned. Don't forget that a General Election is not guaranteed in May. If it starts to look like Labour will lose, then it could well be delayed until the autumn, or even next year. Probably unlikely, but worth bearing in mind.

Education

2005-02-23T16:42:00.000Z

When it comes to any discussion of our exams system I can easily become infuriated by the loose language many politicians and commentators use that can cause great offence because they have refused to engage their brains.

The first and most important thing to bear in mind is that it is not usually a good idea to criticise the current system too harshly as there are currently kids and young adults working through their courses, working hard, revising, studying and sometimes making their social lives suffer by having to take additional jobs, who are going to be seriously impacted if you tell them that they are getting it "easier than ever."

It's never a good idea to devalue hard work. That is exactly what people who either a) don't know better, or b) don't understand the issues at all do when they question the educational system. As a very recent product of this system, I know from first hand experience how gutting it is to get your exam results, think you've done really well, and then discover when you get back home that in fact things are "easier" than ever, and how it's "impossible to fail". It's not a great feeling to think that your two years of hard work are being degraded by people who would struggle to answer a GCSE question to the A* standard that they think they hold, never mind an A-Level question.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with wanting to find an even better way of assessment. Something has to be done about the exam culture we are living in, as well as the fact that a significant number of children do not achieve any GCSEs at all. We must make GCSEs, in particular, more relevant to the children studying them, so that the staying-on rate of children going on to study A-Levels is much higher. This, naturally, would include the equalisation of status of vocational courses. It is, surely, much better that children are in an education system for longer. We should be aiming for almost 100% staying on rate up to 18.

And to me, the best way of achieving all of this was with the four-tier diplomas as proposed by Mike Tomlinson. We have to end the snobbery of looking down on vocational courses, and this was an excellent way of solving the problem.

So naturally, I'm not at all happy that the government has missed this chance to level the playing field. Schools will continue to avoid offering vocational courses for fear of being labelled as a school that is "dumbing down" by prospective parents. Consequently, many children will be denied the opporunity to study areas that they would find more interesting and relevant to their lives. It will then be hardly surprising if they leave school earlier and suffer all the problems that that entails.

It's always been my belief, and it should be of everyone, that a society should be judged on the quality of its education to its children. It is the best, if not the only way, to ensure that everyone has a chance in life. We have suffered the problems of the class system for too long in this country. It is slowly on its way out, but we must keep pressing by pushing for thorough reforms such as this one.

There is nothing fundmentally wrong with either the GCSE or the A-Level. Standards are as high as ever, and the rise in passes at A-Level is down to a combination of the Education 2000 modular system, as well as the fact that A-Level students are more likely to pass anyway, since they have usually done pretty well at GCSE and are a more intelligent bunch. But they should all be integrated into a system that produces the same qualification for all by the end, obviously to varying grades depending on how high your percentage score is. And that qualification should incorporate a wider range of subjects, assessed consistently throughout the years with coursework and assignments, not just final exams, with relevant and practical applications to Real Life so kids understand why they're doing it.

It's the only way to solve the current problems. But go easy on the kids who are currently slaving their arses off in pursuit of the goals society has set them.

Suspicious timing...

2005-02-23T15:59:00.000Z

The latest hoo-hah with regards to Charles and Camilla's wedding has once more cleared all newspapers and newsdesks of all real news and replaced it with this piece of trivia that is not relevant to anyone's real lives. This is normally annoying enough in itself, as there can be nothing more tedious than listening to the usual suspects coming out with their pompous and arrogant views on the monarchy which they impose on us as if we would be unpatriotic to not agree with them.

But this time, and strangely enough last time when the marriage announcement was being made, there is just a wee bit of bad news being "buried" by the government. Today, the government has dedicated the day to discussing the future of civil liberties in this country in their horrendously illiberal Prevention of Terrorism Bill, and it's slowly slipping under the radar. Sure, it will no doubt get some coverage tomorrow, but the agenda is moving on very quickly, and there will be more populist related material to digest before the night is out that may still get priority in the papers tomorrow.

Of course, last time, the government was slowly pushing through the introduction of ID cards when the first annoucements of the marriage came. There's no doubt that it affected the number of column inches the more important issues got the next day.

On this issue, I am remaining hopeful that the Lords will block the measures when it comes round to it. Rushed legislation is almost always bad legislation, and this one will be no exception. We do need to respond to the threat of terror, but we must always remember to keep a sense of perspective. We cannot throw away our traditional rights that people have fought for for centuries just because of a few bad apples. The ideas proposed during the toughest period of the Troubles in Northern Ireland were never this draconian, and that was arguably much more of a threat than Al'Qaeda or any of the other groups.

The other oddity about this whole charade is the position of the Conservatives. They've changed their minds a lot on this lately, and it wouldn't surprise me if they did another u-turn fairly soon in order to avoid the risk of being labelled "soft" on terrorism in the General Election. I'm quite sure it would not be beyond Labour to pull the tactics of George Bush in the US Presidential Elections. Yet, the Tories have said that they would happily support the renewal of the existing legislation... you know, that little thing that has been declared "incompatible with human rights" by the Law Lords.

So on the one hand you have the Tories wanting to renew the existing piece of bad legislation that has been condemned by many senior law figures and the highest court in the land; and on the other hand you have a Tory party worried about civil liberties that could be put in jeopardy by the present bill being proposed.

Which is the real Tory party?

Hunting to the ends of the Earth...

2005-02-22T11:16:00.000Z

... and then far beyond into monotony. Last week we suffered the relentless bombardment by the media and pressure groups over the issue of fox-hunting. You know, that thing that should have been solved many years ago when Labour had the chance?

It seems that New Labour, in its usual attempt to be all things to all people, carried this one on for so long that eventually the majority in favour was eroded away quite significantly. If it had been banned many years ago, when the opportunity was there, it wouldn't have wasted so much time in Parliament.

Better late than never. But this bill has so many holes in it that you can't help but feel that it isn't going to last very long. The police have better thing to do, naturally, and so it could likely end up as one of those laws that people simply ignore.

Last week though, we seemed to have been given a non stop commentary on the progress and reaction to the law as the implementation date approached. It was extremely boring and very predictable.

Fact is, this is yet another of those issues that will not be resonating electorally. The people may have shifted position, but it may be more due to fatigue than anything else. There are an awful lot of "don't know/don't care"s in that survey cited above. The people had already made up their minds, and its consistently high position on the media's agenda is grossly disproportianate to its importance.

No sensible political party would make this their centrepiece of a strategy. The Tories may pledge to repeal it, but they will not dwell on it for fear of stoking the flames even more. They won't open the issue to a question of townies vs countryfolk as that is extremely divisive and would likely backfire. Talks of class warfare would only play into Labour's hands.

This one is dead. The law is probably dead too. We have to move on.

Hell Hath No Fury Like A Journalist Scorned

2005-02-22T10:37:00.000Z

The Mayor of London story trundles on today with Ken Livingstone refusing to apologise for his "Nazi jibe".

I have just watched the press conference given by Ken and thought he made some excellent points. I don't believe he should apologise. Ken is his own man and will fiercely defend his rights to criticise relentless newspaper journalists. Yet, it is remarkable, although not entirely surprising, to note the strength of the language used by journalists when they were questioning him. They all closed ranks to defend one of their own kind, and asked the most loaded questions possible to try to extract another slip up from Ken.

Needless to say, I have a feeling this story is yet another example of those that endlessly concern our media, which pursues it for its own sake, while calling it "in the public interest". There is really no such thing as a free media, as the media is controlled by the people from the top who impose an editorial line. Hardly a ground breaking revelation, but there are far more important things for Londoners to be considering at this time.

It's clear Ken doesn't like journalists. If he is chased to the ends of the earth by reporters sticking their tape recorders in his face then he is likely to abuse them. It's what makes him so popular - he is one of the few politicians remaining who speaks his mind. He has even resisted the demands for an apology when Tony Blair jumped on the bandwagon.

It's time to move on. No one has changed their mind through this issue. And frankly, it's becoming very boring.

Apologies

2005-02-21T23:13:00.000Z

The silence lately has been the result of a family matter. Normal service will resume tomorrow. Fortunately, it wasn't a particularly exciting week, politics wise. The half-term of Parliament led to a decline in the normal electoral brainwashing that we've become used to, so the same old issues got trudged out again and again (anyone for fox hunting?).

More soon.

House Arrest?

2005-02-14T18:45:00.000Z

I can't really tell whether this issue of what Charles Clarke is going to do over the plans to give him the power to place anyone under "house arrest" is resonating in the country. We don't seem to have much of a tradition of defending our civil liberties in this country, and normally when the token spokesperson of Liberty is invited onto a news programme, their views are dismissed as somewhat "peculiar" by the establishment.

But this is one issue everyone should be concerned about. More now than ever we need to show that the Rule of Law is an integral part of our nation. There is a threat from terrorism, but our reaction to it must be proportional to the risk. There is still only an infinitely small chance of being involved in a terrorist event, something like 1 in 100,000... while the chance of you committing suicide is around 1 in 9,000. Statistically speaking, you're more of a danger to yourself than the terrorists are a danger to you.

It is vital we uphold the Rule of Law, since if we start adjusting our country to deal with terror, we risk giving a victory to them. We can't just allow any Home Secretary to decide to detain people forever just because he says so. The whole process is open to abuse.

I am glad that the Conservatives look set to oppose these issues, at least at the moment. They are horrendously illiberal, and if they are pushed through before the election as most commentators are predicting, it will effectively mean the game is up for civil liberties in this country.

What shocks me the most is that all of this is being considered under a Labour government. It rather indicates just how far to the right the present Blair administration is. There needs to be a major change in the Labour party soon, but I fear this election is not going to provide the excuse we need to do so.

There must be another way.

Lib Dems on Crime

2005-02-13T14:59:00.000Z

Listening to Mark Oaten on The Politics Show on BBC2 today, the Liberal Democrats spokesman on Crime, I couldn't help but agree with everything that was said. People are gearing themselves up to attack the Lib Dems for their talk of "tough liberalism" because the right-wing press like to set themselves in the position that only they can talk tough on crime.

But what he said about the Lib Dems taking the tough option was absolutely right. It's very easy to jail everyone. It's very easy to fine everyone. But what does it achieve? Sure, it takes people off the streets for a bit. And there will always be extremely dangerous people around who can't be rehabilitated who need to be locked up for life. But what about the vast majority of the petty criminals who go to jail? Most of them go on to reoffend within a few months. Is that a sign of a system that is working?

So it is "tough" to want to take the hard option of tackling the genuine causes of crime. It's an extremely simple concept to grasp. But it will not be painted as such. This election is gearing up to be one of the worst that anyone will remember. It will be characterised for relentless spinning and extreme concentration on the same issues such as immigration which will grind the electorate down. I am predicting this could be the lowest turnout ever, which will be a complete shame given that now more than ever we need to stand up and cast an important vote against the dangerously right-wing Blair.

Iraq Election Results

2005-02-13T14:19:00.000Z

So we should all celebrate now that Iraq has the results for its constituent assembly. The lapdog media presents the whole thing, as usual, as the final stage in the process. The end of the problems and the beginning of the new Iraq.

I'd like it if it was true. We do ourselves no favours by deluding ourselves into thinking that the hard part of the journey is over. We must always remember that it is only just beginning. Since we've ruined Iraq, it would at least be worthwhile if we could get something out of this whole process, and so I'm as enthusiastic to see democracy in Iraq as anyone. But we must realise that what we've had so far is not true democracy. Most people didn't know who the candidates were. There was little in the sense of real campaigning. Most people didn't even know where they were going to be able to vote. Not to mention that a significant minority of the country didn't vote at all as they felt the process has no legitimacy.

So don't kid yourself. It's not a real election. It's the best we'll get at the moment, but don't assume it has produced a representative, democratic Iraq.

It says a lot, however, that the US-appointed Iyad Allawi's list seems to have floundered into 3rd place. The Iraqis voted for candidates who had as little connection with the US regime as possible. They want us out as soon as is feasible. We want to do exactly the same thing. But the Iraqis are not keen on anyone who may take actions to prolong that, and so Allawi suffered.

I found it amusing yesterday when "Uncle Don" Rumsfeld had the cheek to complain to Europe that one nation could not defeat extremism alone. Yet, isn't that what we were telling them before the Iraq war?

The Shia have elected candidates who move them closer to a religious state. This would be unacceptable to the Americans. So the US is going to be careful in getting a Constitution drafted that would ensure a conversion to an Iranian-style theocratic state is not possible. Yet, it's probably what most of the Shia want. Democracy is a fickle thing.

Iraq will continue to be an issue, and I hope that people will not forget the lies, spin and persistent wriggling that Blair has done ever since the Iraq issue was first raised. Much as we like to praise ourselves for bringing democracy to Iraq, it was never the aim in the first place. Some argue it should have been, but the politicians only started to bring this one into the picture when the other justifications of terrorism and WMDs disappeared.

Blair is going to try to bury this one. We can't afford to let him.

The Dilemma

2005-02-12T16:33:00.000Z

As a left-winger, the forthcoming British General Election is going to be quite a difficult choice for me, and probably for every other person who considers themselves centre-left.

We all know that the top of the Labour party has been seized by the Blairites. I know I can never vote for Labour again while Blair, or even a descended Blairite, is running the show. Yet, I know that by doing that, thanks to the wonders of our electoral system, I could be letting the Tories in through the back door. At least Blair is the lesser of two evils. In theory.

So how about a vote for the Liberal Democrats? Their policies are now certainly more attractive to me than Labour's. They appear to have picked up a lot of things pertaining to social liberalism that they never used to have. I suspect that's a Charles Kennedy thing. Kennedy is also a decent man, if a little uncharismatic at times.

However, I know that the grassroots of the Liberals are not quite reflective of the party. Down at the bottom, they are equally liberal on social issues, but their economical right-wing stance can be difficult to square with my mostly left-wing economic outlook too. Of course, that's not universally true, but it is reasonably extensive. Add to that the fact that local Lib Dems can be somewhat devious and very ambiguous in their politics... sometimes further right than the Tories, other times far left of Labour. This worries me.

Meanwhile, the grassroots of Labour is a mix of exactly what I'm looking for, with a rising infestation of Nu Lab, plus an infusion of slightly authoritarian Bennite socialism. It certainly is a big tent.

There are other parties, but we have to be realistic. If you're of a left-disposition, the key to placing your vote this election should be entirely tactically. Probably the most useful result in this election would be a hung Parliament with a prospect of a Labour-Liberal coalition. Of course, for this to happen, a small miracle would need to occur. It would allow for the disposal of Blair, and the sacrifice of illiberal policies such as identity cards, further erosions of civil rights, and the continuing emphasis on the private sector ethos. As well as dropping all the usual mass hysteria about immigration, we may even get some electoral reform into the bargain.

It's the only chance for there to be a completely reformist government in power that will push through the changes that this country needs.

Consequently, it's absolutely vital that you consider the local position of who is standing, and who of a liberal-left leaning is most likely to win. I will not be giving a blanket endorsement this election. The best solution is to cast your vote in such a manner that the best result for the left is achieved.

Right now I'm predicting a majority of around 80 to 100 for Labour. Continued Blair dominance, and a disowning of the EU constitution referendum so that when it fails, he will not have to offer his resignation.

Mission Statement

2005-02-11T14:32:00.000Z

Thank you for visiting.

This is a blog about the forthcoming and anticipated UK General Election 2005. It will analyse the latest election antics and politicking by the parties from a left-liberal perspective. I do not support any particular left-wing party. I consider myself a social democrat mostly, but I have a roughly similar amount of liberal democrat tendencies.

This blog has been inspired by the fact that there are not that many political blogs in the UK, even with elections imminent, compared with the rise of the blogosphere in the USA. It has been influenced by the success of blogs and the slight impact they had in the US Presidential and other elections. I hope a similar movement will be able to take place in the UK with our election this time.

If you are the owner/writer of another liberal-left blog, then please contact me on the e-mail address in the sidebar. I'm interested to read what other people of my political persuasion are writing so we can establish networks of this kind.

Your comments are welcome on all posts, but abusive, libelous and potentially illegal comments will be deleted.

You can e-mail me about this site with criticisms, comments, suggestions or other stuff by using the e-mail address on the link in the sidebar.

I hope you enjoy this site.