Deputy Prime Minister

May 11, 2010 — simonashall

Nick Clegg will be Deputy PM in the new government and it is reward for the courage he has shown in leading his reluctant party to sharing power with the Conservatives. Around mid-afternoon, he began to run the risk that people were going to get pretty hacked off with him if he kept them waiting for too much longer but despite the totalitarian tendencies of Mandelson and Campbell trying to tempt him into a deal that would probably have finished his party – and Labour – off for a generation, he did the proper thing.

I can assure him that Conservative activists are every bit as wary of coalition with the Lib Dems as vice-versa. The natural party of coalition for the Lib Dems is undoubtedly Labour, from where they trace part of their roots. But in this instance, the people of Britain wanted Labour out and if that wasn’t translated into votes quite as emphatically as it should have been because of the in-built majority Labour has retained in the voting system, the sentiment was clear enough for Nick Clegg and Vince Cable to know what was good for them – and the country.

Okay, there’s a fair bit of bad feeling between the two parties in the south especially but this is not a time for that. The issues of Europe and electoral reform will remain medium-sized animals in the room but three years – if that is to be the length of coalition – is long enough to deal with those issues. I feel that conceding a vote on AV is something the new PM may live to regret and that it is too high a price to have paid – but we are all human and removing Labour was a necessary priority.

I have said before that the socially conscious Conservative and the average Lib Dem share a great deal of commonality in social policy and in Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, George Osborne and Philip Hammond, we have a superb economic team to help with recovery. The negotiations appear to have left both parties with incentives to make the coalition work.

Neither Europe nor voting reform were big issues in the campaign – so let’s get on addressing those things that Labour has so badly failed on – education, youth engagement, law and order, the health service, social mobility and building a sustainable economy. I also hope that we will work together to create a more environmentally sustainable nation too - there may be slightly less taste for that on the right of the Conservative Party but it should be another issue where there is some common ground.

As a mark of my commitment to the new government, Nick Clegg will henceforth be NC. All that remains to be seen is the proportion of the Conservative manifesto – itself a major stumbling block for a majority – finds its way into the Queen’s speech.

Posted in elections, lib dems, politics. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

Critical Political Economy

March 16, 2010 — admin

Osborne and Clarke could hold the key to election success

It’s been a strange time in national politics during the past three months. There’s no doubt that Charlie Whelan, Alistair Campbell and PM represent the most devastatingly effective political propaganda team in British history. The results of their work are seen in every media outlet, regardless of its official persuasion and sometimes more so, strikingly, in outlets that are not government supporting. There has been a real gusto about the Labour press campaign during the past three months that, had it been waged by the Conservatives, would undoubtedly have “sealed the deal” for DC.

Meanwhile, my reflections on his performance during the same time are probably best left unstated. The PM remains shatteringly unpopular and won’t survive the election either way. He has led us into a recession of drastic proportions and other than the press management outlined above, his government team is utterly hapless and bereft of ideas – as well as the money to enact any meaningful change or reform. There is simply no reason for the Conservatives to be within striking distance of Labour in the polls.

That we are is down to two things. Firstly, people are fed up of waiting to be told what Conservative policy is. They have waited for three years now in the belief that when the time came, DC and his team would be straightforward and clear about how the Conservative Party would seek to re-shape and change Britain in 2010-14. I can see that we have made some attempts, particularly on education policy, to get these messages across. But too often the position on taxation, family values and criminal justice has overshadowed the NHS and education. That’s partly to do with Labour’s art; but it’s also politics and an experienced team like Andy Coulson and Steve Hilton should foresee the tactics of opponents and build these into Conservative planning.

Let’s take for example the Piers Morgan show on the PM, sycophantic and soporific in equal measure though it was. If the DC team thought that a late-night Sunday show with Trevor McDonald would pull in the same crowd either in numbers or demographic, one wonders what kind of analytics they are using. As it happens, there has been some good poll news today (on the front of the Guardian) but I doubt that was much to do with Sir Trevor. And there needs to be a sea-change in Conservative tactics if it’s to stick.

I’m puzzled that the one issue that will decide the election – and the one that the Conservative are traditionally strongest on – is the one issue we seem to be handing to Labour. Gordon Brown has been given licence by his media friends to paint himself as the experienced hand on the economic tiller, which is akin to the Cray twins applying to the magistracy. This PM has no right whatsoever to claim such a thing – he has shown himself as the most politically expedient of Chancellors and PMs.

There is a clear opporunity for contrast here. A Conservative Party that will plan for 2010-18 rather than just for four years, a Conservative Chancellor who will make the tough decisions necessary to secure long-term prosperity, a Conservative Prime Minister who will formulate policy around what we can pay for rather than what we can borrow against and a Treasury team of Ken Clarke, Phillip Hammond and George Osborne that is both more able, more popular and more trustworthy than Mandelson, Byrne and Darling. To my mind, we have the tools – what I don’t understand is why we are not taking the initiative.

It’s a fluid situation – the level of deficit cuts and savings needed will fluctuate with each pronouncement on how recovery is going – or whether we slip back into recession. But the budget presents an opportunity to brush aside what will be a populist, shameless and cycnical piece of propaganda designed to win votes and create difficult questions for the opposition. We have a clear opportunity to make some assumptions, to take a snapshot of the economic climate and to make our own proposals for the British people.

Without their confidence on the economy, it will be a struggle for DC to gain a majority in parliament. The upcoming industrial action may play into his hands and he needs to capitalise with a clear understanding and strategy for the economy; these two things may alone prove decisive.

Posted in Conservatives, Economy, politics. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . No Comments »

Campbell’s contempt for the truth

January 12, 2010 — admin

Alistair Campbell isn't getting his picture here - instead this is the result of the dossier he denies influencing

There are lots of reasons to have a problem with Alistair Campbell. My main beef with him is that by becoming the most notorious of “spin doctors” his bullying, goading and arrogant manner has tarnished the entire PR profession with his chippy, chalky brush. Whenever I tell people that I’m in Public Relations, they think of Alistair Campbell and assume I spend all day yelling obscenities down the phone to journalists and anyone else who cares to displease me.

As much fun as that sounds, it’s not the case. The second problem I have with him was perfectly illustrated by his appearance today in front of the Iraq Inquiry - that like his political master Tony Blair, he is incapable of admitting that he may have made mistakes while in his government position. We may have all swallowed the 45 minutes sophistry back in 2002 but it should be perfectly clear in 2010 that the dossiers of both September of that year and February 2003 were packed full of information that was at best selectively presented and leadingly phrased and at worst blatantly untrue.

Today, Campbell refused to accept any criticism of his role, he denied having over-ridden intelligence information with his own advice on “presentation” and said he totally stood by every word in the 2002 dossier. “You seem to be wanting me to say that Tony Blair signed up to saying, regardless of the facts and WMD, we are going to get rid of this guy,” he said. “It was not like this.” Well then, Alistair, exactly how was it?

Did Tony Blair not discuss regime change back in 2001 with President Bush? Was the emphasis of the dossier not changed from “may” have WMDs capable of a 45-minute launch to “has“? Lewes MP Norman Baker might be a little deluded about the death of Dr David Kelly (he thinks the government did it) but his interview on Sky News earlier (sadly not available on their website) showed just how discredited the Campbell sticking-to-the-guns stance is.

And while Campbell was confident and easily dealt with the tame questioning today from a panel whose body language reeked of mistrust for him, his “Je ne regrette rien” attitude doesn’t paint him in a sympathetic light. We can, no doubt, expect more of the same from Tony Blair when he appears in front of the inquiry too. He will say that he believed that the dossier was true, that the fact it has subsequently been shown to be a pile of fibs was not forseeable at the time and that he would probably have gone ahead in Iraq regardless of WMDs because he believe removing Saddam was the right thing to do.

Possibly it was, although it would be interesting to note the Iraqi people’s view on that subject, which has little to do on the whole with democracy and human rights and far more to do with tribal and religious considerations. But if getting rid of Saddam merited invasion, why are we not invading Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea, Burma and, for that matter, China? Why don’t we intervene in Tibet or the drug wars of Mexico?

It is a shame that both Blair and Campbell are too battoned-down to understand that moral judgements are rarely applicable on a case-by-case basis; you either believe in a principle of removing dictators or you don’t – and if you do, you have to remove them everywhere. Unless there’s some other reason of course that we are not being told about. Surely not.

Posted in Military, politics. Tags: , , , . No Comments »

On the March

December 6, 2009 — admin
Could Gordon be gone by April?

Could Gordon be gone by April?

There appear to be loudening whispers around Westminster at the moment that a March election could be on the cards. March 25 seems the most likely date for it if the PM wants to go early as it gives more time.

Evidence to suggest that this is at least an option being considered is increasingly stacking up. Firstly, there were the Labour Party staffing advertisements, which have been appearing in greater numbers recently. Secondly, it would offer the PM something of an advantage of surprise. It could also allow him to fight on the basis of Christmas-boosted economic figures and allow him to postpone the pre-Budget report until after an election.

It has certainly caught the minds of journalists at very high-placed political news outlets such as the Spectator, New Statesman and Daily Telegraph. Things don’t just pop into so many journalists’ minds at the same time on the same subject by chance – someone is briefing them. It could be Alistair Campbell, brought back to feed the PM with some snide one-liners about class war. Alternatively, it could be coming from the Conservative side, talking up a March election to get activists focussed and make Brown look scared if he waits until May.

It could be both but it’s certainly an interesting Phoney War. My own feeling is that the election will be on May 6 because Labour simply doesn’t have the money to run two separate campaigns. But then the PM could go on March 25, spend everything on the general election and leave the local elections to dangle – it’s not like Labour’s local government presence could get much worse anyway.

Polls at the moment seem to be narrowing slightly to Labour’s advantage – or more accurately, since the Labour vote is static – to the Conservatives’ disadvantage. A lot of that I think is the fall out from the Lisbon Treaty and Eurosceptics switching to UKIP. Hopefully, by the election time they will understand that a vote for Lord Pearson and his merry crew is a total waste of time and actually helps the PM stay on for another five years. I am confident that many of these UKIP waverers will stay within the Conservative Party but there is a huge amount of work ahead.

The most important thing is not the opinion poll figures but getting your supporters out to vote for you. If Labour thinks they have more chance of doing this in March, so be it.

Posted in Polling, Roll on 2010, elections. Tags: , , , , , , , . No Comments »
«
»