The PM speaking at MK

The PM’s speech in Milton Keynes was among the most important of his political career so far. It defined his position more clearly than anything previously on the defining political question of the decade – how to get Britain back into business.

We can take from it several things – firstly that the PM will lay it on very thick about the economic crisis being Labour’s fault. I think that’s no bad thing – particularly because they are starting to come out with some pretty outrageous criticism of the coalition on a situation they helped, at least, to create. But I think he’s got to be careful and not get too free with this tactic. He needs to be the consensus man, the leader, the unifier and the solution, not the “new” problem.

Secondly, the PM is happy to tell us just how bad it is, unlike Labour. Not everyone will agree with him but it is obviously in his interest to make things seem as bad as possible. I don’t think a great deal of exaggeration is necessary – things are very, very bad – but the openness he is in a political position to afford could be something of an advantage. I think if played well, far from Mervyn King’s prediction being correct, the public could be sympathetic to the Coalition for some time to come. Honest actions go a long way in politics nowadays and the public recognise favourably politicians who are prepared to do the right, if not popular, thing.

Thirdly, Danny Alexander will be right next to him – all the way. There’s no way that the Liberal Democrats are getting off the hook with this one as full members of the Coalition and I don’t think they want to. NC has said that there will be a “cut with kindness” policy that will shield some of the most vulnerable from the worst of what needs to be done but that can only do so much – they can’t be protected from council cuts in many areas.

Nor do I think it’s a good idea for George Osborne to widely consult the public on where to save money. This is a very risky strategy that could puta very considerable rod in his back when Labour organises a Twitter campaign to get people to respond in a particular way. The results could then be FOIed and may not be where the final decision needs to be made. It could look like the public has been consulted and ignored – not great PR.

The simple answer here is that, a bit like Masterchef, this new economic future is going to “change our life”. There are opportunities for efficiency, yes, and looking at different ways of providing services. But the bottom line is that we need to get a £170bn deficit down and there’s a lot of money to hack off budgets. It must be done, it must be done quickly and there is a certainly amount of political risk that is going to come as the pay-off of winning the election (sort of).

I think the Coalition needs to remember that the public has a great deal more of a problem with dishonesty than ineffectiveness. If the government tries to mask the problem, if it breaks its promises over what it is going to cut, if there is a suspicion that certain groups are being unjustly protected or if there is any underhand treasury regulation as with the last government, the considerable goodwill that the public holds will drain quickly.

If the government is straight, calls a cut a cut and acts responsibly for the best interests of the nation, it might just find itself laying down a legacy of decency – if not prosperity – and a chance in 2015 to lead the country properly back into the new world economy with its head held high.

As Basil Fawlty said: "Cuddle one of these and you'll never play the guitar again"

I don’t subscribe to the view that while British soldiers were dying in Afghanistan, it was wrong to run a story about two young girls being mauled by a fox in their own home. Two little girls have been nastily injured and that would have been a story whatever else was going on.

But neither do I agree that this case furthers the argument to repeal the hunting ban. We have plenty of foxes around here and as soon as they see you, they scarper. None would dream of coming into the house and if they did – ban or no ban – they’d be lucky to make it out again. But truly urban foxes – those that live in London boroughs and inner city areas – are much more used to human presence and have learned that we are rarely a threat (at least intentionally) and they can outpace us in unenclosed spaces.

Foxes are highly evolved predators, which makes them efficient hunters but also rather unpleasant killers of domestic pets. There is a reason, after all, that hunting was initiated in the first instance ie to protect livestock. That reason still holds but the Hunting Act has been in force for five years now and livestock numbers have not dramatically fallen and foxes are still controlled in the countryside – often, it has to be said, by huntsmen.

The difference in behaviours between the urban and country fox means that trying to use an urban context to justify a country pursuit is just nonsense. I maintain that illiberal though the Hunting Act may have been, the country has moved on and there are more pressing things to attend to. As you can see in the Daily Mail comments, the nation is totally polarised on this issue – the anti-hunt lobby are prepared to libel the mother in the story by insinuating that foxes weren’t responsible for the attack and the pro-hunt viewpoint is that we should be able to kill these animals as necessary.

My heart instinctively wants hunting back – it was a spiteful, class-fuelled sop that has done little for animal welfare. I respect the traditions of the countryside and believe in supporting the people who live there. But my head says no – there is simply no justification for the coalition to split itself and everyone else into opposing camps for an issue that in overall terms matters little other than to quench the thirst for revenge.

There are better battles to fight – Conservatives should let this one go.

Catching flies - Miliband won't be the threat Tories fear

Labour held its leadership hustings today in Southport and according to the BBC, which seems to be intent on pretending that Labour is still in power, this internal Labour Party process was an event that merited live TV coverage. In fact, the reason that the hustings were held at all seemed to me to be all about David Miliband in particular getting some welcome exposure.

Yesterday, the BBC news lead with the bare-faced revelation that Miliband was accusing the PM of “hypocrisy” on spending cuts and “broken promises”. The sheer brass neck needed to occasion such a piece of naked and mendacious opportunism is difficult to quantify with words alone – suffice it to say that the corporation seems to have decided that Miliband is the next Labour leader and they are determined to make him PM in 2015. Personally, I can’t see the British people going for it but there we go.

Today however and in front of the GMB, comrade Miliband was talking about “our people” and building Labour up “workplace by workplace“. And he’s supposed to be the Blairite – can we assume that the likes of Ed Balls, brother Ed and Diane Abbott would wish to be seen as even more substantially left? No doubt the coalition has pulled the Conservative Party to the left and the Liberal Democrats to the right to end up somewhere in the genuine centre rather than the centre-right with which many Conservatives would be more comfortable.

Is the only place for Labour to go back to the left? From 1994 onwards, Labour had a go at being capitalists but forgot that supporting and spending the proceeds of economic growth also entails a measure of responsibility and after 15 years of profligacy the money has run out. They can’t go to the right, they no longer look credible in the centre ground and so with Miliband heading back to the comrades for support, they can only move to that left ground vacated by NC. Fine by me.

Until today, I think most Conservatives were hoping that Ed Balls might get the leadership in an attempt to saddle Labour with a leader even more unelectable than Gordon Brown. However John McConnell seems to be intent on taking on that mantle after some very ill-judged comments about Lady Thatcher. I admire her in many ways; but not in others as I’ve said before. But the idea of assassinating political leaders is either puerile posturing or dangerous nonsense from a man who wants to become Prime Minister (presumably). Leaving aside the poor taste, if the best answer Labour has got to Britain’s problems is time travel back to the 80s and taking out the then PM – who for a greater part was simply sorting out the last mess Labour left – then their ideas barrel clearly has sprung a leak.

If Labour is sensible it will elect David Miliband as leader – but I’m not sure Conservatives should be too worried by that prospect.

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.

What a shame that some Lib Dems can’t distinguish the difference between what is politics and what is personal. I was pretty shocked at Spiderplant’s bileous, hateful and defamatory post on me after the elections, it seems that she must have had a very bad night if the only thing that comforts her is me not winning. No-one minds a bit of political banter and heated banter at that; but it is very sad when some people clearly have such a lack of context.

All I’ll say is that as the “nastiest character in Woking”, I spent Thursday evening smiling and laughing – despite a nervewracking count and eventual loss in Horsell West – enjoying the atmosphere and chatting to the police, council officers, the press and politicians of all parties who I have built up relationships with since my first Woking count in 2003 and many of whom I count as friends. She on the other hand spent the night storming about the place with a scowl on her face avoiding eye contact with anyone lacking a yellow rosette.

I find it difficult to identify with her habit of turning a debate personal when she’s is losing an argument, nor her apparent attitude that politics is the most serious thing in the world and opponents are there to be smeared and defamed. Perhaps that’s just me, but I think it’s about building a rapport with people (see above) and I regret that someone like Spiderplant doesn’t see how positive this aspect of the process is. The truth is that you can’t win all the time and that there is always a chance for the other side to have their day – the only thing that remains constant is the people and without them to fall back on, politics is nothing more than squabbling. 

There are many Lib Dems who see things this way but she’s not one of them. I think that is her misfortune and unlike her, misfortune saddens - rather than comforts – me.

During the last few days, the Lib Dems have been playing a clever PR game by trying to link electoral reform – by which they mean proportional representation’s introduction as our voting system – with “new”, post-expenses, politics.

I’m not altogether against electoral reform. I think that the boundaries currently used for our first-past-the-post system are unfair and give Labour a huge advantage by handing them a built-in majority of about 90 seats, according to Electoral Calculus. I want to see those boundaries re-drawn and the number of seats re-calculated to make for a fairer local representative system – and that includes fairer to the Lib Dems as well.

You routinely hear commentators in the press and the BBC say that the FPTP system discriminates against the third party, as if they had done some research on it and drawn a scientific conclusion. That’s rubbish. All that conclusion is based upon is the realities and record of the system – there is no reason why the Liberal Democrats should have any more difficulty in winning constituencies than anyone else.

The reason it is biased against them is quite simple – they pretend to be a centre-right alternative to the Conservatives in London and the South and a hard-left alternative to old Labour in the north and Scotland. Their manifesto for 2010 cleverly leaves either possibility open. But it does mean that such a dual-personality party cannot hold a “core” vote sufficient for it to win constituencies in sufficient numbers to hold power in FPTP. If the Lib Dems decided what they wanted to be – rather than just pitching for whatever they think they can get away with – their vote in some areas would harden and in others soften. It’s their choice to be at a disadvantage in the system.

But they’re quite happy to overlook that. What they want to do is hold the country to ransom by demanding a referendum on proportional representation in return for offering stability in the event of no party receiving a majority. PR, of course, would not only allow them to hold the balance of power, it would help put pay to their biggest weakness – the idea that a vote for the Lib Dems is a “wasted vote”. It would also allow them to pretend to be “savage cutters” in the south and “tax the richers” in the north while scooping the maximum value from each deluded voter.

It’s not a bad strategy for them – but it should be ringing alarm bells with every single previous Conservative supporter who’s thinking of giving Clegg a chance because he came over well on telly. If you give him the chance he wants, he’ll go into coalition with Brown (or more likely Miliband). They’ll embark on a series of tax hikes and spending cuts not witnessed before in the post-war era. That’s not necessarily to their discredit because any government will have to do the same.

But if you decide after four years that you don’t like them, if Clegg turns out to be not quite what you thought (on Europe, immigration and law and order) and you think in 2014/5 that you’re going to give the Conservatives a chance after all – well, you won’t be able to. Because Lib/Lab will have changed the way things are done and neither the Conservative Party nor Labour would ever be able to govern on their own again. And guess who the beneficiaries of this gerrymandering will be? That’s right, the Lib Dems.

They may call themselves Liberal Democrats, but that doesn’t seem very liberal or democratic to me.

Yesterday evening saw the first leaders’ debate on television and by and large the media is portraying Nick Clegg as the winner. I didn’t see the debate for reasons that are obvious below but spent a bit of time in work this morning calming down my colleagues about Nick Clegg (they’ve come to expect that of me).

Firstly, it was always going to be easy for him to look like the reasonable man in between the Conservative and Labour warring factions. We saw Vince Cable do it in the Chancellors’ debate; we saw it again last night. Secondly, there is so much more at stake for DC and the PM, it’s no wonder that they looked more under pressure. Particularly for DC – when these debates were agreed, it seemed like it would just be a matter of cementing the lead. Things are different now. Nick Clegg was able to look and feel more relaxed because he’s not going to be PM.

Thirdly,  Nick Clegg can afford to be “honest” about cuts, tax rises etc because it isn’t him that’s going to have to do them. The Lib Dems have always been good at promising wonderful things in the knowledge that they won’t have to deliver. Their record in local government is much more patchy. Fourthly, let’s give Clegg some credit. He prepared well, understood the medium better than the other two and came across well. It doesn’t mean he’ll make a great Prime Minister. Or even prop one up.

Meanwhile at the Lightbox, the first of the Woking Hustings was getting underway with Jonathan Lord up against Tom Miller (Lab), Rob Burberry (UKIP), Rosie Sharpley (Lib Dem)  and the lady from the Peace Party whose name escapes me. The event was organised by the Federation of Small Businesses and focussed on the economy. Around 40 people turned up but mostly people I recognised as businesspeople or activists.

I thought Labour’s Tom Miller gave a good account of himself faced with a sceptical audience and the impossible task of defending this government’s mismanagement of the economy. He’ll be an MP for sure – just not for Woking. Rob Burberry spoke with the usual UKIP over-earnestness and although he talked a little sense about the European dimension, he wasn’t at all convincing in any other dimension.

Jonathan Lord spoke confidently and knowledgeably, gaining quite a bit of applause from the audience, although perhaps that was to be expected. The contrast though with Rosie was less expected. I thought that she’d bear up well in these hustings given her background. Not so – she stumbled around answers, had to be stopped when she started answering a different question to the one that was asked and from what I hear it got worse after I left.

She might know Woking “like the back of her hand” but in the end so do many people. What we need in Parliament is someone with the influencing skills, the energy and the strength of personality to push Woking’s case forward in among the great melting pot of conflicting interests.

Jonathan is in the process of moving here and whether you vote for Rosie or Jonathan, you will have an MP living here in the constituency. The question is what qualities you wish that person to have and the contrast couldn’t be starker. The Lib Dems have been pushing the sophistry for months now that Woking was Jonathan’s “third choice” seat. Not true. But even if it was, I’d rather be a third-choice seat than have a third-rate MP.

It's no good looking down on Woking - people want a dialogue!

I went along to the Community Question Time held at HG Wells on Wednesday night, which promised to allow residents the chance to quiz members of a panel including WBC chief executive Ray Morgan on matters of interest within Woking. It didn’t quite work out that way and by the time I had to leave at 8pm to attend another meeting elsewhere, not a single question had been asked.

Identifying the problem was not difficult. Unfortunately there is a tendency among many organisations to believe that talking to people is the same as communicating with them. They say they’re very keen on communications and what they mean is that they are very keen on talking about themselves. That’s not communciation; what matters is the dialogue and while I know some questions were answered after I left, mine and many others weren’t and the balance of the meeting proved all wrong.

On the plus side, I think that a Community Question Time is a great idea, whether as part of the Tune In process or on its own. I would like to see them held quarterly – or twice a year if take-up isn’t good – and travel around the borough with a panel that varies according to the geography. It could be chaired by the MP for Woking and would be totally devoid of councillors (who should be in the audience asking questions on behalf of residents rather than on the panel batting residents’ questions away on behalf of the council).

There could be a podcast, a Twitter feed and perhaps IT facilities for live blogging. Schools are an obvious venue option and one of the question times each year could be dedicated to engaging young people and feature members of the Woking Youth Council on the panel. It would be a useful exercise for all politicians in the borough to guage opinions on their policy decisions as well as a democratic opportunity for residents and a small step to help re-invigorate politics locally.

Meanwhile, I look forward to an answer to my question appearing on the Woking Borough Council website, which I will duly address once it appears.

Nick Clegg describes how big the savage cuts are now he's had time to reflect

Having spoken at length on Conservative economic policy below and how we need a more cohesive and better communicated philosophy on how to achieve recovery and longer-term prosperity, it’s worth considering that the other parties don’t have a universally stable position on this either.

They may have St Vince of Twickenham in their ranks but the Lib Dems have been equally confused on the issue. A few short months ago in September last year, Nick Clegg announced to a somewhat bemused audience, who believed they had turned up to the Lib Dem conference, that “savage cuts” might be needed to safeguard important budgets.

Although that message was officially given support by the party at the time, Nick Clegg has increasingly turned away from that position to the point where, seven weeks out from the probably election – and the possibility of a hung parliament stronger than it was – he now won’t have anything to do with spending cuts.

Well, call me a cynic but either a) the Liberal Democrats have conducted a fairly direct U-turn on the biggest question of the election within the space of six months or b) they are changing their economic policy according to polling data. Neither inspires a great deal of confidence and I suspect the matter would be thrown into greater relief by the media were their prospects in the election better.

Getting us to a point where the deficit or borrowing requirement is neutralised so that we are not piling on more debt year-by-year is only a part of the problem. We also have a substantial standing national debt as well, which needs at some point to be paid back. That’s pretty long-term and the pain needed to achieve that is considerable. I’m not sure I want someone as changeable as Mr Clegg taking a tough decision like that, nor the PM, who got us into this position in the first place.

Nor, one might say, someone as inexperienced as George Osborne. But he has Ken Clarke and a good shadow Treasury team behind him and the strength to withstand the criticism that will surely be directed from the people who got us into this mess towards those  attempting to get us out of it. I’m not convinced the others are prepared for the political cost.

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.