PM Just checked in to 10 Downing St…

The Right Honourable gentleman to my right has just checked in to parliament, tweeted his #pmq and liked ‘Ed Miliband looks like Babs from Chicken run’ on Facebook (yes that page does exist; most likely administered by Dave Miliband).

All jokes aside though, politicians’ obsession with social media seems to be unprecedented in 2011 and why shouldn’t it be? 

Modern politics is a matter of branding. Political parties function as both consumer and b2b brands - the same rules of engagement apply. This is why David Cameron recently set up a ‘Linked In’ profile (Although I’m sure he’s not looking for a new challenge).

In fact all three main political parties have socialised their websites and many MPs are encouraging Facebook campaigns and real-time twitter debates. In the age of the disparate voter it all seems like a smart move to me.

No doubt politicians have seen the rewards that brands have reaped from providing consumer touch points on the social web. Social media brings you closer to your target market; the more you engage with them, the more viral you become, meaning more interest and advocacy – the latter of which being the most important factor for any political campaign.

It’s across the pond where perhaps the use of social media in politics has paved the way for others to follow. I’m sure many in Whitehall have looked at Barack Obama’s digital successes and salivated over the results – although the jury is still out on that one for 2012. 

Whilst the Lib Dems are developing a similar social database (a Voter Activation Network) to that which the Democrats used in 2008, if you're expecting Cameron to be heading up something similar for the tories I wouldn't hold your breath, this venture is no doubt all mouth and no trousers.

Quite simply though, no party can expect to win elections without knowing who their voters are and engaging with them – social media only maximises this opportunity. With social data coming in to play I’d expect a whole new type of political campaigning come the next election.

Yet, whilst David is busy checking into the United Nations HQ in New York on Foursquare, I can’t help but wonder if there is an olive branch being sent out to the ‘disengaged youth’ that make up so much of ‘Broken Britain?’ Yeah, whatever. 

The real story from the local elections

Today’s Big news is not the LibDems getting kicked in the local elections or what it means for the future of the coalition or what it means for Nick Clegg’s future as Deputy Prime Minister. Neither is it the large numbers of new Labour councillors that have been elected in what appears like a half decent night for Ed Milliband.

The big story today is in Scotland and what it may mean for the future of the United Kingdom. For Alex Salmond to pull off a second term at Holyrood despite the electoral system up there being stacked against him (they use a form of AV, oh the irony!) is an achievement. For him to be in sight of an overall majority which could allow him to have a referendum on independence is earth-shattering.

If you consider that a mere two years ago Salmond was on the rocks having hung his hat on creating a banking “Arc of Prosperity” along with Iceland - only for Royal Bank of Scotland to pull the entire UK almost singlehandedly into penury – his comeback is astonishing. During the General Election campaign last year I met James Cook of the BBC and asked him whether Salmond was still in ‘Father of the Nation’ mode North of the Border. James was succinct in his answer. “Don’t underestimate him,” he told me “of all the party leaders he is the most skilled.” How right James was and you can bet your hat that Salmond is confident now that he can hold a referendum on his long-cherished dream of independence.

There will be many English today who take the view “let them see if they can survive without us”. It would certainly be interesting with the majority of the Scottish population employed in public sector and not wealth creating jobs. What’s more we must ask the question whether the Scots would want to go it on their own without the benefit of the Barnett Formula which currently allocates more than £1,500 of public money per person more for Scotland than England.

But, there are issues for the English as well. What would happen to our place on the United Nations Security Council? Would there still be a British Army, bearing in mind that a large proportion of our manpower is taken from North of the Border? What would happen to our renewable energy policy, bearing in mind that some of our biggest wind farms are situated off the coast of Scotland and tidal power is almost completely based up there?

I don’t have answers to these questions, but if anyone thinks that Salmond’s gains are purely a matter for the Scots then think again.

No Minister!

I’ve neglected you. I apologise, holidays, email backlogs and children have led to a near month’s hiatus between my rants. Time to put this right!

I couldn’t help but notice a fascinating little article by James Forsyth in this week’s Spectator which can be read HERE. The article describes near panic in the Tory party over their inability to deliver on many of the promises made, in large part due to Civil Service intransigence.

There is a particularly juicy little anecdote in paragraph six which goes like this: “It is difficult to understate the depth of ministerial frustration. One secretary of state is so fed up with his department’s refusal to answer his questions that he has asked a friend of his, an MP, to put in a Freedom of Information request.”

I mean honestly, you can’t write comedy like this, it’s like something out of Yes Minister. It would appear that Project Cameron is falling foul of the one cast iron laws of British politics, namely that the Civil Service will only do what it wants to do and has every trick in the book to bring things to a grinding halt.

As Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes Minister fame might have said: “There are five ways of delaying doing anything Bernard. First, publish a consultation document. Second, hold a full department inquiry. Three, commission some academic research. Four, announce we are going to do something but only when the time is right. Five, as a last resort, hold a full public inquiry, that will take years!”

My guess is the secretaries of state in question are either Chris Huhne at DECC or William Hague at the Foreign Office who will undoubtedly come in for ever more flack as this term of Parliament goes on. Hague is clearly struggling with the FO brief and Huhne is tackling the big issues (and big targets) that this country faces in terms of climate change which need big decisions. The Civil Service will meanwhile remains protected by the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility ie. the Minister takes all the blame.

Now it’s not often I’m right, but I questioned before the General Election whether Cameron would be able to do half of what he wanted due to Civil Service foot-dragging. If this report is true and Project Cameron is to succeed he needs to get a grip quick.

AV ‘No’ Lobby needs to find a coherent argument

Today the Prime Minister will set out his reasons for voting against the Alternative Vote System in a Referendum in May. The electorate must now brace itself for nearly three months of political arguing and posturing over how we will elect our politicians in future.

The problem for the ‘No’ campaign in the coming referendum on AV is that a ‘No’ vote for AV (which actually is understandable in that it is by no means a perfect system) is also a ‘Yes’ vote for the First Past The Post (FPTP) system we currently use. As both Martin Kettle in the Guardian and Steve Richards in The Independent have pointed out in recent days, the anti-politics sentiment of much of the electorate is tipping the scales towards change, any change.

However, it also strikes me from listening to the opening skirmishes in this battle that the ‘No’ campaign is struggling to get its arguments straight.

Firstly, they argue that AV is undemocratic, in that voters have to choose a second and third choice who could, ultimately, emerge as the overall winner. Well yes, that could happen, but FPTP is hardly democratic either in that it virtually guarantees a job for life for MPs in vast numbers of constituencies around the country. As a case in point, the Conservative Party could set off a nuclear warhead in Bromsgrove High Street and the town would still vote Tory, in large part due to the boundary changes brought in many years ago which added the terribly nice suburb of Barnt Green into the boundaries of the constituency.

Secondly, the ‘No’ voters argue that AV leads to hung Parliaments and back room deals. Well, isn’t that what happened after May 6th? Is the Prime Minister going to stand up today and say he can’t countenance such grubby, undemocratic bartering of the type which got him into power after the last election?

Finally, it’s costly. The ‘No’ campaign argue that AV will cost us £250 million (this is a much disputed figure) and tell us on their website that it is a straight choice, schools or AV? Only it isn’t because my recollection is that the Government, elected under FPTP has already cancelled the Buildings Schools for The Future programme.

I’ve no doubt there are good reasons for rejecting AV, but the ‘No’ campaign needs to find them fast, because at the moment you can drive a bus through the holes in their arguments.

Pickles follows Sarkozy down the drain

It certainly seems that Eric Pickles, our new Local Government Secretary, is making his voice heard in the corridors of local councils up and down the country. Apparently, barely a day goes by without another missive coming out of the Department of Communities and Local Government (the DCLG) ordering a cut to something or urging a ‘hurry up’ with something else. Last week it was Council newsletters which were branded ‘like Pravda’, the old Communist Party newspaper in Russia. This week it is council job advertisements which now have to be carried online to cut newspaper advertising costs.

Reassuringly however, it is not only in the UK where national politicians feel free to meddle in local issues. Whilst on holiday in France last month I heard a wonderful story which proves that even the most powerful cannot resist getting involved in areas which should be beneath them.

Apparently, in Southern France at the moment there is much debate in various rural towns, villages and communes about the merits of converting local communities from septic tank drainage to the municipal drainage system. The cost is quite steep and many towns and villages do not want to make the switch due, in large part, to the fact that individual households have to make a contribution of their own.

In one such region, the Var on the borders of Italy, many homeowners have refused to convert which has infuriated the local Bruni-Tedeschi family who are apparently positively desperate to get rid of their ‘fosse septique’ (close observers of French politics or the European music scene will probably be able to work out where this is going!).

Anyway, in order to try and find some sort of consensus the local Prefect, Jacques Laisné, convened a town meeting only to find himself being harangued by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who accompanied his wife, former model and current singer, Carla Bruni, and his in-laws, the previously mentioned Bruni-Tedeschi family, to the meeting. The President’s message was fairly simple, along the lines of “get it sorted”.

Hasn't the President of France anything better to do than get involved in local sewage issues, like sorting out the traffic on the periphique for example? It seems not.

Alas, it appears that the new drainage was not installed in time for the President’s next holiday and the unfortunate Mr Laisné has been relieved of his duties. A sobering lesson for all Council leaders who attempt to ignore Mr Pickles.

Should the Telegraph stops its MP’s expenses investigations?

It is interesting that the fall of David Laws, who resigned as Chief Secretary to the Treasury over the weekend, has not been greeted with the same “serves him right” attitude that greeted last years’ revelations about duck houses, moats and second homes.

None of the weekend’s revelations concerning either Laws or Danny Alexander are new, in the sense that The Telegraph is merely mining the CD of information it bought from Parliament’s Fees Office early last year. Why haven’t these revelations about Laws or Alexander come to light before? Because, simply, prior to joining the Cabinet, The Telegaph had not deemed either important enough to question or investigate the raw information it acquired, which merely tells them what was claimed, namely rent in Laws’ case, but not the identity of the landlord.

There can be little doubt that the initial Telegraph investigations of early 2009 was landmark investigative journalism and did the country a great service in exposing the corrupt ‘anything goes’ atmosphere at Westminster. However, the collateral damage inflicted by this story with the effective ‘outing’ of Laws has left a nasty taste in many mouths and split many papers down the middle. Michael White in The Guardian has questioned whether the press has lost the plot on this one, while Roy Greenslade in the same paper defends The Telegraph and calls it a legitimate public interest story.

The sense I have is that the general public, far from being outraged at Laws’ behavior, appears at best concerned at the violation of privacy and at worst apathetic. It would appear that the law of diminishing returns might also be at work here for The Telegraph, with each revelation grabbing less and less attention outside the Westminster bubble.

We now have a new Parliament. The rotten apples have either been thrown out or been forced to account for themselves at a General Election. Certainly, our newspapers should remain vigilant and call MPs to account but, while dragging up information that is nearly a decade old in Laws’ case can constitute a legitimate public interest, I’m not sure his resignation and ‘outing’ serves the public interest . Perhaps it is time to move on.

The Age of Austerity

At some stage in the next week to ten days I expect George Osborne to emerge from No.11 Downing Street, looking even paler than he usually does, to announce that the nation’s finances are in even worse shape than he feared.

Deep down we all know it is bad, but it is still not clear what our new Coalition Government is going to do about it and, ahead of the late June Emergency Budget, mixed messages abound. I expressed some doubts in this blog during the Election campaign that Cameron & Co could squeeze efficiencies on the scale outlined from public services such as the NHS. I was also sceptical that capping top executive pay in the public sector would bring in more than a pittance. It appears that current estimates suggest such a cap would bring down the debt by a whopping £15 million next year. Yes, million not billion.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in its United Kingdom survey last year said this, and bear in mind that this was before the Greek crisis struck. “Should fiscal sustainability come into question, interest rates would rise despite monetary easing efforts, the ability of the government to provide support to the financial sector would be severely limited, and pressures on the currency could emerge. To limit such risks and increase resilience to shocks, there needs to be a credible commitment to reverse the deterioration of the fiscal position in the medium term.”

The key word here is ‘credible’. The international financial markets are looking for a robust plan to reduce UK debt. Tokenism will not cut it, we need clearly identified areas to reduce spending and increase revenue, without damaging the recovery (talk about balancing acts). My own view is that there is now a compelling argument to raise VAT as the UK has one of the lowest rates of VAT in Europe at 17.5% compared to 19% in Germany, 19.6% in France and 25% in Norway and Denmark.

Again however, Cameron, at the weekend, appeared to rule this out. Is there news management going on here? Deny a rise in VAT until the full state of our finances become clear and then say “we had no choice.” I suspect this is the case.

In the background lies the IMF and the secret fear of all Chancellors that they will be forced to do a Denis Healey and have to turn around at Heathrow Airport in full glare of the cameras for emergency meetings with them, as in 1976. Ultimately, it is far better we deal with this ourselves rather than let these slash and burn merchants in the door. Just ask the Greeks.

Election Blog: Wot, no baby kissing?

News that Gordon Brown is to meet more ordinary people on the stump comes in the wake of press reports saying that the Tory campaign is shielding Cameron from the general public. Apparently, he is speaking almost exclusively to hand-picked groups of Tory supporters.

What’s going on? More than likely both campaigns are so scared of a handbagging by the likes of you and me (remember Blair getting ambushed by the woman outside the hospital in 2005 or Joe the Plumber making Obama squirm) that our political leaders are now being wrapped in cotton wool by their PR people.

Of course the downside is that everything feels slightly scripted and lacking in spontaneity. When was the last time you saw a politician kissing a baby?

It might also explain why Cameron is struggling to generate a real rapport with the public (Brown never had one anyway) and Clegg, with his ability to think on his feet and down to earth way of talking, is making a breakthrough.

Is the stump still important in the modern media age? I believe it is if you want to make a real connection. People want to see you, or at least watch you on TV, meeting people in the street.

The following is a description of Lyndon Johnson’s electioneering style in his campaign for Congress in 1937, taken from Robert A Caro’s mammoth four volume biography of the 36th President.

“The rapport was cemented by a physical demonstration of affection. With women, the cement was a hug and a kiss on the cheek. “Lyndon’s kissing” became almost a joke during the campaign. One elderly Hill Country rancher, annoyed by his wife’s insistence on attending a Johnson rally, growled, “Oh you just want to be kissed.” The rancher agreed to take her, but she was ill on the day of the rally, and he went alone. Upon his return, he told his wife, in some wonder: “He kissed me!”.

Labour appears to be belatedly coming round to the fact that it needs a less sanitised campaign, but it might already be too late. The real issue is whether Cameron will get out there and meet people and, if necessary, argue it out toe to toe with the electorate. We’ll all admire him a lot more if he does.

The Leadership Debates Round 1 – A Good Night for Clegg

I got up early this morning to write this before reading or watching any reviews of last night’s debate, to make sure my thoughts wouldn’t be coloured by the political pundits. As I said in yesterday’s blog, my own view is that this sort of thing merely entrenches currently held opinions, so this blog comes with some health warnings.

Anyway, in order of political power, I thought this is how it went.

The Prime Minister had a reasonable night and, in all honesty, that was about as good as he could hope for. Many will have tuned in as Polly Toynbee said in yesterday’s Guardian to watch the Brown ‘car crash’ but he avoided that with ease. His opening statement was classic Brown. No empathy, no showmanship just “this is what I stand for, this is what I’m going to do, take it or leave it.” I don’t think that will hurt him with undecided voters – there is so much cynicism about politicians out there that attempts to cosy up will be seen as a ploy. Interestingly, he took the attack directly to Cameron from the off. This is a clear Labour tactic, to almost run as an opposition party by making the real opposition answer difficult questions. It worked very well in Scotland against the SNP.

In my view, Cameron had a bad night. This is not the David Cameron we see and hear in the House of Commons, who teases and baits Brown to distraction. I don’t know whether his handlers told him to be Prime Ministerial and statesmanlike but he seemed at times reluctant to engage. In terms of policy, I’m still not sure where the Conservatives stand on key issues. Is money raised from spending cuts going to cut the deficit or is he going to spend it on the NHS and Defence? Equally, I’m sure it’s annoying that some Chief Executives in the NHS have got a seven per cent pay rise but capping this sort of thing is going to raise peanuts in the grand scheme of things. I also thought the standing arrangements did him no favours. At times, particularly early on, he was assailed from both sides as both Clegg and Brown piled in on him, which made him look distinctly uncomfortable on one or two occasions (if this was deliberate, kudos to whoever it was in the Labour Party who came up with it).

Clegg, I thought, had an excellent evening. His, almost certainly rehearsed, astonishment at the two major parties’ embrace of reform of the House of Lords (“I can’t believe I’m hearing this”) was one of the few highlights and will give a valuable insight to many voters on the maneuverings of the two main parties to block political reform whilst all the time calling for change. He was also very specific about where cuts would come, in particular child benefits and the proposed replacement for Trident. His one wobble moment, came when Brown and Cameron, played the patriotism card over Trident (Brown: “I’ll never leave this country undefended”). This issue deserves debating without any of the participants wrapping themselves in the flag (I’ll come back to this when I post again next week before the debate on foreign policy).

In short, no knockout blows and many will have switched off well before 10pm, but I suspect the Conservatives will be more worried today.

Report card:

Brown, reasonable start
Cameron, must do better
Clegg, keep it going

Cameron thinks he can get a whopper

It’s interesting that political reform has taken centre stage in the first day of campaigning proper. On Channel 4 News interview last night the Prime Minister outlined his campaign pledge for constitutional reform including a referendum, within the first year of a new Parliament, on our current voting system along with reform of the House of Lords. He also outlined plans for the right of recall of Members of Parliament by their constituents and a new way of dealing with failing hospitals and police forces – namely having one of their peer hospitals or neighbouring police forces take them over.

Not to be outdone, the Tories have come up with their own ideas, including elected police commissioners and plenty of references to localism. William Hague on the BBC this morning was talking about the madness of having local health practitioners unable to implement without the heavy hand of the Department of Health on their shoulder.

I personally remember speaking to the Director of Public Health for one of our major cities only a few months ago during the height of the swine flu hysteria, who was complaining that she was not allowed to even send out a press release without it being cleared by the Department of Health first. What is the point you ask in having highly paid local representatives if they have no power?

The LibDems? Well as ever they have very pragmatic ideas about local representation, but then you can when you aren't likely to be elected under this current system.

There’s much to welcome in all of these ideas. An unelected House of Lords remains an anachronism in the modern world and many would rejoice at the idea of a fairer more balanced voting system. Equally a return of genuine power to local authorities and local representatives would improve accountability and presumably reduce public sector expenditure when we get rid of those centrally who do nothing more than shadow other people’s jobs.

However, my concern is that, once re-elected or in power, most Governments lose all interest in this type of reform. The drift of political power to Westminster, at the expense of local councils, health providers, planners etal has been going on for more than thirty years since Margaret Thatcher’s heyday and no political party, of whatever colour, has attempted to turn back the clock.

Equally, voting reform is often embraced by Opposition parties worried that they won’t be able to command a majority, only to be ditched when they get a whopper. Blair, for example, flirted with reform of the voting system, he even got the late Roy Jenkins to write a huge report on the subject and then quietly forgot it when he got a huge majority in ‘97.

My own view is that our politicians won’t be able to pull that trick this time. If they promise something, they are probably going to have to deliver it or have a very good excuse. Public cynicism with our political system will not stand for this type of self-interest any more. This probably accounts for why the opinion polls are so close and why Cameron won’t commit to voting reform. He secretly still thinks he might get a whopper or at least enough seats to see him through a full term.

Babies, BA and Byers will boost Cameron

Now I am a fairly cynical person, but not even I can believe that David Cameron has deliberately scheduled the birth of a child to ensure his wife is all ‘aglow’ come the election. Anyway, if he really wanted to cash-in on the baby vote he could have scheduled something for late February and have an actual live baby to show to the cameras. No, I prefer to believe that this happy circumstance is just that, a happy circumstance with no premeditated strategy.

However, I suspect the news will have been greeted with some dismay at Millbank, Labour’s HQ. Dave has been sounding increasingly shrill and angry of late, nothing like a baby to remind the electorate that he’s a nice chap really.

The bigger problems for Labour come in the form of Stephen Byers and British Airways. Byers has been an idiot and there is a danger that the electorate could see this as the sort of sleaze implosion that beset the Tory campaign in 1997. It isn’t remotely the same of course but perception is everything.

The BA strike has also given Dave an opportunity, calling this a ‘Spring of Discontent’, an echo of the Winter of Discontent strikes which ushered out the Callaghan Government in 1979. It is nothing of the sort, 1979 was defined by militancy on the part of nationalised British industries and public sector workers. British Airways is now a private company and the Government can do no more than encourage management and the unions to try and come to a solution. This of course hasn’t stopped Dave from saying they should do more.

All three of these issues have on defining factor - Labour could have done without all of them. None are fatal, but the cumulative drip, drip could be damaging.

In tennis terms, advantage Cameron.

The Dark Lord Sniffs the Mood of the Nation

Peter Mandelson's announcement yesterday that he wants to give employees and other stakeholders a say in whether to approve M&A transactions in the wake of the Kraft takeover of Cadbury will have gone down badly in the City. Then again you could say that anything which benefits the UK's manufacturing base usually does.

Quite how the Trade and Industry Secretary (or whatever his current job title is, Secretary of State?) intends to do this is anyone's guess, but that hardly matters. The real point is that Mandy knows a populist policy when he sees one. There is currently nothing, with the possible exception of bankers, likely to get Middle England frothing at the mouth quicker than corporate raiders revoking promises and leveraging British businesses into foreign hands.

Mandy knows that the coming election will be fought in key marginals outside of London where many of our manufacturing businesses are based. In short, this is not real policy, this is electioneering designed to swing key marginals in Labour's favour which I suspect will be quietly forgotten in a new Parliament.

One other point. For the first time in a long time the Labour Party now appears to be out in front of the Conservatives in terms of finding soundbites and policies which appeal directly to Middle England. If the Conservatives come out against this idea it looks as if they don't care about jobs and saving British 'institutions'. If they come out in favour of this proposal it looks unoriginal.

They don't call him the Dark Lord for nothing.

Is the political narrative changing?

For me the big news of the weekend was not Wayne Bridges’ “historic” snubbing of John Terry’s handshake (in my informal league table of great handshake snubs I rated it second only to US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles’ snubbing of Chinese Premier Chou En Lai’s hand at the Geneva Conference in 1954) but the Sunday Times YouGov poll which gave the Conservatives a mere 2 per cent poll lead.

YouGov have a reputation for accuracy, but even if you take this as rogue poll, the evidence suggests that the Tory poll lead has declined dramatically over the last few months. What is going on?

I think there could be a number of factors. Firstly, it could be that the Government is getting some credit for bringing the country through the economic crisis. Last week’s numbers which showed the economy had grown by 0.3 per cent compared to the forecast 0.1 per cent will have been like a dagger to the heart of Team Cameron. On a related note, 65 top economists publicly writing a letter denouncing Tory economic policy will not have done them any good either.

Secondly, it would appear that the cliché that Dave has “not sealed the deal” is true. I asked my wife last night what she thought of Cameron and was given a succinct answer straight from the heart of Middle England. “I don’t know what he stands for.”

Thirdly, I wonder whether all this beating up on Brown (accusations of bullying, tantrums etc) is actually having the opposite effect from the one you would expect. I read an excerpt from Andrew Rawnsley’s book in last week’s Observer and recognised the description was not of a bully, but of a man failing to cope with the demands of the job, which in turn demands sympathy not revulsion. Does all this beating up on Gordon somehow offend the British sense of fair play?

Alastair Campbell used to talk about story narrative. That narrative has been stuck in one direction for the last eighteen months, namely that the country is being led by a tired, out of ideas Government led by a socially awkward loser. If that narrative is now beginning to turn and the public and media are taking a long hard look at the Conservative Party then this election campaign may have one or two turns left yet.

A Cronkite moment?

The Independent’s editorial decision yesterday to call for a British Army pull-out from Afghanistan is, to use military speak, a first ‘beachhead’ in the national press for the anti-war brigade.

At present, this does not feel like a Cronkite moment, in which public opinion is turned decisively against a conflict by a trusted authority figure. Walter Cronkite’s famous declaration about Vietnam, live on CBS News (“this war is unwinnable”) was the beginning of the end for American involvement in South East Asia and prompted President Johnson to declare, “if we’ve lost Walter, we’ve lost the American public.”

The Independent does not have that sort of authority, but this is undoubtedly a key moment with the Indy tapping into an increasing public mood of disillusionment. The major political parties now have a national newspaper actively campaigning against continued involvement which will only add to the pressure on them to outline, during the coming election campaign, a coherent strategy going forward. I suspect vague declarations of “not giving in” and “seeing this through to the end” are not going to cut it anymore.

The issue now is, who will flock to the Indy’s banner? Both Labour and the Conservatives are wed to this war for different reasons. Labour, because they got us into it in the first place, and the Conservatives because the party’s history and culture will not allow them to be seen as anything less than stoically pro-war. There is enough skepticism about Project Cameron at grass roots level already without him going all pacifist.

However, I suspect the Lib Dems will be looking at this situation as an opportunity this morning. Clegg has been positioning himself as a war skeptic for some time now and I wonder whether a set of clear objectives for Afghanistan, measurable signposts for success over a 2-3 year period and even a timetable for withdrawal, would be a vote winner at the coming election. It would also give Clegg the opportunity to put the other leaders on the hook in any televised debate.

One more thought. All of this is dependent upon the current deliberations within the Obama Administration about the future direction and support for this war. By the time we reach a General Election in April or May 2010 America might be well on the road to total withdrawal hoping only for a Kissinger-inspired modern day ‘decent interval’ before Afghanistan returns completely to its centuries old lawlessness.

Mad, bad and useless

There is an excellent article in today’s Independent by Steve Richards in which he says that MPs are “not corrupt”, they’re just useless. Well, he doesn’t actually use the word “useless” he prefers “mediocre” but it amounts to pretty much the same thing. It can be found HERE.

Richards blames the decline of Parliament on the main parties' selection processes, but I think he’s missing a wider point. The problem, from where I’m standing, is that the Prime Minister has to pick his Government from an exceptionally small talent pool. Let’s say he has a majority of 75 seats, which equates to about 375 MPs with which he or she must fill their Government of approximately 150 positions. However, out of that 400 there will be many who are not interested in Government (the Chris Mullins and Dennis Skinners of this world), many who are not remotely up to Government and many who are either not trusted by the leadership or are regarded as a bit barking (bit like Bill Cash and Charles Clarke).

Once you rip out the mad, bad and the useless, you aren’t left with much and, more importantly, it is practically impossible to find MPs who could be regarded as experts in the Government departments they are expected to run. The result is that the Prime Minister is reduced to chopping and changing to get his best people into the departments which are causing him the most grief at any one time. The best Ministers become firefighters, parachuted into Government trouble areas. John Reid for example, like him or loathe him, had eight different Government positions between 1999 and 2007.

This chopping and changing has reached epidemic proportions across Government and is making life very difficult for business in particular. I was talking to a client in the energy sector a few weeks ago and he told me that they have had 12 different Energy Ministers since 1997. By the time they have got the new one up to speed with their sector he or she is off again.

Is there an alternative? Well, I sometimes do cast envious glances at the American system in which the President is free to choose whoever he likes for his key cabinet positions. Steven Chu for example, the US Secretary for Energy has won the Nobel Prize for Physics and was director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which has conducted pioneering work into the use of biofuels and solar energy technology. So he should know what he’s talking about. My client for one would be more than happy with an appointment of this sort of calibre from the next Government.

In Retrospect . . . again

The title of yesterday’s blog was inspired by Robert S McNamara’s 1995 book in which the former American Secretary of Defense admitted, with hindsight, that he and others in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations got so many decisions “wrong, terribly wrong” in their running of the Vietnam War or, as it became known, “McNamara’s War”. It is a superb and controversial book, unsparing in its self-assessment of the author’s own failings, an apology for his role in inflicting the long nightmare of America’s involvement in South East Asia.

Imagine my surprise therefore when I got home last night and learned that McNamara had passed away that very morning. The Washington Post had immediately leapt into action and opened a discussion forum on McNamara’s life, inviting readers to post their own thoughts on his passing. Predictably, 95% of the comments were highly negative.

This is not the place, and we certainly don’t have the time, to start a discussion on American involvement in Vietnam, but I could not help thinking that, however controversial he may have been, at least McNamara had the honesty and courage to admit he was wrong, albeit thirty years later. I listened to McNamara speak at the Hay on Wye book festival many years ago and was hugely impressed by his humility and remorse. In an era of self-justificatory memoirs from politicians and those in public life, I doubt whether we will often see such courage again.

One final thought. Prior to becoming Secretary of Defense, McNamara was CEO of the Ford Motor Company and is generally credited with the introduction of the seat belt in the mid-1950s, in the process saving countless lives. Any fair assessment of his legacy will take this into account.

Come back LS Amery, we need you!

Those of you who watched the TV coverage of the House of Commons on Monday, or read accounts of the furor over the Speaker’s future in yesterday’s papers, may be wondering what the coded references to the Norway Debate were all about?

In my self-appointed role of political bore, let me enlighten you. The name Leo Stennett Amery would have been lost to history were it not for his extraordinary intervention in the House of Commons debate over the disastrous Norwegian campaign, undertaken by allied forces in the early stages of World War Two between April and June 1940. The intervention made his name and, arguably, changed the course of twentieth century history.

Amery did not rise to speak in the debate until the second day, the 8th May 1940, by which time he was intensely frustrated with the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain’s, feeble performance in justifying the Norwegian landings and, more importantly, the distinct lack of leadership in a national crisis. His speech was unremarkable, until the closing statement, which was delivered with a whiplash that has gone down in history. Invoking the words of Cromwell from three hundred years before, Amery, pointing directly at the Prime Minister, declared: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

Amery’s intervention was later described by former Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, as the most powerful climax to a speech he had ever heard. It was crucial in convincing over 40 fellow Conservative MPs to vote against their own Conservative Government in a confidence motion, which led directly to Chamberlain’s removal and the succession of Winston Churchill. The rest, as they say, is history.

I spent yesterday with a group of journalists. Lunch conversation was dominated by MP’s expenses (I’ve never known an ice-breaker like it!). Phrases such as “let down” and “I don’t trust any of them” were freely used. MPs may think they have given the public some ‘blood’ in convincing the Speaker to go, in the name of God or, more likely, their own skins, but I doubt whether the public appetite for reform has been sated. Until more of them start acting like LS Amery, putting country before party and genuinely attempting to reform, without one eye on short-term political advantage, then public anger will not abate.

Oh yes, one last thing. There is another reason for remembering LS Amery today, he was MP for Birmingham Sparkbrook.

As goes Bromsgrove, so goes the nation

I ventured out at the weekend to sniff the mood of the nation over MP’s expenses (actually I was on an emergency nappy run to the local supermarket for my two year old but, in terms of stench, it amounted to pretty much the same thing).

Anyway, I can report that the mood, if you didn’t already know it, is venomous. The short walk from my house to the centre of Bromsgrove takes me past the Conservative Party constituency office, which now has a number of boarded up windows, courtesy of a luddite revenge attack on Friday. By the time I reached the centre of Bromsgrove, I had overheard two separate conversations on the street about MP’s expenses and had witnessed the unfurling of an enormous banner which proclaimed “Julie Out Now.”

This is reference to my local MP, Julie Kirkbride, the wife of Andrew Mackay, who last week was forced to resign from the Conservative front bench. Apparently, Julie and Andy have both been claiming for second homes in each other’s constituencies and have taken the taxpayer for the princely sum of approximately £100,000 so far. Now this is Bromsgrove, a bastion of Middle England. Lord only knows what public feeling is like in Darlington, Blackburn or Smethwick.

What is interesting, from a communications point of view, is how the individual parties are dealing with this. Cameron has remained marginally in front of the story (I’m not going to say he’s doing well, he’s doing just enough) with the swift dispatch of Mackay and the publication on the internet of every expenses claim he can get his hands on. Labour on the other hand, has been leaden-footed and behind the story from the word go.

This amazes me, because the legendary New Labour spin machine, set up by Mandelson and my former colleague at Shandwick, Colin Byrne, was formerly a ruthless beast, dealing swiftly with any individual who threatened to damage the brand. I was working at Shandwick when Ron Davies was ditched for his adventures on Clapham Common and there was barely a murmur of protest from the New Labour footsoldiers, including one of his former advisers. He was damaged goods, he had to go.

So how can Labour get in front of this story again. Well, firstly, the Leader of the Party, the Prime Minister, should announce that he is instructing local constituency parties that any MP found to have been overtly milking the system needs to be de-selected within a three-month timetable, whilst simultaneously calling on the leaders of the other parties to do the same. Borderline cases can be left to the discretion of constituency associations. Secondly, the Prime Minister should announce that, in the interests of Parliamentary democracy, he intends to prorogue Parliament and call a General Election in the autumn. This would enable the Prime Minister to appear statesmanlike and putting country above party. It won’t avert defeat, but it might allow him to go out with his head held a bit higher than is likely in April or May 2010. It might also save some Labour MPs who have acted totally honorably.

The alternative is for the country to limp on for another year with a wounded Government, a damaged Parliament and illegitimate de-selected MPs who have been forced to agree to stand down at the next election. I think we all deserve more than that, but I also think that is exactly what is likely to happen.