Cameron is fighting yesterday's battle

One of the more dubious pleasures of working from home with a broken ankle is being able to watch the Leader of the Opposition speak while I'm having my lunch.

Yesterday, Dave's lunchtime lecture from the University of East London consisted of a harangue about MP's expenses (yes, he's still banging on about that).

According to him, the Prime Minister has been remiss in not withdrawing the whip from his three MPs who have been charged by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Now I know this is a serious matter and people are angry, but three months before a General Election is that really what the Leader of the Opposition should be concentrating on?

Firstly, withdrawal of the whip at this stage is one of great political pointless gestures (thank you Prime Minister). All three have been de-selected by their constituencies and will be consigned to history in the next three months. Furthermore, there is no practically no legislation to vote on going through the House of Commons anyway. Finally, as the Speaker of the House pointed out yesterday, withdrawal of the whip encourages more discussion of the individual cases which prejudices any criminal trial.

My own opinion is that the debate and the public has moved on. The issue now is reform of the Electoral system which did so much to foster the Boys Club atmosphere of 'anything goes' at Westminster. We've made a start with the creation of the independent authority to oversee MP salaries, but the real issue is whether we should get rid of our First Past The Post electoral system.

Today's opportunistic Parliamentary debate on Electoral Reform should have been Cameron's cue for a reasoned argument yesterday pointing out the pluses and minuses of changing the system, instead we got political posturing and a personal attack on the Prime Minister.

Of course, the cynics would say that Dave is just trying to distract attention from his shrinking poll lead. More likely is that Cameron is deliberately using slight of hand to keep his options open. In other words, talk about MP's expenses to position yourself as a reformer, in fact talk about anything as long as you don't sign up for Electoral Reform. Then, if he does get a whopping great majority, which would effectively give him two terms, he can quietly ditch the referendum in 2011 which he never signed up for anyway.

The problem is that this sort of transparent posturing is what is shrinking his poll lead in the first place. The British public is not stupid, it wants answers to the problems we are grappling with not soundbites and righteous indignation about six month old stories. Frankly, he's going to have to do a lot better over the next three months.

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.

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.