General Election 2010: brought to you by the X-Factor

Take a look at the video here (from Charlie Brooker's Newswipe): BNP leader Nick Griffin being given an X-Factor style introduction.  It all seems a little far-fetched, no?  Scarily enough, this may be the sort of thing we'll be seeing on our TV screens in the coming weeks.


A couple of months back, universal love/hate figure Simon Cowell announced his plans for a series of prime-time political TV shows to be aired in the run up to the General Election.  Apparently the format would be a series of debates on controversial "hot-topics", with anything from immigration to the death penalty being featured.

Of course, no Cowell-brainchild would be complete without the general public being able to vote for a "winner" by phone at the end of the programme.  And if that wasn't bad enough, he plans to have a hotline on stage which can be called from 10 Downing Street at any time during the debate.

Cowell justifies his interest in such an area by saying "What I'm always interested in is what the public think on certain issues".  This comes as very little surprise, coming from someone who has made his millions by shamelessly pandering to commercial demand.  When you strip away the fat, all his "create-a-popstar" shows are are an extended questionnaire asking "of these 12 performers, whose single would you be most likely to buy?".  Of course, his motives here would have nothing to do with however much he'd be making from every vote cast...

Now please, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against anything that serves to make politics more accessible to the masses.  What we desperately need is a system whereby every voter in this country has the knowledge to feel empowered to have a say in the issues that concern them.  Where my problem lies is the dumbing-down of politics which would almost certainly accompany such a show.

Granted, modern politics is already a long way down the slippery slope of swapping substance for style; but a show in which politicians will have maybe ten minutes to try and get as many votes as possible?  We'd see Gordon Brown going through the family album with tears in his eyes, and Nick Griffin telling a few off-colour jokes.

I dare say that if we reduced politics to this common-denominator approach, there would be a small minority who may even think that the televote that they would be casting would be the real thing, eliminating the need fr them to go to the ballot box on polling day.

What we need is more of what we saw last night in the Chancellors' Debate on Channel 4, and hopefully what we will see in the three leaders' debates next month; the key figures laying out their pitch, and having it scrutinised in a proper, well-moderated debate.  Not some sparkly, high-cost programme with lots of flashy lights, chanting and voiceovers.

In the words of some blue-faced Scotsman:

You can take our pop music, Mr. Cowell; but you'll never take our politics.


(Big thanks to Ben Connelly for telling me about this!)

George, the ball is in your court

Over the last few weeks, many people have been critical of the lack of policy coming out of Conservative HQ; especially from George Osborne on what he plans to do to turn the nation's finances around.


Last week's Budget report from Alastair Darling gave a few hints as to why the Tories are so loathe to release policy information at this stage in proceedings; there's a very high chance that Labour will go ahead and steal it for themselves.  You just have to look at Darling's plans for Stamp Duty and higher taxes on Cider to know that much.

However, with the Budget Labour have laid their cards down on the table (after a fashion, make sure you take a look at what political commentators have been saying about what wasn't mentioned) regarding what they plan to do with the nation's finances should they be given another five years at the helm.  Admittedly though, whilst Darling has finally admitted that cuts will be necessary (harder and deeper than under Thatcher, if you will), he still hasn't said where these cuts will be made.

This aside, the stage is now set for George Osborne to start promoting Tory policies on the economy.

In much the same way as John Smith did for Labour in 1992, Osborne should be looking to release his own Budget; making it absolutely clear to the electorate how he and his party will be seeking to tackle the deficit.

Tonight's Chancellors' debate on Channel 4 at 2000hrs would be the ideal opportunity for him to do this.  Not only will he be joined by the current incumbent, but also by the Lib Dem would-be heir, Vince Cable.  A well chosen release of policy here would give Osborne the chance to make the Tories the complete focus of the debate and allow him to prove from the off that his policies come up to scrutiny from all sides.

Either way, we need some substance and we need it fast.  With an election now only five weeks away it is madness that so many people still don't know what we as a party stand for.

The Speaker: Bercow or just plain Berk?

The role of Speaker is one which is steeped in tradition and history.  The Speaker presides over the House; chairing debates, calling MPs to speak and maintaining order.  Therefore it is essential that an MP chosen for such a role is able to remain completely neutral and free from bias, regardless of his chosen party.


Having been an avid viewer of PMQs over the last few weeks, I am seriously at a loss to explain how the current Speaker (John Bercow, Con, Buckingham) is fulfilling any of these demands of the job.  The amount of times that he has allowed Gordon Brown to get away with not answering questions is beyond belief; as too is the number of times he has allowed Lord Ashcroft to be brought up by the Government whilst blocking almost all questions on Trade Unions funding from the opposition.

Add to this the fact that his wife is a Labour Councillor who is extremely vocal with her anti-Conservative (just take a look at her Twitter page) views as well as the fact that Bercow has never been the strongest advocate of the Conservative cause (he came extremely close to defecting to Labour in 2007), and you end up with a number of reasons why Mr. Speaker may well not have the best interests of all the parties in the Chamber at heart.

As a matter of fact, it is widely speculated that only three Conservative MPs voted for him in the Speaker's Election in 2009; with the majority of his support coming from the Labour benches.

Little wonder then, that there is currently a burgeoning campaign amongst Conservative supporters and MPs to have Bercow removed from the seat; either by "natural selection" in the upcoming General Election, or by actively removing him from the post should the Conservative Party form the next government.  Surprisingly enough, this campaign is slowly starting to receive the backing of Labour MPs too.

Having been particularly impressed with his command of the Budget debate on Wednesday afternoon, I for one would very much like to see the current Deputy Speaker, Sir Alan Haselhurst take up the chair.  Having had a seat in the House since 1977, Sir Alan is an experienced MP who should command the respect of Members across the House.

Whoever succeeds Bercow, one thing is clear; his biased nature is one of the key hurdles to be overcome if we want to rid this House of the corruption which is currently devouring it.

Just answer the question!

Prime Minister's Questions is an institution in British politics whereby any MP in the House has the chance to hold the Prime Minister accountable for his and his party's actions for thirty minutes a week.  These days, however, does it really serve a purpose?


The principle appears simple: questions to the Prime Minister are followed by answers from the Prime Minister.  However, at PMQs yesterday Gordon Brown answered just two of fifteen questions (discounting "planted" questions from Labour MPs along the lines of "don't you think we're great?", and "would you like to list some statistics and attack the Conservatives?").

Rather than provide answers to questions deemed important enough to be asked in the House, the Prime Minister decided to ignore the questions asked and give his own self-serving answers.  In the style of the classic game-show "Jeopardy", I'll give you a couple of his answers here for you to guess what questions they related to (answers at the bottom):

1)  Lord Ashcroft
2)  Defence spending was cut by 30% under the last Conservative government
3)  Why don't you tell us what happened with Lord Ashcroft?
4)  The Tories were wrong on everything, including Lord Ashcroft

What is more worrying is the increasing use of PMQs by Gordon Brown and the Labour party to make cheap digs at the opposition rather than allowing their own actions and record to be scrutinised.  Of the fifteen questions asked yesterday, seven were asked by Labour MPs.  If you take away the six questions that David Cameron is legally entitled to ask, that leaves just two by other Conservative MPs.  Rather a bias, don't you think?  A bias which falls squarely on the shoulders of The Speaker; more on that tomorrow.

Ideally, I believe that questions during PMQs should be taken solely from the opposition MPs.  MPs of the Prime Minister's party should know his policies, and have his ear at all times.  It is far more difficult, or even impossible, for opposition Members to question the PM outside this 30-minute session.  It might even result in more questions that actually force the Prime Minister to break a sweat.

Before you turn round and say "well Politicians don't answer questions, it's their job"; I watched a video of a PMQs under Margaret Thatcher's premiership.  Out of thirteen questions asked she only dodged answering one, which wasn't about Government matters in the first place.  So it goes to show that it is possible.  So why won't Mr. Brown answer the questions put to him?


And now the answers:
1)  Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the outgoing Labour MPs caught up in the "Lobbygate" scandal will not receive Peerages in the dissolution honours?
2)  When did the Prime Minister realise that he had misled the Chilcott Enquiry?  Before, or after he had given evidence?
3)  If the Prime Minister is so happy with the publishing of reports on Government activity, why is he blocking the publishing of documents relating to Labour's disastrous handling of the pensions crisis?
4)  Your Ministers are unfit to govern, when are you going to call the General Election?


Please let me know if you got any right!

Budget 2010: the "We'll deal with it later" budget

Well, that was interesting wasn't it?


As I blogged about a couple of weeks back, there really was little point in Alistair Darling simply 'going through the motions' so close to the General Election.  His Budget Statement was an exercise in political posturing rather than fiscal prudence; as anyone could work out by the numerous mentions of a certain Tory Lord...

I will admit, to fail to present a full Budget before the General Election would have seriously damaged Labour's credibility; but we still need to recognise that this was merely an exercise in vote-winning rather than getting this country's finances back on track.

Quite simply put, Darling's message can be summed up in five words: "We'll deal with it later".

As expected, the Chancellor steadfastly refused to announce any public spending cuts; reasoning that it would be more prudent to give the economy a chance to recover before cutting back on spending.  Either that, or having realised that such a policy would hardly be a vote winner.  Watch this space for a swift Labour U-Turn should they win in six weeks time.


Instead of using the C word, the Chancellor decided to paint things in a different light, referring to Public Sector savings and reforms instead.  Now please forgive me if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but isn't "saving money" the same as "cutting spending"?

In fact, the Chancellor announced a number of increases in spending; from allowing more Tax Credits for those aged 60+ to extending schemes for those aged 16 to 25.  If you believe what the Chancellor says, apparently almost all of this funding is to come from the 50% tax on bankers' bonuses, which has raised £2bn.

My one concern here is that this Bankers Tax appears to be the catch-all solution to all questions of funding.  What worries me is that there was no explanation as to how much of this £2bn would be going to each spending increase, so there is no way to see whether this "solution" fits.

Moving on...

A further scheme announced is called "UK Finance for Growth", which will aim to increase the number of new businesses and stimulate growth by operating as an investment bank, with control over £4bn of assets.  £2bn of this will be raised by private investment, with the rest coming from the capital held in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

Again, please excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just the same as mortgaging it?  Now even I know that mortgaging property is something you only do if you can't get the money anywhere else.  Who mortgages their property in Monopoly just because they don't want to break a £500 note?

All in all, this was a Budget designed to find every last penny possible - from mortgaging CTRL to putting an extra 20p on a £2 glass of cider - without getting it from the taxpayer.  But even they'll be an extra £200 out of pocket (on £20,000 a year) thanks to the N.I. increases.  And all to the backdrop of another £167bn being borrowed to finance it all.

But remember, it's all OK because we can put it off until tomorrow...

Just a minute, I've got an idea!

Anyone who has watched Prime Minister's Questions on a Wednesday morning (if you've not had this pleasure, take a look here and here) will have probably shared my despair at times at Gordon Brown's apparent inability to answer the questions put to him.  Seeing as this is the weekly chance for the PM to be held to account by his fellow MPs, he really should be answering their questions.  To this aim, I have a very simple proposition...


Hold PMQ's in the style of the brilliant BBC Radio 4 programme "Just A Minute".

For those of you who don't know it, here's a clip:



The rules are simple.  To "win" you must speak for 60 seconds on a chosen topic without hesitation, deviation or repetition, with opponents allowed to buzz in should they notice any of the three aforementioned forbidden actions.

I think this method would see a lot more questions being answered!

Forget £8.09. Look at what £11 million buys you...

A little while back I asked the question "What would you buy with £8.09?".  Continuing a short series of posts on Labour's relationship with the trade union Unite I take another short look at what they actually get for their money.


On Wednesday I revealed that Unite have bankrolled Labour to the tune of £11 million since 2007 and yesterday I followed it up with a look at the massive influence that Unite's bankrolling of the party has upon party policy.

Now, however, it has become apparent that £11 million buys a lot more than just influence.

In PMQs on Wednesday questions were asked about the frequent visits of Charlie Whelan (the political director of Unite) to Number 10.  "Not much there", I hear you say, and I would agree; there could by any number of reasons why he has cause to discuss matters with Mr. Brown.  Especially considering that Mr. Brown has stated he has been talking to both sides in the threatened British Airways strike action.

However, there's more...

Mr. Whelan and another top Unite official, Tony Woodley, have been given Commons security passes by MPs and the party, effectively giving them free access to anywhere on the Commons estate; bars, restaurants, offices.  This gives them unparalleled access to MPs.  At a time when over 100 Labour MPs are bankrolled by Unite in a spectacular conflict of interests, this is a worrying development.

Even more worrying should be the revelation that one of Gordon Brown's top policy officials in Downing Street has her entire salary and pension contributions paid for by Unite.

Whilst it is one thing being bankrolled by a Union, it's another thing entirely when you start to have salaries paid for out of private purses.  How can Labour now honestly claim to represent the interests of the country as a whole when one of their main policy advisers in on the payroll of an influential backer?

New Labour, same unions

Following on from yesterday's post about the unique way in which the Trades Unions and the Labour party are funded, today I am going to look at the other side of the coin.  What do the Unions get from Labour in return for their money.


With the British Airways cabin-crew strike set to start on Saturday, the Government - despite condemning the strike - are remaining suspiciously quiet on resolving the matter.  Surely they should be looking to do something to save their citizens from the undesirable consequences of the actions a minority; especially if they are acting as "deplorably" as Gordon Brown says they are.


Whether the strike is justified or not doesn't really form any part of the argument here.  The main factor is that the Trades Unions in the public and service sectors seem to be heading the way of the Trades Unions of the manufacturing sector back in the dark days of Jim Callaghan's government; striking at the drop of a hat, knowing that sooner or later their demands will have to be met.


I would hazard that the new British attitude towards work (more sickies, more people choosing to stay on benefits) plays somewhat of a part in this whole sorry escapade.  With strikers being paid "strike pay" out of Union funds, I am sure that a lot of workers may well just see striking as "money for nothing"; they get to sit at home all day and the Union pays them to do it.


The power of the Unions always has and, unless radical reforms take place, always will be the main problem with the Labour party.  When one party receives over 60% of their funding from one source, there is always going to be a conflict of interest.  Considering the fact that it was only the support of Unite that saved Labour from the bailiffs in 2008, it is very clear as to whose hand is resting on the plug of the Labour life support machine.


Already, Union money has purchased a number of policy changes such as:

Full employment rights for temporary agency workers, imposing a great new burden on employers;

Retreat on the part-privatisation of Royal Mail, even though Peter Mandelson did say that the status quo at Royal Mail was untenable;

Ideas to open up supply of NHS services were abandoned after Unison threatened to suspend £100,000 of funding from individual Labour MPs and threatened further sanction if Labour continued the path of reform;

The Government has put the brakes on the Academy programme;

Ending the European Working Time Directive opt-out.

Thirteen government Ministers appear unable to criticise the strike or suggest action upon it, seeing as they accept money from Unite towards their campaign expenses, including Brown, Balls and Miliband.


Add to this the fact that 60 of Labour's own MPs and 109 of Labour's PPCs in the upcoming election are Union members, along with the fact that 148 of these 169 MPs and PPCs accept Union case and you have a massive conflict of interest.


In a way, Labour have dug their own grave.  Their creation of needless public sector jobs in order to keep figures looking good has strengthened the power of the Unions no end.  Should Labour win the election, they will be seriously hamstrung with regards to how they can cut the deficit.  The Unions certainly will not stand for cuts to jobs within the public sector, and Labour would be stupid to defy them.  This leaves Labour with only one realistic option: tax rises.


Not only will voting for Labour in the next election mean five more years of Brown and everything that goes with him, but also another step down the slippery slope which risks taking this country back to the Union-controlled politics of the 1970s.


Is that really what you want?

Dog Tax: an update

You may remember that last week I blogged about Labour's new stealth-tax; mandatory dog insurance.


You'll be very pleased to hear that a mere seven days after it's proposal, Alan Johnson has made a humiliating U-turn and decided to drop the plans.

With an election only weeks away, and the massive negative response from the public to this proposal it was the only sensible thing for Labour to do.  Perhaps the only thing more sensible would have been not to bother with it in the first place.

Don't be fooled into thinking that it's dead and gone though; it was merely mistimed.  Let this serve as a sharp reminder of the kind of things Labour will be looking to do if we give them another five years at the helm.

You're funding Labour, whether you like it or not.

As the threatened strike by Unite members at British Airways draws closer, concerns have (justifiably) been raised about the amount of money given to the Labour party by Trades Unions.  One of the most worrying things is where that money comes from.


In the last twelve months alone, Labour have received £11 million (that's 60% of their funding) from the Trades Unions, £3.6 million of that coming from Unite.  In fact, since 2007 Unite have donated some £11 million pounds to the party.

That is an awful lot of money, and I am sure that it buys an awful lot of influence (more of that tomorrow...).  But even more worrying than the influence that it buys, is where a portion of that money comes from.

Since its establishment in 2005, the Union Modernisation Fund has given in excess of £4.5 million to Unite, who in turn have given £11 million back to the Labour party.  It doesn't take a great stretch of the imagination to consider that possibility that had the UMF not existed, Unite's donations may well have been £4.5m lighter.

Throw in to the mix the Department for International Development; who also happen to bankroll unions the world over and you've got quite a vicious little circle going on.

The main problem with this?  Well, who provides this money in the first place?

The answer is you, dear reader.

As you go about your daily life, paying your taxes, being a good citizen, you are unwittingly funding the Labour party through it's nice little earner.  You pay the government, the government pays the unions, the unions pay the Labour party.  It doesn't matter one jot whether you're a staunch Labourite or hate them with a passion; your money finds its way into Labour's pockets.

In any other business this would be called money laundering, or a protection racket.  For the Labour party it's just a nice little earner.

As Maggie once, famously, said to the EU; I want my money back!

Are Osborne's days numbered?

Up until recently the composition of a Conservative Cabinet seemed pretty certain;  Hague, Osborne, Gove, Fox, Villiers et al.  However, murmurs over the last couple of weeks suggest that one big change may be afoot.


It has always been obvious that in an election where so much will rest upon the shoulders of whoever is Chancellor come July, a lot of the media attention will be upon George Osborne, the Conservative Shadow Chancellor.  The public will, quite rightly, want to know if he is the man who can lead the country out of recession and back into economic prosperity.

As it stands, the public don't seem convinced.

Stories have come out of Fleet Street of late which suggest that The City would much rather have the tried and tested hands of Kenneth Clarke in Number 11 as opposed to new-boy Osborne.  As well as this, Labour have rounded upon Osborne launching attacks on him in the media; it is obvious that they perceive him as the weak link in the Tory team.

Recently, Cameron hasn't seemed too convinced himself.  In recent interviews he has repeatedly stated that no-one in his Shadow Cabinet is safe, and that his friendship with Osborne will not prevent him from firing him if need be.

This position was reinforced by Cameron yesterday during a question-and-answer session at a college in Lewisham, London.  In outlining his Shadow Cabinet, not once did Cameron mention Osborne.  In fact, he even went as far as to actively promote the economic skill of Kenneth Clarke, giving special emphasis to the fact that Clarke was the last Chancellor to lead the country out of recession.

Is Cameron setting the stage for a colossal about turn?

I highly doubt that Cameron would go as far as to make a change of such proportions in the run up to the elections; it would give Labour even more ammunition to feed to Mandelson.  However, Cameron may well see this as the "nuclear option" should things really go belly-up between now and the election.

Either way, the man who twelve months previously seemed guaranteed to be the next tenant of Number 11 must be starting to get slightly worried...

Sinn Fein: A case for electoral reform?

Sinn Fein: A case for electoral reform?

Yesterday I came across the assertion that the Conservatives would only need 322 seats in the House of Commons to gain a majority (four less than the "half-plus-one" principle).  After a little digging I found out that one of the main reasons was that Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats in the House owing to the abstentionist stance held by the party.  My question is: should they be allowed to do this?


Since the election of Charles Nolan in 1908, Sinn Fein have practised a policy of abstention with regards to the UK Parliament.  This policy stems from Sinn Fein's refusal to recognise the right of Westminster to rule and legislate over both Eire and Northern Ireland; in line with their ultimate aim of a united Ireland.

Of course, one of the main principles of a democratic system is that the voters are allowed to choose their representative and that their representative is then free to represent his or her constituents.  If that means that they exercise the will of their constituents by refusing to sit in Parliament, then surely that should be allowed.  The Sinn Fein representatives will have made their abstentionist stance perfectly clear, and the voters will know that should Sinn Fein win the seat, they will effectively have no representative in Parliament.

However, under the First Past The Post system it really is not as simple as that.

One of the oft-cited criticisms of FPTP is that often the majority of the voters in a seat will not have voted for the elected Member.  In the 2005 UK General Election, 64.7% did not want a Labour government.  The thing is, though, that although the vast majority of these people may not have got the MP they would have wanted; they still have an MP who should be working for the constituency as a whole and representing the views of all their constituents.

In a Sinn Fein held constituency, this all changes.

Sinn Fein currently hold five constituencies in Northern Ireland; Belfast West, West Tyrone, Newry and Armagh, Mid Ulster and Fermanagh & South Tyrone.  In none of these seats (with the exception of Belfast West (70.5%)) have they polled over half the vote.  Across the five constituencies, their average vote-share is 47.3%.  This suggests that in the majority of these constituencies, the majority of the electorate actually want a say in the House of Commons.

In total, across the five constituencies, 120,445 people voted for parties other than Sinn Fein.  This equates to almost seven percent of the entire population of Northern Ireland, who would otherwise have a say in UK politics, who have been denied a voice by the actions of Sinn Fein.  The main problem here is that no back-up system exists to provide a voice for those who wish to air their opinions.

As well as this, a perverse juxtaposition of the West Lothian Problem is created, whereby - far from having their MP vote on matters that do not concern them - Northern Irish constituents do not have their best interests represented in key votes.

Of course, Sinn Fein are perfectly entitled to refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of the House of Commons over Ireland as a whole; but do they not lend legitimacy to the entire system simply by their participating in the elections of this institution?  Would their purpose not be better served either by taking their seats and adopting a pro-united-Ireland stance in the House, or even by refusing to have anything at all to do with the system?

What I believe is needed here is an electoral reform.

The Liberal Democrats have oft pleaded the case for a form of proportional representation, whilst barely able to disguise it as an attempt to skew the UK political system in their favour.  It is my opinion that the silenced majority in Northern Ireland are far more deserving recipients of such reforms.  At the end of the day, if we persist with a situation whereby the majority are so easily silenced by a minority, then surely such as system is no better than the Communist brand of "democracy" so prevalent in the 70s and 80s.

Another own goal for Gordon

During an Election campaign as precariously balanced as this one, the party leaders will be looking to get as much TV time as possible.  But there are limits, as Gordon Brown as found out.


Stories emerged this week of the BBC, in a rare act of impartiality, denying Gordon Brown's request to appear as a guest on Match of the Day.  The supposed aim of his appearance was to be able to talk about England's bid for the 2018 World Cup.

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but surely the best person to talk about the bid would be someone who is actually involved with it rather than someone who is desperately trying to cling to its coat-tails for political gain?

This is in fact a massive own goal for Brown.  Not only has he been rebuffed by his tame broadcaster, but now the details of such a cynical ploy have got out to the public.  How is anyone meant to expect that this was a perfectly innocent request and not just spin ahead of a general election?

I for one, however, would have found it quite funny to see Gordon flailing around trying to score cheap political points whilst trying to put himself across as a man of the people.

The budget: an exercise in futility?

Yesterday Gordon Brown announced his intention to hold the Budget on March 24th; increasing speculation surrounding a May 6th General Election.  But is there really any point in holding a Budget?


Strictly speaking, yes.  A Finance Act needs to be passed in order to enable the Government to maintain its tax-raising powers into the new financial year.  However, given the fact that last year's Budget was revealed three weeks after the start of the financial year, there does appear to be leeway on this issue.

All Gordon Brown really needs to do is to pass a short bill implementing the tax changes announced in the Pre-Budget Report back in December.  He could even win a few votes in doing so...

The Conservatives have promised to perform an emergency Budget within 50 days of entering office should the win the upcoming General Election, and I imagine that Labour may well be contemplating the same.  All Gordon Brown has to say is that the election is as much about who is going to run the country, as it is about who the public trust to make the next Budget.  Throw in a few mentions about how only having one Budget this year will save money and I'm sure he will persuade a few floating voters to come over to the dark side.

Logic, however, says that this most likely will not be the case.

As mentioned before on this blog, Brown knows that he and his party are in trouble and will have to do everything to keep voters onside and also to win new votes.  The Pre-Budget Report was testament to this given its lack of hard-hitting measures whilst throwing some nice juicy bones out to the Labour core-vote.  Don't expect much different from the Budget itself.

Expect lots of pre-election giveaways and incentives to be dangled temptingly in front of the voters' noses coupled with the caveat "you'll only get this if Labour win"; aimed at pulling the wool over voters' eyes.  The plan will almost certainly be to promise lots in the March Budget, and then take it all away again in a June Budget once Labour have fooled the country into giving them another five years on the bridge of a rudderless ship.

Nick Clegg: King-maker or court-jester?

Ever since the possibility of a hung parliament in the upcoming election arose, there has been talk of the Lib Dems looking to hold the balance of power in such a situation; and further talk on the possibility of them forming a Lib/Lab coalition.  Nick Clegg has today confirmed such rumours with an article in the Independent.  But what do his demands actually mean?


In the article, Clegg sets down four key demands that either the Conservatives or Labour will have to meet in order to count on his party's support:

• A shake-up of the tax system.  Raising the tax threshold to £10,000, meaning that four million people will pay no tax; supported by higher taxes for the rich.
• A boost to education spending targeted at children from poor families through a "pupil premium".
• A switch to a greener economy less dependent on financial services.
• Political reform, including a new voting system for Westminster elections.

It would appear - from this statement - that Clegg has realised that the Liberal Democrats have no chance of forming a government come June, and instead are starting to set out their stall for gaining power through other means.

"Sounds good", you may say.  I would be inclined to agree with you; a hung parliament could potentially be far more dangerous than even a Labour majority.  The problem though, is that Nick Clegg can't seem to be able to decide what he wants.  In a separate article for today's Spectator, Clegg talks about the Lib Dem policy being that of "No tax rises at all [...] purely spending cuts".

This appears to be a very cynical ploy from the leader of the Liberal Democrats.  He is proposing voter-friendly policies in his party's own manifesto with the aim of getting votes on polling day, and then hoping to be able to push his more controversial policies through should the Lib Dems be the key to either party gaining a majority in the House.

Here are my thoughts on his four demands:

Tax

Here is where Mr. Clegg needs to make his mind up.  Is he for increases in taxation or against them?  The problem with increasing taxation on the rich is that we run the risk of ending up with a situation akin to that in the 70s (a higher rate of tax anywhere between 83% and 98%) whereby the richest in society simply up-and-leave; taking whatever tax they'd be paying with them.

Education/Green economy

If anyone can actually tell me what the substance behind these demands are, I'd love to know.  At the moment he just seems to be using weasel words ("green" and "poorer families") in order to persuade non-Liberal voters that he has their interests at heart.

Parliamentary Reform

Simply rephrase this demand to "once we're in power, we want to stay in power forever".  The Liberals are the only party to demand electoral reform (yes, Labour mentioned it a few months back when they thought they were going to lose; but are now surprisingly quiet on the matter).  One has to wonder if their position would change if they actually had a support base that would get them elected in the first place.

Couple these self-serving demands with Clegg's general buttering-up of the main parties (he's even been praising Margaret Thatcher, for goodness sake!), and it would appear that his intentions are clear: to gain power at all costs, even if it means prostituting out his ideals.  What he doesn't seem to realise is that gaining his place in the spotlight by hanging on to Labour or Conservative coat-tails could well cost his party its credibility come the next general election.

What is the UK's most dangerous dog?

I read an article a few years ago, which stated that the most dangerous breed of dog (based on injuries caused) in the UK was the humble Labrador.  A surprising claim at first, yes?  But if you look at the number of Labradors in the UK, the statistic becomes a logical conclusion.


In the same vein, a recent Populus opinion poll of 100 Lab/Con marginal seats has shown that the two parties are neck and neck.  But is this statistic as reliable as you might think?


If you look at the "small-print" details of the poll, you will read the following:

"Populus interviewed a random sample of 1,500 adults aged over 18 by telephone between March 5 and 7 in 100 Labour-held constituencies where the Tories are second, those ranked 50 to 149 in descending order of marginality."

So if you do the maths, it suggests that only 15 people in each constituency has been asked, which seems like an extraordinarily low number in order to get a reliable figure.

As well as this, the "marginal" constituencies chosen seem to be a bit odd.  What's wrong with the most marginal constituencies?  The first 50?  As well as that, if you look at a list of Conservative target seats with the Liberal-held seats taken out, these 100 seats are actually between 67 and 195 on the Conservative list; with a Uniform National Swing of between 4.1% and 10.3% required for the Conservatives to take the seats in question.

Also, in skipping the first 50 target seats, Populus have discounted 38 (yes, that's right, thirty-eight) seats in which the Conservatives trail by less than two percent.

Now is it just me, or does a required swing of more than 10% suggest that the seat isn't really marginal in the first place?  Especially when the Conservatives came third or lower in nine of these seats last time round.

Of course, the media have been quick to jump on this result and are proclaiming that this shows that if the Conservatives cannot even win the vital "battleground seats" then they have no chance of getting a majority and forming a Government.

To them, I issue this challenge:

Commission a new opinion poll, surveying 100 people in each of the 100 top Conservative target seats (Lab/Con and Lib/Con) and then come back to the public with your findings.

More stealth tax from Labour

This morning's papers carry headlines regarding Labour's proposal to introduce compulsory third-party insurance for all dog-owners.  The thing is, there is more to this than meets the eye.

At first glance, especially if you read The Sun, The Mirror (insert any other "dogs with teeth should be banned" newspaper here), you might think that this is a good idea.  After all, it's only fair that those who are attacked by dogs get fair compensation, isn't it?

However, the more you look into it the more cynical and ill-thought-out this policy seems:

1. Labour are fighting not to lose voters from their core "Sun-reader" demographic.  Coincidentally, this is the demographic that shouts the loudest whenever the papers run a story on a dog attacking a child.
2. Coincidentally enough (especially for a Party who have introduced over 150 "stealth taxes") Insurance Premium Tax would apply to any and all such insurance policies, ensuring a nice little payday for HMRC.
3. The trade union for Postmen have been wetting themselves with excitement (see my previous post on Labour's main sources of funding).
4. Take 87-year-old Ethel, who still lives in her own home on her meagre pension with her faithful dog for protection and company.  How is she to be expected to find the money to pay the premiums?
5. How will it be enforced?  Unlike car insurance, where you need it to get tax and an MOT, nothing else will be dependent on owning dog insurance.

Quite simply, this appears to be a last-ditch plan to win over floating voters and raise money whilst implementing a tax on dog-ownership and turning it into a preserve of the wealthy.

A quick check with two major insurance companies reveals that Ethel would have to pay somewhere in the region of £200 a year to insure her 8-year-old Terrier...

A quick thought on funding...

Having talked about party funding in my earlier post today, I thought I'd quickly muse a little on the Labour side of the coin.  Figures courtesy of Archbishop Cranmer's blog.

1. In 2008 Labour received 52.2% of their funding from Trades Unions (an awful lot of whom represent the public sector).  This figure rose to 60.3% (£9,784,232) in 2009.
2. Labour have spent the last 13 years creating thousands of unnecessary (and expensive) jobs in the public sector.
3. Labour have been accusing Lord Ashcroft (who has donated a mere 1% of the total Conservative income) of having bought an undue influence on Conservative policy.

I shall leave you to draw your own conclusions here...

Breaking News: Politician doesn't keep his word!

The whole Lord Ashcroft story has been rumbling on for over a week now with little sign of going away, and is becoming quite an annoyance to Conservatives everywhere.  But why are the media so keen to keep this one rolling?


The concept of politicians saying one thing and doing another is nothing new, we have reached a stage in politics where it is almost expected that manifesto pledges will be routinely ignored, and that politicians (and candidates too) will happily say anything that will get them votes.  So why is it suddenly such big news?

You would have had to have been living under a rock for the last fortnight to have escaped that story that Conservative Peer Lord Ashcroft has come under scrutiny for claiming non-domicile status despite promising to become a UK citizen upon his appointment to the House of Lords in 2000.  The main accusation of Labour and the press is that as a result of this, he has not been paying tax on money earned outside the UK.

Their apparent problem stems from their assertion that Lord Ashcroft has then been using this money to fund the Conservative Party's campaigning activities.  Norwich North MP, Chloe Smith has been under fire by Labour, who have accused her of accepting funding from Lord Ashcroft in her 2009 by-election campaign.

Now please, correct me if I am wrong, but has Lord Ashcroft done anything illegal?  No.  Is he the only person ever to have done this?  No.  Is Lord Ashcroft "buying seats"?  I don't believe so.  As Sir James Goldsmith's "Referendum Party" proved in 1997, you simply cannot buy the British political system.  No amount of money in the world would ever "buy" the Conservatives seats like Glasgow North East and Washington.

The reason that organisations such as the BBC have been so keen to keep the Ashcroft story running whilst saying next to nothing about Labour's non-doms is clear; they have an awful lot to lose should the next government be Conservative.

There has already been talk of the Conservatives wanting to impose stricter controls on BBC spending; with mentions of either freezing or even reducing the license fee.  Perhaps the hardest hit of all media outlets would be The Guardian; standing to lose out on massive amounts of money under a Conservative government.

The Guardian currently takes in a large amount of its revenue through advertising public sector jobs.  The Conservatives have pledged to move these adverts online, which would create massive financial problems for the broadsheet.

The message is clear.  There are an awful lot of very wealthy people who stand to lose an awful lot of money (and quite rightly so) under a Conservative government; so it is in their best interests to ensure that they show the party in the worst possible light whilst deflecting attention away from Labour's own failings; even if it means biased and unfair reporting.

Keeping with tradition

Those of you who know me know that I hold great stock in tradition and the belief that the old ways are often the best.  Of course it is foolish to be 100% anti-change, but there are some things that are simply sacrosanct for one reason or another.


One particular thing is the tradition of election night, especially when a General Election is concerned.  The ballot boxes are brought in and everyone involved gathers round for a tense night of waiting; whilst those who choose not to stay up to the wee small hours wake up to a new Government in the morning.

But this most British of electoral traditions is now under threat from Council chiefs hell-bent on saving money by delaying the counting of the votes until the Friday morning.  Depending on who you listen to, anywhere between 25% and 80% of Councils are planning to hold their counts on the Friday morning.

Even if you throw out the "tradition" argument, there are still a number of problems created by not counting all the votes on the Thursday night.

Knowing who has won
One of the main benefits of a Thursday-night count, is that the victor is known by the time the country wakes up on the Friday morning.  This not only provides political continuity (there are no MPs between 0700 on polling day and whenever a result is returned) but can also have a knock-on effect on the international community.

Recent financial events have shown that the international community are losing faith in the Pound whilst Brown & Co. are at the helm.  Without an outright decision on the Friday morning, and the threat of a Labour/Hung parliament, the markets could open to mass panic; causing a global run on Sterling.  This could be avoided if the political make-up of the country is known by 9am Friday morning.

Reduction in involvement and coverage
Election Night Special is somewhat of a British tradition.  Even those who normally don't concern themselves with politics will stay up until four or five in the morning to watch the results coming in.  The lack (or limit) of such coverage may well persuade people to turn off and go to bed, thus creating a situation where even more of our population take no interest in politics whatsoever.

Threats to the integrity of the ballot

In an age where accusations of electoral fraud are becoming ever more common (Glenrothes in 2008 and Birmingham in 2005) leaving ballot boxes, blank ballot papers and polling registers overnight could lead to further allegations, particularly in any close-run contests.

Whilst an internet campaign has yielded results (Jack Straw announcing a bill compelling Returning Officers to commence counting within four hours of the end of polling) they would not appear to be wide-reaching enough, with a re-wording giving Returning Officers an awful lot of leeway should they wish to count on the Friday instead.

With the upcoming election having so much at stake, it would be madness to leave the country (and the international community) guessing for any longer than is necessary.  That is why the counts must take place as soon as possible, even if it does mean spending a little more in wages.

What do you want?

During my short hiatus, I would like to ask you, dear reader, what you would like to see covered in the coming weeks.


They say that the first role of media is to give the people what they want, so that is what I shall do.

Please use the comments facility to post questions you would like answered or topics you would like covered.

A short hiatus

Owing to prior arrangements I shall be unable to post on the blog for the next few days.

Rest assured that normal service will be resumed by the end of the weekend.

A lesson in magnanimity

As mentioned in today's post, Gordon Brown could take a lot of lessons from John Major in being graceful in defeat.  Here's what I'm talking about:

Latest Polls

Taken from: www.conservativehome.blogs.com

What would you buy with £8.09?

Gordon Brown's decision this weekend not to take advantage of favourable conditions and call a General Election means that the UK will have to wait even longer for the change that it so desperately needs.  But at what cost?


David Cameron said on Sunday, that "every day Brown is running this country is a grey day for Britain", and he was right.

Gordon Brown is currently borrowing £277,719 a minute to keep this country afloat.  This equates to £16,663,140 an hour, £399,915,360 a day, and an astonishing £145,969,106,400 a year.  If Brown waits until the last possible day to hold a General Election, he will have borrowed an extra £37,412,637,366 between now and when polls close at 2200hrs on June 3rd.

And your share of this debt?  £8.09 a day (based on there being 49,416,348 citizens over the age of 16 in the UK).  That's an extra £8.09 that you will have to find when this debt has to be paid back.

So what does Gordon Brown have to gain by doing this?  Personally, nothing.  However, two words best sum up his intentions:  scorched earth.

As mentioned in a previous post, Brown is on borrowed time and he knows it.  Rather than magnanimously admit defeat, much as John Major did in 1997, he is determined to make sure that whoever replaces him is faced with the worst set of circumstances imaginable; a massive national debt, a colossal budget deficit and a hamstrung economy.  With that achieved, he will be able to sit comfortably - either on the sidelines, or on the opposition benches - and criticise whoever is running the country as they have to make the difficult and controversial decisions to get our economy back on track.

However, Gordon Brown seems to have forgotten the most important rule of operating a scorched earth tactic; you only use it as a last resort when all hope is lost.  Looking at the opinion polls, which suggest that there is an outside chance of this being Labour's 1992, then this tactic will have seriously backfired.  All of a sudden, it will be he and his party that will have to clear up the mess, with no-one to blame but himself.

So if Gordon Brown really does have this country's interests at heart, and truly is a public servant, then he will go to Buckingham Palace and call that General Election.  Not on May 10th, not on April 12th, but today.

In the 32 minutes it has taken me to write this blog, Gordon Brown has borrowed another nine million pounds in our name.

So how did he do?

Yesterday I covered the subject of David Cameron's impending speech to the Conservative Spring Forum; laying out what I thought to be the most important issues he must cover in order to make his speech a success.  So, how was it?


1.  A Simple, no-nonsense speech
Speaking without notes or without an auto-cue has rapidly become David Cameron's party-piece, to the extent where it's almost expected of him these days.  Yesterday, he didn't disappoint.  A good, passionate, stripped-down speech in which he made it very clear to the Party, what a vote for the Conservatives will achieve.

2.  Stick to the issues
And how!  A few (very) brief allusions to the week's news aside, this was a not a speech on why you shouldn't vote Labour, rather a list of clear and well reasoned arguments as to why you should vote Conservative.  Immigration got name-checked, but I would have liked to have seen a little more substance on that one.  Other than that, Cameron made sure, yesterday, that we know what the Conservatives want to do.

3.  Take the fight to Brown
Perhaps not the easiest one to judge here, as Cameron didn't really say anything blatant.  However, a couple of reminders of how soon an Election will have to come, coupled with the assertion that each further day under Brown is taking Britain further and further into the hole makes it clear.  Cameron wants this election, and he wants it now.

4.  A five point plan
With the policies he mentioned, Cameron has shown that the Conservatives have something for everyone; young or old, rich or poor.  A couple of the policies could have done with a little clarification; the re-linking of the state pension to earnings for example (this wasn't clear at all whether it will be high wage = high pension or high = low).  Now all that he needs to do is keep rolling out these policies until people are sick of hearing them.

5.  Prove we are ready for Government
Not only did Cameron direct some of the focus onto his Shadow Cabinet, he brought them to the fore.  We now know not only who they are, but what they do and how good they are.  Cameron just needs to spend a little time now backing up his claims as to their brilliance.

So, all in all a very good speech aimed not at those inside the hall, but rather at those outside.  The Party now needs to rise up with the messages given to them and take the message to the four corners of the country; "We know what's wrong, we know how to fix it, and we are the best Party for the job".


However, having covered all of the points I made, I have just the one question for David Cameron:

Have you been reading my blog??