Liverpool Daily Post - Outside The Bubble

The stench from New Year's Honours and why Labour is right to go on the attack.

2011-12-31T17:50:27Z

At what point can Labour realistically urge people to forget about its own failings in the past when it goes on the attack against the current administration?

Clearly, Labour already believes that point in time has been and gone - for a good while now, it's been happy to attack the government while neglecting to remember their own actions when in office. The economy is a particular own goal for Labour in this respect, especially with Ed Balls as shadow chancellor. While he was never chancellor, there's no doubt he helped pull Labour's economic strings.

The Tories, on the other hand, will happily bounce any criticism from Labour straight back at them for as long as possible. Immigration, NHS spending and the perennial favourite 'tough on crime' are all good examples here.

However, where Labour can justifibly try and make hay in the winter sunshine is on an issue where the Tories vowed to behave differently to Labour during the election campaign - which brings us neatly on to the small matter of New Year Honours.

As we all remember, Labour, especially under Tony Blair, became mired in all sorts of rows around the honours system, not least in the allegation of rewarding large-scale donations with gongs. The Tories, in the general election, sought to remind people of this Labour indiscretion by promising to clean up politics.

So in awarding Paul Ruddock, a chap whose City firm cashed in on the collapse of Northern Rock by betting on its demise, with a knighthood yesterday, David Cameron has scored a major own goal. Alone, rewarding a man whose company's activities are generally reviled by many, was poor judgment on Cameron's part. The fact Ruddock has donated half a million pounds to the Conservatives makes the decision even more remarkable.

The stench of sleaze within New Labour stemmed from cash for honours. Cameron vowed to be different. He may well have done nothing wrong here, but as with many political scenarios, perception is just as important as reality.

There have been flimsy attempts from the coalition to deflect Labour criticism back towards the source by reminding Labour of its actions in office. Labour, however, can point to a new leadership compared to those in charge when Blair was at the helm, much more so than it can, say, over the economy.

In arguing that 'The Tories promised to be different', there is a tacit admission from Labour that they made errors in the past, but again, that's just what the majority think anyway.

Maybe, just maybe, for the first time, Labour is right to urge people to forget the past, saying it has moved on and learnt from its errors ... so why haven't the Tories?

The public sector strike: What next?

2011-12-01T18:24:50Z

Of the many, many interviews done by those on both sides of the pension strikes dispute, the comments made by Michael Gove, the education secretary, on Five Live's Drive show stood out for me. He urged listeners - and union members - to question the motives of union leaders for pushing for strikes so very quickly. He singled out Len McCluskey, the top dog at Unite and the main agitator behind the British Airways cabin crew strike last year, Mark Serwotka of the PCS union and Dave Prentis, boss of Unison and arguably the wettest, dullest, most unconvincing, non-rabble rousing union leader ever to exist. Gove's basic argument was that the motives behind the strike for the likes of those listed above was more political than it was for the best interests of members. Union leaders will be quick to point that this could be construed as a classic divide-and-conquer tactic on the part of Gove. United we stand, divided we fall and all that. And yet, and yet - Does he have a point? In fact, he may even have hit upon two points - whether unions are doing their members a dis-service by going one in, all in, and also whether ideological differences between the unions and the government are clouding the unions' collective judgement. Dealing with the 'all together' point first - do union members win when all bundled together for a 'public sector' strike? I suppose it depends on which union you are in, and how the public views your profession. It's well documented that headteachers are on strike for the first time in a long time - but given the perception of the public sector as a whole, does this generally well-respected profession miss out on speaking to a receptive audience because it had joined a wider strike? It is, of course, unfair to paint the public sector as a cosier, cushier life than working in the private sector. Yet that is the picture being painted by some in government, and it is an image not helped by some of the more profligate spending under the New Labour years. As a result, I can't help but think that some of the more moderate, well-respected professions are losing out by being lumped with the 'public sector.' When you add into the mix the fact that we're not just talking about one big public sector pension, but a handful of different schemes. The health scheme, according to health workers, has been self-financing for several years. So do health workers miss out by going out on strike with everyone else? The obvious advantage of everyone going out on strike is that it is more likely that the country grinds to a standstill and pressure grows on the government to resolve the dispute. But did that happen? What's the worst that happened to you? Mersey Tunnel closed? Bins not emptied until Saturday? School shut? A day's pay lost is probably the most irksome aspect for people who had to look after their children - but would striking teachers be better off going off on their own to make their point, explaining the motivation behind their action rather than being vocally drowned out? Among some union activists today - most notably Unison, a union which is so big and covers so many jobs that it seems incapable to getting beyond political statements to explain the pensions strike properly - there is talk of 'longer-term strikes' and rounding on 'scabs' - those folk who choose to work. The problem with longer-term strikes is that I suspect, in these economically challenged times, people won't want to forfeit income for days on end. For a strike to succeed, it needs to be plausible that it will go on and on. The public mood doesn't appear to be behind the strikers enough to make it plausible. But if individual unions could get their messages across about their members, would the public mood change? Towards some unions - the headteachers again, for example - I suspect it would. Ditto the Fire Brigades Union. Gove's second point - about the political motivation of some of the union leaders - is more than just political rhetoric on his part. Many of the union leaders - Tony Woodley is an example - resort to the 'why should public sector workers pay for the errors of the bankers' argument rather than explaining the impact on members. Any press officer with an ounce of credibility within the union movement should know that no-one likes bankers, but we've all suffered as a result. In the haste to present the strike as 'unions v the bankers friends' the unions have lost the chance to put across the reasons why the public sector pension deal is so bad. Why miss that golden opportunity? Simple - the union bigwigs are political animals. Their unions work do a lot of good work for many members, but at the top, it's easier for them to play politics and push a simple message rather than work harder to win over the public. Gove, of course, is also a political animal, but one which can be voted out. In many ways he's right - after 24 hours of strike action, union members need to ask if their union is really getting it right for their cause, or just for the political ideals of the union elite at the top of the tree.

The dangers of living in the bubble at the Lib Dem party conference

2011-09-20T07:18:07Z

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

It's fascinating watching the Lib Dem conference in Birmingham. After taking a kicking in the polls in May, you'd think the party faithful would be calling for some sort of action.

The strategy of the leadership is to clearly big up their role in the coalition, in which Nick Clegg says the Lib Dems are punching above their weight. That's not good for democracy, and there's no proof it's actually good for the Lib Dems either.

Sometimes the attempts to appear more influential than they really are has been farcical. Take, for example, the row over the 50p top rate of tax. Nick Clegg says it is unacceptable to see it removed when most people are struggling to make ends meet. The image he paints is of the Lib Dems fighting against the worst excesses of the Tories trying to look after their mates.

However, it's a non-fight. Much the Tories may wish to knock the 50p tax rate on the head, and much as there may be lobbying from the rich for that to happen, the Tories aren't daft. They know how it will look, and how it would play politically. So it's not going to happen. For now. It's not a victory for the Lib Dems, it's the Tories being pragmatic.

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

The intention of the party conference is clearly to show party members that the pain they are feeling - generally at local council level - is worth the gain being felt by Clegg, Vince Cable and so on. And that's the danger of living within the tight security of a party conference bubble. Along with sharp objects, delegates appear to have been frisked for negative thoughts too.

Lib Dem activists on the TV talk about a jovial, upbeat spirit at the ICC in Birmingham. In a Q&A session yesterday, equalities minister Lynne Featherstone, who has a voice which can clear drains at 50 yards, turned on a BBC reporter for suggesting the Lib Dems are in a bad place politically.

Wrong, she announced. We're making decisions, we're influencing things. We're upbeat. Nick Clegg was on great form, really upbeat. He was cracking jokes. (So was Sarah Teather, but probably a good idea the Lib Dems ignore that).

And that's problem at the Lib Dem conference. The likes of Featherstone, who always comes across as a political lightweight whenever she is interviewed, can make absurd statements painting a rosy picture and there's little challenging going on. The danger then is that she starts to believe what she says, and so the Lib Dem leadership become even more disconnected from the real world.

Cable is the notable exception here, with what is arguably the gloomiest conference speech of all time. But even that fits the pain and gain agenda - because it's better to making the decisions rather than shouting from the sidelines, isn't it?

The Lib Dems face another tough year in local elections. They have a massive job to convince people that they haven't sacrificed everything just for a sniff of power. The rank and file members in Birmingham seem to be biding their time and hoping things will get better. At the moment, there's a danger the Lib Dem leadership translate that silence as tacit support for a coalition which has yet to prove its worth for the Lib Dems.

Wear you uniform to work day. Why stop with the police?

2011-09-05T19:41:13Z

Image via Wikipedia

In politics, so I've been told, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors. They're clearly aware of that at the think tank Policy Exchange, where their way of getting more out of the police would be inspired, if it wasn't so utterly stupid.

In a nutshell: the Policy Exchange believe police officers should wear their uniforms on the way to work. Somehow, they work out that this would equate to an extra 1,200 police officers on the streets of London. Their working out, I guess, involved multiplying the average journey time to work by a policeman multiplied by the number of days in a week they work multiplied by the number of officers in London, divided by the number of contracted hours a police officer works each year.

Simples. But wrong.

Asking police officers to wear their uniform on the way to work doesn't create an extra 1,200 police officers. At best, for the bean counters, it potentially gives a couple of free hours of work on top of the normal shift.

But does a policeman, travelling to work on the bus, do if he or she spots a crime being committed? It's fair to assume that they won't have their radio with them, or their CS spray, or, if they have one, their taser gun. What we effectively have is a police officer being asked to do their job without the tools to do their job. That's not safe, or effective.

Part of Policy Exchange's argument is that seeing a policeman in a uniform reassures the public. I'm sure it does, but I'm not sure I'd be that reassured by a police officer who wasn't equipped to do their job if required to leap into action.

It just isn't workable. But that doesn't seem to bother the Policy Exchange, so why not go the whole hog. Lets have firemen walking around in their fire uniforms. They'll know what to do if they see a fire - it doesn't matter if they don't actually have a fire engine or equipment to put the fire out.

What about hospital consultants. We could have them walking around in their hospital scrubs, ready to perform keyhole surgery to anyone taken ill on the street. Only they wouldn't have the equipment with them to do it.

For people meeting up for a drink with chaps from the Policy Exchange, I'd suggest a bulk purchase of T-shirts which say 'I'm with stupid.' Because, lets face it, for an organisation described as a 'think tank', not much thinking appears to have gone on here.

Should they stay or should they return? The dilemma of a holiday crisis

2011-08-06T10:25:22Z

DAVID CAMERON is in Tuscany. George Osborne is in California. Only a bitter and twisted political rival would say they don't deserve a holiday. But what about when a crisis hits?

Admittedly, financial problems don't come much bigger than severe wobbles inside the Eurozone and within America - at the same time.

The fact Cameron and Osborne are both on holiday, as is Nick Clegg, the deputy leader, makes a soft target for those wishing to portray the trio as being out of control and out of touch.

Former deputy prime minister John Prescott is one of many to have tried to stir things up, largely on Twitter - his preferred choice of communication as it allows him to screen out criticism and listen only to those voices which slavishly hang on his every word.

Let's deal with Prescott first. He, perhaps more than most, should know that getting wound over who is in charge over the summer holidays is a bit of a nonsense. That said, he was the first deputy prime minister most can remember who wasn't left in charge when his boss when on holiday - Tony Blair preferred to give Peter Mandelson that honour, so maybe it figures he wants to try and whip up a bit of a storm now he's no longer in power. Either way, as usual, he's just a sideshow to the real issue, and should be treated as such.

Prescott isn't the only one to try and make political capital here. There have been plenty of mutterings from current shadow ministers about where Cameron, Osborne and Clegg are. But it's important we don't become deflected by this because it's a canny way of shifting attention from the critical question: What would Labour do differently?

This path includes plenty of traps for Labour, and they know it. For example, Ed Balls has been a very keen advocate of the UK following the USA's route of slower deficit reduction - and as some Tories point out now, that's not looking so smart is it?

Before everyone gets carried away with the idea that the country's leaders are sunning it up while the global economy melts, it's worth considering the impact that a sudden recall of Cameron, Clegg and Osborne to London could have.

We live in a 24-hour news world where every tiny development becomes a huge news story in its own right. There's a very real danger that anything which could be portrayed as an act of panic by the PM or chancellor could have devastating effects to our markets. The point here being that the UK is suddenly seen as a pretty safe place to invest, for now.

And, living in the real world here, what more could the PM and chancellor do in London that they can't do from a Villa in Tuscany or a hotel in California? Mobile phones, emails, the internet, video conference calls all ensure that they are in constant contact with developments. If Cameron needs to talk to his counterparts in France or Germany on the phone, it makes no odds whether he's sat in Downing Street or Tuscany.

Of course, this approach is at complete odds with the actions of former PM Gordon Brown. His people always gave the impression of being ready to jump into action as soon as a crisis arose. His people knew that Brown always looked best when dealing with a crisis. But it was still perception over reality.

As things stand, the risks of a PM rushing back to look active in a crisis poses more problems than it solves. Our last PM relied on a crisis to look good and effective, our current PM doesn't have that problem - and we may be all the better for it.

Time to get real, select committees achieve nothing...

2011-07-26T17:53:36Z

There was one moment during the Culture, Media and Sport select committee 'grilling' of Rupert and James Murdoch which offered a moment of blinding clarity.

Tom Watson, arguably the only MP on the committee to actually ask any probing questions, asked Murdoch junior if he was aware that the committee had previously found News International 'guilty of corporate amnesia' over phone hacking.

Watson was referring to a conclusion drawn in the committee's previous report on allegations of phone hacking, back in the days when it was believed only celebrities and royals were the target.

Murdoch Jnr replied that, no, he hadn't been aware of that conclusion.

That short, relatively sharp exchange, told us everything we need to know about the sideshow existence of select committees. They have no teeth, can force no change and certainly can't find people guilty of anything.

In the build up to the Murdochs' appearance before the committee, there was much talk of them being held to account and made to come clean about what had been going on inside News International.

The truth was, and is, that the select committee was more about MPs being seen to do something quickly in response to what they see as public outrage.

And while there's no doubt many people do find the actions of the News of the World appalling, there's always a danger that those inside the Westminster bubble get a distorted view once something involves their own little world.

Police investigations, judge-led inquiries, a government's change in attitude - those things can force a change. Select committees cannot. Just ask Liverpool Riverside MP Louise Ellman, whose work as chair of the transport select committee is both thorough and determined. Had previous governments listened to her reports, the rail network would be in a much better place today.

The select committee wasn't helped by the appalling questions asked. There was no coherent interrogation from anyone other than Watson. One member, Louise Mensch has been much more dogged in her pursuit of Piers Morgan after she made a false allegation about him under parliamentary privilege than she was with those in front of her at the select committee. Why so much effort on Twitter and so little on committee day? Perhaps that comes with experience.

Select committees fail because they select who they want to hear from. So they got the Murdochs take on events, which were then challenged by other ex-executives later in the week. That's surely not the way to reach a conclusion on an issue.

The MPs may have seen themselves as being part of history. In the case of Mensch and a couple of others, it may ensure a bit of an escape of the obscurity of the back benches. But actually making a real difference? Not likely.

The Southern Care crisis: A warning ahead of public sector change?

2011-07-12T22:06:08Z

DAVID CAMERON, perhaps unwisely, pushed on yesterday with a speech on how he planned to reform the public sector.

He wants to do away with the 'here's what you're getting' mentality and replace it with some sense of empowerment to get the public services we want.

In theory, sounds great. We tell the councils, the schools, the NHS, the police the services we want and, presumably if enough of us say the same, we get it.

Only there is a catch. We're expected to help deliver those services too. That might be via a company, or a not-for-profit group. Doesn't sound so appealing now, does it?

I've no doubt the coalition government will, over the coming years, be able to demonstrate examples of community groups taking over libraries, or private companies coming and running services more effectively for councils.

But the problem will be in the areas which aren't appealing to private companies. Running meals on wheels might be quite attractive in a leafy part of Berkshire, but maybe not so in socially-deprived areas where visiting people in their homes could involve a likelihood of vehicle being vandalised, staff being abused and so on.

What Cameron has announced isn't really new. The private sector has been a part of the public sector for a long time. Care homes are a classic example. Whereas once, councils ran OAP care homes, now they pay the private sector to do so.

And that brings me to Southern Cross. Closing down after failing to make a living off looking after old people - partly because councils insist on below-cost deals for the OAPs they pay for - thousands of pensioners face an uncertain future.

Labour MP John Mann has been one of the few MPs to switch his attention from phone hacking to the Southern Cross crisis. He says it is a bigger crisis for the government than News International is. Should we suddenly see pensioners being transferred from Southern Cross homes or left homeless, then he may be right.

Longer term, if Cameron pushes ahead with the plan to allow the private sector and voluntary groups to cherry pick parts of the public sector they can profit from/have an enthusiasm for, it almost certainly will be a bigger crisis for Cameron.

Mann wants to see councils running the Southern Cross care homes. That's a very Labour response - bring in the state. But the problem for Cameron will be that if lots more of the public sector is run by organisations who can just opt out when the going gets tough - as National Express with the East Coast Mainline franchise - then there won't necessarily be the public sector infrastructure left to pick up the pieces.

Then, as Mann says, there will be a crisis which threatens to have people out on the streets. Much as Cameron claims to understand how much people care about the NHS, he's wrong to think that regularly complaining about council services is a sign people like the idea of others being put in charge.

For Big Society, read Southern Cross. And worry.

Striking before the iron is hot?

2011-06-30T17:03:11Z

I got a bit of stick on Twitter today for suggesting that a claim by the ATL teaching union that they wouldn't be on strike if there was an alternative wasn't entirely truthful.

The North West office the TUC suggested that I 'have no idea.' If that's the standard of debate within the TUC these days, then it's no wonder the negotitiatons with the government over pensions aren't going that well.

Someone else asked me to 'cough up my alternative then.' So here it is.

I'm not against teachers or members of the public sector going on strike. I'm not saying I agree with the government plans on pension reforms. What I do think, however, is that the unions who went on strike today have increased the chances that they'll be defeated.

Strikes should be the last resort for one simple reason: They need public support to work.

Surveys suggest 49% of people were opposed to the strikes today. That's a figure which will only get higher the more people find themselves put out by a strike - and few strikes impact on the public more than teacher strikes.

Before going on strike, the trade unions involved need to had explained to the public why they are on strike and try and make people understand the issues at stake. The NUT teaching union and the PCS public sector union are both trigger happy when it comes to strikes and their decision to strike before negotiations are complete with government suggests this strike is more about being seen to be doing something by members than actually winning.

The ATL teaching union is a bit more reserved. Mary Bousted, its leader, has been on TV at various points today insisting she called for a strike because the government wouldn't give her information to prove that pensions needed reforming. Block out the shouting-over-the-opposing-view comments when being interviewed, and you find a key point: A union on strike not because it's opposed to reform of pensions, not because members have been told there will be no talks, but because the union hasn't got all the information it wanted.

That, to me, is a sign of failure for a union. If the government magics up the information needed, what then? Strike again if they don't like what they see?

On Granada Reports today, one cheery local union rep described today as 'wonderful', adding 'I've done more demos and protests than ever before this year.' Is that something to be pleased about? No.

No-one wins with a strike. Strikers lose pay, the public generally loses out. Strikes can only go on for so long before any public support fades. To have that public support in the first place, the unions need to have explained the issues. They have to show they have had no choice.

In this case, to the public, there was a choice. Talks are ongoing. The bizarre sight of the head of the TUC leaving talks with the government on Monday and having defend unions which hadn't yet voted for strike action and then defending those which had summed it all up.

If the unions want to win a battle with the government, they need to be united and they need the public on their side. The unions aren't united, and the public argument is far from won.

Part of the job of the unions have to do is make sure their members are sending out the right message too. The number of times I've heard the 'We didn't bring down the banks' argument rises by the hour - but won't win over anyone, because the majority of us didn't play a part in that either.

When asked what if the public didn't support teachers, more than one teacher I've heard on the TV has replied by saying 'Well, in that case they don't understand what we do.'

I remember covering the fire strikes. Working overnight, I'd tour the picket lines in my area and catch up with the firemen. On more than one occasion, I was with firefighters when they saw a Green Goddess army fire engine groan past, siren wailing, on the way to a job the firefighters wanted to be on.

These were men and women who were genuinely had exhausted all their options before walking out. Their strike forced the government back to the table. That's what strikes are for - when all options are exhausted.

As it is, the government hasn't even left the table yet.

So what should the unions be doing if not striking? Well, working more closely with each other would be a start. Why is the PCS on strike but not Unison? Why not the NASUWT when NUT and the ATL are? A strike which threatens to shut down the public sector but which then fails to do so is just that - a failure.

Work to rule would be an alternative which I think would find more favour with the public. It may be more disruptive, but cancelling after school clubs, cancelling school trips and refusing to work overtime will be preferred by parents to having to lose a day's pay so someone else can fight an employment battle.

And finally, work on your message to the public. Forget the public v private sector argument, forget the 'we didn't make the banks collapse' argument. Come up with a compelling case for a strike - and prove to the public you have no alternative.

At the moment, there are too many union figures only too happy to evoke memories of the 70s and 80s as though their careers depend on it. Sadly, that could also be the case.

Ed Miliband's PMQs plan makes for good politics, but poor public relations

2011-06-29T12:04:16Z

The more I see Ed Miliband during Prime Ministers Questions, the more I begin to see parallels with William Hague when he was Tory leader as the Conservatives struggled to cope with life on the opposition benches.

Hague was, and still is, brilliant in the House of Commons. He could run rings around Tony Blair. But his impact outside of Parliament was minimal. He just didn't connect with the public.

While it can't yet be said that Miliband is brilliant - or anything close - during PMQs, he has found a way of irritating prime minister David Cameron. He's spotted a Cameron weakness and exploited it. Rather than going for a scatter gun approach with his questions, he drills into one issue and tries to find that nugget of information Cameron isn't sure of, and then tries to exploit it.

It's a good tactic on one level, in that it takes advantage of Cameron's salesman-like approach to policy - he knows the headlines, but only appears to get involved in the nitty gritty when he has to. When Cameron is well briefed ahead of a speech or public appearance on a specific issue, that's not a problem. The bear pit of PMQs is a little different.

But the problem for Miliband is that such an approach isn't making an impact outside of Westminster. This week, the main story is all about strikes tomorrow. Miliband focused on the government's poor handling of the NHS.

Gordon Brown was a master of detail, but he too struggled to win over the public over a period of time. There's something laudable about Miliband paying attention to detail in PMQs rather than going for a quick headline, but the problem is that it won't do him any favours in the long run.

And it won't be long before the Labour backbenchers who didn't want him as leader begin to get fed up of that.

An economic balls up?

2011-06-07T16:30:55Z

ED BALLS returned the political spotlight this weekend after an unusually long period in the shadows following his move to become shadow chancellor.

Labour has sorely missed his vocal presence in the last few months. Prior to taking over as shadow chancellor, Balls had been one of the few effective opponents to coalition policy.

While many on the Labour front benches resorted to shouting 'that's a bad idea' but failed to deliver an alternative, Balls was excellent at deconstructing a government argument and suggesting a counter plan.

The chancellor's job is one he is said to have always wanted so, for now, shadow chancellor is as good as it gets. In a party which is still devoid of policy thanks to leader Ed Miliband's insistence on a blank sheet of paper for a manifesto, Balls attacking economic policy can surely only be a good thing.

Sadly, in delivering what is probably Labour's first real policy promise in 18 months, Balls seems to have fallen into a very New Labour trap - spin over substance.

Balls used the News of the World to announce a new tax on bank bonuses which would fund schemes for youth jobs and thousands of new homes. About £60million would be used to fund apprenticeships.

Seen from a headline-grabbing perspective, it's quite clever. Banker bonuses remain a source or irritation for many, while youth unemployment and a lack of housing are two very important issues.

The problem, however, is that it is perhaps the most clichéd way of getting a headline. All three main parties have attacked banker bonuses over the last three years, and all have promised to grab more of their bonuses.

And while some money has been forthcoming from levies and taxes on the banks and bankers, the fact Balls still feels confident enough to suggest going after them again suggests none of the previous promises have come to pass.

Labour needs to use the absence of hard-and-fast policy on its part to come up with some radical ideas which will appeal to many voters, not just quick things to appease the spin doctors.

And the lack of a real alternative when it comes to policy could really hinder Labour in the next few weeks. At the weekend, the first real signs that the coalition's economic strategy was worrying academics emerged. There is no doubt that economic indicators aren't as promising as the government had hoped.

Labour, however, struggles to get beyond 'we'd cut less fast' when asked what it would do, and still doesn't have an answer to the accusation that it caused the financial mess in the first place.

Bank bonus taxes makes for good headlines, but time would be much better spent devising an economic strategy to get back into power with.

The problem with PMQs for Labour

2011-05-18T12:58:47Z

ED Miliband has been in improving form of late at PMQs, in my opinion. David Cameron, in contrast, seems to be struggling when walking the fine line between quick-witted reply and flash posh boy. In opposition, that didn't so much - in charge of a government which is making lots of cuts, it's a different story.

But I'm not going to blog here about the part of PMQs which much more knowledgeable people than me analysise each week - the battle between the PM and the opposition leader.

No, instead lets talk about Dennis Skinner. Really. He stood up in the Commons and unleashed one of his usual ultra left-wing rants against the Tories.

The general theme of his rant was this: The number of billionaires in the UK has gone up by 20 in the last 12 months, up 30-something percent. This is because, said Skinner, the Tories are in charge. At the same time, inflation is hurting everyone else, and we have blind people taking to the streets in protest at losing disability living allowance. In other words: Aren't you ashamed of yourself, Mr Tory?

There was much cheering and jeering at Skinner's remarks. He is, of course, a left-wing institution in his own right. But in this context, he's also very damaging to Labour - or indeed any faction trying to oppose the government's spendng plans.

The rise in billionaires is utterly irrelevant to the rise in inflation, and the rise in inflation is also unconnected to the disability living allowance. Stitch them together and you have a good speech, but nothing based in fact.

Cameron was able to dismiss Skinner easily - pointing to the new lower unemployment figures and suggesting that Skinner lives in 'dinosaurland.'

And it's a small skip for the Tories to paint all opponents to spending cuts as being like Skinner. It's a bit like letting the genie out of the bottle. Here's the looney left, not living in the real world and so on.

The Tories, on the other hand, have so far managed to keep most of their right-wing genies locked up, to mix some metaphors. Labour would dearly love for them to be unleashed - here are the 'real' Tories and so on - but it's not happening.

Miliband, as I said at the start, has improved massively his ability to take on Cameron - and win - at PMQs. He needs to get to work on his backbenchers now. Skinner might be a legend, but he's also a liability to a leader who has yet to work out what the party's real message on cuts is.

Five random thoughts about the local elections

2011-04-14T18:14:28Z

A few unconnected thoughts about the local elections coming up this year:

1. Gillian Duffy: The sight of Gillian Duffy, the woman Gordon Brown muttered was bigoted after he was handbagged by her last year, trying to do the same to Nick Clegg said a lot about Labour. According to The Guardian, Duffy was tipped off to the fact Clegg was in Rochdale by local Labour MP Simon Danczuk. I have vague memories of Danczuk being a councillor in Darwen, a small town in Lancashire. I was never particularly impressed with him then, and his hand in this little set up just demonstrates that Labour's more interested in making Clegg look daft than it is in having an intelligent debate about the issues - and we're all the worse off as a result.

As it happens, Clegg handled her very well, in my opinion. Given she said she wouldn't bother voting in the elections last year, she doesn't really deserve the time or attention of any politician.

2. A local election like no other? Maybe. Maybe not. Whenever Labour took a kicking at the local elections, the new Labour lot limped a bit and then tended to carry on regardless. This year, if the Lib Dems take a kicking, what happens? That's when things could get tricky for the coalition - many backbenchers can see what could happen in 2015.

3. Ed's you lose: Ed Miliband is refusing to say how well he wants Labour to do, other than 'for us to make gains.' That has to be the most pathetic attempt as expectation management I've ever heard.

In many Northern areas, the Lib Dems are an alternative to Labour for voters, on the grounds they wouldn't vote Tory. The act of tying up with the Tories is a huge betrayal in that respect, so if Labour don't make massive gains this time out, there's something wrong. Unless...

4. We vote on the local issues Ed Miliband is very keen to suggest that people take to the ballotbox to say what they think about the cuts. But these are local elections - in theory, our vote doesn't change anything at Number 10.

Labour was always at pains when in power to point out elections were about local issues. Does voting Labour in Manchester make it more likely that it'll get a fairer deal on funding in the future? Of course not. And the same applies in Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle - anywhere.

By forgetting Labour's mantra that local elections are about local issues, Miliband is reinforcing his image as political chancer, which for someone whose entire adult life has been about working on political strategy, is quite remarkable.

5. Somebody do something about Vince At every opportunity, the Lib Dems defend their tough decisions by saying they are in power now, so they can't please everyone. They have to act differently, they say. In which case, can someone tell Vince Cable that? He's gone from Saintly expert to silly fool in the space of a year. If any other minister had contradicted the PM on immigration in the same way he did, they'd have been out. Is Cable happy to be hanging on to his job just because he's an olive branch to Lib Dem rebels? Cameron and Clegg wanted to be treated like a proper government - so their ministers should behave the same way as those in any other government

Will the cuts protests just make things worse?

2011-03-27T14:30:03Z

The sight of up to 400,000 people on the streets of London protesting against public sector cuts was both encouraging and slightly tragic.

Encouraging in the sense that, in an age when we are all supposed to apathetic to what is going on around us, 400,000 people made the effort to protest in London.

The fact the trade unions were at pains to stress they wanted a peaceful protest, not the mob rule antics of the student protests from last year, was a point well made.

But as those 400,000 marched through the streets of London, it was hard not to ask yourself: What's the point? What can they achieve? Who is really going to benefit from this?

To answer the last question first: The only real winners out of the protest will be Ed Miliband and the trade union movement. Miliband's team ensured yesterday was about him distancing himself from the errors of the Labour government, instead aiming fire at the Tory government's cuts programme. In one sense, he'll be preaching to the choir.

The trade union movement, at the same time, finds itself in a tricky position. The government clearly isn't listening to it. Whereas under Labour, a kick-off from the unions would normally trigger a change in thought - in fact, a kick-off from anyone towards the latter end of Labour's years in charge guaranteed a rethink - the same can't be said of the coalition.

The sight of 400,000 people marching through London won't make David Cameron and Nick Clegg sit up and think 'Are we getting this right?' In fact, it'll probably have the opposite impact. The track record of the coalition government appears to be that criticism on the economy convinces them they are right.

Cameron, at around the time of the TUC conference in Manchester last September, alluded to the fact he wanted to work with the unions. Not much has been said on that since. It perhaps suits the unions to be at a distance from the discussions which are taking place about cuts.

But at the same time, if those doing the cuts aren't listening to traditional protests, then surely the trade unions also need to move their positions too. The cuts are coming, no two ways about that, so how about trying to minimise the impact of those cuts. A little less King Kanute, a little more Florence Nightingale.

Of course, that doesn't generate great headlines and big, glossy pictures for the annual reports. Trying to improve a bad situation rather than opposing it outright doesn't lead to barnstorming speeches on a stage. But it might just make things happen.

Councils find themselves in a similar position. The Manchester Evening News reported yesterday on communities secretary Eric Pickles' latest attack on Manchester City Council, perhaps the most vocal critic of the council spending cuts being dished out by Pickles' department. And no wonder, Manchester is among the cities to be hardest hit by the cuts.

Pickles is quoted as saying:

"You've got to look elsewhere in the country. Manchester has got to get over the idea it's being picked on. It isn't.

"It's not possible for me to nor would I have any desire to. Manchester is a very important city in the UK. I want to see it prosper and succeed but the way politicians have responded has been less than impressive."

Liverpool also could be forgiven for thinking it is being picked on, but the attitude from government towards the city is much positive than it is towards Manchester. Jim Hancock, writing in the Liverpool Daily Post last Monday, reports:

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles met Liverpool Council leader Joe Anderson recently and called him a "master craftsman". He clearly admired the political tactics around Liverpool's decision to pull out of the Big Society initiative, even if he disagreed with it.

Pickles had not been scheduled to attend a meeting between a Liverpool delegation and one of his junior ministers, but must have realised the government was losing the propaganda battle with the city.
Evidence of the rapprochement is in plentiful supply, ranging from the confident prediction by Liverpool's Chief Executive that the ocean liner terminal project will go ahead, to the warm welcome given to Business Minister Mark Prisk at the Town Hall on Friday.

Anderson is pursuing a twin track policy in relation to the government. Hammering them over the cuts (he's already working on a Â£60m economy programme for 2012-13) whilst emphasising that he wants to work with people like Mark Prisk over bringing jobs to the city.

In other words, Anderson isn't cutting Liverpool's nose off to spite its face. He's not giving in, but he's attempting to make the best of a bad situation.

The sight of 400,000 marching through London is commendable, but is it enough to force a change in thought from central government? And if not, who is the protest really for - those who want change, or the union leaders who want to look like they are doing something?

In town halls too, the time to stop grandstanding and start making the best of a bad situation has arrived.

It's a sad state of affairs, but with a government which won't listen to the counter opinion on the economy, it's the only option available.

Nannying over smoking

2011-03-09T18:03:41Z

Image via Wikipedia

Andrew Lansley has repeatedly talked about being a health secretary who will give people a nudge rather than nanny them - the suggestion being Labour was very much a nannying party.

So when Labour first suggested the idea of banning the display of cigarettes and tobacco in shops to try and reduce the number of people who smoke, Lansley was opposed to the idea.

Fast forward through the election and Lansley's initial promises to be a nudger not a nanny, and we have the sight of the always-tanned health secretary saying he'll be banning the display of ciggies in shops.

According to the Department of Health, the Tobacco Control Plan (if that isn't a Nanny state term, I don't what is) aims to do the following:

The Tobacco Control Plan has three ambitions. These are to reduce smoking rates in England by the end of 2015 to:

18.5% or less among adults (from 21.2%)
12% or less among 15 year olds (from 15%)
11% or less among pregnant women (from 14%)

The theory goes that if tobacco isn't on display in most shops people go into, it is less likely they'll take up smoking, or continue smoking. They'll have to ask for it from under the counter. Really.

In terms of reducing the number of under 15s smoking from 15% to 12% - and to be frank, that's hardly a big goal - making fags an under-the-counter product is a massive own goal.

Smoking, to some teens, is something which is cool because they're not supposed to do it. Making them more secretive to purchase - a nudge, nudge, wink from the shopkeeper to open the drawer under the counter - is bonkers.

Is Andrew Lansley going native at the DoH? Or just following the over-arching Tory policy of forgetting everything they said before the election?

AV-ing a laugh?

2011-02-20T13:39:55Z

And so the horses are in the starting blocks ahead of the political battle I suspect most of the country couldn't care less about. The vote on how we should vote in the future. I learnt while covering the Regional Assembly debate in the North East that a political debate John Prescott is vocal in is generally one which the public don't give a monkey's about.

Prescott, now Lord Prescott, is placing himself in the 'no to AV' camp, aligning himself with the Tory camp, led by prime minister David Cameron. Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg is becoming the posterboy for the yes vote, joined by Labour lights such as Lord Mandelson and Ed Miliband.

Tories on one side, Lib Dems on the other, Labour flip-flopping inbetween. Have Labour and Lib Dems had a personality swap?

The problem with debates such as this is that they expose the huge gulf in priorities between those who work in the Westminster bubble and the rest of us. Tens of thousands of words will be written between now and the summer on the AV debate, but there's little to show that anyone other than the already-politically active actually cares.

Labour's expensive and woeful push for regional assemblies in 2004 was at least done when times were good. The worst problems of the war in Iraq had yet to be exposed, and the UK seemed to be on a sound economic footing. Labour was comfortably in control of the country and seemed it would be for a long time.

In 2011, the picture couldn't be more different. The Tories and Lib Dems in their coalition are yet to be entirely comfortable with each other, and there are many, many fires to fight: Rising unemployment, a stuttering economy, public sector cuts and the standoff with local government. Then there are the optional policy changes the coalition is pushing ahead with: Free schools, NHS reforms and yes, the doomed Big Society.

Most right-minded project planners would tell the coalition to focus on solving the economic problems before embarking the pet projects ministers call 'reform.' Lobbing in a distracting debate and referendum on how the country votes feels like lunacy.

And it's when you look at why this vote is being foisted on us now that you see another parallel between the regional assemblies debacle and the AV debate. Just as Tony Blair needed to keep John Prescott onside to keep the old guard happy in the New Labour years - hence the regional assembly debate - so too Cameron needs Clegg to feel he's getting something out of the coalition.

Heck, Clegg's lost a lot in this coaliton. He may believe he's doing the right thing, and time will tell if the public returns to his side on that, but now his party is polling badly and his credibility amongst voters is in question.

So making the vote on AV a pre-condition of any coalition deal ensured a Lib Dem pet project became an essential part of government activity.

But that doesn't stop the whole debate feeling like a little bit of luxury we can't afford at the moment. I'm sure numbers can be produced to show it is being done on the cheap, but it's a distraction, and an unhelpful one at that.

Cameron and Clegg constantly talk about having to take tough decisions for the good of the country. They play up the difficult economic circumstances we're in. Yet they still find the time to create a debate over how we vote in the future.

A vote which, quite frankly, the vast majority of people don't care about - and turnout will probably bear this out.

For what it's worth, Cameron's early arguments against AV seem compelling. It won't actually open the door to the smaller parties as much a Clegg promises and could, in some cases, make safe seats even safer - around one third of all seats in the last election were won with a majority of more than 50% anyway, so AV would be irrelevant there.

These two lines from Cameron's speech stood out to me:

It can mean someone who's not really wanted by anyone winning an election because they were the least unliked.

It could mean that those who are courageous and brave and may not believe in or say things that everyone agrees with are pushed out of politics...

I can't but think Cameron is currently PM because he was the least unliked of the three main leaders, and let's be honest, party spin machines have all but consigned politicians who are 'courageous and brave' to the sinbin - or at best, the backbenches.

In other words, we face four months of debate about something which will fascinate the Westminster set, but probably leave the electoral system with the same sort of holes as before.

And the public still won't be any more likely to vote as a result.