The Sleaze In Waiting?

The things I manage to find sometimes impress me. Not today.

Nobody’s perfect. Most of all, politicians. It’s a familiar refrain around these parts, but they are just as human as the rest of us.

And, as a stark warning as to what lies ahead, this morning The Times are running a story regarding a £50,000 payment received by Conservative MP Liam Fox, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence.

It’s not a particularly damaging story in reality. There is no suggestion of anything improper in response to the payment, but the danger signs are there regarding conflicts of interest. The payment was made by a businessman with significant interests in the defence sector.

In this case, the donor, Jon Moulton, is apparently a long-standing contributor to Liam Fox’s coffers. What he gains in return for this is open to question. A warm fuzzy feeling inside?

There aren’t many people these days, and I’m almost one of them, who would believe that serious political donations are made with no expectation of reward and purely for altruistic purposes. And I suspect most of us are especially cynical about donations made by people with significant business interests.

Labour were elected on a pledge to be whiter-than-white. It didn’t happen. Laughably, the whole image vanished within the space of a couple of years with the Bernie Ecclestone donation which, very co-incidentally, managed to delay the introduction of a ban on tobacco sponsorship.

The Tories will be hoping they can escape for at least a few years without any major allegations involving cash.

But it won’t happen.

Cameron has made no such pledges equivalent to Blair, but there are endless promises to clean up politics and dust out the old mantras of campaign finance reform. Maybe they’ll even do it unilaterally when they rise to power as a way to smack down Labour’s union funding. It would be nasty of them, but it would be entirely within character.

The trouble is that in spite of the reforms over the years, politics, lobbying and influence-peddling is awash with more cash than ever, even in these troubled economic times. The amount of money being spent by insurance, health and banking corporations in the USA to buy off the Senate is a testament to that.

It’s why I made a prediction at the start of the year that the Tories will be embroiled in a scandal of some kind. It’s just inevitable. There have been the odd rumblings while they’ve been on their ascent to power, but nothing too damaging to shake off.

But once you’re in power, suddenly those cheques gain an extra nought to the end of them…

Can they avoid the temptation?

Newsfelch: 08/02/10 – News At 10, Film At 11

I've got a brand new one of these, you know.

It being one of those days where my brain is not up to a Proper Post, it is time to bring out the Political Blogger’s Cheat Book and draw up a few responses to what the newspapers are banging on about today…

• The big story across all the media is Cameron’s apparent “personal attack” on Gordon Brown. The crux of this argument is that there are whispers that the Labour party’s official solicitor is the one who has advised the Labour MPs charged with false accounting on Friday to defend themselves using parliamentary privilege. Not very exciting, really. Just another way to keep the expenses story going…
• Indeed, even The Telegraph have had enough. They’re more excited about John Prescott. Newsflash: John Prescott is not involved in national politics any more and has no relevance to anything political now, or probably ever again. This kind story belongs in the Daily Fail.
• Iain Duncan Smith is continuing his one man crusade to correct the social ills of the country. Today he’s turned his attention to the costs of care for the elderly. You know, I absolutely hated the man when he was Tory leader. But I have nothing but respect for the work he is doing in this field to draw attention to the problems facing the country in the decades ahead. It’s a shame he couldn’t continue on Tower Block of Commons. That Nike hoodie really suited him…
• The Guardian are sounding the alarm over whether the election debates will happen at all. Naturally, some of us told you this was going to happen several months ago. OK, I assumed it would be only the Nats who would scupper the debate… but it was pretty clear it wasn’t going to happen as smoothly as people started to think.
• Meanwhile, climate change doom-mongers exhale wearily. I knew this would happen eventually. But the funny thing is, even when the view of the public was almost unanimous regarding the concept of climate change, still the politicians did nothing. What chance for change now the public are growing more sceptical? Oh well, let’s all live like fatalists and care not for the planet, cos we won’t exactly be here to suffer the consequences, eh!
• The anti-PR battle is hotting up; expect more inverted pyramids of piffle from Boris Johnson on this subject as the months go by. If we get a referendum, of course. We won’t, by the way.
• Ken Clarke is trying to scare the horses into voting Tory. I didn’t realise satisfying the bond markets could be such an important electoral issue. Not like jobs, unemployment and public services.
• And finally: here’s hoping that a constitutional crisis is just around the corner. Go on, British people! Please give us a hung parliament, and then we republicans can finally prove that there is no place for an unelected Sovereign getting involved in our democracy! Yay!

That’s your lot for one day. Time for some real work!

The New Breed Of MPs

Here's one tradition that we were fortunate to get rid of...

The upcoming election is both a real threat and a genuine opportunity for permanent change at the epicentre of British politics: the Houses of Parliament.

The extent of the wave will vary, all depending on how big a swing to the Tories Cameron can muster, but even without that, the unprecedented numbers of retirements – voluntary and involuntary – and resignations are going to bring a minimum of 150 new faces to the Commons. I predict we could be looking more around 200… which is nearly 1/3 of our so-called predominant chamber.

Add to that other MPs who have still only recently been elected, in 2005, and you’re looking at a new Parliament that will be new in every sense of the word.

The opportunity this presents is unprecedented. MPs with no institutional memory. MPs with fewer pre-determined constraints about the way things have been done. A Parliament that has a chance to reshape some of its most ridiculous rules and traditions, making them more practical and accountable.

But then there is the threat, and it is a serious one at that. New blood is all well and good, but the new breed have a very different view about what Parliament is for. It’s all about delivering the goods for constituents. Getting answers to their local issues, meeting ministers, pressing the flesh for useful PR purposes. Getting your soundbite in at PMQs which will have been pre-released to the local press regardless of what the actual answer from the Prime Minister is.

Whenever people ask me why I don’t go into politics, I invariably reply with “but most politics doesn’t interest me”. There is a world of difference between debating the principles and laws by which we’re governed, and trying to hold your government, or local council, to account for their actions; and being some sort of social caseworker seen as the key to resolving problems people have with the authorities.

While that is a very noble role, it is probably far better suited to local councillors, or a professional organisation with trained advocates. The Citizen’s Advice Bureau do a good job in this respect, but not all of their staff are professionals. Most are ordinary people hoping to give something to their community with their time.

A new Parliament, with hundreds of new MPs scampering to make names for themselves, looking to make the first step up the career ladder, could make for very cringe-worthy times ahead.

But at some point we need to ask ourselves: is this really what our foremost political institution is supposed to be doing?

But What Will The People Think?

A picture like this 30, 20 or even 10 years ago would be unthinkable...

Northern Ireland’s political deal this morning is very good news for that part of the world, largely because as long as the parties are working together, even if they don’t really produce anything new, there is much less risk of a dangerous development seriously undermining the fragile political setup there.

Northern Ireland is the demonstration of what politics is all about. The political process has brought peace to the Province, or the North of Ireland, depending on your political persuasion. It is a perfect example of how politics is both a means and an end, and that without it nothing else is possible.

The only problem is that most Northern Ireland deals are concluded in rather grand locations. St Andrews. Hillsborough. And, of course, Stormont. Only one of them was ever put to the test by a democratic vote of whether the people were in agreement.

You might argue that democracy has its other outlets; naturally, we see these in the Assembly elections. But the curious aspect of this round of negotiations was the subtle agreement by all the parties that they have no other choice but to talk, because the alternative – failure – would mean letting the people have their say in a fresh wave of elections.

I’ve just watched the press conference between the First and deputy First minister (note correct capitalisation!), flanked by the beasts of Gordon Brown and Brian Cowen. There was much talk about how the agreement must command community consensus, and how they were going to go back and make the case for it amongst their respective supporters.

But the key thing was missing – a real democratic outlet for them to do so.

It’s still another 15 months before the people of Norn Iron get another chance to reinforce existing prejudices though. Or maybe it’ll all be different next time? It’s quite amusing how each NI election generally brings the same result as the previous one, except maybe some parties have swapped positions.

But this time will be different. This time all four main parties (plus the Alliance) are backing power-sharing. Instead, there is a new splinter Unionist party (TUV) who are going to attempt to wreck everything. Their intervention in the recent European Elections resulted in the Shinners topping the poll; a result which, if replicated at the Assembly, would put Martin McGuinness as the First Minister. Whoops!

If, and it’s a big if, the TUV are soundly rejected, it will be a definitive sign that The Troubles really are over, and that politics is here to stay.

Maybe then they can actually start doing the “normal” politics that everyone else cares about. And then, once everyone is happy in their complacent little me-worlds of liberal democracy, they can all just forget about it and not bother voting, just like the rest of the apathetic so-called citizens of democracies worldwide!

Oh my, that was a cynical ending.

Ruling The Unruly Mob

The natives of Little Whinging are getting restless once again...

With the news this morning once again filled with stories about MPs and their expenses, it’s made me wonder just what would satisfy not just the media, but the baying mobs of the general public.

The stocks? Self-flagellation? Walking barefoot across a firey pit of doom in the depths of Mordor?

No. Nothing would. The point was sort of reinforced to me the other day when I watched Tower Block of Commons – because there is a scene in the programme where Tory MP Tim Loughton (who, as far as I’m aware, hasn’t been embroiled in any of this) tries to have a reasonable conversation with a man whose anger and rage is palpable.

But Tim might as well be talking to a brick wall. Indeed, although it was probably a trick of the editing, by the end of the conversation he merely stands there silent while the man begins at MPs expenses and uses it as a delicate springboard to spout off about all the conspiracy theories everyone has about MPs, power and corruption.

Not that I don’t enjoy the odd degree of cynicism about those in power (he says with much understatement) but the real tragedy of the expenses farrago is that it has been used as the perfect excuse to justify all the things over the years that have been said about MPs, that they don’t listen, they don’t care about people like me, they’re only in it for themselves, they spend all day talking about nothing, what do they actually do, and so on and on and on and Ariston.

Some might say a lot of these people never bothered anyway, and democracy is already lost to them. It’s a fair point, and in truth, horrible though this sounds, they are the reason why voting should not be made compulsory. There is a great deal of ignorance in society about politics, either through choice or through necessity: some people’s lives are hard enough without worrying about whether Cameron really does want to cut inheritance tax for the wealthy.

That creates a brick wall, one which will never be knocked down by politicians. Democracy as a concept is fragile, but just as we shouldn’t export democracy over the world, so we shouldn’t force democracy down the throats of our own citizens. It is up to the political class to prove that democracy is worth the time and effort.

Politicians are not just advocates for their party (or more optimistically, their principles), they ought to be a shining beacon of why democracy is the right and fair choice for delivering the just society and the common good.

With that in mind though, they really ought to buck their ideas up…

What’s Wrong With Angus Reid?

I’m sure there are many people in this country who share a name with the UK’s newest pollster. To them, I apologise.

Angus Reid Strategies are not new to polling. They are an international firm with a very decent reputation in their main market, Canada, where they successfully predicted the last federal election there.

They chose to spread their wings by, in a British blogosphere first, teaming up with Mike Smithson of Political Betting.com to provide polling for them, presumably as a loss-leader to get noticed in the UK market.

And, my, they have been noticed. This table might explain why…

Taken on their own, it’s not particularly fascinating. The Tory share is rock solid, very close to my own estimates, and those of other pollsters. Looking good for 40%.

They also are around the expected value for the Lib Dems, maybe towards the higher end, but definitely safe within the margin of error. I get the feeling that they are more likely to be right than MORI’s recent 16% estimate for the party.

But it is the Labour figure that is starting to worry me, and even Mike Smithson himself has written a very strong defence of their methodology. But maybe they’ve taken his words of wisdom regarding Labour exaggeration to such an extreme that they’re reducing it too much?

Angus Reid are now some way out of line with the other pollsters for Labour. Take a look on the right to see for yourself…

It’s not enormous, and to their credit they have been consistent. Even when they launched they were showing the lowest Labour share of all the pollsters. To this day they continue, only now they are sticking out even more because of the great deal of recent polls showing Labour nudging up ever so slightly, perhaps above 30%.

But I just can’t believe that we are experiencing 1992 again, with five, six, seven percent Labour exaggeration. They surely won’t be that wrong again?

Either way, it is Angus Reid to “blame” for my current Monster’s Poll rating showing Labour on just 22%. Their consistent low Labour shares will, presumably, continue and result in my own methodology showing a very poor Labour performance.

22%, even 24%, would be utter humiliation for them. I don’t think Labour voters will sit on their hands in such large numbers to achieve that, and they certainly haven’t all suddenly become Tory voters. Some have, most of them in the marginal seats where it really matters. But not to this extent, surely?

Either way, it’s going to be fascinating. And with such a wide amount of disparity, I don’t have the guts to risk any money on the outcome…

Stick Your AV Up Your Arse

Thanks, Wikipedia!

Yesterday, rumours emerged via BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson that the government is planning to slip an amendment into a current bill to give MPs the chance to vote for a referendum to bring in the Alternative Vote (AV).

Later on today, Gordon Brown will back up this proposal with a speech telling the world why he thinks now is a good time for some voting reform.

There are a few problems with this approach.

Number one is the obvious: why now? There is some doubt as to whether this bill will actually make it through Parliament in time for the dissolution. In which case, this is nothing other than spin.

But even if it did, its effect will not be felt till after the election. And, with the Tories so opposed to it, it’s entirely possible that an incoming Tory government could immediately re-legislate to get rid of the referendum. They could fly the populist flags of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and “it would lead to weak coalition government” and, of course, “scrapping this referendum will save the country money in these tough fiscal times”.

Number two, however, is my real problem with this; and, in truth, probably the reason why we’ll never get any electoral reform in this country.

AV is a waste of time. It is only marginally better than what we currently have now, in the sense that it will ensure the elected MP has a majority of support. But in terms of delivering genuine reform involving better proportionality and fairness, it fails the test. I recall surveys suggesting that it would have magnified Labour’s landslides in 1997 and 2001. I think we’ve got enough problems already with our present system exaggerating the number of MPs for the “winner”.

The problem is that this is purely a gimmick, done purely to ask questions of the Lib Dems. Brown has no history of interest in electoral reform, and there is only weak support on the Labour benches. It is only us Lib Dems who have made a big deal of it over the years. Consequently, Nick Clegg may be in a slight bind, because if he opposes this he’ll look like an opportunist, being a member of a party that has supported voting reform for so long.

So the message has to be simple. Brown’s proposals are not reform in the slightest. They will make the system even more unfair than it is now. And they are being done right now in a desperate and cynical attempt to make him look like a reformer with a vision for change.

Finally, let’s remind him of the fact that Labour first considered this idea 12 years ago and rejected it. What’s changed?

Public Morality

What a hero, eh...

If there’s one thing the John Terry saga has achieved, it is actually to make me rather surprised at myself.

The John Terry rumours are still merely allegations. However, when they are splashed all over the national newspapers and receive not a modicum of complaint from the subject…

First of all, private citizens have the right to do whatever they like with their lives. And then everyone hates the rise of the “super injunction”. So far, so liberal: so boring.

The more interesting issue for me is the one that a few people have raised. Should this man be the England captain in light of these allegations?

My answer is pretty simple. No. And not because of anything to do with football. The fact that he (allegedly) had an affair does not affect his footballing talent. Moreover, as John Terry is not a political figure with a history of preaching religious bigotry (a la Iris Robinson), there is no question of hypocrisy either.

So what’s the problem?

The problem to me sunk home when I watched Match of the Day on Saturday night.

John Terry, a man who (allegedly) committed a rather nasty little deed behind the back of a so-called team-mate, leading his team out, in a position of authority, and, most importantly, holding the hands of children who no doubt worship the ground he walks on.

This is the issue to me. There is nothing particularly magical about the fact that he’s the England football team’s captain. But what is important is that he, and many others of his ilk, are national icons. And not just that, they are heros to many of the children up and down the nation, if not the world. Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney… they are major figures of national cultural significance, and are idolised as such.

Unfortunately for everyone else, they are human, and are going to make mistakes like this.

The England captaincy puts John Terry just a little bit more in a figure of responsibility. We expect our public figures, especially our footballers because of how important football is to most of the youth of this country, to be excellent role models. Sad as it is, to some children the images of celebrities on the TV are the only role models they have.

John Terry has lost that trust. Like it or not, the “crime” is magnified if you’re in the public glare.

I’ve never really been all that bothered about politicians having affairs as long as they aren’t hypocritical about it. But this episode has made me reassess that view. Affairs are malicious acts that reflect badly on the people involved, and even more so if victim of them is someone you actually know and ostensibly are friends with.

When you’re in a position of responsibility, or of trust, you are expected to behave a little better than the average person.

John Terry failed on that, and should do the honourable thing.

Not so liberal any more, eh…

POQs

The Republicans gave Obama this document of "solutions" to read. In response, he shoved it up their arses and tore them a new one. Nice man.

… stands for President Obama’s Questions, of course.

Apologies for yet another American politics post, but I can’t let this one go by uncommented.

The liberal blog networks are alight at the moment because yesterday President Obama walked right into the lion’s den and held a “question time” at the House Republican Retreat. Better still, the whole thing was recorded and televised.

I’ve watched the whole thing – you should too –  because it truly is the mother of all smackdowns, so much so that there are rumours around that the Republicans are regretting agreeing that it should be televised.

One by one, Obama politely takes apart the myths, lies and outright bullshit that the Republicans have spouted on every issue they threw at him. In various parts, he directly mocks the unbelievable way in which issues such as healthcare have been spun by the GOP machine.

But if you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot.  No, I mean, that’s how you guys — (applause) — that’s how you guys presented it.

What can we learn from this?

Liberals across the nation are suggesting that this becomes a regular feature. They look at our Prime Minister’s Questions with awe. They don’t understand why politicans would subject themselves to that bearpit. They examine it through their political culture, and think how can someone be so disrespectful to their leader – forgetting, of course, that our Prime Minister is merely a chief executive, with a separate head of state who everyone (allegedly) looks up to.

Obama is clearly intelligent enough to be able to handle such a system; and not a single toadying question handed out by a friendly party whip in sight. And, in truth, there’s no real reason why Obama couldn’t repeat this on a regular basis, setting a very strong precedent for any future president. After all, the American system is all about checks and balances. What greater check than to see the President being held to account by the Congress?

It would be a fantastic way of directly calling out smears and obstructionism, right to their faces. Obama has such a way with words that he could do it in such a way that is extraordinarily respectful, yet effective. No other President in recent history would be able to handle such an environment on a regular basis. Facing an unelected, unaccountable press corps is one thing. Facing fully mandated, legitimised, elected opposition is another.

Maybe it’s high time for the Americans to think about it.

But somehow I don’t think Republicans will be all too keen on the idea any more…

Is Blair Lying?

Turns out this 1997 Tory poster was accurate all along...

Well, there is a good way of telling. And it’s so clichéd I don’t even need to tell you.

This morning I’ve been watching Blair answer questions at the Iraq Inquiry.

He is still an old master, and he is thriving in this environment where he is given free reign to deliver monologue after monologue about his sincerely held beliefs.

There’s no doubting that this man utterly believes, in every fiber of his being, that he did the right thing. What he sees that no one else does is remarkably unclear.

Even worse, the Inquiry panel members are not particularly probing, and continue to ask gentle questions which give Blair even further opportunity to justify his madcap schemes.

Indeed, Blair has just this second claimed, with a straight face, that his “probing” interview with Fern Britton was such a grilling that she managed to get him to say something he didn’t mean: i.e. that if he knew then what he knows now that he wouldn’t have made an argument to justify the war on WMDs.

The Iraq Inquiry is extremely forensic and full of legalese. Answering an accusation which requires a yes or no answer with “Well, that’s nonsense” is not actually an answer. It merely suggests that that particular accusation is incorrect, but it doesn’t mean a slightly changed version of it could be correct.

Again, this is something Blair delights in. With his legal background, undoubtedly thorough preparation, and his genuine talent for acting, he can deflect and redirect any question and actually get away with it. Questions on Iraq, well our whole attitude towards “dictators” changed as a result of 9/11… even though no one actually asked about 9/11, and 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

The problem for most people is that this is just not interesting any more. Most people have already decided Blair lied to the country over Iraq, for whatever reason – though everyone has their own favourite justification.

This Inquiry, while interesting in a narrative/historical sense, and may draw some interesting conclusions for lessons learned, will not actually answer the question as to whether this war was the right thing to do… and really, that’s all that matters to most people.

All I can say is that we are extremely fortunate that this lunatic is no longer our Prime Minister. After saying this morning that he would be pushing just as hard on Iran at the moment, because of the nuclear issue, he would have us – potentially – on the verge of starting yet another conflict.