Leaders' Debates: UK Democracy's Failings In Plain Sight

Within our 'representative democracy' expressed by so-called Parliamentary sovereignty the idea of Prime Minister debates, first instigated in 2010, is absurd if not downright objectionable.

The electorate in a General Election do not vote for the PM, instead they vote for their local MP which helps form a Parliament from which a Prime Minster is chosen.

One often consistent criticism of Gordon Brown's tenure up until the 2010 election was that he was 'not elected'. But of course he was elected - by the constituents of Kirkcaldy and by members of his own party - it was that he simply didn't have an electoral mandate (as neither did Major for example in 1990). Brown's position was less a reflection of the failings of himself and more a reflection of the failings of current Parliamentary system.

More seriously the lack of separation of powers represents a system where MPs become hopelessly compromised - by default. After being elected for 5 years their main objective is to achieve a ministerial career rather than attempt to hold the government to account. They want to join the government not listen to their constituents; which one pays more...?

The constituents of Witney, Doncaster and Sheffield will know this best - their own MPs wear two contradictory hats, a situation that Witterings from Witney knows only too well.

And with this in mind we see Cameron and Miliband, among others, engage in unedifying comments regarding a leadership debate without so much as a by-your-leave to the rest of us:

Did you notice that the letter sent to David Cameron about disputed formats for the election TV debates was itself a delicate contribution to pariah politics? Though identical in contents, as Rowena Mason explains, the missives were dispatched separately by Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage. Ed and Nick did not sign the same letter as Nigel, oh dear no.

Thus it's acutely apparent that the entire idea of leadership debates is an admission by the establishment that Parliament is failing and that we, as an electorate, are now effectively voting for the executive - the government and the Prime Minister - by proxy.

This becomes even more (offensively) absurd when we consider that Nigel Farage, although leader of UKIP, is not currently an elected MP even though his party has two elected MPs and Farage himself is currently not on course to win South Thanet seat in May.

Thus more than ever the case becomes stronger that we need to directly elect our Prime Minister - and as a consequence separate out more formally the executive from Parliament. This idea is nothing new, it was proposed back in the 18th Century by Thomas Paine. Although born in England, via Common Sense, he was one of the fiercest critics of what he regarded as British tyranny.

The current, and rather childish standoffs over a Prime Ministerial leadership debate merely confirm that such reform is now very long overdue.

EU Referendum: How We Can Win

My previous piece reflected on the free bet that is the offer of a referendum in 2017. It maybe that Cameron doesn’t deliver, and that is of course a risk, but it’s the only offer currently on the table. We should remember that extracting this promise from Cameron has long been UKIP policy. For example in 2011 (2 years after “cast iron”) Farage had this to say:

…Ukip could form an electoral pact with the Conservatives at the next election if David Cameron were to promise a referendum on membership of the European Union. There was "every chance of forcing David Cameron into giving us a referendum", he said. Whether or not to propose an electoral pact with the Conservatives in 2015 would be a "huge decision" for the party, he said. But he had offered the Tories a pact before the 2010 election, he said.

Given Cameron’s track record it’s reasonable not to trust him, though that would imply that other politicians can be trusted. However in my view the question of trust doesn’t come into it. If Cameron wins in 2015, albeit with a small majority, he won’t have any choice but to deliver lest the party give him an offer he can’t refuse. Less a case of trust, more a case of pure political calculation.

If there is to be a referendum in 2017 then another obvious concern is that it will be loaded in favour of staying in. It’s worth noting at this point that exit is very unlikely to ever occur without a referendum being offered and won. The precedent for constitutional change has now been set with the referendum in 1975, Scottish & Welsh devolution, the AV vote and the Scottish independence vote. Nor indeed can we expect ‘perfect conditions’ for one being held.

It’s certainly going to be a challenge to overturn the message of the establishment, media and FUD all of which will be heavily funded. An example of this was during our entry into the then EEC where pro market lobby groups were co-ordinated under the umbrella of the European Movement part funded by the EU Commission to act as an integral part of the government campaign. Efforts were made to bring the media on board particularly the BBC where eurosceptic presenters were dismissed in favour of more sympathetic ones.

However this is not 1975, the world has moved on in 40 years and as a consequence we do have a number of potential advantages over that campaign which can help nullify if not overcome the challenges.

The EU: 
The first advantage is that the EU is no longer just the EEC or a ‘Common Market’. In some 40 years since UK membership the EU has taken ever larger strides towards political union such that its ultimate goal has become much more obvious.

Now it is a ‘European Union’ rather than a ‘Market’. By calling it a “Common Market” meant the 1975 referendum was defined by the terms pro-marketeers and anti-marketeers – membership argued in simple economic terms. Thus in this context Wilson was able to get away with his sham negotiations by reducing it down to the level of import quotas on New Zealand butter and cheese.

40 years on, Cameron could not get away with anything so lightweight. It’s no longer a Market but a Union. Thus there would be demands for a far more substantial return of powers - none of which can be achieved without Treaty change. And that leads us neatly onto the next advantage...

David Cameron:
As has been well documented Cameron did not want a referendum nor does he want to leave the EU. That he has offered a referendum against his wishes is a reflection of his political weakness not his view that he thinks he can win it. We know this because he has made a political mistake. His offer was due to being under pressure from backbenchers who in turn are under pressure from UKIP in the belief that such a promise would win him the next election, and it is an offer made regardless of what concessions Cameron thinks he can spin from Brussels. It is very likely he chose the date as the UK takes over the Presidency of the Council of the EU rather than any other consideration.

The reform option has always been dangerous as it splits the “out” vote to the benefit of those who wish to remain EU members. However Cameron’s promise largely negates the reform option as he can’t possibly hope to have any substantial concessions which he can put to the electorate by 2017. The changes needed to the founding Treaties simply cannot be achieved in time. Thus all he can rely on is what will be unconvincing spin without substance.

And this is where his track record of ‘PR man’, ‘cast iron’ and ‘lack of trust’ becomes an asset to the out campaign. Without Treaty change it will be spin few will believe and it is a mistake we can capitalise on. A mistake that Clegg appears to appreciate very acutely during the Lib Dem conference:

The Lib Dem leader said he was committed to a vote when there was EU treaty reform, but criticised the "arbitrary date" of 2017 set by the Conservatives.

It’s worth noting that the Scottish referendum also had superficial promises of the reform option announced by, among others, Gordon Brown who tried to rewrite the UK constitution on the back of a fag packet in an impassioned speech by offering essentially devo-max to the Scots. Yet the pledge of reform made little difference to the final results which were in line with months of predictions by the polls. Other core substantive issues instead decided the referendum which we will explore later in this piece.

Experience: 
The 1975 referendum was the first ever in the UK, thus there was no real direct experience to draw upon. As a result many mistakes by both sides were made, not least in the failure of establishing a coherent message particularly from the anti-marketeers - with the word 'anti' portraying negative connotations, In contrast we have the opportunity to learn not only from the referendum of 1975 but subsequent ones over AV and Scottish independence, and we can endeavour to try not to repeat mistakes made there.

The Internet:
In 1975 the media and all the newspapers bar one – the communist Morning Star – supported EEC membership. Such support would be similar today, including from the likes of the Daily Mail which in editorials has made it clear it supports EU membership.

However unlike 1975 we now have the internet and everything that comes with it; smartphones, Twitter, Facebook and forums. The establishment no longer has a monopoly on information. Scotland revealed the significance of this development. The independence campaign was a dry run of how an EU referendum would be conducted and it showed comprehensively that unofficial campaigns centered on social media was very powerful.

Indeed the Scottish referendum has revealed that social networking via Twitter and Facebook played a very significant part in the vigorous and intellectual debate to the extent that the “yes” vote remained strong in the final outcome:

The 2008 US election showed how politicians could use it as a campaigning tool, but it wasn't until the Scottish referendum that Britain really caught up.

According to Facebook, more than 10 million interactions were made about the fight in a month. So who won the social media wars - and what can we learn from it? The simple answer is: the Yes campaign was victorious.

The official Twitter account of the Yes campaign has an impressive 103,000 followers compared to 42,000 for Better Together. Alex Salmond boasts 95,000 Twitter followers and Nicola Sturgeon has 66,000 - while Alistair Darling has just 21,000. On Facebook, the Yes campaign page attracted more than 320,000 likes compared to 218,000 for the No.

But debate was not only held on the most well known outlets, there was much passionate debate on forums such as Celtic Football Club’s which ran to an impressive 1674 pages.

It’s also worth noting that during any campaign the URL address http://www.eureferendum.com/ would be much sought after – and this is already registered by Richard North. Typing the words “EU Referendum” into a search engine and links to the country’s premier eurosceptic blog comes top of the search results.

Thus with the internet we can bypass the mainstream media. This is a tactic that was used by Farage in UKIP’s early days. Comprehensively ignored at the time by the media, Farage went under the radar by taking the message direct to people by travelling the country and addressing local meetings. He was to replicate this method in 2013 with the Common Sense tour.

As UKIP proved, such methods can be very effective in getting the message across despite the bias of the legacy media and so it can prove with a referendum in 2017.

There's a strong anti-establishment vote: 
Unlike 1975 where there was more deference to the political system, we now have the obvious decadence of Westminster politics. A decadence which reveals itself by the increasingly lack of quality in MPs, hopeless leadership, the lack of relevance of political parties with membership plummeting, and the electorate itself being treated with contempt and their anger in return.

Revulsion at this decadence and alienation from Westminster is common to both England and Scotland. In England it expresses itself partly in UKIP; in Scotland it helps power the SNP.

Thus unlike 1975, the parties of Westminster campaigning as one in 2017 to stay in the EU could actually prove to be useful as part of an effective anti-establishment campaign which when based around sound exit answers can win over a lot of people, as was shown in Scotland.

The establishment is not always united:
The Scottish referendum illustrated that the establishment campaign epitomised by Better Together was not always united. Although they shared the same aims of keeping the union together the fundamental differences between parties and between themselves could not help coming to the fore. Gordon Brown was sidelined until the last minute, Darling was consistently criticised for running a poor campaign, for example in May 2014:

Alistair Darling has effectively been dumped as head of the campaign to keep Scotland in the UK following crisis cross-party talks.

And naturally there were tensions between the Tories and Labour:

A Labour MSP has criticised his party’s decision to “hold hands” with the Tories in the ‘Better Together’ alliance against Scottish independence and has claimed that the No campaign is now unable to “outline a coherent vision”.

Then arguments over "reform"

The Better Together campaign has been accused of “spiralling into self-destruction” after UK cabinet ministers appeared at odds over enhanced devolution proposals.

And after the vote:

Ed Miliband today publicly snubbed Gordon Brown after thanking every Labour MP who campaigned against Scottish independence – apart from the former Labour leader.

The 'in' campaign is likely to be as split as the 'out' one.

Having a major party on board is not always necessary:
As the SNP found out to its cost, a major party with an official position does not always mean party supporters and members follow suit  - voters in Salmond's own 'backyard' of Aberdeenshire gave independence the thumbs down. Official positions of Labour and the Tories in an EU referendum are likely to be very different to its members when deciding on an EU referendum and there are likely to be splits within.

The question has already been decided:
Should Cameron endeavour to progress with a referendum then it's out of the question that he can manipulate the question. The Electoral Commission has already given its advice to Parliament - the full details of its advice can be found here. In summary it advises:

If Parliament wants to retain the use of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ as response options to the referendum question, then the Commission has recommended that that the question should be amended to:

'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?'

If Parliament decides not to retain a ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ question, the Commission has recommended the following referendum question:

'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'

The European Economic Area (EEA):
Unlike in 1975 we have an off-shelf economic model in form of the EEA which can successfully nullify the FUD which will undoubtedly be deployed to portray by fear that leaving would be economically disastrous. The EEA was designed as a ‘stepping stone in’ for reluctant countries such as Norway and this can very easily be used as a ‘stepping stone out’. The economic arguments of 1975 would be made redundant:

Let us be clear about one thing: In or out of the Common Market, it will be tough going for Britain over the next few years.

In or out, we would still have been hit by the oil crisis, by rocketing world prices for food and raw materials.

But we will be in a much stronger position to face the future if we stay inside the Market than if we try to go it alone.

Inside, we can count on more secure supplies of food if world harvests turn out to be bad. And we can help to hold down Market food prices - as we have done since we joined in 1973.

The EEA therefore allows us to sideline the economic arguments effectively and so use the referendum to concentrate on the political aspects of the EU which prove to be so unpalatable for the British people (my emphasis):

Public opinion is divided on the detail of Britain’s role in Europe, however. Around three in ten each would prefer to see ‘Britain’s relationship with Europe remaining broadly the same as at present’ (32%) and ‘Britain returning to being part of an economic community, without political links’ (30%). One in five would like to see ‘Britain leaving the European Union altogether’ (20%), with ‘closer political and economic integration’ with other EU member states the least favoured option (13%).”

The 1970's pessimism has gone:
It's not unreasonable to suggest that the early 1970s provided probably the only window of opportunity to have joined the EEC. The UK was beset by a national lack of self confidence not long after "Great Britain had lost an Empire and had not yet found a role", the Suez crisis, devaluation in the 1960's, a global recession, spiralling inflation, collapse of Britain's traditional manufacturing industries and rising unemployment and industrial unrest.

With this in mind it's easy to understand why the UK sought refuge in the EEC. Yet largely as the result of the Thatcher reforms of the 1980s, the UK escaped from the inward straightjacket of its past. Rather than pessimism overshadowing the next referendum a confident UK will now be able to take advantage, outside the EU, of the dominating factor of trade...

Globalisation:
Nothing illustrates the ever decreasing need for single market access for the UK than the rise of globalisation. This is the EU's redundancy notice, its P45. The EU is a relic of the 20th century, a time when the cold war dominated, when memories of war on the continent were still painfully fresh. Yet during the late 1970s and 1980s we had the emergence of other markets such as Japan.

Fueled by the evolution of technology, improved transport (Containerisation) and the growth of multinational companies and trading blocks globalisation is now the dominating factor. With the growth of China and India, the United States for example is increasingly looking east rather than to the EU in terms of importance of trade.

With globalisation has come the increasing importance of global bodies setting international standards. The Single Market, is a collection of regulation which drives the harmonisation of standards, with a view to not only facilitate trade throughout the Communities but to lead to increasing "political union" in the EU. It has primarily a political objective not an economic one.

However the EU acquis of harmonisation is gradually being replaced by international regulation which does not have the same political overtones. As such the EU loses its European distinctiveness and simply becomes a property shared by all members of the WTO, which they will all use as the basis for international trade. The EU's Single Market thus will become redundant. Gradually it is being replaced by the globalised market.

As it stands, as long as we are in the EU, we have a subordinate position, (only 8% of the vote within the EU) on international bodies and the agreements on international standards are negotiated and approved by the EU on our behalf. 

However EFTA/EEA countries such as Norway are able to negotiate for themselves at the top international table and only after they have agreed them are they then processed into actionable law and passed down to regional trading areas such as the EU. The following graph illustrates how this works:

The early '70's demonstrated the UK's lack of ambition and self-confidence by tying itself to an inward-looking customs union based on the European continent.  A 2017 referendum will give the opportunity to argue instead for a vision which was not available in 1975 - a vision that embraces the globalisation one which the UK can fully participate in.

An Exit Plan:
With the above in mind it is essential then that there is a detailed, workable and credible exit plan. Nothing illustrates this better than what has been very apparent from the Scottish independence referendum. The 'yes' campaign was not undermined by FUD, nor by the closing of ranks by the establishment, nor by a loaded referendum question nor by the lack of funds. Instead what the polls clearly showed is Salmond lost primarily due to not answering the currency question:

Meanwhile so far as the issues are concerned, if the Yes side does lose it will probably have done so not least because it never managed to persuade a majority of Scots that the country would be more prosperous under independence. YouGov find in their latest poll that only 35% think Scotland will be economically better off under independence while as any as 47% reckon it would be worse off.

 And:

Of course, describing the patterns of the kinds of people who were more or less likely to vote Yes or No does no more than give us clues as to why people voted they way they did. What we can note at this stage is that women, older people, those in ABC1 occupations and those born elsewhere in the UK were all, according to YouGov’s final poll for The Times and The Sun, relatively pessimistic about the economic consequences of independence. And as we have repeatedly noted on this site, nothing seemed to matter more to voters in deciding whether to vote Yes or No than their perceptions of the economic consequences of leaving the UK.

In other words Salmond did not have a well thought out exit plan to deal with the basics. And failure to address the core problem of currency if Scotland left the Union then plants further doubts in voters' mind about other issues such as; defence, NHS,oil, immigration, EU membership, the Monarchy, pensions and so on. If Salmond had provided answers to these then it is very likely we would be looking at an independent Scotland.

One of the fatal flaws of the 1975 campaign was its inability to come up with a credible alternative to then EEC membership, a situation replicated by Salmond. With a fully workable exit plan we can avoid that flaw and crucially win...

Eurozone:
This is the joker in the pack. Without yet a resolution to the inherent problems of the Eurozone namely it's still only an economic union without the political union necessary its problems are far from resolved. Given that a referendum is likely to take place in September of 2017 (during the UK Presidency of the Council of the EU) it will be at a time that is traditionally one of market turbulence. We could see a Eurozone crisis right in the middle of a referendum campaign.

In many ways therefore we can see that winning a referendum in 2017 is perfectly possible. Reluctance to take a calculated risk until conditions are just 'perfect' obviously begs the question if not in 2017, then when?

The Harrogate Demands

A relatively short interview by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair with the Independent, rather cheekily titled "how I became PM of the world" - echoes of Gordon Brown's "I saved the world" - highlights a great deal wrong with how we are governed. It begins with an acknowledgement from Jack Straw that our constitution is fundamentally broken:  

JOHN RENTOUL: Jack Straw said that he thought that the Prime Minister had too much power in the British constitutional system, and I was hoping you would respond to that.

Quite so. The Prime Minister does have too much power because they are only accountable to a small number of people - their constituents and to party members who elect them as party leaders. Naturally this means that MPs of the ruling party, when elected, owe their job and career to the Prime Minister – indirectly if not directly.

Thus proper scrutiny of government cannot take place when there is a conflict of interest between service to one’s constituents and loyalty to one’s government. This is a conflict that Witterings from Witney knows only too well – Cameron in effect has to scrutinise himself. An MP for Witney but also the Prime Minister.

One of Harrogate’s six demands deals with this conundrum by making the Prime Minister directly elected by the people. In essence, and as a consquence, we separate out the executive from the lawmakers (MPs). 

Despite some criticisms that it leads to an American Presidential type of system, in truth not a lot changes yet a lot changes. The Prime Minister still appoints a cabinet - the same is done now - but crucially those appointments do not come from those within Parliament. So at a stroke it removes the conflict of interest.

The Prime Minister does not become head of state unlike a President so in that sense all remains the same.

And by having the Prime Minster directly elected removes the current system where they are effectively elected by proxy. How many people vote for a local MP because of a good job they do or because they like, or do not like, the potential Prime Minister of a certain party?

This is a very unsatisfactory position which not only was illustrated most clearly by the party leader debates during the 2010 elections but the oft criticism of Gordon Brown that he was not "elected".

Another intriguing part of Blair's interview was this:

... I think there is a general problem in politics, not just in our system but in Western democracy – I mean, it’s a far bigger topic this.  But, I do think it’s really important.

I advise any young person who wants to go into politics today: go and spend some time out of politics.  Go and work for a community organisation, a business, start your own business; do anything that isn’t politics for at least several years. And then, when you come back into politics, you will find you are so much better able to see the world and how it functions properly.

See what he did there, he is arguing that being in politics - being an MP - means being special. To be an MP means having to "qualify" in other aspects of life.

Essentially it's putting MPs on a pedestal, at 18 you can own property, run a company, raise a family but you can't become an MP...unless you "qualify".

This sentiment ironically from the man who was Prime Minister at a time when the Labour Government lowered the age for standing for Parliament from 21 to 18 in 2006 via the Electoral Administration Act 2006.

Being able to vote at 18 and not being to stand until 21 always caused me a great deal of consternation. Society essentially said you're fit, responsible and adult enough to vote for a criminal, adulterous and lying tosspot like Chris Huhne, but said you're not fit, responsible and adult enough to be able to vote for yourself.

There should be no previous qualification on standing for Parliament – implied or otherwise – and if our democracy worked properly it would not be needed. The people would vote for whom ever they thought appropriate, regardless of age. If you're old enough to vote, you're old enough to stand.

Thus Tony Blair’s words are merely confirmation that it’s all gone wrong.

The Fatal Flaw

The theft of Cypriots' savings without so much as by your leave is quite jaw dropping in its brazenness. As Zerohedge notes, bank accounts are private property so what has happened is effectively the confiscation of private property - the equivalent of the government driving off with your car on a whim.

Of course the situation is being described as "exceptional and unique", as were the bailouts of Ireland, Portugal, and Greece. A precedent has been set and it's not difficult to envisage that this will happen again (it's a possible trial run) or that contagion, in the form of bank runs, will happen across Europe.

But it's seems to be forgotten among the outrage that our own Government is not adverse to similar actions themselves, only it's called something different.

If you want to raid savings accounts you can call it; quantitative easing, inflation or devaluation of the sterling. Different names but a similar effect. Or confiscate shares without compensation to shareholders that were still trading on the market at 90p at the time as per the nationalisation of Northern Rock. Or raiding dormant accounts. Or indeed bailing out a Eurozone country with taxpayer's money, despite promises to the contrary, but calling it "compensating British troops". When were we consented about this?

The EU's fatal flaw is its openness on the theft, an openness that is necessary because, unlike a successful currency union like the one that exists in the UK, it cannot disguise it via other methods due to the inherent shortcomings of the Euro. It is hamstrung by a flawed currency of its own making. It is being hoisted by its own petard.

However we should not be under any illusions that anything would be any different should we leave without a sea change in democracy at home...

Cheering The Enemy

I was intrigued by this article by Donata Huggins in the Telegraph, articulating her shock at Gordon Brown being cheered at the Paralympics while George Osbourne was booed:

Crowds at the Paralympics this week booed George Osborne and cheered Gordon Brown. Yes, you read that right

Huggins is clearly astonished and baffled by this behaviour and doesn't understand so can only put forward the argument that it must be due to the stupidity of the British public, ill-disguised as this comment:

I cannot believe how short the public's memory is.

There is of course another explanation. When people have limited power they express their disaffection in the only ways available that they can. For example, when football fans fundamentally don't agree with their manager or board and have fallen out, they begin to celebrate opposition goals during a thrashing - as a way of trying to humiliate their own club. It's an expression which confirms powerlessness against vested interests.

Jonathan Aitken makes a similar point in his book, Porridge and Passion documenting his time in prison for perverting the course of justice, particularly when Michael Howard former Home Secretary visited him, which resulted in immature behaviour from the Prison Officers' Association:

The row between the screws and the Special Branch Officers continued for most of the visit, thereby alerting everyone in the room to this public spat between two traditional enemies: the police and the Prison Service. As a consequence, several prisoners decided to demonstrate their support for [Michael Howard my visitor].

As the visiting session ended with each inmate being called out by name, a dozen or so prisoners put on little demonstrations of respect towards the former Home Secretary. 'Good afternoon, Mr Howard,' 'Nice to see you at Standford Hill, Mr Howard,' 'Good to 'ave you with us sir,' and 'Thanks for coming to show yer loyalty to yer old friend, Mr Howard', were some of the bouquets tossed in Michael's direction by inmates passing our table as they left the visiting hall.

The point they were making was if the screws were going to be rude then the cons were going to be polite. It was a rather better point than any made that afternoon by the Prison Officers' Association.

So what better way of expressing discontent against Osborne than cheer on Brown who left him such a toxic legacy? Osborne the same chancellor who...er...didn't have successful budget in March and whose budget we the people pay for have absolutely no control over.

The only option left is to cheer a massively failed man in order to piss Osborne off. Such nuances though are above Huggins' head

"You Get Found Out"

In truth I've not been following the details of the Leveson Inquiry that closely. I suspect it won't tell us much that we don't already know or have guessed at - it'll only just put slightly more detail into the mix.

But it is rather nauseating watching various vested interests trying to take the moral high over the revelations when they were all involved in the cosy consensus at one point or another. This is not a 'left / right' battle but an 'us and them' one.

In the meantime one can take some amusement at the impact on Cameron and revel in his discomfort. Alarmed Downing Street aides have apparently remarked:

“We are aware that we have created a ------- great monster here,”

We're not even two years into this government and already it's resembling a shambles, the lack of ability or substance at the top obvious. Cameron's lack of judgement is coming to the fore.

Even Murdoch appears to be imbued with similar characteristics at times. Asked whether he thought the Prime Minister was “lightweight” during his time as opposition leader, Mr Murdoch replied: 

“No. Not then, certainly.” 

Not then? The implication is clear what he thinks now, but it leaves one wondering what took him so long to reach such a conclusion?

It reminds me of this excerpt below from the classic book Fever Pitch by Nick Hornby:

One of the great things about sport is its cruel clarity; there is no such thing, for example, as a bad 100m runner, or a hopeless centre-half who got lucky; in sport, you get found out.

I'm tempted to apply this to the Cameron-led coalition. "Wait 'till Dave gets in" was the cry before the election. Well now he's in, he's been found out.

Update: As Richard North says, Cameron's now damaged goods

Embarrassing

Surely it wasn't too much to hope that this sort of embarrassing gimmickry was left behind with New Labour or as Richard North points out:

This is the sort of half-assed stunt you expect from third world countries, not Her Majesty's Government.

But no, it seems that one of Cameron's great ambitions is trying to make Labour look respectable. One begins to dread the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics - can we now expect Cameron to jump out of a giant cake as an attempt to try to upstage Boris Johnson - don't bet against it, anything now is possible:

Talk Constitution

I meant to blog earlier on this new initiative by David Phipps of Witterings from Witney and IanPJ on politics on trying to fix our currently subverted constitution and attempting to restore the broken relations between the people and Parliament. WfW's relevant post here is well worth a read in full.

The site talkconstitution.net is due to go live at noon today and you can register here to take part in the debate. The more the better, as UKK41 says democracy is not a spectator sport. Use it or lose it.

The task ahead is however somewhat daunting and I wish WfW all the best in this endeavour. Given that Mrs Thatcher was described this morning, on Andrew Marr as the first UK female head of state, Brown and Cameron both refer to "my Government" and Cameron says "my Parliament", we all face a huge uphill battle.

No Changes For A Decade?

October 2007:

After signing Britain up to the controversial [Lisbon Treaty, Gordon Brown] said he had persuaded EU leaders there should be no more "institutional change" for at least another decade.

September 2011 (my emphasis):

On Tuesday, German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble called for the second time in a week for changes to the treaties.

“Strengthening the eurozone's architecture ... may need profound treaty changes,” he wrote in an opinion piece for the Financial Times.

According to populist daily Bild, the finance minister made the argument for a major shift in fiscal policy-making powers to Brussels, a move that would almost certainly necessitate a fresh opening of the treaties holding the bloc together.

This must be done, he said, “even though we know how difficult a treaty change will be.”

Statements Of The Bleeding Obvious

Sure Wikileaks' release of secret documents is embarrassing for America diplomatically but are any of the details (so far) not what we'd already guessed at?

• US diplomats spy on people?
  
  
• America doesn't like Kim Jong-ill of North Korea very much.
  
  
• Shock horror French President Nicholas Sarkozy is "thin skinned" (and short).
  
  
• There are concerns about Iran's nuclear programme. And the other countries in the middle east are nervous. Really?
  
  
• Cameron is a 'lightweight'.
  
  
• Gordon Brown is 'deranged' (I wondered why he lost the election).
  
  
• The Afghan government is corrupt (that allegation shocked me the most I have to say).
  
  
• There are links between the Russian government and the Russian mafia. Blimey next the USA will be telling us that the Russian tea making capabilities are lethal.
  
  
• The UK armed forces lost in Iraq and is losing in Afghanistan. Yep we already know.
  
  
• Inappropriate remarks by a member of the British Royal family about a UK law enforcement agency and a foreign country. Inappropriate remarks? By a member of the Royal Family? Nope I can't think of a suspect either.
  
  
• The Chinese hack stuff.
  
  
• 'Saint O'bama' doesn't like the UK.
  

...and so on.

Broken Promises

From the Telegraph:

Gordon Brown issued a thinly veiled swipe at Tony Blair today as he hit out at politicians who fail to keep promises to step down from office after two terms.

''People make it clear, as I have, to some of these leaders that if they say something and then are not in a position to deliver it then their authority is affected by that,'' he said.

I sympathise with Brown, I really do. How dare politicians not keep their promises.

A First?

The Mail reports:

A council's new rubbish bin collection and recycling scheme has provoked more than 6,000 complaints in its first day after residents were issued with five bins.

Officials at Torbay Council in Devon have brought in a system of waste disposal which sees green wheelie bins replaced with a series of boxes.

But the Mail goes onto report (my emphasis)...

Its [sic] said the new scheme would help the council hit the recycling and waste targets set by the European Union.

I've long complained about the lack of candidness regarding EU Directives, so credit where credit is due.

Paul Dacre, the Mail editor, had a close political relationship with Gordon Brown. Now Brown's gone is the above a coincidence?

+++Breaking News+++

Some chap called Tony Blair (I think he used be a Prime Minister in the distant past) has written a book. And in this book he makes truly jaw-dropping claims about another chap called Gordon Brown (I think he used to be a Prime Minister as well):

Mr Blair says Mr Brown lacked political instinct "at the human gut level" adding: "Political calculation, yes. Political feelings, no. Analytical intelligence, absolutely. Emotional intelligence, zero."

All groundbreaking stuff. And:

"Was he difficult, at times maddening? Yes

It's news that's so sensational that it really does deserve its top billing across the media.

Five Days

Tonight on BBC 2 is a one off documentary on the 5 days of negotiation to form the coalition government. Nick Robinson has the details here, and aside from a very unflattering photograph of Gordon Brown, is this rather telling paragraph (my emphasis):

There was another factor beyond the personal - the economic context on that post-election weekend. The crisis talks over how to prevent the Greek debt crisis spreading contagion throughout the eurozone were little reported in Britain, but officials in the Treasury and the Bank of England were focused on little else. Their fear was what one official describes as a "perfect storm" if the EU failed to agree a bail-out plan and Britain failed to produce a stable government by the time the markets opened on the Monday morning after the election.

Even the BBC political reporter notices the lack of coverage on EU issues. It must have been bad.

Play It Again, Cam

Labour had a habit in office of re-announcing previous initiatives and policies when in power. The Tories', however, have gone one better - they've re-announced a previous Government's scheme.

David Cameron has launched today his 'Big Society' ideas (whatever that means). Richard North highlights the obvious nonsense that this is, here. But amongst the; 'we-can't-do-it-because-we're-in-the-EU' parts, there's this:

As well as encouraging greater volunteering and philanthropy, Mr Cameron confirmed plans to use funds stuck in dormant bank and building society accounts to enable "some of the most dynamic" charities, social enterprises and voluntary groups to take over the running of public services.

Using dormant bank accounts? Now that sounds familiar:

Gordon Brown has confirmed that hundreds of millions of pounds are to be withdrawn from dormant bank accounts and returned to their rightful owners or given to worthy causes in deprived areas.

Yep, it's the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill, passed in 2008.

Edit: Damn just spotted that the marvelous Dizzy Thinks was there ahead of me.

The 3 Fs

Whatever one thinks of Peter Mandelson, he is (allegedly) very good at what he does politically. His demolition of Andrew Marr was great telly and a case in point.

His book on New Labour: The Third Man, however, going by the extracts in the Times (from the Guardian*) is a big disappointment:

Senior cabinet members joked three Fs at centre of election campaign should be 'futile', 'finished' and 'fucked'

The disclosure in the Times lifts the lid on an open secret at Westminster over the past year: that the vast majority of members of the former cabinet had believed Brown was leading them to a catastrophic defeat. Mandelson told David Miliband on Remembrance Day last year that Labour could not win with Brown if nothing changed, as the then foreign secretary raised fears of a major defeat.

Is that it? Mandelson in his 'warts 'n' all' book merely confirms what we already knew? That Brown was, and is, unfit for high office.

Thanks but we kinda worked that out for ourselves.

* I don't pay for the Times online because paying for newspapers doesn't mean better journalism, the cover price usually only pays for the paper, the printing and the distribution. Advertising does the rest. It's a point of principle I suppose on my part against nonsense like this.

The Spite Of Brown

Brown had been determined for sometime to make the next Government's inheritance much more difficult than it needed be. It was inevitable that there would also be some personal pettiness too. However, unlike the childish but rather amusing act by the Clinton Administration which removed the letter 'W' from keyboards in 2000, Brown would be vindictive. And so it's proved:

Gordon Brown's last act was to deprive David Cameron of hundreds of thousands of pounds

Gordon Brown's failure to turn up for the State Opening of Parliament may well have been because he couldn't look David Cameron in the face. Mandrake hears that one of Brown's final acts in the Downing Street bunker was quietly to organise a pay cut for his successor which he must have known would leave him out of pocket to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

On Brown's orders, the Prime Minister's remuneration package was cut from £194,000 to £150,000, but this was done with such stealth that no formal announcement was ever made.

There won't be much sympathy for the multi-millionaire Cameron especially when he is outlining years of painful cuts ahead. But this was nothing to do with savings or public opinion in light of the expenses scandal. It was just spite.

Thank god he's gone.

hattip: Guido

Brown Set To Resign Tonight As PM

According to Sky News, please please let's hope it's true. I can't wait - I have cans of Stella in the fridge to mark the moment.

Brown Resigns As Party Leader

Thank God for that, although it's not over yet.

Brown Insults The Voters Again

As expected, Brown's greatest weakness is that he struggles to engage with ordinary voters, and given his form a gaffe was always likely to happen during this election and so it's proved:

Brown: Very good to meet you, and you're wearing the right colour today. Ha, ha, ha: How many grandchildren do you have?

Duffy: Two. They've just got back from Australia where they got stuck for 10 days. They couldn't get back with this ash crisis.

Brown: We've been trying to get people back quickly. Are they going to university. Is that the plan?

Duffy: I hope so. They're only 12 and 10.

Brown: Are they're doing well at school? [pats Duffy on the back] A good family, good to see you. It's very nice to see you.

In the car

Brown: That was a disaster. Well I just ... should never have put me in with that woman. Whose idea was that?

Aide: I don't know, I didn't see.

Brown: It was Sue [Nye] I think. It was just ridiculous.

Aide: I'm not sure if they [the media] will go with that.

Brown: They will go with that.

Aide: What did she say?

Brown: Oh everything, she was just a sort of bigoted woman. She said she used be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous.

What's revealing apart from the bigoted comment just because someone raises the issue of immigration, is that Brown immediately looks for someone to blame. This occurs again in his apology Labour member sometime later (my emphasis):

Many of you know me personally. You know I have strengths as well as weaknesses. We all do. You also know that sometimes we say and do things we regret. I profoundly regret what I said this morning.

I am under no illusions as to how much scorn some in the media will want to heap upon me in the days ahead.

See what he did there? Passed the blame onto those nasty press types. It reminds me of an exchange on Have I Got News For You, just after host Angus Deatyon was caught being naughty. After some relentless and expected abuse, Deayton tried to blame the others, and here's Paul Merton's brilliant riposte:



Yes Gordon in a way it's all our fault.