Tories Dying On Their Knees?

In the Telegraph today we have Brogan warning that the Tory party is in danger of dying on its knees:

Ministers are becoming more pessimistic, devoting an increasing amount of time – quite naturally – to considering which way they would jump in a post-election leadership contest that grows ever more likely. Even more fearful are those in marginal seats, some of whom have already thrown in the towel and are planning for life after defeat.

It's astute of him to eventually notice I guess given that it has been a process in place since the early '90s. But thankfully we have the paid Daily Telegraph's Deputy Editor to point out the obvious.

The Tories of course have never won an outright election victory since the passing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. That combined with the ERM crisis precipitated a collapse in membership and donations from which they have never recovered. Even under Cameron's leadership membership numbers has officially halved - the true figure strongly rumoured to be below the 100,000 mark.

Brogan is naturally concerned that the Tories will lose the next election. First up is a variation of the theme "we're not getting our message across":

First, he must make the economic case that, in his words, the job is not done. That is why Mr Osborne struck what must be the right note in an interview on Sunday with Andrew Marr, speaking about the need to reduce both taxes and the cost of government. He believed, he said, in “the affordable state”. That message to the country must be coupled, however, with one to his colleagues. He has to convince his own side that he and David Cameron are worth following from now until polling day

The apparent good news on the economy is not leading to optimisim within the Tory party regarding winning in 2015, which Brogan writes with puzzlement:

Given how well things are going relative to expectations less than a year ago, the pessimism I have encountered in recent days is striking. A number of top-half Cabinet ministers tell me they now expect to lose power in 2015. Middle-rankers mutter the same. It is difficult to find Conservatives willing to say privately that they will still be in power after polling day.

Then what follows is frustration articulated in the form of analysis by Brogan of the reasons why; conflicting, incoherent and confused tactics of the Tory party over economic strategy. Thus he supports a return to the core economic strategy when Osborne delivers his Autumn Statement 2013 on Thursday:

The Chancellor’s aides insist that the dirty work of defusing the Labour threat has been done, and that Thursday will represent a clean return to the core Tory strategy. Now he just has to persuade his own side of that.

In other words, Brogan is using, without explicitly saying it, the old standby of; "it's the economy stupid". This was a phrase coined by Clinton campaign during his successful 1992 presidential campaign against sitting president George H. W. Bush. The problem is it's one of those phrases and subsequent election strategies that is often rolled out lazily but doesn't actually always translate into election wins, particularly in this country.

This fallacy is evident in 1992 when Major won the election against the backdrop of one of the worst recessions of the 20th century. Conversley five years later the Tories lost by a humiliating margin, despite much improvement in the economy - Major campaigned on the theme "Britain's booming, don't let Labour ruin it". When Brown was told of the economic legacy the Tories handed over he allegedly retorted; "what do you want me to do? Send them a thank you card?"

In 2005 as far as Labour was concerned:

..."it was the economy, stupid". By standing shoulder to shoulder with Blair, Brown, the chancellor and heir apparent, helped Labour to a third term by highlighting Labour's economic achievements - low unemployment, low interest rates, decent economic growth.

Yet Labour lost 94 seats, a loss of seats attributed largely to Blair taking us to war in Iraq. And then we come to 2010. The Tories were unable to win despite the dire state of the economy, yet it wasn't the economy and the banking crisis that did Brown in, it was the "election that never was".

Thus it's clear to see that there are many other factors in elections, and party's fortunes than the economy but that doesn't stop Brogan taking comfort in resolving the Tories' lack of a coherent message over economic matters to win in 2015.

Not once does he acknowledge other possible reasons for the Tories' collapse such as; cast iron, gay marriage, humiliation by the Chinese, the veto that never was, failed immigration promises, lies on the Norway option, HS2, a three-line whip imposed on his party against an EU referendum only to change his mind and promise one he cannot deliver on, trying to take us to war in Syria, flip-flopping on green policy, VAT on pasties, the electoral disaster that was the PCC elections, escalating fuel bills - the list is endless, not bad for a party that hasn't even served a full five year term yet.

But cocooned in bubble wrap Brogan is either unwilling to acknowledge or unaware of the fundamental problems. Not that Labour is any better either. A more accurate headline would be "Parliament is dying on its knees?

But then I'm only a humble blogger and Brogan is Deputy Editor of the Telegraph so what do I know?

Iceland And The EEA

It's been quite heartening and uplifting in the last few days that a handful of bloggers, and committed commenters, have rattled Open Europe's cage to the extent that they now acknowledge, albeit very very grudgingly, far from having no influence Norway does in fact have a say within the EEA Agreement. Given the tone of Mats Persson's Telegraph article, one suspects that Open Europe is not used to having its 'eurosceptic' credentials questioned, particularly with simple things like facts. This is especially important given that our esteemed Prime Minister reads blog comments.

Autonomous Mind has another example of Norway saying no to the EU regarding EU plans for harmonisation of environmental policy relating to oil and gas energy:

The Norwegian government has taken the view that the proposed regulation by the European Commission falls outside the geographic and substantive scope of the EEA agreement.

As AM notes:

Oh dear, David Cameron and Open Europe caught out lying again. You would think the media would be all over this, unless of course they have vested interests or are getting pressure from their owner barons to exercise bias by omission and ignore this important story…

Open Europe also seem oblivious that the EEA is not just Norway, but also Iceland and Liechtenstein. And it is to Iceland we turn our attention as it is involved with one of biggest rejections of the EU there has ever been by an EEA member. The dispute relates to the collapse of the Icesave online savings account in 2008 which infamously prompted the UK to invoke terrorist legislation against it. Crucially, when Icesave collapsed, EU countries, notably the UK and the Netherlands, attempted to force Iceland to fulfill its EU obligations. The arguments centered around two legal arguments:

1. ...that the Icelandic government is obliged to guarantee at least the first €20,000 in Icesave accounts;
   
   
2. ...that Iceland's actions surrounding the collapse of Landsbanki are discriminatory against non-Icelandic creditors.

The first challenge comes under EU Directive 94/19/EC, which was incorporated into Icelandic law in 1999, the second is that Iceland is in breach of its obligations under Article 4 of the EEA Agreement which says:

Within the scope of application of this Agreement, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

The second is in accordance of Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome. Iceland's reluctance to reimburse foreign countries for money lost in its banks prompted, at the time, the following conversation between Alistair Darling and the Icelandic Finance Minister Árni Mathiesen (now hidden behind the Times firewall):

(AD) Do I understand that you guarantee the deposits of Icelandic depositors?

(AM)Yes, we guarantee the deposits in the banks and branches here in Iceland.

(AD) But not the branches outside Iceland?

(AM) No, not outside of what was already in the letter that we sent.

(AD) But is that not in breach of the EEA Treaty?

(AM) No, we don’t think so and think this is actually in line with what other countries have been doing over recent days.

Curiously, Alistair Darling in his book, Back from the Brink doesn't mention this conversation nor indeed any reference whatsoever to the EEA. Yet Iceland wasn't for backing down - a resolution of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of the EEA (opens as a Word Document) adopted unanimously on 28 October 2009 emphasised:

...the Directive’s lack of clarity over the legal obligations of governments if national guarantee funds, which are funded by contributions from relevant credit institutions, do not suffice for payments following a banking crisis, and more importantly if an entire banking system of a country collapses;

And:

...underlines that the shortcomings of the Directive became apparent in October 2008 when the banking crisis in Iceland spilled over to the economies of other EEA States;

In other words Iceland, via the EEA, is contesting both charges, charges that are still ongoing amid complex legal arguments after four years and two referendums later. A judgement that rather than be passed by an EU court will be ruled on by the EFTA court instead, and is due on 28th of this month. Iceland's case for the defence can be found here.

And that is the point, Iceland is a small country with a population of circa 313,000; a country with fewer people than the London Borough of Croydon which has 363,000, yet here it is with resilience, influence and the ability to say no. One can only look on in envy.

Iceland's main problem is unfortunately its size. That it may have to capitulate is less to do with flaws in the EEA/EFTA agreement but instead that it is being bullied, shamefully by, as the Icesave episode demonstrates, the UK. Being a member of the EU will not resolve that, ask Ireland, Czech Republic or Luxemburg

However, that Iceland can stand up for itself, while the UK will have no choice, but to adopt the attributes of a nodding dog within the EEA, is quite frankly absurd.

More to follow...

Oh Please...

...just...er... go away:

A government quango has urged football fans to choose sparkling water and grapes rather than beer and crisps while watching the World Cup.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) which has an annual budget of £135m, has issued four pages of advice on how to make "healthier choices ... while you're feasting on the footie".

It suggests fans "walk to the pub instead of taking the bus" or "use half-time for a brisk walk and some fresh air".

The rest of the Telegraph article or original document is just too depressing to read. We need cuts in this country, the FSA's a good place to start. Bye!

Elephants

During the election campaign, I attended a number of hustings meetings as the UKIP candidate.

Though my view of hustings meetings is similar to John Howell MP's in Henley, I thought it was important to try to put forward different views to the three main parties (plus Greens) who roughly are in same area of agreement on many subjects.

During one such meeting I touched on a theme highlighted by Christopher Booker, in answer to a question from the floor.

My view was that there were a number of elephants in the room about which candid discussion was being avoided by the main parties, mainly: immigration, the EU, and the economy in regard to the scale of cuts required. All three of course are inextricably linked.

For me the experience of this election on the doorstep was largely a single issue one. Immigration. Before I began campaigning in earnest I had anticipated and prepared for a number of issues that would likely be raised; notably MP's expenses and the economy. But no. Despite the constituency being a largely rural one, the main issue that was raised above all others was immigration. It was utterly relentless, day after day. Anger over the effect of immigration on housing and schools just kept on coming.

The economy is another crucial area of concern. The scale of the public deficit is, as we all know, unprecedented. We want direct answers as to where the cuts will be. The other candidates talked in single billions, not the tens of billions required. My summary, that if the next budget isn't one of the most unpopular in history then the government won't being doing their job properly, was very well received. The voters aren't stupid. They want frankness. They weren't getting it from the LibLabCon.

And of course there's the EU. "We'll save Post Offices, we'll cap immigration and we'll help local businesses" they argued. With no word about the EU where most of the regulation and power lies about these issues. I often wonder if the largest number of new MPs for a generation know how impotent they really are. I always liked this from Matthew Parris in his Great Parliamentary Scandals book:

You are [as an MP] a little prince in your own constituency. In the House you may be a smaller fish, but still feel you belong to a most important - the most important - club. Your head swells. But your heart troubles you because you know it's not true. You know you are only there because your party association chose you. Few ever voted for you as an individual or ever will. You know too, that your power at Westminster is zero - the whips humiliate you privately - and your influence in the constituency consist mainly in using your headed notepaper to help a pushy handful jump queues in which more patient constituents quietly wait. You know you are a fraud and your position is a fraud.

Parris is right, and though he didn't refer to the EU, he might as well have done.

Well now that the election is over, and us 'little people' have had their say for possibly five years, the last couple of days have been an outpouring of honesty (almost).

The economy:

The British way of life will have to change, David Cameron will warn today as he readies the country for the biggest cuts in government spending since the Second World War.

Using some of his strongest language yet, the Prime Minister will give warning that the cuts will affect every person in the country and the effects will last for decades to come.

The coalition Government plans to consult widely before making an announcement, likely in November. Public meetings will be held and people will be invited to go online and tell ministers about their priorities.

Consult widely? Funny how they didn't do that before May 6th when we had the real power of choice via a ballot box. Richard North is right, we're being treated as morons.

And immigration:

The wages of British workers were forced down because the Labour government failed to restrict immigration from eastern Europe, Ed Balls claims today. In a provocative article in the Observer, the Labour leadership hopeful says the party will rebuild trust only if it admits "what we got wrong".

Provocative article? It would have been more provocative if it had been written before the election. But no. No word though how Balls proposes to do this while we remain members of the EU.

And the EU:

David Cameron will face an early test of the Government’s relationship with Europe today when he clashes with the EU President over whether Brussels should be allowed to see George Osborne’s Budget before it is presented to Parliament.

The Prime Minister is likely to turn down the request when he meets Herman Van Rompuy as part of a round of key meetings this week.

This policy of "we don't want a bust up with Europe" is not going well, is it?

Britain has already clashed with EU chiefs in the first few weeks of the new Government, notably over plans for a sharp increase in the EU budget. The proposed 5.8 per cent increase has been described by Mr Osborne as unacceptable when European nations are struggling to cut costs.

And possibly clashing again:

David Cameron is ready for his first confrontation with the European Union if he attempts to stop the international ban on whaling being lifted.

The Coalition faces a multi-million-pound fine for voting to maintain the moratorium if, as expected, the rest of the EU refuses to oppose moves to legalise the slaughter of whales.

Much as the Tories want the EU to go away it won't. We cannot continue much longer with a 'half in and half out' policy. It's either one or the other; a decision made by a referendum. There are so many more issues about to erupt during this parliament that the 'ostrich-non-bust-up-with-Europe' strategy simply won't work. Either they grasp the nettle or it will be done for them.

Darling Cuts Through The Spin

Stark evidence today that the botched coup earlier this week by Buff Hoon and Co has left Brown fundamentally weakened for the time being.

The interview in today's Times with Chancellor Alistair Darling is extraordinary for its candor regarding spending cuts; he is clearly emboldened by Brown's current weakness and has no problem with completely contradicting Brown's earlier dividing line of "Labour investment versus Tory cuts":

“The next spending review will be the toughest we have had for 20 years . . . to me, cutting the borrowing was never negotiable. Gordon accepts that, he knows that.”

Darling is, of course, only stating the bleeding obvious; the need for cuts and addressing the UK deficit is as obvious as it is imperative. For Brown to try to pretend otherwise is deluded and dishonest. The Cabinet are not hiding their frustration with Brown's tactics.

The problem though is the closer we get to the election the less weak Brown will be, because the chances of further plots against his leadership will diminish accordingly. I can't envisage Brown taking Darling's message about cuts into an election. Brown has a pathological hatred of the Tories, it would be against everything he believes in to agree with the Tories on the need for public service cuts.

He also is well known for micromanaging, and while it's not possible to micromange an election it won't stop Brown trying. I sense further bloody internal battles ahead, especially when the danger of another leadership challenge has passed, I suspect Brown and Balls will try to regain control of the election strategy; all those promises made now will be disregarded, like they were last June. The control of election strategy now looks set to be a fight to death between Darling and Mandelson on one side and Brown and Balls on the other.

The Tories must be absolutely delighted, not only does this vindicate their own 'need for cuts' message (although they've yet to spell out in detail how this will happen) but it's further proof that Brown is incapable of leading his Cabinet let alone the country. Campaign slogans are writing themselves.

It's not in the bag yet for the Tories, however, they still have an uphill task to win the General Election. They need 2 million more votes just to draw level on seats, and they need to win 117 seats in the next election to gain an overall majority of one, and 140 seats to win a 'working majority'. This will require at least a swing of 6.9% to the Tories – the biggest swing in 60 years.

Labour are doing their very best to help them though.

And lest we forget: