LibDem reshuffle leaks from on high

Nick Clegg is going to have a difficult time with several Parliamentary colleagues after thinking out loud about his next reshuffle with fellow MP and chief of staff Danny Alexander on a plane to Scotland within earshot of the Sunday Mirror.

Apart from the personal comments, his strong preference for David Laws over Steve Webb also reflects a desire to tilt the balance of party policy rightwards,

But more damaging still may be the LibDem leader's comment that he finds a Tory defeat unimaginable.

He even revealed he would consider a coalition but, while he didn’t say which party he’d side with, he added he would only consider it if Tory David Cameron loses the next election.

“I would think about it,” he admitted. “But only if the Tories lose. And I can’t imagine that.”

Read more...

LibDem reshuffle leaks from on high

Nick Clegg is going to have a difficult time with several Parliamentary colleagues after thinking out loud about his next reshuffle with fellow MP and chief of staff Danny Alexander on a plane to Scotland within earshot of the Sunday Mirror.

Apart from the personal comments, his strong preference for David Laws over Steve Webb also reflects a desire to tilt the balance of party policy rightwards,

But more damaging still may be the LibDem leader's comment that he finds a Tory defeat unimaginable.

He even revealed he would consider a coalition but, while he didn’t say which party he’d side with, he added he would only consider it if Tory David Cameron loses the next election.

“I would think about it,” he admitted. “But only if the Tories lose. And I can’t imagine that.”

Read more...

Coalition?

Steve Richards in The Independent argues that a hung Parliament has become more likely and suggests that the cross-party tectonic plates of British politics have shifted in the economic crisis:

"The emergency debate in the Commons highlighted a significant divide. Labour and the Liberal Democrats agree on the need for substantial government intervention at a time of national crisis. They disagree on what form the fiscal stimulus should take, with the Lib Dems favouring tax cuts for the low paid and bringing forward more capital investment. But both parties accept the principle that intervention is vital. This is also a view shared by a few Conservative MPs, the genuine modernisers. There are even one or two Tories who tell me they support the principle, at least, of tax rises for high earners – a view now backed to varying degrees by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

Cameron's position on Europe was always going to make it difficult for the Lib Dems to support a minority Conservative administration. The Tory leadership's response to the crisis blocks off the route almost entirely. When I put it to an influential Lib Dem that politically the Tory leadership was on a high again, and receiving rave reviews in parts of the media, he observed: "Cameron should be worried. The wrong people are cheering."

There are some echoes with wartime situations in the current crisis. No one knows how long it will last or how grave it will become. It could easily overwhelm the Government and propel Cameron into No 10 with a landslide. But if there is the equivalent to a war time coalition it is suddenly more likely that it will be a partnership between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Whether it would last for very long is a different question".

All very interesting. But I would judge that a coalition is very unlikely. In any hung parliament scenario, by far the most likely outcome is that Labour would leave office. The theory that the LibDems may have become uncoalitionable on left or right is strengthened by their choices after recent PR elections in Wales and Scotland. Cooperation is much easier from a position of strength rather than weakness, but the 1997 opportunity was missed.

So the economic crisis does not yet outweigh several, potentially formidable barriers on both sides to progressive cooperation. There is a mutual mistrust between MPs and activists in different parties; the failure to consummate the Blair-Ashdown project leaves the LibDems suspicious of being led up the garden path again, and there are important substantive policy differences on major issues, most notably civil liberties and electoral reform.

For all of those difficulties, serious voices on both sides do believe that there should at least be greater dialogue between the parties.

Unthinkable? Read more...

Coalition?

Steve Richards in The Independent argues that a hung Parliament has become more likely and suggests that the cross-party tectonic plates of British politics have shifted in the economic crisis:

"The emergency debate in the Commons highlighted a significant divide. Labour and the Liberal Democrats agree on the need for substantial government intervention at a time of national crisis. They disagree on what form the fiscal stimulus should take, with the Lib Dems favouring tax cuts for the low paid and bringing forward more capital investment. But both parties accept the principle that intervention is vital. This is also a view shared by a few Conservative MPs, the genuine modernisers. There are even one or two Tories who tell me they support the principle, at least, of tax rises for high earners – a view now backed to varying degrees by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

Cameron's position on Europe was always going to make it difficult for the Lib Dems to support a minority Conservative administration. The Tory leadership's response to the crisis blocks off the route almost entirely. When I put it to an influential Lib Dem that politically the Tory leadership was on a high again, and receiving rave reviews in parts of the media, he observed: "Cameron should be worried. The wrong people are cheering."

There are some echoes with wartime situations in the current crisis. No one knows how long it will last or how grave it will become. It could easily overwhelm the Government and propel Cameron into No 10 with a landslide. But if there is the equivalent to a war time coalition it is suddenly more likely that it will be a partnership between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Whether it would last for very long is a different question".

All very interesting. But I would judge that a coalition is very unlikely. In any hung parliament scenario, by far the most likely outcome is that Labour would leave office. The theory that the LibDems may have become uncoalitionable on left or right is strengthened by their choices after recent PR elections in Wales and Scotland. Cooperation is much easier from a position of strength rather than weakness, but the 1997 opportunity was missed.

So the economic crisis does not yet outweigh several, potentially formidable barriers on both sides to progressive cooperation. There is a mutual mistrust between MPs and activists in different parties; the failure to consummate the Blair-Ashdown project leaves the LibDems suspicious of being led up the garden path again, and there are important substantive policy differences on major issues, most notably civil liberties and electoral reform.

For all of those difficulties, serious voices on both sides do believe that there should at least be greater dialogue between the parties.

Unthinkable? Read more...

Afghan hopes for change

I would like to offer, however, the expectations of the war generation and of all ordinary Afghan people who are neither part of the failed ruling government, nor are they terrorists or Taliban, and I do hope that these unheard voices have a space to be heard.

writes Orzala Ashraf Nemat in an open letter to President-elect Barack Obama.

Women in Afghanistan, despite some claims to the contrary, are not liberated. Nor can an outside force liberate them. They are under-represented in the leadership and political decision-making processes; and moreover, the debates and discussions about negotiating with extremist groups such as Taliban and Hezb-e Islami are indeed endangering the status of women by limiting their access to education, jobs and political participation.

---

Conor Foley, who has circulated the letter, writes more about it on Liberal Conspiracy.

The low attention span of so many western commentators means that they want ‘instant’ solutions to every problem. Either we can ‘beat the Taliban on the battlefield’, as Nick Cohen predicted a year ago, or we must welcome them into the government, as Johan Hari now favours.

Why are these the only two options?

...

Orzala’s argument – which you can read for yourselves – is that while the Taliban cannot be beaten militarily, they can be isolated politically. She stresses the importance of supporting local, Afghan-led, peace initiatives and improving the social and economic conditions of ordinary Afghans. Strengthening the justice system, while recognising that 90 per cent of all cases get solved through customary law, improving access to education and supporting initiatives that raise the status of women are not distractions from the ‘real problem’ of tackling the Taliban, rather the re-emergence of the Taliban is a symptom of a wider failure of the intervention to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans.

Read more...

Afghan hopes for change

I would like to offer, however, the expectations of the war generation and of all ordinary Afghan people who are neither part of the failed ruling government, nor are they terrorists or Taliban, and I do hope that these unheard voices have a space to be heard.

writes Orzala Ashraf Nemat in an open letter to President-elect Barack Obama.

Women in Afghanistan, despite some claims to the contrary, are not liberated. Nor can an outside force liberate them. They are under-represented in the leadership and political decision-making processes; and moreover, the debates and discussions about negotiating with extremist groups such as Taliban and Hezb-e Islami are indeed endangering the status of women by limiting their access to education, jobs and political participation.

---

Conor Foley, who has circulated the letter, writes more about it on Liberal Conspiracy.

The low attention span of so many western commentators means that they want ‘instant’ solutions to every problem. Either we can ‘beat the Taliban on the battlefield’, as Nick Cohen predicted a year ago, or we must welcome them into the government, as Johan Hari now favours.

Why are these the only two options?

...

Orzala’s argument – which you can read for yourselves – is that while the Taliban cannot be beaten militarily, they can be isolated politically. She stresses the importance of supporting local, Afghan-led, peace initiatives and improving the social and economic conditions of ordinary Afghans. Strengthening the justice system, while recognising that 90 per cent of all cases get solved through customary law, improving access to education and supporting initiatives that raise the status of women are not distractions from the ‘real problem’ of tackling the Taliban, rather the re-emergence of the Taliban is a symptom of a wider failure of the intervention to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans.

Read more...

LabourHome appeal

Alex Hilton of LabourHome is appealing for help with legal costs to defend a defamation action against an article on the website. Read more...

LabourHome appeal

Alex Hilton of LabourHome is appealing for help with legal costs to defend a defamation action against an article on the website. Read more...

Secret Tory strategy for the West Midlands marginals

When it comes to football, David Cameron is an Aston Villa fan. Not a particularly massive fan, as he admits.

But his uncle took him to a Villa game, so that's his team. (Of course, his uncle, Sir William Dugdale, was the Chairman of the football club but you can not choose your background, you know).

Clearly this allegiance could be worth a great many votes in the West Midlands' marginals come the next election.

Especially now that the Tory leader of Birmingham Council has had a brilliant idea for a light spot of rebranding.

City council leader Mike Whitby feels that the suburban-sounding Villa does not do justice to Britain’s second city.

He is urging a name change, possibly to ‘Aston Villa Birmingham’, and plans to raise the matter with club chairman Randy Lerner.

How to make Boris Johnson look like an expert. Read more...

Secret Tory strategy for the West Midlands marginals

When it comes to football, David Cameron is an Aston Villa fan. Not a particularly massive fan, as he admits.

But his uncle took him to a Villa game, so that's his team. (Of course, his uncle, Sir William Dugdale, was the Chairman of the football club but you can not choose your background, you know).

Clearly this allegiance could be worth a great many votes in the West Midlands' marginals come the next election.

Especially now that the Tory leader of Birmingham Council has had a brilliant idea for a light spot of rebranding.

City council leader Mike Whitby feels that the suburban-sounding Villa does not do justice to Britain’s second city.

He is urging a name change, possibly to ‘Aston Villa Birmingham’, and plans to raise the matter with club chairman Randy Lerner.

How to make Boris Johnson look like an expert. Read more...

Don't blame the police - blame the system

Anyone who is interested in civil and political liberties will be appalled by the police's treatment of Damian Green.

But the case points to a basic, unresolved contradiction in the way that the British polity handles the task of holding the executive to account. Both Green and the police are caught up in this contradiction (not to mention any civil servant who may or may not have been leaking stuff to Green). The lesson is that, rather than just criticising the police, we need to end this contradiction.

The contradiction is as follows: on the one hand we say, with a nod and a wink, that it is fair game for MPs to use leaked information as part of the process of Parliament holding the executive to account. It is because most of us think this that we see the police action against Green, even if he has been receiving leaked information, as not merely heavy-handed but as undemocratic. On the other hand, in saying this we are also saying, with that nod and a wink, that it is a normal part of the political process that opposition and criticism of the executive will rely on leaks - in other words, on some people, such as civil servants, doing what they shouldn't be doing. So we end up saying, in effect: 'Its fair play to break the rules!'

But it isn't fair play to those who have to break the rules if they are then punished for doing so - for doing what we, as citizens, implicitly rely on them doing to make opposition and criticism of the executive effective. Nor is it fair to say to those who have the job of enforcing the rules: 'Oh, don't enforce them too much.' Under the rule of law, the police's job is to apply the law - and not to pay attention to the nods and winks of the political elite.

As so often in our polity, the problem lies in the excessive power of the central state executive. If it had less power to limit the flow of information we could conceivably have a system in which Parliament could do its job of holding the executive to account without some people breaking any rules. Cases like this indicate how the 'freedom of information' agenda apparently remains seriously unfinished business. Read more...

Don't blame the police - blame the system

Anyone who is interested in civil and political liberties will be appalled by the police's treatment of Damian Green.

But the case points to a basic, unresolved contradiction in the way that the British polity handles the task of holding the executive to account. Both Green and the police are caught up in this contradiction (not to mention any civil servant who may or may not have been leaking stuff to Green). The lesson is that, rather than just criticising the police, we need to end this contradiction.

The contradiction is as follows: on the one hand we say, with a nod and a wink, that it is fair game for MPs to use leaked information as part of the process of Parliament holding the executive to account. It is because most of us think this that we see the police action against Green, even if he has been receiving leaked information, as not merely heavy-handed but as undemocratic. On the other hand, in saying this we are also saying, with that nod and a wink, that it is a normal part of the political process that opposition and criticism of the executive will rely on leaks - in other words, on some people, such as civil servants, doing what they shouldn't be doing. So we end up saying, in effect: 'Its fair play to break the rules!'

But it isn't fair play to those who have to break the rules if they are then punished for doing so - for doing what we, as citizens, implicitly rely on them doing to make opposition and criticism of the executive effective. Nor is it fair to say to those who have the job of enforcing the rules: 'Oh, don't enforce them too much.' Under the rule of law, the police's job is to apply the law - and not to pay attention to the nods and winks of the political elite.

As so often in our polity, the problem lies in the excessive power of the central state executive. If it had less power to limit the flow of information we could conceivably have a system in which Parliament could do its job of holding the executive to account without some people breaking any rules. Cases like this indicate how the 'freedom of information' agenda apparently remains seriously unfinished business. Read more...

Broad consensus on Green arrest

Leaks have always been part of politics. Daniel Finkelstein has a selection of Gordon Brown's greatest hits, as a rising star on the opposition benches.

Those examples make a powerful case as to why the government of the day was wrong to oppose freedom of information, which has seen the FoI information request compete with the brown paper envelope as a source of embarrasing information in the newspapers.

As regular Whitehall digger David Hencke writes of Damian Green's arrest, "the action is also very chilling to the normal terms of trade".

Michael White of The Guardian has a well judged column about why this seems an "ill-judged and hack-handed" police operation. He also writes illuminatingly about the background issues of secrecy and whistle-blowing, and

White is surely right that there must be a distinction between civil servants who leak and politicians who receive and use information.

Either way it's hard to understand why Green, a wholesome moderate Tory demoted by Michael Howard (surely worth a campaign medal in itself?), should have the old bill piling into his home and office at all, let alone in offensively large numbers.

It's different for the civil servant, whose duty is clear: one of confidentiality to his/her employer unless issues of conscience are so paramount that they amount to a public-interest defence.

On what we know now, there should be cross-party concern about this issue as appears to be the case. This is the sort of issue where Kevin Maguire will defend a Conservative.

There was some eager anticipation on LabourHome at an (unknown) story which might embarrass the Tories, this quickly turned into a discussion sympathetic to Green, asking questions about the actions of the police, and scrutinising the government. There is a similar mood among most centre-left blogs I have seen - for example, Conor Ryan, Hopi Sen, Tom Harris and myself - though there is legitimate annoyance at the offensively loose use of words like 'Stalinesque' and 'Mugabe' aimed at the government by elected politicans and not just anonymous blog astroturfers.

I am reminded of another case, which has tangentially resurfaced today.

To their credit, Tory and LibDem frontbenchers David Davis and David Heath produced a robust statement when there were concerns about the police authorising the bugging of conversations between Sadiq Khan MP and a constituent in prison, despite the Wilson doctrine.

I was especially unimpressed when, at the same time, Dean Godson, the Research Director of Policy Exchange using a column in the Times - "Don't be so eager to bash the Met" - to offer the thoughts that Mr Khan was "no shrinking violet" and "the most Islamist-friendly of MPs".

This was a highly inaccurate as well as offensive piece of innuendo, which could be easily rebutted, as I pointed out in a letter to The Times and a commentary at the time. Read more...

Broad consensus on Green arrest

Leaks have always been part of politics. Daniel Finkelstein has a selection of Gordon Brown's greatest hits, as a rising star on the opposition benches.

Those examples make a powerful case as to why the government of the day was wrong to oppose freedom of information, which has seen the FoI information request compete with the brown paper envelope as a source of embarrasing information in the newspapers.

As regular Whitehall digger David Hencke writes of Damian Green's arrest, "the action is also very chilling to the normal terms of trade".

Michael White of The Guardian has a well judged column about why this seems an "ill-judged and hack-handed" police operation. He also writes illuminatingly about the background issues of secrecy and whistle-blowing, and

White is surely right that there must be a distinction between civil servants who leak and politicians who receive and use information.

Either way it's hard to understand why Green, a wholesome moderate Tory demoted by Michael Howard (surely worth a campaign medal in itself?), should have the old bill piling into his home and office at all, let alone in offensively large numbers.

It's different for the civil servant, whose duty is clear: one of confidentiality to his/her employer unless issues of conscience are so paramount that they amount to a public-interest defence.

On what we know now, there should be cross-party concern about this issue as appears to be the case. This is the sort of issue where Kevin Maguire will defend a Conservative.

There was some eager anticipation on LabourHome at an (unknown) story which might embarrass the Tories, this quickly turned into a discussion sympathetic to Green, asking questions about the actions of the police, and scrutinising the government. There is a similar mood among most centre-left blogs I have seen - for example, Conor Ryan, Hopi Sen, Tom Harris and myself - though there is legitimate annoyance at the offensively loose use of words like 'Stalinesque' and 'Mugabe' aimed at the government by elected politicans and not just anonymous blog astroturfers.

I am reminded of another case, which has tangentially resurfaced today.

To their credit, Tory and LibDem frontbenchers David Davis and David Heath produced a robust statement when there were concerns about the police authorising the bugging of conversations between Sadiq Khan MP and a constituent in prison, despite the Wilson doctrine.

I was especially unimpressed when, at the same time, Dean Godson, the Research Director of Policy Exchange using a column in the Times - "Don't be so eager to bash the Met" - to offer the thoughts that Mr Khan was "no shrinking violet" and "the most Islamist-friendly of MPs".

This was a highly inaccurate as well as offensive piece of innuendo, which could be easily rebutted, as I pointed out in a letter to The Times and a commentary at the time. Read more...

A consistency test

On the information which is currently public, the arrest of Damian Green appears a very strange affair. If politicians are to be arrested for the receipt of leaked documents, then the Commons benches could be rather empty.

So let me propose a credibility test for such issues: do we take a similar view about the principles involved, regardless of whether a member of their own party or another party is involved?

Nine members of the counter-terrorism squad to arrest Damian Green sounds absurdly heavy-handed to me. As did the style of the police's treatment of Ruth Turner during the cash for honours investigation. Aside from partisan bias, I can't see any reason to take a different view of those cases on the information which I have.

Chris Huhne of the LibDems seems to me to pass that test in his Today programme interview and other comments.

And while the shameful idiocy of Tory attack dog Guido Fawkes seems to know no limits, Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome deserves credit for having the sanity to remind commenters on ConservativeHome that "Britain is not Zimbabwe". (ConservativeHome rightly criticised the trivialisation of the struggle of Zimbabwe's democrats when a Labour councillor compared a dispute over committee places on Ealing Council to Mugabe).

The issue of how to have oversight and accountability of the police without the improper politicisation of policing does not depend on whether Ken or Boris is Mayor. There may have been that many legitimate criticisms of Ian Blair's record, but the Mayor's approach to how he should be replaced seemed to me to risk excessive politicisation.

There are many legitimate debates to be had about freedom of information, the Official Secrets Act, codes of conduct within the civil service and so on. But the approach to whistle-blowing and government confidentiality can not simply depend on what we think of the issue which the whistle-blower is acting upon.

Nobody believes that civil servants should have impunity to leak anything at all that they personally want to make public.

Or at least I thought that nobody thought that until I read George Osborne, quoted in the Guardian today.

To hide information from the public is wrong.

That is a very interesting blanket principle. It would be interesting to see how a Conservative government would apply it. I imagine they may discover that they think that some other balancing principles and trade-offs need to be considered.

But let us primarily celebrate this liberalising progress on the right. We are so often told that New Labour is authoritarian - but the Labour government has also here been the agent of a "ratchet effect" of liberalisation, however incomplete, on government information.

Mr Osborne and Mr Cameron were the rising stars of the Conservative SpAd classes ahead of the 1997 election when the Conservative campaign guide stated.

"The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a Freedom of Information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies."

They were supporters of the Margaret Thatcher principle that it should be for government to choose whatever it wanted to disclose or not disclose. As she who must be obeyed put it:

A Freedom of Information Act is inappropriate and unnecessary."

Now, they are quite sure that information just wants to be free.

That might be political opportunism, but it is also progress. Read more...

A consistency test

On the information which is currently public, the arrest of Damian Green appears a very strange affair. If politicians are to be arrested for the receipt of leaked documents, then the Commons benches could be rather empty.

So let me propose a credibility test for such issues: do we take a similar view about the principles involved, regardless of whether a member of their own party or another party is involved?

Nine members of the counter-terrorism squad to arrest Damian Green sounds absurdly heavy-handed to me. As did the style of the police's treatment of Ruth Turner during the cash for honours investigation. Aside from partisan bias, I can't see any reason to take a different view of those cases on the information which I have.

Chris Huhne of the LibDems seems to me to pass that test in his Today programme interview and other comments.

And while the shameful idiocy of Tory attack dog Guido Fawkes seems to know no limits, Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome deserves credit for having the sanity to remind commenters on ConservativeHome that "Britain is not Zimbabwe". (ConservativeHome rightly criticised the trivialisation of the struggle of Zimbabwe's democrats when a Labour councillor compared a dispute over committee places on Ealing Council to Mugabe).

The issue of how to have oversight and accountability of the police without the improper politicisation of policing does not depend on whether Ken or Boris is Mayor. There may have been that many legitimate criticisms of Ian Blair's record, but the Mayor's approach to how he should be replaced seemed to me to risk excessive politicisation.

There are many legitimate debates to be had about freedom of information, the Official Secrets Act, codes of conduct within the civil service and so on. But the approach to whistle-blowing and government confidentiality can not simply depend on what we think of the issue which the whistle-blower is acting upon.

Nobody believes that civil servants should have impunity to leak anything at all that they personally want to make public.

Or at least I thought that nobody thought that until I read George Osborne, quoted in the Guardian today.

To hide information from the public is wrong.

That is a very interesting blanket principle. It would be interesting to see how a Conservative government would apply it. I imagine they may discover that they think that some other balancing principles and trade-offs need to be considered.

But let us primarily celebrate this liberalising progress on the right. We are so often told that New Labour is authoritarian - but the Labour government has also here been the agent of a "ratchet effect" of liberalisation, however incomplete, on government information.

Mr Osborne and Mr Cameron were the rising stars of the Conservative SpAd classes ahead of the 1997 election when the Conservative campaign guide stated.

"The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a Freedom of Information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies."

They were supporters of the Margaret Thatcher principle that it should be for government to choose whatever it wanted to disclose or not disclose. As she who must be obeyed put it:

A Freedom of Information Act is inappropriate and unnecessary."

Now, they are quite sure that information just wants to be free.

That might be political opportunism, but it is also progress. Read more...

Rush to judgement

There was a discussion on the Today programme this morning of the new book 'No Time to Think: The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-Hour News Cycle' by Howard Rosenberg and Charles S Feldman. And how much more true that is of our own dear blogosphere.

The news that shadow immigration minister Damien Green was arrested broke about two hours ago. Very little information seems to be available yet.

The Conservatives are indignant. It might turn out that have every right to be. (They may know more about the rest of us about the events of the day). (Iain Dale is already quoting Martin Niemoller and campaigning for the Ashford One, though he also mentions the perils of commenting on a live story).

For now, those of us relying on publicly available information just don't know enough about it to judge. There doesn't yet seem to be any information from the police. The BBC 10 o'clock news report didn't cast much light on this.

My view is that it would be depressing and wrong if Labour, LibDem and civil society voices just jumped into a partisan response (as the first celebratory post on LabourHome has done) without bothering to find out some of the facts. The issues involved could turn out to be too important for that.

But, in the interests of being even-handed, if John Pienaar's report is correct, that the government and 10 Downing Street first found out about this afternoon's arrest tonight, then I hope the Conservative frontbench will apologise for immediately reaching for the term 'Stalinesque'. That can only be interpreted as the first thought being how to spin a personal attack on the Prime Minister. It isn't a description of policing. And anyone who knows some history might consider trying to use that term as carefully as Nazi or fascist ought to be used. There are plenty of other political insults available for 'punch and judy' knockabout politics without making a joke out of totalitarian mass murder.

So perhaps that might be better left to the unauthorised Tory attack dog Guido Fawkes rather than Her Majesty's Official Opposition (Guido immediately ran a Brown and Mugabe graphic which still appears in my Google Reader, yet now seems to have removed it).


Beyond that call for the occasional moment of reflection, when we all know something about this - tomorrow, or through the weekend - that might be the time to sound off and let you know what I think.

Once I have had a chance to think about it. Read more...

Rush to judgement

There was a discussion on the Today programme this morning of the new book 'No Time to Think: The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-Hour News Cycle' by Howard Rosenberg and Charles S Feldman. And how much more true that is of our own dear blogosphere.

The news that shadow immigration minister Damien Green was arrested broke about two hours ago. Very little information seems to be available yet.

The Conservatives are indignant. It might turn out that have every right to be. (They may know more about the rest of us about the events of the day). (Iain Dale is already quoting Martin Niemoller and campaigning for the Ashford One, though he also mentions the perils of commenting on a live story).

For now, those of us relying on publicly available information just don't know enough about it to judge. There doesn't yet seem to be any information from the police. The BBC 10 o'clock news report didn't cast much light on this.

My view is that it would be depressing and wrong if Labour, LibDem and civil society voices just jumped into a partisan response (as the first celebratory post on LabourHome has done) without bothering to find out some of the facts. The issues involved could turn out to be too important for that.

But, in the interests of being even-handed, if John Pienaar's report is correct, that the government and 10 Downing Street first found out about this afternoon's arrest tonight, then I hope the Conservative frontbench will apologise for immediately reaching for the term 'Stalinesque'. That can only be interpreted as the first thought being how to spin a personal attack on the Prime Minister. It isn't a description of policing. And anyone who knows some history might consider trying to use that term as carefully as Nazi or fascist ought to be used. There are plenty of other political insults available for 'punch and judy' knockabout politics without making a joke out of totalitarian mass murder.

So perhaps that might be better left to the unauthorised Tory attack dog Guido Fawkes rather than Her Majesty's Official Opposition (Guido immediately ran a Brown and Mugabe graphic which still appears in my Google Reader, yet now seems to have removed it).


Beyond that call for the occasional moment of reflection, when we all know something about this - tomorrow, or through the weekend - that might be the time to sound off and let you know what I think.

Once I have had a chance to think about it. Read more...

Live long and prosper

Guest post by Lewis Cooper

Hollywood actors who win Oscars live on average three years longer than those who are nominated for an Oscar, but never win one, according to Sir Michael Marmot at the Fabian Health Inequalities conference this week.

Now, it is of course not my wish to make a comparison between Hollywood actors and politicians in terms of their need for public adulation, power or success, but I did think it might be worth checking for similar findings that may exist in Westminster. I thus did a quick search comparing the lengths of lives of Prime Ministers and their deputies. And sure enough: in the post-1945 period, those who achieved the highest office of Prime Minister lived on average 9 years longer than those Deputy Prime Ministers.

(This in fact rises to a difference of 12 years if we include the Wilson and Heath governments, where no official Deputy Prime Ministers were named, leaving it to the deputy leader of the party or leader of the House of Commons to claim the role- perhaps, indeed, this difference following a lack of official recognition itself further supports our 'finding'!)

Clearly then, we need to think about how we might address this issue of inequity: to develop the role of Deputy Prime Minister so that it can be more fulfilling, raising public awareness and recognition of the social utility of what they do, promoting the holder's sense of self-worth, and harnessing their full creative potential…

Read more...

Live long and prosper

Guest post by Lewis Cooper

Hollywood actors who win Oscars live on average three years longer than those who are nominated for an Oscar, but never win one, according to Sir Michael Marmot at the Fabian Health Inequalities conference this week.

Now, it is of course not my wish to make a comparison between Hollywood actors and politicians in terms of their need for public adulation, power or success, but I did think it might be worth checking for similar findings that may exist in Westminster. I thus did a quick search comparing the lengths of lives of Prime Ministers and their deputies. And sure enough: in the post-1945 period, those who achieved the highest office of Prime Minister lived on average 9 years longer than those Deputy Prime Ministers.

(This in fact rises to a difference of 12 years if we include the Wilson and Heath governments, where no official Deputy Prime Ministers were named, leaving it to the deputy leader of the party or leader of the House of Commons to claim the role- perhaps, indeed, this difference following a lack of official recognition itself further supports our 'finding'!)

Clearly then, we need to think about how we might address this issue of inequity: to develop the role of Deputy Prime Minister so that it can be more fulfilling, raising public awareness and recognition of the social utility of what they do, promoting the holder's sense of self-worth, and harnessing their full creative potential…

Read more...

Whose third sector is it anyway?

Just got back from the annual NCVO Political Conference, where David Blunkett was launching his Fabian Freethinking paper on the third sector, published today.

So what to make of it all?

Firstly, hats off to Blunkett for hijacking the third sector’s major annual conference and using it as a Fabian launch event – one has to admire his gumption. Francis Maude, who joined him on the platform, acknowledged as much, saying ‘it is of course a great privilege to be involved in David Blunkett’s book launch…’

But - more significantly - it was useful to have Maude there, because his and Blunkett’s keynote speeches were quite instructive about the divisions between the parties on all this.

It wasn’t a partisan ding-dong by any means and was all very consensual and pleasant – especially on the changes wrought by recession, which will heighten the importance of volunteering and community (and therefore the third sector, though it was interesting to hear Maude state very clearly that ‘there are of course no good effects of a recession’, not wishing to fall into the Lansley trap), and mean money from charitable donations is likely to dry up.

But there were a few interesting points of division that are worth flagging up.

Mostly what was fascinating was the sharp difference in tone between Blunkett and Maude. Maude began and ended quite touchy-feely, but the meat of the piece fairly accurately represented what you might expect a Tory platform on the third sector to look like: we need a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ to tackle unprecedented levels of reoffending, fuelled by addiction, illiteracy and family breakdown; the state consistently fails to get those who have never worked, lone parents, and those on incapacity benefit back to work; charities should be paid by results; and the third sector is means of saving taxpayer money and delivering services more efficiently and effectively. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of these points, the thrust was clear – the third sector is first and foremost a tool for administering the remedy to ‘breakdown Britain.’ The lack of any surprises was surprising.

Blunkett was engaging and obviously takes this stuff very seriously. He also admitted and addressed some of the flaws in his paper – it contains ‘very few new ideas’, and the compulsion that might be necessary for some of his proposals to have teeth isn’t possible because ‘voluntary means voluntary’ – but what was striking was his stress on mutuality; the importance of community; and the strength to society that comes from volunteering. It was less about using the voluntary and community sector as a means of delivering a service and more about people giving their time to improve their lot and the lot of those around them. He also talked a fair amount about ‘strengthening the glue’ of society – and as someone remarked to me, first as Home Secretary he downgraded cannabis and now he’s strengthening the glue…

So Blunkett and Maude highlighted two different models of the third sector: community versus efficiency. As people are increasingly saying, after a longish period of wafer-thin wedge issues, the policy and philosophical differences between Labour and the Conservatives are reasserting themselves, and they were clearly on display here again.

Read more...

Whose third sector is it anyway?

Just got back from the annual NCVO Political Conference, where David Blunkett was launching his Fabian Freethinking paper on the third sector, published today.

So what to make of it all?

Firstly, hats off to Blunkett for hijacking the third sector’s major annual conference and using it as a Fabian launch event – one has to admire his gumption. Francis Maude, who joined him on the platform, acknowledged as much, saying ‘it is of course a great privilege to be involved in David Blunkett’s book launch…’

But - more significantly - it was useful to have Maude there, because his and Blunkett’s keynote speeches were quite instructive about the divisions between the parties on all this.

It wasn’t a partisan ding-dong by any means and was all very consensual and pleasant – especially on the changes wrought by recession, which will heighten the importance of volunteering and community (and therefore the third sector, though it was interesting to hear Maude state very clearly that ‘there are of course no good effects of a recession’, not wishing to fall into the Lansley trap), and mean money from charitable donations is likely to dry up.

But there were a few interesting points of division that are worth flagging up.

Mostly what was fascinating was the sharp difference in tone between Blunkett and Maude. Maude began and ended quite touchy-feely, but the meat of the piece fairly accurately represented what you might expect a Tory platform on the third sector to look like: we need a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ to tackle unprecedented levels of reoffending, fuelled by addiction, illiteracy and family breakdown; the state consistently fails to get those who have never worked, lone parents, and those on incapacity benefit back to work; charities should be paid by results; and the third sector is means of saving taxpayer money and delivering services more efficiently and effectively. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of these points, the thrust was clear – the third sector is first and foremost a tool for administering the remedy to ‘breakdown Britain.’ The lack of any surprises was surprising.

Blunkett was engaging and obviously takes this stuff very seriously. He also admitted and addressed some of the flaws in his paper – it contains ‘very few new ideas’, and the compulsion that might be necessary for some of his proposals to have teeth isn’t possible because ‘voluntary means voluntary’ – but what was striking was his stress on mutuality; the importance of community; and the strength to society that comes from volunteering. It was less about using the voluntary and community sector as a means of delivering a service and more about people giving their time to improve their lot and the lot of those around them. He also talked a fair amount about ‘strengthening the glue’ of society – and as someone remarked to me, first as Home Secretary he downgraded cannabis and now he’s strengthening the glue…

So Blunkett and Maude highlighted two different models of the third sector: community versus efficiency. As people are increasingly saying, after a longish period of wafer-thin wedge issues, the policy and philosophical differences between Labour and the Conservatives are reasserting themselves, and they were clearly on display here again.

Read more...

Are the rich different in 2008?

Are the 21st century's rich people less likely to give to charity than those of the past? Victorian paternalism may be dead, but has the desire to help the community where you grew up or where your massive company disappeared too?
In a new Fabian paper today David Blunkett argued that the rich in Britain need to donate more to charity. His suggestion is that the British rich list are not pulling their weight as donations flatline, and the number of givers decline.
The recession should not be an excuse for ignoring your obligations to help the world around you, he argues.
Is it different in America? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett say they were inspired to give away large amounts of wealth by the example of celebrated 19th philanthropists such as Andrew Carnegie.
But for those that argue that extraordinary giving is a feature of a US culture of extremes of wealth and poverty, it is worth noting that the second biggest charitable foundation in the world is the Swedish Stichting Ingka Foundation, topped only by the Gates Foundation.
Surveys show that in Britain those who have least often give a far higher proportion of their income to charity than the rich, and charities are reliant on a small core of givers. Read more...

Are the rich different in 2008?

Are the 21st century's rich people less likely to give to charity than those of the past? Victorian paternalism may be dead, but has the desire to help the community where you grew up or where your massive company disappeared too?
In a new Fabian paper today David Blunkett argued that the rich in Britain need to donate more to charity. His suggestion is that the British rich list are not pulling their weight as donations flatline, and the number of givers decline.
The recession should not be an excuse for ignoring your obligations to help the world around you, he argues.
Is it different in America? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett say they were inspired to give away large amounts of wealth by the example of celebrated 19th philanthropists such as Andrew Carnegie.
But for those that argue that extraordinary giving is a feature of a US culture of extremes of wealth and poverty, it is worth noting that the second biggest charitable foundation in the world is the Swedish Stichting Ingka Foundation, topped only by the Gates Foundation.
Surveys show that in Britain those who have least often give a far higher proportion of their income to charity than the rich, and charities are reliant on a small core of givers. Read more...

Tory leadership accepts new top rate. Does the party?

So what position will David Cameron and George Osborne take on a new top rate of tax for the top 1% of earners?

They are preparing to accept it.

Not being a Tory myself, I couldn’t easily predict which way they would jump (though my immediate hunch was they would not oppose it). So I put that question to Mr Iain Dale - one of the nicer that Tories I know and the grandest fromage in the Tory blogosphere - as the news broke on Sunday night, leading Mr Dale to be among the first to declare the "Death of New Labour'.

"I am certain that a clear majority of Tory voters will back this .. Are you sure you know which way your leadership will jump on this", I asked.

“Yes, I am sure”, he replied.

As Iain will have much, much better sources than I do, I would be interested to know if he’s still just as sure as he was about that by the middle of this week.

Some confusion could creep in, because the Tory frontbench has been briefing the opposite to the broadsheets.

Financial Times
David Cameron will not pledge to reverse the 45 per cent income tax rate for high earners, senior Tories said on Monday … We’re not falling into a classic Labour trap by opposing the 45 per cent rate and then being accused by Gordon Brown of only wanting to help our rich friends,” a senior Tory said.

The Guardian
Significantly, the Tories, focusing on the projected borrowing figures, said they would not fall into the trap of opposing the new 45% rate of income tax, adding that it would not be a priority to reverse the measure if they came to power in 2010.

The Independent
Senior Tories said they would not walk into a "trap" set by Gordon Brown where they appeared to oppose tax rises for the better off. "Reversing this will not be a priority for a Conservative government," one Tory source said. "We do not support the increases in income tax, but our priority will be to reduce the tax burden on low-income families."

This doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Labour proposes that the new rate comes in after the next election, because of its 2005 manifesto pledge on income tax rates. If the Conservatives were to win, it will not yet have happened. They would have to decide to continue with its introduction, or to drop it. Will their manifesto really be silent on what we have been told is one of the most significant tax changes in British politics for twenty years?

If you believed – as I believe most Conservatives do – that this was the wrong policy, you should say so. If you believe there are strong moral, economic and political arguments against higher taxation on top earners, then you would make that case. After all, your luck would really, really be in if your political opponents had declared the death of New Labour, vacated the centre-ground of British politics, abandoned Middle England and all the rest of the things you have all been saying over the last 48 hours.

Where’s the trap in that? It sounds like more of an open goal.

If that’s right, all Dave and George would have to do is to bang the ball into the net - stand up for their and your principles, oppose the policy, occupy the centre-ground and be carried shoulder high by the grateful denizens of Middle England into Downing Street.

So, what’s stopping them?

Are they insufficiently committed to the argument for lower taxes?

Having opened up the dividing lines on tax, spend and borrowing, are they about to start blurring them again?

Or is it just that they realise that it might not quite be to ditch New Labour, lurch left and desert Middle England if you do something that a majority of voters across all parties, including on the right, in all social classes and in all income groups think is fair?

If that is the Tory leadership’s strategic instinct, I can see why they are keeping it as quiet as they can. But the argument inside their own party is yet to begin.

After all, it is only a week since the Tory netroots won their most significant strategic and policy victory, as the leadership finally responded to the concerted campaign – admirably marshalled by Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome, with strong support from Fraser Nelson and friends in the CoffeeHouse, and much other right-wing commentary and activism – to persuade them to ditch their support for Labour’s spending plans.

But that might feel like a pretty pyrrhic victory if – within a week – they were preparing to re-impale themselves on a New Labour tax increase for top earners.

There has been a significant argument about progressive taxation within New Labour over a decade. The largest intellectual contribution came from my predecessor Michael Jacobs when he was running the Fabian Society, and there was support from Robin Cook, Peter Hain, Tony Giddens, Chris Leslie and others to keep the argument about taxation and inequality at the top alive.

Within Labour, and in the long-run, the result has been a significant victory for Fabian gradualism.

But we could be back to permeation too - and to Keith Joseph’s ratchet effect - if, when the moment came, the key battle was won without the Tory leadership firing a shot.

For now, the question remains: do the Conservative Party want to oppose a new top rate of tax on the top 1% of earners, or not? Read more...

Tory leadership accepts new top rate. Does the party?

So what position will David Cameron and George Osborne take on a new top rate of tax for the top 1% of earners?

They are preparing to accept it.

Not being a Tory myself, I couldn’t easily predict which way they would jump (though my immediate hunch was they would not oppose it). So I put that question to Mr Iain Dale - one of the nicer that Tories I know and the grandest fromage in the Tory blogosphere - as the news broke on Sunday night, leading Mr Dale to be among the first to declare the "Death of New Labour'.

"I am certain that a clear majority of Tory voters will back this .. Are you sure you know which way your leadership will jump on this", I asked.

“Yes, I am sure”, he replied.

As Iain will have much, much better sources than I do, I would be interested to know if he’s still just as sure as he was about that by the middle of this week.

Some confusion could creep in, because the Tory frontbench has been briefing the opposite to the broadsheets.

Financial Times
David Cameron will not pledge to reverse the 45 per cent income tax rate for high earners, senior Tories said on Monday … We’re not falling into a classic Labour trap by opposing the 45 per cent rate and then being accused by Gordon Brown of only wanting to help our rich friends,” a senior Tory said.

The Guardian
Significantly, the Tories, focusing on the projected borrowing figures, said they would not fall into the trap of opposing the new 45% rate of income tax, adding that it would not be a priority to reverse the measure if they came to power in 2010.

The Independent
Senior Tories said they would not walk into a "trap" set by Gordon Brown where they appeared to oppose tax rises for the better off. "Reversing this will not be a priority for a Conservative government," one Tory source said. "We do not support the increases in income tax, but our priority will be to reduce the tax burden on low-income families."

This doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Labour proposes that the new rate comes in after the next election, because of its 2005 manifesto pledge on income tax rates. If the Conservatives were to win, it will not yet have happened. They would have to decide to continue with its introduction, or to drop it. Will their manifesto really be silent on what we have been told is one of the most significant tax changes in British politics for twenty years?

If you believed – as I believe most Conservatives do – that this was the wrong policy, you should say so. If you believe there are strong moral, economic and political arguments against higher taxation on top earners, then you would make that case. After all, your luck would really, really be in if your political opponents had declared the death of New Labour, vacated the centre-ground of British politics, abandoned Middle England and all the rest of the things you have all been saying over the last 48 hours.

Where’s the trap in that? It sounds like more of an open goal.

If that’s right, all Dave and George would have to do is to bang the ball into the net - stand up for their and your principles, oppose the policy, occupy the centre-ground and be carried shoulder high by the grateful denizens of Middle England into Downing Street.

So, what’s stopping them?

Are they insufficiently committed to the argument for lower taxes?

Having opened up the dividing lines on tax, spend and borrowing, are they about to start blurring them again?

Or is it just that they realise that it might not quite be to ditch New Labour, lurch left and desert Middle England if you do something that a majority of voters across all parties, including on the right, in all social classes and in all income groups think is fair?

If that is the Tory leadership’s strategic instinct, I can see why they are keeping it as quiet as they can. But the argument inside their own party is yet to begin.

After all, it is only a week since the Tory netroots won their most significant strategic and policy victory, as the leadership finally responded to the concerted campaign – admirably marshalled by Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome, with strong support from Fraser Nelson and friends in the CoffeeHouse, and much other right-wing commentary and activism – to persuade them to ditch their support for Labour’s spending plans.

But that might feel like a pretty pyrrhic victory if – within a week – they were preparing to re-impale themselves on a New Labour tax increase for top earners.

There has been a significant argument about progressive taxation within New Labour over a decade. The largest intellectual contribution came from my predecessor Michael Jacobs when he was running the Fabian Society, and there was support from Robin Cook, Peter Hain, Tony Giddens, Chris Leslie and others to keep the argument about taxation and inequality at the top alive.

Within Labour, and in the long-run, the result has been a significant victory for Fabian gradualism.

But we could be back to permeation too - and to Keith Joseph’s ratchet effect - if, when the moment came, the key battle was won without the Tory leadership firing a shot.

For now, the question remains: do the Conservative Party want to oppose a new top rate of tax on the top 1% of earners, or not? Read more...

A series of numbers for serious times: polling peril for Conservatives

Food for thought from the YouGov poll today. So 50% of people think the Tories are dithering and can't make their minds up on how to handle the crisis and 65% think the Tories are spending too much time blaming the Government and not enough time saying what they would do different.

And the Conservative front bench are obviously exuding the wrong vibe as 43% of those polled felt that party was "too complacent". Labour is doing better than the Conservatives on trust and looking after the interests of ordinary people.

Interesting numbers for serious times. Is this a sign that the public now thinks Cameron and his team are not serious enough? The numbers would suggest so. Read more...

A series of numbers for serious times: polling peril for Conservatives

Food for thought from the YouGov poll today. So 50% of people think the Tories are dithering and can't make their minds up on how to handle the crisis and 65% think the Tories are spending too much time blaming the Government and not enough time saying what they would do different.

And the Conservative front bench are obviously exuding the wrong vibe as 43% of those polled felt that party was "too complacent". Labour is doing better than the Conservatives on trust and looking after the interests of ordinary people.

Interesting numbers for serious times. Is this a sign that the public now thinks Cameron and his team are not serious enough? The numbers would suggest so. Read more...

Speculation, speculation

This blog has, not unreasonably, argued that anybody stirring up election speculation should be taken out and shot - metaphorically, or otherwise. Since it really isn't going to happen, perhaps we can calm down now.

So, while we all have more important things to think about, we naturally take a good deal of interest in Mr Martin Bright engaging in a small bit of sport speculating about speculation about who may be doing the election speculating over on the New Statesman blog.

Bright reported last week:

As one former cabinet minister who spent a long time at the Treasury told the New Statesman: "Gordon has to get the Obama visit out of the way then call an election. There really is no other option."

He is not seeking to "out" his election speculating source - but to exonerate ex-Treasury Minister Geoffrey Robinson, pointing out that he was never a Cabinet Minister. Until Bright flagged that up, James Forsyth's deduction that Robinson could well be the source for both Bright's article and Friday's Standard splash seemed very plausible.

Since Martin seems to be inviting us all to play a guessing game, let's see what we can work out.

There are at least three current Cabinet Ministers - apart from the PM and Chancellor - who spent a long time in the Treasury: two Eds and an Yvette. Thank God that they can not fit the description, or we really could be heading for trouble.

It is of course not possible to work out who Bright's source is - but it is possible to find several candidates for a shortlist. So who are some of the "former Cabinet Ministers who spent a long time at the Treasury"?

Former Chief Secretaries Byers and Milburn did not spend long at the Treasury in either case. Unless Martin was very deliberately trying to lay a false scent, this would also be a pretty unorthodox way to describe those particular sources.

I can identify four or five other possible candidates - Paul Boateng and Andrew Smith were both in the Cabinet as Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, while Ruth Kelly was both Economic Secretary and Financial Secretary. Helen Liddell was Economic Secretary, as was Patricia Hewitt, but only for a year in each case, before going on to other Ministerial roles and the Cabinet.

(I admit I could be missing somebody else. But I am assuming we are looking for an ex-Cabinet Minister was in office since 1997 - rather than, say, Ken Clarke, or a member of the Callaghan government: the phrasing implies their time at the Treasury gives them some insight into Mr Brown's thinking. There may have been other junior ministers at the Treasury who went on to the Cabinet, or somebody from the Lords, perhaps who worked there as an adviser or civil servant before serving in Cabinet in a non-Treasury job. But I can't think of anyone).

Paul Boateng and Helen Liddell are currently High Commissioners to South Africa and Australia respectively. That does not rule them out. but it may make them less likely.

I don't think Hewitt's year at the Treasury would count as a long time.

However, Ruth Kelly seems to meet Bright's criteria: she was a Treasury Minister for three years, having previously worked at the Bank of England. But, as an MP who is standing down at the election, she might be less likely to be debating its timing.

So my guess - and I stress it is purely a guess - is that Mr Andrew Smith of Oxford East might seem to be the most plausible secret source from my shortlist, simply through that rough process of elimination, though I have no information whatsoever about his views about the timing of the next election. Read more...

Speculation, speculation

This blog has, not unreasonably, argued that anybody stirring up election speculation should be taken out and shot - metaphorically, or otherwise. Since it really isn't going to happen, perhaps we can calm down now.

So, while we all have more important things to think about, we naturally take a good deal of interest in Mr Martin Bright engaging in a small bit of sport speculating about speculation about who may be doing the election speculating over on the New Statesman blog.

Bright reported last week:

As one former cabinet minister who spent a long time at the Treasury told the New Statesman: "Gordon has to get the Obama visit out of the way then call an election. There really is no other option."

He is not seeking to "out" his election speculating source - but to exonerate ex-Treasury Minister Geoffrey Robinson, pointing out that he was never a Cabinet Minister. Until Bright flagged that up, James Forsyth's deduction that Robinson could well be the source for both Bright's article and Friday's Standard splash seemed very plausible.

Since Martin seems to be inviting us all to play a guessing game, let's see what we can work out.

There are at least three current Cabinet Ministers - apart from the PM and Chancellor - who spent a long time in the Treasury: two Eds and an Yvette. Thank God that they can not fit the description, or we really could be heading for trouble.

It is of course not possible to work out who Bright's source is - but it is possible to find several candidates for a shortlist. So who are some of the "former Cabinet Ministers who spent a long time at the Treasury"?

Former Chief Secretaries Byers and Milburn did not spend long at the Treasury in either case. Unless Martin was very deliberately trying to lay a false scent, this would also be a pretty unorthodox way to describe those particular sources.

I can identify four or five other possible candidates - Paul Boateng and Andrew Smith were both in the Cabinet as Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, while Ruth Kelly was both Economic Secretary and Financial Secretary. Helen Liddell was Economic Secretary, as was Patricia Hewitt, but only for a year in each case, before going on to other Ministerial roles and the Cabinet.

(I admit I could be missing somebody else. But I am assuming we are looking for an ex-Cabinet Minister was in office since 1997 - rather than, say, Ken Clarke, or a member of the Callaghan government: the phrasing implies their time at the Treasury gives them some insight into Mr Brown's thinking. There may have been other junior ministers at the Treasury who went on to the Cabinet, or somebody from the Lords, perhaps who worked there as an adviser or civil servant before serving in Cabinet in a non-Treasury job. But I can't think of anyone).

Paul Boateng and Helen Liddell are currently High Commissioners to South Africa and Australia respectively. That does not rule them out. but it may make them less likely.

I don't think Hewitt's year at the Treasury would count as a long time.

However, Ruth Kelly seems to meet Bright's criteria: she was a Treasury Minister for three years, having previously worked at the Bank of England. But, as an MP who is standing down at the election, she might be less likely to be debating its timing.

So my guess - and I stress it is purely a guess - is that Mr Andrew Smith of Oxford East might seem to be the most plausible secret source from my shortlist, simply through that rough process of elimination, though I have no information whatsoever about his views about the timing of the next election. Read more...

Popular myths about the voters and tax

There have long been strong public majorities for higher tax rates on the highest incomes. Politicians have been sceptical about this, in large part because of the folk memory of the 1992 General Election. (And we are seeing that the Conservatives now believe that a return to Majorism is a winning argument).

But let's dig a little deeper.

Mark Gill of MORI, writing in the Fabian Review back in January 2005, provided the number crunching which shows that a great deal of commentary on tax and electoral politics is based on some popular myths, showing that Labour's pledges on income tax were not nearly so central to the electoral successes of 1997 and 2001 as is so often claimed.

The notion that tax-rising parties cannot win power seems to be a hangover from the 1980s, when Conservative governments were elected on tax-cutting manifestos, and from Neil Kinnock’s defeat in the 1992 election. It draws strength from the myth that Neil Kinnock lost the 1992 election because he promised to raise taxes, and that Tony Blair won the 1997 one because he promised not to.

The flaw in this argument is that although Tony Blair pledged not to increase income tax rates in 1997, the key voters didn’t believe him anyway: in MORI’s 1997 final pre-election poll for The Times, 63 per cent said they expected that a Labour Government, if elected, would increase income tax, only 3 per cent lower than the 66 per cent who expected a Kinnock Government to do so in 1992.

This point was reinforced at the 2001 election. As early as December 1999, the public was convinced that taxes had risen under Labour: 28 per cent thought that the Government had kept taxes down since it had been elected, while 57 per cent thought it had not. By January 2001, when asked for their ‘thinking about all forms of taxes’, 48 per cent thought taxes had gone up since 1997 ‘for most people’ and 41 per cent that their own personal taxes had risen. Furthermore, few expected a re-elected Labour Government to have a better record of keeping its tax promises: at the end of May, 74 per cent thought that Labour would increase taxes if re-elected, and only 16 per cent thought it would not.

All told, the voters elected Tony Blair with a landslide in 1997, expecting him to increase taxes, and re-elected him in 2001 believing that his Government had done so, and would do so again.

Mark Gill - Let's finally talk about tax, Fabian Review, winter 2004/5 Read more...

Popular myths about the voters and tax

There have long been strong public majorities for higher tax rates on the highest incomes. Politicians have been sceptical about this, in large part because of the folk memory of the 1992 General Election. (And we are seeing that the Conservatives now believe that a return to Majorism is a winning argument).

But let's dig a little deeper.

Mark Gill of MORI, writing in the Fabian Review back in January 2005, provided the number crunching which shows that a great deal of commentary on tax and electoral politics is based on some popular myths, showing that Labour's pledges on income tax were not nearly so central to the electoral successes of 1997 and 2001 as is so often claimed.

The notion that tax-rising parties cannot win power seems to be a hangover from the 1980s, when Conservative governments were elected on tax-cutting manifestos, and from Neil Kinnock’s defeat in the 1992 election. It draws strength from the myth that Neil Kinnock lost the 1992 election because he promised to raise taxes, and that Tony Blair won the 1997 one because he promised not to.

The flaw in this argument is that although Tony Blair pledged not to increase income tax rates in 1997, the key voters didn’t believe him anyway: in MORI’s 1997 final pre-election poll for The Times, 63 per cent said they expected that a Labour Government, if elected, would increase income tax, only 3 per cent lower than the 66 per cent who expected a Kinnock Government to do so in 1992.

This point was reinforced at the 2001 election. As early as December 1999, the public was convinced that taxes had risen under Labour: 28 per cent thought that the Government had kept taxes down since it had been elected, while 57 per cent thought it had not. By January 2001, when asked for their ‘thinking about all forms of taxes’, 48 per cent thought taxes had gone up since 1997 ‘for most people’ and 41 per cent that their own personal taxes had risen. Furthermore, few expected a re-elected Labour Government to have a better record of keeping its tax promises: at the end of May, 74 per cent thought that Labour would increase taxes if re-elected, and only 16 per cent thought it would not.

All told, the voters elected Tony Blair with a landslide in 1997, expecting him to increase taxes, and re-elected him in 2001 believing that his Government had done so, and would do so again.

Mark Gill - Let's finally talk about tax, Fabian Review, winter 2004/5 Read more...

Two cheers for Sarko

Puffed with the Gaullist tradition of a French global role, Nicolas Sarkozy couldn't wait to get his hands on the rotating EU presidency. But look beyond some of the pomp and grandstanding, and this could be one of the most impressive presidencies of recent times. I say 'could' because a lot will depend on what happens over the next 18 days.

Of course the big member states will always want to leave their presidency's mark on the European project. The usual approach is to focus on one or two headline issues - Blair choosing international development in the 'Make Poverty History' presidency of 2005; and Merkel singling out an agreement on EU climate targets for 2020 in 2007 (of which she should be reminded over these next days), for example.

But Sarko clearly thought he could do rather better than that.

Ambitious French presidency plans had been long trailed: for historic shifts on EU defence policy (on which I wrote in last winter's Fabian Review); for a grand new union of the Mediterranean countries (with France at its centre, bien entendu!); for a common European immigration policy; and for a leading role for Europe in the next international climate change negotiations on a post-2012 deal, amongst others.

It hasn't quite worked out like that, but let's give the French president a bit of credit for his ambition, energy and enthusiam over the last 6 months. While not producing the results the Elysee had planned, Sarko's time at the EU helm has so far done the image of Europe as a global player no harm at all.

Three major global events (will) have shaped this presidency. Sarko has put the EU on the global map in response to the first two. All eyes are now on him to see if he can deliver on the third.

When Russia invaded South Ossetia, the EU were first on the scene, Sarkozy the broker of at least some sort of ceasefire agreement, for all its imperfections. The EU wasn't sidelined for being too slow to react to events in its own backyard, but instead appeared during the hot moments of the crisis for once as rather responsive, constructive and relevant to geopolitical affairs.

Then, when the financial crisis exploded with the implosion of Lehman Brothers in the US, the presidency faced an economic challenge unparalleled in the history of European integration. Early jitters were soon set aside for an EU stabilising role that makes the case for EU, and perhaps moreso Euro (are you reading, Gordon?) membership in the age of 21st century global capitalism, as the FT recognised on Friday.

But the biggest test of Europe's role on the global stage comes at the final hour of the French presidency. On October 12th at the next European Council in Brussels, EU heads of state and government will announce the final shape and substance of Europe's response to climate change until 2020. The date coincides with the final day of the next UN negotiations on a global post-2012 climate deal in Poznan, Poland.

What Europe announces on that day may determine whether such a deal will be reached by the Copenhagen summit in 2009 - the deadline set last year at Bali. It will also determine whether Europe can continue to see itself and be seen by others as a global leader in the fight against climate change. The stakes could not be higher.

The much proclaimed EU Climate and Energy Package, the weighty collection of European directives designed to realise those groundbreaking targets announced by EU heads of state under Merkel's presidency last year - for 30% cuts in CO2 emissions and 20% of EU energy to come from renewable sources by 2020, is now reaching its legislative climax.

Sarko has been adament that a deal on the Climate Package would be reached during his presidency - no doubt allowing him the limelight of a special announcement to the world's media during the Poznan summit. And there is little doubt a deal will be struck, the question is at what cost.

In facing up to the implications of those bold targets, many member states are seeking to row back on their commitments. Whether it is Italy's Berlusconi complaining of the underestimation of the costs of implementation; Poland's Tusk pleading over the impact on Polish fuel prices; Germany's Merkel - the previous year's EU climate champion - lobbying for German industry's special interests; or our own Brown looking for loopholes to 'meet' the UK's ambitious renewables targets, the danger of a weak deal looms large.

And a weak deal will be easily exposed by international partners at Poznan. The EU's credibility is on the line. If they construct a brittle shell of a climate policy for the next 12 years, their climate leadership role will be lost. The cry from the rest of the world will be that countries in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

So it's over to you Sarko to cut a deal that will cut the mustard on the international stage.

The picture is a devilishly complex one, but there are at least two major things to look out for when the announcement comes:

1. A clear commitment from the EU to move beyond a unilateral 20% cut in CO2 emissions by 2020, to 30% when an international agreement is struck. Only a 30% cut is anything like what is needed - if other countries make comparable efforts - to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
2. A major financial commitment to help developing countries cut the growth in their emissions and adapt to the climate change caused historically by the developed world.

These are two of the crucial building blocks that will be needed to keep the world on track to a global deal by the end of next year, and to keep Europe in its place as a global leader in the fight against climate change.

If the EU delivers, it'll have earned that title. And if Sarko can find compromises with enough environmental integrity, he'll have earned the three and more cheers for his presidency that should then ring out around Europe.

[You can tell your EU leaders it's time for Europe to lead the fight against climate change on December 12th by going to www.timetolead.eu]

Read more...

Two cheers for Sarko

Puffed with the Gaullist tradition of a French global role, Nicolas Sarkozy couldn't wait to get his hands on the rotating EU presidency. But look beyond some of the pomp and grandstanding, and this could be one of the most impressive presidencies of recent times. I say 'could' because a lot will depend on what happens over the next 18 days.

Of course the big member states will always want to leave their presidency's mark on the European project. The usual approach is to focus on one or two headline issues - Blair choosing international development in the 'Make Poverty History' presidency of 2005; and Merkel singling out an agreement on EU climate targets for 2020 in 2007 (of which she should be reminded over these next days), for example.

But Sarko clearly thought he could do rather better than that.

Ambitious French presidency plans had been long trailed: for historic shifts on EU defence policy (on which I wrote in last winter's Fabian Review); for a grand new union of the Mediterranean countries (with France at its centre, bien entendu!); for a common European immigration policy; and for a leading role for Europe in the next international climate change negotiations on a post-2012 deal, amongst others.

It hasn't quite worked out like that, but let's give the French president a bit of credit for his ambition, energy and enthusiam over the last 6 months. While not producing the results the Elysee had planned, Sarko's time at the EU helm has so far done the image of Europe as a global player no harm at all.

Three major global events (will) have shaped this presidency. Sarko has put the EU on the global map in response to the first two. All eyes are now on him to see if he can deliver on the third.

When Russia invaded South Ossetia, the EU were first on the scene, Sarkozy the broker of at least some sort of ceasefire agreement, for all its imperfections. The EU wasn't sidelined for being too slow to react to events in its own backyard, but instead appeared during the hot moments of the crisis for once as rather responsive, constructive and relevant to geopolitical affairs.

Then, when the financial crisis exploded with the implosion of Lehman Brothers in the US, the presidency faced an economic challenge unparalleled in the history of European integration. Early jitters were soon set aside for an EU stabilising role that makes the case for EU, and perhaps moreso Euro (are you reading, Gordon?) membership in the age of 21st century global capitalism, as the FT recognised on Friday.

But the biggest test of Europe's role on the global stage comes at the final hour of the French presidency. On October 12th at the next European Council in Brussels, EU heads of state and government will announce the final shape and substance of Europe's response to climate change until 2020. The date coincides with the final day of the next UN negotiations on a global post-2012 climate deal in Poznan, Poland.

What Europe announces on that day may determine whether such a deal will be reached by the Copenhagen summit in 2009 - the deadline set last year at Bali. It will also determine whether Europe can continue to see itself and be seen by others as a global leader in the fight against climate change. The stakes could not be higher.

The much proclaimed EU Climate and Energy Package, the weighty collection of European directives designed to realise those groundbreaking targets announced by EU heads of state under Merkel's presidency last year - for 30% cuts in CO2 emissions and 20% of EU energy to come from renewable sources by 2020, is now reaching its legislative climax.

Sarko has been adament that a deal on the Climate Package would be reached during his presidency - no doubt allowing him the limelight of a special announcement to the world's media during the Poznan summit. And there is little doubt a deal will be struck, the question is at what cost.

In facing up to the implications of those bold targets, many member states are seeking to row back on their commitments. Whether it is Italy's Berlusconi complaining of the underestimation of the costs of implementation; Poland's Tusk pleading over the impact on Polish fuel prices; Germany's Merkel - the previous year's EU climate champion - lobbying for German industry's special interests; or our own Brown looking for loopholes to 'meet' the UK's ambitious renewables targets, the danger of a weak deal looms large.

And a weak deal will be easily exposed by international partners at Poznan. The EU's credibility is on the line. If they construct a brittle shell of a climate policy for the next 12 years, their climate leadership role will be lost. The cry from the rest of the world will be that countries in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

So it's over to you Sarko to cut a deal that will cut the mustard on the international stage.

The picture is a devilishly complex one, but there are at least two major things to look out for when the announcement comes:

1. A clear commitment from the EU to move beyond a unilateral 20% cut in CO2 emissions by 2020, to 30% when an international agreement is struck. Only a 30% cut is anything like what is needed - if other countries make comparable efforts - to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
2. A major financial commitment to help developing countries cut the growth in their emissions and adapt to the climate change caused historically by the developed world.

These are two of the crucial building blocks that will be needed to keep the world on track to a global deal by the end of next year, and to keep Europe in its place as a global leader in the fight against climate change.

If the EU delivers, it'll have earned that title. And if Sarko can find compromises with enough environmental integrity, he'll have earned the three and more cheers for his presidency that should then ring out around Europe.

[You can tell your EU leaders it's time for Europe to lead the fight against climate change on December 12th by going to www.timetolead.eu]

Read more...