f

gdfgdsgdfsgfdg

dfgd
fg
ddfg
gdgg
df
dg


Read more...

sadsa

standfirst



main body

Read more...

Test post 2

This is the perfect time for a rethink on the role of the speaker as well as that of parliament. A new era of parliamentary involvement and activism? Yes, please. John Berkow's idea of the speaker as a public ambassador for the work of parliament is a good one, and would help raise awareness of what parliament does, and its role in examining legislation.

Something has definitely got to be done about the public perception that parliament is simply a debating chamber which is invariably empty except for a few moments when everyone piles in for a bit of yah-boo yelling.

I would like to nominate Tom Stoppard to take a stab at rewriting Erskine May, the bible of parliamentary procedure. This rewrite, as nominated by Menzies Campbell, in his pitch for speaker, is much needed for the rest of the world to know and understand what is going on in the world of parliament. It makes sense to translate such madness as "the question be now put, and the question being put, that the question now be put, being put and agreed to, the question was put" into something just a tiny bit more sensible. Stoppard who is responsible for a new version of Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard, and takes a lovely stab at translating Shakespearian rhythm in his fantastic script for the film Shakespeare in Love, would be the ideal man to wade through the words and bring it beautifully into the 21st century. It could be the real thing.

Read more...

Test for short post

Test post intro - this is your standfirst



main body of text main body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of textmain body of text

Read more...

Electoral reform: why not follow Ontario's lead?

In recent posts I have supported the idea of taking issues of electoral and wider constitutional reform out of the hands of the party elites and adopting a consultative citizens' convention process to develop reform proposals. As many readers will be aware, this is by no means a brand new idea. It has been tried, successfully, elsewhere.



Back in 2005 the state of Ontario decided that it would reform its electoral system by convening a citizens' assembly. The assembly reported in 2007, after a lengthy consultation process involving many local meetings and individual submissions. It recommended a form of proportional representation for elections to the Ontario state legislature.

Part of the rationale for the citizens' assembly was that this process would take the issue of electoral reform on to relatively neutral ground. If the decision was confined to the political parties, the decision would inevitably be skewed - and would be seen by citizens as being skewed - by calculations of party advantage. By involving citizens directly in a deliberative, consultative process, a reform could be achieved which would represent a genuine popular will, rather than a party fix. And this would enhance the legitimacy of the political system.

Similarly, in the UK at present, its clear that the various proposals for electoral reform floating around largely reflect calculations of party advantage. To say this is not to be 'cynical'. Its just basic poltiical science. So adopting a citizens' convention process is crucial to giving electoral reform integrity and (hence) legitimacy.

However, by doing the right thing, its possible that Labour could in this case also gain some party advantage. If Labour were to come out in favour of a citizens' convention process it would certainly help give the Brown government some of the momentum and sense of mission it is looking to regain.

So, even if you only care about Labour's interests (!), why not follow Ontario's lead?

Read more...

Why Labour shouldn't propose AV

Over at Liberal Conspiracy, Stuart Weir has an impassioned post arguing that for the government to propose electoral reform in the shape of the AV would be a 'Labour stitch-up'. I am inclined to agree. But aside from the substance of what the government might propose by way of reform, I am struck, like Stuart, by the apparent conservatism of the process by which the government appears to be approaching the whole issue of political reform.

Let's start with AV. As has been widely pointed out, AV is not a proportional system, and so simply does not address the intrinsic unfairness of radical disproportionality between votes and seats. Depending on the distribution of preferences, AV can actually produce even more disproportionate results than the current system.

Compared to PR, I think AV is also likely to put minor, radical parties at a disadvantage. This has its obvious upside: no BNP in parliament. But it has an equally obvious downside: fewer Greens. If, like me, you think the future of progressive politics is Red-Green, you will naturally want an electoral system that allows the latent support for the Greens to come through. I stand to be corrected on this, but my guess is that PR is likely to do this better than AV.

Sunder has proposed a compromise along the lines of AV for the Commons and PR for the second chamber. (Correct me, Sunder, if I am oversimplifying.) But this strikes me as a very unconvincing compromise. Under this proposal, many people would quite reasonably see the second chamber as having more democratic legitimacy than the Commons. What would happen then? Either the second chamber would retain its subordinate status, and many citizens would ask why the more democratic chamber was being overruled by the Commons. There would be a crisis of legitimacy for the Commons. Alternatively, the second chamber would achieve equal status with the Commons. But what, then, if the majorities in the two chambers do not match up? How is the government to be formed?

The compromise of 'AV plus' for the Commons strikes me as more plausible, and preferable to the pure AV proposal. So should Labour put this proposal forward instead?

This brings us back to the second point. Whatever the merits of specific proposals, I think we have reached a point where it is inappropriate for one specific governing party, or even the Westminster elite as a whole, to hold control over the reform process. The process of reform needs itself to address the underlying problem of disconnection and distrust between the political elite and the public. Moreover, if this is a constitutional moment, and we believe in the sovereignty of the people, there is a fundamental matter of principle in seeing that the process of reform is one which gives real, meaningful input to the people.

This is why it is a profound mistake for the Brown government to off into a huddle with a small group of selected advisors and come up with a plan for constitutional reform. That's the mentality of the Treasury technocrat, not the democratic citizen.

For a man who pledged on Monday night to start doing things differently, it is a sign that Gordon Brown still doesn't grasp the huge, qualitative change in his approach to governance that the times demand.

The alternative is for the political elite to let go and bring the people in. The idea of a citizens' convention, as the culmination of a wide and inclusive process of public meetings and consultations, is much preferable as a way forward. The convention would produce a set of proposals which would then be put to Parliament, and to a referendum if Parliament rejected them.

Of course, at the end of the public deliberation, the citizens' convention might come up with a proposal for an electoral system based on AV. So be it. At least then I would have confidence that this represented a genuine, deliberated popular will and not - as Stuart Weir rightly worries - an opportunistic stitch-up by the elite of one political party. Read more...

Electoral reform myths: Janet Daley gets it wrong

Since there will be a lot of nonsense talking about the subject, let's begin a short series pointing some of it out.

Janet Daley is quickly out of the blocks with an argument I expect many people will make, even though it is obviously incorrect.

What the "alternative vote" would mean is that it would be virtually impossible for the Conservatives ever to regain power. Labour and LibDem supporters could simply institutionalise their game of tactical voting: by always placing each other's party as their second choice, they would guarantee Left-liberal coalition governments forever.

Nonsense.

Unless Janet thinks that Ken Livingstone is still Mayor of London - and that Boris Johnson lost.

In fact, under the supplementary vote system (a simpler cousin of AV), Ken Livingstone received 135,000 second preferences and Boris almost 125,000 second preference votes, meaning that Boris' first round lead was closed only marginally.

Before Janet opines further on the subject, I suggest that she might want to ask Mike Smithson of Political Betting for a briefing on how LibDem second preferences often divide quite equally between the major parties - though no doubt with some bias to the Tories in circumstances like those of last week's elections, in contrast to a strong bias to Labour in 1997 when the country was united in wanting to get the Conservatives out. Read more...

What is the Alternative Vote? Essential reading

The BBC reports that Gordon Brown is announcing plans to consider electoral reform - with the Alternative Vote, rather than a PR-system.

The details are hazy: I expect it will lead to Labour endorsing the Alternative Vote in its own manifesto, but the more important question is whether there will be plans for a referendum either before or at the same time as the General Election. There is no prospect of a change for the next election.

For background, my Fabian essay How to reform the electoral system in Autumn 2007 set out the case for the Alternative Vote as the best way to build a consensus for reform, if combined with a PR-elected second chamber.

Peter Facey reflecting on this - and similar proposals from John Denham - argued it was an imperfect reform, which would improve the current system but not make every vote count equally.

A very informative and well informed study of - A better Alternative? - was published by Lewis Baston of the Electoral Reform Society, noting that it is not a proportional system, but suggesting it may have greater merits than supporters of PR have tended to acknowledge.

Peter Kellner's submission to the Jenkins Commission suggested that the Alternative Vote was the best system at balancing the various goals of electoral systems - in offering voters a clear choice of governments while being fairer to different parties. Kellner also deals in detail with the issue of AV's ability to offer even larger majorities than FPTP in some circumstances - such as 1997 - pointing out that (unilke under FPTP) a government needs to be generally popular with voters across parties for this to happen.

On past form, one can expect the Conservative response to be pretty ill informed about the issues at stake in voting reform.

For example, Jonathan Isaby is already mistakenly referring to "plans to adopt the alternative vote system of proportional representation". AV is not Proportional Representation.

The Conservatives may also claim that the system would be biased against them.

But academic experts disagree with this - certainly in present circumstances.

The transfers in the London Mayoral election showed that (which is the SV system, a simpler system in that it only allows second preferences), while last week's results showed an 'anybody but Labour' effect which would harm Labour under AV if it remained this unpopular.

On the whole, AV might reinforce Cameronism - because it rewards the breadth of appeal of a party's candidates, rather than an intense appeal to a core vote on a low turnout - but Eurosceptics might well also want to take some interest in a system which enables transfers between UKIP and the Tories without the problem of 'wasted votes' just as it does for progressive voters sympathetic to the Greens or other smaller parties. Read more...

What happened to the left's moment?

Asks The Times in a leading article.

... The recent financial crisis has thus reproduced many of the conditions that brought social democracy into being. And it made the case for liberal economic purity harder to make.

In such circumstances, there are four possible explanations for the electoral failure of the Centre Left. The first is that European electorates chose to send a resounding message to people at the Fabian Society not to muck about with their beloved neoliberal capitalism. This seems unlikely. The second, more credible, explanation is that in difficult economic times parties promoting prudent spending and lower taxes tend to do better. A third explanation is that the Left in general has not offered a coherent alternative to the market economics that it says has failed. There is certainly truth in this. Yet in the United States, conservatives are retreating as a self-confident Centre Left captures the public mood.

This leaves as the most powerful and convincing a fourth explanation. The leadership of European social democratic parties in one country after another has been poor. They could win, but they do not. ...

Its an important challenge, which needs more debate here too, though I suspect the issue goes deeper than that.

Though at least, in the view of The Times, it probably wasn't entirely the Fabians wot lost it. Read more...

The lost plot

So it's over. Tonight's Parliamentary Labour Party meeting seems to have put the lid on the coup that never quite was against Gordon Brown.

Crucial meetings of the PLP - like crucial leader's speeches at the party conference - are tests that leaders are likely to pass. The media briefing operation was well drilled too. But the political impact is real.

There is little or no prospect of the 'plotmail' letter surfacing with fifty signatures.

The crucial comment after the meeting was that of Barry Sheerman, who was pushing for a secret PLP ballot today, but who said after the meeting that he would 'stand down' his criticisms:

[Brown] said he was willing to change, he was wiling to listen more to the parliamentary party...if that is true yes we will stand down the criticisms that we have made publicly in the last week".

It is the role of senior non-usual suspects like Sheerman and Nick Raynsford who best serve as proxies for the mass of backbench opinion, rather more than the better known critics of the Prime Minister.

According to the PoliticsHome tally, Around a dozen MPs have gone public in calling for Brown to go this week.

Charles Clarke and Fiona MacTaggart called for the PM to stand down as leader, having done so last summer as, for the first time, did Tom Harris who has blogged his intervention. The Guardian's indefatigable Andrew Sparrow, who seems to have live-blogged the entire week of shuffles, counts and coups has pieced together the post-PLP meeting comments.

Stephen Byers continued the argument debating Ben Bradshaw at the Progress meeting afterwards, Alex
Smith, LabourList editor, offers a twitter report.

The tone of Harris' intervention - "I’ve done some media this evening but after today, that’s it" - and the (reported) decisions of James Purnell and Hazel Blears not to make resignation statements suggest that some MPs feel they should honestly put their own views on the record, without necessarily having the appetite to fight a guerrilla war if their colleagues are unpersuaded.

In reality, the danger to Gordon Brown peaked between 10pm and midnight on Thursday - as the Cabinet made their decision to back him. At that point, Next Left was swimming against the tide of expert opinion in explaning why it wasn't all over, but it was difficult to see what the backbenches could do other than by persuading the Cabinet to act.

This is not the last we will hear of the 'will Brown go' question. But, after two failed coup plots already, I am suspicious of the idea that there will be an extensive appetite - in Parliament, as opposed to the media - for a third round in the Autumn. Read more...

Irish tale brings new characters

The Irish election results prove once again that... it's the economy stupid. The economic downslide in Ireland culminated in a face slap for the governing Fianna Fail party and its alliance partner the Greens, but is likely also signal a turnaround on Ireland's attitude to the EU.
The island that has been transformed with the help of EU funding to help create a new era of Irish life, suddenly turned against it with the Lisbon vote, but once the severe financial crisis set in a reassessment of the helpful EU was not far removed. Memories of how poor Ireland was before it joined the European community in the 1970s are only a generation away.
Since Ireland is still dotted with massive signs showing EU project funding for Irish developments, it is not surprising with the Irish economy in uproar the European election results suggest that the Irish people have changed their mind and once more want to embrace the EU's blue flag as a valued friend. The final answer will be delivered after the recount of the votes for anti-Lisbon campaigner Declan Ganley, who is expected not to win a seat.
Are there lessons for the UK mainstream parties from the Irish result? Get your head outside the Westminster bubble and you might notice that the economy and jobs are what people care about more than anything, and there is an anger that these important issues are being ignored in favour of endless insider chatter about MPs' expenses and an endlessly shuffling pack of ministers.
When it comes down to it, the talk on the journey to work or down the pub is about security, how people are worried about losing their jobs, their homes, their savings. Would this explain a swing to UKIP and the BNP? It might.

PS: Peter Kellner has just published this very interesting analysis of the BNP vote - should be essential reading. Stop talking about this being an anti-expenses vote and start talking to these voters about issues such as housing and employment. Read more...

We need more, not less PES

While we await the final results of the European elections, it is obvious our socialist and social democratic family had a disappointing result.

We face a more conservative European Parliament, with a right that is more euro-sceptic and more nationalistic than before.

The low participation rate was a huge problem, especially for us. Our voters stayed away. They simply didn’t see the relevance of these elections. They did not see the political choices at European level - perhaps not surprising since these elections were mainly fought over national political disputes.

We had a European alternative, but it was not visible enough. Europe still needs a new direction. We are in the middle of a recession, and it will not go away. Wage earners are not to blame but they may end up paying the price. We will have 27 million unemployed next year unless we have a new and stronger European recovery effort. So we will continue our fight for more and better-coordinated investments in new jobs, and to save jobs. We will continue to stand up for social justice and equality. We will continue our fight for a global new deal, including a new strong global climate agreement in the coming months.

We have suffered a loss but we remain the second largest group in the European Parliament. We lost 3 percentage points overall, but we gained in ten member states including in the Czech Republic, in Sweden, in Greece and in Ireland where we are in opposition, and in Slovakia and Slovenia where we are in Government.

We need to reflect, and for our common European party to come forward with a renewed strategy and new ideas. But I say no to those who announce a profound crisis in European socialism. European citizens still depend on social democratic values for decent work, good schools, good health care and a clean environment. Europe still needs a society where everyone can participate, contribute and benefit. This is no time for dismantling our welfare states, it is time for strengthening them.

The centre-right cannot claim a victory for their policies. People are still worried about the crisis, and the crisis remains our number one priority.

The far-right made worrying gains in the elections. People still need us to stand up for respect and tolerance for all, and to continue to fight to protect all workers from the recession.

We need more PES, not less PES. We will make new efforts to strengthen our European political party because we must engage more than ever as a political family in European politics. Read more...

Peter Townsend - a tribute

For six decades Peter Townsend campaigned against poverty, wrote volumes of academic work, virtually invented the idea of relative poverty, and worked enthusiastically to support causes he strongly believed in.
Even at the age of 81, his enthusiasm for his work was undimmed. Fabian vice-president and veteran anti-campaigner Professor Peter Townsend, who died yesterday, had earlier this year contributed to a new Fabian pamphlet, and conference, From Workhouse to Welfare.
Peter had an impressive academic career at the LSE, Bristol University and Essex University, and Policy Press is about to publish The Peter Townsend reader, charting his contributions over his distinguished career.
But he balanced his academic interests with practical action. He was a founding member of the Child Poverty Action Group, and was co-founder of the Disability Alliance.
Peter had an international vision of change, and also worked in various roles at the UN, Unesco, World Health Organisation and Unicef.
He has served on many government committees and has been vice-president of the Fabian Society since 1989.
Hitting his 80th birthday last year did not seem to have slowed him down, and Peter continued to enthusiastically contribute to the Fabian Society's work, and always had time to talk.

Read Peter Townsend's argument for a review of the World Bank's role here, and his contribution to the From Workhouse to Welfare pamphlet here. Read more...

The election inquest in numbers

The European election inquest will be all about opinions. I will update this post with the best pieces of factual analysis of the results: please do suggest resources and links, and let us know whether the explanations of politicians and parties stand up.


The national UK result and Europe-wide summary (BBC)

The Guardian summarises a miserable night for the centre-left across most of the EU.

John Curtice (The Independent): A disaster for Labour but hardly a Tory triumph

For Labour, the ignominy of coming third for the first time in a nationwide vote since 1922. Its share of the vote was easily it lowest-ever score in a nationwide vote since it first started fighting elections as an independent party in 1918. It only managed to top the poll in the deepest of deepest heartland, the North East of England.

True, most parties of government around Europe lost ground. But the drop in Labour's share of the vote as compared with the last general election looks set to be the one of the biggest suffered by any EU governing party

...
Yet it was far from a night of triumph for David Cameron. The Tory vote was no higher than in 2004, and well down on the 36 per cent William Hague managed in 1999. Hardly a performance to show that the Conservatives are on course for power ... Collective support for non-Westminster parties increased beyond the already remarkable one-third recorded in 2004 to no less than two-fifths.

Make Votes Count say that three out of four voters will be represented by an MP they voted for, ranging from 62% in the north-east to 87.7% in the south-east.

And they have a response to the criticism that PR let the BNP in

Systems don't elect candidates; it is the actions of parties and voters which do. What we have seen in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber is a failure of the Labour party and the political class as a whole to engage with and mobilise people – at these elections, and more widely.

Read more...

Financial Times: 'recession is over' (for now)

Amidst the political gloom, an unexpected glimmer of economic light in the Financial Times this morning.

The report of City opinion - Economists see pause in recession - suggests (against almost all political/media commentary to date) that the Chancellor's budget growth forecast "may have been too pessimistic",

The recession is over for now, the majority of City economists polled by the Financial Times believe.

In a survey conducted at the end of last week, 11 out of 20 economists said the economy had stopped contracting in June and was likely to start growing in coming months. The majority of those believing the economy was still shrinking thought the bottom of the downturn was near.

The survey suggests the government’s forecast in the Budget that growth would return only by the fourth quarter of this year may have been too pessimistic.

Alan Clarke of BNP Paribas told the FT: “The outlook for gross domestic product over the remainder of the year has improved dramatically . . . the recession is over.”

...
Equally, a pick-up in manufacturing will give a quick boost to growth. But the question remains how sustainable that will be.

“Growth is likely to remain below potential for some time. In turn, this points to ongoing increases in unemployment,” said Mr Clarke. “Things will still feel awful for a long time.”

I don't have the technical expertise to comment on the accuracy of the predictions, but it is a serious survey based on key indicators. Perhaps more surprising still is an uptick in consumer confidence.

In last week’s Nationwide consumer confidence indicator, as many respondents thought the economic situation in six months’ time would be better than today as believed the outlook would be worse. As recently as March, the same survey showed twice as many respondents gloomy about the UK’s economic prospects than those who were optimistic.

(Hat tip: New Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw (on Facebook) - "Ben Bradshaw notes today's Financial Times says the recession is over - a story completely ignored of course by the BBC". I might or might not have got to the FT eventually but not - this morning - by 7am. Read more...

Welsh earthquake

The Tories topping the polls in Wales is one of those political developments which can not be diminished by expectation management. Even on a night when the BNP have won seats, UKIP have finished second, and Labour has its lowest ever score, this must have a good claim to be the headline of the election.

It is an achievement for the Tories to benefit from the sharp drop in the Labour vote, rather than Plaid Cymru.

I have heard conflicting reports between the BBC website and the TV broadcast about whether the last time Labour did not come first in Wales was the Khaki election of 1918 (as just said on the TV) or the 1922 election. Can any Welsh specialists clear that one up?

PS: I just about managed to resist "Earthquake in the Valleys" as a headline. Here's betting that two or three newspapers use it tomorrow. Read more...

If the BNP knew our history ...

The BNP win their first seat in the European Parliament.

Hope Not Hate have already launched a Not in my name petition to be presented to the European Parliament when the BNP arrive.

The first MEP Andrew Brons gave a rather muted acceptance speech, stressing that he was a former politics teacher and banging on about the d'Hondt formula in the style of the more anorak-ish type of old Liberal party councillor. Nick Robinson of the BBC had some interesting information about his National Front background, and suggested some National Socalist appreciation society affiliations too. No doubt more will be revealed.

The BNP think they are proud of our history, but perhaps they could learn some more of it.

It is not just the chutzpah and ignorance of a racist party using second world war imagery in a campaign to win seats on the weekend of the 65th anniversary of D-Day.

I was rather surprised to hear Nick Griffin say this in their electoral broadcast.

In the end, the answer to the question “by what right should native britons be put first?” can be seen on every war memorial in the country. Just think with me for a moment of all those names carved on those cold, sad slabs of stone. English names, Scottish names, Irish names, Allied British names. Nobody else’s.

Conservative activist James Barlow blogged some pictures of Commonwealth War Graves which suggest otherwise, in a very effective post on his blog.

There was an excellent Guardian letter from Alan Shaw of Norwich, noting that he had served during the second world war in the Indian Army, also making this point.

I served throughout the second world war in the British army. This included four years with the Indian army, which expanded on the outbreak of the war with Japan to approximately 2.5 million, all ranks, the largest volunteer army in the world. This was at a time when the UK armed forces were at the limit of their manpower resource. That Indian army won many VCs and lost very many Indian officers and men killed in action in what was a war against extremism. Its Indian officers and men looked for, and received at its end, independence from British colonial rule.

So one way to counter political extremism - let's teach British history properly in our schools, so even the far right as well as the rest of us might learn something about who we are and how we got here. Read more...

Scottish swing will be major worry for general election

Figures showing a massive SNP swing in Scotland will be a major migraine for Labour in the general election, whenever it might be.

Swings putting the SNP ahead in Edinburgh and Fife show the wobble Scottish voters felt at the beginning of the economic downturn in the autumn last year, which undermined support for the SNP, has worn off.

In September last year - as the Scottish banks were being part nationalised - SNP voters' belief in a strong independent Scotland were undermined and there was talk of a move back towards Labour.

The votes in the EU election show that concern about the SNP's ability to govern in hard economic times may have worn off.

If the EU vote is anything to go by the SNP are in the ascendancy in Scotland and will challenge Labour's historic domination of the Scottish vote further in any general election with dramatic long-term consequences.

Read more...

Purnell is suspiciously French, says MacShane

Given that my friend and Fabian Executive colleague Denis MacShane is as laudably Europhile as it gets in the Labour party - and one of the few MPs capable of giving an off-the-cuff run-down of the specific electoral challenges facing the Socialists or Social Democrats in France, Germany, Hungary, Romania or anywhere else - I am not sure that pursuing against James Purnell the line of attack which the Bush Republicans used against John Kerry - that he seems suspiciously French - is his best ever idea.

MacShane is rather associated with the Blairite wing of New Labour, though is very much a party loyalist. He writes in the Yorkshire Post.

Jim Purnell is like the Conservatives' John Redwood. A clever clogs intellectual fizzing with new ideas and as smart as buttons on the seminar circuit. But political bottom and judgment? Hmm. Mr Purnell was educated in France and was trained in the rigorous school of French intellectualism. It does not fit the messy pragmatic rambling nature of British political life where the theatrical gesture is laughed at more than admired.

Denis has never been a great fan of the non-modernising French left - where the Socialists have had a terrible night, as Sarkozy bucks the anti-government mood across the continent - but then I am not sure James Purnell is quite of that persuasion either. Read more...

The new coup strategy

The "botched, half-cocked" coup has failed, so only one man can save it now.

Brown appears safe - and that's why Gordon Brown should go, argues Jackie Ashley in her mildly counterintuitive column in tomorrow's Guardian.

Brown knows that almost all the possible alternatives to him have damaged themselves in the past few days. Senior Labour people are bewildered and very critical of Alan Johnson's apparent decision to lead potential supporters up the hill only to march them down again, just before the polls closed last Thursday. They are more critical still of David Miliband for staying inside the tent. Yet by leaping, only to find no one following him, James Purnell has seemed isolated.

...
The only person who can save the situation is Brown himself. Couldn't friends talk him into it? I can confirm they are discussing that, calling him up without public fuss, keeping well away from media interviews. Most of these friends, however, complain that he just refuses to listen to anyone now except Mandelson.

Read more...

An Ulster earthquake?

There has been well informed speculation over the weekend in Northern Ireland on the excellent Slugger O'Toole blog that the DUP has had a disastrous result, with whether it will take one of the three European Parliament seats even in doubt.

It will be a novel experience for the DUP to be hit by the pan-European backlash against governing parties.

BBC Northern Ireland editor Mark Devenport explains the far-from-scientific but well practiced method of "tallying" here.

Sinn Fein topping the Northern Ireland poll looks certain. That was expected, given the long-term shift towards SF and against the SDLP within the nationalist vote, but is still a symbolic first.

What is more unexpected is the DUP potentially do very badly indeed, with the Unionist vote split between the Ulster Unionists, the DUP and a strong showing for 'Traditionalist Unionist Voice', in the first election since the DUP made a power-sharing agreement with Sinn Fein.

To some extent, this might be seen as the DUP being hoist by its own rejectionist petard - but the evidence of a strong rejectionist strand in Unionist opinion is worrying - and could destabilise the Stormont power-sharing coalition.

The count is not until Monday. While the Northern Ireland election have been overshadowed by the Westminster focus, this could yet be the part of Britain in which the European election fallout is most serious. Read more...

Expectations, expectations

PoliticsHome has an expert panel, including MPs, journalists and people like me, so we can all benefit from the wisdom of politico-crowds, or groupthink as the case may be.

Nationally, Labour could come third, fourth - or even second. Indeed, the margins between 2nd and 4th might be just a few points. (The opinion polls for European elections are not particularly reliable because, as a "second order national election", voters may not take what is at stake anything like as seriously as MEPs and candidates might wish, and they vary a great deal).

Second would, however absurdly, now seem an unlikely triumph which would stop the faltering coup plot dead.

Fourth, which is quite possible, might yet bring it back to life a bit - especially if the BNP also gains a seat or two.

But what about third?

I think it would be rather better for Gordon Brown if Labour finished third behind UKIP, but ahead of the LibDems, rather than third behind the LibDems but ahead of UKIP, or of course fourth behind both.

A stronger UKIP performance would strengthen the claim that this was an exceptional election - primarily about anger at the 'establishment' parties. The LibDems faltering too would seem to substantiate that, while Ukip might also worry the Tories.

It would also, as in 2004, highlight the limits to reading across from the European elections. Differential turnout means that keen "get us out" Eurosceptics (who make up perhaps 30% of the electorate, as a very rough rule-of-thumb) are more likely to turn out, and so have a greater presence than in higher turnout national elections. There is no comparable strongly motivated Europhile vote, though the electorate is still likely to be more "in" than "out" if the question is put seriously on the agenda.

The Greens will also hope to do well.

Fifth and all bets really would be off. Read more...

Definitely maybe

If one was to look up 'political establishment' in a dictionary, one might expect to see a picture of Lord Falconer.

So the former Lord Chancellor's characteristic caution might explain the circumlocution with which he has called for the Labour Party to urgently "debate" the party leadership.

"I think we are moving moderately quickly towards the need for a change and that change may be a change in leadership," he told the BBC1 Politics Show. "We need unity above all. Can we get unity under the current leadership? I am not sure that we can and we need to debate it urgently and I think probably it will need a change in leader."

We do, in the end, get what he (probably) means. For the most coded view I have yet seen, I think that Sally Keeble MP may be calling for a leadership challenge in her piece - Leadership Matters - for the Progress website which argues that the question of leadership is absolutely central.

In this situation, to try to distinguish between the policies and the person is a false dichotomy. Our problem in the Labour Party is all about leadership. We need to show the public our direction of travel, and that has to be set out collectively by the Cabinet and most clearly by the Prime Minister, the party leader.
...
That is why the issue is about leadership now, creating the political lead that can reconnect with the broad mass of the electorate, rebuilding the broad alliance that brought us into power and providing the policies that will make sure Labour remains the vehicle by which the British people see they can best achieve their aspirations.

The leadership may be the absolutely central question. But, having read the piece three times, I don't really know what she thinks about it.

UPDATE: Keeble has a piece in Monday's Guardian withdrawing her support from Gordon Brown. Read more...

Purnell resignation: how did George Osborne know?

The calm before the storm, and the calm before the calm, are difficult to tell apart without hindsight. But, were we precisely halfway through a regicide plot, one would expect the rebels to be making some dissonant noise, and that there might be one new development in the Sunday newspapers, instead of play-by-play accounts of the last 72 hours and even older news dominating the front-pages.

The only really eye-catching nugget for me was in the opening line in Matthew d'Ancona's column.

It was George Osborne who got the scoop. On Thursday, he told the 10am strategy meeting of the Tory high command that James Purnell was set to resign: his colleagues were sceptical. Twelve hours later, the prophecy came spectacularly true, as Mr Purnell marched out of Cabinet, urging Gordon Brown to step aside for the good of the Labour Party.

So how did Osborne know? The revelation could add to disgruntlement in Downing Street at finding out after the newspapers had their front-pages ready. Yet the reported chronology does not support the idea that news may have reached Osborne from those newspapers, according to The Times' night of the blunt knives account.

The resignation was hatched in total secrecy. Even one of his special advisers was unaware of Purnell’s plans. It is understood that Purnell made the final decision to go as late as 4pm on Thursday. He was in his Manchester constituency and drafted a resignation letter, dictating it over the telephone to a trusted aide who was sat at his computer in Whitehall. The letter, written on departmental headed notepaper, was handed to three national newspapers at about 6pm.

Certainly, the closely guarded bombshell did not leak before the allotted hour. (Though Labour candidate and blogger Anthony Painter says he was tipped off on Thursday afternoon).

So my guess is that Osborne didn't know. He may have been speculating about various possibilities - or guessing. Perhaps the revelation of the prophecy itself is an example of the 'black arts' - either to increase suspicion in Labour ranks or to enhance Osborne's reputation.

Perhaps Osborne did learn something on that yacht after all.

---

For the rest, the daftest headline of the weekend must surely be the Sunday Telegraph's splash - "Revealed: The Plot to Oust Brown". (When I was worked at The Observer, there were sporadic attempts to avoid the temptation to run "Revealed:" in the splash headline every weekend). To the extent that there is a scoop, it is that there was a coordinated plot over the resignations of four Ministers - Blears, Purnell, Flint and Hutton - before they went on to conspicuously fail to coordinate their resignations.

Also rather overtaken by events, even on its own account, is the Sunday Times splash - "Balls goes to war with Mandelson". The scoop here is the claim (denied as "completely untrue") that "earlier in the week ... Balls 'went nuclear and warned Gordon that if he didn't get the job he wouldn't cooperate with Peter any more" before, err, working hand-in-glove with Mandelson to save the PM after Purnell's resignation with both being "closely involved in Friday's Cabinet reshuffle", according to the same report.

Nor is the ghost of Derek Draper's in-box past particularly revealing. As Alex Smith suggests, Brown-Mandelson friction is hardly news. And yet the full correspondence reveals Mandelson - in private correspondence, while in exile in January 2008 - being rather nuanced, supportive of and sympathetic to Brown.

(Indeed, is it not rather touching to find Labour's practitioners of the political dark arts discussing not just presentation, but also social democratic theory, redistribution and the enabling state, with Peter Mandelson crediting Roy Hattersley as a forefather of New Labour as Labour's leading old right social democrat of the 1980s. I am sure Andy Coulson discusses Oakeshott too). Read more...

Sunday round-up: the half-time score

Last night's Saturday Newsnight special was a Match of the Day style half-time analysis, writes Matthew d'Ancona on the Spectator Coffee House blog.

In that case, the Sunday commentators seem to agree that the Prime Minister, having gone behind in the first minute to a surprise strike from James Purnell, is now 2-1 up (Mandelson; D.Miliband own goal) with away goals in hand. With apologies to Caroline Flint or the football analogy, her own spirited effort having been ruled out for offside after she began her run on goal too late.

Despite Brown's rotation policy, he plans to field a mostly unchanged side. And it is not now clear whether the Rebels will even take to the field for the second leg, having failed to appoint a manager or name a team. Stephen Byers is warming up, and may bring on the tenacious Hazel Blears on the right and bruiser Charles Clarke who is unlikely to take any prisoners in the middle of the park. Veteran John Reid, on loan from Celtic, may make a cameo appearance. But the team looks lop-sided and may be exposed down the flanks, having no naturally left-sided players.

In other words, the Sunday commentators seem to be pretty united in their view that a coup this week is very probably off.

Andrew Rawnsley explains the restraints on a Labour act of regicide "which would have incalculable consequences".

The would-be assassins have proved more indecisive and chaotic than the king they would kill. The plotters only have a slogan: save our seats. They lack a manifesto, they don't have a plausible endgame and they are left without a credible challenger now that his senior colleagues have agreed to carry on serving in Mr Brown's cabinet ... To see these events through the old prism of the Blairite/Brownite split is to misjudge the gravity of Labour's situation and the complexity of its dilemma.

He also offers a very lightly coded swipe at Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee:

That makes it easy to attack Jack Straw, Alan Johnson and David Miliband as dithering cowards for not dealing the death blow to Gordon Brown when they were presented with the chance, though I can't help laughing when that charge is laid by those who recommended him to us as the messiah just two years ago.

The Observer condemns the rebellion as a 'shambles' and says Labour should get on with governing.

The rebels' vision of electoral redemption relies on a critical mass of discontent forcing Mr Brown to stand nobly aside. It won't happen. The prime minister has made it clear he will fight to the end. So the choice now for Labour MPs is between debilitating guerrilla warfare against an entrenched Gordon Brown or acceptance that he will lead the party into the next election. Either way, that election is probably lost. But if Labour can regain some collective composure and start addressing the electorate instead of itself, it may still salvage a year of dignified government from the wreckage of this parliamentary term.

The Independent on Sunday editorial writers think Labour should stick with Brown and that "Mr, Mrs or Ms Rebel" have miscalculated.

And what of the results so far? Lamentable for Labour, but no great shakes for the Conservatives either. Despite everything that has happened, and a ferocious media narrative of Mr Brown's uselessness, the projection from the county council elections is for a Cameron majority at a general election of just 22 seats. Might that suggest the game is still live, that there is something yet to play for? We accept Gordon Brown has little in the way of easy charm, at least in performing his public duties. We accept that his tactical abilities are suspect and that he is struggling with a grand vision. What we reject is the Labour rebel calculation that to dump him benefits their party, or the nation's economy.

Matthew d'Ancona, having believed Purnell's move was a death blow, now suggests that the "cowardly" Cabinet has shifted the odds back to the PM, though not ruling out a backbench coup whose disorganised nature "is its weakness – does it truly exist? – but also its strength".

In 1990, Michael Heseltine acted upon Sir Geoffrey's cue. But imagine if Hezza had instead said: "You know what, Geoff? I reckon I'll pass on the tragic-conflict-wrestling today, if that's okay with you." This is exactly what happened after Mr Purnell displayed the Sideburns of Courage. Far from following his lead, and marching into the political space created, David Miliband and Alan Johnson did precisely nothing. Mr Johnson, after posturing for weeks as the Pearly Dauphin, accepted the job of Home Secretary like an obedient employee of the month at the local postal depot. Mr Miliband, fond of calling for a "new phase", decided to stick with the old phase and stay as Foreign Secretary. What a pair of girly men, hiding timorously from the call of duty and of history. This was "behind-the-sofa" government. By Friday morning, we had moved from 1990 to 1995, the year in which John Major called his enemies' bluff,

And John Rentoul - leading the 'AJ for PM' campaign - sticks to his view that the PM will be brought down not this week, but in the Autumn.

What Purnell has really done is make it more certain that Brown will go before the election. The point about a dress rehearsal is important psychologically. One of the barriers to a successful coup is that people cannot visualise it. Last week, we saw how it might happen. We saw more of Alan Johnson and it did not seem ridiculous that he might be prime minister. Gordon Brown has survived, only to be more certain of going next time.

That was Rentoul's view last week too.

What seems more doubtful is his argument that James Purnell's resignation makes this scenario more likely. Most in the PLP - on both sides of the argument - will think that Purnell has now created the 'put up and shut up' moment.

Rentoul suggests a messy draw, without holding a penalty shoot out, is now the best the rebels can hope for.

But the timing is never right. There will be a much reduced appetite for another round of plotting later ahead of the party conference. If the rebel aim this week is simply to live to fight another day, then this looks more and more like a coup which will never happen. Read more...

Congratulations Sadiq

Many congratulations to Sadiq Khan MP, who is Chair of the Fabian Society, on being promoted to Transport Minister, attending Cabinet. With Andrew Adonis in the Lords as Transport Secretary, Sadiq will lead on Transport in the Commons.

Sadiq has announced the move on twitter. (And I have asked him whether we should also twitter him if the buses are late).

And the Wandsworth Guardian has scooped the nationals, reporting Sadiq's claim that transport was “in the blood” because of the decades his father, Amanullah Khan, spent driving the number 44 bus from Wandsworth garage prior to his death in 2003.

Tooting MP Sadiq Khan said his bus driver father would be proud today after he became the first ever Muslim to join the cabinet, as the minister of state for transport.

Mr Khan, whose late father drove buses around Wandsworth for 25 years, was given the huge promotion in the Labour party reshuffle following the expenses scandal. The 38-year-old father of two, who grew up on the Henry Prince Estate in Earlsfield, said he wanted to be an inspiration to all people from humble backgrounds.

He said: “My dad, when he first came to this country, he wouldn’t have dreamt that his son would have gone to the cabinet. If he was alive now he’d pinch himself. When you’re an immigrant and you’re driving buses, working all the hours God sends, and when you live on the Henry Prince Estate, sometimes you can have limited dreams and expectations.

“This is the land of hope and glory. This is a country where the sky is the limit.”

The move does, however, mean that Sadiq will not now get to team up at DCLG with John Denham, his colleague on the Fabian Society Executive, who has been made Communities Secretary. Fortunately, Sadiq had penned his Fabian pamphlet 'Fairness, not Favours' before becoming communities minister. Read more...

Was it The Telegraph wot shuffled it?

Amidst the leadership drama, it was surprising that so little was made of the impact of the expenses crisis on the reshuffle, though the snippets of news of the departures of Geoff Hoon, Tony McNulty and others offered a clear pattern. Michael White makes the link and reports that Peter Oborne also made this point on the Week in Westminster.

If it was The Telegraph wot shuffled it, today's newspaper has only these three short paragraphs at the foot of a news report

Virtually all of the ministers who have left had faced questions over their expenses following disclosures in The Daily Telegraph.

Hazel Blears, Mr Hoon and James Purnell did not pay capital gains tax on the sale of London flats. Jacqui Smith claimed her "main home" was a bedroom in her sister's house allowing her to claim expenses on the family home in Redditch. Tony McNulty claimed for a property where his parents lived.

Miss Flint claimed thousands of pounds in stamp duty despite being housing minister. Of those facing major questions over their expenses, only Mr Darling, the Chancellor, survived.

Saying 'we get it' with the reshuffle was the first point in my suggested PM survival plan last Wednesday morning.

One irony is that Downing Street can not make much of this - because it can ill afford to offend or impugn any of those who have returned to the backbenches. Read more...

Women cannot be used as window dressing

The phrase of using women as "window dressing" will resonate well beyond this extraordinary week in politics - and may well haunt members of the current Cabinet.
If, as Caroline Flint sets out, in her very angry resignation letter, women attending cabinet have been used to make a show of a gender-balanced cabinet where none existed, this is an appalling state of affairs for a Labour government in the 21st century.
This "attending cabinet" status was rather woolly and appeared to be used initially to allow Yvette Cooper cabinet status as housing minister when salaried places were full up.
But latterly others have been given this status including Beverley Hughes and Tessa Jowell.
If, as Flint alleges, this was to give a show of having women in Cabinet in these modern times, without actually giving them a proper role, or power, or even allowing them to attend meetings, then this is a very poor state for a Labour government which supports the idea of equality.
However, at this stage it is hard to seperate what is an outpouring of anger on Flint's behalf as she is denied a Cabinet role, which she obviously felt she had been promised or deserved..and the truth of this allegation.
When the anger has dissipated, it will be time to look clearly at roles in politics and any gender discrimination.
There is no point in any organisation creating a "board" giving women senior roles and then denying them real power.
I would like to believe that the government would never do that. Read more...

'Together we can achieve anything'

Gordon Brown is keeping in regular contact with Labour party members, sending his latest email tonight.

---

Dear Sunder,

The elections yesterday were a painful defeat for Labour. Too many good people doing so much good for their communities and constituencies have lost through no fault of their own and I want to thank them for their public service as well as congratulate all those who’ve won elections – and all those who have campaigned tirelessly to support them.

Since the global economic crisis first hit Britain, I never doubted how difficult it would be. Not just for our party but more importantly for our country. It’s indeed a testing time. An economic crisis and now a parliamentary crisis for MPs is a test of everyone’s resilience. Mine, the government’s and the country’s. It demands that we continue making the very difficult decisions but also it requires deep reserves of strength when things are difficult.

The task in front of us is clear. First to clean up politics, secondly to push forward with our economic recovery and third to ensure the best opportunities for people through reformed public services that are tailored and far more responsive to people’s needs. The lesson that we have learned this week is that we must push ahead further and faster on all these three fronts. And to do this I have reshaped the Cabinet and will reshape and streamline how we deliver our policies for the country.

We can only build Britain’s future if we have not only a strong economy but good public services that can meet the challenges of the future. So the third leg of our strategy for building Britain’s future is the next stage of reform in public services, a reform driven by one central principle, that a fair society is one in which everyone and not just the privileged have a fair chance to succeed.

I believe in never walking away from people in difficult times, this is what I stand for. I have the determination to take this country through the most difficult of economic times and this is what I’m doing. I know where I and my Cabinet team want to take this country, and I know what we as a nation have it within ourselves to achieve.

You can see a short note that outlines this new talented, committed Cabinet here www.labour.org.uk/cabinet

I’m certain of what is at stake, not just for Labour but for Britain. Yes it was a tough night but we fight on for what we believe. I will not waver, I will not walk away, I will get on with the job and I will finish the work.

Thank you for supporting Labour. Together we can achieve anything.

Yours,


Gordon Read more...

First Secretary of State (some history)

That is Peter Mandelson's new title today.

Of course, the title was given to Michael Heseltine - as First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister in the reshuffle following a long meeting between the two on the morning of July 4th, as the voting took place in the "put up or shut up" leadership contest, in which John Major challenged himself and had the offer taken up by John Redwood.

It was widely rumoured - though officially denied - that this was part of deal which led to around twenty Heseltinians pulling back from abstaining and voting for Major instead. Major's vote was deemed to have met the threshold for survival, closing the question of the leadership. Heseltine never got to wear the crown, but he did get to occupy perhaps the largest office ever seen in Whitehall.

The previous holder prior to Michael Heseltine was Rab Butler, given the role by Harold Macmillan in 1962.

Perhaps that was a consolation prize for Butler being pipped to the premiership by Macmillan in 1957, before being famously stitched out of it by Macmillan's machinations in the extraordinary Tory leadership crisis of 1963. It was Enoch Powell - who refused to serve under Alec Douglas Home with Iain MacLeod - who stated that they had but a revolver into Butler's hands but that he had refused to pull the trigger.

There are several angry newspaper commentators portraying either David Miliband or Alan Johnson for failing to play their allotted part in assassinating a Prime Minister today. Read more...

'Window dressing'

Can anybody identify a more extraordinary ministerial resignation letter than that sent by Caroline Flint to Gordon Brown today?

Dear Gordon

I believe the achievements of the Labour Government to date have been monumental and you have played an immense part in the creation of those achievements.

However, I am extremely disappointed at your failure to have an inclusive Government.

You have a two tier Government. Your inner circle and then the remainder of Cabinet.

I have the greatest respect for the women who have served as full members of Cabinet and for those who attend as and when required. However, few are allowed into your inner circle. Several of the women attending Cabinet – myself included – have been treated by you as little more than female window dressing. I am not willing to attend Cabinet in a peripheral capacity any longer.

In my current role, you advised that I would attend Cabinet when Europe was on the agenda. I have only been invited once since October and not to a single political Cabinet - not even the one held a few weeks before the European elections.

Having worked hard during this campaign, I would not have been party to any plan to undermine you or the Labour Party in the run up to 4 June. So I was extremely angry and disappointed to see newspapers briefed with invented stories of my involvement in a “Pugin Room plot.”

Time and time again I have stepped before the cameras to sincerely defend your reputation in the interests of the Labour Party and the Government as a whole. I am a natural party loyalist. Yet you have strained every sinew of that loyalty.

It has been apparent for some time that you do not see me playing a more influential role in the Government. Therefore, I have respectfully declined your offer to continue in the Government as Minister for attending Cabinet.

I served six years as a backbencher and, therefore, I am not unhappy to be able to devote myself to promoting my constituency’s interests and to support the Labour Government from the backbenches.

This is a personal decision, which I have not discussed with colleagues.

Yours

Caroline

Read more...

Glenys Kinnock on rethinking the special relationship

In Glenys Kinnock, the government will have a Europe Minister who is strongly committed to making the public case for whole-hearted British engagement in the EU. That was sadly missing from Labour's European election campaign.

I suspect that this was not an appointment to the FCO that would have been made without the regime change in Washington, as Kinnock had made little secret of her opposition to the Bush administration's policy of "systemic unilateralism".

One example was the hard-hitting piece - What needs to change in foreign policy - she wrote for the Fabian Review ahead of our Next Decade conference in January 2007, where Gordon Brown was the keynote speaker.

Kinnock wrote:

2007 will bring a new Prime Minister, hopefully Gordon Brown. He will, I believe, give clear priority to issues of global importance. In doing that he will need to identify the links between human rights, human security and counter-terrorism. And he will also need to consider adjustments to foreign policy that, among other things, will mean stepping out the shadow of the special relationship and being prepared to courteously but candidly disagree with the US on Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, the Chemical Weapons Convention, Guantanamo, "extraordinary rendition" and much else. This is not merely important for regaining distinctiveness for UK policy; it is vital to the efforts to strengthen the common sense and common interest of multilateralism against the systemic unilateralism of the Republican administration.

We will not regain respect and proper influence for British foreign policy until we have a foreign policy that is seen to be authentically British. Tony Blair was no doubt sincere in believing that unflinching support for America after 9/11 was the best way to exert influence over the direction of American policy. The problem is that his support has been abused and not requited. The observation of one state department official about America's approach to Britain- "we typically ignore them and take no notice" - should not have come as a shock. It comes through the "Yo Blair" school of politics and it generates a global perception that will remain unchanged until it is understood that the special relationship, as currently conceived, is part of the problem not part of the answer.

Foreign policy adjustments also mean distancing Britain from the term "War on Terror".

She discussed the article at the conference, in a panel discussion with development secretary Hilary Benn and myself.

The conference made the front-page of The Guardian at the time as the first occasion when serving Ministers - Hilary Benn, Yvette Cooper and James Purnell - publicly acknowledged the need to acknowledge that mistakes were made over the Iraq war.

Current Foreign Secretary David Miliband set out a broadly similar, if slightly more diplomatically articulated, agenda in his own keynote speech to the 2008 Fabian New Year conference, one year ahead of the US transition which also focused on the progressive agenda for a post-Bush world.

Under Brown, the British government has indeed ditched the language of the 'war on terror' - as Kinnock and others advocated - while the Obama administration's highly positive shift of tone and content in advocating a fair Middle East peace settlement offers at least a glimmer of hope.

Perhaps the positive case for European engagement can yet be made as well. Read more...

If you want to watch the GB press conference..

To see the press conference for yourself, you can watch it here. Read more...

Moats make no difference - the Mr Cleans don't do so well

If this election is all about MPs expenses, then it's hard to read the results in the south-west of England.
Down in the former LibDem stronghold, the Tories have dealt the party with the cleanest record on expenses a significant shocker by stealing two major county councils.
Should the LibDems be downhearted? Or even surprised? What do you do to gain a place in the game, they must be asking.
It must be a blow to see that despite the political disarray and the high hopes of Mr Clegg that he might be getting a foot in the door, Devon has delivered a slap in the face, handing over control to the Conservatives, with a massive drop of 19 councillors.
It's the same story in Somerset, another Tory gain from the LibDems, with Mr Clegg's party dropping nine seats.
So what does this tell us about what the British public wants? It certainly doesn't show a significant vote of confidence for the LibDems.
Meanwhile in Hampshire, home of the famous duck island incident, the LibDems didn't manage to take a single seat off the Conservatives. Read more...

English Democrats take Doncaster

Elected Mayors are capable of throwing up some real shocks.

I was born in Doncaster Royal Infirmary in 1974, which I think makes me eligible to play for Yorkshire, though I can't say I have maintained close links with the town. Now Doncaster might claim to be sparking a political revival of Englishness, as the English Democrats have won the mayoralty, beating an independent with Labour knocked out in third place before the run-off and the Conservatives nowhere.

The Doncaster Free Press has the details.

These were the first round results:

Peter Davies (English Democrats) 16961 - winner on second round
Stuart Exelby (Community Group) 2152
Michael Felse (Independent) 2051
Sandra Holland (Labour) 16549
Mick Maye (Independent) 17150
Dave Owen (BNP) 8175
Jonathan Wood (Conservative) 12198

Read more...

National vote share has echoes of 2004, say BBC

The BBC declares projected national shares for the local elections.

Labour: 23%
Conservatives: 38%
LibDems: 28%
other: 11%

This is a record low for Labour. The Conservatives are down 6% year on year, having hit 44% last time. The LibDems are up a couple of points.

"What is uncanny about this is the similarity to the 2004 local elections", says David Cowling of the BBC research unit, when the results were 26-38-29.John Curtice says that there is an uncanny similarity to 2004. The European election results may well be similar to 2004 too, though Labour may fall below 20% says Curtice.

Eric Pickles says that 38% would not usually deliver the targeted results the party is achieving in Derbyshire and Lancashire. They have worked out how to advance under the electoral system and get the votes where they need them. This is the Ashcroft strategy of hyper-targetting.

I suspect that Just like 2004 and the fall in the Conservative vote too is about to become a significant Labour party talking point. Though the 2005 recovery also depended on the unelectability of Michael Howard's Conservatives. Read more...

Open thread: Latest - Caroline Flint resigns

I suggest Next Left readers and contributors use this thread for news, comments and reaction to the detail of the reshuffle, the local elections and the leadership crisis, rather than have dozens of new posts. Though there may be new posts if contributors want to look in detail at something in particular.

9.15am: For starters, Alan Johnson to the Home Office, John Denham as Health Secretary and Alastair Darling staying as Chancellor appear to be the headline rumours. Yvette Cooper looks to be being promoted, perhaps to DWP.

John Pienaar (Radio Five Live) has just said "you can feel the momentum moving back to Gordon Brown". Nine hours is a long time in politics.

10.30am: Sky News is reporting the resignation of John Hutton. We do not know if this is about Gordon Brown's leadership. Indeed, Sky is reporting that it is for family reasons and that he is leaving Parliament. Hutton was famously opposed to Gordon Brown becoming leader in 2007. Notwithstanding my earlier post about James Purnell, if John Hutton were to call for a change of leadership then the charge of a Blairite move could have more credibility. There are clearly "Blairites" on both sides of the argument, which might make it a good time to ditch these last generation labels.

Developing ... Nick Robinson - recipient of the earlier Hutton message prior to the Blair-Brown transition - says John Hutton is supporting the Prime Minister's continued leadership. So this is a missed opportunity for the anti-Brown forces when it comes to the Cabinet.

---
10.50am: There are many calls for calm heads, but not everyone will be listening. Douglas Alexander warned against forming a circular firing squad in interviews this morning.

But John Prescott on LabourHome does not confine himself to attacks on Hazel Blears and James Purnell in his rather spectacularly irate posting last night.

But whilst I knew we were short of money I didn’t realise we also lacked the will to fight these elections. The people responsible for this non-campaign – and make no mistake there was no campaign - were Harriet Harman, Caroline Flint, Douglas Alexander and yes, our former Communities Secretary Hazel Blears. I kept asking the party what was the strategy, what was our message, what was the campaign? I became so concerned I actually wrote to Harriet. Her reply was less than satisfactory. These apparently were the ‘messages.’

For the many v for the few
Grow your way out v cut your way out
On your side v on your own
Substantial leadership v insubstantial salesmanship

And that was it.

11.45am: John Hutton resignation statement - "This is not the place to go into my reasons for leaving".

12.15pm: Jonh Denham is Communities Secretary. I suspect Yvette Cooper might well now get Health.

1pm: Yvette Cooper will be Work and Pensions Secretary. The identity of the next Health Secretary remains a mystery. Perhaps Harriet Harman?

Nick Robinson is saying "this is not the reshuffle the Prime Minister wanted". True. But it is not the reshuffle that the media anticipated or wanted either. David Miliband and Alan Johnson are coming in for a lot of flak from the Spectator writers at the Coffee House, which is now calling for the left to take up the cudgels.

Andrew Sparrow reports on Ken Livingstone's to make this a factional issue against the "splitters" of the right. Meanwhile, Nick Robinson is referring to Peter Mandelson as effectively deputy Prime Minister. He might not endorse the Livingstone theory.

1.30pm: Both Caroline Flint and Liam Byrne have been at the Department of Health before.

2pm: You can save yourselves time listening to the TV and radio, as Paul Waugh has been leaked a Labour 'lines to take' briefing document which he publishes in full on his Evening Standard blog.

2.30pm: The Conservatives have won Lancashire County Council. Labour has lost 18 seats, though gaining 2 from the LibDems. The BNP have picked up their first county council seat, as Labour has lost all of the county council seats in Burnley, losing one to the BNP and five to the LibDems.

The Conservatives have also won Staffordshire.

Labour has lost Derbyshire - though the Conservatives are not sure if they can wrest the council from no overall control.

2.45pm The BBC has projected a national vote share of 23-38-28-11 (L-C-LD-Other). It is Labour's worst ever, and yet it is also similar to the 2004 results.

3pm: Stephen Byers has given a BBC interview saying that the Sunday results will show "whether Gordon Brown is a winner or a loser". He would not be drawn any further, saying it was not possible to assume what the results are. Is this, therefore, a signal that any backbench action is postponed until Monday or Tuesday. And does that delay suggest that the rebels may not have the support in place that they had anticipated?

5pm; Gordon Brown is on the front foot with his press conference.

The news is breaking of Caroline Flint's departure from the government. She belied rumours by giving a very loyal interview at 10pm last night. Will this change? Read more...

Disagreement with integrity

The reshuffle has begun - which proves the Prime Minister can reconstruct his government, showing that the Purnell resignation has not yet proved terminal. Nick Robinson for the BBC reports that the Chancellor will now remain in post. Yvette Cooper is in line for a major promotion, if not quite as elevated one as that punted here on Wednesday.

A major part of the test for the Labour party this weekend is how Ministers and MPs conduct themselves, even while touring the television studios disagreeing deeply with their colleagues about the leadership of the party and the country.

Douglas Alexander has just given a calm and effective performance on the Today programme- "I don't deny that there are decisions that need to be taken" , as Alexander respectfully disagreed with James Purnell - "“James is a friend and I regret the decision he’s reached. I think James has made the wrong judgement” while describing Purnell's resignation as "conscienceful".

Alexander's interview had a similar tonality to Purnell's own resignation letter - " If the consensus is that you should continue, then I will support the government loyally from the backbenches. But I do believe that this question now needs to be put" - and was all the more effective for it.

It is a much better approach in this situation for the Prime Minister's supporters to acknowledge that Labour MPs can disagree about the leadership with integrity. A 'shock and awe' approach to dissidents could backfire badly.

Indeed, Alexander was partly responding to Barry Sheerman's complaint about his local party executive being put under pressure to rein him in.

Earlier, Paul Farrelly called for the Prime Minister to stand down, expressing his anger at being "outed" by Nick Brown as a plotter, which he denied, and arguing this was a continuation of the dark arts of Damian McBride.

Farrelly's argument appeared to be that he was not a plotter then, but had become one now - though by stating his view publicly rather than through private machinations. Read more...

LibDems take Bristol

From the Bristol Evening Post

The Lib Dems gained four seats which took their total to 36 while the Tories also gained four to make them the official opposition with 17 seats.

Labour lost eight of the ten seats they were defending which means they are now in third place with 16 seats in the council chamber. The Greens have one seat.

It is believed to be the first time since before the Second World War that Labour have suffered so badly.

The Lib Dems’ victory means an end to Bristol’s “hung” council after six years with no party in overall control.

The Guardian reports here.

The Bristol Blogger offers pictures and an irreverent take in a detailed live-blog.

Labour MP Kerry McCarthy has been twittering her analysis.

We live to fight another day! Lib Dems will be disastrous. And they will have to make decisions for a change!

U hv to bear in mind last time these seats were up was gen election 2005. Turnout tonight c35%. Add to that nat issues...

Expect more on her excellent personal blog here.

The Council was Labour 51, LibDem 12, Conservatives 5 in 1997; and Labour 27, LibDem 32 and Conservatives 13 in 2001. (The history can be found here). Read more...

Dutch Labour falls to third

The Dutch are not observing the prohibition on releasing exit poll projections from the European elections until all other countries have voted. Europe's first results are bad news for the centre-left and good news for the hard right.

The Freedom Party of Geert Wilders - campaigning on an anti-Islam, anti-immigration and Eurosceptic ticket under the slogan 'More Netherlands, Less Europe' - has finished second with 15.4 per cent, behind the governing Christian Democrats on 20.3%
The Freedom Party expect to take four seats

Labour is the junior partner in a grand coalition, and the party has been hit hardest in the European poll, with its vote falling sharply to 13.4%, down almost 10 points.

Labour leader Wouter Bos, who is Finance Minister, is a liberal moderniser. He has been closely involved with the Policy Network international group, though gave an interesting speech last year about how the modernising approach needed to be rethought to counter the fragmentation of the social democratic vote - arguing the need to be less academic and more populist, and more aware of the tensions between modernisation and traditional voter base.

The Times quotes Bos saying of the results:

"The parties that lost the most were those who supported Europe... who defended Europe against a lot of scepticism. It appears that the voters found that unconvincing."

Read more...

Why it isn't all over for Brown

James Purnell's resignation is clearly a significant development in deepening the Labour leadership crisis.

Matthew d'Ancona, John Rentoul, Phil Collins, and Martin Kettle all believe that it is all over for Gordon Brown.

That could be how it turns out. But it ain't necessarily so.

Potentially, almost as significant are the statements from Cabinet Ministers including David Miliband and Andy Burnham that they will not be resigning. This potentially creates a firewall. If there is no change in the positions of Miliband or Burnham overnight, then there is little question that the Prime Minister could complete a reshuffle.

A single resignation can not enforce the departure of the Prime Minister; that would take a collective refusal to serve. There have been unambiguous public statements for Gordon Brown from John Hutton, Liam Byrne, Tessa Jowell and Caroline Flint, as well as from Alan Johnson, Jack Straw, John Denham and others.

If the Cabinet remain supportive of Brown, then the focus of media attention might shift to the backbenches. But the formal leadership challenge mechanism - nominations for a named candidate; followed by a special conference card vote to decide if a leadership contest proceeds - is in practice inoperable, surely by design.

So the point of backbench pressure - if there were sufficient signatures to put a contest on the agenda - is really to get the Cabinet to act.

And, tonight, the vast majority of the Cabinet are still backing the Prime Minister.

(UPDATE: PoliticsHome has links to the statements made from Cabinet and other ministers). Read more...

Why James Purnell is not as Blairite as he looks

The resignation of James Purnell from the Cabinet significantly deepens the Labour leadership crisis - putting it at a level which last Autumn's crisis never reached. Whether or not a Cabinet reshuffle can be successfully completed may also be in doubt.

One danger for the anti-Brown forces is that their action is presented as a Blairite putsch, with James Purnell following Hazel Blears from the Cabinet. But that may be a more difficult line to run if Peter Mandelson is to remain perhaps the most valuable remaining protectors of the Prime Minister.

The most interesting part of Purnell's resignation letter is the deliberate rejection of those factional dividing lines.

This moment calls for stronger regulation, an active state, better public services, an open democracy.

It calls for a government that measures itself by how it treats the poorest in society. Those are our values, not David Cameron's.

One thing that has not often been understood about Purnell has been that he combines advocacy of a modernising and unabashedly New Labour agenda with a 'next generation' rejection of the media's definition of what Blairism or "uber-Blairism" are about - his best line has been that people forget that New Labour was Labour as well as New.

Despite Purnell's Blairite credentials, which have seen him often championed by The Spectator, he could legitimately claim to have put the Labour argument on poverty and inequality as clearly as any member of the Brown Cabinet. (Most often on Fabian platforms, as with his lecture on child poverty after last year's local election results, proposing that this could be a fightback theme to could unite Old and new Labour, which has also a hope of many supporters of Gordon Brown.

Indeed, last September Fabian Review awarded Purnell, slightly tongue-in-cheek, Keir Hardie's flat cap because of the strength of his comments on redistribution and claiming an Old Labour pedigree for conditionality.

The other intriguing rumour in recent months has been of a Purnell-Cruddas future alliance along these lines - though Jon Cruddas has made it categorically clear that he is not involved in any moves to destabilise the Prime Minister.

It has long been thought in Westminster that James Purnell and David Miliband have an understanding that they would not run against each other in a future leadership contest. Purnell's resignation letter seems to be ruling himself out of a contest, and denying any coordination. (The idea that there is a coordinated plot is undermined by the loyalist interviews which have been given by 'Blairite' ministers such as Caroline Flint, Liam Byrne and Jim Knight in the last few minutes). Read more...

The armistice ends

With a polling day political broadcasting embargo in place until 10pm, and the focus on getting the vote out, the leadership/reshuffle crisis has been in a state of suspended animation.

The BBC may well regret not having an Election Night special tonight or tomorrow. If Question Time has been pre-recorded as usual, then it may be in the strange position of doing post-match analysis of Wednesday's events while Newsnight and the 24-hour news channels are trying to move the story on. (There will not be many results until Friday, but the BBC does not have an election special until Sunday night.The blogosphere attempts to fill the vacuum with two marathon online radio sessions, hosted by multimedia brand Iain Dale from the right and Hopi Sen from the left for PlayRadioUK from 9am - 4pm on Friday, and again on Sunday night from 6pm).

This has been a situation made for the online rumour mill - and Daniel Finkelstein has been offering a rolling resource of the various speculations. My own wildcard pitches of Yvette for Chancellor and something for JK Rowling have now been trumped by the rumoured hiring of Alan Sugar.

But there are perhaps two problems with how much value the internet rumour mill can add to events.

Firstly, nobody, however well informed in the usual course of events, can claim to have a helicopter eye view of the crisis, particularly when it comes to working out not just the battleplans for either side but how they might alter on contact with the enemy.

Secondly, if there is a game-changing intervention on either side, would it increase its effectiveness to allow it to dribble out? Surprise was always the key hallmark of a Gordon Brown spectacular - from the independence of the Bank of England in 1997 to the return of Peter Mandelson last Autumn. (If only the same approach had been taken to the ramping up of the non-election in 2007).

Similarly, would a Cabinet assassination be briefed in advance to newspaper editors, or indeed the increasingly mighty blogosphere? There are many more observers than players in this crisis: real information is at a premium.

There is some sense in which briefing, rumour and a media could be helpful to those hoping to plot a coup. Part of the strategy last summer and Autumn was to try to create a rolling sense of too much noise for any message to get through without a change.

But, this time around, that strategy would be a sign of weakness on the part of those plotting. There is intense media interest, but there may be limited returns on trying to use that to exaggerate the scale of discontent. There will be a put up or shut up moment when all cards will have to be played - and surely very soon. Perhaps one lesson of last Autumn is that what happens in the media is secondary to what happens in the Parliamentary party and Cabinet. The media will hardly talk down a crisis until all cinders are extinguished.

Nobody knows what will happen. I include myself entirely within that.

My hunch is this. A political coup can not be organised on hotmail. If a serious plot exists, surely it will need public leadership before midnight tonight. If, by Sunday morning, a reshuffle has taken place and the newspapers are still speculating about speculation about what either the Cabinet or the backbenches might do, then I suspect that the chances of regicide will have receded. Read more...

Towards a citizens' convention?

Ideas for political reform are bouncing off the walls at the moment. David Cameron has tried to position the Conservatives as a 'power-to-the-people' party, leading some to see this, incredibly, as evidence of a Tory republicanism. Nick Clegg followed up with a detailed plan - so detailed one was surprised he didn't tell us at what point on the afternoon of June 26 - 4.00 or 4.30pm? - the gathered parliamentarians would adjurn for fifteen (or perhaps twenty?) minutes for tea and biscuits (with or without the option of fruit juice). And then along came Gordon Brown with his announcement of a National Council on Democratic Renewal, a proposal which went rather to the opposite extreme in terms of detail.

Amidst all the clamour, some voices have been heard arguing that the process of reform itself needs in some way to relate to the underlying problem - the disconnection between political elite and the public. There is also an issue of basic democratic principle. If this is a major moment of constitutional reform, and if the people are sovereign, then surely the process of reform ought to involve the people in a meaningful way?

One moderate response to this is the proposal to hold a referendum on electoral reform on the same day as the next general election. However, this still leaves the agenda-setting firmly in the hands of the political elite. They get to decide what goes on the referendum.

A more radical response, put forward by Helena Kennedy, is to hold some kind of citizens' convention to deliberate about reform and to present recommendations to the political elite. ippr, amongst others, have been in the forefront of arguing for this approach. Demos have been talking about something similar and are today holding their own deliberative event on reform of the expenses system. Over at OurKingdom, Guy Aitchison reports that a bill has now been introduced into Parliament to establish such a convention. It is supported by Unlock Democracy and a cross-party group of MPs. Guy writes:

'The Public Accountability and Political Ethics Bill would establish a citizens' convention composed of one hundred people selected by lot from the electoral register to look at ways to clean up and reform the UK's political system. They would deliberate on urgent questions of democratic reform before submitting their recommendations in a report to be enacted swiftly by Parliament unless, the Prime Minister, or Parliament, disagrees with them, in which case either of them, or 5% of citizens, could call a referendum on the issue.'

This a big step forward over the top-down technocratic approaches adopted by the leaders of all three main political parties. The Bill deserves enthusiastic support.

Still, one might wonder whether the proposed Bill even goes far enough. Is there some way of connecting a citizens' convention to a wider consultative exercise, one that could engage more than 100 people? Read more...