No Harman-y

All this talk about Gordon Brown’s election problems is very boring. He may have had a bad Prime Minister’s Questions, but that doesn’t really matter. Nobody watches PMQs anyway. Or knows what his “Vision for Britain” is. Only that it consists of Gordon Brown being in power for at least another eighteen months or so.

Instead, let’s talk about Harriet Harman. You have probably forgotten who she is already – she won the Labour Deputy Leadership contest earlier this year. Which surprised me. As a Labour party member I voted in the election, and Harriet’s campaign seemed to be the worst. Worse even than Hazel Blears, and the sight of Hazel Blears on television usually makes me want to gouge my eyes out with rusty spoons. Harman’s campaign seemed to rest on two main planks. The first was essentially “Vote for me because I am a woman”. The second was to say that Labour ought to apologise for the Iraq war. She then denied saying this after she became deputy leader.

Furthermore, she doesn’t seem to have talked to anyone before unveiling this idea. Gordon Brown has said nothing about it. On the Labour website there is nothing. Other senior Labour figures have said, you guessed it, nothing. Perhaps we should just put Harriet Harman and Ed Balls in a cupboard or something, and let them out after Labour wins the next election. They will cause less damage there.

End of the Ming dynasty

Liberal Democrat MPs make unlikely assassins, but they have now stabbed two leaders in the back within nineteen months. I feel sorry for Ming Campbell, whose only fault was not his ability or his views, but his age. Now their caretaker leader is Vince Cable, a man who looks like Ming, but with less hair and bushier eyebrows. Potential leaders have until October 31^st to throw their name into the hat.

For the moment, however, there is the usual claptrap that is spouted after a leader goes. Lib Dem MPs are continually praising Ming. Party president Simon Hughes, for instance, said that he had brought “purpose and stability” to the party. But if Ming was so good, why was his job “under discussion” - as the aforementioned Mr Cable said the day before Ming resigned? David Laws, Lib Dem spokesman for something or other, appeared on Channel 4 news to praise Ming. When asked who he thought should be the next leader, he replied that it was inappropriate to speculate at this moment in time. If you cannot speculate on who should be your new party leader when there is a vacancy, then when can you speculate?

Well, I am going to speculate now. The frontrunners are Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne. Nick Clegg is a trendy, David Cameron-type. But if you were going to vote for a David Cameron type, wouldn’t you just vote for David Cameron? Chris Huhne, by contrast, is boring. The Lib Dems need a vote winner, someone who the voters recognise. Which is why the new leader should either be Charles Kennedy or Lembit Opik.

By getting rid of Charles Kennedy, the Lib Dems lost their only electoral asset. Bringing him back would be embarrassing, but necessary. If that proves to be too embarrassing, then the Lib Dems should embrace Mr Cheeky Girl as their new leader. He at least is recognised by most of the general public, and this counts for more than policy in British politics today. As Alistair Darling as shown, if you don’t have a policy of your own, just nick the Opposition’s. With Labour and the Tories increasingly similar, there is a need for the Lib Dems to be distinctive. And how much more distinctive can you get than Lembit Opik?

And finally…

Laughing at the Lib Dems is harmless enough, but laughing at Tories is much more fun. They were left £8million in the will of Branislav Kostic. Sadly, he had been suffering from serious mental health problems, and was convinced only the Conservatives could protect humanity from evil spirits. This week a judge forced them to return the money to his family, and ruled that Mr Kostic would not have given to the Conservative Party “if he were of sane mind”. Well, who would?

Cory

Via Norm, this brightened up my day:

"The Conservatives today lost a High Court battle over a multimillion pound bequest from a mentally deluded man who believed that only Margaret Thatcher could save him from an international satanic conspiracy.

Branislav Kostic, a Belgrade-born businessman, changed his will in the late 1980s to give his entire fortune to the Tory Party after deciding that his relatives were part of a plot to kill him, and that his solicitors and accountants were part of a conspiracy to destroy the world...

[P]assing judgment at the High Court today, a judge ruled in favour of Mr Kostic's only son, Zoran, that his father - who died in 2005 - was suffering from a serious and untreated mental illness and would not have given the money to the Tories if he was of sane mind."

Well, who would?

Cory

Being oop North I haven't been campaigning in Ealing for the by-election. However, it seems the Tory candidate is doing all the campaigning for me, by donating £4800 at a Labour party fundraising dinner only last month.

No, I don't understand either. Presumably this means Tony Lit is either a) Dishonest [can't have told the selection committee about this, can he?] or b) foolish, or possibly c) unsure; none of which are attributes I'd welcome in a prospective MP.

Nevertheless, the Tory attack-blogs have gone on the case. Take Iain Dale, for instance:

I doubt whether the donation has lost him a single vote. Indeed, the blanket media coverage has raised his profile enormously - his picture is everywhere in today's papers. You could easily argue that the coverage is a boost. Personally, I cannot imagine why any Conservative would want to attend a Labour Party event, but we should remember it was an Asian business 'do', and a media organisation like Sunrise presumably has good reason to be impartial in its political relations.

Of course, if Tony Lit really did have good reason to be impartial in his political relations, I'm not sure standing for Parliament as a Conservative candidate is the best way to go about it. And the picture is of him with Tony Blair, why would that be any good...? Still, defending the indefensible is always a thankless task.

Cory

Read this, and then think for a moment.

Some schools would be able to select pupils by race in order to improve community relations under plans being considered by the Conservative Party.

Now, how the frig is selecting pupils according to race going to help community relations?

Cory

Not that we usually take things out of context (perish the thought) but.....

David Cameron:

I'm a Conservative. I believe in punishment

Well, quite.

Cory

I would not consider myself a conservative in any sense of the word, but I do recognise that conservatism is an important and coherent (at least as coherent as socialism and social democracy) political philosophy. I support the Euston Manifesto's attempt to build bridges with certain conservative groups over the war on Islamic fascism and the threat it poses to both our political traditions. Any attempt by moderate conservatives to rescue their philosophy from the religious fundementalists in America has my full support. 

One of these principled persons is the blogger and public intellectual Andrew Sullivan. He has a new book out entitled The Conservative Soul.

Andrew discusses his new book in this talk at the Cato Institute in Washington. David Brooks, columnist at the New York Times, provides a cogent and piercing critique of his thesis, which Sullivan deals with ably and eloquently. An excellent discussion. More of this type, which creates more light than it does heat, are sorely needed in our politics.

-posted by Adam

It's nice to see the Tory party self-destructing again, after all Labour's been through over the past few weeks.

Now we have right-wingers like John Redwood and Norman Tebbit banging on about tax cuts. Why do they want lower taxes to be part of Tory policy? Basically, because that's what the Tories have always argued. Like in the 2005 election. And the 2001 one. The fact the Tories lost both these elections seems to have escaped Messrs Redwood and Tebbit.

They come armed with some papers from Thatcherite think tanks - including one slightly confusing one from the Taxpayer's Alliance:

All the evidence shows that if you cut taxes, people work harder, you generate more growth and you get more money in the government’s coffers.

It was also argued that if tax rates were lowered, the super-rich would spend less time trying to evade paying tax. I'm sure it would, but don't evade paying tax in the first place, you slimy selfish creatures of flith! Especially when director's pay is up 28% this year - seven times the average wage increase.

The simple fact is that lower taxes means less schools and hospitals. It's time the Tebbits of this world stopped tub-thumping. Not that I mind a huge schism in the Tory party that much...

Cory

Brilliant:

As if country hasn't suffered enough, we now face a clear and present danger that the first former head of PR for a TV company to become Prime Minister will soon be in Downing Street.

The only thing that can stop him succeeding seems to be the public twigging that the former PR man is a former PR man and not believing a word he says. The former PR man needs to counter the accusation he is all spin and no substance and his smart PR move will be to deny he is nothing more than a former PR man.

His spin doctors - the former PR man now has men to do his PR for him - tell my colleagues that today in Bournemouth he will stress his commitment to developing serious policy ideas.

This sounds a brilliant PR move. The former PR man is going to develop his informal brand by adding serious policies ... classic with a twist, as they say in PR.

Unfortunately, I don't think his marketing men have got their strategy quite right. For a start, delegates will vote on motions using X Factor-style electronic keypads, which I'm not certain will bring the sense of gravitas the former PR man needs.

And although they promised the BBC that the former PR man is committed 'to developing serious policy ideas', the briefers went on to say that he won't actually commit himself to any 'specific policy announcements'.

The PR conundrum is how to give the impression that the former PR man is interested in serious policies when he doesn't have any policies. Perhaps they will arrange for him to be photographed reading the Economist to his children or posing naked, hand on chin like Rodin's Thinker, on a rock on the beach at Bournemouth.

My emboldening. It seems as if the Tory Conference will be full of more froth than most party conferences.

Cory

I'm not the biggest fan of David Cameron, but he must be doing something right when he's criticised by Norman Tebbit:

Lord Tebbit has launched the strongest Tory attack on David Cameron since he became the party's leader, warning that he risks alienating its natural supporters.

Writing in The Spectator magazine, the former Tory chairman accused Mr Cameron of ignoring up to five million voters who have deserted the Tories by chasing Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters.

This would all make more sense, as Iain Dale says, were it not for the fact that a Guardian poll said the Tories have their highest poll rating for thirteen years.

Most of Cameron's policies are hype at the moment, as pointed out by Douglas Alexander. When his gazillion think tanks to come back to him, and he has some genuine policies, his rating's only going to go up...

-posted by Roy

Apologies for the lack of blogging, I have been engaged in a post exams ale session, inspired by the classic film Withnail & I.

So, to business. Roy talks here about how much he fears a Cameron government. I must say that I think his reaction is most conservative. I am not a Tory, although I have voted for them in the past. Their last election manifesto was about as reactionary as they come though in many ways preferable to the David Miliband esque New Labour spin. Cameron, it seems to me, is the type of Tory someone on the centre left could vote for. Someone like Roy would never even consider the prospect of putting an X in the box for the Conservative Party and it seems to me that he suffers when he limits himself in this manner. Cameron has positioned himself in the political centre - this is basic Tory politics. The Tory party was successful in the last century because it appealed to the centrist voter. That means capitalism - but with social services. It might have been Labour who created the welfare state, but the Tories kept it alive by ensuring the economy was healthy enough to support it. A healthy and growing economy is the single most important thing for a modern country to possess. In many ways I find it comforting that the condition of the economy is now, to a large extent, out of the hands of elected politicians. Obsessed as they are with getting elected, they seldom look at the big picture. Courage is a rare trait in a politician. Pericles had it, Winston (sometimes) had it, Blair had it on Iraq. I am disturbed by Roys reactionary stance when it comes to Cameron - he really is a nice bloke, you can trust him with the public services.

I won't bother posting about Roys cricket obsession. I enjoy the odd session with the willow and the seam, but Roy takes things too far. Anyway the real world cup starts soon and that is going to be a blast. As long as Rooney's metatersal gets better - that man is more than a footballer, he is a force of nature.

Roy descends into class warrior mode in his post about the ending of the AUT strike. A shame, because once the red mist descends it blunts his usually insightful analysis. The strikers were offered a perfectly reasonable pay package which was rejected without a ballot and resulted in students being screwed over because of the greediness of the unions. Organised labour is generally a good thing, but it can so often end up mimicking the arrogance and selfishness of the management which it so often defines itself against. I especially liked this beaut of a quote:

He implies universities ought to be privatised, sneering that the fact Oxford and Cambridge are in the Top 20 universities in the world is "pretty impressive for a state-run education service", a remark that makes me very angry indeed

For those of us that live in the real world and who don't have their opinions formed by an outdated dogma of resietance to everything not owned and operated by the state, this statement is simply ridiculous. The fact is that, like it or not, American universities are the best in the world. This is because they have more cash. This is because they are private institutions not dependent on miserly governments for their funding. Now, it seems to me that, if British universities want to close the gap, they would do well to mimic this model. The US spends 3% of its GDP on higher education, the UK just 1%. Oh, and University lecturers get far better pay in the US where they are employees of the private sector, not agents of the State.

I am no longer a libertarian, although I hope to return to those hopeful pastures one day where faith in human nature is at its peak. I do beleive in state provision in some areas, mainly those where market influence would be detrimental to the common good, but in this case it seems absolute madness to stick with a system which proved itself defunct years and years ago. As with many things, the best solution is the most radical one. As is often the case, the most radical solution is opposed by conservative elements on both sides of the political spectrum.

Thats it, I'm done. At least for the next few days anyway. I must return to my post exam state of sozzlement. I leave you with a link to the Dudes latest article. Toodles.

-posted by Adam