« March 2005 | Main | May 2005 »
April 25, 2005
Parcel of Rogues
The great Scottish poet, Robert Burns, wrote Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation in 1791. This poem lamented the sacrifice of Scottish independance to the Act of Union, refering to the 31 Scottish Union Commisioners who signed the Act (in exchange for certain monies) as a parcel of rogues.Now we have a latterday parcel of rogues, sat (though not for the duration of the election campaign) in Westminster.
This weekend has seen the leaking of the Attorney General's advice on the legality of invading Iraq. Advice which has never been published in full, and of which only the much-ammended summary was ever presented to Parliament.
The Independant - A government at bay over Iraq war legality: The leak revealed that 12 days before Britain went to war, Lord Goldsmith warned Mr Blair in a 13-page memo of six reasons why the war could be illegal. In spite of assurances that the Attorney General had been "unequivocal" in saying that the war would be legal, Lord Goldsmith said Britain could be challenged under international law because it was up to the UN, not Mr Blair, to decide whether Saddam Hussein was in breach of UN resolutions.
The Guardian - Blair defiant over Iraq judgment: Mr Blair was backed in his defence of the war by his two most senior colleagues, with the chancellor, Gordon Brown, saying: "Let's be clear on this, the decisions on Iraq were cabinet decisions." Meanwhile the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, asked rhetorically, did we discuss Iraq in cabinet? "We did, we did, we did."
The Scotsman - Iraq back on agenda as legal advice leaked: The Iraq war, which has languished low on the election agenda for weeks, was put centre-stage again by reports that Mr Blair was explicitly warned that the invasion was illegal by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general.
Now we're used to blaming Blair as the ultimate liar in government, as a Prime Minister who is so habitually dishonest that it is commonly said that you tell he's lying because his mouth is moving.
But he's not alone in this matter. Both Gordon Brown and John Prescott have stated that it was a Cabinet decision, and that the legality was discussed. So there you have your latterday parcel of rogues, those members of the Cabinet who discussed this matter and who not only ignored the legal advice, but actively followed Tony Blair's line in stating that the war was legal. Even if they disagreed with the invasion, those who were aware of the advice and said nothing are complicit.
Now Burn's parcel of rogues were bribed by English gold, but what was offered to this shabby bunch? American dollars, Iraqi oil or - and tragically this is most likely - fleeting glory and promises of future influence. At least the Scottish Union Commisioners had a tangible reward for their villany, but not this lot.
So when 5th May comes around and you're wondering who to vote for; if your local Labour candidate was one of these rogues, think long and hard before casting your vote, because on the matter of Iraq and taking us to war, they're all liars.
--------
Posted by Clive at 2:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 15, 2005
Begging
Received a very entertaining telephone call from the Labour Party last night. A charming (young?) lady was hoping that I'd be able to help the Party by making a donation towards the cost of the election. She helpfully pointed out that while £ was a useful sum, they would gratefully accept any amount, and even took credit/debit cards to speed the transaction. She seemed pleasantly surprised when I said that I'd love to make a significantly larger donation, but her voice fell when I informed her that any such donation was dependant on Tony Blair standing down before polling day. Apparantly I wasn't the first person to impose such a condition, and I doubt that I'll be the last. I truly felt for her; it must be soul-destroying to listen to party member after party member say that they couldn't help as long as Blair remained leader, far worse than just being cut off or told to f*ck off. I thought 20 minutes was enough time to spend discussing the Labour Party's betrayal of its original principles and Blair's failings, but it did seem like she was hearing a familiar story. I let her go with a suggestion that she check out Backing Blair if she wanted to know exactly where I stood. Turn's out she'd already visited the site.For anyone from the Labour Party HQ reading this, I'll make it perfectly clear. If Tony Blair stands down, then I'll give my full and complete support to the Labour Party in this election. Simple as that.
--------
Posted by Clive at 2:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 13, 2005
Manifesto Destiny
All three main parties have their manifestos available online if you feel the need to mentally self-flagellate. To be honest, each can probably be summed up in one word:Labour - Unreliable
Conservative - Unpleasant
Liberal-Democrat - Unworkable
Well, that's today's dose of cynicism out of the way. Will have a
--------
Posted by Clive at 4:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 12, 2005
Promises, promises
You've got to smile at Labour's latest pledge card which addresses the economy. The very first pledge promises Inflation target two percent and mortgage rates as low as possible, as we maintain economic stability.Sounds great, doesn't it? Gordon Brown's miracle of economic stability rolling on into the future.
But there's a catch.
Look at the first part of that pledge, Inflation target two percent. They're not saying that inflation will be no more than two percent, simply that two percent is the target. So even if inflation were to rise to 3% or higher during the term of a Labour Government, as long as the target remained 2% they'd be able to claim that at least part of the pledge had been kept.
And the second part is no better, mortgage rates as low as possible. Well mortgage rates are driven by the base rate which is set by the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, so another meaningless pledge. If the MPC decides that the base rate needs to rise to 6% or 7% or higher, then once again the pledge has been kept, as mortgage rates will indeed be as low as possible.
So economic pledge #1 is pretty vacuous and not really worth the card it is printed on.
Then we get to pledge #2. One million new homeowners by 2010 with more help for first-time buyers. That sounds pretty good, until you start to wonder where the extra homes are going to be built. So, a quick scoot over to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to see what the actual plans are. And you find this Five year action plan published on the 24th January 2005. Look at that first bullet point:
Helping 80 000 people into home ownership by 2010, including a new First Time Buyer’s Initiative using publicly-owned land for new homes;
What about the other 920,000+ needed to hit the pledge target? Well, the second bullet point states:
Homebuy – a new scheme that will allow tenants of Local Authorities and Housing Associations to buy a stake in their home by extending the opportunity for home ownership for up to 300,000 families;
Well, that's only giving them an opportunity to buy a stake, but we'll be generous and call anyone owning a share (no matter how large or small) a homeowner. So that's 380,000, which still leaves another 620,000 new homeowners to be found. If anyone has any ideas, then let Tony and Gordon know. You might want to let John know as well, as his office doesn't seem have any plans for anything more than a third of the pledged number.
Right, on to pledge #3 One million more helped by the New Deal. As we move more people from welfare to work, the savings on unemployment benefits will go towards investing in education.
Looks like we might be moving towards a realm of greater plausibility here. According to the ONS, just over 500,000 people have found work under the New Deal in the period 2000 - 2002, although the trend was downward in most regions with the exception of the West Midlands (flat) and London (upward). Still let's be generous and concede that the pledge target is at least within the realm of possibility.
So there you have it. Out of 6 pledges, one is vague and not strictly dependant on government policy; one appears to be in direct contradiction with the ODPM; and one is unlikely to be met. Still, 3 out of 6 isn't too bad.
--------
Posted by Clive at 6:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 7, 2005
It's Not The Economy, Stupid
Way back in 1992, Bill Clinton became President after a campaign focussing on economic issues, highlighted by the, now famous, slogan It's the economy, stupid. And now Labour is trying to make the economy the key issue for this election, seeing as both a key weakness of the opposition parties and also an opportunity to distract attention from the areas where they are weaker such as immigration, law and order, Iraq and, above all, lack of voter trust in Tony Blair.Today John Reid tried to drive the point home on the BBC's Today programme on Radio 4. In the interview he stated that...
The most important issue to people...is not actually Iraq. Less than 10 percent say that is the most important.
The biggest issues by far are the economy, the NHS, immigration, law and order and about less than 10 percent Iraq.
So is it the economy, stupid? Now they can keep reminding us of the property collapse of the early 90's, the Lawson boom and Black Wednesday, but the problem with those examples is that they're all from a period nearly 15 years ago. It would be no different to the opposition parties using devaluation of the pound and the Winter of Discontent as challenges to Labour's economic competence. If Labour is going to comprehensively attack the Conservatives on economic handling, then they ought to throw in mention of the Barber Boom as well.
It doesn't help Labour's case when you consider that a manifesto pledge in 1997 was that for the next two years Labour will work within the departmental ceilings for spending already announced, effectively continuing with policies implemented under the last Conservative government. To Labour's credit, it did remove political influence from the setting of interest rates by creating the Bank of England Monetary Policy Commitee and giving it sole control of rates.
In many respects that one inspired decision means that Gordon Brown cannot claim sole responsibility for the protracted period of economic stability experienced since 1997. And if the Conservative's economic management was so poor, why did a continuation of the self-same policies for 2 years under Labour not result in problems.
But if Labour are given the benefit of the doubt, then the next logical step is to ask them why the Conservatives would be so bad at managing the economy. To date the responses all hark back to the fallout from the Lawson Boom and Black Wednesday, which hardly makes for a convincing argument. Of course, if the Conservative Manifesto contained a commitment to scrapping the MPC then voters should be very worried. A perusal of their Economic Manifesto shows that they are actually claiming they're the only guarantors of the Bank of England's long term independance through their opposition to joining the Euro. So the setting of interest rates appears to remain safely out of the hands of politicians.
There's another angle which makes use of the economy an issue for Labour as well. To have experienced to some degree the impact of the failed Tory policies of the 80's, then you're going to be at least in your early 30's, and the real victims will be significantly older. At which point you become more concerned about the future, retirement and your pension benefits. Which is an area where Gordon Brown is at his weakest, having presided over the £5bn/year pensions raid and the change in rules which have driven many company pension schemes to the wall.
At the end of the day, Labour are going to have to face the fact that, this time at least, it's not the economy, stupid.
--------
Posted by Clive at 2:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 6, 2005
When the music stops...
... grab a political Party and defect to it.Yesterday Charles Kennedy was crowing about the defection of Labour candidate Stephen Wilkinson to the LibDems. Now that wasn't the first time Charlie had something to shout about, as back in 2001 Paul Marsden defected from Labour to the LibDems for supposedly very good reasons.
Which makes todays defection (re-defection?) of Paul Marsden from the LibDems to Labour all the more entertaining. Now as far as I can tell, there's been no sea-change in Government policy since he left Labour in 2001 so one is left with the conclusion that Marsden rates the cause of good constituency Labour MPs higher than the larger issues raised by the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Which is all very huggy and fluffy, but hardly principled.
To be brutally honest, I don't think Marsden is really cut out for politics. And it's hard to imagine any party whip considering him to be a reliable MP either, though it does appear that he has a natural talent for the Political Party game of musical chairs. But what an excellent start to an election campaign; less than 24 hours after the announcement and already two defections. Anyone keeping a book on this?
--------
Posted by Clive at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Soft Options
Today Tony Blair faces his last Prime Minister's Questions before the election. And he can expect tougher questioning than he has experienced in phoney election so far. Publically his questioners have been lacking in stature, comprising an unholy trimvirate of Richard and Judy, Little Ant and Dec and Eammon Holmes. Maybe Alastair Campbell has been scared of letting Tony out in public, or just possibly Blair still believes he has some degree of populist appeal. Either way he (and the other Party leaders) can expect tougher grilling in the next five weeks.The most disturbing (or not) aspect of this morning's interview on GMTV was his inability to admit any error regarding Iraq. The man still claims he was acting on the best of motives. Now either he is seriously delusional, or else he considers the electorate to be a bunch of gullible fools. You choose.
--------
Posted by Clive at 9:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 5, 2005
Unravelling?
Is New Labour's election campaign beginning to unravel? In spite of all the media attention, the Howard Flight affair doesn't seemed to have registered on voters radar, and at the same time that economic talisman, Gordon Brown's handling of the economy, came under attack in a report from the IFS revealing that for the first time in 15 years the average person was worse off than the year before.Now we have the sight of Stephen Wilkinson, Labour candidate for Ribble Valley, standing down and joining the Liberal Democrats in disgust at his own party's policies. Announcing his move, Wilkinson stated that...
Like many former Labour voters and activists, I feel angry that Labour have become increasingly authoritarian and failed to safeguard civil liberties.
... and...
Who could have thought that a Labour government would become a lapdog to George Bush's right-wing Republican administration?
If Labour candidates can't face campaigning on the New Labour policies, then is it any wonder that once staunch Labour voters are now facing the dillema of who to vote for.
And as Tony heads off to Buckingham Palace to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament, he can't fail to know of the latest set of poll result which put Labour between 3% ahead of the Conservatives and 5% behind. An excellent analysis of these results can be found over at pollingreport.co.uk.
There are most likely two factors - apart from voter apathy - which have a significant effect on the poll results. One is Blair himself, and all the baggage that comes with him as leader. Regardless of his exhortations to put Iraq behind us, it is still a significant issue for many people, especially Blair's conduct. And on the other hand, the Conservatives seem to be making a better job of tapping the electorates concerns on immigration and crime.
And at the same time handling of the economy no longer appears to be the electoral hot potato it once was. Most people now seem to take stability for granted, and Black Wednesday is fast becoming history rather than a stick to beat the Conservatives with. In fact the only economic issue of any real note is the Pensions Crisis, and that aspect of economic management does Gordon Brown no favours whatsoever.
So is New Labour's campign unravelling right from the start? Probably not, but the moving of New Labour to the Right by Blair now means that small differences in policy between the two main parties can become big election issues. One thing is certain, this election is going to be a tough one to call and while, in spite of the poll showing the Conservatives with a 5% lead, New Labour are likely to retain power, there is going to be a lot of political blood spilled.
--------
Posted by Clive at 10:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Effing Blogger
Time to consider moving the UK Today from Blogger. I'm getting progressively fed up with the number of times it either loses posts or is just simply unavailable. It proves the old adage that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, but it would be nice if the bloody thing remained reliable for the duration of the election campaign. --------Posted by Clive at 10:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 4, 2005
Respect
What a difference a couple of years makes. Way back in February 2003, Tony Blair completely failed to address the Pope's request to avoid war in Iraq. Yet now that the Pontiff is dead, he is delaying the announcement of the election as a mark of respect. I bet John Paul II would have swapped a thousand delayed election announcements for one instance of Blair actually heeding his opinions on Iraq. Does go to show what a skewed set of values our leaders appear to possess. --------Posted by Clive at 4:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Fun
For those of you enjoying the return of a revitalised Dr Who to saturday evenings, why not have a go at creating your own version of the theme tune. --------Posted by Clive at 10:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack