ath Up Serie

Or rather Catch Up Service. The bottom line of buttons on my keyboard (excluding the b and n keys, including the space bar) have packed it in and resolutely decided to stop working this week after my threats to savagely cut spending on keyboard maintenance. This kind of strike action is intolerable and I have taken steps to minimise the inconvenience by employing alternate labour in the form of the ease-of-use, on-screen keyboard. I also intend to introduce legislation preventing strike action unless at least 50% of union members on my keyboard are balloted, with a minimum of 40% in favour. I will not be held to ransom by small groups of rebellious keys and wildcat strike action (though I am strongly considering purchasing a new keyboard).

---

The Tory Party Conference. Well that was interesting. Any talk of defence cuts, coalitions or the Big Society was roundly overshadowed by a mushrooming- pardon the language- clusterf*** surrounding the decision to withdraw child benefit from families with at least one parent paying the higher rate of income tax. At the start of the week George Osborne announced on breakfast television a fairly reasonable policy to help save £1bn a year whilst only affecting roughly 15% of families. Yet it quickly became clear that the policy was both uncooked, in it's collateral effect on stay-at-home mums and others in similar positions, and unknown, in its sudden announcement that seemed as new to your standard hack as it did to members of the Cabinet (illustrated by May's tete-a-tete with Paxman on Tuesday's Newsnight).

And so the fun began. The policy was savaged not only from the left, but was also attacked from the right as being an attack on the core of the Conservative's support and for perpetuating the image that Cameron and Osborne are smarmy faced, knee-deep in money, posh boys, 'unable to relate to the day-to-day concerns of the voters'- which, incidentally, is what they are. With his back against the wall Cameron reached for one of his true-blue policies, a tax-break for married couples, but not only would this negate a lot of the savings accrued through the child benefit purge, it is also an archaic, puzzlingly large-state, interfering, hash of a policy, with little place in modern Britain. The Tories had let the storyline get way out of hand. On October 20th the Comprehensive Spending Review will be announced, and the child benefit cut was something of a dry run. The Conservative's have had a sniff of their chosen medicine for deficit reduction and it doesn't smell good. Problem is, they're committed to it.

---

A face that kept popping up throughout the Tory conference was that of their party chairman, Baroness Warsi. She had a poor week to say the least. It all started rather badly when on the Sunday preceding the conference she yapped her way through a grilling by John Sopel about her accusations of electoral fraud and, in doing so, managed the remarkable feat of not making Kelvin Makenzie look like the biggest tool in an interview. Then on Thursday she suffered the ignominy of being jeered by the baying-for-blood, savages that make up the Question Time audience these days whilst trying to defend the child benefit cut. To be fair it seemed a poor choice on the part of the Tories, like sending out your number 11 batsman to face the oppositions best bowler, but Warsi did herself no favours. When in a corner she attacks in an unpleasant manner reminiscent of Ed Balls, yet she lacks any of the upside that Balls, despite his drawbacks, brings to the Labour party. If Liam Fox isn't the next Cabinet minister to depart then the smart money's on Warsi.

---

Speaking of Ed Balls, one must wonder what would feel worse. After waiting patiently for your dream job of shadow chancellor for several years, being passed over for that job for your wife, or being overlooked for that job for someone with no economic experience. Clearly Alan Johnson's appointment is a victory of pragmatism over politics, with Ed Miliband not wishing to invite further speculation on family feuds within the Labour Party, but you can't help but feel slightly sorry for Balls who has been pining after the job since the first shudders in the Brown administration. As Shadow Home Secretary, however, he can be an asset as he brings his combative style up against one of the weaker Ministers in Theresa May. Whilst both Milibands, Balls, and Yvette Cooper are all obviously talented politicians, one can only hope that Ed Miliband's 'new generation' can move beyond the kind of internal politics that are more reminiscent of a bickering family than of a democratic party.

Labour Hearts Ruling Labour Heads

The kindness of others; Ghost of Labour past; No compromise with the electorate

It was Nick Robinson calling the election in his favour that proved the kiss of death for David Miliband. Sure, the teenage facial hair adorning his top lip can't have been good for karma, but when Robbo plumps for you you know you're done for. To be fair to the BBC's political editor, the facial expressions of the brothers had suggested the senior had been victorious, David sitting relaxed, grinning like a Cheshire cat, Ed ashen faced, like his cat had just been drowned. But as the rounds progressed, and the also-rans were eliminated, the affiliates shifted their weight decisively behind Mili-junior, giving him a final victory margin of just 1.3%. The brothers embraced, providing the papers with the photo they wanted, but more significantly, a genuinely poignant moment. Then Ed Miliband took to the stage to deliver his first speech as leader of the Labour Party.

---

On 24 May nominations opened for Gordon Brown's successor. 33 MPs (12.5% of the commons members of the Parliamentary Labour Party) was the threshold, what seems to me like a perfectly reasonable number. You would hope that the person who is going to be the face of your party going into the future is a face preferred by at least an eighth of your MPs, but this being the Labour Party, there were quickly calls that the number was unfair and discriminatory towards the less popular candidates (which is kind of the point of the threshold in the first place).

Both Miliband's secured the requisite amount, and more, with ease, whilst Andy Burnham and Ed Balls rounded up the numbers to secure their place on the ballot with 33 nominations each. This left just John McDonnell and Diane Abbott, both candidates of the left, scuffling to make it. Both had called for all candidates to be let on the ballot but the party had stood firm. If the left was to be represented, some kind of deal was to be done. Abbott held not one, but two trump cards, in that she was a woman and she was black, so McDonnell withdrew and threw his provisional support by Abbott. Yet still Andrew Neil's 'chocolate hobnob' was short of the required number, and it fell upon David Miliband to patronisingly nominate her himself. It was like an inept high jumper asking for the bar to removed, and when told this would defeat the point of the sport, simply asking the world record holder for a leg-up. Hustings season was embarked upon with five contenders in the running.

Even the most ardent Labour supported would have to agree that the summer's leadership campaign failed to spark the nation's interest. The media were quick to point how all the candidates were Oxbridge educated, which is no bad thing, and how Ed Balls and both the Milibands had studied PPE, which again, doesn't seem unreasonable for politicians. However, even throughout the fifty-plus husting events that the candidates attended there seemed little significant friction between each candidates platform- this excludes Diane Abbott who from henceforth shall be widely ignored- and the campaign remained tucked firmly on the inner pages of the newspapers.

Whilst the candidates broadly acknowledged the successes of New Labour whilst arguing it was time to move on, it took two of its architects to make Labour politics front-page news. At the start of July Peter Mandelson published The Third Man, a book released and written as you would expect from someone with an ego as large, as the ads for it were creepy. The memoirs were quickly condemned for both timing and content and the world moved on.

Then in September Tony Blair, know to some as the former Prime Minister, to others as an international war criminal, released his memoirs, A Journey. It is strange how someone who led Labour to power, and kept them in it for 13 years (for the Brown years were won by Blair in 2005), can now prove so divisive. But all five candidates were quick to declare, like kids on the playground, that they don't like him now, and never liked him that much in the first place. Blair himself made little secret of his preference for David Miliband, but the front page stories were all of tales of Labour's past, not of any vision for the future.

The only definitive view of Labour's future was that it would be in the hands of a Miliband. Diane Abbott never had a realistic chance, Andy Burnham was quite dull (the most interesting thing about his campaign being that Jamie Carragher had donated £10,000) to it, and Ed Balls, though slowly growing in stature, wasn't the right for for leader. Whilst their were similarities between the brothers platforms their was a key distinguishing feature. David was painted by many as the New Labour continuity candidate, much as he himself tried to shrug the the tag. He was clear though, that he believed Labour needed to reach out to the centre, and reconnect with the middle-class voters who were with them in 1997, but got lost in the following thirteen years. This appealed to the more centrist parts of the media and seemed like a logical analysis of Labour's recent failures. Ed, on the other hand, felt that Labour needed to reconnect with their tradition support, those that had been taken for granted by New Labour. Whilst this may also have been true, comparisons were quickly drawn, from those on the centre and the right, with Labour's folly that led them down an electoral cul-de-sac in the 1980s. Yet it would appeal to those on the left, those that in the end were the ones that needed to be wooed. It was upon these premises that the dividing lines were drawn.

Voting opened at the start of September and David Miliband was quickly installed as the bookies favourite. But as the result neared, opinion polls suggested that Ed would win it, including one for the Sunday Times that raised some interesting issues. Polling 1,011 Labour members, and using the same electoral system Labour uses, Ed Miliband came out winner in the final round by 52% to David's 48%. Yet of those same 1,011 members, 55% thought David most likely to lead Labour to victory in the next election, compared to 25% for Ed, and 45% thought David would make the best Prime Minister, compared to 28% for Ed. Whilst not exactly the same as the polling data misunderstanding illustrated in The West Wing clip, it was still puzzling. As John Rentoul put it: 'Vote Ed Miliband. No compromise with the electorate.'

And so it was. The MPs went for David in greater numbers than expected, but the second preferences turned things round for Ed, and the more junior brother in age, experience and reputation was declared the winner. Whilst David may be more likely to win a general election, Ed campaigned for the Labour Party electorate and reaped its rewards. His acceptance speech was warm and gracious in its acknowledgement of the other candidates and hinted that becoming leader would not lead to a change of tune towards a centrist approach as some had perhaps expected. It's early days, but much as I like Ed Miliband, and though I probably sit ideologically closer to him, I'd have felt a lot more confident in Labour's chances in the next election with David as leader. Like it or not, elections are fought on the centre ground, and though Ed may 'tickle Labour's tummy' and provide 'the warm feeling that all those deep Labour instincts were right all along', today could be a fateful day for the party. Here's hoping my early pessimism's unfounded.

Summer Recesses

So my period of World Cup, Wimbledon and West Wing watching, that has lasted since my last exam (May 19th) through to this weekend, is coming to the end with the start of my summer job of tennis coaching on Monday. This stretch of bone idleness has seen my attempts at blogging diminish rather swiftly, but whilst it would be easy to blame it on my lack of motivation, I instead choose to lay all blame with the politicians. Bloody politicians!

The trouble is that nothing's going on. The Labour leadership race rumbles, or rather murmurs, along. Since I last blogged about it, Andrew Neill has accused Diane Abbot of being racist, Ed Ball's is suspected of briefing against Andy Burnham, while the two Miliband's make it look more and more like a two-brother race. Whilst Abbot and Burnham's campaigns are clearly doomed, Ed Ball's has actually been making some headway as Shadow Secretary for Eduacation, though this has been helped along by the first non-expenses cock-up by any member of the coalition.

Michael Gove is an intelligent and well-spoken member of Cabinet. His star has risen very quickly through the Tory ranks, however he is in danger of supernova-ing after taking a hit over his list of axed school building schemes, a list that contained 25 inaccuracies. Branded 'cavalier' by some Labour MP's, a 'miserable pipsqueak' by others (with insults like that you can see why MPs are seen as out of touch) Gove has taken a battering that, though he will in all likelihood survive, leaves him vulnerable should future mistakes be made.

And that's about all that's interesting to have happened since the budget. Parliament slouches towards the summer recess, whilst mine comes to an end. Hopefully come Autumn and conference season there will be a few sparks back into UK politics, but at the moment it's about as interesting as a third place playoff.

The Labour Leadership Race- The Newsnight Debate

Assuming they avoid Iain Duncan-Smith levels of ineptitude, one of the five candidates for the Labour Leadership on show on the Newsnight debate last night, will be the Labour leader going into the next general election. It was my first glimpse of the five together and what follows are my thoughts on each's performance:

Andy Burnham

Despite being first to make his pitch to the assembled audience it wasn't until about halfway through the debate that I really took any notice of the former health secretary. For too long it seemed like he was simply an ambitious backbencher who had stumbled into the big-boys group, only to be quickly shouldered out to the edge of the crowd. He distanced himself from the others with the strongest defence of the Iraq war and a defence of New Labour's stance on civil liberties, but he was singing off last week's hymn sheet. He lacked dynamism and verve and stands a long way from making an impact on the leadership contest, let alone the post itself.

Ed Miliband

Before Gordon Brown was even making the humiliating last walk away from Downing Street and into political obscurity, I held a personal fancy for the younger of the Miliband brothers to be his successor. This was mainly due to his exposure as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and his performance last night, though not clinical, is yet to shake me off the scent. His diagnosis of Labour's failure as being seen as the 'managers and technocrats of society' was acute and he was also clear in his support for the 50p tax rate for the highest earners remaining permanent. Presentation wise he was slightly suspect- each point he was made propelled toward the viewer with the force of some particularly violent hand gesticulations- and I can understand him being seen as not 'heavyweight' enough for the job. But if I had a vote in the leadership election- which I don't- it would be going his way.

Diane Abbott

I'm glad that Diane Abbott made it onto the ballot, and with some murmurings of her making a surprise surge in the race, last night will certainly have gee'd the horses up. Abbott took her presentational lead from Nick Clegg's performance in the first election debate, taking full advantage of her central position, and speaking directly down the camera. At one point, with a growing racket of the other four candidates speaking over each other, she cut through to make her point in an almost stunned silence, like a diminutive teacher asserting her authority over a group of rowdy, testosterone-filled teenagers. The substance matched the style as she put forward both her positions and her differences from the other candidates strongly, no more so than in her criticism of Labour's record on civil liberties towards the end. This provided a good ending to the night that she completed with her choice of John Smith as the Labour leader she most admired. All in all it was a good evening for Labour's left-field, left-wing candidate.

David Miliband

David Miliband is favourite to be the next Labour Leader and last night you could see why. He comes across as the most statesmanlike and provided solid, though not exactly inspiring, responses to the questions posed. At times the camera was searching for him but at one point towards the end, having landed on the senior Miliband blurred, the shot gradually came into focus. This seems to mirror Miliband's campaign as he has gradually shrugged off the criticisms of his failure to challenge Gordon Brown for the leadership, to become the clear frontrunner. Though I prefer Ed, I can't deny that David Miliband would make an effective leader of the Labour party.

Ed Balls

Ed Balls was the most willing of the candidates to address the reasons why Labour lost the 2010 general election and for that he must be commended. However, he seems to think that Labour lost because they did not listen to people like Mrs Duffy, nor speak their language. The former is a fair point, the latter a farce. Labour should not be speaking the language of Mrs Duffy, but listening to people like her and telling her why their approach is better nationally. Balls performed better than I expected, but came across as the most reactionary of the five and, in my opinion, the least principled. Though I am not a fan, I can understand the benefits of having Ed Balls in a front bench position. But leader, no.

---

Whilst the debate was engaging and informative there was too little mention of the deficit. The coalition will attempt to justify all measures they take in this parliament with reference to the more than shoddy condition the nation's finances were in when they took the reigns. Any Labour leader must be able to defend, to an extent, why the deficit is so large, and how they intend to cut it. They must win back the trust of the British people in the Labour party's handling of the economy. For Labour to choose a leader without proper reference to these issues would be like choosing the winner of a football game with no reference to who scored the most goals.

The Deal is Done

As Gordon Brown stepped outside 10 Downing Street to announce his resignation for the second time in two days, I was sat in the library revising poverty and inequality for my Economics of Social Policy exam on Thursday. It seemed fitting. Since I came to any kind of political awareness, this country has been governed by the Labour party, a party founded by the working class to protect its interests against those of big business, against those of the rich. Labour has achieved a lot in its thirteen years of power- minimum wage, child tax credits, gay rights- yet I have never considered supporting it. Yes, there was Iraq, the sustained attack on civil liberties, cash-for-honours and cash-for-influence; but Labour's greatest failure is its record on inequality. The fact that the richest 10% of the population are now more than 100 times richer than the poorest 10% makes for a sad epitaph on the New Labour gravestone.

Not that the Lib Dems will be getting my vote again any time soon. Details are continuously emerging of the deal they have come to with the Conservatives, with Clegg set to be deputy PM and four other Liberal Democrats taking posts in Cabinet. I fear that the yellow bird I placed my cross next to last Thursday may well have been brought to the ground by a pellet from the Tory shotgun, bringing down with it an amnesty for illegal immigrants and a less Europhobic Britain. The resulting main course will likely be an assault on public services, enacted in the Tory's emergency budget. The decision to go into coalition with the Conservatives will surely not be popular with a lot of the parties grass roots, so whilst Clegg may be dipping his hand into the fire successfully on one side, he should be prepared for a flame-thrower from the rear.

And finally, David Cameron, privilege etched from ear-to-ear, enters Downing Street. Though it is not the result I wished for or feel is best for the country, it is the right outcome considering the result last Thursday. He does not hold the mandate he wished to so will have to tread carefully, leaving less of a footprint across the parts of the country that rightfully fear what the Tories could do. Though it is never good to be in opposition, there are worse times than this. Labour must regroup, take time electing a new leader, and consolidate the working class support that prevented it from suffering a deserved hammering at this election. It is only once it has re-established its connection with the people it is supposed to represent that it can look to enter government as a progressive force once more.

The Brown Factor

The digital (error) election; Your mic's still on Gordon; A sad spectacle; The guillotine moved into position

I was going to post something today about the internet effect on this election. However, Gordon Brown's gone and called some old lady in Rochdale 'bigoted', providing the first real gaffe of this campaign and further alienating himself from much of the electorate. So instead of any real analysis of the impact- or rather lack of impact- of online fundraising, the blogosphere and twitter I'll offer my thesis in a short paragraph before moving on to the calamity that is Labour, and Gordon Brown's, campaign.

I missed the first few days of the current election period whilst still on a family holiday in Cyprus so it wasn't until watching a muted Sky News in the departures lounge at Paphos airport, that I came across any real coverage of the campaign. The news being covered was Labour's dismissal of Stuart MacLennan, candidate for the Moray constituency, for some rather crude and expletive postings on his Twitter account. Fast forward a couple of weeks and the past two days have seen both Conservative and Labour suspend candidates for similar activities. Tory candidate Phillip Lardner was found to hold some rather outdated and intolerant views on homosexuality, openly expressed on his website, whilst Labour candidate John Cowan, in my home constituency of South-East Cambridgeshire*, fell foul of lewd comments he had made on internet forums. Whilst talk of stories from the blogosphere coming to dominate the news cycles, and Twitter being used as an effective mass campaigning tool have failed to materialise, the internet has still had an impact on the campaign. It's effect has been to add an extra layer of scrutiny upon those running for office, be it through their website, their Twitter or even forums completely unrelated to politics. What has become clear is that candidates enter the 'New Media' fray at their peril.

While the self-styled commentators of the internet have sat forlorn at their keyboards, failing to make the impact they had hoped, it is that age-old medium of TV that is defining this election. This is most obvious in the introduction of the TV debates that have taken place, adding a Presidential gloss to our electoral system. But what could prove to be more important in terms of the Labour vote, is this 28 seconds worth of footage of Gordon Brown speeding away from a meeting with ordinary voters- or 'plebs' as I'm sure he'd call them- in Rochdale. Whether the lady Brown's 'bigot' comment referred to is a jaundiced, old xenophobe is neither here nor there. What matters is the public's perception of Brown. This could well be the moment that he scuppers the Labour ship once and for all.

Labour's slip to third in the polls came largely as a result of the Liberal Democrat's unexpected surge in support after the ITV debate. However, the foundations for such a decline were set by entering the election with Brown still as leader. That he is resented on the right is little surprise- all Labour leaders are- but Brown's corrosive influence has been to alienate those remaining voters in the centre, who were part of the wave New Labour rode to power in 1997, and stuck with the party throughout the whole Blair era, Iraq and all. Through the Brown years there has been an exodus, creating the strong possibility that Labour will come third in the popular vote on May 6th.

Policy wise, confronting his biggest challenge, the financial crisis, Brown responded with what was close to a textbook response. Yet it is an inescapable fact that his cosying up to the City whilst Chancellor, allowing London to become the 'Guantanamo Bay' of the financial world (in that traders could get away with practises forbidden anywhere else), leaves some responsibility for the scale of the collapse at his feet. His profligacy in Number 11 also lies behind the size of deficit Britain now faces. His tenure as Prime Minister has been very much determined by errors he made before even taking the post.

At crucial moments Brown has appeared indecisive, from the election-that-never-was in the Autumn of 2007, to the expense scandal of last year. Within Downing Street he surrounded himself with a cabal that old Richard M. Nixon would have been proud off, a choice that blew up in his face with the McBride affair last Easter. And then there are the incessant media gaffes. Most of these have been innocent acts of incompetence (such as attending a summit of world leaders looking like this, or leading Al Gore into a cupboard at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit), but today's was the first to show his temperamental nature that has been much speculated upon. People who, till now, sympathised with him as a luckless man, struggling to deal with the constant press harassment that a modern day politician must endure, will find this error harder to forgive.

Should we reach a hung parliament, Labour might just hold on to power in a Lib-Lab coalition, though a potential dealbreaker in such a case may be the removal of Brown. It could be that it is Nick Clegg, rather than anyone from within Brown's own party, who finally stands on the fingers that have been clinging to the cliffs edge for so long. Should the Liberal Democrat's turn the other cheek to Labour's pleas or the Conservatives win an overall majority then Labour will have no choice but to jettison Brown and look to rebuild under a new leader. Though they currently stand just five points behind the Conservatives there remains a chance that the Labour vote could completely collapse, with those who sympathise with Labour beliefs but resent the current party, staying at home. If that's the case, then allowing Gordon Brown to remain at the head of the party for so long could have far-reaching consequences for the future of the Labour Party.

* Cowan's suspension so close to the election means that Labour can not now stand a candidate in the constituency. This means that the Lib Dem candidate, Johnathan Chatfield, who also contested the seat in 2005, could now mount a serious challenge on Jim Paice, MP for the area since 1987. The notional majority is 8,000, but there are now 10,000 or so Labour votes to be scrapped over. Though I'm voting here in York, it means my friends back home now have a vote worth a lot more... Should be interesting.