Archive for January, 2011

Where is the left when the country needs it?

06/01/2011, 03:00:51 PM

by David Seymour

In the furore over Vince Cable’s comments on Rupert Murdoch, the media generally ignored something else he said which has far more relevance.

Cable believes that the Tories are engaged in a right-wing Maoist revolution and he is right.

The cuts are a cover for the reversal of more than half a century of social advances. While Cameron continues to project an image of hugging hoodies, huskies and happiness, Osborne, Gove, Lansley and the other gang members are undermining welfare, education and the health service.

Thatcher came nowhere near doing that. Her administrations accepted the welfare state and universal benefits, even though she might personally have done so through gritted teeth. Not this lot, despite all the rhetoric about wanting to help the disadvantaged.

Take just one of the measures they are introducing and which the Liberal Democrats seem too hungry for power to grasp. The question is: why are tuition fees trebling? The answer: funding for higher education is being cut by 80 per cent. That can have little or nothing to do with reducing the deficit and everything to do with abolishing widespread university entrance. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Elwyn Watkins would have unsuccessfully lobbied himself on tuition fees

06/01/2011, 11:44:36 AM

Last night the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg interviewed Elwyn Watkins, the Lib Dem candidate in Oldham East and Saddleworth. He gave lots of silly answers but the following section stood out – highlighting the ridiculousness of the broader Lib Dem position:

LK: At the time though during the general election when you came within a whisker you were standing just as a Liberal democrat. You were against tuition fees, you were against big cuts in this financial year. Now you would be an MP as part of a coalition that’s gone against many things that the Lib Dems are campaigning for in the general election. How are people on the doorstep here meant to believe what you’d say to them this time?

EW: …In a coalition you have to compromise and most people I’ve talked  to say given the financial mess that we’ve got ourselves to try and deal with it’s about time parties co-operated and they looked to try and  get things done on behalf of the country rather than for party political advantage.

LK: But on something like tuition fees for example, on the doorstep here in the general election you would have been saying that you’d vote against any rise in them. How would you have voted if you were in Westminster then?

EW: Well I would have fulfilled the coalition agreement, but my view of tuition fees hasn’t changed, I still think they’re wrong and if I was an MP I’d still campaign against them. But when you’re in a partnership with another party sometimes you get what you want, sometimes they get what they want.

So, if Elwyn Watkins had become an MP in May he would have voted for tuition fees – BUT – campaigned against them. What? What do you mean Elwyn?

How can you campaign one way but vote another? How would he have campaigned against himself? Picketing his own office? Shouting at himself? Sending himself furious letters? Distributing leaflets saying “Do not vote for Elwyn Watkins – only the Lib Dems can win here”?

And all the while having to do all this campaigning without trying too hard, in case he convinced himself, and ended up not voting the way he intended.

The Lib Dems are past masters at double-think and double-talk. Recently they added a massive double-cross. But this raises to the level of madness their already vertiginous bar of duplicity and deceit.

It all probably sounded jolly clever when Cowley St gave Elwyn his lines, but hearing it back surely even he must realise that it is rubbish. What a fool.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Cameron’s bottle-out on fox hunting: a good broken promise

06/01/2011, 07:00:26 AM

by Sally Bercow

Spare a thought for the scarlet-clad tally-ho brigade. Not only were over half the Boxing Day foxhunts called off due to heavy snow and ice, but it looks increasingly like game-over for a repeal of the hunting ban too. As DEFRA officials recently admitted, David Cameron has now abandoned his oft-repeated commitment to facilitate an early overturning of the ban. A free House of Commons vote has been kicked firmly into the long grass. Indeed, with a bit of luck, it may not even take place at all.

This is music to the ears of most people in Britain. For, unlike our prime minister (who was born into the hunting tradition and has repeatedly argued that the 2004 hunting act was “a mistake”), over three-quarters (76%) of us believe that fox hunting should remain illegal. Despite concerted propaganda to the contrary by the countryside alliance and their ilk, Labour’s hunting act has proved to be a popular, humane and effective piece of legislation, which enjoys an impressive conviction rate.

It would be heartening to think that Mr Cameron has abandoned his pledge swiftly to repeal the ban because he has undergone a Damascene conversion. All who oppose wanton cruelty might sleep more easily in their beds if they thought that their prime minister now acknowledged the error of his ways and accepted that, in a modern, civilised society, there is simply no place for dogs to shred foxes to pieces. Such a volte-face would be a real blow (“I say, old chap, what’s going on”?) to the die-hard, unreconstructed, hunting-obsessed Tory toffs who think that opposition to their “sport” is merely the vulgar prejudice of the lower orders. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Thursday News Review

06/01/2011, 06:55:30 AM

Senior NOTW executive suspended over hacking allegations

A senior editor at News of the World has been suspended while investigations into allegations that he was involved in?continue?A senior editor at News of the World has been suspended while investigations phone-hacking in 2005, the newspaper said on Wednesday. People familiar with the situation said Ian Edmondson, head of news at the Sunday tabloid since that year, was suspended after being named in a High Court document as having commissioned a private detective to intercept voicemail messages of the actress Sienna Miller. His suspension once again shines a spotlight on a case that has put pressure on Mr Edmondson’s former editor, and the man who hired him, Andy Coulson, now director of communications for David Cameron. – FT

The suspension of Ian Edmondson by the News of the World raises obvious questions for the paper’s ultimate owner, Rupert Murdoch, for the prime minister and, perhaps most of all, for the Met police. Edmondson was hired, initially as associate news editor, by its then editor Andy Coulson – a man who now sits at David Cameron’s side. A suspension is not an admission of guilt, but if it is proved, either in court or during the course of the paper’s own investigation, that Edmondson obtained stories acquired by phone hacking, it will cast serious doubt on repeated assertions by Coulson – now No 10’s director of communications – that he knew nothing about the extent of the practice while he edited the paper. It is Scotland Yard, however, which may face the most difficult questions. When they first raided the office and home of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire in August 2006, police found transcripts of messages apparently obtained by hacking into mobile phones belonging to dozens of public figures. The court case that resulted from this involved only Mulcaire and the paper’s then royal editor, Clive Goodman. – The Guardian

The news agenda changes fast in tabloid journalism but Hackgate has been a story that refuses to go away. When the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire and the News of the World journalist Clive Goodman were jailed for conspiring to intercept the voicemails of members of the royal household, Wapping quickly closed ranks. The editor Andy Coulson was obliged to fall on his sword – while denying knowledge of illegality – and Goodman was condemned as a rogue operator. Mr Murdoch’s close henchman Les Hinton assured MPs that the affair had been dealt with and when, two years later, Mr Coulson – by now director of communications for David Cameron – appeared before a renewed parliamentary inquiry he seemed confident of being fireproof. “We did not use subterfuge of any kind unless there was a clear public interest in doing so,” he told MPs. When Scotland Yard concluded that, despite more allegations of hacking, there was nothing new to investigate, Wapping and Mr Coulson must again have concluded the affair was over. But after an election campaign in which the Conservatives were roundly supported by Mr Murdoch’s papers, a succession of further claimants against the News of the World has come forward. Sienna Miller, among others, seems determined to take her case to court, compelling Mulcaire to reveal his handlers and naming in court documents Ian Edmondson, once one of Coulson’s executives. Mr Edmondson is now suspended. But the story is unlikely to end there. – Independent

Tory rebels join with Labour over prison votes

The Coalition Government could be forced to water down controversial plans to allow prisoners to vote in elections as Conservative MPs prepare to join forces with Labour to sabotage the proposal. The threat of a Tory rebellion grew as ministers disclosed that 28,770 prisoners would be entitled to vote under their plans – including 5,991 convicted of violence against the person, 1,753 of sexual offences, 2,486 of robbery and 4,188 of burglary. Following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, ministers propose to lift the ban on votes for prisoners for those serving jail sentences of up to four years. Although David Cameron stressed he was doing so reluctantly, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that prisoners should not be denied the right to vote. Labour delayed a decision on implementing the Court’s ruling before last May’s election but is now ready to form an unlikely alliance with Tory MPs in an attempt to force a U-turn. More than 40 Tories are said to oppose the Government’s plan – potentially enough to defeat it with the backing of the Labour Opposition. – Independent (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The globalised middle: social justice is key to more easing, less squeezing

05/01/2011, 03:00:04 PM

by Jonathan Todd

Tony Blair made adaptation to globalisation a Labour leitmotif. Yet the existence of the “squeezed middle” is a symptom that he did not finish the job. Today’s globalisation is more about the rise of Asia than was the case when Blair became party leader. Easing the squeezing requires better adaptation to this Asian age.

It will take more than David Cameron hawking UK PLC from one rising Asian power to the next. The prime minister is listless in the face of power seeping from the over-indebted West to the resource-rich East, so neatly encapsulated by FIFA’s world cup decisions. His PR smoothness is no substitute for leadership in urgent debates about the architecture of globalisation. It seems that his only reason for attending the G20 was, unsuccessfully, to press the flesh for England’s world cup bid.

Perhaps Cameron confused diary entries, and we lost the world cup after he confronted FIFA president, Sepp Blatter, on macro-prudential regulation. After all, the Tory-Lib Dems’ bail-out of the Irish demonstrates that we live in an interconnected age. It exposes their myth: that our economic predicament is solely Labour’s fault. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

AV is a sham

05/01/2011, 12:30:43 PM

by Darrell Goodliffe

It seems that serious battle is being joined within Labour over the alternative vote (AV) referendum. MPs supporting the “No” campaign have been adversely criticised by Labour “yes” for abandoning their manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. In truth, no party is bound by a manifesto commitment that has been submitted to and rejected by voters. Consider the consequences if it were: presumably. Labour “yes” thinks that we are still bound to commitments made in manifestos throughout the 80s? Maybe, in some cases, it would be better if we were. But insisting that commitments made in a losing manifesto are binding is nonsense.

The battle in Labour over AV will be hard-fought because the stakes are high. In all likelihood, the side on which Labour voters eventually come down will decide the outcome of the referendum. I will vote no. Not because I believe in first past the post (FPTP) – although I think it is superior to AV – but because I believe that AV is the wrong reform. Those who support AV in the expectation that it will lead to further reform are sadly misguided.

Let us assume that on 5 May the public votes for AV. Who will then go on to initiate further reform? It certainly will not be the Conservatives.

Nor will it be Labour. Ed Miliband, and the majority of the leading figures in Labour “yes”, have made their view clear: it is “AV and no further”. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Secret Lib Dem “Operation Detach” is a council of despair

05/01/2011, 07:00:29 AM

by Tom Watson

David Laws is keeping himself useful by masterminding the Lib Dems’ 2015 general election campaign. Every month, he meets Nick Clegg to discuss the latest market research and share results of message-testing. Back in the summer, they jokingly called the meetings “Operation Detach”. The phrase has stuck and is used by special advisers to impress their friends that they are in the know.

“Operation Detach” is about the Lib Dems trying to carve out a distinct identity in time for 2015. Back in the balmy days of the coalition’s summer, “Detach” meetings were jovial, good natured and full of enthusiasm. But it’s been the longest winter for Nick Clegg. Laws is apparently toning down the results of the research, so as not to further depress his leader. These days, Clegg’s responses are monosyllabic as Laws delivers him the not-as-bleak-as-he-knows news.

Laws’ research confirms what the whole nation thinks: the Liberal Democrats have been brutalised by the Conservatives inside the government. The internal polls show Lib Dem supporters in despair as they complain that Nick Clegg has lain down and been trampled by the Tories. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Wednesday News Review

05/01/2011, 06:55:31 AM

Lib Dem rating at all time low

Support for the Liberal Democrats has slumped to its lowest level since the party was formed in 1988, according to The Independent’s “poll of polls”. Nick Clegg is now the most unpopular third party leader since David Owen led the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1989. The Liberal Democrats’ 11 per cent rating in the first poll of polls since last May’s election highlights the dramatic slide in their fortunes since they entered the Coalition with the Conservatives. The 57 Liberal Democrat MPs would be reduced to a rump of just 15 at the next election if this level of support were to be repeated then. Labour is now on 40 per cent and the Tories on 38 per cent, giving Labour an overall majority of 14, according to the weighted average of the regular surveys by ComRes, ICM, Ipsos MORI and YouGov. John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, who compiled the figures, said that the costs and benefits of the Coalition had been distributed very unevenly between the two parties in it. “It is clear that the tone and direction of the Coalition Government has upset many people who voted Liberal Democrat in May, and before, while for the most part those who voted Conservative have been reasonably content with what has transpired,” he said. – Independent

Nick Clegg and Theresa May at war over control orders

Nick Clegg has yet to strike a deal with the increasingly determined home secretary, Theresa May, over how to replace control orders or allow suspected terrorists to be detained for more than 14 days without charge in exceptional circumstances.

Faced by growing calls from senior former cabinet members to retain control orders, it appears that the Liberal Democrat leader is willing to seek a compromise, and will recognise that some form of replacement to control orders is necessary – even though in opposition he called for their outright abolition… Clegg is facing a fraught battle to balance the needs of civil liberties and national security, as well as prevent a public falling out between two distinguished Liberal Democrats peers: Lord Carlile, the government reviewer of terrorism until last week, and Lord Macdonald, the man appointed at the insistence of Clegg to monitor the terrorism review. – Guardian

DAVID Cameron is to hold crisis talks with Nick Clegg amid signs the row over control orders is threatening to shatter the fragile coalition. Mr Clegg wants the measures, which force terrorist suspects to observe a curfew and wear a tag, to be scrapped. But he is locked in a bitter row with Home Secretary Theresa May. Mr Cameron has called an urgent meeting ahead of next week’s Cabinet. No?10 hinted he was unwilling to give any ground, saying UK security was above party politics. – The Mirror

Lib Dems crumble in Oldham

The Liberal Democrats will not win the Oldham by-election next week. The Tories might, though. They were around 2000 down in May and I don’t perceive that their support has fallen by a great deal. Remember, this is one of the few parts of the country where a sizeable group of people define themselves as “Liberal”.  From the times I’ve been on the doorstep in Oldham (it’s not often), it is these “Liberals” who most feel the betrayal. They’re turning on Clegg. Many will stay at home. Some will vote Labour. A smaller group will go Tory. A Tory win is the only thing that all three party leaders don’t want. It would be comical if the consequences weren’t so serious. If we lose (and if we don’t turn out our natural supporters on a cold day in January, we will), Ed Miliband will be in the firing line of the anonymous (though we all know who they are) briefers near to the shadow cabinet. Yet defeat causes greater problems for the government. The Lib Dems need this seat to remain credible. If their coalition partners win, it will be a catastrophe for Clegg and, therefore, an irritation for Cameron. – Tom Watson, Labour Uncut

David Cameron and Nick Clegg will use the Oldham East by-election to quash claims the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are planning a permanent merger. The Deputy Prime Minister will claim the by-election is a two horse race between the Liberal Democrats and Labour when he visits the constituency later today. He will also tell a town hall meeting that his party will run in every seat in 2015, instead of forming any electoral pact with the Conservatives. David Cameron is expected to visit later in the week, perhaps as soon as tomorrow. – PoliticsHome

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Cameron is a class act, a worthy opponent. So we must nail him now.

04/01/2011, 03:00:05 PM

by Kevin Meagher

Ed Miliband was right in his New Year message. 2011 is a year of consequences. This is the year Labour really has to nail David Cameron. Once and for all. For five years he has slipped through the party’s fingers with one failed attempt to characterise him after another.

First we had “Dave the chameleon”. Cameron was a chancer; all things to all people. Then we had the toff-bashing fun of the Crewe by-election: a stunt that grew into the entire campaign, with predictably calamitous results. Then we had “Mr 10%” – the amount that a pre-election Cameron was said to want to cut from public spending. A line which no less an authority than Douglas Alexander recently lamented had been quite useless.

Tony Blair once chided Cameron that he would not withstand the “big clunking fist” of Gordon Brown. But Cameron has instead shown that he has a decent chin. Then we had Brown’s repeated charge that he was “all style, but no substance”. That is not a crime in modern politics; as, indeed, Blair testifies. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Think again on EMA: poorer students need it

04/01/2011, 12:30:07 PM

By Dan Howells

1 January saw the closing of new applications for the education maintenance allowance. So what impact has EMA had, and what will be the impact of removing or replacing the scheme with a more “targeted approach”?

First, a few uncomfortable facts.

Only one in twelve of the poorest children lived with a degree-educated parent at nine months, compared with one in five of the richest children (Waldfogel and Washbrook, 2010).

In 2008, 55% of secondary schools in the 10% most deprived parts of England failed to achieve 30% of children getting five good GCSEs including English and maths. This is compared 3% cent in the 10% of least deprived areas.

According to the office of fair access (2010) “Bright children from the poorest homes are 7 times less likely to go to top universities than their wealthier peers”.

Just 16% of students at Russell group universities are from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Compare this to 100 elite schools accounting for one third of admissions to Oxford or Cambridge during the last five years. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon