Why The Tories Will Almost Certainly Win A Second Term

Guido has recently had a post up questioning whether we are witnessing a one-term Tory government. While the points raised are relevant, I can’t help but feel that Guido is hedging his bets to some extent. If the Tories win outright, he has a whole host of posts highlighting the failure of Labour to get anywhere. If the Tories lose, he can point to this post and again be “proved” right. But that could just be my natural cynicism (which is generally rewarded where Mr Fawkes is concerned, though). The point of my post is that, as things stand, I think the Tories will go on to win a second term.

There are three reasons for this. Firstly, while things may get worse in terms of the economy, there is also the possibility that things will get distinctly better – especially if George Osborne clocks that economic recovery is aided by tax cuts as well as spending cuts. A recovering economy tends to reward the incumbent government; if Cameron & Co can pull it off, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t reap the rewards in the ballot box. And, after a year and a bit in office, there is still a lot of time to do it before the country has to go back to the polls in 2015.

The second reason is that the Tories aren’t really campaigning at the moment. They’ve got other stuff to do. Like govern. And, of course, muzzle their coalition partners as much as possible. However, come the next election (and they will effectively decide when that is – don’t rule out the possibility of a snap poll if a Tory victory looks likely in one), they will be coming out all guns blazing, using the healthy war chest to try to dominate the core messages of that campaign. And I think they will be emphasising the compromises they have made for the supposed good of the nation (for example, going into the coalition), the difficult choices they believe they have made (cuts etc) at the same time as hammering Labour for leaving them such a fucking mess to deal with in the first place. In the meantime, Labour have little else to do but campaign. And how well are they doing at that? Well, they are attracting back some of the supporters they lost during the long, messy years they spent in power, but those people are coming back for no real reason other than they don’t like the Tories and the reality of that party being ineffective control of the country narks them a bit. Labour, despite having all the time that no longer governing affords a party, are struggling to effectively vocalise any sort of popular message or image.

Which leads me to the third reason why a Tory victory still looks likely – Ed Miliband is just plain shit at the job of being Leader of the Opposition. And if you are shit at that job you have precisely no credibility when it comes to pitching for the promotion to the top job. Especially when the guy you are fighting for that job is already in it. Cameron may be compromised by, say, his association with Rebekah Brooks, but he still looks a lot more credible and Prime Ministerial than his Labour counterpart. Of course, Miliband Minor might be binned before the next election. But who would they replace him with? The reason he won the last Labour leadership election was because he appeared to be the least shit of those running in it. That situation hasn’t changed; there appears to be no-one in the upper echelons of the Labour party who could look credible against even that lightweight David Cameron.

Of course, lots could change, politics is constantly changing blah blah fucking blah. And yeah, something could happen that radically changes the political landscape. But as things stand, I think that enough of the British people will decide, in balance and when faced with the reality of voting in the ballot box on Election Day, that they prefer the devil they know rather to the one they don’t. The Tories will, most likely, benefit from a grudging refusal on the part of the British people to embrace change unless they absolutely have to or have grown utterly repelled by the incumbent government.

After all, that’s what allowed the odious Tony Blair to be re-elected. Twice.

Best News In The World Ever...

...Cameron has called for a phone hacking probe.

Well thank fuck for that! Jesus, I'll sleep better tonight, knowing that there is a phone hacking probe to come! This is on a par with the Declaration of Indepedence. Thank Christ for that brave, bold politician named David Cameron.

More seriously, though, I can't remember when the coalition ran out of steam, but I think it was quite early on. But whenever it happened, the coalition has now become largely reactive. It does not offer bold, new policies designed to better the lives of the people in this country. Nor does it offer a genuinely new politics that might allow power to be returned to the people of this country. Rather, it offers a bland and facile reactive approach to politics, where responding to media narratives is far more important than doing anything big, ideological and genuinely radical. Therefore, when there was a chance to create positive headlines or, at the very least, offset some of the more negative ones, Cameron lept at that chance. Just as he has done with, say, his coalition's healthcare reforms.

Government needs to be more than a response to the 24/7 media cycle. It needs to be more than about responding to particular new stories. It needs to be visionary, and it needs to be confident. It needs to be able to say "I don't care about the phone hacking scandal because (a) it is being investigated by the police anyway and (b) I am trying to transform this country for the better". Unfortunately, our current government seem terminally unable to cope with the relative bravery that such a position might entail.

So thank fuck for Cameron's commitment to a phone hacking probe. Because that really is the biggest challenge facing us at the moment in this country. And it is precisely what he should be doing. In the world of Cameron, anyway...

Rowan Williams and the Non-Existent Fear

One of the greatest, and most important, political concepts of all time is the idea of the seperation of church and state. While we haven't quite managed it completely in this country, you'd think that we could be spared having to hear about the political preferences of the Archbishop of Canterbury. But clearly he wouldn't agree.

His New Statesman article is the sort of toss that continually gets printed by that magazine. And Rowan Williams has been comprehensively shredded just about everywhere this morning - particularly since he, as an unelected, unaccountable public figure, is really taking the piss when he criticises the democratic credentials of the coalition. One of the biggest problems, though, is that his whole article is predicated on the shakiest of grounds. Take a look at this paragraph on the much-maligned concept of the Big Society:

Government badly needs to hear just how much plain fear there is around such questions at present. It isn't enough to respond with what sounds like a mixture of, "This is the last government's legacy," and, "We'd like to do more, but just wait until the economy recovers a bit." To acknowledge the reality of fear is not necessarily to collude with it. But not to recognise how pervasive it is risks making it worse. Equally, the task of opposition is not to collude in it, either, but to define some achievable alternatives. And, for that to happen, we need sharp-edged statements of where the disagreements lie.

First up, it may not be enough to respond with things like "this is the last government's legacy", but it is still important to stress that. Labour were in power for 13 years - the situation the coalition inherited is Labour's fault. In fact, I'm amazed that the coalition doesn't spend more time pointing this out. If I was Cameron or Clegg, I'd be saying something like "this is all your fucking fault" every time Ed Miliband opened his stupid mouth. Likewise, the economy does restrict what the coalition can do. Labour could afford to do far more because the national bank account hadn't (yet) been ransacked. The Con-Dems were always going to be far more restricted as the money has been spent.

He's right, of course, when he says that the point of opposition is to offer some sort of tangible alternative to the government. But he's wrong when he talks about it coming from the left. The left (or at least the mainstream left) has become inherently conservative. That's the point of Blue Labour, that's why the Labour party in opposition can offer nothing more than "we'd do the same, but more slowly and with sad looks on our faces".

Indeed, as far as I can see radical alternatives will come from outside of the right-left political spectrum. Likewise, radical change does not - as Williams seems to believe it should - involve maintaining the current level of state power. There are radical alternatives to the status quo; these challenge that size and scope of the state in modern Britain. They dare to say that the answer to everything may not be state intervention and that the government both should not and cannot be held responsible for all aspects of national life. Take child poverty. The last Labour administration threw vast amounts of money at ending child poverty and nothing happened. It is time to consider other options and other institutions in society that might be able to help deal with and maybe end this problem. And it is striking that the head of one of those potential institutions is so utterly caught up in the statist myth.

But the biggest problem with the Archbish's article is that it is, as seems to be the case with many people writing for The New Statesman, based on unsubstantiated assertions of nothing more than the author's opinions. Williams writes about "plain fear". What fear? I have not come across anyone afraid of the coalition's policies. Sure, some people are angry and resentful about the coalition's approach, but no-one I've come across is afraid. As a result, the whole article comes across as a case based on a false assumption, and that is a fatal flaw. It isn't enough for anyone - even the Archbishop of Canterbury - to effectively say "it is true because I say it is". I doubt I am alone on demanding a little more proof of the fear that is the foundation of this article before I can treat Williams' views with the credibility that he seems to believe they deserve.

General Election 2011?

Not often I agree with something Jackie Ashley has to say, but her parts of her analysis here are spot on. An election this year would benefit the Tories and would almost certainly result in an outright win for Cameron and his band of happy campers. The Tories have the money to fight and Cameron looks Prime Ministerial in a way Miliband Minor just can't match. Furthermore, Labour has done little to change or reform itself; it remains a party based on negativity, with no positive message to offer whatsoever.

But if anything can stop an election this year, it's the Liberal Democrats. Yeah, they're getting little from the coalition other than flak (which would have happened had they signed up with Labour as well) and it seems unlikely that they will get their much hoped for electoral reform. But they made their bed, they've got to lie in it. Breaking away from the coalition now would mean they are showing that they can't be trusted as partners in power (a big problem for a party that has only governed once as a junior partner in the current coalition). Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats aren't popular at the moment - in a General Election right now, they'd face something approaching a wipe-out. Finally, their leader, Nick Clegg, must know that he will only lead his party for as long as the coalition lasts. If there was a General Election now, I'm pretty sure his leadership of the Liberal Democrats would end shortly after the results of that election came in (and there are no guarantees that he would keep his own seat in the Commons).

The Tories have a lot to gain through an election this year; it remains unlikely as the Liberal Democrats have literally everything to lose.

Ed Miliband: Beyond Boring

If I was to sum up what is wrong is Ed Miliband in one sentence, it would sound something like this: “He’s an indignant potato fatally compromised by his close association with the miserable failure that was the Brown administration”. Helpfully, Miliband Minor has managed to sum his problems as Labour leader in one sentence as well. And it is this sentence, apparently meant to sell the Labour party to potential high-profile Lib Dem defectors:

I think we are now the natural home for progressive politics because we are the only party that can meet a credible claim on social justice.

So… let’s count the ways in which this does not work. Firstly, let’s put it into perspective – he’s trying to get people to defect to his party. He needs something that sounds confident and inspiring. So starting his sentence with “I think” is pretty weak. As party leader, he should know. Even better, he should believe. Modern politics seems to be all about the belief.

Secondly, the natural home sounds quite comforting – the sort of place you might retire to. It certainly doesn’t exude urgency. Perhaps something better like “the only choice”.

Likewise, “credible claim” sounds like a lawyer hedging their bets. Not a leader trying to inspire ministers to leave the cabinet and join his party in opposition for what will probably be a minimum of the next 4 years.

And overall, the whole thing is too long. It is a two part sentence when it should be a short and punchy slogan. I mean, Obama didn’t have “with all things considered, and all other options evaluated, I do believe I can make a credible claim to be the candidate of change” on his posters. No, his watchword was simply “change”.

Miliband Minor’s flaw – and I think it will be the fatal flaw for his leadership – is an inability to inspire. It has become almost a cliché to say it, but he really does resemble IDS. As such, he is a liability for his own party and an asset for the coalition. He sounds annoying, and his words are insipid and uninspiring. Hell, if I was Vince Cable (who his pitch seems to be directed at) I’d stay put – not for ideological reasons, but rather to avoid the tedium I’m sure is involved in having a conversation with Ed Miliband.

British Politics, Libertarians and LPUK

This post will be long; for that I offer a warning, but no apology.

I haven’t been a member of LPUK for about a month now, and after Anna Raccoon’s devastating post on that party’s current leader, it seems unlikely I will be again. Personal responsibility is crucial to almost every successful formulation of libertarianism, but according to Raccoon’s post, the current leader of LPUK is utterly irresponsible. More than a bit of a problem, I would argue.

Of course there may be those who argue that I’m judging based on only one side of what will probably be a vicious argument. But the facts presented in the post fit the facts as I have observed them, and the whole post has more than a ring of truth to it. And it is a thoroughly depressing truth.

LPUK now appear to have two choices. Either they can ditch Withers and elect a new leader (Christ knows who, and doing so would enhance the perception of a party in crisis) or they can keep him on, and become increasingly like a version of Veritas without the unique selling point of having a celebrity as leader. Neither fate is particularly edifying; it is more than possible to see the Libertarian Party of the UK as entering terminal decline.

But there’s another reason why I don’t much care about hearing both sides of the story. And it’s this: the accusations about Withers are just the icing on the cake for me. The reality is that it is easy for LPUK to enter terminal decline, and easy for it to wink out of existence. And the reason for this is simple – they have made startlingly little progress since they were formed. The party, when it has contested elections, has done beyond poorly. And this is a crucial, debilitating problem. If you can’t credibly contest elections, then the media won’t care about you. If the media doesn’t care about you, you can’t win elections. And so the vicious circle continues, and LPUK remains a largely virtual entity, incapable of the sort of practical action needed to make a genuine political impact in our deeply flawed democracy.

In fact, LPUK are a standing rebuke to those who wax lyrical about the importance of the internet in modern politics. The internet has a role to play, for sure. But if your party was formed, largely managed and supported through the internet, then you have a problem. In a constituency based electoral system such as ours, you need to have constituency organisations that are building support across years, doing the endless (and endlessly tedious) work of canvassing on rainy Saturday mornings. If you are largely an internet organisation, you don’t have that. In fact, the internet becomes as much a virtual prison as it does a virtual tool. After several years in existence, LPUK have remarkably little to show for their efforts. And for all the talk of a resurgence under Withers (a resurgence surely dead in the water now, if it ever truly existed) the party has a mountain to climb, and seemingly precious little resources to allow it to do so in order to get anywhere. The odds were stacked against the party before this scandal (if we can call something a scandal that precious few people in this country will really care about). Now proper political influence seems further away than ever before.

There will be some who will crow over my acceptance that LPUK are not going to go anywhere; the sort of libertarians who have always argued for entryism into the main political parties now have every right to say “I told you so”. Except their victory is pyrrhic, and their laughter hollow. Because there is no natural home in British politics for the genuinely libertarian.

Anyone who argues that libertarians have a natural home in one of the main parties (by which I mean a party larger than LPUK; a pretty minimal hurdle to overcome) is simply wrong. We can ignore anyone who says that libertarians have a natural home in the Labour party as utterly delusional. The same for anyone who might make the claim that the Greens have something to offer libertarians. Their environmental and economic policies could only ever be implemented through draconian state intervention.

Which takes us to the Tories. So many professed libertarians seem to reside in the Tory party, and I don’t really understand why. The Tories are deeply socially conservative. And there is nothing libertarian about social conservatism. In fact, I have a little litmus test I always use when I think that the Tories are a good idea. I think about whether I could honestly vote for the policies they championed at the last election. Then I think of their National Service plan, and remember why I don’t vote for them.

The same for UKIP. There are some who would make UKIP a libertarian party. Sadly, I think they are in an ineffective minority. And to emphasise that point, I can always remember something like their proposed ban on the burqa to reassure me that they are often little more than the right-wing of the Tories in self-imposed exile.

And the Liberal Democrats? Well, I had hope when Nick Clegg was elected. And it lasted for about five seconds. He’s an apologist for the Tories with, according to his writing in The Orange Book, staunchly Europhile leanings (albeit with a reformist bent). Not an intolerable position, but hardly libertarian either. And his party is fatally flawed in my eyes because, as vast swathes of the party has shown since they gained some real political power, far too much of it is still social democratic, and thus Labour supporters who can’t quite bring themselves to be Labour.

Which leads us back to LPUK. A tiny party that has spent most of its life fighting for survival, rather than for power. And I want to stress this point – the alleged behaviour of Andrew Withers is just the tip of the iceberg. The party is sinking; which is hardly surprising, since it has always struggled to stay afloat.

But whatever. I don’t need to be a member of a political party. In fact, a spell as an independent is very, very appealing. I wish LPUK the very best – and they’re going to need all the goodwill they can get over the coming days, I rather think. But no more money from me; no more links; no more support.

And that’s that. LPUK is done, as far as I’m concerned. Finished.

What’s next?

Universities Charge What The Government Allows Them To Charge Shock!

So, it appears that some universities will be charging the maximum possible in tuition fees that the government allows. Fair enough, I reckon. A degree from a decent university is worth much more than £9k. What does bother me, though, is the government then whining about universities charging the maximum.

I’m sorry, but what precisely did they think was going to happen here? That most universities – entities that need to make money – would charge as much as possible in many cases was 100% inevitable. To think otherwise is completely naïve. Yet the government seems to have been precisely that. There seems to be a certain incredulity that money-making organisations would choose to, well, make money. This talk of only charging the maximum in “exceptional circumstances” is nonsense on stilts – after all, what could be more of an exceptional circumstance for a university that having large amounts of its government funding removed?

Just to be clear – I’m not concerned about tuition fees, or the substantial rise in them. In many ways the new system is fairer since it is being financially able to pay back the cost of a university education is now categorically the criterion for being expected to do so. What does bother me, though, is the terminal stupidity of a government that allows organisations to make money, and then gets the hump when they do. The coalition need to get a grip. They need to be far more astute and political than this. Fundamentally, they need to remember the basic point that their policies have consequences, and if they don’t like those consequences, then they shouldn’t pursue the related policies in the first place.

Good. One piece of control-freak, illiberal legislation down, about a billion to go.

More like this, please, Con-Dems. A lot more like this. And quickly.

The Boredom of Modern Politics

See, there's a problem with being a political blogger at the moment. And it is this; currently, politics is just plain boring. We have a government that, despite all the predictions to the contrary, is functioning reasonably well (in terms of being united) despite being a coalition. And they don't do a great deal either; sure, we get the occasional, irritating nudge, but the Nu Labour days - when the announcement of illiberal and poorly thought through policy was a weekly, or even daily, event. There was far more to tear into under Nu Labour; the relatively cautious coalition needs to do more to increase the sum total of freedom in our society, but because they aren't proactively attacking it as much as Labour, it is difficult to truly get wound up by them.

And the opposition? They're a broken record of unconvincing and unrealistic opposition to spending cuts. There is nothing to inspire in Miliband Minor's leadership or his party - nothing to inspire hope or rage. There's just the reassuring thought that his lot are out of power and likely to remain so for a while that's worth commenting on.

And what of the resignations? I don't give a fuck about Coulson anymore; he's resignation has been the most anticipated event since the Queen Mum's death. And Alan Johnson resigning for personal reasons is a bit of a nothing as well; firstly, he wasn't up to the job and secondly as a person, he may well have personal reasons that restrict him from doing a very high-profile public role such as Shadow Chancellor. Even the resignations are boring at the moment.

Consequently, coming up with daily blogposts about politics is challenging at the moment. There is, quite simply, not a lot happening - or at least not a lot happening that is worth commenting on. Which is why posting on here may become erratic once again in the near future...

Exit Johnson, Stage Right

Far be it from me to speculate on something I don't know the details of, but I can't help but think that there is something behind Alan Johnson's decision to quit as Shadow Chancellor. The phrase "personal reasons" is almost beyond parody; it means nothing and everything simultaneously. It is pretty much calling out to the press to investigate - and speculate - further.

Of course, it might all be down to personal reasons. It might be that Johnson does want to spend more time with his family. It might be that there is a scandal brewing - something in his private life that prevented him from running for Labour leader and from challenging Brown went it might have made a difference to Labour's chances at the 2010 election. Or it might be - and this is what I suspect is the truth - that Johnson just thinks Ed Miliband is a massive twat that he simply cannot work with.

And coming so soon after David Miliband - Ed's own brother for fuck's sake - decided the backbenches are better than the Shadow Cabinet, this can't be anything other than an indictment of the leadership of Miliband Minor. Either his judgement is flawed in making Johnson his Shadow Chancellor or he is such an arse that a generally genial figure like Johnson cannot work with him.

What happens next is difficult to predict - although it will probably be nothing. At least not in the near future. But with the government following austerity policies and the Lib Dems about as popular as chlamydia, Miliband Minor should be riding the crest of a wave. As things stand, he is unable to get those closest to him to work with him/continue to work with him. This doesn't feel like a politician at the height of his powers; this feels like a leader unable to lead. And having endured a similar sort of leader in the form of Gordon Brown for several years, I can't help but wonder how long Miliband has left to show his own party that he is different in style and capability from the man who was his mentor.

Gordon Brown: Loser, Not Hero, Of The Year

Been a while since I last did a good fisk. This article is practically begging for it - a piece of pap trying to make Gordon Brown - who this year, more than any other, made himself clearly stand out as a total loser - into a hero. Let's go take a look:

Unlike the current leader of the Labour party, I cannot imagine Gordon Brown being a tolerable person to make a snowman with.

I don't want to make a snowman with any party leader of any party ever. If I did, then both Miliband Minor and Brown the Cunt would be pretty low down on the list. But sorry, what is the point about this idea of making snowmen with party leaders? Is there one?

He would fuss about the precise placement of the carrot nose and pebble eyes, possibly employing a ruler and spirit-level, and fret that this was not an appropriate use of our intellectual resources.

Still struggling to see the point of this snowman shit. But anwyay, Brown'd probably chuck a mobile phone at your face for not agreeing with him that snowman should look exactly like him (which is like a fatter Richard Nixon, fact fans).

But, and herein lies the rub, I have never felt the need to imagine the potential for cold weather fun with the head of the party I'm supporting, simply to feel confident in their potential to lead it to power.

Then why the fuck mention the whole snowman thing? Jesus. Try reading back your own article next time. Just so it makes some sort of fucking sense, as opposed to just being padded out fawning and bullshit.

Brown, it has often been observed, was born into the wrong era. Paralysingly ill-suited to the territory of 24/7 performative politics, his stock would have been valued considerably higher in the olden days when moral compass, staunch resolve and attention to detail were as important as the ability to crack a genuine smile on YouTube is now. But Gordon Brown, as in so many other areas, had no such luck.

What moral compass, staunch resolve and attention to detail? None of this was shown in Brown's failed time in Number 10. He was a shallow opportunist, determined to cling to his unelected and undeserved position. His time in power is summed up by his odious slogan of "British Jobs For British Workers". He would say anything to stay in power; the problem (for him) was that he was shit at saying it.

He did not, of course, lead his party to power in May, but down to the doldrums of defeat which may well last much longer than this country deserves. And yet, though his inability to capture public confidence was personal as much as it was circumstantial, it is his dignity in defeat that makes him my hero of 2010. His exit from Downing Street was touchingly humble. No amount of nippy accounts of "22 days in May" can deflect from the power of Guardian photographer Martin Argles's shots of Brown with his family in their final moments at Number 10.

I'd rather read a million accounts of those 22 days in May than gawp at a photo of Brown strutting down the street like he is some sort of genuinely historical figure. After all, those 22 days - for better or for worse - gave us our incumbent government. Whereas that shot was of a man leaving a building he should have vacated days before. And he appears, for all the world, to be dragging his family with him.

Returning with them to Fife, he has embraced life below the radar as a constituency MP, surfacing only recently to offer his characteristically comprehensive thoughts on the potential for global financial restructuring in his book Beyond the Crash, serialised here.

Oh, please. Brown went from being Prime Minister to being an MP who could not be fucked to work for the constituents who elected him. He did nothing after being turfed out of Downing Street except write his book which has, to a large extent, been a failure - a dead weight on those bookstores that elected to stock it.

When he denounced Tory cuts as "immoral" and "economic vandalism" in an article for the Mirror last Saturday, he only echoed the sentiments of the thousands of protesters who had taken to the high streets that day to express their outrage at the national plague of tax avoidance.

Thousands of protestors in a country of 60 million? What a man of the people Gordon Brown must be. Particularly since he was just rehashing the muted attack lines of his replacement as Labour leader.

In his passionate belief in international co-operation to temper national insecurity, we see beyond Brown the caricature to Brown the believer.

Never seen this belief in international cooperation. What I've seen is Gordon Brown the believer in his own (undeserved) entitlement to power.

The country may not have wanted him as a fatally flawed leader, but it needs him now as a quiet economic hero.

In what way is the man who nearly bankrupted this country - and forced these cuts on the coalition - a fucking economic hero? And in what way is he quiet - this man who once blithely boasted that he had ended boom and bust? Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ, the last thing we need is to hear more from Gordon Brown. His time in power was an absolute fucking disaster, and his incompetence and malign policies will hurt this country for many years to come.

Whatever happened to Ed Miliband?

Y’know, I thought being Leader of the Opposition meant that you were supposed to lead, well, the opposition. Thus far, Ed Miliband's leadership had consisted of retiring from frontline politics to relative obscurity. Which is a bold strategy, but not likely to be a successful one given his current position. There are many types of Conservative leaders that Miliband could attempt to emulate; Iain Duncan Smith is not probably the best one though.

The reasons for his relative silence are something of a mystery. The coalition is doing many things that people find controversial – Miliband Minor’s response is to mutely shrug and wonder why people are looking at him with an expectation that he should say something.

But I do have a theory. Miliband Minor has managed to slip down one of the few remaining ideological cracks in the narrow consensus of modern British politics – he is lost somewhere between the centre ground (where everyone seems to want to be for reasons that frankly defy understanding) and the slightly left-of-centre. And the reason is simple – the ‘Red Ed’ tag. As soon as he had been announced as leader, he managed to get the tag ‘Red Ed’. He was tagged as the plaything of the Unions; a dangerous leftie throwback to the Labour party of the 1980’s. And that panicked him, and meant he was unable to position himself anywhere. He couldn’t be Nu Labour, because we seem to hate that brand now. And he can’t be left-of-centre without proving the cheap jibe of “Red Ed” completely correct. He’s got nowhere to go.

Of course, this wouldn’t be the case if he had a backbone. He could stay the course, and defend the Nu Labour brand, or he could be more the left-wing man many assumed he would be (and far closer to his father). But he doesn’t. Like most people in his generation in the political elite, he seems rather afraid that having political convictions will lead to difficult situations. You know, awkward stuff like having to defend his position. The sort of thing that politicians used to do as a matter of course, but now avoid like the plague..

But, while the “Red” tag was arguably cheap and has not necessarily been borne out by the Labour leader’s behaviour, it may yet prove to be one of the most effective nicknames given to a politician in recent years. It seems to be the root cause of the silence of the man who should be leading the opposition in our country.

When Will Nick Clegg Go?

It can now only be a matter of time before Nick Clegg loses his position as leader of the Liberal Democrats. There is a certain Faustian element to his decision to get into bed with the Tories – he got the job of Deputy Prime Minister, but in the long-term, damnation and (almost certainly) eventual dismissal from his own party. Let’s not rehash whether he made the right choice, but instead consider when the deed will finally be done, and his increasingly uncomfortable party gives him the chop.

Frankly, I can’t see it happening while the coalition holds. As much as many Lib Dems might not like the coalition, the lure of being in power coupled with the chance to temper the Tories (no matter how limited that power is) will stop them from changing their leader while the coalition exists. So the best chance Clegg has for a prolonged time as Lib Dem leader is the extension of the coalition arrangement for as long as possible. The other alternative elections results would lead to Clegg being bounced before he had any time to think about it.

If the Tories (most likely) or Labour win an outright election victory, then the Lib Dems will be out of power. What use would the Liberal Democrats then have for a former Deputy Prime Minister in a Tory led coalition as their leader? They would need to redefine themselves in view of the changed political circumstances. And if Labour won but not outright, you can be absolutely sure that one of their conditions for a entering into a coalition with the Lib Dems would be the sacking of Nick Clegg.

But when the enforced retirement finally hits Clegg, he can at least take some comfort that he has been the first Liberal in decades – and the first Liberal Democrat ever – to get to one of the top positions in British politics. The cost of his political influence and power is longevity as Liberal Democrat leader. But when the history books are written Clegg’s time as Deputy PM will probably be what they note rather than his leadership of Britain’s perennial third party.

Nick Clegg: The Impossible Choice

Simon Jenkins on the limited political future of one Nick Clegg:

Clegg the politician was a nice chap. He could have made a good departmental minister. Back in May he could have decided otherwise, standing aloof from office and declaring that his party would debate and vote on each government measure on its merits. That would have been a true Liberal Democrat dawn, from which he could have returned perhaps more successfully to fight the Tories at the polls.

Instead Clegg chose glory in death. He came to the rescue of Cameron in the latter's hour of need and enabled him to steer the economy out of Labour's morass. I have no doubt Cameron will show gratitude, offering honorary life membership of the Tory party, a safe seat and a comfy place on the Notting Hill sofa. For Clegg that might be enough. But as leader of the Liberal Democrats, he has booked a ticket to oblivion.

Now I'd agree - in part. Nick Clegg is basically fucked as Lib Dem leader. His decision in May was always going to work for roughly half his party, and really piss off the other half. That's the nature of his compromise. Had he done it the other way round - and jumped into bed with Labour - he would still have alienated half of its parties and half of his followers. He had to make a choice, and he did. It was never going to please everyone, which is what makes it a compromise.

And this notion that the Lib Dems could have chosen a third way (no pun intended) of voting on each issue as and when they arise rather than going into coalition is a non-starter. All that would have happened is the Cameron would have gone to the country again sooner rather than later. His party was the only one with the funds to fight another election, and both the Tories and Labour would have a massive stick with which to beat the Lib Dems - that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for unstable government and for political instability.

This is the tragedy of Nick Clegg; he had no choice but to compromise, but by compromising, he ended up shooting himself in the foot. And, as far as I am concerned, he made the best of a bad situation. That's not going to stop the carping of lefties throughout the country, though...

Let's actually have ideology in politics

Chuntering noisemonkey Ed Balls on the "regressive" Coalition:

“The government’s ideological assault on our welfare state and public services is not simply economic vandalism, I fear it will damage the very fabric of our society too."

I have little interest in what Balls has to say - I'm tired of listening to his vapid and deeply predictable assaults on the Tories and/or the Lib Dems. You could replace Balls with a basic programme designed to spew out attacks on the Con-Dems every few days without damaging political discourse in this country. In fact, such a programme would positively improve British politics, if only because Balls would be excised from it. Binning Balls would be lancing a festering wart on the face of British politics.

No, what does bother me is the increasing use of the word "ideological" in relation to the government's spending cuts. Put simply, there is nothing ideological about these cuts; they are basic economics. The Labour government spent too much, the new government has to spend less - therefore it has to cut spending.

That's not to say that there is anything wrong with ideological attacks on the size of the state and state spending. In fact, I'd love it if the government was being ideological. It would make a welcome change from the bland technocratic government that we have had to endure in this country since 1997. To actually have a government doing something because they believe in it rather than to get good headlines or because they have no choice would be a welcome fucking change, quite frankly.

Using the term "ideological" in the way the quote above does is to run the risk of turning it into an insult - which would be beyond stupid, even for a witless toad like Balls. Surely the reason why people get into politics and join a political party is because of ideology? Politics should be ideological, and if the main parties actually remembered the ideologies they are meant to believe in then politics in this country would be one hell of a lot more interesting than the beyond bland bullshit and empty posturing that had now been substituted for political debate.

On Electoral Reform

The recent news about a potential referendum on electoral reform has created a lot of excitement for some. Despite the fact that I can see a case for the reform of the electoral system, I can't get too excited about this referendum. Firstly, all electoral systems have flaws, and you're not going to get true representation under any system. As far as I can see, we'd be replacing one flawed system with another, equally flawed, system.

And there's another reason why I don't think it is worth getting too excited about the concept of electoral reform - it isn't going to happen. I think the referendum will go ahead - it is too important for the Liberal Democrats and therefore for the coalition to be abandoned in the Commons. But at that referendum, only the Liberal Democrats will be campaigning for electoral reform. The Labour party will have overcome their brief flirtation with electoral reform that they experienced after the election, and will use the chance to fight against electoral reform during the referendum campaign as an opportunity to punish the Liberal Democrats for not joining them in a so-called "progressive coalition". The Tories aren't going to campaign for electoral reform either; the current system served them very well prior to 1992, and (the way things are going) will give them a workable majority at the next election. The electoral machines of the two main parties in this country will almost certainly campaign against electoral reform which means, with the best will in the world, that it ain't going to happen.

However, let's not get too carried away with the notion that the Liberal Democrats are seeking electoral reform because, unlike the two main parties, they are concerned with issues of representation. The reason why the Liberal Democrats want a new voting system is because it will benefit them. They are the victims of this current situation, and they - perhaps understandably - want to change that. However, this has nothing to do with democracy; instead it is down to self-interest.

And that's the biggest problem I have with electoral reform - it isn't going to change the way politics in this country works. It is smokes and mirrors - creating debate about a potential change that will, in reality, change very little. The problem with our democracy is that it is now dominated by three parties which, on so many areas, operate in open agreement on political fundamentals. And their party machines choose candidates - they take them, remove independence and thought from those candidates - and turn them into blind automatons to fight elections without using ideology or controversy. Then they can enter the Commons, where they become lobby fodder. In the unlikely event that they reach a position of real political power, they will be so used to conformity and so fearful of taking a controversial position that they will be just as bland as every post-Thatcher PM has been. The problem isn't with the electoral system; it is down to the fact that our "democracy" has become a self-perpetuating oligarchy dominated by bland party machines lost in a general ideological consensus.

Sure, yeah, let's have a referendum on electoral reform. Let's change the electoral system. But until we are actually willing to use that electoral system to reject the bland mainstream parties and consider more radical alternatives, nothing will really change in British politics.

Those "Ideological" Spending Cuts

It is an odd phrase that is really starting to bother me - "ideological spending cuts". Every time the coalition government trims a budget (often canceling planned future spending rather than actually making a cut, mind) the Labour party and its mindless followers scream that the cuts are "ideological". Yet against every available definition of the word "ideological" it appears that these spending cuts are anything but.

First up, let's look at the parties involved in implementing these cuts. The Tories are probably the least ideological they have been since that fat, shambling oaf Edward Heath led them. And the Liberal Democrats showed the extent to which they are a centre-ground, middle of the road ideological vacuum with their shameless flirtation with both parties after the General Election in the desperate hope of gaining some sort of power for themselves. Whatever this coalition might be about, it is based on compromise between two ideologically compromised parties. Their policies, including their spending cuts, are not about ideology.

Then you've got the fact that Labour were also committed to making spending cuts. Would their spending cuts have been ideological too? Or does the fact that the Labour party would have been doing them absolve them from the charge of being ideological? Because the Labour party has never tried to pursue ideological ends before now, has it? Oh, wait...

And then there's the timid, almost apologetic way in which the coalition has gone about its spending cuts. This isn't a bold, ideologically driven government relishing the chance to cut back government spending - this is a fragile coalition desperately trying to avoid a backlash for the spending cuts it is being forced to make owing to the incompetence of the previous administration.

So by all means attack the spending cuts for their size, their targets and the way in which they are being carried out, but don't try to make out that they are ideological in their nature. They're not. I for one would relish a government ideologically committed to reducing the size of government spending and the state; however, this timid coalition is very much not that government.

Labour's Tory Hatred

The ever-entertaining* Charlie Brooker has written a revealing article about his feelings – or, more properly, his hatred of – the Tories. It all dates back to fear of Tory led nuclear war in the eighties and the behaviour of Thatcher administration:

As if plotting to destroy the world wasn't bad enough, the Conservatives went on to preside over the most wilfully obnoxious and polarising decade imaginable: braying yuppies at one extreme, penniless strikers at the other. The Tories weren't just nasty – they seemed to actively enjoy being nasty. And there was no getting rid of them, even when Thatcher got the boot. Consequently, an entire generation grew up regarding the Tory government as something like rain, or wasps, or stomach flu: an unavoidable, undying source of dismay.

Of course, this is largely nonsense – an unthinking reproduction of the ideologically driven and largely false left-wing slurs that built the Tories into some sort of evil nemesis for anything or anyone moderate in the UK. The Tories were far from perfect – as their failure to combat, and occasional moments of relishing, this crude caricature of them shows. But they weren’t the sort of monstrous, greedy political thugs as many people – such as Brooker – seem to have grown up believing them to be. That’s one of the reasons why they were able to win landslide election victories in the 1980s: many people in the country genuinely liked the Tories and (whisper it) even liked Thatcher.

Despite the fact that the eighties, Thatcherism and the Tory government of the 1990s are all over, this caricature has even informed much of the case against the Tories since they lost power in 1997 – hence the ongoing depictions of Tory leaders with Thatcher’s hairdo – and despite the fact that far from being a Thatcherite in disguise, David Cameron appears to be one of the most moderate and middle-of-the-road Tory leaders in living memory. Much of the Cameron political project has been to reverse this perception of the Tories – to the extent where the Liberal Democrats are prepared to do what appeared to be, for so long, utterly unthinkable: to go into coalition with the party of Thatcher.

Which is something that the self-confessed Tory hater Brooker acknowledges:

But instead we've got this . . . coalition thing. This disorientating mash-up. Cameron and Clegg engaging in public foreplay. A sour Tory cookie with chunks of Lib Dem chocolate. Even the prospect of George Osborne as chancellor seems less chilling in the knowledge that Vince Cable can pop his head round the door from time to time, if only to pull disapproving faces. If the Tories had won more seats, or slogged on as a minority government, at least we'd have a clear set of hate figures we could start despising immediately. Instead, we've got the Nazis forming an alliance with the Smurfs.

We couldn't even hate the Tories for looking smug on the steps of Downing Street – partly because Downing Street doesn't have steps, but mainly because the result forced a helping of humble pie down their necks, which they swallowed with infuriating good grace. Cameron appears to be making a sincere attempt to permanently drag his party toward more moderate ground, which is a crushing blow for those of us who were expecting outright malevolence from day one.

Of course, Brooker’s article is simply a means by which he can cast his acerbic wit across a bit of current affairs. But actually, there is something far more important within his article than might first be appreciated. Because Brooker is talking about what is a typical Labourite mindset, where the Tories become the evil, awful enemy and Labour the only possible way of defeating that terrible foe. It is this mindset that allows Labournistas to forgive the unforgivable – for example, to embrace the party of the Iraq War because it is better than the party that supported Pinochet 25 years ago. And it is this mindset that creates incredulity that the Liberal Democrats would ever go into government with the Tories rather than Labour, even though the Liberal Democrat leadership is far closely, ideologically and instinctively, to the Tory leader. And it is this mindset that leaves Labour clinging to the keys of Number 10 Downing Street, even after they’ve comprehensively lost a General Election. They are entitled to anything that might keep them in power, according to this stupid mindset, because they are not the Tories.

Whether the Tories have really changed or not is almost irrelevant – the Labour party needs to change, and lose this mindset of irrational fear and hatred of the Tories. It is not 1997 anymore, and if the last election has any sort of a lesson for them, then it is this – it is no longer enough just not being the Tories to win an election. The Labour party needs to start showing why it is better than the Tory party. Only then will they find a voice again; only then will they start to recover. And it is only then that they will be able to escape the 1980's - something that is pretty essential, given we are now in 2010.

*NB – ever entertaining does not mean always right…