How the Tories Could Win the Next Election. Oh, and Labour*.

As things stand, we’re probably heading towards another hung parliament. Cameron is not repelling people as much as many thought he would, despite his apparent lack of anything approaching a spine. Ed Miliband is a total disaster for his party, and is largely responsible for that party failing to make headway even as the coalition becomes less popular than dysentery. But both of those leaders could win the next election – but only if they are willing to take a gamble and do something bold. But both could do it.

How? Cameron could offer an referendum on the EU. Or, even more radically, he could redress our membership of the EU perhaps even to the point of pulling us out of that whole fucking mess. In doing so, he would become the hero of his party (including those on the right who remain very suspicious of young Hug A Husky). People across the country would also love this; it would be met with rapt applause from The Sun and The Daily Hate. Sure, many wouldn’t like this, but they would be the sort of people who wouldn’t vote for Cameron anyway. The ex-marketing man would be the hero to millions of people across the country, and he’d be able to spin himself as the courageous and visionary leader who dragged his country out of an expensive, bureaucratic mess.

What about Miliband Minor? Well, he could try being the socialist he sometimes hints at wanting to be. He could ramp up the rhetoric against the banks, and present himself as a genuine man of the people fighting on their behalf against reckless and dangerous financial institutions. He could get himself photographed with those members of Middle England struggling to make ends meet, and talk about how he is going to help them. Hell, he could even stand with those at the Occupy protests and claim that he, too, represents the 99%. Of course, it would be a blatant attempt at naked populism. But talking at the anti-war demos never hurt Charles Kennedy, for example. In fact, the opposite is probably true. And yeah, some people would find this sort of approach utterly repellent – myself, for example. But guess what? Those people, including me, would never vote for Miliband Minor anyway.

Which is part of the problem our party leaders have; they are so determined to try to please everyone all the time they lose sight of the fact that to do so is impossible and in trying they run the risk of really pissing off their core supporters. They fight so hard for the centre ground that they become myopic about the whole, broad range of the political spectrum. And then they wonder why fewer people vote, and they get approval ratings that, at best, are flat-lining, and at worst in free-fall. There is a real need for bold leadership in this day and age; unfortunately our leaders do not seem willing or able to provide it. So instead, we end up with cowardly, centrist jellyfish who actually please no-one; not even the core supporters of their own parties.

*And the Lib Dems? How could they win the next election? Well, they can’t. Hell, I don’t even know how they can maintain the disappointing result they got in 2010. Unless something pretty bloody spectacular happens, then the next election is not going to be very pleasant for the Liberal Democrats. 

Labour: Still Not Getting It On Spending

A new Labour sound bite (apparently):

Indeed, the Labour leadership have come up with a sound bite of their own on spending - "Building schools and hospitals did not create the deficit."

If it is a soundbite, then it is quite simply a terrible one. Firstly, from a tactical point of view, it doesn't work as it is entirely defensive. It is highlighting one of the areas in which Labour is most vulnerable, and then defensively claiming that parts of their operation while in government where not responsible for it.

Secondly, it wilfully ignores that fact that it wasn't just spending on the NHS and the education system that fucked the British economy. What about bailing out failed banks? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? They weren't exactly cheap, you know. And the Millennium Dome - that notorious, enormous breast built on the south bank of the Thames that once symbolised New Labour profilgacy - was actually the tip of an iceberg when it came to a government determined to spend as much as possible without it having any meaningful result.

Which is the third problem. Yeah, Labour spent a lot of money on education and health. Well fuck-a-doodle-doo. Such boasts would be far more impressive if that spending hadn't large been a waste of fucking money. The NHS remains largely fucked - a vast bureaucracy floundering under unthinking mangerialism that is capable of swallowing pretty much any amount of money thrown at it. The education system turns out school leavers unable to write a coherent sentence and utterly unprepared for adult life. Spending should only be championed if it has done something good; Labour should not be boasting about their spending in these areas since it was, with very few exceptions, utterly ineffective. Ok, so they are technically talking about building schools and hospitals. But what about those existing hospitals filled with overworked and underpaid medical professionals struggling to keep their heads above water? What about the fact that so many hospitals were so dirty that they actually became lethal for some patients? And what about the education system, which was focussed so much on hitting meaningless targets that it ceased to be effective at, well, educating? Yeah, you built new hospitals and new schools to throw into two failing systems. Well fucking done.

So this soundbite doesn't work on any number of levels, but there's a final problem that it is worth considering. The very fact that Labour remains unashamedly proud of its spending ways shows that it remains, as a party, utterly unfit for office. Labour needs to show that it understands the damage it did to this country while in power, and that it understands that the citizens of this country - and the majority of them never voted for Labour - are still paying for their idiotic spending in a number of different ways.

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.

Monday Morning Rank Hypocrisy

Oh, good grief:

Prime Minister David Cameron and his senior colleagues must "come clean" over their dealings with the Murdoch family, Labour has said.

The party has sent letters to Cabinet ministers, containing more than 50 questions it claims have still not been addressed by the coalition.

It comes in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal.

No, it comes in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal taking something of a back seat to the Norway massacre, the death of Amy Winehouse and the precarious financial situation in the US. And it also makes me want to ask one, just one, question of the leading lights of the Labour party who kneeled before the (now fading) might of the Murdoch empire: How come you lot are such hypocritical cunts?

The Deserving Poor

It seems to be increasingly common for socialists and social democrats to shrilly denounce the incumbent government for trying to reintroduce the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor. My point isn't to debate whether or not the government is actually trying to do so. Rather, it is to say this - that I can't, for the life of me I can't work out why this distinction is such a problem for some.

I suppose that part of it may well be that there is an element of judgement involved in deciding who should and who shouldn't be poor. Who makes that judgement? It's important because it gives the judge considerable power over the person being judged. In an ideal world, it could be argued, no-one would have the power to judge whether someone deserves their status in society or not. Then again, in an ideal world poverty wouldn't exist, surely?

Furthermore, socialists and social democrats have few qualms about judging who among the wealthy deserve their wealth and who does not - for example, those who have inherited their wealth. Indeed, there are some who are less discerning, and see all those who are rich as undeserving of their wealth and, following on from this, that the wealth should be redistributed to those who deserve/need it more.

Of course, someone judged to be as undeserving of their wealth is in rather an easier position to deal with it on the grounds of their wealth will mean they're faced with fewer problems than if they were living in poverty. But that doesn't change the fact that left or right, Labour or Conservative, rich or poor, the majority of us do make judgements as to the extent to which people deserve the circumstances in which they live.

Besides, might it not be helpful for someone living in relative poverty, (in part at least) through no fault of their own, but who has and is working hard to overcome that status to know that people see them as different to those who fail to do anything to alleviate their poverty? The tendency of socialists and social democrats to lump all people who could be considered to be poor together arguably damages the individuality of the poor and distorts the crucial reality that different people respond to being poor in different ways. Furthermore, surely the ways of dealing with people being poor differs depending on whether they are willing to work to change their circumstances or not? For example, someone who is poor and refuses to work is very different from someone who is poor and is desperately trying (successfully or otherwise) to find work, and the ways in which the wider community can help the different individuals must surely differ. Finally, it is worth noting that differentiating between the deserving and the undeserving poor does not necessarily condemn the latter to total deprivation and absolute rejection by society (even while acknowledging the fact that some who make the distinction want precisely that).

The point is that concepts of desert play a fundamental role in politics - and the poor represent no exception to this. To ignore this is to stick your head in the sand. So let's talk about the extent to which people might deserve to be poor or otherwise, and see where that leads political discourse.

Predicting the Opinion of Political History

This proved, somewhat unexpectedly, to be a very interesting documentary.

In a sense, I know very little about the Wilson/Heath years. I mean, I know the basic outline of what happened, if only because it provides some of the context for contemporary politics. But for me, the Wilson/Heath years (and the Callaghan administration) is part of the dour, drear post-war consensus era – that dull time when politics ground to a halt because the main parties pretty much agreed on everything. The programme did little to change my opinion of this era, but it did reframe it in a way that I hadn’t considered before through making it a duel between two of Britain’s least compelling Prime Ministers. It’s an interesting way of looking at politics between the mid-sixties and the mid-seventies.

And it did leave me wondering how the current political era will ultimately be viewed when similar documentaries are made in the future. I mean, in a sense it is easy to write the history of the Nu Labour years as it has two defining characteristics (ignoring the obvious ones like spin, mendacity and crushing incompetence). You can sum up the Nu Labour years by referencing the illegal and pointless war in Iraq at the same time as talking about the Blair-Brown rivalry. Unlike the Wilson/Heath years you don’t really need to mention whoever was in opposition. But what about the current era? How will the first year of the coalition be remembered?

I suspect that it will be remembered as the time when politics – or at least politicians and political commentators – went a little mad and forgot that the main party in government was the Tories rather than the Liberal Democrats. It will be about how the opposition party decided to fight Britain’s third party rather than the first party, and how the pointless chunterings of a second-rate politician like Vince Cable became front page news. And I rather suspect that historians will be incredulous as to the extent to which Nick Clegg became a Teflon coating for David Cameron. Above all, though, I think that this era could be framed around the question of why the Labour party allowed the Tories to coast to a real general election victory under the vacuous and utterly pointless Ed Miliband…

Election Predictions

With the usual caveat about how dangerous it is to make predictions in politics, allow me to speculate on what might happen in the elections today.

Firstly, Labour should do reasonably well. Not because they deserve to, but simply because it is far easier for the opposition party to fare well in these sort of elections than the governing one. And also because, in the stale end to the Blair years and in the abysmal failure that was the Brown administration, Labour was damn near wiped out in many parts of the country at a council and regional level. It is far easier gain seats when you have previously lost so many, and far easier to end up with a victory that looks far better than it actually is since all you are doing is making up the ground you've lost.

The Liberal Democrats are, of course, going to get a drubbing at the polls. Again, they don't really deserve this - or, at least, their leaders don't. Their supporters - in particular those who cannot understand the need to be pragmatic and flexible in power for the sake of the country - perhaps do deserve it. But then again, it will be those ones who will be flooding into the Labour camp. Which is fine, as far as I am concerned. Stupid people flocking to the stupid party.

And the Conservatives? There'll be losses, and perhaps a partial retreat into their heartlands. But I'd be surprised if there was a wipeout. Mainly because many of their supporters have vivid, recent memories of just how appalling the last Labour government was.

And as for AV, I suspect the "no" camp will win. Mainly because their campaign was simple, overwhelmingly negative and very well-funded. It'll be a victory for them, but hardly the sort of victory that political legends are made off. They won by spending a fortune on slagging off their opponents. Well done you.

And how will I be voting? I won't. Not because I don't want to, but because Leeds City Council have effectively disenfranchised me. Nice work, Leeds. You're breaking new ground in the fiercely contested field of incompetence in local government.

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?

Labour Win Safe Labour Seat Shock!

Labour candidate on winning the Barnsley Central by-election:

Mr Jarvis said the result sent "the strongest possible message" to David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

Quite how a Labour candidate winning a seat that they have held since it was created in 1983 represents any sort of message, strong or otherwise, is a little beyond me. Particularly since only 36% of the electorate bothered to cast a vote. But you have your moment of splendid hyperbole, Mr Jarvis. Then pack your bags, head off to Parliament, and make yourself comfortable on those opposition benches. Because I rather think you'll be there for a while...

The Toxic Labour Party

Here’s an interesting article about how Labour needs to detoxify its brand if it is to seriously stand any chance of winning at the next election. It is interesting because it accepts that Labour cannot simply coast to power, but I think its understanding of just how toxic Labour has become is limited.

Now, I don’t like any of the main parties, but Labour are the top of the pile when it comes to that dislike. When I think of the Tories, I feel a complete lack of enthusiasm combined with mild suspicion about their social conservatism. When I think of the Lib Dems, I get mildly amused by their ineptitude and amateur nature. But when I think of Labour, I feel rage and hate. I despise them for their continual raids on my wallet and the decimation of civil liberties during their long years in power. And I am enraged by their complacent arrogance, by their assumption that they should be in power, and that anyone who stands in the way of their project is in some way hindering progress. To my mind, none of the main parties have shown that they are capable of governing, but Labour have categorically shown themselves to be utterly incapable of treating the people of this country with any other than contempt. They have proven themselves to be utterly unsuitable for the task of governing.

And the fact that their party is now headed up by Miliband Minor and Balls – two of the most egregious minions of the worst Prime Minister we’ve had since Anthony Eden – show nothing more than absolute continuity with the Labour project of the last decade and a half. If they were in power, there’d be more of the same. Which would lead to a bankrupt country and far less freedom for its inhabitants.

So yeah, Labour needs to detoxify its brand. And it needs to start at the top, but finding a Leader of the Opposition and a Shadow Chancellor who are not synonymous with Nu Labour.

Bears, Woods, etc.

From the BBC:

More than half of donations to the Conservative Party last year came from the City of London, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

In other news, bears definitely defecate in the woods and the Pope is of a Catholic persuasion.

Seems almost tedious to point out that a substantial part of the funding that keeps the Labour Party afloat comes from the unions. It also seems tedious to point out that the unions are an interest group, just like those organisations that exist in the City of London. And it seems beyond boring to suggest that just because a political party takes money from a certain area of British society doesn't mean that they are beholden to every misconceived whim of said area of British society.

Instead, I'd just like to point out that anyone who finds this news surprising or, indeed, new, is fucking stupid.

The Coalition's Progress

The coalition came to power promising a new politics; a common enough aspiration, and it is easy enough to understand why the Con-Dems would want to distinguish themselves from the completely compromised failure that was the Brown administration. But, as Obama has so clearly demonstrated in the US, it is far easier to talk about change in politics than to actually implement it. So how have the Con-Dems got on thus far?

In terms of spending cuts, they’ve obviously made a start – although the caveat about a reduction in future spending not being the same as an actual cut in spending is ever present and ever relevant. However, where the Con-Dems have completely failed is in the battle to dominate the discourse when it comes to spending “cuts”. Rather than making the case for spending cuts, and thus reducing the size of the state, they have treated cuts as something nasty that they are being forced to do. A bit of empty, half-hearted rhetoric about the Big Society is not enough to make the case for a smaller state and a freer, but more responsible, populace. Plus, the Con-Dems have completely failed to punish Labour enough for making these cuts inevitable. Every time Ed Miliband opens his stupid mouth to spout spurious nonsense about the “cuts”, the coalition should be responding with “well you and your party caused them!” There is an opportunity here to keep Labour out of power for a generation, but that will only happen if people truly understand the cost of Labour’s incompetence during their thirteen years of misrule.

The coalition has also made a small start with civil liberties. It is great that the ID card scheme has been scrapped, but that is simply a reversal of one of Labour’s most egregious attacks on our civil liberties. It is not the start of a genuine move towards a freer society in any meaningful way. And the much vaunted commitment to civil liberties from the coalition is not materialising in terms of practical politics. The state can still spy on us to a massive extent; landlords are not allowed to decide whether to allow smoking on their premises or not; protest is still draconically policed; we are all still “nudged” towards the sort of behaviour the state wants from us. If there is a distinction between the coalition and the last Labour government, then it is in a commitment to paternalism rather than overt coercion. Thus, we’re in a better state of affairs than we were under Blair and Brown, but there is still a hell of a long way to go.

The area where the coalition has had its most success is in maintaining what is a fragile and unlikely union between two different parties. Sure, there have been grumblings – particularly from the Lib Dem contingent, but generally speaking the coalition has defied cynics and managed to hold itself together, even through deeply divisive issues such as the rise in tuition fees. It is well within the realms of reality to now predict that the coalition will serve a full five years in office – something that, on paper, never really appeared possible even in the first flush of the new political union last May.

But this is somewhat depressing; the most effective the coalition has been, according to this analysis, is in clinging onto the reigns of power. In other words, by acting for itself. The self-interest that has dominated so much of recent political history is present and correct in the “new politics”, rather sadly. And the progress of the coalition thus has not been impressive; at the moment, the very best that they can claim is that they haven’t been as bad as Labour. But if they genuinely what to do something new, and create a decisive break with the past, then they have to spell out a decisive vision for a smaller state and at the same time turn their rhetoric in civil liberties into something meaningful and practical. Forget the Big Society; the coalition can be genuinely ground-breaking if it speeds up the pace of change and gives us a free society instead of the status quo.

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.

Voting Lib Dem

I voted Lib Dem at the last election. And I would be more than happy to do so again*.

It isn’t just down to the fact that they made the right decision after the last election and decided not to prop up the failed Labour government – although, had they decided to back Brown, then I would rather have set myself on fire than ever back them again. No, there is another reason why I’d vote Lib Dem again – it is because they have been fantastically entertaining in power. An ongoing comedic bout of political slapstick is the best way to describe the Lib Dem side of the coalition. And at a time when the Tories are quietly getting on with the process of remembering how to run the country and Labour are saying and doing precisely nothing, it is nice to have a party in power who increasingly represent an episode of The Brittas Empire.

They’ve always had a propensity toward comedy – witness their 2006 leadership election, which consisted of senior members of their party washing their dirty linen in public before that party elected a doddery old fool. But since coming to real power, the party has been funnier than ever. Right from the get-go, when Cameron and Clegg did their rose garden press conference, the Lib Dems have been shedding whatever credibility they might have had at a startling rate. That press conference reminded me of an early 1990’s romantic comedy, with Cameron representing a fat Tom Hanks with Nick Clegg as a bemused looking version of Meg Ryan. From there, they have been unstoppable – witness David Laws, and his 22 days in power – the shortest ministerial career in history? Or Simon Hughes lurking in the background, acting like some sort of shady but utterly ineffective nemesis of the coalition’s plans. A bit like the Child Catcher, but without the gravitas and menace. And most recently, that wonderful, wonderful footage of Cable explaining to the world why he might abstain from a parliamentary vote on his own fucking policy! Pure, pure comedy.

It may seem a bit off to be deciding who to vote for based on their entertainment value, but then since all parties do fuck all when they get into power other than make things just a little bit different (and, more often than not, a little bit worse) it is as good a way of making the decision as any. The Lib Dems have always been glorified amateurs at the political game; it is hugely entertaining to see such amateurish behaviour writ large on the national political stage.

*Providing they don’t ditch Clegg and elect a left-winger like Simon F*cking Hughes. And assuming that there wasn’t a Libertarian candidate running in my constituency.

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.

The 'Libertarian Blogosphere'

Let me tell you a little secret about the Libertarian blogosphere. It doesn’t exist. Seriously, it doesn’t. Indeed, the idea of a united corner of the blogging world devoted to libertarianism is nonsense – there are few people as individualistic, willful and downright stubborn as libertarians.

Of course, when you read the phrase “libertarian blogosphere” it is not always alluding to some sort of homogenous libertarian conspiracy on the internet. It is a form of shorthand, a way of referring to certain types of blogs that are linked through ideology. Except this too is nonsense. You only have to look at the broad range of blogs that are dumped together under the tag of “libertarian”. Guido is presumed to be a libertarian blogger, but he is a right-of-centre muck-raker, whose occasional attacks on the Tories cannot hide the fact that his preference very much lies with that party. Likewise, Old Holborn is resolutely anti-statist, but the extent to which he is a Libertarian is open to question since his stance is one of naked misanthropy, more often than not. You can argue that he is negative libertarian, but to me his ideological position is far simpler than that – he just wants to be left the hell alone. There is no clear libertarian blogosphere, and those who are often lumped in within it are not themselves libertarian.

The same is true of pretty much classification on the internet. The left-wing blogosphere can encompass the mercurial ramblings of Liberal Conspiracy, the demented world-view of Terry Kelly and the occasionally engaging work of Tom Harris. Likewise, talking about the Tory blogosphere involves a broad canvass of bloggers, from the mad, mad world of Nadine Dorries, the preening, self-regarding Iain Dale and the often critical ConservativeHome. The broad categories are meaningless; they deny the vast range of blogs available.

But it isn’t the existence of the categories that bothers me – it is the way in which vast vartieties of blogs can be dismissed using these categories. Take this article – it attacks certain libertarian blogs, and in doing so dismisses the whole of the libertarian blogosphere. To do so is curiously effective, yet also crass and completely unfair. It is a sign of ignorance to lump people together based on a crude prejuidice – yet this is typical of the tendency to define blogs not by their content, but by a broad label that may or may not be applicable to the individuals concerned. In a sense it is bigotry, and I’d argue it should be treated accordingly.

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.

Miliband Minor, Greed and Careerism.

In an otherwise typically whiney New Statesman article about how Red Ed isn’t red enough for him, Mehdi Hasan comes up with a couple of gems. First up, there’s his thoughts on pay:

Let's be clear. There is nothing "red" about objecting to reckless, irresponsible and unfair pay rises and telephone-number salaries.

Well, yes there is. In fact, I think that a certain level of equality of outcome – which is what this sort of observation leads to – is almost by definition left-wing, and therefore “red”. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it is wrong; but it does mean it is a left-of-centre idea.

Of course, I do believe it is wrong, and just the use of “reckless, irresponsible and unfair” is deeply problematic as all three terms are relative. But that’s a tangential, ongoing debate.

In fact, the public would be on your side if you did - polls show voters support a high pay commission and higher taxes on bonuses and object to the growing gap between rich and poor in modern Britain.

Two points – firstly, if polls (never the most accurate representation of public opinion) do suggest that, then it would be nice to see that “fact” backed up by some sort of link. After all, a failure to link or reference something leads to people being able to claim whatever they like without the inconvenience of having to back it up – just as I now claim that a majority of people in this country don’t give a fuck in the grand scheme of things about pay inequity. Nothing to back that up, mind, but if that absence of proof is good enough for Mehdi, then it’s good enough for me.

Besides, even if the polls did show public support for reducing pay differentials and higher taxes on bonuses, that doesn’t make either principle right. Tyranny of the majority, anyone?

St Vince of Cable, the Business Secretary, became spectacularly popular in opposition not just because he could dance but because he relentlessly attacked the excesses and greed of our financial elites.

Ah, Vince Cable – these days he can be used to pretty much prove anything. If you are left-wing and looking for a moderate figure to back up your left-wing desires, then Cable’s your man. Likewise, if you want to give the coalition a broader base of consensus than it might otherwise have, then the fact that Cable is a minister in that government is solid gold. In fact, given his background (economist for Shell, Labour candidate, Lib Dem Deputy Leader, Minister in a Tory led coalition)and occasionally left-wing rhetoric, Cable is so amorphous that he could be a friend to anyone politically, yet a man totally lacking principle to the discerning.

But I do have to take issue with the idea that it was Cable’s attacks’s on financial elites that made him popular under the last government. In part his popularity is down to his (largely spurious) claims to have predicted, and come up with the solutions to, the global financial crisis. But the main reason for his fame is his quip about Gordon Brown and Mr Bean. It is that which struck a chord with the people, and it is that which allowed this vacuous non-entity to become a political celebrity in this country.

Anyway, back to the article: I’ll also point out this curious phrase, which claims that Miliband Minor

…ran as an outsider…

Did he? Did he really? Because I’m pretty sure that Miliband Minor ran as the only real alternative to his brother. And I’m also sure that he really wasn’t an outsider within Nu Labour circles, having been a Nu Labour advisor, then a Nu Labour minister, and he even wrote the last Labour manifesto. I’d say he’s the very definition of an insider. The fact that he was not the heir apparent doesn’t mean he was an outsider.

But the curious desire to paint Miliband Minor as an outsider shows one of the key problems the new Labour leader has in defining himself. He doesn’t want to present himself as a Nu Labour type (despite the fact that he clearly was) because Nu Labour was comprehensively rejected at the polls, while he doesn’t want to incur the wrath of the right-wing media by actually being Red Ed. The results is we have yet another blander than bland leader. The truth is he’s an insider through and through – a careerist politician more interested in personal progression than actual principles.

Laurie Penny, Spending Cuts and Attempted Suicide

As part on my ongoing habit of being late on just about everything, I see that Laurie Penny is indulging in a jaw-dropping bit of hysteria (that manages to be in pretty bad taste at the same time):

It's 2am, and I'm sitting under a strip light in the emergency unit of my local hospital, waiting for the doctors to finish attending to a young friend of mine who attempted to end her life tonight. When the paramedics arrived, they told us she wasn't the first - for many Londoners, it seems, something about the news or the weather today gave the impression that a crisis point has been reached.

Timmy nicely fillets her assertions here, while DK turns in an excellent piece of splenetic rage against her here. But I'd just like to throw into the maelstrom my own thoughts on young Laurie's work.

First up, she's being pretty fucking assumptive. She doesn't specify why her friend tried to end her life (and in fairness, I don't want to know and nor should she tell us) and she clearly doesn't (and can't) know why other Londoners (all we know is that there is more than one) have attempted to end their lives either. It hardly seems surprising, though, that in a city the size of London that a certain number of people would try to end their lives each day. What would be surprising, though, is if they were doing it (as is strongly implied by Penny's article) because of the Comprehensive Spending Review. In fact, that would be fucking staggering - particularly if they were trying to commit said act over Labour's failure to counter the CSR to Penny's liking.

Given we don't know the motives of those who attempted to end their lives on that evening, I d0 have to say that it is pretty offensive - and an example of rather odious cheap political point scoring - for Penny to link those personal, troubled acts with the particular partisan argument she wishes to make. It is the sort of thing you see The Daily Mail doing all the time (albeit not normally from a leftist perspective) and, as most normal people know, aping that hate rag is not the way for any journalist to go.

But I don't think that Penny is stupid, even given the crass and offensive paragraph reproduced above. She can write well, knows how to frame an article, get the reader bought in to what she's saying and how to structure an argument (no matter how easily the logic of said argument can be refuted). She isn't dumb. Her big problem, rather, is that she is almost hopelessly naive. She is a living embodiment of the Entitlement Culture, and she lives in this strange bubble where the whole country should conform to her own, statist outlook on life. She's a idealist through and through. Don't get me wrong, I'm an idealist too - but it is mixed with both pragmatism and a healthy dose of cynicism. I know governments and political parties will do things of which I do not approve - however, I don't then link my disappointment in them to the attempted suicides of people I've never met.

It's tempting to round this post off with a terse phrase like "grow up", but I don't think that is what Penny actually needs to do. She needs to get a grip on reality, and the nasty world that is politics. The world isn't suddenly going to become compliant with what she wants and feels she is entitled to. Practical reality will always constrain what she demands. And in the case of spending cuts the practical reality is starkly simple - there's no money left, and all the parties (including Labour, deep down) know that cuts have to be made if the state is going to stay afloat.