Cassilis

It's a bold claim and not mine but I happen to agree. With one or two exceptions (who I think are bucking the trend to stand out) there's almost a consensus among critics that HBO's Sopranos, which finished on UK screens on Sunday night, was probably the most accomplished television drama in the history of the medium. Even those who might dissent from that would acknowledge David Chase's drama built around the New Jersey mafia took television drama to new heights.

Little purpose to this post other than to say I was a huge fan and I'm going through that mourning thing that happens when a series you know and love finishes for good. The writing and performances over the 9 years the show aired have been absolutely stunning and the programme's ability to get you to empathise with characters with few redeeming features and a moral outlook utterly alien to most of us is testament to that. People who dismissed the show early on as nothing other than a mob drama will regret not lasting the pace - in fact the family at the heart of the whole show was Tony Soprano's traditional family unit and his hopes and fears for them proved as enduring a theme as any of the mob stuff (final scene in the videobox).

The fact that the 'West Lothian' question has endured for nearly 30 years tells you it's not the distraction some people claim. Unfortunately Tam Dalyell's prescience in framing the question hasn't been matched by anyone's ingenuity in coming up with a solution. The latest proposal is Malcolm Rifkind's call for an English Grand Committee sitting in Westminster with exclusive rights to vote on matters devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The details of the various proposals aside there are only really four possible outcomes here – the status quo, some sort of procedural change at Westminster, the establishment of separate English Parliament or complete dissolution.

For me the status quo isn't really an option, despite Labour's best efforts to talk down the issue (in the Economist's Bagehot column in July 2006 Derry Irvine said the best answer to the question was 'to stop asking it')! The anomaly of Scottish MPs being able to vote on (or even more controversially carry) issues that have absolutely no impact on their electorate is almost beyond defence and although it's hard to pin point exactly when it happened it's clear the tipping point in this argument has now been reached. Even if Gordon Brown successfully avoids the question until the next election the issue now has enough purchase with the English electorate to do real harm to the Labour vote. Given his enthusiasm for grand constitutional reform one would hope that he would find some way over the next couple of years to actually engage with this issue and stop pretending that it doesn't exist. I wouldn't be surprised to see a further reduction in Scot's MPs (to perhaps around 40) as an attempt to take the sting out of this.

Some sort of procedural change at Westminster is the most likely outcome and that's the essence of Malcolm Rifkind's proposal - an 'English Grand Committee' sitting on devolved issues only. On the face of it this seems like a good solution and discounting the obvious party political objections there really isn't any decent argument against it. The 'two tiers of MPs' line doesn't really hold since in effect that's what we already have – English MPs can vote on all issues affecting their constituents whereas Scots MPs can only vote on retained matters. That's a slightly 'upside down' way of describing the current situation but it's a useful way of demolishing the 'two tier' argument. The main flaws in this solution are operational and I haven't been able to source any detail on Rifkind's plan to see if he's addressed these (if indeed any detail exists). Issues such as how Cabinet would function, the status of Scots (or Welsh or Northern Irish) ministers, votes of confidence etc. all need careful handling before his plan could be considered a workable solution. The other pretty significant flaw is that longer term this solution may be indistinguishable from an English Parliament (see below).

The last two options can be quite swiftly dealt with, if only because they're fairly stark and similar in outcome. A separate English Parliament would be nothing other than a staging post to dissolution. Although in political terms the non-devolved issues are very meaty (foreign policy, defence etc.), it's hard to conceive of how Westminster would continue to have any relevance as anything other than an umbrella body for the four devolved administrations – with the English Parliament becoming the pre-eminent political body in the UK. In those circumstances the relationship between those bodies and Westminster would be fraught with difficulties and you would, in effect, have the West Lothian question writ large when Westminster acted on behalf of the UK on the world stage. Complete dissolution is, in one sense, straightforward and its proponents at least have the virtue of honest intentions.

Most reports suggest that Cameron is warm to Rifkind's proposal and that come the election this may be official Tory policy. A word of warning on this though – the Tories need to think long & hard about whether what they have here is really a solution in the long-term interests of the UK or just a proposal that allows them to exploit current discomfort among English voters for immediate political gain. I've acknowledged above that the anomaly is real and that something needs to be done to address it but the introduction of a Grand Committee and the inevitable tensions that would create need to be addressed. The 'Conservative & Unionist' party need to have the courage to look at the long-term implications of what they're proposing and whether or not it's consistent with their unionist principles. Although I think it may be the only solution I'm not sure Rifkind's committee is…

Labels: Politics

Peter Oborne's 'Triumph of the Political Class' is definitely on my Christmas list and although I don't always agree with him his observations on politics (particularly the process aspects rather than policy) are usually spot on. His book 'The Rise of Political Lying' is a must read for anyone interested in politics, whatever your party. In the video box there's a fascinating clip of him talking to Iain Dale on Doughty Street about aspects of the book - well worth a look.

One thing that comes up in that discussion that always troubles me though is the debate around 'career politicians' and the focus on what MPs did before taking their seat. Iain refers to it in the clip and uses the normal angle when this comes up:

Labels: Politics

On CiF today Polly cites the current abortion debate as evidence that little has changed over the last 40 years and that a woman's sovereignty over her own body is still under attack from what she describes as the 'same old time-warped enemies'. She's wrong but first a clarification.

I completely support legal abortion. As mentioned below I abhor the absolutist (usually religious) view that it's always wrong and like Polly I'm angered by the hoops women are forced to go through to get an abortion - they should be relaxed in the hope that more abortions take place earlier when it's a less traumatic (note the word 'less') experience. The catalogue of misinformation and exaggeration on this issue is worrying and usually the preserve of people whose real motive isn’t just to shave a few weeks of the limit – it does need to be countered wherever possible. However, the sentence in Polly's piece that really troubled me was:

“Over the years more may survive younger, but that's not the point and it never was. Give in to that argument and the case for a woman's supreme right over her own body and destiny is lost.”

This amounts to a rejection that 'foetal viability' has any impact on the argument and that's an extraordinarily dangerous view to take. Accept that premise and those who genuinely want to outlaw abortion altogether can run those of us who support it down the partial-birth abortion alley, referencing infanticide and all sorts of other emotive terms that add heat but no light to the debate. It's a very dangerous way to frame things.

It's important to remember that the broad public support for abortion in this country (and the rejection of the emotive ‘murder’ tag) is built almost entirely on this viability issue. If people believe that a child has a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb then their judgement about the boundary between a the woman’s sovereignty and the ‘rights’ of the foetus blurs very rapidly. And crucially that ‘blurring’ isn’t an ill-informed, Daily Mail or religious inspired prejudice – it’s a fundamentally human impulse. I understand Polly's concern because even if it's only in the hypothetical what does society do if we ever reach a place where viability is established before our ability to detect pregnancy in the first place?

Rejecting the viability argument altogether gives the ‘anti’ mob licence to frame the debate in their terms and forces those who simply want a humane and progressive abortion law onto very uncomfortable ground.

Labels: Politics

Dawn Primarolo will be questioned today by the Commons Science & Technology Committee over medical advances since the Abortion Act in 1967 and the impact these may have on the termination limit. Among others (Nadine Dorries) the Pro-Life Alliance are arguing for a reduction in the limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks while the BMA and RCOG think the limit should stay.

Labels: Ethics

I'm always fascinated by the way certain words & phrases can, over time or in certain circumstances, become politically off-limits. I don't mean the obvious (and usually justifiable) rejection of odious references to race or sexuality but the more subtle situations where a particular strain of thought becomes so dominant that any dissent, however reasonable, is automatically frowned on regardless of merit.

The words usually derive their power by playing to fears or stereotypes attached to the people they're being used against - hence the age-old Labour technique of crying 'cuts' in the face of any Conservative tax announcement. New Labour has done a fantastic job in making the very word a political no-go area. Although even die-hard socialists would probably concede there must be areas of expense that can safely be 'cut', politicians (in the UK at least) go through all sorts of semantic gymnastics rather than just call for a cut in spending - to do so is a gift to your opponents and the debate's all but over.

These words or phrases exist from a right-wing perspective as well. Immigration is a topic that carries so much weight, particularly at the moment, that the most banal of sentences can actually be loaded with fairly serious (and ugly) accusations depending on by who and to whom it's delivered. Gordon Brown can tell a Labour conference "British jobs for British workers" and nobody says a word (in fact Cameron pulls him up on it the following week as being illegal under EU law!) If a Conservative leader had used the same phrase I can only imagine the sort of coverage they'd have got. If a BNP spokesman had done it I wouldn't be surprised if someone looked into prosecution. The requirement to be 'tough on immigration' appears to be universal now and, like 'cuts', the merest suggestion that someone has a more liberal attitude to immigration amounts to political suicide.

I was also reminded of a fictional example of this while listening to a discussion on Hilary Clinton's almost certain success now in the race for the Democratic nomination. The reporter referred to the Senator's strenuous efforts to distance herself from 'the liberal tag' so often levied at her and this reminded me of one of the presidential debate episode of the last season of the West Wing:

Santos (Dem): I know you like to use that word 'liberal' as if it were a crime.

Vinick (Rep): No. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used that word. I know Democrats think liberal is a bad word. So bad you had to change it. What do you call yourselves now, progressives? Is that it?

Santos: It's true. Republicans have tried to turn liberal into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.

Vinick: A Republican President ended slavery.

Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican, Senator. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the liberal party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honour. [The audience vigorously applauds.]

Any other examples of no-go areas or the changing fortunes of political labels most welcome...

Labels: Politics

Last word (for now) on the referendum issue I posted on on Friday - thanks for all the comments and particularly Bob, Bill & Tom who did indeed give another slant on the issue (although Tom's still looking into it).

Bob to his credit supports a referendum although can't resist pointing out that the Conservatives haven't always done so. Only riposte to this is that on those occasions public hostility wasn't anywhere near as pronounced and well understood as it is now so Gordon's contempt for public opinion still strikes me as more marked than Heath / Thatcher or Major's was. Having said that I have no reason to believe the any of that lot would have been more inclined to a referendum even if there had been such anger. Skipper sets out the pro's & con's and comes down (only just) against a referendum largely because of wholly justified concerns about how the debate would actually pan out in the country (see comment thread). Although I agree that the Murdoch press would completely distort the debate I differ from Bill in that I don't think that' sufficient reason to duck having it. A few final observations...

Without a doubt the most powerful argument against a referendum is the 'representative democracy' angle and it's one the sadly missed Hughes Views points out in the comments below. In this instance though that argument sort of 'eats itself' for the following reason:

1. Europe is a complex issue - too complex for most lay people to understand. That's why we elect politicians to navigate their way around these issues
2. At election times politicians make plain their intentions and general principles so we can elect those we think best capable of representing our interests.
3. At the last election Labour promised a referendum on the EU Constitutional treaty, not the Reform treaty.

If we accept premise (1) then premise (3) collapses - if it's a complex issue then the general understanding everyone had about that 2005 election promise is that they'd be consulted again on any treaty - the argument that the promise actually related to a different sort of document (although technically true) is insincere and, to bang on about this word again, dishonourable. This should be part of the Conservatives argument and to be honest I think they should focus less on this "95% the same document" line - I heard someone on R4 yesterday point out that humans are genetically 95% identical to mice, the 5% can be crucial.

Final word on that promise and this was hinted at in Saturday's Guardian leader - in purely political terms Tony Blair need never have made it. It was clearly a panic measure because Labour were unsure how much electoral traction the Europe issue was going to have but I suspect they would've have won without it even if the majority was a little slimmer. If that promise had never been made then the case for a referendum now wouldn't stack up for precisely the reasons set out above. However, it was so there should be a referendum.

Labels: Politics

For some reason nobody else seems to have picked up on this and it's from a fairly reputable source, the International Herald Tribune no less. Brown and Sarkozy throwing their weight behind Blair for the newly created EU presidency role. Brown says

"Tony Blair would be a great candidate for any significant international job"

Little more to add myself and obviously not at all likely but I can think of some prominent bloggers who may just physically explode at even the merest suggestion of this....

Labels: Politics

Although I'm actually broadly supportive of action on climate change and I don't subscribe to everything Tony Blankley says, I'm a huge fan of his performances on the US talk radio show 'Left, Right & Centre' on KRCW. He also writes weekly for the Washington Times and he rather takes apart Al Gore this week. A few snippets starting with Al's recent Nobel prize:

Labels: Politics

If the debate on the EU treaty tells us anything it’s that the more contentious an issue becomes the more difficult it gets to source impartial or balanced commentary on it. I’ve long suspected (perhaps hoped) that there’s a sizeable minority out there genuinely devoid of any preconceived opinions or prejudice and just looking for straightforward facts to help them make up their mind. But, with the press, pundits, politicians and bloggers all dividing along fairly predictable lines you do begin to wonder if there’s anyone left out there without a fully-formed opinion on it. Well there’s at least one – me.

With one or two notable exceptions I find both sides in this debate intensely irritating. Too often the Europhile agenda seems built on nothing more substantial than an intense self-loathing, distrust of the US and a belief that further integration will help facilitate more social democracy than any Westminster election could deliver. The Europhobe agenda often boils down to an exaggerated fear of that same social democratic ‘creep’, a ridiculously outdated view on ‘Johnny foreigner’ and a geopolitical outlook still rooted in the 19th century. As with most issues the middle ground between these extremes probably represents the sensible way forward but navigating this path is all but impossible in the current climate.

Regardless of where they stand on the treaty itself, most commentators would accept this characterisation of where the national ‘debate’ is at the moment. The issue then becomes how suitable a background that is for a referendum and at that stage personal preferences start to come back into play. Not surprisingly Polly Toynbee was arguing at the start of the week that this would be a disastrous context for a referendum but that’s principally because she’s not likely to get the outcome she wants (and I'm sure she'd admit that). Eurosceptic calls for a referendum are (not always but usually) similarly insincere because they’re more than happy to exploit current electoral ignorance and have no real desire to better inform the electorate in case they change their mind.

So why am I lending my voice to the clamour for a referendum on the EU treaty? In short for the very reasons outlined above. Most people, if they’re honest, simply don’t know enough about Europe and the way it’s governed. If they discard everything they’ve ‘learned’ from their favoured politicians or their paper of choice (be it the Mail or the Guardian) and try to come to a judgement based solely on verifiable and independently sourced facts about EU governance they would most likely draw a blank – most of us have nothing but what we read in the MSM or the blogosphere. Whatever fears either side has about opening up this debate (and there are many valid ones, particularly on the ‘pro’ side) it’s been in effective hibernation for the last 50 years and until we remedy that our continued participation in the EU is based on a fiction. This should concern everybody, not least those who champion the EU as a force for good. We need to have the newspaper campaigns, the national road-shows (party-based and otherwise), the TV programmes, pamphlets and books – the whole issue of the part we play in Europe’s future needs to be thrust to the fore and resolved for good or for ill. Whatever degree of integration this country is to have with our European neighbours over the next few decades it has to be based on as wide a democratic mandate as we can possibly achieve and not the shifting fortunes of party politics. Anything less would be a fundamental breach of trust and it’s important to understand that this statement holds true regardless of political outcome (i.e. the breach is in not asking people their views, not the more common ‘surrendering sovereignty’ line favoured by the right) That our political culture over the last 50 years has contrived to load that debate massively in one direction (and so favour a certain outcome) is deeply regrettable but it most definitely isn’t an excuse for not having it.

The other reason why I’m convinced we need a referendum is because despite my best efforts I simply can’t construct an honourable and straightforward case against one. We can surely dismiss out of hand the reasoning that says we shouldn’t because the government would probably lose (if you think that’s honourable this blog isn’t for you). The only other angle I’ve come across is the representative democracy line – our elected representatives are in place to make these decisions and Labour’s position was clear at the 2005 election. But again, this line is so weak as to be non-existent – I’ve no intention of rehashing the ‘treaty vs. constitution’ arguments here but it’s mendacious in the extreme to suggest that the British people understood Labour’s election promise of a referendum to apply solely to a constitutional treaty and not an ordinary one.

So there you have it – we need a referendum because it’s by far the best way to bring legitimacy to our future relations with Europe, because the government promised one and because there’s no honourable reason why we shouldn’t. I’ve no idea how many of the people who support a referendum when polled do so for these reasons and how many do so for more base ones – I don’t really care. There are brave and honest people on both sides who advocate this position, not least the pro-EU Timothy Garton Ash a couple of weeks ago who concluded:

Labels: Politics

One the day Tony Blair stood down I predicted a brown bounce through the summer, volatility in the polls during conference season and possible changes at the helm of the Liberal Democrats depending on election timing. Buoyed by this reasonable hit rate I'm taking a stab at what the next 3/6 months might bring for each of the parties (a mixture of hopes and fears in all cases).

For Gordon Brown & Labour the wise advice would be to see out the year in a relatively low gear and take time to regroup. As everyone's now aware after recent events the timing of the poll is in Brown's hands so he shouldn't panic about regaining the initiative. The EU Treaty negotiations will see a renewed onslaught from the Conservatives and the right-wing press so I suspect he'll be content (in relative terms) to write of the next couple of months and just face off to whatever gets thrown his way. Whether he's 'written off' the next 14 weeks or not I also suspect he'll already have convened a team to look at some sort of blitz of policy initiative (nicked or otherwise) and announcements come Jan '08. Wouldn't be surprised if we saw an announcement on an independent inquiry into the Iraq war at this stage either. By this point he'll also have more detail behind any attack he plans to launch against the Tory tax proposals on IHT and non-doms (assuming it's there) and all this will add up to decent pop at regaining the control he's clearly lost in recent weeks. It also serves as decent prep for a snap poll in the spring which, contrary to the way is was reported by most sources he didn't actually rule out 10 days ago.

Cameron and the Tories need to take a reality check and avoid letting recent good fortune become an excuse for complacency. Even in the polls that cite a healthy Tory lead Brown still hammers Cameron in the 'most capable PM' stakes and that needs to change if the party is to win an election. The key focus is obviously policy and after almost two years of 'consultation and formulation' there needs to be many more sentences beginning with the phrase 'The next Conservative government will...' followed by tangible measures that lay people can understand platitudes and generalities won't cut it. The green agenda has been profitable (in electoral terms) for Cameron and he needs to turn this into specific policies that the public come to associate with the party. The contradictions coming out of the 6 policy forums need to be resolved quickly and Cameron needs yet more work on the defining theme stuff around why people should vote Tory ('because Brown's rubbish' isn't a vision). Whether I'm right about the timing above at some point Labour will relaunch and the Tories need to be ready and make sure they're not wrong-footed by it. For a similar (if more coherent) view on what needs to be done worth drawing attention again to Iain Dale's piece in last Friday's Telegraph...

As for the Liberal Democrats who knows? From what I gather it's Nick Clegg's to lose and he's usually described as being on the right of the party. Might be a trite and obvious point but I've always felt the Lib Dems problem was their readiness to define themselves in relation to Labour & the Conservatives rather than a party with fixed points of political principle - that's probably unfair and I accept those principles are there but almost every sentence uttered by a prominent Lib Dem opens with the phrase "unlike Labour and the Tories" and this actually creates a mental divide in the minds of the electorate between parties that form governments and parties that just harry and oppose them.

Labels: Politics

** Apologies for the ongoing template problems if you're using Firefox / Safari - I'm working on resolving them**

No lengthy posts for the reason above but worth drawing you attention to the latest spat among members of the 'Stop-the-War' coalition - seems two new affiliate members have been given the cold shoulder because despite their otherwise impeccable hostility to all things American they also happen to have believe that Amhadinejad's regime is oppressive and anti-democratic.

Labels: Politics

Polly Toynbee's piece in today's Guardian has delighted more than a few Tory bloggers (Iain Dale, Mr E, Newmania to pick a few) but the reaction has reminded me why I can never entirely 'get' partisan blogging and do my best to steer clear of it.

Some of the gloating is understandable - in the past Polly's been a little too ready to canonise Gordon and she made some extravagant claims for his imminent premiership at the start of the year so she can't really complain if some of that is called out now. But in one sense there's nothing dishonest in what she's saying - in simple terms she's spent 3/4 years hoping / promising Brown will be better and today's piece is a recognition that perhaps he's not. I can see why that might delight Tories keen for Brown's demise but I can't see why Polly should come in for stick over it? I had a very brief email exchange with her today over the article pointing out the likely reaction and asking her what she thought it did for Labour's electoral prospects - this is part of her reply:

"yes it's damaging to Labour to write that they are in danger of badly losing their way through electoral cynicism - and the election with it [but] at the election I shall still judge they would be better than the others, even if only a bit"

Tories might come to a different judgement on that but her reasoning is sound enough. Polly's attack on Brown today is no more vicious or coruscating than the dozens of attacks Melanie Philips or Simon Heffer have launched at Cameron over the last couple of years but in general the Tory bloggers who are happy to flag the former as some sort of watershed moment have happily ignored the latter because it didn't suit their angle - it's this partisan approach I never quite understand. The central thrust of Polly's article is that Brown's courtship of floating voters in the marginals has caused him to lose sight of his social democratic roots - countless commentators have alleged that Cameron's courtship of the same constituency has threatened his relationship with traditional Conservative supporters. What's the difference?

In short the difference is two good weeks for Cameron and two awful weeks for Brown - nothing more, nothing less. Those buoyed by Polly's attack on their nemesis today would do well to read Iain's other piece in the Telegraph today for a bit of a reality check...

Labels: Politics

It's no substitute for the glorious C.J. Cregg on the sadly missed West Wing (see video today) but for those who didn't know you can read a daily transcript of the real White House press briefings here. I always have a read (more WW nostalgia than politics if I'm honest) but a gem from Dana Perino today as she opened the briefing:

"Good afternoon. I have a couple of announcements -- well, three announcements. Shortly you'll hear from the President about the deficit numbers.."

Toby and Josh would've been doubled up by that point....

Labels: Politics

Interesting column by Tony Blankley in this week’s Washington Times looking at broad political coalitions and whether they are largely ideological or partisan in character. His starting point is the debate in GOP circles about Giuliani’s suitability for the Republican nomination given his opposition to outlawing abortion – it seems the ideological convictions of the Christian right are so ingrained that a Democratic presidency is preferable to a Republican one that doesn’t deliver everything they think it should.

Tony quite rightly takes socially conservative GOP members to task over this and points out that a degree of compromise over your beliefs is a pre-requisite to functioning politics and their obduracy is self-defeating:

“..purity of principle in application is not a functioning governing process - it is a posture. [People] of good conscience must have the courage to judge whether the net effect of [their] political decision advances [their] moral objectives or not…. The decision not to vote, or vote for a third-party candidate with no hope of winning, is itself a moral choice for the outcome such a vote will effectuate. People of conscience will have to decide whether feeling pure by voting "none of the above" is the highest ethical act or not.”

Although we don’t quite have the same broad coalitions in UK politics (certainly not the religious element) we do still have a situation where the major parties have to try and construct a broad coalition distinctly different from their traditional base. Whereas in US politics the parties seem to strain to their extremes to build these coalitions (GOP to the Christian right, Democrats to the hard left / unionised sector) in UK politics it's that amorphous centre ground of floating voters devoid of any real political loyalties but whose support is essential to forming a government. In courting that group the two main parties are required to make the same sort of judgment Blankley refers to – a judgment that’s can in fact be courageous and ethical rather than the act of political opportunism it’s regularly characterised as.

These efforts on the part of both parties create some interesting tensions invariably exploited by their opponents. The Conservatives, so goes the Labour narrative, are either vacuous opportunists or unreconstructed, reactionary right-wingers - there is no middle ground there. Likewise with Conservative attacks on Brown - he's always 'on the verge' of some catastrophic lurch back to full-on socialism or he too is just a cynical opportunist. The reluctance in both parties to acknowledge these commonalities in their political strategy is quite revealing I think.

Labels: Politics

I've just finished watching PMQ's in a crowded and noisy canteen at work - I didn't catch every word of every exchange but I did take in the mood and tone and kept an eye on the people around me who were paying even less attention than I was. At this distance the Tories looked like they were loving it - all smiles and laughing, relaxed postures and confident demeanours. What I caught of Cameron's delivery he was relaxed & fluent, firm where he needed to be and jovial where he could afford to be.

The overriding impression from the Labour benches was one of anger and fear. Little smiling or laughing and what there was was forced and insincere. Brown's advisers really need to caution him over that contemptuous sneer he has when Cameron is talking - Labour tribalists might love it but the apolitical masses will judge him harshly on it. The hatred he has of the Tories reeks off him and it's potentially the best asset the Conservative party has. When he speaks it's the same - we see anger & contempt not vision and statesmanship.

Listening to the remarks of people around me this seems to be the general view of the encounter and for most that's all they'll see of it - not for them the anticipation of Newsnight tonight with a cup of tea and a wet rag to bite down on! So is this general sense of tone and style important? I think it is because more often than not the policy minutiae that interests bloggers and political obsessives isn't of any real interest to the general public - it certainly isn't a significant influence on how they vote. They are far more likely to form opinions based on their fleeting exposure to events like this. In that sense and given the reaction around me today not to mention the events of the weekend, we may be witnessing the political tide turning.

Labels: Politics

I didn't actually post on the whole 'will-he-won't-he' debate - not because I didn't have a view but because I didn't have the time. For the record I was in the 'he will' camp so there's a yardstick for you should I be rash enough to predict anything else! Nonetheless, had Gordon decided to go ahead with a poll next month I think we'd probably have seen the most presidential election in UK politics yet, and for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, the 'Gordon v's David' theme has preoccupied the media for almost two years now (long before one of them was even in the job) and it was still the defining narrative as the conference season opened. The timing of Brown's ascension and the parliamentary recess meant we haven't actually seen a tremendous amount of direct face-to-face time between the two men and so the allure of how they'll square off remains strong for the media and the public in general. Whether or not this factor will hold true when there actually is a poll (possibly two years away) depends on the other reason why I think an immediate poll would've been very presidential - the relative weakness of the government front bench.

Disregarding policy issues or personal differences I think most people would accept Blair's cabinets were quite substantial in terms of intellectual weight and public profile - names such as Reid, Clarke, Blunkett, Cook, Mowlam and of course Brown himself were all national figures whose standing, if not their performance, matched the job description. Surely nobody but the most myopic party loyalist would contend that Darling, Miliband, Smith, Browne or Johnson is a list with anything like the same cachet - at least not yet? The irony of course is that this is Brown's own fault because his supporters continually talked up his superiority over every other member of the Cabinet before he became leader (with the aim of making that outcome all the more certain of course). The result is that Gordon and his supporters spent the 18-months or so before he became PM talking down the quality and substance of the very people he nows forms a cabinet with.

This presents an opportunity for the Conservatives - the fact that most of Gordon's team lack any real weight or standing in the public eye should cheer a shadow cabinet that can count the likes of William Hague and David Davis as members. In the case of those last two there's a clear gulf between them and the relative newbies they shadow (Miliband and Smith). I think a similar gulf in quality exists between Johnson and Lansley at Health, Hutton and Duncan at Business & Enterprise and Browne and Fox at defence (particularly given recent events!)

That said it's important they don't get too cocky following last week's events because the volatility of the polls is well documented and no longer being seen as a joke isn't the same thing as being seen as a government in waiting - the key thing is just to recognise that unlike 6/7 years ago they're not facing a formidable 'first XI' anymore so it shouldn't just be Brown the Tory election machine targets...

**Update** Via Iain Dale a video (see right) that demonstrates just how poor some on the Labour front bench are - Ed Balls making a bit of an idoit of himself and being taken apart by IDS.

Labels: Politics

From his 1994 anthology of prose writing, screenplays and diaries, a glorious anecdote from Alan Bennett:

"I am reminded of a couple, friends of Russell Harty's, who had a son of twelve or so who they were worried might be growing up gay. However, they were greatly heartened when the boy said that what he wanted for Christmas was a Mecanno set. Delighted by what they saw as an access of butchness, they bought him the biggest set they could find; it was a huge success, and he took it to his room and played with it for hours. The day came when the boy asked to show them what he had been making, and they were made to wait with their backs turned while he manoeuvred it into the room. When they turned round, the boy stood there shyly peeping at them from behind a vast Mecanno fan."

A few long in the planning changes for Cassilis which (I hope!) you've noticed. It's always been my intention to broaden the focus and not remain totally political on this so I wanted a strapline that reflected this - the Robertson Davies quote sums it up perfectly.

I've also added a video box on the right which will give me an opportunity to share some of the things that delight, entertain, infuriate, interest or just plain confuse me - will endeavour to update it regularly and hopefully there should be something new there at least every couple of days. When I figure out how I'll add an archive as well. First up? - the wonderful Django Reinhardt and one of the few people I'm happy to attach the 'hero' tag too, enjoy. And in case anyone thinks I've completely forsaken the political, if we have an election in the next few weeks the video box will be useful to flag those YouTube moments when Brown/Cameron/Ming are caught on camera picking their nose/wearing a top hat or riding a stair lift (I'll let you tie the name to the likely incident!)

More soon...

In this mornings Guardian Timothy Garton Ash suggests David Cameron's call for the UK to better exert it's influence around the world is at odds with the Party's natural euro-scepticism. He misunderstands how that influence works as well as the party's actual position on the EU.

Tim claims "there will often be no other way to achieve the goals [the Tories] proclaim" other than via the EU but that begs a very obvious question - why couldn't a Conservative government play a full part in any EU pressure on Zimbabwe, China, Iran or whomever? Tim doesn't actually offer any explanation here - he just keep saying it which isn't the same thing as a decent argument. The Conservatives recognise and have acknowledged many times that where pan-European action is appropriate they'll support it.

The point is the Tories aren't advocating complete withdrawal but challenging some aspects of the current settlement (e.g. HRA, social chapter) and then adding checks and balances on further integration. He acknowledges that the EU often punches below it's weight internationally (and the UK punches above its) but this almost amounts to a rebuttal of the very point he's trying to make - surely deeper integration of effective body into the less effective one isn't the only way to advance those shared goals? This 'with us or against us' logic is as flawed in the mouth of a liberal pro-European as it is in the mouth of a US neocon. The notion that EU's international standing and moral weight is dependent on unanimity over weighing a bag of spuds or even harmonised labour laws is laughable and for someone who's just launched an EU-focused think tank Tim should know better.

Labels: Politics

For someone with a more active interest in politics than most, big political events like David Cameron's speech yesterday, or Brown's last week, tend to leave me cold in terms of reacting directly to them on the blog. This isn't a judgement on the quality of the speeches or the importance of the event - it's recognition of the fact that there's more than enough commentary and analysis elsewhere and I'm very unlikely to be adding anything new. All that leaves is the overtly tribal reaction you get on most political blogs and that doesn't interest me either.

Consequently I often find myself 'reacting to the rea