February 28, 2007

Alan Milburn and Charles Clarke call for a debate on the future of the Labour Party has come at the most sensitive of times during the closing days of Tony Blair’s withering leadership.Two Labour heavyweights have not simply shot a salvo across the bowels of Brown but started an (informal) campaign to find a non-Gordon contender for Number 10.

Contender has to be able to do two things.Firstly, embody New Labour (and give the Labour Party a long term fresher recharged look) and secondly be able to beat Gordon Brown, yes this is the most important point in fact some embittered souls would say this is the whole point!?! Okay, sit down John Reid, stand up David Miliband.Charles Clarke, not wanting to look negative, has emphasised the new website which is to be called The 2020 Vision (and which shall soon be reviewed here) to be looking for new ideas on how the Labour Party can dominate 21st Century British politics (a chilling thought).Clarke has said already that the Labour Party can only win the next General Election by saying what it will do rather then what it has done.

Perhaps this can turn up the pressure on David Miliband who if you are a Blairite would not just be your best chance but for last two years your only chance.If Miliband does not step up now he may never get the chance again (please see Michael Portillo 1995 for details, friendly Editor).Miliband would be a nightmare for the Conservatives and perhaps swing floating Lib Dem/Labour votes with Ming looking completely out of step against two young gun leaders.Clarke, Milburn or Reid challenge would surely get the 44 MP’s needed to support (they weren’t that bad Ministers?) but would surely falter.Perhaps to the extent that it would show Brownites to have beaten Blairitesand New Labour with Union backed old Labour Gordon in a vunerable position to the resurgent Conservatives.Heaven for Cameron but doom for Brown and Blair(?).

Michael Meacher challenge can be dismissed almost out of hand. Gordon Brown left alone in the leadership battle with the former Environment Secretary Mr Meacher and John McDonnell would give the Chancellor a comprehensive mauling that he would need to kick start his Premiership.If Miliband does stand he can at worst expect to be thrown from the Cabinet (or keep the same job at Environment)if beaten badly, at best get promoted to Chancellor and be viewed as the Leader in wait (that sounds familiar) and at the very best become Prime Minister.All he needs to do is now find a restaurant called Granita…

Alan Milburn and Charles Clarke call for a debate on the future of the Labour Party has come at the most sensitive of times during the closing days of Tony Blair’s withering leadership.Two Labour heavyweights have not simply shot a salvo across the bowels of Brown but started an (informal) campaign to find a non-Gordon contender for Number 10.

February 25, 2007

Far from looking towards retirement (or stepping down) from the residential post at 10 Downing Street Prime Minister has been in dynamic form.Barites are said to be searching the parliamentary Labour Party for a candidate to challenge Gordon Brown and winning.Tony Blair has somewhat distanced himself from

Washington

by two significant actions.

David Miliband has been the name thrown around

Westminster

as not just a stop Gordon candidate but also possibly Labours best hope in countering Cameron and winning the next General Election.Good press coverage has helped with the Guardian and Times leading the way (though Alice Mills was less so) Miliband recent mistake on Question Time (oh yeah) has been seen as a positive thing.Cameron will not be liking the prospect as Miliband is only 41 (looks 21) and would give Labour a fresh look as he like DC 18 months ago is relatively unknown outside Westminster.However, fortunately for the Conservatives Miliband it seems will not stand against the man who has acted as something of a mentor to 41 year old Cabinet Minister.Matthew d’Ancona in the Sunday Telegraph has even reported that Charles Clarke has been sounded out but he to appear to be declining the idea leave all hope on the shoulders of John Reid.

Tony Blair’s two significant acts have been (this week) have been to start moving British troops back home and declare Britain will not militarily intervene in Iran while Tehran speeds to nuclear armament. Both acts have for the first time distanced Blair from the White House to such an extent that I cannot remember it happening since 1997.Sending troops home while

Washington

is sending 20,000 extra personnel to

Baghdad

is a clear opposite in strategy.Furthermore White House has not ruled out military action on

Iran

where as now Downing Street has whilst Blair occupies, of course not for much longer.Interestingly Cameron has not ruled out military action of his own in relation to

Iran

if Conservatives win the next election.

One worrying headline has been News of the World reports that Blair will sign up to an EU constitution (with 5 year unelected Presidents) for a wholly undemocratic European federal state, in effect. More to the point without a referendum, not then allowing the people of

UK

to decide how a large part of the country is governed. News of the World did not lead with the story so perhaps it is speculation but Iain Dale seems to be taking it very seriously on his blog.One could not imagine Blair acting in such a unpopular and rash manner in his last months of his premiership, if it really is his last months...is he for turning?

“We have different views on different issues but I do think that Nick is a very, very impressive politician. He’s got leadership skills I have to say from the five days I spent in the

Arctic

with him. He’s a very nice and charismatic fellow. I do think he’s in the wrong party: he thinks he’s in the right party. Unfortunately we have to leave it at that.”

If Clegg and some Orange Brookers do not cross to the Tories surely they will do if there is a hung parliament.One cannot see them sitting happily with Labour’s left wing behind its back.Cracks are appearing for the Liberal Democrats.

February 23, 2007

Despite the ICM Feb Poll any outcome for the next General Election is far from clear. Indeed the informal countdown has not even started and won't until Blair resigns with his successor entering

10 Downing Street

. Conservative leads in the current opinion polls should be put into perspective as Cameron's party will need at least a 6% advantage in the re al thing and they have yet to be consistent in staying on the 40% mark. Decline in Liberal Democrat support though has helped Cameron if he himself has not been a factor. Yet, Labours majority is going to mean that the Conservatives are starting from a significant disadvantage giving many commentators cause to talk of a hung parliament.

Liberal Democrats would be the key for any hung parliament just as the old Liberal Party was in 1974, decisively keeping Ted Heath out of power when deciding to stay on their own. Conservative and Labour would bow down to Ming Campbell in an attempt to get a government formed. But which way would the Lib Dems go? Labour and Lib Dem cooperation would seem the more likely considering 1997 (some say Paddy Ashdown was close to being made Foreign Secretary by Blair), 2001 and 2005 General Election pacts against the Conservatives. In 1997 the two were said to have even collaborated on policy. However, it may well depend on who is Labour leader. Miliband as discussed in an earlier article would be an unknown proposition but highly imaginable in coalition with the Lib Dem's. If John Reid managed an unlikely victory in a Labour leadership contest it would be hard to imagine him heading a coalition with Ming Campbell, his stint as Defence and Home Secretary has seen to that. Gordon Brown though would be in the best position for Labour in this respect. Campbell and Brown close friends with the latter once said to have come close to getting the former to join the Labour Party in the 1970's. Ming Campbell is a twentieth century Liberal in that he dresses to the Right but looks to the Left. Considering Ming and Brown were both part of the 1997 talks between the two parties it may well be natural collaboration for both.

Natural collaboration is not a phrase that springs to mind when thinking of Campbell and the Conservatives. Under Hague, Duncan Smith and Howard a Conservative Party working alongside the Liberal Democrats would off been almost impossible with then Conservative policies being far split to right wing and short of social liberalism (example immigration). David Cameron though has pulled the Conservatives back on to the centre ground openly courting Lib Dems with green policies and social enterprise initiatives. Interestingly, Conservative drives to win over the Lib Dems though has come to the main body missing the head (Ming Campbell) but aiming for the right learning Orange Brooker’s of David Laws who do resemble George Osborne, Michael Gove and Ed Vaizey all the young Conservative’s who reign at central office. David Laws in fact was said to have been offered a place in the Conservative Shadow Cabinet by Osborne but turned it down saying he was not a Conservative. Another Cameron target is rumoured to be Lord Owen.

Conservative strategy is perhaps to unsettle the Lib Dems by targeting groups and individuals rather then the leadership. If successful followed by a hung parliament then the Lib Dems could be thinking in two directions. Ming Campbell moving towards Labour where he and his generation would be partial to follow. But, younger more ambitious generation may see Cameron's Conservatives as a place for them to be (such as the Orange Brook Group). Orange Brookers may well feel much more at home with a centre-right Conservative Party in One Nation mode enabling them to exchange the free market economic views without the ridicules socialist like policies Charles Kennedy installed via Vince Cable on treasury issues.

Hung parliament may not just be frustrating for the country but it could destroy the Liberal Democrats as a political party in a split resembling that of the old Liberal Party between Lloyd George and Asquith.

February 21, 2007

Latest ICM poll by 123 gave the Conservatives a 9 po int lead over Labour with David Cameron's party hitting the 40% mark that it will need to have an overall majority. Encouragingly for the Conservative supporters Cameron also had a 13 point approval lead over would be Prime Minister, Gordon Brown (who gained only 29% of the poll). Worse for the Chancellor was the reaction of the printed press, the Sun hailing the Conservative Party leads, Daily Telegraph not surprisingly using the opinion poll on its front page but most of all the Guardian doing the same with Cameron versus Brown difference. Significantly for Brown is the fact that he is now receiving almost hostile press from left wing papers, Guardian and Observer. Talk of David Miliband abilities to be leader by the two broadsheets has indirectly promoted his cause as has his mistake on Question Time earlier in the month, surely not an error? Miliband will probably not challenge being (along with brother Ed) a Brownite loyalist for years but there is now some clear movement to get him to do just that as former Labour minister Frank Field MP demonstrated by the skip a generation remarks last week (or skip Gordon). ICM poll is only going to help David Miliband if he wants it to.

Opinion poll will only confirm Cameron's team that they would prefer to face Brown (or even better John Reid). Longer the Chancellor waits to take the leadership, harder it is going to get for Brown giving those who matter time to dwell. Cameron versus Miliband would be a wholly different encounter with the Government looking renewed over night. I dare say that Tony Blair may see Miliband intriguingly as successor who is not Gordon and who can win.

February 13, 2007

From reading Iain Dale’s blog last evening, he had a slot which brought up Gordon Brown being touted more and more so as Prime Minister elect as it looks ever more likely that he will not be challenged for leadership of the Labour Party, so hence the Government.Surely this can be seen if it is going to be the case that it is almost completely undemocratic and unprincipled (if his coronation is not followed up by a General Election?).Labour were in overdrive when Michael Howard became Conservative leader in 2003 claiming it was the comeback of the magic circle. So what would it be if they allowed Brown to be elected unchallenged?Perhaps there are no credible contenders to the Chancellor though I do believe David Miliband could perform this task with Reid and Clarke destroyed by the Home Office.Any comment on Howard and the magic circle has completely been destroyed by the superb Conservative contest in 2005, perhaps finest either two parties have seen for a leadership contest.Let Labour now grasp the idea of democracy and have a open contest among its members as it has always has done and allow a Prime Minister to be validated before put to the British people.Or, if it is an unchallenged coronation then let there be a swift General Election to decide a democratic PM.

February 10, 2007

Scandal which currently grips the Labour Party and one that could be defining for key figures either in terms of rumours based on accusation or even criminal prosecution brings a wider question to British politics. Only time will tell what the final outcome will be with some broadsheet commentators claiming that this is a British Watergate with Tony Blair portrayed as our own Richard Nixon. Undoubtedly what the cash for honours scandal has done for the Prime Minister has undermined his authority beyond any doubt and quickened the rot into his credibility which started with his reason's for the invasion of Iraqi. However, the cash for honours scandal has now brought forward a question that has an even greater constitutional consequences for British democracy...how are political Party's to be funded during elections and all year round.

People have argued that state funding should play a role or more prominent in the funding of political parties.Sir Hayden Phillips in his interim report into political funding at www.partyfundingreview.gov.ukmentions the possibility of looking into countries that are based around

Westminster (Australia, Canada and New Zealand) who have a degree of state funding.Although not in favour of keeping the states quo I am, personally, against seeing the introduction of public funds for political parties on principle.Why should a person who is fundamentally in opposition to a given party have to see their participation in funding it? Added to this is the question, would public funding leave behind the abuse of the system that has been alleged towards the Labour Party, probably not.

Iain Dale has rejected public funding via his blog www.iaindale.blogspot.combut it is John Redwood views on the matter that are most interesting and perhaps more agreeable.Opposing state funding as a source for the parties he proposes (in what has become know as retail funding, by whom I know not) that an emphasis be put a smaller individual donations from party members.In principle I do support this it would hopefully give members and people in a whole a greater voice and more attention given towards them in respect of party policy.It may also help destroy apathy (I’m being extremely positive here) but in an age where only 1 in 88 people (according to interim report of Sir Hayden Philips) are members of political party’s this may be extremely unlikely. Redwood also states a cap on individual donations stem the impact of sale of peerages to the next billionaire.Taking his argument further Redwood also argues a cap on General Election expenditure of £7.5million, strangely though Sir Hayden Philips interim report suggest that the Conservative Party would only be able to spend £7.2million with capped donations but Labour £12.6million.

In theory I agree with everything that John Redwood puts forward, it would force the Party’s to turn away from big single donors and look to its membership for support.However, in the present apathy that is indulged by the electorate how realistic is this?Who also would regulate the new approach?Limited regulation we do currently have is statutory (Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000) with the Committees on Standards in Public Life looking into a new role for regulation into Party funding.Perhaps a reformed House of Lords could take up this mantle?What is certain in my own mind is that things have to change in terms of Party funding and if things are not then we will be left with an undemocratic and corruptible way of raising funds for our Party’s.In the words of Sir Hayden Phillips in his interim report….