Party Political Animal

I don’t often agree with Lord “Charlie” Falkener (unelected Blair crony, overrated and significantly responsible for the Dome f**k up etc etc), but yesterday on Radio 4’s PM he admitted a major mistake of Blair’s first years was to promise too much – “whiter than whiter”, “servants not the masters” etc etc.

Clegg, he went on, might be making the same mistake in claiming his constitutional reforms were the biggest since 55BC,  or whatever.

Amen to that, brother!

Careful guys. I think I shall just refer to you jointly as Clameron for simplicity. There’s a lot I like about your coalition, but don’t get carried away. AV and what looks horribly like a stitched up voting system for an elected Lords (closed-list PR isn’t much different from appointing peers) – oh, and regulating CCTV – aren’t quite in the same league as 1832, or several other reforms since then if I remember my Ladybird history correctly.

Blair’s rhetoric promised far too much in the mid ’90s, something I constantly pointed out in my Sunday Times pieces. Now Clameron is making the same mistake. Go easy boys. There’s a lot of good will for you at the moment, just as there was for Blair 13 short years ago. But promise too much as you may disappoint.

Clameron may also find that the getting some of these measures through in big bang bills may not be as easy as he thinks. One step at a time, or you run the danger of uniting people who object to one aspect or other of the proposed constitutional reforms.

And don’t think there won’t be opposition. Stuffing the 22 Committe with ministers and placemen will increase, not decrease dissent.

Too high handed and too cliquey was the comment of one overlooked Tory MP as he sobbed into his Bacardi and Coke last night. There is a surprisingly sour mood already among the  backbenches.

Be careful out there. Modelling yourself on Blair need to not run to repeating his mistakes.

Last weekend, Ed Millipede announced he was standing against his brother for the Labour leadership. Lord Triesman made the headlines too – and less well-reported, on Saturday evening Amber Valley Conservatives celebrated the election of Nigel Mills after a massive swing.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of people reporting private conversations – Liam Byrne’s private letter  to his successor was another victim of our cavalier attitude to privacy – Lord Triesman represents much of what has gone wrong with our politics.

Triesman has done virtually nothing in his 67 years outside of politics. A union official and then general secretary of the Labour Party, this former communist turned very new Labour and  became yet another unelected member of a House of Lords which his party had come to power promising to “democratise”.

He then became an unelected minister and thence, a few years ago, chairman of the FA – a post formerly reserved for people who had spent their career in the FA. Presumably the Football Association thought that appointing a Labour time-server would buy them influence. That is symptomatic of the politicisation of large sections of life and the way in which political patronage has created a cadre of time-serving careerists.

On to Ed Millipede – capable, bright, personable. Also glib, a bit oily and a career politician with absolutely no experience of work or life outside of politics – like his brother. Like, some might point out, Dave and Nick. Like so many in the outgoing and incoming Cabinets. Like too many of the new intake of MPs.

And Nigel Mills? Sure, he’s been a local councillor. But he has spent his working life as an accountant. He comes from the the area he represents. No A-list for Nigel – and no financial help from Lord Ashcroft’s pot.

So while A-listers were being trashed in the metropolis with low, single figure swings, Nigel, who has worked the area for years with a dedicated band of local people, got a double-figure swing and swept aside a Labour MP who thought she was in for life.

Thank God we’ve got one or two real people in the Commons.

There’s a lot of very self-important huffing and puffing going on about the government’s proposal for fix-term parliaments and the 55% voting threshold – the word “unconstitutional” keeps popping up.

Let’s leave aside that we don’t have a constitution. The proposal appears to involve a 55% vote only if the government wants to dissolve early. A simple majority would still work for no-confidence motions.

So uncharacteristically, the proposal reduces the government’s power without taking anything away from MPs and parliament. What’s the problem with that?

The bigger questions are whether Dave+Nick fulfill their pledges at the height of the allowances scandal last year to reduce the routine use of the guillotine on parliamentary bills, which allowed Brown and Blair to force through truckloads of special-adviser dreamt-up legislation. Remember, though, that more debate on bills means a reversion to longer Commons hours. How will that square with the new family-friendly inclusive intake?

The second big test will be whether the voting system for the too-be-democratised Lords involves open or closed list PR.

If the lists are closed, it’s little change from the current stitch up where government favourites, time-servers, arse-lickers and brown-nosers get shovelled into the Lords for good behaviour. That would just continue the massive patronage the current system gives the executive. Now an open list with voters choosing who to elect and whether to mix parties would be a real indication of change.

Early on post-election morning, I blogged that I thought the Lib-Dems were done for.

Despite what on the face of it is a fantastic deal from Dave, I still think they are in big trouble – though small ‘L’ liberals may be in better shape. Here’s why.

First, whatever the rantings of the press pack, Clegg handled the negotiations well. He had to give Labour a chance of a deal to keep his own party in line. By doing so he also squeezed extra concessions – particularly the AV vote – from Dave.

But…the Lib-Dems will now be tarred and feathered with the massive spending cuts which are our economic future. They may, or may not prove fit for the responsibilities of government – if not, it will be noted by voters. They won’t get anything more than AV, with minimal electoral benefits.

True, they do get some manifesto pledges and knock out some Tory ones. But there are a lot of “ifs” along the way. Not least, what happens to the fixed-term parliament if the government loses a confidence vote? Will the two parties step aside for each other for bye-elections – or at the next general election?

It all could work out. But I think we have several very flat and tough years ahead for the economy.

Both parties will blame their Labour predecessors, but they will still be the ones making the biggest spending cuts since the ’50s – far greater than Mrs Thatcher (who never actually cut spending, despite the demonising) or even Jim Callaghan’s.

The Lib-Dems could crack up under the pressure, some joining a revitalised, centrist Labour Party under Millipede. A few free-market libs may stay with the Tories.

If it works, Dave will have civilised and repositioned the Tories further to the centre and marginalised the Old Right.

If doesn’t, Dave will be seen to have tried to reach out, he may still have a good chunk of sensible Libs still with him, and again, he will have a party straddling the big centre of British politics.

Whether he uses either scenario to implement genuinely liberal policies, in the sense of giving priority to individual rights, or whether he continues with the superficial, media-driven, fashionable ‘liberal’ politics of his opposition years remains to be seen.

Or, of course, it could just end up a massive buggers’ muddle for everyone concerned. We shall see.

As predicted here first – early on Monday – Dave finally offered Nick a vote on the AV electoral system and hooked the Lib Dems.

What lost it for Labour was not the possibility of a deal with the Lib Dems – the numbers were tight, but not impossible –  but rather the lack of hunger of Labour MPs.

“We’re fed up with it,” one Labour MP blubbed into his double skinny latte earlier today. “And we know what sort of a mess we’re in – there ain’t going to be many laughs for the next few years.”

Tory MPs, on the other hand, were starving – ravenous enough to swallow AV and the loss of ministerial posts. And as predicted here, the new Tory intake – an unprecedented  half of the Tory total – owe their seats to Cameron. Cameron’s New Model Tories aren’t going to give him any grief – yet, anyway.

Lucky for Dave the allowances scandal swept the awkward squad away. Lucky for Dave he took over at a time when Labour were already imploding. Lucky for Dave when he failed to get a majority, Labour had pretty well given up.

Dave is a lucky man in so many ways. He has great charm – but does he have the character to see him – and us – through the next few years?

As a Lab-Lib+anyone-else-in-the-place coalition looks more likely, it’s intriguing to see Labour politicians recoiling almost in horror at the prospect of power.

Rainbow coalition?  ”Disastrous” says John Reid, quickly echoed by David Blunkett and several others. It would be unstable – and after all, the Tories got the most seats.

True, but of course Cameron didn’t get a majority or even a great share of the poll. There’s nothing to say that coalitions have to include the largest party

So is it a concern for stable government that moves these Labour grandees?

Well, maybe that’s not all. A couple of years in opposition would be good for Labour, they go on – especially, they add, almost as an afterthought, at a time when so many tough decisions will have to be taken.

Ah, so that’s it. Let someone else take the crap!

Or in the vernacular: we f****d the place up, now you clear up the mess!

Yup, as predicted this morning, Dave has offered an AV referendum, though it might be too late.

If the failure to offer an AV vote just a few hours earlier costs the Tories a deal, questions will be asked.

On the other hand, it’s difficult to see a Lab-Lib pact doing the stuff – and if the price is more dosh for the Jocks and Taffs, I predict there will be a bigger price to pay come the election, whenever that might be – sooner rather than later, I suspect.

By the way, did you see Jon Snow gushing all over Alistair Campbell on Channel 4 News a few minutes ago?

He might have asked Campbell whether he himself takes any responsibility for the sad state Labour finds itself in. Campbell, after all, helped to pump the bile into the Blair-Brown wound. His oh-so-obvious spinning and self-promotion also helped to kill new Labour, the creature whose birth he midwifed.

Stomach churning. It’s quite put me off my tea!

It’s becoming increasingly likely that Nick Clegg will be offered some sort of deal on electoral reform to secure perhaps something less than a full Con-Lib coalition. Here’s why -

Cameron could offer a free Commons vote on a referendum – or even Tory support for a referendum on the basis that full-blooded PR is unlikely to win public backing.

Or, he could insist on  other options being put  onto the ballot paper. Fixed term parliaments and recall are obvious, but what about AV? Would that be so un-saleable to Tory activists? It after all keeps the single member constituency.

Cameron should be able to get such an offer past his MPs – “remember”, said one party official, “half our MPs are new – most owe their jobs to Dave, they are his bitches”. So the post-allowances scandal clear-out of old dossers has actually boosted the leadership’s power.

Remember that from the Tory point of view, once Cameron and his muckers get their loafers under the No 10 table, the next election will be pretty much at a time of their choosing. It could itself be presented in part as a referendum on some sort of progressive reform of parliament – which Labour never delivered. Cameron will also have the big Mo behind him – give us the tools to finish clearing up the mess the other lot made etc. That thought should bring most activists round.

And from Clegg’s point of view, a deal with Labour looks increasingly unlikely. The numbers don’t add up, making any Lab-Lib pact vulnerable to a vote of confidence and a new election. Clegg would be seen to be propping up a decaying old regime – a new Labour leader would take months to sort out, probably after extended blood-letting. Labour may not even be able to deliver PR – the Tories would oppose it along with a significant minority of Labour MPs.

And from the Lib Dem viewpoint, Clegg will want to be seen to be acting in the national interest in supporting a stable government, rather than putting his party interest first by breaking any deal by insisting on PR.

Remember, too, that Nick Clegg was reportedly a Tory at Cambridge – and worked for Leon Brittain…

The received wisdom around 5.00am this morning as Nick Clegg made his way to London was that he was the most powerful man in British politics – the kingmaker.

Now it’s not so clear. His speech this morning was a sign of weakness. If he supports Brown, he risks propping up a discredited regime in return for an electoral reform referendum.

If he doesn’t and Sam repaints No.10,  the likleyhood is of a second election within a year, at a time of Cameron’s choosing – without voting reform.

Well, no-one really.

The biggest Tory gains from Labour since 1931? Sure, there was bound to be some statistic somewhere for the spin-boys to latch on to. But in truth, 38% of what is still in historic terms a low turnout at around 65%, against one of the most discredited and sleazy governments in recent history, is not a stunning result for the Tories, though some individual results were impressive.

To put things into perspective, after five years, Dave has managed to persuade around one in four voters to support him.

Factor in that Cameron did less well in the metropolitan areas he was trying to progress in – and many of his alpha super-cool new Tory candidates did worse than average –  this does not constitute a major success.

So, what next? Does Clegg have enough seats to allow Labour to cling on and give him the PR referendum which would lock the Tories out? I suspect not.

So will Cameron have enough seats to govern?

It looks like whoever wants the crown will, have to pay a price to either the Scots or the Welsh Nats.

For Scot Nats and Scottish Labour MPs to march to Westminster to keep a Labour government in power will not be tenable, especially after devolution.

And if any deal  means more cash for the Jocks or Taffs at a time of massive looming spending cuts for the rest of us, it will kill the union and kill whichever party pays the bribe.

If Brown managed to hang on with the Lib Dems and deliver a PR referendum, it locks the Tories out for years.

If Cameron gets in and redraws the boundaries as he has indicated he wants to, it could lock Labour out for a generation.

Whatever happens, expect another election within a year.

Tricky one.