A disturbing vision of our free market future

Let no one tell you that the Lib Dems are the cuddly part of the Coalition. Some would have you think they are the grizzled fur rather than the yellowed teeth of this rabid dog, but when it comes to the number one issue of the day, public services, the parties are of one mind.

Take a look at Vince Cable's recent Trade and Industry speech at Mansion House. Once he was the darling of the liberal establishment, what's he got to say about his achievements so far?

Well, he begins with the things he's really proud of " We have succeeded where our predecessors failed with a clear programme to stabilise and privatize the Royal Mail. We have put in place unprecedented higher education reforms. I could go on." But we hope you don't Vince.

He chillingly then outlines what his plans for government are; "We know business wants action, not words. That is why... we embarked on a Growth Review, an exercise every bit as rigorous and challenging as its spending equivalent. It has challenged every department to get behind the growth agenda, critically examining every policy that might get in the way or hold back our vision for private sector recovery."

So every government department has been challenged to harness itself to the needs of the private sector rather than, say, delivering a good service to disabled people or teaching kids to read and write. So the Department for Health has to get behind the 'growth agenda' ensuring it doesn't hold back 'our' vision for private sector recovery... glad no one is getting sick these days then.

He wants to "encourag[e] what Keynes called the “animal spirits” of entrepreneurs." That's quite interesting as I had a vague feeling I remember something about this, so I quickly dug up the Keynes quote...

"Even apart from the instability due to speculation, there is the instability due to the characteristic of human nature that a large proportion of our positive activities depend on spontaneous optimism rather than mathematical expectations, whether moral or hedonistic or economic. Most, probably, of our decisions to do something positive, the full consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as the result of animal spirits - a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted average of quantitative benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities."

In other words Cable explicitly endorses something Keynes thought helped cause instability and was a product of 'optimism' rather than analysis. I wont dwell on this, he wont be the first, nor last politician to find a natty phrase regardless of its actual original meaning.

So let's move on to regulation. Most thinking people agree that the financial sector needs to have firmer regulation to prevent another financial sector crisis, or at least ameliorate it when it comes. They also happen to see that Barclays pay just 1% in Corporation Tax and think "Bloody hell, literally the richest are paying the least." So, what does this progressive have to say about regulating these loose dogs?

"Successive governments have made ritual commitments to reducing red tape but have added to it, inconveniencing businesses large and small." and then...

"Within my own department I have already taken action, to remove regulations which impede the ability of businesses to expand and take on people. This includes a review of labour market regulation specifically to stop cases reaching employment tribunals without a prior attempt at reconciliation and restricting access for unfair dismissal cases to the employed for two years rather than one."

So restricting workers access to employment tribunals and reducing their rights at work. How progressive of that cuddlesome Mr Cable! He goes on " Another useful step forward has been the steps we have taken to stop “gold plating” EU regulations and fight damaging regulatory impositions from the EU like the Working Time Directive."

He then talks about planning regulations being a barrier to growth, and how in the finance sector "My first priority was to ensure that the rapid deleveraging should not choke off, or make prohibitively expensive, the supply of credit to good British companies, especially SMEs."

This Growth Review he's outlining sounds more like the driver of a runaway train putting his foot on the gas. At the very time when the public have started to demand better regulation, and for business to pay its way Cable's emphasis is to advocate liassez faire capitalism without addressing why the crash happened in the first place. In fact he himself summarises his approach as "robust and unsentimental withdrawal of Government from unnecessary interference."

Jeezo.

So Cameron must be saying something even worse. Nope. He's singing from exactly the same hymn sheet.

At the Conservative spring forum he launched an attack on public sector workers in Whitehall and town halls who were the "enemies of enterprise". He denounced the "the bureaucrats in government departments who concoct those ridiculous rules and regulations that make life impossible".

When it comes to commissioning goods and services Cameron says we'll be "throwing open the bidding process to every single business in our country – a massive boost for small businesses, because we want them to win at least a quarter of these deals".

Competition in the NHS is just the tip of the ice burg it seems.

Meanwhile the CBI and the City are lobbying to pull down regulation and end high taxes for the richest. the head of the CBI "urged Vince Cable's Department for Business and Skills to scrap unnecessary regulations and make good its plans to boost exports with the offer of credit guarantees and loans."

I'll end with the Cameron's speech on his arms sales to dictators trip;

"Here's another thing I've personally been doing. Selling Britain to the world.

"You know some people are disdainful about that. They see me loading up a plane with businesspeople and say - that's not statesmanship, that's salesmanship.

"I say: attack all you want. But do you think the Germans and the French and the Americans are all sitting at home waiting for business to fall into their lap? ...

"So let met tell you: while there are contracts to be won, jobs to be created, markets to be defended - I will be there ...

"I'll be there not just because it's my job, not just because it's my duty, more than that - because I passionately believe - no, I know that this country can out-compete, out-perform, out-hustle the best in the world."

He boasts about "loading up a plane with business people"? I thought he was spreading democracy, no? At the very least I assumed he'd say it was a coincidence but he's right out there implying they maybe didn't even want to come and he's there "loading" them onto the plane, he's forcing them to sell their guns and bombs to people who really, really may need them very soon.

He passionate believes that we can "out-hustle" the best in the world. I agree, but think we must be stopped. This vision for UK PLC where every public body is chained to the needs of business is utterly horrifying to me and frankly I think would be an historic crime if allowed to happen.

David Davis champion of liberty!

There was a time when David Davis was held up as a champion of civil liberties and cuddly Toryism, who knows why. The claim was he was in the pocket of Liberty and he stood in a long line of Tory civil libertarians. I wonder how strong that claim is looking today?

David Davis has teamed up with Jack Straw to oppose the government giving voting rights to a limited number of prisoners. Now, we know former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw has no truck with Human Rights, he eats them for breakfast no less, but what is Mr Davis upto?

Well he's found a way of opposing Europe and these namby pamby rights things simultaneously - for which I'm sure his leader Mr Cameron is eternally grateful.

Davis said "There are two main issues here. First is whether or not it is moral or even decent to give the vote to rapists, violent offenders or sex offenders. The second is whether it is proper for the European court to overrule a Parliament."

On the second point first, the European Court of Human Rights has, not for the first time, expressed concerns about the behaviour of the UK government suggesting that the decision it took in the nineteenth century to deny prisoners the vote was wrong. We should listen to them.

However, how can it be right to "give" people the vote when they've behaved despicably? Well my view is we don't don't give people the right to vote, it's a right. We take it away from people in an act designed to 'other' them as outcasts with no say in society even as we should be trying to rehabilitate them and convince them they do have a stake in society.

Human rights are, or should be, universal. They don't apply to 'nice people' only, otherwise we wouldn't actually need them. It's precisely the demonised in society that are most in need of protection from the excesses of political fashion. Update

What Lord Young tells us about politics

Lord Young, who along with Caroline Lucas won a Spectator award this week, has quit his unpaid role advising the Prime Minister. His crime? Having lunch with the Daily Telegraph. Serious stuff.

Actually the key thing he said that has been held up in horror was "the vast majority of people in the country today, they have never had it so good ever since this recession - this so-called recession - started."

Now, as it happens, this is factually incorrect. His opinion that low interest rates meant most people with mortgages had more spending money is not borne out by the statistics but, I'd argue, being wrong about something over lunch is not enough grounds to lose your job.

Labour is posturing saying that those out of work will be "offended" by the peer's remarks which is irretrievably prissy. A minor figure, who isn't even in the government, tells a journalist they think the rhetoric around the recession is overblown over what sounds like a rather sumptuous lunch. Hardly that insensitive and hardly likely to offend any unemployed person who takes the Telegraph.

Actually my favourite bit of the interview is where he says that the cuts will take government spending levels to 2007's figures which wont be that bad. "Now, I don't remember in '07 being short of money or the government being short of money," Well, of course he wasn't short of money he's Lord blooming Snooty! You can't judge the state of the economy on whether the rich are forced to buy economy beans.

However, I don't think he should have gone. We're breeding a generation of political robots, who serve simply to provide an antiseptically wiped set of progressive sounding sound bites no matter how horrendous the policy. By punishing honesty in this way we deepen the trend towards power for its own sake.

For me it seems that Cameron took a "safety first" attitude towards his health and safety advisor, worried about negative press from these off hand, off message remarks. It shows tremendous weakness on his part that he's afraid that the slightest rustle of leaves means the whole tree is about to come tumbling down.

It also shows how this government is much more of an extension of New Labour than it is of Thatcher. Thatcher's government in the eighties had a tame press that was willing to go to war for it's ideals. When the government was criticised they rarely caved in unless it was completely unavoidable.

Lord Young's departure, for what amounts to rather mild (if wrong) remarks, demonstrates a remarkable lack of nerve or loyalty on the part of the top brass. It also reveals Cameron's priority to be seen to "care". That's the taint of Blairism not the boot print of Thatcher and the Coalition wont get through five years cowering at just the thought of gunfire.

The mainstream political consensus has led to the death of ideological politics and the rise of a political class that services the industry, seeking power for its own sake. To lose an advisor for such a minor deviation from the party line is a bizarre waste of "talent". I've no idea whether Lord Young is any good at writing Health and Safety reports but his views on the overall effects of the recession can't possibly effect the work he was doing.

It's all very well those in opposing parties, like me, crowing at a Tory head having been taken - but this is a worrying sign that politics is far, far shallower than it should be. No genuinely radical government could survive in a political atmosphere where people can't say what they think without being shot for it.

Crispin Blunt

I was saying nice things abut Crispin Blunt the other day who, as Prisons Minister, seemed to want to take a different tack from the authoritarianism that went before. Shame his boss didn't agree, but there you go.

Anyway, he's going to be in the news for a couple of days because he's announced the world that he's gay and is splitting from his wife. The personal details are not interesting and I'm not going to dwell on it, these are these his affairs not ours.

Iain Dale writes movingly on the difficulty of pursuing a life in politics as a rural Conservative whilst coming to terms with your sexuality, he also points out that Blunt comes from a military family which may have made coming out all the more difficult. As Darryl showed today homophobia has far from disappeared from society, despite the fact that we have undoubtedly come a long way.

There are some interesting political aspects to this story however. Like Crispin Blunt's own voting record on homosexuality, which is far from happy. Likewise, although he's by no means been the worst bigot in the House, statements on the floor of Parliament like this one during the equalisation of the age of consent debate make difficult reading;

"I believe it right that our law should discriminate in that limited way between homosexual and heterosexual practice... While I accept that, in law, we should tolerate people's choices to follow a homosexual life style and practice, I maintain that those are not equivalent to heterosexuality--nor should we pretend that they are."

The debate continued with Blunt being told "The hon. Gentleman perpetuates the myth that being gay is a life style choice. It is no more a life style choice than is his sexual orientation." This, of course, takes on new meaning in the light of today's revelations. Blunt replied;

"I am afraid that I cannot accept that. In our culture, the choice of a homosexual orientation tends to become the dominating influence on a person's life: it defines homosexuals in a way that heterosexuality does not. I am not condemning that choice; I believe that it should be tolerated. I do not, however, believe the two choices to be the same.

"It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth. [Hon. Members: "Shame!"] I am sorry if Labour Members do not like the truth, but I do not intend to run away from the difficult issues."

Without wishing to be too critical of Blunt in this tricky time I do have a problem with his insistence that homosexual "gratification" is somehow bound up with the exploitation of the young. I don't think that he was confronting a difficult truth here.

But there's more. In 2002 we had this little fracas. When one leading Tory figure, Alan Duncan MP, came out as gay the Conservative grassroots were not entirely happy.

Tony Collinson, chairman of the 1,400-strong Reigate Conservative Association, led the chorus of disapproval.

"I would not be happy if we had a gay candidate here - I would always go for a candidate who had a normal background," he said. "Our current MP [Conservative Crispin Blunt; majority 8,000] is happily married with two children."

This rather backs up what Iain Dale had to say I think. If Blunt had been open about his sexuality he would never have been permitted to play a significant role in Conservative politics.

Particularly when you consider, in the same article, Blunt's fellow Reigate Conservatives are quoted as saying things like being openly gay is "drawing attention to yourself" or "If he's practising then it's unacceptable. If he's non-practising he's made a mistake in bringing it up." or "I come from an older generation where this sort of thing was deemed unspeakable".

No wonder Conservative Home has turned off the comments on this one. As I say Blunt's sexuality is his own business, and I wish him well with his personal problems. The complex politics of the issue, where homophobia still plays a role in British society, well that's something else entirely.

Is Cameron a loud mouth?

David Cameron is in trouble with the former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, for being direct and clear in his speeches about foreign affairs.

First Cameron called Gaza an "open prison" and then he criticised elements of the Pakistan security services for aiding the UK's enemies in Afghanistan. Miliband described the PM as a "loud mouth" although he made no comment on the content of Cameron's speeches.

We know Miliband would never do such a thing. After all, his tour of duty was not known for either criticising the actions of the Israeli government, no matter how revolting, nor taking an open and honest stance on the Afghan situation - we didn't even need the recent leaks to know that.

Miliband's outburst attacking Cameron is in stark contrast to his mumbled and embarrassed comments during Israel's bombardment of Gaza that had to be wrung out of him, so reluctant was he to use the UK's clout for good.

During the Blair years the fact that business was always done behind closed doors was always made a virtue of so you'd see Blair claiming he was "influencing" Bush behind the scenes as the war machine pushed ever onwards unabated.

Various diplomats have rushed to Cameron's defence saying that direct language can be completely appropriate on the international stage, it's just we haven't seen much plain speaking for the last thirteen years. I think I agree.

For me a bit of honest speaking is just what we need to clear the air after years of manipulation and distrust. A large number of countries do not see the UK as an honest broker and that is unlikely to change if we continue with a Miliband style policy of half-truths, mumbling and blood.

Dave and Nick, sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G

David Davis, that well known defender of civil liberties and airfix SAS commando, has dissed the government saying that the Prime Minister and his deputy get on really, really well. Apparently that's a bad thing.

Davis told "businessmen [sic] during a meeting" that the government was a "Brokeback Coalition", which was a term coined, apparently, by Richard Littlejohn. Waaa- Waaa- Waaa ALARM BELLS!

Quite what the Tories have to complain about I'm not sure. In terms of policy they are basically having it all their own way. Perhaps there are less top jobs going round the big table, but they've not had to make any ideological sacrifices in order to remain in government.

I guess Davis is just one of those tribalists who hates to share. Perhaps he's an only child.

I do have a question though. I might be being over sensitive or censorious but am I wrong in thinking that Davis' remarks are homophobic?

There are numerous close male friendships depicted in film - the Blues Brothers seems a particularly apt one in the context for example - but in order to find an example of a bad male friendship, one that's too close, Davis goes straight for the gays.

Butch and Sundance, good, Starsky and Hutch, good, Bill and Ted, good, Brokeback Mountain, bad. Why's that then?

Like I say I'm careful of reading too much into this and don't want to get all up in his shit, he obviously would not like that, but I'm right aren't I? He is basically saying calling someone gay is an alternative way of saying they're crap isn't he? Anyway, he obviously longs for the days when the two most powerful men in government hated each others guts. Good times Davis, good times...

Pic credit Lakelander.

Prisons: short blunt shock

The Tory Justice Minister Crispin Blunt was quite right to say that we should lift the blanket ban on parties in prisons imposed by the super-authoritarian Jack Straw. Straw's ridiculous over-reaction was typical of the man who personified Labour's autocratic sledge hammer style.

Sadly Number Ten has over ruled the Justice Minister for fear of looking soft on prisoners. Although he was talking about Labour Blunt could have been talking about Cameron's reaction when he said; "At the slightest whiff of criticism of from the popular press, policy tended to get changes and the consequence of an absurd over-reaction to offenders being exposed to comedy in prison was this deleterious, damaging and daft instruction."

Quite what is happening in the Tory Party on prisons I'm not sure. First you have Ken Clarke saying that prison doesn't particularly work and now Blunt hints that a more relaxed regime might help with rehabilitation of prisoners. Sadly the party hierarchy has yet been won over to a more liberal position.

Interestingly Iain Dale came out in defence of Blunt saying; "I hope under a Conservative government that will change. Being tough doesn't just mean locking people up and throwing away the key. A tough politician will take tough choices - and that means locking fewer people up and devoting more resources to preparing prisoners for life on the outside. Only in that way will reoffending rates drop."

While, cynic that I am, I thought Clarke's suggestion might have been about cutting costs rather than addressing our failed and over crowded prison system - but there's nothing in Blunt's suggestions that were about cost cutting and everything about treating prisoners with a bit more humanity.

Zac Goldsmith interviewed on Channel Four news

This is absolute gold - do watch! New Tory MP Zac Goldsmith was on C4 News to be grilled over his potentially dodgy election expense returns, but in 13 minutes of interview he spends the almost entire time trying to skewer Jon Snow on some minor point of scheduling that no one cares about.

When he does get round to speaking about the issue in hand he utterly bungles it, and it's clear he knows he's on very dodgy ground. In my view he'd have been hard put to come across more like an aristocratic baddie even if he had a duelling scar and a henchman hovering just behind his right shoulder.



Goldsmith is clearly a man who regards the media making legitimate enquiries as total impudence.

Are we going back to the eighties?

Before the election a number of people I knew would shudder and say of a potential Tory government that they "they remembered Thatcher" and didn't want to go back to those days. Never that they remembered Major or Heath or MacMillian (although actually very few would remember MacMillian, he was certainly in power before I was born).

Somehow Thatcher had become the representative of what Tories are like through the ages, regardless of the political and economic circumstances and regardless of the ideological nuances and gulfs that exist between different strands of Conservatism.



It could get a bit wearing sometimes if, like me, you don't accept that all bad things are the same despite all being bad.

Thatcher came to power with a plan, a large majority and a clear determination to take on a powerful trade union movement. So there's three differences straight off with Cameron's government that hasn't really decided what it's for, has been forced to deal with the Liberals and whose main priority is to attack a budget deficit in times when the trade union movement is a shadow of its former self.

It seems to me that the challenges we face in the next five years will not be the same as those we faced in the early eighties - but they could well be harder not softer days.

With no mass membership left of center party to draw on and a far left that is sadly far more confused and pessimistic than that of 1979 the austerity measures may not be met with Greek fire at all, although we can certainly hope.

What's clear is that trying to rehash the struggles of the eighties (struggles that we, cough, lost) is not going to be up to the job. Over the coming months we'll see a good number of trade unionists and leftists trying to come to terms with the new period, that's going to be important work in my view.

If our resistance is going to be both active and effective a solid appraisal of where we are and what the government is concretely going to do is going to be essential. What's clear is that it wont be a historical re-enactment of the battle of Orgreave.

The long shadow of a Tory government approaches

Well, people say they don't like the Punch and Judy of oppositional politics so this time it looks like the game's going to be changed with Cameron playing the Crocodile and Clegg as the string of sausages. Great family fun no doubt.

It's smiling faces all round at the Lib Dem and Tory Headquarters as yet more white men in suits gather round making deals for the country's future. Due to the Lib Dem set up this means they could be having a special conference as early as this week to ratify their cooperation with the Conservatives.

Whether this means a formal coalition or some sort of quid pro quo we have yet to see. We also do not know as yet what concessions Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg may have won from Cameron in return for his support. A commemorative tea towel perhaps.

Oh, and by the way, to those friends of mine who've told me today they regret voting Lib Dem on Thursday... it's too late, you can't take it back now.

The election: in sci-fi monsters

It has come to my attention that very few political bloggers are intending to compare this election to a science fiction epic.

This is very disappointing indeed and so, in order to redress this sorry state of affairs, I thought I'd write a post on what sci-fi monster each party resembles the most. Vital research I'm sure you'll agree.

Tories: The tripods (War of the worlds)

As ghastly alien invaders intent on obliterating every man, woman and child upon the Earth the Conservatives do indeed resemble the tripods.

The tripods are a remorseless and unfeeling bunch who are repelled by humanity, attempting to literally wipe it from the face of the Earth. The Tories sadly may get their hands on the nuclear button but even their stated intention of dismantling public services stone by stone, job by job bears far too much resemblance to the classic sci-fi monsters.

Weakness: The tripods were brought down by an infection. Simply by breathing the same air as the poor it may well be that the Tory war machine will be brought to a shuddering halt as its immune system cannot cope with the contradiction between a society that isn't bothered by gay people and doesn't give much of a shit about marriage and their own innate reactionary perspectives.

Lib-Dems: Sontarans (Dr Who)

The Sontarans are an invincible race of warrior clones who live for the battle and give very little thought to what they may do after they are victorious.

Seeking to obliterate all in their paths Sontarans are consumed with hatred for all non-Sontaran life forms but despite their fearsome reputation can be disabled with a simple ping pong ball and a good eye. Try this on the next Lib Dem canvasser that comes to your door - trust me, it really works!

A Lib Dem canvasser might say to their candidate: "Sire, allow me the honour of covering the Grove Park estate entirely naked save for my bar charts and this enormous laser pistol."

Greens: Ewoks (Star Wars)

We may look fluffy and harmless but we're armed to the teeth with spears and communist ideology.

Consistently under-estimated by Jedis and evil Empire alike the Ewoks are capable of bringing down even a mighty Death Star down at close range.

In Norwich South Green Party deputy leader Adrian Ramsay (pictured) often dresses in traditional East Anglian clothing before embarking on another round of midnight leafleting.

Labour: Vicki (I.Robot)

Gordon Brown's original pick for Labour's election slogan was "Our logic is irrefutable" which was a nod towards Vicki, the revolutionary super-computer from I.Robot.

After thinking through the logic of her guiding principles she comes to realise that humanity cannot be trusted to look after itself and that, in order to serve her higher purpose, it would be necessary to save humanity from itself.

This generally takes the form of smashing up buildings, devouring its own and shooting at black people, more specifically the superbly sculpted Will Smith. But remember, it's all for our own good.

I have heard that only way to truly destroy the Labour Party would be to storm Number Ten and insert a tube of Nano-bots directly into Gordon Brown's brain. However, I'm fairly sure this constitutes a violation of the Terrorism Act and therefore is not to be attempted on a full stomach.

Next week: the political leaders and kids TV characters.

Cameron on abortion

Party leaders tend to shy away from abortion and leave anything that comes before Parliament to a free vote. The basic necessity of this is that all the parties contain both pro-choice and anti-abortion supporters and the trick is to keep both sides on board to maximise your support.

However, Cameron has decided to come out in favour of reducing the term limits on abortions and restricting the woman's right to choose. Brave, very brave Dave. Actually I mean stupid. Stupid and wrong.

In fact he had a whole raft of reactionary policies designed to suck up to the most illiberal sections of the Christian communities.

So we have a commitment to allow faith schools to handle sex education as they please, leaving teenagers at greater risk from sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies. This comes hot on the heels of preventing legislation ensuring that schools are required to provide sex education as a matter of course.

Speaking to the Catholic Herald he said he would defend faith schools saying that “I think parents who have chosen a faith-based education for their children should have that decision respected. I’m a big supporter of faith schools and I think it’s really important that their rights are protected".

What's so puzzling to me is not that a Tory has reactionary views, one look at My Gay Vote (h/t Bob) shows which way the wind blows in the Conservatives. No, it's all the time and energy Cameron has spent trying to convince everyone that the Tories were no longer the nasty party, that they had left their bigotries behind, and then in the space of the few weeks around the election he has gone out of his way to remind us that they cannot be trusted when it comes to issues like abortion, gay rights or sex education. He's undoing all that good work covering up their reactionary instincts and just because his reactionary instincts couldn't be held in check.

It looks like, if the Tories win this election, we'll be fighting the same old battles all over again - and it's not a prospect I relish to be honest. However, if we have to fight to maintain a woman's right to control her own body then fight we will.

Budget responses

Personally I thought Darling's budget was unsurprising. Some things went up, shock. Budget consistent with the "Don't cut now, cut later" ethos that is Labour's election pose which simultaneously allows them to paint their pending cuts as a good thing because they are simply further away than the cuts of the other parties.

BBC Economics Editor Stephanie Flanders summed up Mr Darling's message as "it's bad, but not as bad as we thought - and not nearly as bad as it would have been under the Conservatives".

The Tory response was equally predictable. They said that Labour nicks ideas off them, which it does. Cameron also said "We need a credible plan to cut the deficit. We need an unleashing of enterprise across the nation. We need a plan to boost employment through radical welfare and school reform." I'm fairly sure this makes no sense, how does laying off civil servants "unleash" enterprise?

Nick Clegg, who apparently leads a party called the "Liberal Democrats" responded in similarly uninspiring fashion. After trying to win a bet by cramming as many cliches as possible into a single paragraph Clegg berated the government's refusal to slash spending by saying that "Labour should stop trying to kid people about this recession. They got us into it. Only by being honest about how we got into this mess will we ever be able to get out."

There were better responses from Ann Pettifor, LEAP and the Greens, who displayed an altogether different kind of realism - one that understands that poverty is not a positive economic tool and that we should be bolstering the economy not undermining it.

Caroline Lucas, Green Party leader, said that "Unlike the other parties, we will argue that increases in taxation for the better-off are required. We will raise taxes fairly and explain them honestly. Labour's plans depend upon wishful thinking about how quickly the economy and tax revenues will recover. They are unwilling to tell you about the cuts and tax increases coming later.

"In contrast, the Green Party will be open about what we would cut, what we would defend, and about the fact that we need to raise taxation from 36% of GDP in 2009-10 to around 45% in 2013. This would halve the gap between government expenditure and revenues by 2013-14 (as the Labour government proposes) and progressively close the gap thereafter."

It's interesting that when the government proposes cuts they never consider waste like ID cards, or Trident they always cut backs in the public sector.

Unions and bosses: two cheeks of the same arse?

Nick Clegg is in overdrive at the moment in his anti-union posturing. Yesterday he came out with this little gem in the House;

"Charlie Whelan and Lord Ashcroft are exactly the same. One is the baron of the trade unions, and the other one is the baron of Belize. Both are bankrolling political parties, both are trying to buy seats."

Now, on one level, I wonder if this is part of a new strategy where he tries to diss everyone in society. First he does most of us by going for union members and the rich then perhaps he'll shout "And I hate cats too, bloody animals!" until he's slated every group with any support in the UK.

But more importantly, is it fair to say that Lord Ashcroft is just the opposite cheek of the same arse to Whelan? Are they "exactly the same"? It doesn't seem right to me.

• Ashcroft made his money exploiting people, Unite gets it money from the people it helps.
• Ashcroft is unaccountable to anyone, Unite is democratic and Whelan is accountable to it.
• Ashcroft is anti-union, Unite is pro-worker.
• Unite pays taxs, Ashcroft dodges them.
• Unite is open about it's money, Ashcroft isn't.
  
• Unite contributes to society, Ashcroft feeds off it.
• Unite is unable to influence Labour policy, Ashcroft is Tory deputy chairman.
  

More than that, if either Unite or Ashcroft had offered to fund the Lib Dems he'd have bitten their hands off. Not much chance of that now though now he's made his badly aimed political cheap shot.

Of course, there are problems with rich people using their vast wealth to bankroll parties to ensure society stays just as unequal as it always has been. The problem with union donations does not lie in the principle however.

It seems to me that the unions give millions to Labour and have seen precious little return on their money. Last year there was a survey of Unite members (pdf) which revealed that most unite members did not think the union should fund Labour, nor did most members even vote Labour, only one in three did, not much higher than those who voted Conservative.

There is a question over whether the enormous donations from the unions to Labour represent the will of the members and/or value for money but it's hardly true to say that Charlie Whelan, who is simply following union policy, is "the same" as Lord Ashcroft.

Gove's fantasies about the Labour-union link

Earlier I had an email from Michael Gove, leading Conservative frontbencher. He didn't just write to me you understand, we're not even on first name terms - but none the less I got the benefit of his thoughts on the union strangle-hold over Labour.

Click the image to enlarge.

I so wish this was true.

However, I think it shows how skewed the Tory political perspective is if they can look at the Labour years and see a government consistently bending to the will of the unions. If only.

Not boycotting those who will not boycott

From time to time little blog spats take place which become heated, personalised disagreements of no interest to anyone outside the blogosphere. I have to say these are the one aspect of the blogging that I have absolutely no time for, and absolutely no interest in. They are tedious in the extreme and only appear political because it is political people who indulge in them. Just this once I'm going to mention one, just to make it clear why I'm not getting involved.

Iain Dale, who is a Tory blogger of some renown, is heavily involved in Total Politics, a magazine that goes out to all sorts of political types. Iain has recently interviewed BNP leader Nick Griffin for the magazine. This gives Griffin a platform and presents him the opportunity to pose as a respectable politician.

This is a bad thing and I wish Iain and Total Politics had not done this, in my view they are playing a dangerous game. However, almost every news source I use has interviewed Griffin and his BNP henchmen at some point so Total Politics is hardly forging new ground here.

However, over at Though Cowards Flinch, they decided this was too much to bear and issued a call for every political blogger to boycott the Total Politics blog awards because the magazine carried the interview. They explicitly do not a call for a boycott of the Guardian, or the BBC or Channel Four News, who have all interviewed Griffin, but target Total Politics because it's small enough to push around and Dale is a Tory.

That's not good enough.

AVPS points out that the boycott achieves the reverse of it's intention; "By advocating action against TP, the TCF comrades have ensured Iain's interview will receive wider circulation than would otherwise be the case. Inadvertently, calling for no platform in this case means Griffin gets a broader platform."

That, in fact, those who issued the call are more interested in emphasising their political differences with a Tory than they are in minimising the amount of publicity the fascists receive. They have ensured that this interview, that they say they wish never happened, is read far more widely than if they had never mentioned it. The success of the boycott call will be judged by how much harm it does a Tory blogger even as it helps the BNP get its message out which, in reality, is a side issue to the call - which is a big part of why I don't trust this initiative.

I don't believe Iain was right to conduct and publish this interview but I've never before heard that it is a principle to no platform or boycott people who don't believe in no platform - I think the idea has always been to try to persuade them they are wrong, something this boycott is not going to do, in fact it will entrench those who oppose no platform in their position.

Blog wars of this kind have nothing to do with real politics even when they work, which this one doesn't. I love Liberal Conspiracy, for example, but its personalised attacks on Iain Dale come across as puerile and tribal, something that I have no interest in and always makes me think less of what is, more generally, an excellent site.

I wont be taking part in the call for boycotting Total Politics. Nor will I be mistaking the fact that I despise Tory ideas for the need to despise individual Tories. The few times I've met Iain Dale I've rather liked him and don't feel the least bit bad about it, I just don't want him running the country is all.

Inventing new principles that we have to boycott people who don't agree with no platform for fascists risks weakening the no platform principle itself. No platform relies upon the idea that we specifically deny a platform to fascists, and only fascists, because of the threat they pose to democratic politics. We do not boycott people because they don't agree with us, at least grown ups don't.

Cheer up Tories!

I saw this screen shot over at Richard Osley's blog the other day. Is it just me or does literally no one in the picture look happy to be there? Some of them look positively enraged.

The woman on the left looks like she's weeping in despair. I guess the Tories aren't feeling quite as confident of victory as they were a few months ago.

Cheer up - only nine weeks to go!

Boris finds crime too time consuming

When Boris Johnson was campaigning for the post of London Mayor he said he was going to take personal charge of crime and policing as it was a top priority. Not halfway through his term and he's stepping down from chairing the Metropolitan Police Authority, his fellow Conservative Kit Malthouse will take over the role.

The Mayor has found the position far too time consuming on top of his other commitments, he has a lucrative newspaper column to write for a start. However, it might be worth reminding 0urselves of what Johnson's manifesto said; "Provide strong leadership: by taking responsibility and chairing the Metropolitan Police Authority and using my influence to tear up red tape and needless form-filling, so we can get more police out on the streets".

Jenny Jones, one of the Green Assembly Members reacted to the news by saying; "The Mayor made a clear commitment to Londoners in his election manifesto to personally take charge of the Police Authority. He has now gone back on his word, realising that being both Mayor and chair of the MPA is just too much for one person to do properly. It was an ill thought out promise, and one that showed his lack of experience.

"The Met are facing difficult times ahead, with budgets being cut in all areas. The chair of the MPA needs to take the time to understand this complex organisation to provide effective leadership. Boris Johnson has not really been involved from the beginning and perhaps feels it is time to stop pretending".

Dee Doocey, the Liberal Democrat policing spokeswoman, also had some sensible comments saying: "This is welcome news as the mayor has never been on top of this incredibly important job. I just hope that, unlike Boris Johnson, Kit Malthouse actually reads and understands the Met's budget and then sets out to immediately reverse the damaging cuts in police numbers which the mayor has for so long denied."

What's worse, making a promise and breaking it or making a stupid promise that you could never keep in the first place? I can't quite make up my mind.

What are the Tory priorities?

There's an interesting piece at the New Statesman site on a survey of Conservative prospective Parliamentary candidates. Of the 141 respondents from winnable seats we get an extremely interesting cross section of what the real Tory Party priorities actually are.

It's not surprising that their top priority is reducing the budget deficit, "cutting red tape", and reducing welfare payments - although I seem to remember the Thatcher government was very keen on reducing the welfare bill but due to their financial mismanagement it went up year on year anyway.

I was surprised to see that 'victory in Afghanistan' was waaaaaay down the list. Interesting, as the only thing their leader seems to have to say about the war is that we need to invest more money in for new choppers, etc. but prehaps there is a strong current of revolutionary defeatism among the Tory ranks that has hitherto
gone undetected.

The fact that they aren't that interested in improving the rail network is not earth shattering news though, although God alone knows they must be among the only people in the country who don't desperately want the rail network sorted.

Second from last? Affordable housing. Well, you know, housing isn't very important is it? Particularly the cost of housing. I don't think any voters worry about that at all do they?

Anyway, I was leaving the best til last - or at least the Tory PPCs were. Vote blue get green? Ummm... nope. Less than ten of the respondents (or 5.6% if you prefer) thought that taking action on climate change should be a priority, and it was ranked lowest in importance of all the areas the candidates were asked about.

The thing is, I don't expect them to actually do anything about it. They say they'll reduce the welfare bill and cut red tape and they wont do that either, but at least pay lipservice to climate change for goodness sake. They might want to consider that quite a lot of people regard it as possibly the most pressing issue facing the world today... not the prospective Tory MPs though obviously.

Be nice to someone day

I suspect the next few months may see me writing quite a few more critical pieces on other parties, their policies, their presentation and, hopefully to a lesser extent, their personnel. As the tiniest attempt to redress the balance I thought I'd set myself the challenge of saying something nice about each of the three main parties.

Labour;

In some ways I still see myself as a natural Labour supporter. It's been quite some time since I voted for them but it was my default position for decades. There are still some members in the party who represent the kind of ideals I admire.

Not just the obvious hard-left examples of Corbyn and co but also some of the less radical politicians who have social democratic politics buried deep in their guts. They tend to be older and lodged into specific positions that make staying in the party worthwhile but they do still exist and I admire their tenacity at hanging on in there - even if I don't envy them.

Lib Dems;

The Liberal Democrats have a less centralised culture than the other parties which is still resistant to Clegg's attempts to make decisions on everyone else's behalf. I think that's far more conducive to democracy than the 'love me or sack me' leadership model of the other parties.

It's also true that both the Lib Dem MPs I've lived under (Bob Russell and David Howarth) have been highly regarded as constituency MPs and have been very strong on issues like civil rights and immigration.

The Conservatives;

Now, well, um, I know this, it's on the tip of my tongue. The thing is... no, that's not it. What about, hold on... conviction politics?

Not Cameron obviously. Some of the others. Mind you, Hitler was a conviction politician so it's probably not that great. Not that they're fascists, I'm not saying that. Doing business with fascists, selling them guns, torture equipment and that does not make you a Nazi. Not at all.

Also blue's a really nice colour, don't you think?