What have we learnt from the Party Conferences?

At the end of the party conference season we have now heard all three parties' visions for the future, but have we actually learnt anything new?

Clegg the idealist

The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg did a good impression of someone who wants to be Prime Minister and to be fair his party did present some good ideas.

The problem of course is that Clegg will never be able to get the wider British public to listen to him. The irony is that if they did listen a lot of people would probably agree with his sentiments.

For example, in his conference speech he said:"I want to live in a country where prejudice, insularity and fear are conquered by the great British traditions of tolerance, pluralism and justice.

Where political life is not a Westminster village freak show, but open, accessible and helpful in people's everyday lives."

Fair enough. The problem is achieving all of this and it is very easy to make grand pledges when you know there is no pressure on actually having to deliver on them.

The future's Brown?

So if the Lib Dems can not be taken seriously, can Labour? The answer appears to be just about, but with Gordon Brown in charge they still look a doomed party, destined to return to opposition.

It is true that Brown gave a good speech at Labour's conference (by his standards) but many Labour activists still came away with lingering doubts about their chances of winning the next election.

The Prime Minister's biggest flaw remains his inability to effectively communicate with the public, and even his articulate wife's introduction could not change this.

Sarah Brown introduced Gordon as "my hero" and as the tired looking Scotsman sauntered up to the lectern, it is fair to say that he did not look particularly heroic.

Brown quite simply looks exhausted at the moment, no surprise given his busy workload but sadly today impressions are all-important and Brown looks a beaten man.

In terms of his speech, the stand out mentions include the referendum promise on electoral reform, something that will have cheered many Labour MPs, putting teenage mothers in a "network of supervised homes" and his pledges on social care.

The teenage mothers supervision idea is supposed to give young mothers help in bringing up their children but it did sound strange when it was announced.

If you were a Conservative you could use it as an example of too much government interference in our daily lives, but although a little crude it may have some merit in theory.

The best speech of the conference however, was made by Peter Mandelson, the come-back king. Mandelson declared the election "up for grabs" but admitted that Labour would be underdogs going into it. A fair assessment perhaps, but it will be an uphill struggle for Labour.

Cameron gets personal

The final round of conferences was hosted by the Conservatives and it is clear why they are favourites for the next election. Whether or not you like David Cameron he is definitely the most charismatic of the three leaders.

Cameron's speech itself was light on policy, but what it did contain was a glimpse into the man himself. One of the main criticisms of Cameron is that he is too slick and people do not trust him because of this.

The biggest challenge then for Cameron is to present to voters a man who is capable of being Prime Minister and during the conference he went some way towards doing this.

One of his key messages was that government needs to decrease in size, and for a country trying to make savings this should be an appealing idea. At the heart of his speech though were his attempts to try and portray what kind of man he is.

Significantly he spoke of the death of his son Ivan earlier this year which he said had made him think about whether or not he wanted to carry on as leader. One would have to be very callous to doubt the truth of these words.

Cameron left the tough policy announcements to George Osborne and the cuts he announced were a big risk.

For example, 25% off the defence budget and a one-off pay freeze in 2011 for all public sector workers, (excluding frontline forces and those earning less than £18,000) are definitely not policies you would describe as vote winners.

However by announcing cuts now, the Tories are trying to show that they are up-front about what they will do in government. Osborne used the phrase "we're all in this together" and they have certainly taken a gamble by announcing cuts as savage as this.

One of the biggest problems facing Cameron is his past. He and his shadow-chancellor George Osborne both went to Eton and this is a fact that unsettles many voters.

If two Etonians are at the top of Government in 2010, then what does this say about this country's progress in terms of social mobility?

To digress for a moment, my highlight of the Tory conference has to be when William Hague introduced the Conservative MPs onto the stage.

It looked like a school prize day when all of the clever people are grouped together in a bizarre freakish line-up. This was unsettling enough, but when Bono appeared on screen things got even stranger. Is there nothing this man won't do? A rare comedy moment in a month of tedium.

Anyway, the Tories may well win the next election but unlike New Labour in 1997 there is not as yet a healthy enthusiasm for them as a fresh party with new ideas. If they want to make sure of a big majority in the election this has to change.

A hung parliament would be a bad result for everyone. A country in crisis needs a strong government, and Cameron has a tough challenge ahead of him to try and convince the British public that his party offers real change.

Brown will not go down without a fight, but in all honesty the next election looks like it will go to the Conservatives. By what margin though remains to be seen and complacency could be Cameron's biggest weakness.

Let's have a proper debate about the NHS

Conservative MEP Dan Hannan, has caused a political storm by openly criticising the NHS on America's Fox News.

Hannan called the NHS a "60-year mistake" and labelled it as the result of something planned during the war. He then moved onto the US saying:

"I find it incredible that a free people living in a country dedicated and founded in the cause of independence and freedom can seriously be thinking about adopting such a system in peacetime and massively expanding the role of the state when there's no need."

Political gamesmanship

David Cameron the Conservative leader dismissed Hannan as 'eccentric' and made it clear that these views were not reflected in Tory policy. He then added that "the Conservative Party stands four square behind the NHS."

Andy Burnham the Health Secretary went further calling Hannan 'unpatriotic', but then also adding: "What has happened within the last 48 hours is what Cameron has feared most because it lays bare the Tories' deep ambivalence towards the NHS."

This does seem a little cheap, seeing as most people admit that Cameron is committed to the NHS. Particularly considering that Cameron's own family has benefitted greatly from NHS services, when his late son Ivan was cared for.

Labour understandably have used this occasion to launch an attack on the Tories, but saying that Conservative policy is anti-NHS is perhaps political gamesmanship gone too far.

Opening up debate

Can you ever imagine a British politician on either front-bench speaking their mind quite like Hannan has? Whether or not you agree with him, what is certain is that he has opened up a debate on the future of the NHS, something that is long overdue.

The NHS is without doubt a wonderful national institution, but one that is fatally flawed. A National Health Service that is free at the point of delivery and serves everyone is a terrific ideal, but is sadly one that will always struggle to be fulfilled.

There has been much talk of NICE over the past few days, the independent body that approves treatments and medicines for use on the NHS. This is of course done on the basis of need but mostly on cost, just as any government department makes its budget choices.

Investment

This then inevitably means that some patients will miss out on their treatment of choice, because it is just too expensive sometimes to pay for them. As time has moved on, treatments and technologies have become more and more expensive, so this problem will not go away.

Labour have poured unprecedented amounts of money into the NHS, and they have made some progress, but GPs now work less hours than they used to and are paid more than ever. Surely this is an indication that not everything in the garden is rosy.

Outdated model

Political blogger Iain Dale gives his take as to why the NHS is constantly struggling to meet people's needs:

"It is because we are trying to make a 1940s healthcare system cope with the demands of a 21st century society. We cling to the idea that healthcare is free at the point of delivery, while conveniently ignoring the truth that in many cases it isn't, and it never can be. And yet at the same time we prevent those who are happy to pay for their care from doing so without then being banned from having NHS treatment. Until we come to terms with the fact that a 1940s structure can never service 21st century needs, we're not going to get anywhere." (read the full blog post here).

This really is the fundamental problem. How can we possibly expect the NHS to serve everyone equally when its model is outdated? Politicians need to start debating this issue, and crucially without playing party politics with it.

The NHS is not a political football to be kicked around by each party, and anyone who has had anything to do with it should have massive respect for what it, as an institution represents.

Problems lie ahead

In my personal experience, the staff in NHS hospitals are excellent, but the problem is that there are just not enough of them. This needs to change quickly, because as our population gets older and fatter the NHS will be more stretched than ever.

Dan Hannan may well be a political maverick that not many people agree with, but sometimes it takes eccentric individuals to stand up and speak their mind, in order to open up debates that no-one really wants to have. The NHS does its best, but it could be so much better.

So if we are going to make changes let's start making them now before things get even worse, because if we wait too long the NHS could cease to exist out of necessity, and nobody really wants that.



(You can watch the Dan Hannan Fox interview here)

Norwich North by-election result weakens Gordon Brown further

On Friday the Conservatives secured a 7,348 seat majority in Norwich North, making Chloe Smith the youngest MP at 27.

This used to be a safe seat for Labour but the way in which Dr. Ian Gibson was dropped by his party, meant that in reality Labour never had any chance of retaining this seat.

Like many MPs Dr. Gibson was caught up in the expenses scandal, for claiming for a flat in which his daughter lived rent-free before selling it to her for half its market value.

Regret

There is little doubt that Dr. Gibson would have regretted this, but his constituents still valued him greatly as an MP and did not want to lose him.

The decision then from Gordon Brown to tell Dr. Gibson he would not be allowed to stand as an MP at the next election, was not welcomed by the people of Norwich North.

One could argue that what Gibson did was not any worse than what other MPs did who kept their jobs. So why was he singled out? If the Labour leadership was connected to its grass roots then this decision would never have been made.

Brown attacked

The Labour MP Barry Sheerman, has today decided to launch an attack on Gordon Brown saying he had until "this summer to show he's got the capability to do it." Shearman was at the forefront of previous calls for Brown to go so this is no real surprise, but calls for the PM's head will not go away.

Gordon Brown has failed as a leader and any Labour supporter must surely be despairing at the mess their party is in. Put simply there is no chance that Gordon Brown can lead the Labour party into a general election win in 2010.

So why are Labour persevering with Gordon Brown? It could be that no-one else in the party wants to be put their neck out in what is a difficult time for the country.

Defeatist

If they wait until after the likely election defeat, then the successor will be able to start again with a fesh slate, something they could not do now. But this is surely a depressing way of going about politics, when personal ambition becomes more important than sorting the country out.

By sleep-walking into an election defeat Labour are leaving the country in a vulnerable state. A lame-duck government is no good for anyone, especially when the economy is in such a dire state.

What is needed now is a general election, and the sooner the better. Britain needs a fresh start under a fresh government.

Like many long serving governments, New Labour has now run its course and change is needed urgently.

Phone hacking scandal taps into the political world

It emerged this week that The News of the World had allegedly been tapping celebrities, politicians and public officials' phones.

The reaction of the UK media (generally) was one of shock, with John Prescott appearing on almost every TV channel and radio station, clearly outgraged that someone may have read his texts. It baffles me that Prescott always has to shout when he is speaking into a microphone.

Of course it is not a good thought that newspapers have been conducting surveillance on people but to many within the industry, this news will not have come as a complete surprise.

Murky practices

The paparazzi and tabloid journalists always seem to know where celebrities will be, that is how the magazine Heat survives. Just think, without Heat we would not know what Cheryl Cole looks like without make-up! Dark days indeed.

It could be suggested that the reason they know the whereabouts of celebrities, is because they have intercepted their calls. But wait, all journalists have complete integrity don't they?

As an aspiring journalist myself, I believe that most do but there are bound to be a few rotten apples at the bottom of the barrel and it is these apples that often get the juiciest stories. So the temptation to play fast and loose with ethics must be tempting.

Political

This 'scandal' also has a political side to it. The Guardian is a left leaning newspaper that would presumably not want the Conservatives to be elected. Andy Coulson, David Cameron's director of Communications, is the former News of the World editor who resigned following the jailing of one of his journalists for phone hacking.

It could be suggested that The Guardian is trying to damage Cameron's reputation by painting Coulson as a man with no morals. The paper would probably answer this, by saying that the story is in the public interest and Coulson needs to be made an example of.

The problem at the moment is that there appears to be no hard evidence linking the former editor with the hacking. If this evidence does come out then expect Cameron to fire Coulson pretty quickly, but until then it looks like his job is safe.

McBride comparison

The reason Cameron is loathed to get rid of Coulson, is because he is extremely good at his job. However, with an election less than a year away the Tories will not want their well cultivated public image to be damaged, so even a hint of something fishy could see Coulson face the axe.

On the Labour side MPs have been trying to compare Coulson with 'Mr. nasty', Damien McBride (http://wilson-whatsitallabout.blogspot.com/2009/04/damian-mcbride-gives-gordon-brown.html) who lost his government job after trying to smear top Conservatives via an email campaign.

At the moment though Coulson does not quite measure up to McBride. In McBride's case the evidence of wrong-doing was produced and he swiftly resigned. It is understandable for Labour to play this card, but it is not as yet a particularly strong argument.

Identification

Another strand to this saga is the decision so far by The Guardian not to identify the journalists involved in the hacking. MPs will find this hard to take, particularly as the newspapers had no quarms about identifying MPs who allegedly fiddled their expenses.

If the newspaper has names then there is no reason not to publish them. If journalists are hacking phones then arguably, they deserve to be exposed by the press.

It will be interesting to see whether celeberity scandals feature less in newspapers over the coming weeks.

The worrying rise of the BNP

Last night the British National Party won their first two seats in the European parliament.


Many mainstream politicians looked shocked when this happened, but in truth this has been coming for some time. In a country where the first past the post system means that the big parties focus so much of their energy on chasing floating voters, the BNP have filled a void.

One could argue that both the low turn-out and the disgust shown at MPs' expenses could mean that many of the BNP and other smaller parties' votes were merely a show of protest and would not be repeated in a general election.

BNP play on fear

However, the fact that a racist organisation like the BNP is getting any support at all is deeply worrying. In an increasingly multicultural nation, the BNP have successfully played on people's fears over immigration and job losses.

In somwhere like Barnsley for example, BNP support shot up from 8% in 2004 to 17% in 2009. This is a classic example of a place that feels forgotten by mainstream politics. Businesses are closing down, people have lost their jobs and it is little surprise that voters are left feeling frustrated.

For Nick Griffin the BNP's leader, it has been so easy to win followers. By dropping references to his party's racist beliefs, and making dissatisfied white people believe he is the only person standing up for them the BNP have become more successful than many would have ever believed.

Debate

Under Griffin, the BNP have become the most successful British fascist party ever, surpassing Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and the fearsome National Front (of which Griffin is a former member), and this is no accident.

For too long politicians from all three main parties have chosen to ignore the rise of the BNP, suggesting that openly engaging with them would give them free publicity, but this has been firmly proved to be the wrong decision.

The Church of England should be applauded for intervening and telling people not to vote for the party, but in reality this had little effect. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats need to wake up to the fact that the BNP are here to stay. It is time to engage with them in debate.

Nick Griffin has been very clever in masking what the BNP are really about, but by engaging in debate with his party, the mainstream parties can retake the initiative.

Devious

Opening up a debate over the BNP's small-minded policies would show them up for what the party really is; racist bigots who happen to wear suits. This needs to happen without delay.

One of the party's new MEPs Andrew Brons, mentioned nothing of his racist beliefs in his acceptance speech last night. This is the deviousness of the far-right, they now know how to look acceptable and must be exposed.

In modern Britain there should be no room for any racist party, and politicians need to wake up to the danger that our democracy faces from hate-filled groups like the BNP; before it is too late.

British politics is dragged through the mud as Cameron takes the lead

First it was Labour's turn, then it was the Conservatives and today it is the Liberal Democrats' turn to have their reputations dragged through the mud.

However, entertaining as it has been to see so many politicians embarrassed, this does no good at all to British politics. At a time when the domestic (and global) economy is at a standstill, it is a pity that Prime Minister's questions today, was spent squabbling over who paid back what and who claimed for this?

The Tories expenses have been arguably the most embarrassing claims yet. Douglas Hogg's moat cleaning has to get the prize for 'most original expense claimed' with Oliver Letwin's claim for a leaking pipe under his tennis court coming a close second.

Cameron takes the initiative

Despite this though, David Cameron has somehow come out of the last few days on top. Yesterday he took the initiative by saying that Tory MPs who refused to pay back "excessive" claims would not be Conservative MPs for much longer. This was a firm stance and perhaps as a result, the government were left scrambling to keep up.

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears held up a cheque for £13,332, money she made from dodging capital gains tax (although she did not break any rules), and Gordon Brown claimed to have cross-party support for his new plans to review all expenses claims going back four years.

It was later revealed that this cross-party support was not fully agreed although it was discussed, and that Brown appeared to have been caught on the hop. The Tories have been just as bad as Labour in terms of their abuse of the system, but by failing to act sooner Brown has been left behind.

Lame duck government

Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader, described today's government as a "lame duck" government, while speaking on the BBC's Daily Politics, and in today's Prime Minister's questions this was all too telling. Brown was unable to think on his feet while Cameron was offering up new ideas.

One of his ideas today was not a new one, the idea to cut the number of MPs, but it is one that could capture public opinion. This is the key to the middle ground right now, and the ailing Labour government have shown themselves to be way out of touch.

Of course this happens to most governments on the way out but at a time when the economic situation is so dire, the country needs strong leadership. Brown is a good politician, but crucially he appears to be losing the support of his party, and when that happens, as it did for Margaret Thatcher in 1990, there is only one way to go, and that is towards the exit.

A challenge to Brown?

David Cameron has used the expenses row to put himself in the shop window as a future leader, and Brown has not used it at all. It will be very interesting to see how the summer pans out. Labour MPs will certainly be getting twitchy, but just who would be willing to stand against Gordon Brown?

Alan Johnson could be a good option, and if the economy starts to pick up, there might just be hope for Labour, but Brown is a survivor and will not go down without a fight. Anyone wanting to deal a knock-out blow to Brown had better be prepared for a scrap, and Johnson may well think better of it.

This week will not be looked back on as one of British politics finest hours, but hopefully it will lead to positive changes to the MPs' expenses system. It is just a shame that so much damage was done before things could begin to be mended.

Labour look doomed as more expenses claims are revealed

Things are not looking good for Gordon Brown.

First he posted a bizarre Youtube video about reforming expenses, where his strange "smile" sparked ridicule (even from his own party). Then his plans were watered down in Parliament, and then he lost a vote on Gurkhas rights to live in the UK.

But it did not end there. This morning the Daily Telegraph published further details about Labour MPs' expenses, including embarrassing information about Gordon Brown himself.

According to the paper, the Prime Minister paid his bother Andrew Brown, a senior executive at EDF Energy, £6,577 over 26 months, for cleaning services at his Westminster flat. Not only this but Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary was said to have over-claimed for council tax and mortgage bills.

Bad impression

To date, there are now thirteen members of the cabinet whose expenses claims are under investigation, so not exactly confidence inspiring then? The real problem though, is the impression this gives. The public are unlikely to have confidence in a government that can not even keep their own affairs in order.

It is too cynical to say that all politicians are greedy, thieving and dishonest, because this is simply not true. However, what is true is that the current system of MPs' expenses is now defunct and must now be cast aside and reformed.

However, Brown's Youtube video was not the way to do this. By not consulting his own party, let alone parliament the Prime Minister made himself look distinctly amateur. One has to ask the question, just who is advising dear old Gordon at the moment? Whoever it is, they are not doing a good job.

Ridicule

Vince Cable said it so aptly some time ago, when he said that Brown had "gone from Stalin to Mr. Bean". The days of the Iron Chancellor are now long gone, and Brown's reputation is now in tatters.

The biggest threat then to Brown is ridicule. Under the media spotlight, Brown does not measure up to modern day standards and appearing on Youtube does his image no favours whatsoever. He has always paled in comparison to Tony Blair, but now even more so.

Change of leader?

Another big problem for the Prime Minister is his own party. Many of them will be feeling nervous about losing their seats at the next election, and as a result a change of leader is probably already being discussed.

There have been rumours of Charles Clarke running against Brown in a leadership contest, but a move to change the leader now would make the Labour party look even more disorganised, and crucially even less electable.

The real winners in all of this are the Conservatives. They have not had to serve up any new policies or ideas to profit from this mess, and in PMQs on Wednesday the Tories did not ask any questions at all about policy.

However, the Tories must be careful not to look too cocky. There is little doubt that they are favourites to win the next election, but they can not act like they think they will win. Similarly on expenses, the Conservatives almost certainly have skeletons in the closet, so playing that card would again be ill-advised. The name Derek Conway springs to mind.

The end is nigh

Gordon Brown may yet make a comeback, but with unemployment rising and the economy still flagging, it is hard to see how he can. Even if his government do have some good ideas between now and the election, they may well be overshadowed by trouble at the top.

The next few months will be very interesting. Will Brown remain as leader? My guess would be yes, but only because there is no real alternative. No MP with serious leadership intentions would want to lead under today's circumstances, and not many people would blame them.

Twelve years is a long time for any government to be in power, and the flame of new Labour now looks to have gone out. Sadly for Brown though, he has been left holding the fire extinguisher.

Damian McBride gives Gordon Brown a headache

The news broke on Saturday, that one of Gordon Brown's closest aides had been sending vicious emails meant to 'smear' top Conservative figures. Shock, outrage, despair!

Of course though, one may say that these kinds of dirty tricks are nothing new in politics and that we should all move on and talk about something far more serious such as the worsening economy.

However, the fact that the Prime Minister allowed such an individual to work so closely with him is surely a worry. In these emails, McBride allegedly attacked the mental health of George Osborne's wife, which is surely below the belt.

There is indeed no room for this kind of 'smear' in politics but the Tories should be careful not to take too high a moral line when criticising McBride's actions. This may just come back to haunt them.

During the continued row on expenses both parties have resisted talking about allegations in the house of commons in too much detail, both in the knowledge that they probably have more skeletons lurking in the closet.

With someone like Peter Mandelson around, the Tories should be very weary indeed of appearing to openly attack Brown's government too veraciously.

Oleg Deripaska is a name that should be remembered, especially by Osborne. In this case Osborne tried to smear Mandelson but not surprisingly the shadow Chancellor came out worse.

Both parties of course have their failings but the Damian McBride issue is not really party political. Does it for example, highlight a worrying culture at the heart of government, where smearing has become acceptable, no matter what the truth acually is?

Certainly it is worrying that Gordon Brown kept McBride so close, but does this paint Brown as a bad judge of character or merely ignorant? Neither of these assumptions are probably true so why was McBride able to do what he did?

The answer may be that McBride did what he did, because he thought his boss wanted him to do it. This is worrying, because if true it suggests that Brown promoted a culture of 'smear' against his opponents.

This is perhaps too cynical and Brown if nothing else does at least appear to be a sincere politician. It was then to many people's astonishment that he refused to personally apologise for the emails.

True, the PM did not send the emails himself so he is not personally responsible, but in most organisations the buck stops with the man at the top and this issue could have had a line drawn under it far earlier had Brown apologised immediately.

Brown did send hand written letters to all of the top tories who had been smeared, expressing his "deep regret" but the word sorry was not included. This is no real surprise but a small sorry could perhaps have eased the pressure on number 10.

So here we are on Wednesday and the story is still in the news. Who knows, maybe it will distract people from their economic woes and they will go out and spend some money.

Every cloud.....