The Bewilderness

All to play for in 2015

The Labour party have not maintained the lead in the polls that they commanded during the years of declining living standards. The parallels with the balance sheet recovery of 1992 are clear. During that election, Labour were also unable to persuade enough voters that they deserved their trust on matters of economic competence. As the recovery has accelerated and living standards have commenced an upward trend, the Conservative party enjoys a tepid recovery in the polls.

This polling trend is, in some ways, indifferent to the European election results or potential upsets in Newark. Since the underlying compass for voters is the economy, psephological upsets magnified by the Westminster bubble are far less influential that real asset bubbles elsewhere. For the Tories, their real risks lie offshore: in China, Europe and the United States. 

Yet, with the economy as ballast, a recovery hits the oddities of the British electoral system. Left-wing Liberal Democrats have tactically defected to Labour in part; anti-Tory distaste trumping devotion to the protest vote. And the protest vote has turned to UKIP: disillusioned with a party now in government. 

The range of outcomes is wide open and complicated by the potential results of the Scottish referendum. That, rather than the European elections, could prove the earthquake that cracks open English politics.

Scottish independence: a single issue country?

I dislike the acronym that could come into play if Scotland voted for independence; this, more than any other element of the charade, disturbs me. I do not wish to live in the Former UK.

When one hears Salmond and the Scottish National Party intone on these matters, there is a hint of complacency. They took a literal view of the Scottish electorate. If you are voting for a Scottish Nationalist party, then you are voting for a positive vote in the forthcoming referendum. The party could not shake its single issue mentality: focusing on independence at a time of economic upheaval and forfeiting trust in their governance. (An example of their complacency is lowering the voting age to 16 in the belief that teenagers are more inclined to support independence. An assumption not borne out by the polls). Parallels with the Tory focus on Europe at a distraction to the greater worries of the economy or health have surely preyed on the mind of the Scottish voter.

The SNP has difficulties in explaining why the risk of independence is worth taking. Instead of governance, questions now focus on how matters will be undertaken in a separate country. The Scottish administration states that everything will be fine and assumes that the rest of the UK will sign for their package withoutr preconditions. Hmmm....Fears of change are becoming entangled with everyday questions of performance. The Scottish voter: Why should we vote for you if you can't solve skoolzanhospitals because you are too busy dreaming of a future with more capability to boss us around

Can they square this circle? 

Events versus the inertia of coalition

The Tories can congratulate themselves on a somnolent meeting where backbenchers and rebels were bored into submission. Even away, the waves of tedium were palpable on dead tree and live panel press. No doubt the bubble appeared lively within the conference event horizon, irrelevant outside.

Even the comparison of Tory discipline with Liberal Democrat handwringing was dispersed by the kind of dispute on associates with the yellow flush. Was Ken Clarke swinging his handbag to keep himself awake? Yet this policy-free zone heralds paralysis. Once the honeymoon of coalition was over, implementing agreements only take you so far. Breaking left has only rendered the Liberal Democrats look irresponsible whilst clinging protectively to the deficit reduction renders the Tories impotent as the tsunami breaks about them.

If the question "what can we do?" is posed, the answer appears to be all the wrong things. Further QE, more regulation and the greenest job-destroying policy on the planet. Something will flip and flop and flip again. Politicians always do and for this coalition: the events will keep on coming. A wonderful experiment: change versus the inertia of coalition. Maybe they will call themselves a National government.

Tory on Tory torture in the Star Chamber

The Liberal Democrat conference highlighted stresses and strains within the coalition. Yet, whilst this sideshow of irrelevance fed media lust, did the Tories tighten their grip on government? The star chamber, that body devoted to the bloodletting of the red line, has been beefed up wit Caroline Spelman and Eric Pickles. Both are viewed as enthusiastic cutters and austerians. Apart from Danny Alexander not one Liberal Democrat has made a seat though, given the opposition of Fox and IDS, the room will mainly deal with Tory on Tory action.

The star chamber has been negotiating cuts for months but will now become a final court (of appeal, if you are an optimist) for the ministers who wish to feed the maw. 

Call in the IMF now

I watched the Chancellors debate with some unease; the unease that one always feels when the statists get round a table. Why am I not surprised that they did more to agree than disagree? When George Osborne robbed New Labour of its rhetoric, clothing himself in the guise of the "many" rather than the "few", I knew that the cycle of crossdressng was complete.

A faint echo of fiduciary duty is not the same as a debate about liberty and the size of government. The ideological roots of popular capitalism had been replaced by token managerialism. And was the populist Vince Cable, his stance redolent of the shallow roots within the Liberal Democrats, channel MacMillan in his reference to the "family silver"?

On reflection, he annoyed me most of all. For he was the most reactionary, perhaps due to his age, harking back to some golden era of Butskellite consensus: the last time we got into this farce.

But we sat three statists who have to cut the state back. A crisis seems inevitable.

Labour tries to outflank

The Labour Party have decided to outflank the Tory party in the “masochist” strategy. Liam Byrne, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has conducted a spending round that includes cuts to frontline services.

We know what their approach will be in terms of the media message: Yes, we have to make cuts which include frontline services, but this is necessary to defend frontline services. A complex and paradoxical message that could not resonate without difficulty. For unknown reasons, the electorate seem to view spending cuts as unpopular measures. Will this eat into Labour's poll ratings?

Both parties will be catching up with the market demands and an angry electorate. The Tories could do worse than examine the psychological reactions to change.

This 'rotten' Parliament ends in gerrymandering

The government and the palace are preparing for a hung Parliament: just in case. For this rotten Parliament and this 'rotten election' is defined by three gerrymandering parties, two of whose policies have some residual merit.

The Liberal Democrats favour a proportional system that would provide them with more seats and perhaps a 'kingmaker' role. The Tories aim for a reduction of seats within a first past the post system, redressing the imbalance that favours the Labour Party.

The prize for rotten behaviour is handed to Brown and the Labour Party. Masquerading as reformer, they adopt the only electoral system that will extend their predominance in Parliament by accentuating their voting strength.

A hung Parliament may be the worse outcome, offering the opportunity to perpetuate this political class, all of whom deserve to be turfed out. The scum wish to alter the keys in favour of incumbency.

The Tories and the Chilcot Inquiry

Here is a conceit worthy of further consideration by the Chilcot Inquiry.

The reality is that Iraq was hotly debated in Whitehall, Westminster and far beyond. Up to a million people marched in protest; the cabinet backed war; and, after a tempestuous debate, the House of Commons voted for the invasion.

That majority depended on the Conservatives. Mr Blair’s warnings about WMD were almost modest against those of some senior Tories. William Hague, now the shadow foreign secretary, spoke of scores of hidden nuclear sites. The Liberal Democrats opposed the invasion, but still signed up to the conventional wisdom that Saddam had unconventional weapons.

The Tories were not hoodwinked by Mr Blair. They had their own briefings from intelligence chiefs. So it seems at best strange that an investigation into whether Mr Blair exaggerated the threat excludes questions about why the opposition made the same mistake.

The role of the official Opposition deserves greater scrutiny from the Chilcot Inquiry. Did their political statements match up with the intelligence they were briefed? Was that intelligence briefing the same as that given to Blair and did the same errors creep in to its presentation? There is scope for further examination here.

Labour and Tories converge on populism

When a government debates the measures needed to solve a 'problem' exacerbated by its own possibilities, my ears prick up. The 'problem' that Labour bangs the drum on is social inequality, though this was never promoted when they were in “kiss the rich” mode. They have switched to “eat the rich” by debating radical reforms of the tax system that they distorted for their political benefit.

The debate around social justice and tacking inequality is taken at face value in the Grauniad article. Yet the answers given pile an oppressive burden on Labour's poll ratings: more council tax, capital gains tax on houses, a wealth tax. This is electoral suicide, raising taxes at a time of economic depression and penalising the swing voters on which your small chance of recovery rests.

The article hints that the measures undertaken are designed to outflank the Tories by depending upon the 'politics of envy'. This will require some high thresholds on the measures given. Otherwise, the middle class will be affected. This has been a staple of Labour's strategy over the last year.

Another has been catching up with the populist measures of Osborne. Now that he has stated no salaries above the Prime Minister's will be allowed without Treasury approval (his contribution to the localist agenda), Harman is considering more transparency and control. The policies may differ but both Conservatives and Labour are tying down high public sector salaries.

As this government peters out, the withdrawal of Cameron from his radical agenda is highlighting some convergence in both parties as they seek to draw support from disaffected former voters. Why do they deserve a vote?

Cameron's conference: matters rest

The Irish voted for the Lisbon Treaty by two-thirds, a result that is dispiriting for democrats in Europe. Integrationists and federalists are cock-a-hoop! After unspecified threats to Ireland's status and an unequal campaign marred by establishment agitprop, the referendum was won because of economic depression.

The cri de coeur of the federalist was an undermining of sovereignty. How could one country undermine a consensus of 24? The same utterances are now directed against Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. Many of the institutional changes have already been put in place illegally, establishing facts on the ground, prior to the final ratification of the treaty.

David Cameron must hope that 'President Blair' materialises: a god-send to a Eurosceptic challenge. Look how a vote for change in Britain is now nullified by Brussels. Labour broke its promise so that the party could extend its power via the European Union.

Whatever pressure is stoked by the media and Eurosceptics, Cameron will not clarify. The Tory leader wishes to keep his options open: a challenge to an EU shaped by Lisbon or acceptance of the new settlement. Either scenario is possible.

A push for a referendum whatever the outcome is unrealistic:

The Tory leader faced renewed demands from his party's right-wing. Bill Cash, the veteran eurosceptic MP, said: "This is a fundamental constitutional principle. David Cameron committed himself when he said he would not let matters rest there. That means a referendum in any event.

"Eighty-eight per cent of people demand a referendum on Lisbon and they have a right to have their say."

Declan Ganley, leader of the Libertas party which led the campaign for an Irish 'No' vote, told The Sunday Telegraph: "David Cameron must now feel the hand of history upon on his shoulder. He has now to decide whether he wants to be a great leader by committing to a referendum or just another prime minister with broken promises.

The decision to call a referendum acquires different dimensions post-Lisbon. Europe as an issue equals devolution. It is a low priority and any party could institute changes without difficulty. Imagine Cameron calling a vote after attempting to negotiate in good faith with Europe. Repatriation is not permitted so the Tories opt for a vote on membership itself, and withdrawal to EFTA. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party are forced to declare their hand as it is settled again for a generation, either way.

This is my hopeful scenario of not letting matters rest. But, events may not play out as I would like.