Today saw the Conservative party conference come to an end, the first party conference to be held in the city by a party in power. There were some interesting announcements as might be expected for a newish government, including the proposal to end universal child benefit and speculation that a married couples allowance would be reintroduced to help offset some of the unfairness of the change.
Meanwhile last week saw the biennial Labour party conference in Manchester which included the announcement of Ed Miliband as leader, beating his older brother David by 0.1%. David did not seem to take the defeat graciously, particular as he challenge Harriet Harman for applauding Ed when he claimed the Iraq war was wrong. This was proof that Ed was the correct choice for the party: David, throughout the campaign, often failed to answer serious questions and kept a very safe, Blairite line on policy and announcements. Winning the party nomination requires a person to enthuse the grassroots, but all David seemed concerned with was continuing failed New Labour ideology. While Ed may well move back to the centre now he has won the nomination, he demonstrated he understood where the party was now and where the problems lie. We may have an interesting few years ahead.
The term historic has been bandied about too much over the past few years. I am off the opinion that something can only be historic once it has happened and we understand the full impact of the event. The election of the first African American to the position of US present may well be an historic event and it is interesting to note down our feeling while it is happening, but history will often portray a different version to what actually happened.
I have had to read an awful amount of nonsense from Conservatives and Liberal hawks over the past few months telling me that McCain, and not Obama will win the election (although to be fair both backtracked before election day). Let this be a lesson to everyone who blogs! It is easy to give glib partisan statements about current events and they can come back to haunt you.
Commiserations to John McCain. The guy is a true gentlemen who also deserved to be president and would have been better placed to lead the country after the 9/11 attacks. Unfortunately, he was not able to be himself during this campaign after taking some very bad advice from his campaign manager. If he had the result would have been closer.
I believe Obama's election, despite his inexperience and liberal voting record, is a direct consequence of George W Bush's failures. Finally we have something to thank him for. I do have one worry though. The expectations of the Obama presidency are now so high it may be impossible to meet them, particularly as the previous incumbent has left the country in such a mess. In 1997, I remember such a mood of optimism pervading Britain after Blair routed the Tory government of 18 years. This was eventually to be dissipated over ten wasted years as Blair held the mandate but failed to deliver, culminating in him bombing a defenceless third world country so his rich American friends could appropriate its economic wealth. I hope when Obama met Blair earlier this year he did not take his advice to seriously. If he did, he could put Americans off politics forever.
I do worry about the BBC sometimes. Last Thursday Frank Luntz held one of his controversial focus groups on Newsnight to discover what floating voters think of the main party leaders. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. For some bizarre reason, however, they decided to hold it in Manchester.
Frank Luntz justifies it with the following opening:
"If you examine the election results from the last 50 year, the Conservatives could win the south, but still not win the election; Labour could take the north but not form the government; it's places like Manchester which make the difference(my emphasis)"
He then goes on to say that the focus group contains left-leaning voters from Manchester, presumably in order to discern whether they are any more likely to vote Conservative and hence form a path for the Tories to government.
The problem with this is his opening statement is poppycock. As Mike Smithson points out on Political Betting:
For me the programme was a massive missed opportunity - Luntz cannot come cheap and these things are costly to set up and make (his emphasis). Yet they chose to hold amongst existing and wavering Labour supporters in Manchester where, we were told, all the participants came from. If the producers had checked they would have discovered that there’s not a seat in city in the list of the top 200 Conservative targets. The main action will be two LAB-LD scraps. In Withington Labour will be hoping to regain the seat lost last time and Manchester Gorton could go on an 8.25% swing. Surely they should have found a location more relevant to the CON-LAB battle?
Anthony Wells has also previously noted in an article from 2005 (reproduced in comment 160 of this Political Betting article - I cannot find the original)
The increasing geographical concentration of the Conservative vote is more of a problem, while boundaries changes mean that the number of seats in the South is increasing and falling in the North, the Tories cannot win with the South alone. At the next election the Conservatives are likely to need about 115 seats to gain a majority - on my current calculations only 47 or so of their most winnable seats will be in the South East, South West, London or Eastern regions. The regions with the most target seats will likely be the North-West and West Midlands, both regions where the Tories went backwards at the election. The Conservatives cannot win without turning round their position in the North. While the undeniable fact that the Conservatives are irrelevant in many of the major cities - Manchester, Sheffield and Liverpool for example - is not a great problem, the Conservatives can easily win without any MPs in these cities, they do need urban seats in places like Birmingham, Bolton, Leeds and Dudley.
The reality is that it is nonsense to suggest, as many media outlets including the BBC and ITV do, that Manchester is an important target for the Conservatives at the next election. I assume when political journalists for these organisations hear the word "North", they automatically default to the only place in t'North they know - Manchester - and claim that it then becomes an important battleground for the Tories. The reality is that Manchester, politically at least, is irrelevent to who will form the next government.
Which makes it even more puzzling why Labour are holding so many of their conferences in there. In 2006, they decided to move away from Blackpool to host their conference in the city, followed up this year and they plan to be there again in 2010. Presumably the excellent conference facilities are the main reason they are holding so many conferences there, but one cannot help feeling they are missing a trick. In the US for example, the Democrats recent conference venue in Denver, Colorado and the Republicans venue of St Pauls-Minneapolis, Minnesota were picked due to their importance as swing states. Although the political map has changed somewhat from when these venues were chosen, with Minnesotta and nearby target Wisconsin looking like solid Democratic territory in 2008, the Democrats choice of Denver looks set to carve a path to the White House using current opinion polls; wins for BarackObama in the Kerry states plus Iowa, Colorado and nearby New Mexico give him 273 electoral votes, three more than the 270 required.
The Conservatives will also be hosting their conference in the Manchester next year. If Anthony Wells above is to be believed, Leeds might have been a more sensible choice provided they could find a conference facility in the region up to the required standard.
Birmingham hosted a two-hour cabinet meeting today, the first time the British Government has met outside London or Chequers since 1921.
In fact, according to the Telegraph, the leader of the opposition was also in Birmingham today to make a Panorama programme. It has not been nearly ninety years since the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister were both in Birmingham though; this event last happened earlier this year and appears to be slightly more common than previously thought.
What is the reason for the cabinet meeting being held outside London? I think privately Labour realise just how damaging the Conservatives decision to hold their 2008 Autumn conference in the city could be to them electorally. While Labour will have held two conferences in Manchester, by the time the Conservative party conference takes place later this month, they have yet to visit Brum except for the Spring Conference earlier this year.
I do not think it is a bad thing for the government to get outside the capital. Indeed, one of my biggest complaints about the way the UK is run is the fact that our over centralized country is run by diktat by a Westminster bubble. Will a day trip, or series of day trips, from our ruling elite to the rest of the country really change that? I doubt it; what we need is more decentralization and decisions being made by people who actually live in and understand the area they are responsible for.
Mike Smithson wrote an article today at politicalbetting.com today asking the question whether Labour would be doing so badly in the polls if Tony Blair was still leader.
I think it is an interesting question. Personally, I fail to see how they could be any worse, but I struggle to square this with the fact that I much prefer Gordon Brown's inept leadership to Tony Blair's arrogant premiership. In my opinion, Brown's ratings have plummeted not because of the General Election that never was, but because of the 10p tax-rate debacle which goes against everything the Labour party stands for - a policy he more than anyone else was responsible for.
Along with the Iraq war (amongst the liberal wing of the party), and the failure to deal properly with the question of immigration (amongst sections of the white working classes), the 10p tax rate has led to many of those who lean Labour to look elsewhere instead. I remain to be convinced that there is a clamour for a Conservative government, and I would not rule out a 1992-style surprise where the electorate hold their noses and vote for Labour because there is no real will for a Tory administration, although I suspect this may just be wishful thinking. However, unless something changes soon, it is likely that Britain will be heading for a re-run of 1997 in reverse where the Government collapses at the polls leading to at least two terms of a Conservative government. Like 1997, the spread markets are not convinced - but there is a killing to be made if one believes the polls.
Bruce Forsyth presented 'Have I Got News for You' and resurrected his career hosting 'Strictly Come Dancing'.
Boris Johnson presented 'Have I Got News for You' and became the new Mayor of London.
Next weeks guest presenter: BarackObama
So Boris is the new Mayor of London. My position on the matter is no different from what it was back in September. The Mayor of London should be a training ground for a future Prime Minister, not a popularity contest. It is unlikely that Boris will ever reach 10 Downing Street however well he runs London. Having said that, perhaps the left have underestimated Boris by assuming he is a bit of a clown who appears on comedy game shows. The reality is he ran a very good campaign to unseat Ken Livingstone, a feat which should not be underestimated itself despite the rantings of the right-wing press. It will be interesting to see how he performs in his new role.
If the Mayor has not undermined 'World-class' London, the BNP getting a seat on the GLA certainly has. As this article points out, Berlin, Paris and New York do not suffer from this embarrassing situation. I hope the London media remember this the next time they report on racial tensions in Birmingham, Bradford or any other northern towns they want to disparage. At least we have not elected a fascist to the largest council in Europe.
Fascinating. With Brown's new cabinet grabbing the attention of all the media, you would have had to look very carefully to notice this interesting piece of news. It has previously been alleged that Blair threatened to resign if he was question under caution by police as Prime Minister. I can't find any evidence that this was under caution, but it would make sense.
Perhaps Blair is still writing his legacy from beyond Number 10.
After over 10 years in power, the only Prime Minister I have experienced in my adult life has finally decided to hand over the reigns to his best mate Gordon Brown, signaling the end of an era, and the start of another. If I can be bothered, I might bore you with my thoughts on Blair's legacy. As for Brown, I think it is only fair to give him a chance. Let's hope he is a wise and popular leader.
I await the announcement of the new cabinet with interest. Are we finally going to have the important but historically overlooked role of Secretary of State for Birmingham. After all, the Conservatives have a shadow Secretary Minister for the City (no kidding).
Gosh, they do get excited when they win a seat in a city north of the glorious capital don't they?
Gordon Brown will be crowned the next leader of the Labour party, and therefore Prime Minister of the UK after his left-wing rival John McDonnell failed to get the requisite amount of nominations. This means the next Prime Minister will not be elected, either by the public or even his own party. I find this quite astonishing. With six people fighting it out for the deputy leader, it appears the Labour party is now full of rather spineless politicians who are not prepared to fight as the underdog.
Of course, part of this is because Blair systematically got rid of anyone in his cabinet who dared to speak against him (or more conveniently they resigned), instead promoting yes-men who have said yes to GB. Robin Cook has died; David Blunkett was embroiled in too many scandals; Charles Clarke failed at the home office; Iain Dale announce the reasons why Reid did not stand. and presumably Alan Milburn has been out of the circle for too long. Alan Johnson and David Milliband were the last genuine chance for a contest but bottled it, the former looking at the easier deputy leadership instead.
I remember speaking to some Germans last year who I advised not to bet on Brown, because the favourite often falls short in the end (Heseltine/ Clarke/ Davis; maybe it's a Tory thing). I could not have been more wrong. I hope he leads Britain in a better direction than his predecessor, but I won't be holding my breath.
Does anyone know why Blair should continue to hold office now the party has spoken coup has taken place?
That was a party political broadcast by the Labour/ Conservative/ Liberal Democratic Party. (Delete as applicable)
I wish.
The People's Republic is currently relocating (that is arrogant blogger speak for I've bought a new house). Unfortunately, as the United Nations do not currently recognise my independent status, I am still forced to pay taxes to the old country. Hitherto, I have managed to avoid paying council tax my claiming political asylum in my parents house, but that is now going to change. On the same day I cast my last vote in Moseley & Kings Heath, I received a council tax bill for my new address (in the Respect stronghold of Sparkbrook if you are interested). Funnily enough, I actually welcomed it (along with my water and energy bills; they do not waste any time do they?). It means I am now contributing to society/ my community and I am only paying the tax because I now own a pretty expensive asset, so it can be regarded as a mark of success (I appreciate not everyone will agree with this analysis, particularly pensioners and those on low-incomes who struggle to pay this badly-collected tax). It has also brought home the reality that my vote in a council election will from now on directly affect me, and my vote seems to matter more. Of course, council elections do affect me in less obvious ways, but there is nothing like a tax to focus the mind.
Of course, thanks to Margaret Thatcher's ridiculous obsession with centralisation, the only important issue now at stake in local elections is how frequently the bins should be collected. My opinion is that if it is going to involve the council, I suggest never. Let us contract our waste disposal from the private sector. We could decide how often we want our rubbish collected rather than have it decided for us, and we could choose exactly how to get rid of our waste e.g. some private companies might decide to provide a service (for a fee of course) where they take all our trash and sort it for recycling. I suspect recycling rates would improve dramatically, and if we did not want our binman to work on Bank Holiday's or pay them £900 for the privilege, we would have the choice to switch our waste removal services to someone else, or stump up the extra cash for the extra service. After all, our gas and electricity is provided by private companies; isn't it ridiculous that garbage collection is still provided by the state?
Of course, this would then leave us paying large amounts of poll tax for very little governing. If we elected a mayor, we would have even less for our councillors to do. Presumably we could then sack two-thirds of our councillors and have an election every 4 years (after all, one councillor per constituency is surely enough?). This will not be a very popular idea amongst councillors, or amongst people who aspire to be councillors, so I guess they will oppose the mayor and keep garbage collections under their responsibility.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work.
There has been a lot of analysis about what the local election results in England, and the devolved assemblies of Scotland and Wales actually mean. The Conservatives believe they are on the path to power, while Labour and the Liberal Democrats are playing down what are generally considered to be disappointing results.
The reality is that council elections prove very little. Everyone know we all vote differently in general elections. It matters little what percentage of the vote the Conservatives got, how many seats that will translate into, who won the popular vote, or all the other party political bickering we have seen on the pages of the political blogosphere. The reality is the biggest winner by far was apathy. The I-could-not-care-less-one-way-or-the-other party romped home with about 75% of the (non-)vote. And I can't even remember them campaigning in my area.
My personal opinion, not necessarily born out by the election results, is that the next general election will result in a hung parliament.
Ruth Turner's arrest by the police has been criticised by Labour MP's Tessa Jowell and David Blunkett, although I am not exactly sure what there grounds are other than she is close to Tony Blair and so should be untouchable. This is outrageous. They did not have much to say when an innocent man was shot in the head eight times as a result of incompetent policing, nor did they worry much about David Kelly's death. Does New Labour's arrogance never end? It is a real pity Ruth Turner was not charged; what would really have been great is to see these two idiots charged with contempt of court.
After a 90-day detention under suspicion, of course.
I've always had a lot of respect for former Birmingham MP Roy Hattersley, being as he is an unashamed proponent of left wing values and perennial thorn in the side of New Labour. However, this morning on the Heaven and Earth show he made a bit of a fool of himself. Firstly he tried to gain the moral high ground by asking someone who dared to disagree with his position on the new anti-discrimination gay rights laws if she was gay. His face was a picture when she said yes. During this argument, he quoted a statistic from a report in the 1940's which claimed that 12% of the population was gay. Another member of the panel pointed out the this report had been discredited several times since, and the figure was closer to 3% which he then claimed proved his point! Finally, he rubbished the idea that if everyone followed the Catholic churches teachings to the letter, there would be no AIDS but failed to give any indication of why that was such a stupid comment.
It must show my age when I am starting to agree with Tony Blair (yes you read that correctly) that we need to take on conservatives on both sides. Roy is an Old Labour dinosaur who would be eaten alive in the House of Commons today. I do not disagree with everything he says, but perhaps he is a ladder it is time to kick away.
Channel 4 has a piece on its 7 O'Clock news programme this week claiming that the current trouble Blair has were concocted in a West Brom Balti House between Tom Watson, MP for West Brom East, Khalid Mahmood, MP for Perry Barr and possibly the MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, Gisela Stuart.
If true, this could be the second most significant restaurant meeting in the history of the Labour Leadership - and without a potential Labour leader in site.
Update: Of course Gisela Stuart would not be involved in a plot against Blair. It was the MP for Birmingham Erdington, Sion Simon. Finally, the restaurant was in Wolverhampton, not West Brom. The People's Republic is happy to apologise for any offense caused.
It may be said that Blair got a bruising nationally on Thursday, but I feel Labour did relatively well in the local elections both in Birmingham and in the country at large given the scale of their recent problems (although apparently Patricia Hewitt believes the Government is having its best year ever). Noteworthy results include Labour surprisingly losing Longbridge to the Tories (thanks to an increase in the BNP vote) and Salma Yaqoob taking Sparkbrook for the Respect party. I was pleased to see this - regardless of what Respect stand for, she tends to be quite a prominent figure in local politics and deserves her place on the council. The Lib Dems managed to pick up Moseley, but not a lot else, and the Tories picked up Erdington.
Unfortunately the city's name was dragged through the mud again with allegations of electoral fraud against a Lib Dem candidate in the north of the city. It's deja vu all over again. And the count at Kingstanding was right royally messed-up, with more votes being declared than were available. This initially gave first place to the BNP candidate when actually the two Labour candidates should have been returned. Unfortunately, as the result was declared this will now have to go through the courts to rectify this, giving the British Nazi Party more free publicity. They no doubt will be spinning the line that it is a government conspiracy to cheat them out of a seat they fairly earned.
The BNP did pick up three seats in Sandwell and one seat in Solihull, and got about 10% of the vote in Birmingham.
But at least they came sixth out of six in Moseley.
It certainly is a bad time to be a Blair. Prime Minister Tony, fresh from winning an education bill with the help of the Tories, has walked straight into a row over party funding as Jack Dromey, the Labour Party treasurer, claimed he knew nothing about the multi-million pound loans that prospective peers have given to the party. Referring the problem to the Electoral Commission, he said "It's wrong that Downing Street thinks it can run the Labour Party: we are an elected party, a democratic party."
He doesn't mince his words does our Jack, firmly blaming the Prime Minister where others would have alluded and waffled. Give him the freedom of the People's Republic.
Meanwhile it has been revealed that Ian Bliar may (as I understand it) have known that an innocent man had been shot dead as little as six hours after the event, which means he would have known it at the press conference where he seemed to understand he posed a direct threat to the public (that is the innocent man, not the Chief of the Metropolitan Police).
Poor old Hillary Armstrong. The Labour Chief Whip sent the Prime Minister home on Tuesday night believing they had a vote on the religious hatred bill in the bag, only to see them lose it by one vote. Most commentators agree this is a sackable offence for a Chief Whip.
Even George Galloway turned up to vote for the Government on this one. A bit ironic really, given that Ms Armstrong had spent so much time recently setting up a clinic for the voters of Bethnal Green and Bow while publicizing the fact that the Respect MP wasn't representing his constituents while in the Big Brother House.
Perhaps she should concentrate on doing her own job properly...
