He Who Shouts Loudest

...often wins elections in the US. But surely not in little old Britain?

The newspapers have played an influential role in previous elections. The Sun's headline on the eve of 1992 election,"If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights" re-enforced plenty of views about the man in a fairly tight contest.

Just prior to an election almost all the papers declare which party's policies most closely match their views (the editors' that is, not the hapless readership.) But the tenor and content of the coverage this election feels like it has crossed another boundary this time. Some papers have become little more than campaign sheets for the Conservative Party. All pretence and subtlety has been dumped, the sub-plot revealed.

The Sun's editorial today, sandwiched between character attacks on Clegg and Brown, unashamedly repeated Cameron's slogan of 'Vote Clegg, Get Brown', adding, "only by voting Tory can you be sure of driving a stake through Labour's heart."

The Daily Mail newsroom must be equally panicked in thinking they have backed a loser in Dave, judging by today's ultra-shrill Comment page. The general tone was admonishing the public for being so thick in falling for Nick Clegg ("Time for voters to wake up and get real").

Who the hell are they to tell us? Or even more succinctly, who the hell are they?

The full page lecture contain a laughable defence of first-past-the-post even though it may deliver Labour as the largest party on less than 30% of the vote. Even the claim FPTP has given Britain "such stability over centuries," is not even true. It was adopted in the latter Victorian era.

Just shouting at people for "sleep-walking... into a Government as corrupt and inept as Berlusconi's Italy," seems destined to fail in persuading middle England from wishing for a new system of power-sharing. These dreadfully biased tabloids only use the deranged political language which the country appears to be rejecting in its rather mild-mannered way.

It is far from clear what is stirring across the country but it feels hugely uplifting and re-affirming in democracy and the independent spirit of British people.

Aged charmer, Dr David Owen, alluded to this mysterious shift in allegiances which is scaring the life out of the traditional power bases, when he told the Guardian. "I think things are happening deep down which probably none of us understand....the great British public out there in their strange, almost instinctive way are groping towards a solution."

Do they Mean Us?

David Cameron has been compelled to rapidly ditch his Brown-centric message and turn his fire, in rather non-specific terms on Nick Clegg. But he still making the fundamental error of forever talking nationally rather than seeing the sense of speaking to the voter. On Sunday and Monday Dave implored the electorate not to vote in a way which would result in a hung Parliament.

How is Mr Average Voter meant to respond to this message? Is he expected to pause at the ballot box working out how to best achieve a "decisive Government"rather than just chosing one of the names before him?

Dave and his Campaign Director Osborne appears to be addressing us collectively. It reminds me of those announcements on the London Underground in the rush hour, "Please use all available doors." To which we think to ourselves, "But I can only use one door."

When asked about his vehement opposition to a hung Parliament Cams replied with an ironic smirk," can you really expect politicians to work so well together?"

I thought, firstly "You are a politician so it's no good trying to distance yourself from 'them'. Second, the rest of Europe seems to manage OK. And third why should we respect politicians inability to work co-operatively under difficult circumstances when that is exactly what millions of people do in the working lives all the time?

You Got the Mo'

Naturally, I watched the debate on Thursday evening expecting my hand to reach for the remote in about ten minutes. But it was surprisingly vital and I stuck it out.

Although I recognised Nick Clegg had edged it with superior handling of the event, I really did not expect the huge impact it would have on the polls.

The obvious inference must be, many of the British people are getting to know Clegg for the first time. Such is the pitiful lack of engagement in politics in 2010 Britain. Certainly he is refreshing and speaks with candour on a more human level. Quite a lot of his party's policies seem quite attractive, raising thresholds to £10K and taxing the banks.

His opponents fine tuned their presentational skills pretty well but their ‘performances’ did not resonate with the public at all. When offered the usual choice of chips or mash, the public have shouted "we've had enough of spuds." Clegg would therefore constitute a rather lovely risotto.

The 10 point bounce to the Lib-Dems amounts to the biggest sudden change in the fate of British politics since the death of John Smith in 1994. The enthusiasm for the third party may dwindle a little when people look at their local options. But the emergence of ‘Cleggmania’ is so close to the election the other parties look about as manoeuvrable as a pair of oil tankers.

All they have left is the familiar smear and spin operations which we can discern wins precious little votes and risks back-firing. Michael Gove has already hinted they intend to attack Lib- Dems on "eccentric" policies such as defence. Clegg already stated his position clearly without any hint of apology at the last debate – Trident should be cancelled. Although the voters naturally prefer a robust support of armed services, they may fail to see the sense in prioritising spending £100Bn on a weapons system which will never be used not least because its strategic purpose is to protect us from 'threat' from the Kremlin.

The press, now thoroughly divided down party lines, has attempted a rather tired campaign to attack Senor Clegg. The Sun opted for the rather graceless 'Don't trust Dems'. The worst adjective the Mail could deploy on our Nick was, "multi-lingual" and the Telegraph journos giggled at his fluent Dutch like sad sap schoolboys.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7603945/Nick-Clegg-defends-Liberal-Democrat-stance-on-Europe.html

This desperate political grasping is aimed at preserving the Conservatives' standing at 40% - that prospect looks certainly lost. Labour now has about an evens chance of being the largest party. A Lib-Dem showing in the upper 20s percent would allow Clegg and Cable to expect a place in Cabinet. More importantly the coalition would only have to last long enough for a referendum on electoral reform due by Labour's manifesto for the autumn.

Of course, the Tories' goose would be thoroughly 'bien cuit' by then. It would be fascinating to see the exchanges at Tory HQ now as both Cameron and Osborn experience a decline in their fortunes for the first time in their careers.

Clegg himself summaried it best when he said of the Tory high command, " The overriding sense you get from them is one of entitlement to govern rather than why they want to govern. They dramtically underestimate the British people."

A Phoney's War

The General Election campaign has been pretty lacklustre so far. Plenty of bickering about the economic impact of raising National Insurance contributions by just 1p, is hardly likely to dazzle the electorate.

The main message from the Government seems to be ‘solidity, tenacity, assuredness’. That stance is unlikely to lift them above 35% but yet may prove just enough to cling to power.

The Opposition’s cri-de-guerre seems to be "vote for a change…er…for change’s sake". Tory HQ must have a big map of all the demographics in the country alongside a few words of strategy citing which media to use to target their vote. The Cons are apparently trying to woo the population of undecideds but their words are often more self-conscious than a spotty teenager in his first suit.

As Eric Morecombe used to say, "you can see the join."

For example, David Cameron’s article in the Guardian last Friday, was pitiful in its attempt to persuade liberal voters over to his side. “Our solution is to use the state to remake society – to make the Big Society, enabling people to come together to drive progress.” Eh?

His dismal attempt to highlight public sector pay as the most iniquitous, did not stand any scrutiny. He even had the brass neck to call on the Guardianistas to turn Tory, “ To Guardian readers everywhere, I say: overcome any prejudices you may have…”

The readership, once they had stopped laughing, may have pointed to the unashamed “prejudices” of the bigoted parties the Tories are allied to, in the European Parliament.

The Conservatives, while acknowledging severe cuts and drastic choices need to be made, would first give back all £12Bn of the NI increase. This cashback deal will be funded entirely on “efficiency savings” which haven’t yet been made and on areas already identified by Labour but previously dismissed by George Osborne (pictured) as illusory.

Wee Georgie announced last week with a fanfare, Brown and Darling’s case for economic prudence was “destroyed” by the endorsement of the Tory position on NICs by 20 or 30 prominent business leaders. Not economists, you understand, but CEOs.

Lib Dem Chancellor, Vince Cable, may appear to be a rather tetchy, suburban headteacher but has proved himself, over a sustained period, to have a very firm grasp of the critical economic detail. His description of the political statements by these highly partial men of commerce as “utterly nauseating” captured the sentiment of the electorate much more closely than any buttery words about the 'Big Society' from Cameron.

In 1979, Margaret Thatcher swept into power with a clear vision of what she wanted to achieve. It was, at times, brutal, devisive and had a revolutionary impact on the country's political landscape. Whatever the merits of Thatcherism, no-one doubted her clarity and single-mindedness.

I still can't find Cameron's.

What it Comes Down To...

"All politics is local," said 'Tip' O'Neill (left) former U.S. House Speaker.

This famous aphorism captures the need for candidates and parties to address the local, at times seemingly trivial, issues affecting voters' daily lives before talking expansively about the national picture.

This simple truism appears to have eluded the hierarchy of the Conservative Party strategists.

Camborne, near Falmouth, is a classic three-way battle. The Conservative candidate, George Eustice was asked by BBC Five Live why the people of Cornwall should elect him and oust Lib-Dem Julia Goldsworthy.

"We need to focus people's minds on the fact that this is a national election, and if they want to change the government, if they really don't want five more years of Gordon Brown, then this is a seat that the Conservatives simply have to win. If we don't win seats like this, we won't get a majority and Gordon Brown will cling to power." Note the absence of any promise to properly represent his constituents' interests.

At the Cons election launch on Tuesday, David Cameron said, "what it comes down to is this...do you want another five years of Gordon Brown?" There was no word about having best candidates and policies, clearly the Tories see their best chance of overall victory as a referendum on Brown.

If it were a Presidential election then Cameron would be the likely winner. But it's not. Elections in UK are about winning seats. The BBC's election calculator is a rather useful toy (work on 'Others' being 8-10%)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm

The clear lesson from tinkering with various scenarios is the Tories have a huge way to go to win an overall majority of one. They really need to hit 40%. Their strategy of focussing on a simple Gordon v. Dave boxing match is not likely to yield a huge surge to them, Brown is unpopular but not irredeemably so. He is considered a bit accident-prone and aggressive but he is not hated in the same way Thatcher or Blair were.

Consequently the Cons are pinning a lot on the TV debates. The format would appear to favour, perhaps, a former PR man turned politician. But that does not mean the voters will warm to Dave and vote accordingly.

The clever dicks at school who won the debating contests would be filled with pride at the audience's applause. But after the clamour died away, they soon rememebered they had no mates.

Killed by Death

Drugs are harmful - we know that. The current unquestioned hysteria over the cheap amphetamine Mephedrone has taken us back to the late 80s when Ecstasy mania dominated the front pages for a few months. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1200759_legal_killer_drug_mephedrone_for_sale_on_our_streets

Gordon Brown at PMQs called it "evil" and showed his Bush-like determination to, "protect our children." On Monday the hastily reformed Advisory Council will recommend its control under the Misuse of Drugs Act. A few moments later Alan Johnson will merrily accept their advice and start talking really tough before the rapacious media, almost certainly using the word "scourge".

There probably is no time for a law change this side of an election for which Minsters will be criticised by the Sun and the Mail as evidence of Labour's soft attitude to drugs.

Evidence on this drug is moot. The Advisory Council (ACMD) suffered an almost terminal degree of resignations in the autumn following political interference, from Johnson, in its scientific analysis. Under new leadership they are allowing themsleves to be rushed headlong into making firm and lasting conclusions based on the thinnest of evidence bases.

The Chair of ACMD admitted before the Home Affairs Committee this week they have been pouring over the survey results of 'Head' magazine 'Mixmag'. So the experiences of a few 'chemical brothers' will be setting Government drug policy. Of the half a dozen or so deaths attributed to Meph since the media got interested, none have had a toxicology report proving it.

The drug appears to have similar harms to 'speed' and by that throughly subjective rule-of-thumb, it passes some vague test of controlled drug status. The outcomes of Mephedrone being 'banned' will be instructive about prohibition itself. Guernsey had a tiny amount trickling in - as soon as it became a matter for criminal justice the price rose 500% and gangs took over its supply. There is a shortage of firearms in the channel islands so dealers have elected to carry Samurai swords.

Such is the mental straitjacket we as a country are caught in over drugs, even the most obvious and imminent failure of the 'control' regime still does not allow us to think of any alternative. The desire to get tough in the face of fear is obsessional behaviour, some would say an addiction in itself.

Same Old, Same Old

Conservative Party Chairman, the ample Eric Pickles (left), is unequivocal about the main public perception his Party needs to guard against, “same old Tories” he sighed. This is essentially the sleaze-tarnished protect-the-privileged image which Cameron has been trying to re-model since day one of his five year leadership.

There have been some obvious successes judged by the discomfort and grumbling from the backbench grandees and the middle England blazer brigade of reactionaries and xenophobes. While Brown stumbled politically and support drained away from Labour, so the poles surged to the Tories, establishing the likely prospect of a huge landslide in the nation’s psyche. But now the margin is five points at best. Who would have thought a lead of 25 percent could be, what the psephologists call, ‘soft numbers’?

One of Cameron’s pat phrases about Labour, aimed at re-enforcing our antipathy to an arrogant Government is, “they’re treating us like fools.” But Cameron appears stuck with the Hilton/Coulson script and is just as culpable of the same charge. Dave’s speech last month on the “new politics” was, in the light of the Ashcroft revelations a litany of rank hypocrisy.

He decried Labour for, “money buying influence” and claimed his party should be recognised as a “new generation… of openness and accountability.” Struth.

He still has yet to respond to questions why he did not know the biggest party funder for the last ten years and deputy party chairman was not paying tax in this country, in line with assurances Ashcroft gave to Parliament and the Crown. Cam's deputy, Hague, had known for “some months” but could not find the courage to defy the great business oligarch, Ashcroft and tell his party leader.

Cameron’s speech was a succession of preposterous political suggestions aimed at a semi-intelligent tabloid reader’s view of the world. For example, “We will abolish the Human Rights Act and introduce a new Bill of Rights, so that Britain’s laws can no longer be decided by unaccountable judges.”

The HRA may be maligned in the press as preventing the police from circulating pictures of wanted criminals (cited by Cameron last year but a total myth). But in any event, the UK is still a signatory to the European Convention (written by British lawyers in the 1940s) so the abolition would have no difference in law. It will just take longer to go through Strasbourg, like we used to.

What is most curious was his criticism of the decision-making powers of “unaccountable judges.” The alternative would appear be elected and political judges, a horrifying prospect for those who respect the objective application of the law by the learned experts.

This terribly woolly thinking cannot be helping Dave’s prospects with the 'floaters' in the marginals. It’s very well appearing very decisive as a leader but there is a distinct downside when your bold decision-making looks idiotic.

The party has invested its future in Cameron’s image and the lack of scrutiny on the other key figures in his team has left them ‘short of match fitness’. George Osborne, despite his superior sneer, regularly disappoints on his grasp of economic detail - he should learn the lesson from Ken Clarke of when to make a purely political point and when to demonstrate you actually know how an economy works.

Liam Fox has tapped into the Daily Mail’s laughable assertion of fearing any wobbles in the money markets are in response to the prospects of a hung Parliament. 'Vote Conservative and help the traders sleep better', seems to be the message. Even if it were true, the idea that the electorate should amend its voting intentions to ensure stability in the Square Mile could hardly be less democratic. IDS’s stuck record on 'Broken Britain' is antagonising and preachy. Other than Hague and Theresa May, the remainder are only known to Westmister anoraks and close members of their own families.

As the Tory party’s poll figures slide below the magic 40%, any thought of outright victory with workable majority can be forgotten. Brown need do and say little while Cameron’s inexperience is exposed further.

If Dave were inclined to ask Brown, “what makes you more popular all of a sudden?” Gordon would be able to reply,

“Standing next to you.”