Browse > Home /

| Subcribe via RSS



Chris Davies MEP: Private Eye’s “Quote of the Year”

By Julian Harris
June 13th, 2009 at 10:52 am | 2 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

chrisdaviesmepWith great amusement I have just discovered that someone I know personally is featured in Private Eye’s Pseuds Corner. I’ll spare their blushes with a cloak of anonymity, but feel free to turn to this edition’s twenty seventh page and guess who it is.

Alas it is not Chris Davies MEP, who I don’t know personally yet featured on our blog earlier in the week. Nonetheless, he has also failed to avoid the mockery of Hyslop’s satirists, appearing boldly on the very first page.

So pleased are they with their discovery that they have awarded Chris with “Quote of the Year”; deprived of hindsight, in February he stated as follows, thus securing the unwanted prize…

“New rules being introduced from July will make the European parliament better than the Italian parliament but leave us a long way behind practices in the House of Commons”

Oh dear! He was commenting, of course, on expense-fiddling.

Tags: , ,
'

Does Snoutgate mean that Tatton is the future of British politics?

By Mark Littlewood
May 17th, 2009 at 3:05 pm | 7 Comments | Posted in UK Politics

neil-hamilton-and-martin-bell1If the fallout from Snoutgate is a long-term breakdown of trust of politicians, does this mean that your electoral prospects could now better as a mere PPC rather than as an MP? In other words, is incumbency now potentially electoral poison. 

I’m more interested in the lower-grade stuff. The occassional item of soft furnishing. The odd electric toothbrush or lightbulb. A Kenwood mixer here or a new kettle there.

It’s not hard to see how the political opponents of such MPs could run their local campaigns.

If you remember back to June 2006, the LibDems nearly snatched the safe seat of Bromley from the Tories with a swing of 14% in a Parliamentary by-election. Cameron was flying high in the polls at the time. There were no enormous policy issues dominating the campaign.

The LibDem machine focused relentlessly on the professional record of hapless Tory candidate Bob Neil – “Three Jobs Bob” as he was dubbed. And it came within a whisker of shifting a safe Conservative seat from the blue to the yellow column.

The allegation against Bob Neil was that he would be unable to dilligently carry out his duties as a local MP. He didn’t live in the area and had numerous other serious professional and political commitments. Fair enough points to make against your opponent in the rough and tumble of a by-election campaign, for sure. But nowhere near as electorally poisonous as the stuff that is coming out about a whole swathe of MPs. If Bob Neil had also charged the taxpayer £2,000 to have his moat dredged or £800 for a widescreen TV, he would have been annihilated.

So – unless like David Howarth – you have a record so squeaky clean you may even be able to turn it to your electoral advantage, what will the impact be on siting MPs? Perhaps the present anger will dissipate. But if it doesn’t, incumbency now strikes me as – all things being equal – an electoral disadvantage.

If you were a LibDem candidate, would you prefer to have a majority of a couple of thousand, but a few minor embarrassments on your expenses claims? Or would you prefer to be the main challenger? A few thousand votes behind, but against a Tory or Labour opponent who has bought a DVD player, rewired his electrics and purchased some flashy new curtains. I think I’d be more confident as the LibDem challenger, rather than as the LibDem incumbent

This could have some profound implications for the party’s electoral strategy. A central pillar of LibDem thinking has always been that Liberals can “dig in”. Once you’ve won the seat, you are dilligent in handling casework and building your local profile. This insulates you against a national swing. It helps you build a sizeable personal vote. Norman Lamb’s victory in 2005 and Ed Davey’s in 2001 are striking examples of this.

But has Snoutgate just driven a coach and horses through this approach? Have hundreds of hours of local campaigning, thousands of personalised letters and an all-round-the-year diary of campaigning just been made to look like small electoral beer when compared to what you have – or have not – claimed on the second home allowance? Is the list of winnable LibDem seats now unrecognisable from what it would have been just a fortnight ago? Are there now a tranche of seats which have suddenly become more winnable than a good number of seats that we presently hold?

Will we see a massively enhanced role for local campaigning, where the record of the sitting MP out-trumps any other issue on campaign literature? Could we witness the delicious oddity of a party making hay out of expenses claim in one seat, while simultaneously trying to defend itself against almost identical allegations in the neighbouring constituency?

Might the General Election even feel a bit like a ton of simultaneous by-elections? Back in 1997, the Tories suffered badly across the board because of the stench of sleaze – but in Tatton, the downfall of Neil Hamilton (with a humungous 39% swing against him) at the hands of white knight Martin Bell was simply stunning. Might the next election contain a helluva lot of Tattons?

We’re still in the midst of a devastating political crisis. And the Telegraph has so far only printed the expense claims of about 100 MPs. It’s hard to even begin to guess what the eventual electoral fallout will be. But it seems safe to say that a lot of the established electoral rulebook will need to be thrown out of the window.

Tags: , , , , ,

The biggest test so far for Nick Clegg

By Angela Harbutt
May 16th, 2009 at 6:00 pm | 6 Comments | Posted in UK Politics

POLITICS LibDems 7

I have been dismayed and frustrated by Nick Clegg’s “invisibility” in the past two or three days.

Andrew Grice writes in The Independent today that the expenses row just might be good news for the Lib Dems – that this Party could be answer to the voters’ call for a new politics. And I certainly agree with Mr Grices conclusion that the expenses row is a big opportunity for Nick – and a big test.

I therefore trust that Nick will emerge in the next 48hours – and no later – with a clear, bold and brave position. I agree with those that say he should be fair. I agree also with those who urge thoughtfulness. But fairness and thoughtfulness must not be excuses for lack of decisive action.

He needs to show unequivically that he is willing to take tough and necessary action against those Lib Dem MPs and Lords who have fallen short of our expectations and he needs to lay out a clear set of ideas about how we move forward.

Mark Littlewood wrote yesterday of the test facing the Federal Executive Committtee on Monday. This is an even bigger test for the leader. I hope  both will be found up to the challenge.

Tags: , ,

On Ros Scott’s blog today…

By Angela Harbutt
May 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pm | 7 Comments | Posted in UK Politics

ros-scott

Ros Scott’s blog has the following post..

“The Liberal Democrats at Westminster are engaged in two main tasks. In both Houses, the details of individuals’ claims are being gone through to ensure that they comply with existing Parliamentary rules. Nobody is going to be hung out to dry on the say so of a newspaper. The second task is to reform the existing system, something Liberal Democrats in both Houses have tried to do in the past and been thwarted. Maybe this time, the other Parties will be prepared to take the hard decisions they have ducked in the past.

Federal Executive meets on Monday, and this whole question is of course on our agenda. Vince Cable, as Deputy Leader, and David Shutt, as our Chief Whip in the Lords, will be there, and I predict a ‘full and frank’ exchange of views.”

1. I note the investigation involves conduct in BOTH houses.

2. Somewhat dissappointed that the language is about complying within existing Parliamentary rules.

3. I wonder why Vince Cable is mentioned in the final paragraph and not Nick Clegg ?

Tags: ,

“claims would be jaw dropping in a Third-World dictatorship..” -Met police

By Angela Harbutt
May 15th, 2009 at 12:44 pm | 2 Comments | Posted in UK Politics

 g20-police

So much has happened over the past few days that it is very easy to overlook statements that would, in more sane times, be top of the news agenda.

One such statement was made a couple of days ago. As it seems to have gained little or no attention, I thought it worthy of note.So please excuse me stepping back a day or two…

In Wednesday’s Telegraph there was a statement by Steve Morley from the Metropolitan Police that “claims would be jaw-dropping in a Third World dictatorship let alone in the country of hope and glory”.

Was he talking about accusations of a Police cover-up concerning the shooting of an innocent electrician? Claims of Police brutality at civilian protests prior to a summit of world leaders? Allegations of heavy handed techniques employed when arresting an opposition Member of Parliament who had been an outspoken critic of the Minister in charge of  – oh – the police? ( i could go on..)

Certainly sounds like the actions of police in a “Third-World dictatorship”

But no. He was talking about “some” MP’s expense claims.

But I agree with Mr Morley. We are now living in a tin-pot police state; bankrupt, corrupt, and with a deluded mad man at the top clinging onto power.

Tags: ,