The new progressive consensus..

… was identifed back in November 2007…

Above is an interview on GMTV from November 2007. Mark Littlewood (once of this parish) is being cross examined by Steve Richards (of slightly leftie Independent fame). Littlewood nails it on the blue-yellow coalition. He is now Director General of the IEA (Institute of Economic Affairs) , the original free market think tank. Looks like the IEA might again be ahead of the curve!

Tags: Chris Huhne, coaltion, Conservatives, election 2010, IEA, Instirute of Economic Affairs, Liberal Democrats, Mark Littlewood, Nick Clegg, progressive concensus, Progressive Vision

The Lib Dems: dithering or duplicitous?

This is the first time in most of our life times that we are facing post-election coalition negotiations. It is therefore understandable - as this is new to everyone - that it will take a while to reach a conclusion.

BUT having watched unfolding events yesterday, and listened to various phone-ins this morning, it is clear that the country’s patience is running out. The Liberals are right on the cusp of screwing this up. If a definitive statement is not made in the next few HOURS (not days as some suggest) - then the Liberal’s standing with the electorate may be damaged for a decade - however good the final decision turns out to be.

Reports of the Lib Dems being in parallel talks with both Tories and Labour are not playing out well. Regardless of the facts of the matter, and in spite of statements to the contrary from Nick himself, this LOOKS, for all the world, as though the Liberals are putting party interests before those of the country. Trying to screw out a last few concessions from both parties by playing one party off against the other.

This is NOT the ”change” to politics that people signed up for. 

I know Nick, a little. I have no doubt that he is attempting to do “the right thing”. But perception is as important as fact. And the public perception is that self interest is being put first. 

Now comes the time for decisive leadership. He needs to get a grip and bring this thing to a close - and fast.

Having watched the tired old faces from Labour over the past 12 hours, trot out the Campbell-inspired lines on why a Lib/Lab/SNP/Plaid etc etc coalition is legitimate, I am more convinced than ever, that it is not. Even they don’t look very convinced as they mouth the words.

The Tories -the party with the strongest mandate as judged by the electorate - have moved a long way to accomodate the needs of the Liberals - and are sitting smugly on the moral high ground. The Liberals, in contrast, risk looking somewhere between dithering and duplicitous. Sorry that has to be said. 

So, Nick MUST act now. He has in my view has only one option - to go into full coalition with the Conservatives- step up to the plate - and get on with it.

The public will not forgive the Liberals for propping up a defunct Labour party, and a shambolic rag tag of nationalist and independent junior partners (each with a price tag attached to their support). An ugly looking alliance that has little chance of long term stability. Add to that the prospect of a Prime Minister that this country has no say in appointing or judging when they cast their vote for Labour last week and it just becomes an impossibility.

The only other option is to say - for all those demands for PR - that you can’t do a deal with either! One you cant agree with, the other one is too repugnant to contemplate. So you will sit at arms length from the least-worst, like a petulant child. If that is how you plan to sell PR to the public it’s a sorry one. You might as well give up on the idea of PR for good. 

So do a deal with the Conservatives  - take the full blown option - and do it now.

Tags: coaltion, Conservatives, Labour party, Nick Clegg

I didn’t vote Lib Dem to get a Tory government…

Ha. That’ll have the tweeters wondering what on earth is going on over in LV land!

No I have not gone mad. I am quoting what I have heard on phone-ins/read on various blogs over last 24 hours or so. IF I am to believe some posts, thousands, indeed “hundreds of thousands” are about to walk away from the Lib Dems because “they didn’t vote Lib Dem to get a Tory government”.

I found it a bit annoying when I first heard it - but as this sentiment seems to be spreading - I am getting increasingly irritated by it. In part it’s because I hate that sort of post-event whinging ( “I didn’t get what I wanted so I will throw my toys out of the pram”) but there are more specific reasons why it’s getting under my skin…..

1.     No one voted to get a Tory government. People voted to elect their constituency  MP (or indeed to stop a constituency MP) and hoped that others across the country would vote similarly (the only way to “stop” a Tory (or indeed Labour) government). That worked in some area’s - which is why there are fewer Tory MP’s than anyone expected. Even if “voting Lib Dem” in one area did stop a Tory, clearly not enough people in enough areas did the same - hence the situation we are in. The idea that one vote for one local MP would somehow stop a whole government is laughable.

 

2.    This seems to throw the blame onto the Lib Dems when the blame (if that is the right word - which it probably isn’t) sits with the voters. If this nation really cared about stopping the Tories (or indeed Labour) more people would have voted Lib Dem. That would have given Nick a much stronger negotiating position to choose who to talk to and on what terms. Just because Mrs Miggins voted Lib Dem to stop the local Tory, does not mean that Mrs Miggins view out trumps the nations view. And whilst she and those like her might whinge now, they have to look at themselves frankly and ask whether, if they cared that much, they could have done more. Goodness knows I think Nick did his bit.

 

3.    Actually the Lib Dems HAVE STOPPED a Tory government - or at least stopped such a strong Tory government that they can ride rough-shod over everyone. Had the Tories taken the Lib Dem seats they targeted we would already have Mr Cameron at No 10. As we stand here now, it is likely/possible that the Lib Dems have the ability to be a balancing item on Tory legislation. And even if a coalition doesn’t happen the Tory party will have to listen to its own backbenchers much more than the previous regime - and indeed listen to the Lib Dems- that’s in part a result of people voting Lib Dem.

 

4.    Perhaps most importantly it’s annoying because Nick Clegg could not have been clearer, throughout the general election, that the Lib Dems would not decide who to talk to in the event of a hung parliament - he would NOT be kingmaker. It would be the people who would dictate it by virtue of which party  had the largest mandate. It is demonstrably clear that the Tories have the most seats and the largest vote share. In these circumstances, had Nick decided to ignore the Tories, I think the country would have rightly been outraged that Nick had gone back on his word. Where were these people-  who are now complaining that they did not vote Lib Dem to get a Tory government - during the last 4 weeks? Integrity matters - and like the outcome we find ourselves in or not (mainly “not”)- Nick has shown to be a man of integrity - and that counts for a lot these days.

 

Now of course the proof is in the pudding. Can the Lib Dem negotiators extract enough ground across its 4 key manifesto pledges to feel that their position is honourable (and right for the country let’s not forget!) - accepting of course it’s relative position in the situation (more people voted for Tory policies than Lib Dem policies).

 

If the Tories are not willing to concede sufficient ground to allow the Lib Dem’s to feel their position with their voters is honourable, then I suspect that they won’t go into full coalition - but sit back and allow a minority Tory party to govern as best it can.   (I remain convinced that the idea of a Lib/Lab/nationalist/green uncle tom cobbley and all coalition is for the fairies).

 

But to read/listen to people moaning at this stage because Nick is attempting to find a workable solution with the Tories is nothing short of ridiculous.

Tags: coalition, Con/Lib, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg

Words about words

Is the Clegg/Cameron friendship cooling off before it even got going? Well, certainly a neat analysis (from Millward Brown) of the language employed during the last leaders debate would seem to suggest that it might be.  Clegg and Cameron had the smallest pool of common words by some way- just 13, compared to 27 shared between DC and GB, and 20 between NC and GB (see chart).  Considering that almost a quarter of their shared terminology was unlikely to be complimentary (“Gordon”, “Brown” and “Labour”), and the only meaningful phrases they shared was “council” and city” (both issues upon which they disagree) they appeared to have very little in common to say at all.

I’m afraid it’s a little hard to make out, but hopefully you’ll get the picture!

  

Of course, this is hardly a litmus test for co-operation but is does provide some interesting insights. Take a look at their top twelve words used list: 

Brown                                        Cameron                        Clegg 

people  62                                   people  61                         people  53    

tax     56                                     government      37            tax     49    

cut     45                                     tax     33                            money   26    

bank    32                                   year    31                           work    26    

country 32                                work    28                           pay     25    

David   31                                  bank    25                           bank    24    

credit  29                                   country 23                        Cameron 16    

job     25                                     economy 22                      David   16    

Conservative    24                   business        17                 income  16    

year    23                                  cut     16                             Brown   14    

economy 21                             money   16                         Gordon  14    

work    21                                 waste   14                          problem 14    

 

Neither Cameron nor Gordon made reference to “Nick” or “Clegg” enough to make the list. Fence sitting before a hung parliament, perhaps? And while tax and people topped all the polls, work was a strangely low priority in GB’s vocab- possibly starting to regret that tax on jobs he’s stoutly defended for so long?

One final observation from the shared words chart: Clegg was the only man to breathe the word “Chancellor”. In 90mins of debate in which the economy was the focal point, neither Cameron nor Brown dared to mention what we’ve all been thinking. No-one wants another term of Darling after the mess we’ve been put through and Osborne looks green and unsure. During times of financial uncertainty the minister behind the finances need experience and nous- Vince has both in abundance. Increasingly he looks like the only man well suited to steering our economy and Brown and Cameron both know it. Funny that Brown didn’t remind us of his (oh so successful) tenure as Chancellor isn’t it?!

Tags: Chancellor, David Cameron, Election, Election Debate, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg

Lib Dem Flashmobs

..or is it Flash Mobs? I dont know… Anyway I doff my hat to those facebookers over at RATM for what they pulled off. I went to the London one. Many things struck me about the day, not least just how many young, previously uncommitted, non-voting young people they have not just connected with, but persuaded to actually do something. Nice one.

I looked on the web and found a number of great videos/pics etc. As I had this music running round in my head on the day…I put the two together. Hope those that attended like it - and thanks to all the video’s and photo’s used. Oh and there is a bit of Blackheath (from earlier in the day)in there too.

Tags: Blackheath, flash mob, flashmob, I agree with Nick, Liberal Democrat, Nick Clegg, rage against the machine, RATM, trafalgar square

Bit of a wobble ?

It was to be expected that at some point the Liberals would wobble a little. That moment seems to be now.

I am not referring to the polls - though a couple of the most immediate ones do open up more of a lead for the Tories. I am referring to the immensely confusing mixed-message that we are hearing about who the Liberals will and won’t do business with in a hung parliament.

Watching Nick on Sunday -  Nick seemed very clear, very bold, very statesman-like in his position that, in the event that Labour polled the fewest votes of the three main parties, the idea of the Liberals propping up Gordon Brown in the position as PM would be preposterous. Here here. Simple, straightforward - how can any one disagree? And it took the sting out of the “Vote Clegg Get Brown” line.

Yes yes I know…what gives Nick the right to dictate to Labour who their leader is etc etc. But he was not saying that he would not seek to interfere in other parties business. (And as I heard it a good number of senior Labour figures agree with Nick).

As I saw it, Nick was EITHER

(A) in the event of coalition with Labour : angling for the position as PM (and why not - he takes on the roll - giving Labour time to have an election get a new leader in etc?) or he was

(B) edging slowly but surely toward a coalition with the Tories.

(C) Dismissing the vote Clegg get Brown line (or a combination of the above)

Why ever he said it,  he said it - outloud.

Then came the  briefing from one of Nick’s ”advisors” attempting to “clarify” the situation.

Er oh…. as these things always do, the “clarification” just muddied the waters, sending  journalists into mini-hysteria on the possibility of a disagreement within the Liberal High Command. 

Has there been a falling out? Did one of the lefties in Liberal Shadow Cabinet throw a wobbly? Did Mandy throw a wobbly? Did Nick not mean to say that? Is Clegg deliberately taking the agenda in his own party up a notch? Come on someone must now why an advisor was told to go forth and clarify !!!  

Sometimes you just can’t UNSAY what’s been said

And like your handy SATNAV  you have to plot a new route from where you are - not try to retrace your steps to where you were on Saturday, and start over.  Those advising Nick would do well to take that on board the next time they feel the need to “clarify” what he says.

So the last 24 hours has seen journalists hungry to find the split, prise it apart, get at what the problem is. Nick managed the questions well today - but this was damage limitation at best.

Nick needs to get a grip - take charge - let his words stand - and please oh please - don’t let advisors explain to journos “What Nick was actually saying was this…”. 

Nick was perfectly clear on Sunday. The confusion is of the Liberals own making.  Here’s hoping this is a little wobble and no more.

Tags: coalition, hung Parliament, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg

Gordo the Saviour! Dave the Cowering! And more…

I have some sympathy for Nick Robinson (bear with me now…)  He does, on some occasions, have to form his analysis of political events extremely quickly, and then promptly figure out how to articulate it in a snappy way to an audience with the collective attention span of a hairdresser’s goldfish.  I reckon I’d fail miserably at such a task, so just as well that I have the luxury of getting my points across on a blog, several days after the event.

Nonetheless, I am going to add another knife to those already inserted in his back, following his incorrect verdict that last week’s TV debate was encapsulated by “I disagree with Nick”. Statistics from the show, you see, reveal that Call Me Dave was, in fact, the most attacked leader (not Nick). Interestingly, Call Me Dave was also the meekest, perhaps in nervous, cowering mode, given the sudden possibility of him entering future history books and DVDs as the failed Tory leader who was forced into electoral reform.

The graph below shows how belligerent each of the leaders were:

Some more interesting findings come from examining the number of words uttered by each leader.  Clearly looking to appeal to the more nationalist element of the electorate, Gordo and Call Me Dave both had “country” in their top two words, with “Britain” being Gordo’s fifth most used word.  Notably, “country” only just scraped into Nick’s top 10 words, and neither he nor Call Me Dave had “Britain” in their top 10.

Gordo’s reputation as a self-styled wannabe global saviour is further enhanced by the analysis.  Out of the three leaders, he used the most language relating to international affairs, with the following words all appearing in his top 10: “Britain”, “country”, “world”, “Europe”, “European”.

The top 10 lists of words are below, with a couple of other graphics to keep you amused. This research, I must confess, was not done by myself, but rather done entirely by Millward Brown. Which is nice of ‘em.

Shared Words: [sorry, can't get this to be more visible. If you want a copy, e-mail admin *-AT-* liberal-vision.org]

All three leaders’ top words combined, by frequency:

Tags: David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Leaders Debate, Nick Clegg, tv debate

Aid spending targets are simply wrong

Politicians generally disagree. Don’t be fooled by Brown’s recent nauseating sycophantism towards Clegg - in reality cross party consensus is very difficult to achieve. Banker-bashing aside, there are very few things that all three parties actually agree on and even fewer that they’d be prepared to admit.

But, there is one idea on which all three parties do agree on, and unfortunately it’s a shocker. All three parties have agreed in their manifestoes (Cons, Lab, Lib) to make it a legal obligation to spend 0.7% of national income upon foreign aid by 2013. This will cost an extra £2bn a year, according to the latest figures, and so nearly slipped under the election radar. However, thanks to The Times who picked up on report released today by International Policy Network, the stupidity of this proposal has now been exposed.

Now, before all the “pro-aiders” choke on their organic soup and reach for their recycled tissues, please wait. This isn’t an anti-aid rant. In fact the report doesn’t offer any recommendation on how much should be spent, but instead focuses on the stupidity of fixing aid spending to a specific target- any target.

It makes no sense whatsoever: Using input targets to determine spending is backwards. If a funding shortfall is the issue, it would be logical to look at how much money is needed rather than how much the UK can afford to give. As the The Times notes, “the oddity of deciding how much a poor country needs from the size of a rich one on the other side of the planet.”

What’s more, as the report comprehensively explains, the 0.7% target itself  was formulated as a lobbying tool almost half a century ago using now discredited methodology. The same method with today’s figures shows a capital “need” far below current UK spending on aid. And this highlights another problem with using targets- the developing world is always changing. Since this target was first proposed India and China have pulled half a billion people out of poverty, the economic landscape of the ex-Soviet republics has changed beyond recognition and Geldof has had at least one hair cut. Fixing aid spending denies the reality that people can, and do, pull themselves out of poverty and away from aid dependence.

Unfortunately it looks as though all three parties have neglected to scrutinise this particular lobbying tool, touted by that bellwether of bad ideas- Bono, and have blindly agreed to fix to an arbitrary target. At least one of them should know better.

Tags: Aid, Bono, David Cameron, development, Gordon Brown, Leadership debate, Nick Clegg, targets

DailyMail-o-matic Nick Clegg Special!

If you haven’t seen it yet, the kind-of-famous DailyMail-o-matic headline-creating tool is now featuring our very own Dear Leader in every headline.

Click on it, go arrrrn:

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

There are literally minutes of fun to be had.

My favourite so far:

Is Nick Clegg having sex with the middle class?

We demand to know, Cowley Street.

We have a RIGHT to know.

Tags: Daily Mail, Nick Clegg, right-wing attack dogs

Cameron gets it wrong again

I read on the BBC website this morning that David Cameron is stating that “a vote for Nick Clegg could leave Britain “stuck” with Labour”.

Some one needs to take David Cameron to one side and give him a sharp talking to. Because he is just plain wrong.Wrong on sentiment.Wrong on tactics.

First and foremost the current poll of polls puts the Tories on 33% with Labour and Liberal Democrats on 29% each (and who knows where this will end). Yes, on the “just for fun” BBC Election Seat Calculator this gives the Labour 280+ seats and the Tories about 240+ seats. 

It’s a rough and ready estimate….But its clearly in the right ball park …at least for now…. And yes it looks like it would have to be coalition with the Liberals- no other group looks to have enough.

Now on the face of it, as things stand, this puts Labour looking pretty. But (and it is a big “but”) the Liberals are SERIOUS about political reform - and a change to the first past the post system….I don’t see how they CAN opt for coalition with the Labour Party with more seats (won through the defunct old system)- over the Tories with more votes. Surely we have been saying for years that it’s the votes that count? We are the party that has the demand for a fair, proportional voting system at the heart of its manifesto.

So, currently, and assuming Mr Cameron can get his act together, in hung parliament land, its gotta be the votes that count - and therefore highly probable that the Liberals would indeed be talking to the Tories about coalition.

But herein lies the problem. Mr Cameron shows no sign of getting his act together. Not on his own campaign - not on his relationship with the liberals.

At the moment the Tories seem all at sea. Private recriminations internally about why Cameron did so poorly on the TV debate last week; unleashing their pet newspapers on Nick and the Liberals (which will incidentally only drive more voters to the Libs - the more you knock us the more the public will flock to us - cheers guys!); and of course, yet more talk of the disaster of a hung parliament, despite the fact that it’s clear the majority of voters WANT a hung parliament (recent Times poll says 53% are FOR a hung parliament with only 37% against). Come on Mr Cameron - you can’t keep saying that you (and the city) know best and the common voters are stupid (which seems to be your message right now).

“We know best” just isn’t a very smart political line in an anti-political age.

 

And what of the Tory campaign? Throughout this election, indeed throughout Cameron’s leadership we have seen the Tories lurch back and forth in all directions.  From the “hug a hoodie” party to the “bang ‘em up” party with seemingly no pause for breath. They claimed to be the party of harsh realistic spending cuts that needed to be implemented NOW,  a few weeks later they were handing out tax giveaways like Father Christmas on speed. “The Big Society” was their self-confessed big idea for the general election (even if many of us really don’t get what that really means). Yet in the TV debate, David Cameron did not mention it once. Nor did he mention the flagship education policy for “free schools”, (which will allow parents or other providers to set up their own schools) during the education part of the debate. And the lack of any numbers in their manifesto had everyone scratching their heads. You just don’t seem to be able to get a real fix on them.

And for a party of optimism and change all we seem to get are threats…first it was that a hung parliament will cause financial meltdown in the city and now a hung parliament will let Labour back in.. Did talk of a hung parliament cause the volcanic ash cloud too?

The Iraq war, the excesses of the political elite and their rich mates, the constant lecturing tone..they have dripped into our psyche. We have had enough. For most, Cameron looked like the only option to rid us of the dreadful Labour party- but Tory arguments have drifted all over the place. The electorate are not that stupid. Yes they wanted a change. But they wanted authenticity too. And that just never emerged with the Tories. And in marketing terms..

 

“Authenticity is the benchmark against which all brands are now judged”

 

In spite of this Cameron was the main man when there was no real competition. But competition has arrived. When millions saw Nick on TV on the leaders debate (for all his faults and the party’s faults), they saw something that is authentic and different. People get that.  Cameron really IS “Clegg-lite”.

So in the time that’s remaining, someone needs to tell Mr Cameron to “stick to the knitting”.  At the very least talk about policies and ideas and stop trying to badger and terrify us into voting Blue. It’s just not going to work.

As for Mr Cameron’s relationship with the liberals. What makes anyone think we would be willing to work with the Tories right now, even if they were first choice coalition partners?

 

All the Tory talk over recent weeks has been wholly anti-coalition and very definately against the kind of political reform that the Liberals are proposing. Any suggestion of change to the current voting system has been met with obstinate refusal. If David Cameron wants to be on the Government benches next month he may well need to rethink this, big time. Otherwise he might find himself spending a few short months on the opposition benches before the old Tory guard get their knives out.

Tags: David Cameron, Gordon Brown, hung Parliament, Nick Clegg