Fight Night: will we see a 2015 live political debate?

For any political anorak, General Election night is one of the few occasions when staying up all night is a must. The exit polls, the swing-o-meter and the live interviews from the count all make for an entertaining night and early morning’s viewing. 2010 was no different and the campaign stands out for two particularly moments. Firstly, Gordon Brown’s cringing faux pas where he labelled off-camera and what he thought was off-mic, a life-long Labour supporter called Gillian Duffy ‘a bigoted woman’. Moments like this occur on every campaign trail, but what was most memorable this time around and completely untested was the live electoral debates.

On three separate occasions, Brown, Cameron and Clegg all duelled in live debates about matters that would sway how the British public would vote. Other Western democracies are used such set-ups, most notably in America, and despite frequent appearances on the likes of the Today programme or The Marr Show, such an event had never been held on British screens. In the context of UK politics, it was a chance for all three parties to gain. Gordon Brown felt that despite Labour’s lacklustre poll rating and the economic backdrop, he had nothing to lose, as well as his utterance that this was ‘no time for a novice’. David Cameron, his closest rival, buoyed by his polling had an opportunity to demonstrate the rebranding of his Conservatism. The dynamics of Britain’s three party system also gave a chance to a widely unknown Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

The 2010 debate

And it was Clegg who stole the show. The entire nation ‘agreed with Nick’ and as a consequence, Britain’s third party took 56 seats, down from the 2005 count, but substantial enough to see Britain’s first ‘hung’ Parliament since 1974. For most electoral strategists, there are many reasons to question why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority, but the ‘Clegg-factor’ was substantial enough to sway the ballot towards no overall control. The following five days in May saw the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to join together to form today’s Coalition Government.

To this date, and a General Election less than two years away, there is no agreement in place to whether we will see similar debates in 2015. And even despite Clegg’s performance last time, the question will be whether all three parties would want it to take place. The viewing figures from 2010 were around 10 million. That’s unheard of for political programming and simply cranks up the pressure on all party leaders, but if it has been done before and worked, why would the broadcasters not want to do it again?

And for the leaders, would they really want it to go ahead?

For the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg, history may well hold them hostage. The party remains bullish about its record in government and its ability to hang onto its seats. The Eastleigh by-election demonstrated their ability to win whilst in Government and the party grassroots will be as combative as ever. Yet Mr Clegg is no longer the outsider to the British public and they may well remember his paper promises come the vote next time, even if he puts in a strong broadcast performance. A debate may simply be part of a long drawn out annihilation.

For the Tories, David Cameron has yet to say on-record that he is willing to take part in similar debates, but it is more than likely that political pressure would force him to do so. Many would argue that Cameron remains the party’s biggest asset and that on all occasions when he has been put on the spot, most notably over Europe; he has triumphed and shown his statesman-like qualities. Yet others are quick to blame his 2010 performance for the party’s inability to win the previous vote outright. The continuing rebellion among backbenchers and the irresistable rise of Boris Johnson may put the pressure on Cameron on further. History shows that most leaders do not go onto better their previous vote, for many within the party; it may be another reason why they see it fit to unseat Mr Cameron’s leadership.

And what about Ed Miliband? The leader that to some extent remains an unknown quantity to the British public.  Would a ‘one-nation’ Labour transcend in a live leadership debate? Would voters warm to a Mr Miliband whose performances have become stronger since his rise to party leader in 2010? Or would they be turned off by his personality? His awkwardness and most notably, his political legacy in the Brown Government? Neither he nor Ed Balls have said that Labour overspent in the time in Government, despite Britain having the biggest deficit in the G8. Could a strong message and performance from Cameron and Clegg simply vanquish all rebranding attempts made by Labour?

Is it democratically unfair to ignore the likes of Farage and Salmond?

And what of UKIP or the SNP? Nigel Farage could well see his party storm to success in the 2014 the European elections. Despite no representation in the Commons, would it be unfair to exclude him from some or all of the debates? Or would exclusion only benefit him further and his party’s message? The same could be said of Alex Salmond. Why should the Conservatives, who only have one MP in Scotland, be given such preferential treatment on national broadcast? Who is not to say that the Independence debate in September 2014 could enhance the voice of the SNP in Westminster? Would it be unfair then?

There are many legal and broadcasting caveats to take into consideration, as well as the overriding political risks, but it seems implausible to go into 2015, without the prospect of a live leadership debate. As I outlined above, there are extra considerations to be had, but in what will develop into a crucial vote, the question is, who will we agree with this time?

George Osborne: a time to shine like no other.

2012 will be a memorable year for most of the UK, but for George Osborne it may be one he won’t forget too soon.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer cuts an acerbic taste with both Opposition politicians and much of the wider public. After the disaster of the spring budget that brought on headlines on pasty, caravan and church taxes, not to mention the entire ‘omnishambles’, Osborne knew  that this budget was not only important to this government, but also his reputation as a politician.

We are now beyond the half-way mark of the Coalition Government and within the next two years, the general public will start to be make decisions on whether this Government is the right choice to lead the country into the next Parliament.

Osborne, no longer the Conservative’s chief electoral strategist but still a key player within Tory HQ, will know this more than anybody.

For too long, the Tories have relied on a cheap shot of blaming the Labour Government for frivolity and economic mismanagement, yet in recent months have been undermined by some of their own and wider economic indicators. Today, extending from David Cameron’s speech at the Conservative Party Conference marks a side step away.

The Conservatives will go into this election pushing the line that ‘things have been tough, much tougher than we anticipated, but we’re moving in the right direction’. A triple-dip-recession may be inevitable, particularly with the UK’s biggest export market, the Euro zone, expected to contract further. Yet, you can hear the calls are starting to get louder on how things wouldn’t be much different under a Labour Government. 

Increasing the tax-allowance, cutting welfare spending as well new infrastructure projects will go down well with the public. Especially the decision to cut the planned 3p rise in fuel duty, something backed by The Sun newspaper. As well as the more macro initiatives to help businesses, big and small.

It’s more than likely we will see further politicking over the next couple years, maybe an initiative to claw back powers from the EU (a referendum?) and new measures to tackle youth unemployment. Both of which are serious vote winners and of concern to the current government.

Ed Balls may have been flustered as he delivered an awkward response, but no doubt he will get his teeth into the detail over the next day or so. As Osborne learnt on his last budgetary outing, the little things tend to matter and he will be more than cautious.

Osborne over the past week has introduced two new and highly proven advisors into his team and no doubt will feel a little sharper in the long run, but he knows that if he gets it right he could be looking at a majority government, get it wrong and his reputation will be tarnished forever.

Is social media changing political opinion?

The Prime Minister is proving more popular than he probably ever expected. In the six days since David Cameron joined the social networking website Twitter, he has amassed over 110,000 followers. That’s 20,000 more than Deputy PM Nick Clegg, 50,000 short of Labour leader Ed Miliband and 400,000 short of his great friend, political rival and by far the most popular Conservative tweeter of them all, Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

Cameron may be learning the intricacies of becoming a digitory – what to say and what not to say – but what about his party?

One true thing about the Conservatives is that they have never struggled to find voices; in fact, it is one of the things that have made it so vibrant. Yet does having several tweeting members of the Cabinet - William Hague, Jeremy Hunt, Eric Pickles, to name but a few - really make any difference to how the party is run or how policy is made?

The man Tatler magazine named ‘the most powerful man in politics’ Tim Montgomerie believes so, and for the better. Montgomerie, the editor of the influential ConservativeHome website said that social media is helping to create a ‘level playing field for grassroots Conservatives’. In his own words social media has caused ‘mass decentralisation of power’. He should know. Montgomerie and ConservativeHome – read by around 250,000 people a month - led the calls in February for the Government to rethink its NHS reforms – a story that topped the BBC News headlines – and vexed the Telegraph’s Peter Oborne.

Oborne, as frank as ever, acknowledged that the ConHome website is a new force in politics but asked whether this is a shift to the elite. Is this just a digitalised version of the Westminster Village? Oborne seemed to believe so; he called social media the ‘political equivalent of 20:20 cricket’. As a cricket writer it is more than likely this remark was not auspicious.

And what about the politicians view of Twitter? Matt Hancock, a Business and Education Minister, glorified its use. As one of the 2010 intake’s most recognisable and vocal MPs, he noted that it allowed backbenchers to voice their concerns to a bigger audience, but disagreed that it created a level playing field. He said ‘big names’ have ‘big voices and followers’ online. He was fervent that the party needed to embrace social media more.

So what would success look like through using social media? Does having more followers ensure victory? Does a ‘Like’ translate into a vote?

At this moment in time, no, but politicians cannot underestimate the power of how quickly social media is evolving. Tweets are already setting the agenda on 24-hour news and local democracy is being enhanced by the expansion of community news websites. An MP visiting a local branch of a national charity, once seen by one community, can suddenly be seen by millions. At some point soon we are bound to see a 140-character manifesto, though I’m not quite certain what it will look like.

One group we cannot underestimate are pollsters and electioneers. New technology channelled through social media is allowing parties to target individuals to their smartphones and iPads. This is not a phenomenon only used by President Obama and his campaign team, but also by Alex Salmond and his SNP party. The words and ideas of politicians can be sent to millions in an instant and more importantly, it is working.

It does not change the fundamentals of how politicians should interact with constituents, but it is another platform to interact.

So what did everyone think by the end of the debate?

Political parties are constantly battled with engagement both at a local and a national level, yet now all three parties have developed flourishing and growing social media channels – both official and unofficial. Communications is about delivering an effective and simple message that people remember, but also listening to what people have to say. Conversation is a two-way street and the likes of Facebook and Twitter are allowing policy-makers to have instant dialogue with their constituents.

As the debate overwhelmingly illustrated, politicians believe it to be a good thing.

This article first appeared on Gorkana and can be found here.

David Cameron: a radical, a suit or more?

Prime Minister David Cameron goes into this week’s Conservative Party conference in Birmingham knowing that his job is secure but the lens on his leadership is closer than ever. 2012 has not been a particularly good year for the coalition government or for the Prime Minister and his Chancellor George Osborne. Despite the buoyant mood among the British people, fed by the Queen’s Jubilee and the wonders of the London Olympics, reaction to the Government has moved away from inauspicious to outright hostile. The so-called ‘omnishambles’ and constant U-turning on policies has seen the government increasingly labelled as out of touch and more worryingly incompetent.

Cameron, the Conservative leader since December 2005, has always outperformed his party in the polls, yet even this year his rating has started to flag. Unfavourable headlines about his relationship with News International executives, stories about him and his wife leaving their daughter behind at the local pub and Tory MP Nadine Dorries calling him and Osborne ‘two arrogant posh boys who don’t know the price of milk’. Politicians are used to being lambasted by the popular press on a day-to-day basis and inevitably must accept it as part of the job description. But for Cameron, portrayed as a snake by The Sun, these stories are starting to question his value and what he actually represents.

Cameron for a long time was described as ‘above the prey’ and distinctly agile against criticism, the main reason being his likeability. Cameron could not transcend class barriers like Tony Blair – not that he ever tried to - or have the ideological fervour of other Conservative leaders like Margaret Thatcher – not that he ever wanted to. Yet Cameron was intellectually fierce, approachable and extremely optimistic. People generally liked him and took him for his word.

However, things have become palpably fragile and for many reasons. Ed Miliband, though still far behind Cameron in the leadership polls, gave an effortless and impressively delivered speech (though rather vacuous) to the Labour Party conference last week. The government as well appearing rather feckless at times is making some rather unpopular decisions in a tough economic climate. Not to mention, the elephant in the room- and one with two electoral victories - one Boris Johnson.

So why is the PM being questioned all of a sudden. Why are many in his party appearing bitter?

Cameron is often described as a pragmatist. One not bogged down by ideology and one who leads by instinct rather than manuscripts. Cameron, as well as other Tory modernisers like Osborne, William Hague and Michael Portillo knew that the party had to change if it was to become electable again. The Conservative Party could not remain clinging to ‘meat and drink’ policies of the Right. It had to change and embrace a wider electorate. Some called it ‘compassionate Conservatism’ but in effect it is just pitching to the middle-ground. The ‘husky dog’ moment and ‘hug –a-hoody’ were attempts to re-approach these issues and they seemed to work. 

Yet now Cameron has appointed a climate sceptic Environment Minister and evicted the liberal Ken Clarke out of the Justice department. Who are we to believe? Is Cameron the moderniser? A Thatcherite evangelist or as some people lazily label him, someone who simply wants to be Prime Minister?

To a large extent Cameron’s perception has presented as a reality. He remains compassionate about environmentalism, but understands that the costs of implementing expensive environmental reforms must come second when reforming the economy. Here Cameron’s pragmatism takes charge. Ed Miliband may have put forward his bizarre ‘One Nation’ Labour vision but Cameron remains firmly as a modernising One Nation Conservative.

He is not someone who changes tact on the flip of the coin, but puts things into perspective. People turn their nose up at concepts like ‘The Big Society’ but they truly still remain in the Government’s plans and are taking shape, but like most things the economy must come first. Cameron is fully aware that he must balance the issue of the economy before anything else.

In his two and half years as Prime Minister, under huge economic constraints – more than anyone could have anticipated - he has still managed to perform huge reforms in areas like education, welfare, localism and planning – the Downing Street policy room does not lay dormant – all driven by the Prime Minister himself.

Advisors know that when headlines are bad and polls forecast an undesirable outcome it is easy to draw back to your comfort zone. There may be pressure from certain voices within and new think-tanks such as Conservative Voice calling for Cameron to move right, but that would be profligate. The country remains conservative on issues like law and order, welfare and tax, but the centre has by no means shifted in this Parliament. The recent reshuffle was important to freshen up the ranks and introduce new ideas, but strategically there has been no great shift. Cameron remains in the centre and that is where he intends to remain.

When Cameron approaches the platform on Tuesday he does not need to be like Miliband, in fact far from that. Cameron needs to be bullish and affirm the good this government has done and what is continuing to do. It is not about changing message, it is about ensuring about rebuilding the narrative and pushing for electoral success in 2015. Cameron and Osborne know this because if they fail, they’ll both be gone.

David Cameron: Be bold or blow it.

It is said that the unwritten rule in 10 Downing Street is not to mention to Prime Minister David Cameron why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority in 2010. Going by these standards it may be wise if ever in the Treasury not to mention the 2012 spring budget to George Osborne. Two months have passed since the chancellor delivered his now infamous budget and it has brought the government nothing but negative headlines ever since.

Not only did the Conservatives take a kicking in the recent local elections, but so have many of its ministers. Home Secretary Theresa May managed to get her days wrong when trying to finally deport radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, Sayeeda Warsi is the latest politician to be accused of fiddling her expenses. Not to mention the elephant in the room involving the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and his relationship with News International.

Happier times...

I suspect the chancellor; also the Conservative’s chief electoral strategist could not have foreseen what was coming around the corner. Far removed was the analysis regarding potential tax revenue increases or a shifting of the ‘Laffer Curve’, but endless reams of front pages calling it a tax break for millionaires and hyperbole over the so-called ‘pasty tax’. This decision was politically bold and one this blog believes to have been correct, but its aftermath has been managed appallingly. At a time of severe economic gloom and pain for many sectors of society, particularly the politically important C1s and C2s, if this change were to be ushered in, it had to be done effectively. This it was not.

As a consequence the Labour party have managed to take a 14-point lead in the polls with their leader Ed Miliband becoming noticeably better in his duels with Cameron at the weekly PMQs. Cameron, who has always ranked higher in approval ratings compared to his party, has also suffered. Probably the most popular Conservative in the country is the London mayor Boris Johnson and beyond that, people may start scratching their heads. The Liberal Democrat’s fortunes faded a long time before.

Theories of so-called ‘midterm blues’ have been thrown about by coalition MPs, but it’s not difficult to see why many already see the rot setting in. Despite the PM and his deputy Clegg renewing their vows in another rose garden moment at a factory in Basildon, the tensions are visible. Relations over Europe and most significantly the ways to see growth in the economy are causing tension.

Many commentators agree that it already appears to be getting to Cameron. He has lost his composure on several occasions of late, mostly during PMQs and particularly to the shadow chancellor Ed Balls. All coalition members are right to criticise Labour’s terrible economic legacy but even after two years of coalition government and a double-dip recession, Cameron is visibly pushing the same tired lines over and over again. It is not good politics and is increasingly starting to appear desperate.

Headache?

The hysteria over comments about whether Cameron and Osborne were ‘too posh’ should not have been given as much coverage as it warranted. The reason is that at any point, politicians are accused of being ‘out of touch’ from those outside the Westminster village. This was a story that overlapped with some of the previous week’s articles, but the trend had already begun.

Stories involving spin and sleaze are always damaging and became chronic in both the Major and New Labour years, but for this government and this leadership the issue that would be most alarming would be accusations of incompetence. This of course was a government coming together in the national interest. Admirers of Cameron’s leadership have always pointed to his ability to look for the practical solutions beyond ideology and his warmness to working with people. Cameron is best when he is bold. Most notably when he used the UK’s veto over the EU fiscal compact and when he famously called Gordon Brown’s bluff in the election that never was in 2008. So why does it appear to be going wrong?

The fact the economy hasn’t grown in 18 months is not helping anybody. The Tories must pure and simply rely on the strength of the economy to win a majority in the next election; and as things stand, that may not happen. The prospect of another hung Parliament and a potential coalition with the Lib Dems is bound to worry many backbenchers. This has inevitably led to questions regarding Cameron and his style of leadership.

A strong theme that emanates from websites such as Conservative Home, is the fact that he is not Mrs Thatcher. Despite being retired from public life and sadly suffering from dementia, Mrs Thatcher is very much the political pin-up for many Tory backbenchers, whereas for Cameron and Osborne, it is more likely to be Tony Blair. They admire Blair’s political intelligence and his ability to win elections, but certainly appear to have ignored his style of presentation.

Fewer special advisors within Number 10 and critically a weak voice from the communications department are making Cameron’s government appear feckless. This government, in only two years, has been radical in its reforms on welfare and education, but its inability to take control over the past two months has made them appear slightly aloof and the poll numbers reflect this.

Any press criticism can be damaging, but it is in the interest of a party, whether political or business to set the record straight. The government needs to get out there on and talk directly to the public. The Conservatives will not win a majority if they fail to make inroads into the north and Cameron and Osborne’s real political legacy will only be judged if they can establish something beyond this Parliament. A reshuffle may help in the short term, but if they are going to win, then they need to be bolder.

Midterm blues: Can Cameron step up?

All governments suffer from mid-term blues, but for the current administration, it appears to be getting worse and worse. Since Chancellor George Osborne’s spring budget, the Conservative party’s poll ratings have fallen to their lowest in eight years.

Beyond the double-dip recession, the government has encountered negative press coverage regarding granny taxes, pasty taxes, charity taxes, caravan taxes and IMF loans. Furthermore, serious questions have been raised over the Home Secretary Teresa May’s inability to deport the hate preacher Abu Qatada and the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s dealings with News International over the BSkyB takeover. It was finally capped off after one Tory backbencher labelled both the Chancellor and Prime Minister David Cameron as ‘two arrogant posh boys who don’t know the price of milk’.

Osborne was recently asked when he last ate a pasty

By all precedents, the government of the day should not be too concerned about ratings half way through a Parliament. In 1981, Margaret Thatcher suffered terrible poll ratings, only 18 months into her tenure. Likewise, Tony Blair and New Labour faced an internal meltdown after the 2000 autumn fuel protests. Both went onto to win comfortably in the ensuing general elections.

As ridiculous as it sounds, the government of the day must also be prepared to take a battering in local and other elections. In 2008, during a recession and the unfolding days of Gordon Brown, New Labour lost the mayoralty election in London, nine councils and 334 councillors. When voters go to the ballot box this week, Labour will expect a host of victories across the country, whereas the Tories and Liberal Democrats should expect a decline in the polls. It is an ongoing exercise of electoral swings and roundabouts.

Strategically, the government’s main concern will be focussed on the next general election, probably in 2015. It is a time when voters truly voice their views on the current administration and whether they deserve another term in office. For the Tories, at this midterm point, the possibility of a majority government looks rather bleak. Despite a raft of radical policies including education and welfare reform, the payback is by no means guaranteed. Not only are they shackled to the electorally unpopular Lib Dems and face a slumping economy, but fundamentally, the Tories are still failing to shake off their image as a party of the rich.

Despite the government’s mission to reduce the size of the state and tackle the burden of a welfare culture, the Labour party constantly harangues the government’s ‘all in this together’ message and the current Cabinet’s composition of millionaires. Introducing reform to the NHS is portrayed as privatisation. Reducing the higher rate of tax from 50p to 45p, though economically sensible, is viewed as a tax break for millionaires, not so wise at a time of wage freezes, high unemployment and high inflation. It should be noted that Labour, still burdened as economically incompetent by the electorate, has yet to announce any of their own policies.

These problems link to the government’s ineffective communication strategy. Not only is the message weak, but it lacks the hard hitters to consistently reaffirm it. Mrs Thatcher’s attack dog was Norman Tebbit, whilst New Labour wasn’t afraid to throw John Prescott or John Reid to fend off the media. Despite the obvious constraints of dealing with a coalition government, even Conservative-only issues such as the current involving Jeremy Hunt lack any high-fliers to defend him. Apparently BBC Newsnight could only find backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg willing to appear on air. In a world of Twitter and 24-hour news, where opponents have a platform to criticise you immediately, it is important to have lieutenants in place to control the message.

Health Secretary's heckling.

It is twenty years since John Major was elected as Prime Minister in the 1992 election. Amazingly, Major polled over 14 million votes; the highest by any British party leader, even Blair and Thatcher. Perhaps it is more extraordinary when one contends the discontent regarding the poll tax and the effects of the ‘Lawson boom’. Certainly, no leader could expect such a result with the growth in regional parties such as Plaid Cymru and the SNP, but how ascertainable is winning a majority?

A recent poll by the Conservative Home website states that only 23% of party members believe that David Cameron can win a majority in the next election. Cameron is an extremely talented politician and continuously has better poll ratings than his party, not to mention other party leaders. Since his leadership victory in 2005, he has helped the Tories rebrand themselves as greener and more caring. However, no inquiry has taken place as yet to see why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority in the 2010 election. Why was it that a tired and economically-imprudent Labour party managed to hang on to as many seats as they did? According to some sources it is something you dare not speak about when in Number 10.

As the story in today’s Sunday Times suggests, ethnic minority voters are still wary to vote Tory. In fact, only 16% voted Conservative in the last election. This should be concerning because beyond the fact that this population is set to make of a fifth of the electorate by 2050, many of the party’s traditional pro-business and pro-family policies should attract these voters, not deter them. It highlights not what the party represents but what it says and looks like. There are few Tory MPs from ethnic minority backgrounds and we certainly don’t hear from them. It is the same in regards to the north. Maybe besides Eric Pickles, we rarely hear any northern accents. The party’s policy agenda has been impressive, yet it tends to be the same old faces that we hear from.

More talented politicians from different backgrounds like Paul Uppal MP

Maybe it is possible to over analyse these things, particularly halfway through an election cycle and when things look slightly unfavourable. As Norman Tebbit says, “if suspected terrorists were being kicked out, taxes and unemployment were going down and pay going up, it wouldn’t matter if it was being reported that the Prime Minister liked to lay in the baths full of champagne drinking Chateau Laffite, after a hard day’s hunting on one of Rebekah Brooks’s horses, the public wouldn’t give a damn.” Probably true as well.

If Cameron fails to win the next election, no matter how popular and reforming he may be, he will always be held in a lower regard. Certainly lower than Thatcher, most likely Major and perpetually compared to Heath.  It will not be Osborne stepping up, but one Boris Johnson.

Goodbye guru: Steve Hilton leaves

After a week of headlines questioning whether the Prime Minister David Cameron rode Rebekah Brookes’s ex-police horse, the Prime Minister may be looking to the Cheltenham Festival for a change in fortunes both nationally and within his own party.

The departure of Steve Hilton, the chief of strategy and the so-called architect of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ comes as a blow at a decisive time. Hilton, a former advertising executive and a long time friend of the PM, is taking a year sabbatical to California to teach at Stanford University. He has stated that he does intend to return to the post before the next general election. Should Cameron be worried and does Hilton’s departure open growing concerns?

Hilton arriving for work.

Over the past few months, the coalition government has seen a dip in fortunes in the press and politically. The Labour party have managed to castigate, successfully, the government’s Health & Social bill and much more focus is being placed on the lack of growth in the British economy. A couple of months ago, Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, was certain to win the Mayoral elections in May, now polls show him to be neck and neck with Labour’s candidate Ken Livingstone.

Since coming to power in May 2010, the coalition government have managed to pass through a great deal of radical policy. In education, the academies bill has given schools the potential to govern themselves and just last week the House of Lords passed the welfare bill that caps benefits at £26,000 per household. The localism bill plans to give further powers away from Whitehall.

Yet, Hilton’s departure shows the growing frustration from within Number 10. Mr Cameron and his aides appear now to be managing every policy decision, far from the style of government they had planned when they first arrived. The Prime Minister has had to intervene on numerous policy initiatives including: public owned forests, wild animals in circuses, the EU, but most notably the health bill and the economy.

Hilton’s plans for the ‘Big Society’ and less red tape for businesses appear to have been put to one side. There are growing frustrations of the Liberal Democrats and their often bizarre requests to delay legislation. Only last week in Cabinet, the Business Secretary Vince Cable was supposedly rebuked for the lack of growth policies coming out of his department. Not to mention the Deputy Prime Minister’s attempts to reform the House of Lords. At the same time, Cameron has to deal with a growing unrest from his backbenchers, who feel policy is being hijacked by the Lib Dems. Prime Minister’s Questions have repeatedly seen cheeky questions of whether Clegg is a ‘goodie’ or ‘baddie’ or why certain Lib Dem ministers have not voted for government bills.

This day-to-day reactionary politics appears to have been the reason why Hilton has left for now. His departure leaves Cameron without another key advisor, a year after Andy Coulson’s decision to leave. For now, Cameron will be glad to see the Health bill finally pushed through the House of Lords and a reshuffle in the spring may allow him to clean up some of his flagging departments. Ultimately, a return to growth and a re-election for Boris would be better than a 100-1 outsider in the Gold Cup.

                                                                                                                                                     

Backbench rebellion - another headache for Cameron.

Awkward George is often how its peers on the continent refer to Britain. For centuries, Britain did not interfere with the administrations or the wars taking place on the continent. Britain was a seafaring nation and although it dabbled in several continental wars, most notably against the French, it preferred to look further afield with its international policy. It was not until the Battle of Blenheim in 1704 (part of the War of Spanish Succession) where the Duke of Marlborough, Randolph Churchill (relation to Sir Winston), helped defeat Louis XIV and the French forces, that Britain became a force to be reckoned with on mainland Europe. Fast forward three centuries of warfare at Waterloo, the Crimea, Flanders and World Wars One and Two, Britain still appears to be uncertain of its relationship with Europe. For Prime Minister David Cameron, it will continue to give him and the Conservative Party a headache.

Last night, MPs voted on a motion (that had no legal binding) on whether there should be referenda to decide whether Britain should remain in the EU. For many, during a time when the 17 countries that are within the Eurozone and debating the currency’s future, it was an opportunity for Britain to redress the power balance and restore powers back to Westminster. They see the EU as an undignified institution, full of overpaid bureaucrats based in Brussels and Strasbourg, who lack any accountability, squandering taxpayers’ money and dictating laws to European Parliaments that supersede the national sovereignty. Many Eurosceptics believe that EU legislation and red tape is placing barriers on UK businesses and stifling growth, something that could send the UK back into another recession. Last night’s vote saw 81 Conservative MPs back the motion, and despite the vote being unanimously put down, it could certainly be the beginning of trouble.

For backbench Conservatives, many who voted for and against the motion were displeased by the apparent aggressive nature used by the party whips. The vote was not binding and yet the Government sought to kill the bill as soon as possible. In doing so, it managed to generate more press coverage and appeared to reopen old wounds within the party that destroyed it from within back in 1993 up until 1997. The issue for Conservatives was highlighted by many of the speeches they gave to the House during the debate, some said they have promised to their constituents and associations that a referendum was something they believed in and to back down would appear to renege on their promises. The other points highlighted the fact that it has been over 35 years since Britain’s previous referenda on EU withdrawal, and within that time far from the economic market that the EU was, it has become a giant political project. Finally, if the debate wasn’t raised now, then when would be a good time to address these questions.

These displeased members are part of the first Coalition government in 70 years and for them climbing their way up the Ministerial ladder will be much more difficult than in previous administrations. They not only have to contend with Liberal Democrat appointments but with a party that is keen on promoting women into Government, this may be the best way of making their voices heard. In the vote on Maastricht in 1993, 41 MPs rebelled compared to last night’s 81. It took almost six years of the Blair Government to reach that mark and as political scientists pointed out; people enjoy the taste of rebellion and are only more likely to continue.

For David Cameron, the vote became a disruption as a leader and for his reputation in Europe. French President Nicholas Sarkozy apparently told him that he was fed up of Britain trying to meddle with Eurozone politics and many of his own MPs have deemed his leadership as weak. Cameron is part of a generation of politicians that are generally Eurosceptic and many of the comments he put forward to the house highlighted his displeasure with the organisation exactly. Yet, for Britain, one of the big players in European politics, to be outside of any discussions would be stupid. As Chancellor George Osborne and Foreign Secretary William Hague have pointed out, a fiscal union within Europe would make sense, yet with Britain on the outside, it would not take long before France and Germany would take control. Who is not to say this could affect the revenues of the City of London and all the while Britain is powerless to do anything. Britain has an important trading relationship within the EU and is too a big country to simply do what Norway and Switzerland do. For most Europeans the debates raised by Britain and the nation state is something they would associate with 19th and early 20th century politics, not early 21st. Cameron, Osborne and Hague are all aware of this but will be wary of the displeasure it brings among their own party and electorate.

When Britain joined the Common Market in the early seventies, Western Europe contributed almost 50 per cent of global trade and today it stands around 16%. Britain is right to question its relationship within the EU and what economic benefits it provides but we must have a sensible conversation and one that takes in all factors. Most British businesses have highlighted their issues with the EU but still remain reliant on its relationship. As long as the Euro crisis continues and Britain continues to contribute towards bailouts the debate isn’t going to go away.

Jobs for the boys - Ministers/Advisors/Hacks/Lobbyists - apply here!

Every Government is subject to criticism, whether it is policy, sleaze or accountability, every Government will be scrutinised for its failures by the press and voters alike. Much of the criticism directed towards the Coalition Government is the aura of privilege and patronage. Many voters do not believe the mutterings of Messieurs Cameron, Osborne or Clegg when they say ‘we’re all in this together’ in recognition of a faltering economy and increasing burdens on everyday families. All three men and much of the current Cabinet are millionaires and come from what most Britons would describe as exceptionally comfortable backgrounds; Eton, Oxford and a job in the City are far from most people’s realities. Perhaps we are now being exposed to an American trait that we expect all our politicians to show compassion and feel our every creak and groan on a day-to-day basis. I suspect that many suspicions of politicians do not stem from envy or contempt, most likely it is from mistrust. For a politician to hear the phrase ‘you’re all the same’ or ‘you’re just like the last lot’ is nothing new nor revealing, yet the resignation of Defence Secretary Liam Fox does highlight something tawdry and something that will continue to blight how politics works in this country.

Most people would not usually be interested in following the blogs or commentary of Whitehall watchers and probably did not read a great deal into the resignation of Dr Fox last week. Yet, most journalists within the Westminster village live within a scramble of politicians, lobbyists, PR advisors and other hacks, in what has truly become a blur. It is increasingly becoming more prevalent and the agents within the game are becoming ever transient, one commentator said that it is like ‘the pavement retiring to become the lamppost’ i.e. the advisors are becoming the politicians and the journalists are becoming the PR men, Westminster is a corridor of ‘suit and tie’ men.

Prime Minister David Cameron spent time before joining Parliament as a PR man and an advisor in the Home Office and Treasury. Chancellor George Osborne joined Conservative Head Office soon after leaving Oxford. Labour leader Ed Miliband was a policy advisor to Gordon Brown and Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls was a financial journalist before also joining Brown as an advisor. The London Mayor, Boris Johnson, was the editor of The Spectator and still writes a column in The Daily Telegraph. Not forgetting Tony Blair who took up various consultancy roles with companies such as JP Morgan Chase. It is all too common for Ministers who leave office too simply find a job with an international firm and continue their work with more subtlety and better pay. The nature of Westminster is that everyone knows each other and the lobbyists will pay big money to scoop any of that influence.

The issue that ultimately arises is how you tackle such a sport, if it is possible. Government is unlikely to kowtow to the Civil Service anytime soon and Ministers will continue to surround themselves with special advisors and spin-doctors. One thing that was interesting to read regarding the Liam Fox affair was that one commentator said ‘he was acting like an American politician’ and maybe it is true that we have reached that stage. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that his father used his contacts to help him obtain an internship in the City when he left University, but it is this culture that we need to curtail. I’m not quite sure how soon it’s going to happen.

Ed Miliband makes a move.

A quick word on Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet reshuffle, if you want the full list then click here. What was distinct about the General Election in 2010 was the huge turnover in MPs out of the House of Commons. Many had been caught up in the expenses scandal and many were, like New Labour, shown the door. Commentators have rightly said that the new 232 MPs have brought in new ideas and freshness to what had become a toxic chamber since the Daily Telegraph’s excellent reportage in 2009.

Ed Miliband has decided to promote some of these new MPs within the Labour ranks with the hope that they may bring new fortunes to what has been a difficult start as leader of the Labour party. It is a good move because it does clear out some dead wood and shows to the public that Labour is trying to move on from the difficulties of the past few years, but the issue for Miliband is that he has visibly moved the party to the left. Many Tory delegates, particularly on the right, have not liked some of the decisions Prime Minister Cameron has made this year, but it is visible to see that the Cameron government now occupies the centre of British politics, something they haven’t managed to do in over a decade.

The major problem for Miliband is that he needs to remain left of centre because otherwise people will ask why didn’t we just elect his brother. The next few years will show whether Ed is a leader or the a dud that many have already proclaimed. We shall watch intently.

Party politics - wooing the delegates

As we reach the final week of the party conference season with the Tories in Manchester. It has given us an opportunity to assess the speeches from the leaders of the three main political parties and listen to their thoughts on important issues such as the economy, jobs and education. Yet as David Cameron takes the main stage to address Tory delegates, questions will be asked on how important the speech really is and whether the party conference season adds any policy ammunition to the Government of the day or whether it is just plain and simply a talking shop for leading figures to allay members’ fears.

Party politics in Britain no longer holds ideological differences that embattled a generation of politicians. Throughout the 1950s and up until the mid 1980s, it was easy to determine where each party lay and where their votes came from. The Americanisation of democracy and the revolution in electoral communications has meant that politicians are now under scrutiny for every move they make on 24-hour news. They also have to contend with an all-encompassing comment vanguard, who have a brigade of Twitter and Facebook followers. No longer are the views of Benedict Brogan or Nigel Lawson restricted to the inside sheets of the broadsheets, they are blogged, retweeted and then cited by other commentators. Politics is truly a pervasive sport.

So how powerful are the party members and how influential are they in dictating policy for their leaders? I would suggest not very. Politicians have always had political/policy advisors surrounding them and the constituent base was always the barometer to assess what the grassroots were feeling. Mrs Thatcher’s neo liberal ideas came through the Centre of Policy Studies founded by her policy guru Keith Joseph. New Labour formed under the stewardship of Alastair Campbell – a former tabloid political editor, Peter Mandelson – a television producer and Philip Gould – a pollster who had worked in American politics. David Cameron had a background in public relations, Gordon Brown did not. It is necessary for a modern day leader to be surrounded by a coterie of special advisors (spads), spin-doctors, pollsters and all other sorts of political professionals. Policies develop through focus groups, intellects and advisors, not the hoi polloi. Even the atmosphere surrounding the recent Liberal Democrat conference, a party notorious for its grass roots, was distinctly corporate rather than village hall.

The main reason is the growth of the swing vote. People no longer are associated with the local Conservative or Labour club, for reasons of time, family and changing habits. The local association’s main role is the fundraising for elections and the selection of candidates. Besides support, perhaps the most important thing they provide is information. They identify for whom an individual or family is likely to vote and trends within a community, age group or gender. Democracy is a set of ideas and values, but electoral politics is about getting more people to vote for you on polling day. Looking and sounding respectable and trusting is the best way to get their vote.

So the Conservative conference, according to figures from Conservative Home (the digital home of Tories), shows that 10 per cent of members dislike the Coalition and two-thirds believe that David Cameron has given too many powers away to the Lib Dems. Unsurprising results, you would expect. As it goes, much of the substance from the conference yesterday involved traditional Tory thinking, tackling illegal immigration and repatriating powers from Brussels. Yet for the Tories, particularly David Cameron and George Osborne, the real issues do not lie regarding the Lib Dems asserting themselves or showing the Government to be more compassionate to female voters (they do matter), it ultimately comes down to the economy.

Most Conservatives are concerned about the jobs and taxes and believe the rate of cuts needs to hasten before the burden is placed on businesses. They also believe that any future amendments of EU treaties should provide the UK with an opportunity to repatriate powers from Brussels, but let’s be fair, if slightly trite, you could put a blue brick on stage and most Conservatives would vote for it. David Cameron and his cabinet colleagues are aware of the ramblings on Europe, the Human Rights Act and the difficulty in winning the female vote but he and his advisors will be more aware that if he doesn’t get the economy right then come 2015 they could all be out of a job.

The 'Right' of Europe

As the party conference season descends on the UK after the Summer Parliamentary recess, much of the focus will be on the three major parties and their policies towards the economy, education and health. One party that will be holding its party conference this week in Eastbourne, will be the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP as it is ubiquitously known, and its charismatic leader Nigel Farage. Known within the mainstream as a party that rejects UK membership of the European Union, UKIP is often seen as a place for right wing Tories to retreat to when they don’t like the direction of the Conservative Party. Yet, with bailouts within the Eurozone and increasing concerns about immigration, where does the future lie for parties of the right within Europe.

All across the continent, parties with right wing agendas have surged in popularity. Countries like Finland, in the heart of liberal Scandinavia, saw the True Finns party take almost a fifth of the votes in the recent Parliamentary elections, finishing third overall. The True Finns reject the EU bailout of countries like Greece and Portugal and promote Finnish women to stay home and have more children, preferably ‘ethnic Finns’. This was all democratic, whilst across the border in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik a lone gunman killed scores of younger members of Norway’s Labor Party, an institution he felt that had polluted the Norwegian way of life.

Traditionally, we associate right wing politics with racism and anti-Semitism. The massacre at Clifford’s Tower in York, the conquest of Toledo in Spain and latterly the Holocaust. Yet anti-Semitism is becoming less accepted by most European countries, all European countries recognise Israel and have anti-Semitism laws in place. In fact, figureheads of Europe’s right wing movement such as Marie Le Penn of France’s Front National or Geert Wilders, the Netherland’s most outspoken politician both embrace Judaism. Most right wing parties on the continent have turned their scorn towards Islam.

Too much immigration is not necessarily a right wing dictum; you are just as likely to feel resentment of uncontrolled immigration from traditional UK Labour Party members to traditional Tories living in the Shires. The right has always been successful in threading such political wisdom through appropriating the right of the individual and the need for a smaller government. Single issues parties like the British National Party (BNP) have usually failed because their narrow point of view and lack of political organisation, rare successes can be attributed to voters wanting to give the Government of the day a bloody nose, nothing more. UKIP does not pursue a racist agenda, it is libertarian, it believes Britain has the right to control its own borders and sees Europe as a talking shop full of unelected bureaucrats. In the last European elections in 2009, UKIP secured 13 seats, the same as the governing party of the day, Labour, and under an electoral system that is slightly more favourable to them.

When asked about what concerns voters most, Europe is normally an issue that comes way down the list of priority for most of the electorate. Yet, it would be interesting to see what would happen if UKIP perhaps took a sharper line on immigration, like other European parties. The current Conservative Government of the day would have a dilemma of what to do regarding its coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. In 2005, under the leadership of Michael Howard, the Conservatives took a right wing stance on crime, immigration and Europe, forcing Tony Blair to move his election strategy to the same audience, most likely because they did not have the capability of winning. In an age where austerity is king and voters want secure employment and an accountable political and tax system, it would be interesting to hear what Mr Farage has to say and whether he decides to tread on the toes Mr Cameron.

Printing the presses

The week’s dominating story surrounding the phone hacking allegations made by News of the World (NOTW) journalists is becoming an ever increasing business and publicity nightmare for News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch. This afternoon’s announcement that Britain’s biggest selling newspaper will stop printing after 168 years is a serious blow to the revenue stream of the world’s most famous media mogul. With probable criminal investigations and multiple public inquires into the scandal much scrutiny is being placed on News International’s Chief Executive Rebekah Wade (former editor of the NOTW) and her successor Andy Coulson (and deputy at the time) who later went on to become David Cameron’s press secretary. Yet how much scrutiny should also be focussed on the Prime Minister? Many commentators believe politicians kowtow to easily the media, especially the printing presses, but is Mr Cameron’s slow response subject to what some may say is an unhealthy relationship.

According to sales figures from March the newspapers (The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times and NOTW) from News Corp sell well over 23 million copies each week. Even in a medium where circulation is dropping year on year) the power of newspapers to drive opinion is still an extremely important vehicle for politicians to maintain. Under Mrs Thatcher, Rupert Murdoch enjoyed an extremely healthy relationship and used his friendship to acquire the Times, without it being referred to the Monopoly Commission. He in turn used his power to back Maggie in her fights against the Miners and in Brussels. Later on, during the New Labour years, armed with two fierce media men, former political editor of the Daily Mirror Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair was able to contrive most editors into plugging his vision of a new Britain. It became extremely insidious and some of the press had sympathies with the government after the Iraq War and the Hutton Inquiry into the death of the weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.

So is Cameron really at fault? Is it not part of the political game? He courted the Murdoch press during his time in opposition and they forcibly backed him against the dithering Gordon Brown in the 2010 election. Does he not owe them a favour in return? There are plenty of examples from overseas, particularly America, that show what problems Presidents can face when they get on to the wrong side of the press. The Watergate scandal saw the downfall of Richard Nixon and many saw the end of Lyndon B Johnson’s presidency down to the press coverage of the Vietnam War. The CBS anchor Walter Cronkite famously reported that the conflict was “mired in stalemate” to which LBJ was reported to have said “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” Since these times politicians have seen it as a duty to court the press. As Enoch Powell said “Politicians criticising journalists is like sailors criticising the weather”. They are in affect part of the game.

Cameron is known to dine regularly with the likes of Matthew Freud, a PR man who is married to one Elisabeth Murdoch and he also attended the wedding of Brookes two years ago. So far, the Murdoch press has been very loyal to the coalition Government, yet the resignation of Andy Coulson was when many questioned started to question Mr Cameron’s own integrity.

This is particularly why the Prime Minister needs to be careful, people will think the delay and dithering of his response come down to the fact that he does not want to decapitate a Government-endorsing newspaper. When questions are now being raised that the PM knew that Coulson was complicit in signing off cheques to bribe policemen then the pernicious details do not look favourably on Mr Cameron or the Murdochs. The reputation of the British press is notoriously sensationalist and scandal based, but the public fury and ethical questions being asked are not good all round, Mr Cameron should be aware of this and know when issues are in the interest of the people rather than himself.

The Flashman papers.

The role of the media in politics and its use to construct and then ultimately destruct the careers of those in power is well known. For years sketch writers and cartoonists have lampooned the credibility and fallibility of politicians and in reverse speechwriters, spin doctors and political advisors have been hired to lionise their every move and utterance. The cult of personality in electoral politics can be grave or a procession to a Ministerial promotion.

It is particularly interesting to look at the relationship between the three major parties and their own ‘witticisms’ of each other. The age of coalition government has flipped the previous polarities and has increased the forensic detail on policy and partnership, particularly in the Liberal Democrat’s ailing leader Nick Clegg. Clegg, whose election debate performances spun the short-lived craze of ‘Cleggmania’ is now perceived as the manservant to the Bullingdon boy David Cameron. Clegg was previously deemed a fresh faced reformer on the outside, yet a year later his political reputation has been tarnished by his partnership in Government that supposedly quashed his principles. Clegg’s short lived ascendancy and decline, is through a cocktail of his political weakness and the media turning the screw on his every mistake.

Labour leader, Ed Miliband exclaimed that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was like Harry Paget ‘Flashman’, the ‘hero’ in the George Fraser MacDonald novels. Harry Flashman VC, KCB, KCIE, Legion d’Honneur and so on was a Victorian soldier who was chucked out of Rugby and whose father bought him a commission in the light dragoons. Some say he was a cavalier, cheat, thief and womanising cad – not exceptional talents for a politician to have. Though Flashman was heroic as well, he saved British India, confounded the French and defeated the Su Indians; he even took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade. It is not necessarily a bad portrait to take on. It was the Soviet’s who pejoratively called Mrs Thatcher the ‘Iron Lady’ yet she used this to enhance her personality.

Ed Miliband whose distinguishing features have seen him titled ‘Red Ed’ for his apparent Old Labour views. He has also been toyed because of his inferiority to his bigger brother, former Foreign Secretary, David. The issue with asserting a personality is that it can inevitably lead to parody and typecast. John Major, who came to power after ten years of Mrs Thatcher, was portrayed as the ‘grey man’ for his insipidness. Tony Blair, despite the charisma and personality, is known for his lack of substance too. Playing to the media helps politicians get to where they want to belong but the continuous airbrushing assimilates a portfolio to one of Lord Sugar’s rejects: all talk but utterly hopeless.

It is unfair because politicians are never going to get things right. The age of 24-hour news examines every single angle of a story and grasps every opinion. An apology shows weakness, but defiance can show a lack of sympathy or pure haughtiness. The end of Gordon Brown’s tenure in Downing Street reflected this perfectly. Enoch Powell famously said that ‘All political lives end in failure’ and whilst Cameron and Miliband will continue to play their Punch and Judy politics, Clegg will continue to stand in the background resembling Hamlet’s indecisiveness and retain his position as media/electorate punch bag.

In the Police I trust.

The public sector and local government will be bracing itself for the forthcoming budget given by George Osborne. If the coalition government’s plans to wipe out the fiscal deficit within this Parliament are to materialise then savings bringing spending to around 40% of GDP will be the main target for Treasury officials. It is on these occasions that public services feel the pinch and try to demonstrate their worth and mitigate any government cuts. Perhaps the most difficult, particularly from the Conservative’s perspective, is a reduction to the policing budget. Tough crime and penal policies have always been part of a Tory’s diet and a cut in police numbers would appear to be contrary to party beliefs. Under Mrs Thatcher, police recruitment increased by around 30% and was vital in her battles against striking miners.

David Cameron met recently with the former Los Angeles Police Commissioner, William Bratton, to discuss crime and policing strategy. Bratton worked for the Boston Police Department (BPD), the New York Police Department (NYPD) and, until recently, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). In all three posts he has managed to reduce crime in cities notorious with high drug and violent crime rates. His experience and judgements are intelligible and his justifications would make any politician stupid to ignore him.

For many years New York was ravaged by violent organised crime syndicates that disrupted the lives of its population. Bratton’s ideas were based on a criminology paper by George Kelly and Ray Wilson called the ‘Broken Window Theory’. Kelly and Wilson placed a brand new car in a rough neighbourhood and left it for 24 hours, when they returned they found there had been no damage at all. The next time, they broke a window and again left it for 24 hours. When they returned they found the car had been vandalised to the extent that nothing was retrievable, even the tyres had been stolen. The theory was that if the Police were ignoring minor crimes, and targeting serious criminals, then these petty crooks will be undeterred by the law and eventually fall into a life of tougher crime.

The ‘Broken Window’ was evident in many cities across America in the 1970s. In New York police didn’t stop drinking on the streets, gambling, graffiti or the infamous squeegee men that cleaned car windows at traffic lights. Statistics found that of the three million people travelling on the subway each day, 200,000 people were evading the fare. Bratton set out his taskforce to root out such delinquency by finding the source and stopping it in its track. As he stated, by stopping people from drinking on the streets you are stopping a potential fight or stabbing later on in the evening.

People were very critical of this style of policing because evidence suggested that ‘zero-tolerance’ policing was pushing crime to outskirts of the city. It is also seen as very authoritarian and suspicious of human behaviour. As Bratton put it, this style of policing is in the wider interest of society. The Police did not have a good reputation within ethnic areas of cities, and the violence directed at people like Rodney King did not help ameliorate such relationships. He suggests that Police need to control the behaviour of society because crime itself is only caused by one thing; human nature. These are influenced by the economy, demographics and racism but it ultimately derives from the individual. By placing Police on the beat it was repairing relationships in places historically deemed as no-go areas. Cops on the dots not only created compassionate policing but it helped to stop the source of crime.

Ideological lines are always drawn involving crime and punishment. Liberals despise the thought of giving up certain liberties for the good of everyone, but these theories have shown that they have been effective in driving down all types of crime in cities with unhealthy pasts. Putting people in prison is in fact a good thing for society. It not only removes certain people from society but endorses a combination of policing and the criminal justice system i.e. juries.

This is the dilemma Mr Cameron has. Crime is known to rise during recessions, particularly low level, but by cutting Police numbers he could be doing more damage than he wishes. Policing has evolved immensely in terms of technology and statistics, but these alone will not see people stop their errant ways.

A class above? - Britain's politicians

The concepts of Parliament and the evolution of the British political system appear to be extremely atypical. The rules of Westminster are dominated by tradition and convention. There is something very British about it all, the fact that there is and has been great disharmony; and yet we seem to get on with it. It does of course have its merits, the fact it is very flexible and nothing is entrenched in a written constitution. Of course, many people – mainly on the left – would say it is inherently unfair on the minority. Andrew Neil’s television programme about British politics being run by an Etonian and Oxbridge mafia highlighted the fact that the traditional routes taken by previous politicians are now redundant and the aggrandising of the professional politician is now pervasive.

This new breed of politicians has climbed the slippery pole through internships and research posts at Conservative or Labour Party HQ, to become advisers and then establish themselves as politicians. The issue Neil saw was that this coterie were emerging all from elite institutions that were becoming breeding grounds for future Ministers. Cameron, David and Ed Miliband, Osborne, Balls and Hague all read PPE at Oxford and generally followed the same route into politics. The argument is this: do our politicians, all coming from wealthy backgrounds, lack a real understanding of what politics is about at the grassroots? These men are extremely intelligent and have a great understanding of political theory and ideology; but does it justify them to make decisions on behalf of people they don’t particularly understand.

I think the problem of Neil’s examination is that he posed some questions but he didn’t really go anywhere with it. Surely we should be asking if there are so many old Etonians in the cabinet, then what happened to people like John Major and Gordon Brown. All these former Prime Ministers went through grammar schools, a selective institution that nurtured generations of pupils with a real possibility of high office. The irritable question that no one pointed out was that grammar schools worked, it was the secondary modern system that didn’t, creating a fault line that neither political party wanted to remain. It is a case that private education has maintained high standards whilst comprehensives had to adapt themselves to a universal education policy.

Perhaps it is just a case that this argument was more ‘explosive’ because of the news earlier on the day regarding the economy. For people struggling to make money in today’s climate, it may be seen as naive for Mr Osborne to blame the woes of the economy on the weather (How British!) The departures of the so-called working class influences of Andy Coulson and Alan Johnson only made the point a bit stronger. Historically, we must remember, it has been an easy gimmick to question someone’s experience or upbringing for political barracking; I don’t think this week’s analysis should detract away from that. Also after so much scrutiny regarding patronage and expenses, a great deal of effort has been made by all parties to regain public trust and enhance participation. As many commentators agree, the new faces within Westminster have a good grounding in the outside world and at a local level. I think ultimately we should be able to trust our politician’s judgement and their political record, not just their academic background because if you don’t like them then you can always vote them out.

Tuition Fees: This is Government

So the vote for tuition fees went the way of the Coalition Government. From 2013, students in England could potentially be paying up to £9,000 per year. Ignoring the anger on the streets and the mindless acts of violence by the protesters, the political games were extremely engaging and provoking. The Liberal Democrats, the junior partner within the coalition, abandoned their election pledge not to increase tuition fees.

Many will argue that free higher education should be a right and that society gains as a whole from having highly-skilled graduates. Yet, it is unaffordable and by having more and more students entering further education, it is causing a greater strain for the state to burden.

Perhaps this is what the Liberal Democrats have come to realise. From a party that within the past twenty years has been well-liked and input many policy pledges, it is learning that Government is far from comfortable and idealistic. Yes, it is difficult not to sympathise with the MPs who abstained or voted against the legislation, but we must commend the members that voted with the Government. Nick Clegg, who is sure to face criticism from party members. He has shouldered a massive amount of pressure for the coalition and David Cameron should be acknowledging.

It is obvious the policy will not always please everyone, particularly if Welsh and Scottish students are unaffected. But perhaps the leadership shown by Mr Clegg will be a realisation to Liberal Democrat members what politics is about and that the next few years will be tough.

Hackgate: Give me a story now!

The political story dominating the media this week is the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World (NOTW). The story first came out several months ago but has re-emerged after the republication in The New York Times. The main protagonist in this story is the former editor Andy Coulson, who now happens to be David Cameron's communication chief. However, also part of the unfolding drama includes the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, owner of the NOTW.

The basic story is that several journalists at the newspaper hacked into the voicemails of allegedly hundreds of politicians, celebrities and public figures to find out stories about them. Mr Coulson, who left to eventually become Mr Cameron's press chief, denies any knowledge of such subordination at the time of his tenure. However, an investigation by The New York Times claims that many of the journalists, who worked at the paper, claim he was aware of the hacking and that he lied to officers investigating the claims. MPs are currently voting to see whether an inquiry should be held and figures put in front of a Commons Select Committee.

If you ignore the obvious breaches of privacy then what does this reflect? What if Coulson was lying? It probably does not affect Mr Cameron in anyway but it would probably cause some embarrassment for the PM into Coulson's original appointment. He was in charge when the Royal editor of the paper was jailed for breaching security procedures to get a staff member a job at Buckingham Palace, something he saw as rogue rather than inherent. People will also ask that if Coulson knew, then it was likely that others knew too: Rebekah Brooks (Head of BSkyB), James Murdoch (Chief Exec of News Corp) and then ultimately Rupert. This questions the whole validity of journalism and ethics of News Corporation as a whole and the potential damaging cover-up it undertook.

There is certainly a hidden interest from the New York Times because of Murdoch's acquistion of the Wall Street Journal and the combative tactics used against its rivals, but what about the wider public? I honestly don't think too many people are interested in the essence of the story. It is reported seriously by the BBC, Guardian, Channel 4, but not many more. The nature of celebrity culture and gossip driven scandal sells newspapers and magazines; not to mention gives everyone something to talk about at the water cooler. It may be that the NOTW are being implicated but if the story evolves it may become likely that other newspapers were doing the same thing. Expect this story to evolve.