There Goves the neighbourhood



Mike Whitby and Michael Gove, credit: http://www.birminghamnewsroom.com/



Michael Gove disapparated in Birmingham today and even visited a school in my home ward, ruining the neighbourhood. He also had a meeting with allegedly-wannabe Mayor Whitby. Mike W apparently said

"Looking particularly at the new tools and freedoms available to us, such as academies, free schools and university technical colleges – Birmingham is saying today that these exciting forms of provision will become an integral part of our approach to school improvement."

I wonder if Mike has talked to his cabinet member for education, Les Lawrence, whose antipathy to academies is well known?

Even odder was Gove's own statement

“I am delighted that Birmingham local authority is embracing the vital reforms that are taking place in our education system"

Again - not sure that you can accuse Cllr Lawrence of embracing these reforms with anything less than a chokehold. Les certainly didn't even get a mention in the accompanying press release, still less a photo. But then Les is not numbered amongst the Govian true believers and has been accused by ConservativeHome of drinking in the last chance saloon for his lack of ideological purity.

Incidentally, Gove appears to have changed his schedule to avoid a demonstration outside the school as he appeared earlier than planned, did his photo-op and then scurried back to London.

He's also in trouble elsewhere, as the Guardian claim that he personally approved funding to the Community Safety Trust, even though he is on their Advisory Board. Now, this is a perfectly sound cause - I don't have a problem with supporting schools with particular security needs - but isn't it also a clear conflict of interest? I will note that publishing that story on Holocaust Memorial Day is a little insensitive - and there's comment here from the Jewish Chronicle. This comes hard on the heels of the stories about his SPADs moving to private webmail to avoid FoIA queries (unsuccessfully, I believe) and Gove funnelling money to the New Schools Network, run by a former advisor to run a scheme worth £500,000 that didn't apparently need to go out to tender.

(Hat tip to @paulmdale)


UPDATE....UPDATE.....


Labour MP Lisa Nandy has had a letter from the Information Commissioner with regard to the general secrecy that pervades Gove's department. She notes

At yesterday’s education questions, Kevin Brennan asked Michael Gove to confirm that he and his advisors had never deleted emails, from private addresses or otherwise, to avoid scrutiny. Visibly rattled, Gove refused to answer the question and simply asserted that he and his department had operated in accordance with Cabinet Office policy.

The Information Commissioner tells her that 

“In addition to the guidance and good practice report published before Christmas, I can confirm that my office also has a number of active investigations in to these issues. I plan to conclude a number of complaints under Section 50 of the FOI act over the next few months – these will cover whether specific information requested is held for purposes of the act. I am also still considering allegations about whether individuals at the department breached Section 77 of the act.”

Section 50 is routine and relates to the Commissioner being required to make a decision following non-disclosure. Section 77 is more interesting - that relates to somebody taking steps to conceal information that should be disclosed and could mean prosecution. 

Acocks Green Police Station - update

Talking to Cllr Jones about the police station

I'm delighted that we have an ongoing commitment from the Police Authority to a policing presence in Acocks Green. This morning, I had a brief street meeting with members of the local community, Cllr Stewart Stacey and Cllr Bob Jones, the chair of the West Midlands Police Authority Finance and Resources Committee to discuss the future of the Edwardian police station in Acocks Green. A report in the Birmingham Mail this week said that Acocks Green police station - along with Steelhouse Lane and Erdington - could be under threat of closure. Despite the dramatic headline, that isn't quite the story.

Cllr Jones, me (windswept) and Cllr Stacey

 Unsurprisingly, this has caused some considerable concern in the community and Cllr Stacey and I thought it was right to arrange a quick, informal meeting of interested parties to understand what lies ahead and how we can influence the decisions.

The Finance and Resources Committee has submitted a report to the full Police Authority for approval. At this stage, it only authorises further work to examine options. Cllr Jones was quite clear that no decision has been taken at this stage and in any case, the spending isn't planned in until 2014-15.

It is possible that the station will move to a different, central, high profile location within the ward - possibly co-located with another public service - and the site opened up for development as housing. There is no site proposed for relocation and it is hard to see where one could be found that would meet the demands of being central.

That is an option where we would need to be alert to the preservation of a striking building that exemplifies the Victorian/Edwardian attitude to the importance of public services. It sits in the middle of a proposed conservation area, which illustrates the growth of suburban Birmingham around the rail network. In fact, if you look at the coat of arms just below the roofline, you can see a badge emblazoned with the Worcestershire pears. The station was built as part of an unsuccessful campaign by Worcestershire council to win hearts and minds and keep the Yardley area within their county - there's a similar former police station on the Coventry Road that has now been converted to a pub and also bears a similar shield.

Around the corner on Alexander Road is a fine example of how these buildings can be preserved. The tiny fire station was surplus to requirements in the 1980s and was initially scheduled for demolition to provide additional space in the police yard. Cllr Stacey was just on the planning committee at that point and recalls that they rejected that plan, so the building is now converted for use as an architect's practice - preserving the street scene and an historic building.

 It is also open to the service to refurbish the existing site, which is too large for their planned requirements, and seek additional tenants for the unused space - perhaps an NHS commissioning group or other suitable tenant could take up part of the site.

This is an issue that will remain on the political radar for some time to come and I was really pleased to get assurances from Cllr Jones that the future of the police in Acocks Green is specifically assured - we just now need to secure the future of this building.

Updated - The David Cameron Confidence Indicator

David Cameron has full confidence in....

Caroline Spelman
Full confidence declared 28 June 2008
Replaced as Conservative Chairman 19 January 2009


Jeremy Hunt

Full confidence declared 28 June 2010
Still in office as Culture Secretary at time of going to press.

Andy Coulson
Full confidence declared 11.25am 21 January 2011
Resigned as Comms Director 11:37am 21 January 2011

HRH Prince Andrew

Full confidence declared 8 March 2011.
"Stepped down" as trade envoy 22 July 2011

Chris Huhne
Full confidence declared 16 May 2011
Full confidence declared again 2.14pm 20 January 2012
Still in office as DECC Secretary at time of going to press.

Liam Fox
Full confidence declared 8 October 2011
Resigned as Defence Secretary 14 October 2011

Theresa May
Full confidence declared 7 November 2011
Still in office as Home Secretary at time of going to press.


So far, getting Cameron's full confidence means you have a 60/40 chance of survival.

Losing friends and influencing people the Chris Huhne way

So the Sunday Times have withdrawn their defence of the disclosure order obtained by Essex Police and the Crown Prosecution Service to take possession of emails between the Sunday Times' political editor, Isabel Oakeshott and Vicky Pryce, the former Mrs Huhne.

That was the last piece that the CPS were waiting for to make a decision on whether or not to prosecute.

It has been widely reported that Chris Huhne had leaked the rather embarrassing letter from Michael Gove in support of a new royal yacht. Michael Gove's wife, Sarah Vine, works for the Times. As the Telegraph points out, Chris Huhne has hardly been busy making alliances - not even the Liberal Democrats can be bothered to defend him any more, given his long track record of screwing over his political colleagues. He isn't even very competent at the machinations, with his every clever political move being exposed as the manipulation it is. Politicians can fear or respect a top-class political operator, but an incompetent one inspires nothing but ridicule.

There’s nothing endearing about Huhne. He has the cold, dead eyes of a political snake, hissing poison as he slithers down the corridors of power. He calls to mind a Machiavellian operator – except that his bungling would have the author of The Prince throwing his hands up in despair

Has fraternal Cabinet loyalty finally been stretched to breaking point?

UPDATE: Interesting - the Telegraph has apologised to Chris Huhne 

We reported on 17th an We reported on 17th and 18th January ("Huhne accused of leaking letter about new royal yacht"; and "All the malice of Machiavelli – but sadly none of his skill") that Chris Huhne MP had leaked a letter about the new royal yacht to journalists in an attempt to discredit colleagues. We now accept that this is wrong, and apologise to Mr Huhne for any embarrassment caused. We particularly regret the offence caused by Cristina Odone’s article 

Across the weekend, we've been inundated with Tories crowing that Labour now back the government's cuts. 


This is based on a Guardian story which starts

Balls said he accepted every spending cut being imposed by the coalition

Except, that's not a direct quote and isn't what the speech says either. You can read that here. If you actually read it, he isn't accepting the cuts at all. 

As we make the argument that cutting spending and raising taxes too far and too fast risks making the economy and the deficit worse not better, it is right that we set out where we do support cuts and where we would be making the tough but necessary decisions. 

In education, as I have said, £1 billion of cuts – but not the biggest cuts to schools since the 1950s. In policing, 12 per cent cuts to budgets – but not 20 per cent cuts which will hit the frontline hard and see 16,000 officers lost. In defence, £5 billion of cuts – but not a strategic defence review that raises more questions than answers. 

And because as progressives we believe in the role of the state and public services to do good, it is vital that we are even tougher on waste than our political opponents – whether that is the £2 billion being wasted on a reckless reorganisation of the NHS, billions being lost in tax avoidance or the waste of mass unemployment.

All of that seems entirely consistent with our post-election policy. What he does say that is new is also realistic. 

we cannot make any commitments now that the next Labour government will reverse tax rises or spending cuts. And we will not. Because we don’t know how bad things will be on jobs, growth and the deficit. But we do know that the next Labour government will have to sort out the deficit where this government failed and deliver social justice in tougher times.

The brutal reality is that while we should continue to oppose a government policy that fetishises deficit reduction and sidelines growth, while we should fight against ill-thought out cuts, we also have to accept that we are on a magical mystery tour with an incompetent driver at the wheel. Labour is unlikely to have a chance to take over until 2015 and we simply don't know where we will end up by then. Starting to plot a route back from the wreckage now simply creates hostages to fortune. 


Before 1997, Labour promised to work within the Tory spending plans at the time and this is reminiscent of that statement. We can promise to do things differently, to spend more wisely and tax more fairly, but we need the discipline on the front bench not to make any spending or tax promises that we cannot be sure of keeping. 

No budget for school rebuilding, but Gove wants a new Royal yacht

Although the Guardian juxtaposes the story with an interesting picture.

Forecasts for 2012

Belatedly looking back at the forecast for 2011, I got three out of the four right. Vince Cable remained stubbornly at his post, but as otherwise foretold, there was no general election, Labour won Oldham East and Saddleworth (part of an ongoing train of by-election victories) and AV failed to get past the electorate in May. If I get the lottery numbers right, I'll let you know.

For 2012, Mystic Hack sees the mists part and the following will come to pass....

There will be no general election. Unless Dave reckons that a putative post-Jubilee and post-Olympics poll boost makes the odds worthwhile, but even then I think the economy will be so dire that it would be too high a risk and I don't think Cameron's that much of a gambler. The coalition will also survive the year, although at least one Liberal Democrat minister may not. Cable seems immovable - if the waste of energy that was the AV vote, tuition fees and the European debacle didn't cause him to use his nuclear option, you really struggle to see what would trigger Cable flouncing out of the Cabinet. Perhaps Osborne barbecueing kittens in the rose garden at the back of Downing Street might be sufficient, but even then, Clegg would be arguing that this was just necessary after Labour's poor feline stewardship. Cable will only leave if reshuffled.

I've heard different commentators putting different spins on the chances of Boris winning re-election to the London mayoralty in 2012, explaining why a win or a loss would be bad news for Cameron. Actually, I think this is a lose/lose issue for Dave. If Boris wins, he continues to have a high global profile across a summer of events focussed on London and also marks himself as a winner, even in the most challenging times for the Conservative party - something that may prove attractive for the party at a later date. If Boris loses, he can cheerfully shovel the blame onto the Prime Minister, seek a safe seat back at Westminster and prowl the corridors, biding his time until the PM falls under a bus. I think we can be assured that Boris will continue to be an irritant for some time to come, wherever that may lead. Actually, I reckon that the election will be tight in London and I think it is too close to call.

Labour taking control of Birmingham City Council is an easy one, so I'm not going to predict that. The political winds have been blowing that way for some months now and with only a handful of seats required to see the council change hands, it would take a brave forecaster to bet on anything else. This isn't premature triumphalism, just recognising the reality of the situation. And no, I will not forecast the result in Acocks Green or anywhere else in Yardley.

I am going to forecast a marginal win for the campaign to bring a mayor to Birmingham, although voter apathy and antipathy to elected politicians may provide enough help to the otherwise woeful 'No' campaign. Following that, we should have a mayoral election in November, coinciding with the Police and Crime Commissioner elections. The only thing I feel sure of with regards to that contest is that it is almost certain to be a Labour mayor - not premature triumphalism, but a recognition of the weight of Labour votes against all opponents. If you pile up all the Labour votes across Birmingham in elections over the last decade, you struggle to find occasions where another party could possibly win. The main contest will be for the Labour nomination and there are some strong candidates already declared, although I suspect that the fight will be a very close one between Sir Albert Bore and Sion Simon.

Economically, I suspect that we are very close to slipping back into a recession and, no matter how much George Osborne bleats about, much of the blame will rest upon his shoulders for a policy that has raised deficit reduction to the level of a fetish. Nobody believes that the deficit is sustainable, but the pace of reduction always carried a huge risk in the effects that public sector cuts have on the overall economy. Combined with the ongoing crisis in the Eurozone - which is a long way from being resolved - then I think it is more than likely we'll slide back into recession over the course of the year. That's not something that I take any pleasure in predicting - especially as my contract is likely to end at the end of March. (Job offers are welcome at the usual address...)

There's another election across the pond and this is also looking interesting. Romney looks to be the reluctant choice of the Republicans - if they can bear the taste of his Mormonism - and remains their best hope of removing Obama. That said, the economic situation in the US, while bleak, is showing some hints of the greenest of shoots and if that is sustained, I would expect voters to stick with Obama, so I'm going with a second term for the incumbent. 

Next train.... 2026.....

After a long-drawn out consultation period, HS2 finally got the go ahead from the Transport Secretary today. This is a long-overdue development and I believe that it will be good news for Birmingham. I just hope that the government shift to express speed in terms of development rather than the stopping service we have seen since the election. Get on and get this thing built - let's put some money into transport infrastructure and create jobs - although I'm not sure that spending extra millions tunnelling under Chesham and Amersham is worth the money just to keep Cheryl Gillan in her seat.

Meanwhile, Julian Huppert, Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge, has been quick to declare that this is a Liberal Democrat win, as the LDs apparently called for high speed rail back in 2004. Curiously, I understand that Cameron insisted it go into the coalition agreement and Philip Hammond claims that the Tories were the first party to commit to it whilst in opposition. The fact that Labour launched the scheme and got it as far as route planning is conveniently airbrushed out of the narrative.

Julian's claim that the Liberal Democrats convinced other parties might be more powerful if he had convinced his own. His comrades in Camden lobbied Norman Baker at the 2011 conference, the Liberal Democrats in the Chilterns remain opposed and the Kenilworth and Southam Liberal Democrats are still unconvinced. They cynics amongst you will point out that this is just typical Liberal Democrat campaign tactics - saying one thing to one audience and the exact reverse to another.

Taxpayers' Alliance gets it wrong on police commissioners

As usual, the TPA is busy pushing the Conservative agenda. Their weekly email today announces another major piece of research highlighting the cost of police authorities - the current structure for scrutiny and control of the police services. The TPA claims that

Directly elected police commissioners will replace the highly paid, but not directly accountable, chief executives of police authorities

They explain that these chief execs get paid an average of £90,000 a year, as part of the annual operating costs. In the West Midlands force area, the chief executive of the police authority (not the chairman, for the sake of clarity) gets paid £109,000 plus pension costs.


Except that the TPA have got it significantly wrong.


The chief executive will continue. As the Home Office admits (emphasis added)

PCCs will be required to appoint a head of paid staff and a chief financial officer. The head of paid staff will be responsible for employing the administrative staff and for acting as monitoring officer for the PCC. The chief financial officer will be responsible for advising the PCC about their financial obligations and the impact of their spending decisions. The PCC may appoint other staff, but all employees will be politically restricted and appointed on merit. The PCC will be required to publish organisational charts and salaries of all staff. PCC staff will be able to join the local government pension scheme in the relevant force area (this is the same pension entitlement as police staff).

Police and crime commissioners do not replace chief executives. They replace the police authority itself. In terms of allowances, that currently costs about £10 million a year (taking the TPAs own figures). The salaries of individual commissioners alone will eat up £4 million, quite apart from any additional staffing or expenses costs - the new police and crime panels to scrutinise the commissioners will consume a further £2 million. Suddenly we're up to £6 million a year as direct costs and once you account for the costs of the elections (£25-£50 million every four years, working out at about £6 million a year if you accept the lower figure) then you suddenly find out that replacing the police authority will actually cost about £12 million a year (or possibly £18 million if the higher election cost figure is right), dwarfing the current police authority member allowances cost.

Good to see the TPA supporting sustaining public sector jobs and public sector pension schemes.

Mayorday

I'm an unashamed convert to the idea of an elected mayor for Birmingham. I believe that we need a single point of contact that has a credible mandate drawn directly from the people of Birmingham so that they can go into bat to get the best deal for our city from government and other national and international partners and investors. We need someone able to make decisions, lead on action - and to be held directly accountable for those decisions and their performance, in the way that a council leader isn't.

This isn't a party political issue, even though I remain very critical of the poor quality of civic leadership shown by the current occupants of that office. When Birmingham needed leadership over the summer rioting, Mike Whitby was invisible, pushing his deputy out instead, but the problems are systemic and not entirely Whitby's fault - he just exemplifies them.

Even as an aspiring council candidate, I can see the weaknesses of the current model at both ends of the spectrum. The council is very slow to change and innovation is stifled by a bureaucracy with a fixed mindset and that all too often feels happiest within the comfort zone of their silo. We know that these are difficult times - the most challenging in a century - for our city and we need local government that is agile, responsive and capable of change to suit local circumstances. Birmingham City Council likes the 'one size fits all' mentality, for that offers security and simplicity, but that doesn't fit the needs of our diverse communities. 

Regionally, the council often adopts an 'Our Way or No Way' approach, which drives away other authorities that should be our partners. Why there should be a Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership and a second one for Birmingham defeats me - our futures are tied together and cross-border working is absolutely crucial to both sides of the West Midlands. We need to look beyond our borders into how we should - how we must - provide regional leadership.

Much as the other boroughs may dislike it, Birmingham remains the powerhouse and has the potential to develop global credibility that will enrich the whole region, but Birmingham's leadership needs to recognise that it has the responsibility to head a partnership, not dominate our neighbours. We really are all in this together.

For me, there are two arms to this strategy. Firstly, a yes vote next May to a city Mayor and secondly increased devolution to genuinely localise services. Here there is a political point to be made - the Tory/Liberal Democrat administration adopted the localised model that Labour offered in 2004, but failed to drive it forward as Labour intended, to bring all services right down to the lowest possible operating level consistent with efficiency. The closer you are to your people, the more responsive you have to be. That's why I'm a big supporter of the ward and constituency committee process - instant local visibility of decisions taken.

Richard Burden wrote a fine piece for LabourList a few days ago and it is certainly worth a few moments of your time to read it. Cllr Phil Parkin, a relatively sane Tory from Sutton Trinity ward, is also a supporter and makes the sound point that aside from the councillors in the Cabinet, formal councillor influence on strategy is strictly limited. A separation of executive power might actually lead to greater influence for councillors through the scrutiny system, which may find even more freedom to hold the mayor to account. 

Thursday saw Nick Clegg dangle the carrot of more powers for mayors or local authorities, although he did add the caveat that these powers would be dependent on local leadership being up to the job. Whether that is code indicating the expectation that these powers will go to mayors is up for question - some think so, others think that these powers will be devolved to local authorities in due course. One thing that is clear is that central government wants to have a single point of contact when they need to talk to Birmingham and Birmingham will benefit from having a single voice, with a clear, city-wide mandate able to speak for our needs.

The No campaign is laughably poor. John Hemming is fronting it with all the charm of a bulldozer, appearing on the Politics Show to warn that the public might vote in a lunatic who could only be removed through sectioning under the Mental Health Act. At the moment, short of criminal behaviour or serious personal financial problems, we can't remove our councillors or even our MPs, no matter how consistently embarrassing they might be or how often a judge might criticise their performance.

Aside from that, it is a little insulting to the electorate - some of whom voted for Mr Hemming - to suggest that they would be taken in, over the course of a six month campaign in the full glare of the modern print, broadcast and social media, is rather hard to believe. Similarly, John worries about a 'power freak' - which is a little rich coming from someone who was in the House of Commons for a matter of months before announcing his candidacy for the leadership of his party, let alone a man who remains in tight control of his party locally and expects to be their candidate for mayor, despite his opposition to the existence of the post. Their website offers speakers to oppose the move to a mayor, but wants to set the rules of the debate in terms of the size of the panel and representation from others. There is an argument to be had about whether the mayor is a good move or not, but the No campaign isn't making it. Even the website is titled Vote No to a Power Freak - which isn't actually an option in the referendum, last time I checked. 

Compare and contrast the amateurish nature of the 'No' campaign to the 'Yes' team's more professional offering, which offers a far more positive starting point to the campaign.

Birmingham is not broken. It is a city with a great history and the potential for an even greater future - we just need to make sure that we have the right people and structures to help write the next chapter. A vote for the mayor next year is a step on that road and all journeys have to begin somewhere. 

Lib Dems opinions revolving

Liberal Democrats believe that European co-operation is the best way for Britain to be strong, safe and influential in the future. We will ensure that Britain maximises its influence through a strong and positive commitment... Work through the European Union for stricter international regulation of financial services and banking... Work with other countries... including bringing forward urgent proposals for a financial transaction tax 

Liberal Democrat manifesto, May 2010

What Clegg said on Friday morning, in the wake of Cameron's disastrous departure from the negotiating table: 

"The demands Britain made for safeguards, on which the coalition government was united, were modest and reasonable. They were safeguards for the single market, not just the UK. There were no demands of repatriation of powers from the EU to Britain and no demands for a unilateral carve-out of UK financial services. What we sought to ensure was to maintain a level playing field in financial services and the single market as a whole. This would have retained the UK's ability to take tougher, not looser, regulatory action to sort out our banking system."

Aside from the utter drivel that this government would take tougher action than that likely to come out of the EU, that's Clegg supporting the PM and opening his mouth before he had the chance to understand the full implication of the utter cock-up that Cameron's decision will prove to be for the future of the British economy. William Hague - who was utterly sideswiped on the Today programme on Friday morning as he was apparently completely unbriefed on the increased role for the IMF - has said that Clegg was fully briefed and in full agreement with policy.

Hague insisted the coalition was on board with the deal as he confirmed that the Liberal deputy prime minister and the chancellor, George Osborne, had been kept abreast of developments by Cameron. He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that Clegg "signed up" to what had happened.  

Taking us away from the negotiations is ludicrous. The 'Tobin' financial transaction tax that apparently scared the City could only be brought in by unanimity - it isn't subject to qualified majority voting - so Cameron could have retained a genuine veto over that issue. Rather than do so and demonstrate a commitment to working as part of a union with which our future is inextricably connected, Cameron has gone for the short term gain of calming his party and feeding the instant gratification demanded by the City donors. He could have stayed involved and kept Britain in the conference room - a tenet of British policy over Europe for decades under all governments, even under Thatcher - but he chose not to. 

Unsurprisingly, the Liberal Democrats have been in quiet and irrelevant revolt over the past day or so and Clegg is now apparently manufacturing anger to order. 

Just 24 hours after appearing to back Cameron, sources close to Clegg made clear that the deputy prime minister believed the PM had been guilty of serious negotiating failures that risked damaging the national interest, British jobs and economic growth.

Clegg's fury puts the coalition under the most severe strain since its formation 19 months ago, with Europe now seen by some MPs as a potential "deal breaker".

One source said Clegg "couldn't believe it" when he was woken at 4am in his flat in Sheffield to be told that talks on how to save the euro at the Brussels summit had "spectacularly unravelled".

Accusing Cameron of failing to play the diplomatic game effectively, the source added: "He could not believe that Cameron hadn't tried to play for more time. A menu of choices wasn't deployed as a negotiating tool but instead was presented as a take it or leave it ultimatum. That is not how he [Clegg] would have played Britain's hand."

Publicly supporting the PM and then openly briefing against him within 24 hours isn't good form. But then neither is publicly burning through all the totemic policies of the Liberal Democrats. Tuition fees were only the beginning. 

Still, you can always rely on John Hemming to support his political friends. 

I think Cameron was right to use the veto on changes to the treaties. It is entirely right that the 17 Eurozone countries resolve how to get greater fiscal unity which is essential for the success of the Euro and consequential success of the UK. However, that does not mean that we have to sign up to that. We should not try to stand in their way and prevent them resolving their difficulties. However, it is not surprising that unanimity amongst the 27 EU states is difficult to achieve.

Rebranding ain't gonna fix this, Nick.

According to the Mail, Clegg has called in the rebranding experts to advise on how to make the party more popular.

Leaked documents reveal that the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted that voters have no idea what his party stands for.

And he apparently thinks that this is a bad thing, rather than a core part of the party's strategy thus far. Both Labour and the Conservatives have fairly clearly defined identities and a related tribal following, both of which the Liberal Democrats. This has allowed them to plough a peculiar furrow unencumbered with baggage, which has manifested itself in a peculiar brand of oppositional opportunism - taking a position in opposition to whichever party is in power and squeezing either the Labour or Tory vote into backing the Liberal Democrat candidate as the 'least worst' option to keep out the other side. While this proved very effective in building a good base of elected councillors and MPs, it was dependent upon the party being the 'safe' option and either being unable to make decisions that offended voters or to be able to blame others for them. Once you are a party of national government, then that option is no longer available to you. 


He appears to have hired proper snake-oil salesmen too. 

the ‘brand advisers’ hired by the Lib Dems have advised Mr Clegg to aim for a less principled approach towards political campaigning. They suggested that once a ‘strategic, long-term brand model’ for the party had been devised, MPs should discover ‘shorter-term themes, straplines and soundbites’ to ‘support short-term political expediency’. A presentation was illustrated by a diagram showing four different ‘audiences’, each of which should be given a different version of the ‘message’.

Anyone who has ever looked at the Liberal Democrats knows that this is exactly the model that they have employed over the years - delivering a message that the audience wants to hear and changing it to suit local conditions, even if that means delivering diametrically-opposed campaigns in different wards. The brand consultants have repackaged existing Liberal Democrat techniques and sold them straight back to the party. That's a kind of genius, really. 

The problem that Clegg has is not that voters have no idea what the party stands for, but that many voters have now seen the party defined by their role in government and don't like how it turned out. Enough voters have a pretty clearly negative image of the party to render the brand toxic in their eyes - they don't have the brand loyalty. Referring voters back to the ending of slavery when the main issue in people's minds is the economy also indicates just how far away from reality Clegg is.

History teaches us that parties can only decontaminate their images once they are out of power. It took Labour over a decade to become a credible alternative choice to the Tories following 1979 and roughly the same timeframe for the Tories to clean up their public image - although their current performance is putting that transformation to the sword. History also shows that changing image also requires changing those who deliver the message - including the leader, which is why defeated Prime Ministers resign as party leader. If Clegg believes that he can reimage the party whilst he remains leader and the party remains in government, he's either going to be the first man to achieve it or he's deluded beyond comprehension.  

I know where my money goes. 

The myth of restrictive employment law

We've been told that employers want to hire, but are put off by restrictive employment legislation and the constant threat of tribunals. Oddly, when Vince Cable asked Britain's small businesses what was holding them back, just 6% cited employment legislation as an obstruction to hiring and this doesn't surprise me at all. I've worked for some very large British companies and for some small ones and whenever I've been involved with recruitment - and I have hired over 200 people in my career - we've discussed business needs and costs, but I have never, ever worried about whether we could get rid of the new employee. Indeed, I call as a witness, the noble Lord Heseltine, speaking on the Politics Show on Sunday 20th. 

"When you start talking about enabling people to sack people.... the sort of companies I understand don't sit there saying 'We've got to be able to get rid of people, so therefore we mustn't invest - the risks are too high.' If you're really an enterprising business, you invest because you think it is going to be a success. You might have to readjust, but you can do that"

Businesses hire because they need people to drive themselves forward and to grow. 

Vince has already promised to roll back the unfair dismissal eligibility to two years, just as it was in 1999 - as if that held growth back over subsequent years. It may be that this is simply a performance to allow the Liberal Democrats to demonstrate that they are restraining the worst excesses of the Conservative Party, but perhaps that is the best case scenario. 

It doesn't even make economic sense - a cowed workforce, scared for their jobs are hardly likely to consider moving house or buying the big ticket items that the economy needs us to buy. This is not a recipe for growth, nor will it create jobs. It will simply make more people unemployed and that is bad for those individuals, their families, their communities and our country. We can't afford these changes. 

If you have to get rid of an employee - and sometimes, that is the right thing to do - there is a process to ensure that you do it fairly and properly, in line with natural justice. It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to treat your colleagues as human beings, rather than as mechanistic resources. In fact, it seems to me to be the ethical and progressive way to behave. Look at the German model - their economy has done rather well, despite protection for employees and even the presence of employees on corporate remuneration committees.  

Show me the evidence that winding back our employment protection - protection that is hardly amongst the most stringent in the world - will generate growth or that employers are crying out for change and I might listen. Only might. 

To close, another reminder of the nous demonstrated by that renowned left-wing firebrand, Lord Heseltine. 

"you want to be very careful in political terms that you don't get the reputation that all you are trying to do is to make life rougher and tougher for large numbers of people who, in the end, you want to vote for you."

Hemming vs Hemming

The other interesting event actually occurred before the broadcast began, as a minor domestic disagreement broke out between John Hemming and his estranged wife Christine. As the crew were checking for levels and getting the audience used to blokes wandering around with microphones on poles, Christine raised her hand - for she was in the audience, a couple of rows in front of John. She introduced herself only as Christine, surviving after redundancy on jobseeker's allowance of £67 a week and that she used to have a weekly bill of £100 a week at Tesco (which explains how John used to claim £400 a month for food on parliamentary expenses). At that, John raised his hand and the microphone was ceremonially presented to him, for him to point out that the woman who had just spoken was his wife and that she also received £500 a week from him (any money paid for the support of children is exempt from JSA calculations, benefits fact fans). He also said that he wasn't going to be 'stunted' by the BBC - an accusation that Stephen Nolan fiercely denied. John then went and had a chat with the producer in a quiet corner and the producer then had a similar quiet chat with Christine. I don't know what was said, but she didn't attempt to take any further part in the debate, although she did stay for most of the evening. Not sure we've heard the last of her. 

Poverty Debate

Sunday's Radio 5 Live poverty debate with Stephen Nolan was an interesting way of spending late Sunday evening and early Monday morning. It all started when Edwina Currie, who has never been afraid to speak whatever enters her mind, said on an earlier Stephen Nolan show that she didn't believe that we have people in this country who can't find money for food. Unsurprisingly, this led to an outcry and this debate was the outcome and I managed to secure a ticket. For three hours, the evidence was piled up in front of Edwina - Patricia, who runs one of the expanding number of Trussell Trust food banks; Nigel, who is opening a food bank in Sparkbrook; a CAB volunteer who knows that there will be a queue outside the office first thing on Monday and that it will include people who have to try to cope on just £5 a week for food; the eloquent community worker from Coventry who works with people who are on the very margin of society; Louise, who has to rely on family members to help buy food for her baby; or the elderly lady who is facing up to a £100 cut in her winter fuel allowance to pay for the electric heating in her poorly-insulated flat. For three hours, people bore witness to the troubles afflicting people who are clinging on to what passes for an existence in this country and for three hours, Edwina denied it all with a disregard for basic humanity not granted to many.

She has form, of course. Many years ago, as a government minister, she attended a meeting at my old university, when she was asked from the floor what she felt about the old people who would surely die during the difficult winter ahead. Her response was brutally simple 'We've all got to go sometime, dear.' Unsurprising for someone who felt that the best advice for the elderly at risk of hypothermia was to "wear woolly hats and long johns."

Her expertise doesn't just cover poverty, of course. She is an expert on HIV transmission "Good Christian people who wouldn't dream of misbehaving will not catch AIDS"  and on cervical cancer "Nuns don't get it, virgins don't get it" - a comment that was actually cited as a reason why some women did not attend for a potentially life-saving smear test, for fear of being marked as promiscuous and, of course, she was the woman who nearly closed down the British egg industry and saw 2 million hens slaughtered as a result.

As I said, form as long as your arm.