Broken Laws

Oh, dearie me. The coalition may well hold a new record for the quickest Cabinet resignation since the formation of a UK government known to man. Not even Ted Heath's government started this badly, though it has to be said that David Cameron did NOT get hit by rotten tomatoes.

So why is the Lib-Con coalition honeymoon "already over"? Well, as I'm sure you'll have read in the Guardian and other such outraged newspapers (ie all of 'em), David Laws (above), Chief Secretary to the Treasury, resigned yesterday. This is because he broke the expenses rules from 2006, when he claimed money that should have gone to the taxpayer.

About £40,000 to be precise.

Naturally, there's a bit of outrage about that: the Lib Dems did rather well after taking the moral high ground on the expenses scandal last year, so the Yeovil MP is not exactly in much of a position to argue.

The difficulty for Laws is that he was trying to protect people around him: because the money he claimed went to his landlord, and partner, James Lundie. Many of his close friends did not know about Laws' sexuality: hence why he claimed the money, in order to protect his reputation. Unfortunately, covering something up will only get you so far: in Laws' case, into the Cabinet for 18 days, before all hell broke loose.

It's hard not to feel sorry for Laws: one gets the feeling he's been hounded out a bit here. But rules are rules, and Laws would only have damaged his reputation further by trying to wriggle out of it. In any case, judging by the support from such right-wingers as Iain Duncan-Smith, he will probably be back at some point. But the lefties will want to see him repay the money, and plenty of penitence whilst he's at it: much like they wanted to see Tony Blair apologise for Iraq, or George Bush apologise for being a muppet.

So will the coalition fall apart? My guessing would be: not yet, lads. This was very much the media baying for blood, and the public mood is decidedly anti-media: newspapers are not cool, Twitter and Facebook more sort of are. So the likelihood is it will hold until at least next May, by which time we'll see how the new Labour man (or woman) is doing.

Definitely a shock to the system, though.

Clegg: Well, this is a bit bogus.

Bill: Shut up, Clegg!

The Evening Stanners

Labour Leadership Contest: Ed, Dave and Eddie

Okay, the show was technically called Ed, Edd and Eddie. But you get the idea.

Here's the deal:

David Miliband is nominated, as is Ed Miliband. Ed Balls, whilst still struggling a bit, has at least got himself nominated and will be difficult to remove from frontline politics, as the Conservatives found when they failed to "decapitate" him from Morley on May 6th.

The other three are still trailing, unfortunately. Burnham is half-way there (thank you Bon Jovi. Yes, now you too have that song in your head), McDonnell has six signatures, and poor old Diane Abbott only has one. So much for diversity!

It will be a lot clearer after the end of this week who's not going to make it: after all, the other three do have a whole week to garner support, so we'll see.

Interestingly, Dave Miliband has suggested the idea of televised debates for the contest, which would certainly be a modernising move and would do Labour a fair bit of good in my opinion. After all, it did inspire Cleggmania!

More soon...

The Evening Stanners

Ousting A Tory Government: The Do's And Don'ts

Looking at the Labour Party website, it appears that almost every single Lib Dem voter has defected in the space of less than a week. Strange, then, that a meeting of 2,000 party activists saw a ratification of the coalition deal, as Nick Clegg convinvced his core support that the coalition was a good idea.

It's true, of course, that Labour has seen something of a boost in the past week: a Sunday Telegraph poll puts their support up to 33%, just five points behind the Tories. Such narrow margins indicate that the coalition will do very well indeed to last the whole five years. But Labour still needs a rethink of its policies: even in Scotland, where Labour crushed the opposition convincingly, four of its five manifesto points are overwhelmingly negative (though that's not to say they didn't work). With this in mind, how should the Labour Party try and topple its foes?

I say Arnie, your mate Cameron seems to have locked us out...

Do

• Elect a new leader who can appeal to floating voters. The Labour Party has only once won reclaimed access to No. 10 whilst keeping its leader: that was in the early 70's, when Harold Wilson stayed on after losing in 1970 to somehow win in '74. That said, it has also lost successive elections with the same leader, as Clement Attlee and Neil Kinnock found out to their cost. Blair, of course, succeeded where his predecessors had failed simply because he was not Old Labour: David Miliband has capitalised on this recently, saying that the party needed to think about "Next Labour".



• Point out Labour's healthier record on public spending. Labour introduced the NHS, and won three consecutive elections on the pure and simple fact that the public trusted them more than the Tories when it came to education and transport. The last Labour government also introduced the High Speed Rail link, and Ken Livingstone's two terms as Mayor of London has seen the capital's public transport improve immensely.



• Realise where Labour has made mistakes. One of the worst mindsets for the Labour Party to adopt now would be this: "We didn't deserve to lose the election, we were cheated. The public will realise this, and will come back to us at the first sign of trouble." Both Ed and Dave Miliband have been very shrewd in describing the most recent campain as catastrophic: the more Labour realises it made mistakes with the economy and with the prison service, the more it can seek to put right.



• Reach out to your supporters on a personal level. Conservative and Lib Dem supporters were thoroughly consulted on the possibility of a coalition deal: evidently, Labour supporters weren't, and made quite a noise about it. The fact that what Labour MPs were saying about a coalition differed significantly from what Labour fans on Twitter thought of the deal speaks volumes. There needs to be a more permanent connection between the two. This point was illustrated rather well by Margaret Hodge, who only started properly engaging with her constituents a year or so before the General Election: but her work paid off with a convincing victory over Nick Griffin. (Incidentally, what's happend to him? The BNP have gone very quiet all of a sudden)



• Be merciless when a major Tory crisis develops. Labour has always done very well for itself when it has harped on about either a Conservative Party scandal or an error of judgement by a Tory Prime Minister. The John Profumo affair of 1963 completely crippled the Macmillan government: the Three-Day week imposed by Ted Heath was a humiliation for Conservative supporters; and people still talk about Black Wednesday and the Poll Tax. Labour will probably be unable to do this fully until after the leadership election: but highlighting a few places in which the Tories might make enemies (tax rises, unnecessary cuts on public spending, creating an energy crisis) is definitely worthwhile. The key to this is noting that it is only worth harping on about a scandal if parts of the Conservative Party start to make noises: half a dozen backbenchers, for example.

Don't

• Assume you can take down a Tory Government on its war record. It never works. Suez and the Falklands are good opposites: Suez was a complete disaster for Anthony Eden, the Falklands a success for Margaret Thatcher. This isn't to say that a Conservative Defence Secretary is infallible - Michael Portillo's decapitation in 1997 is proof of this - but the main reason for a Conservative Government's demise is not usually to do with the military. In any case, the controversies of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan do not exactly show Labour as being the expert in handling military situations, so best not to attack the Conservatives on that one.


• Just wait for the Tories to get rid of their leader. If David Cameron were to resign after less than five years with the Tories still in power, he would be the first Conservative Party leader to do this since 1957, when Anthony Eden stepped down. This doesn't mean that Labour can't win the next election: it just means that their Public Enemy No.1 is still going to be Cameron. So rather than expect him to run out of steam, it makes more sense to identify where he's weak: which, judging from the various flip-flops made in recent years, would seem to be on the economy and Europe. Focus on the first leader's debate in particular, and see where Cameron did right and wrong there: because most people watching it concluded that he got a lot wrong.


• Appoint a raving leftie to lead you into the next election (or a raving rightie, but that's unlikely to happen). It is important to have a prominent left-winger in a relatively high post, and promote those who are both to the left and competent: this usually works well for Labour, and Jon Cruddas will hopefully illustrate this. But Michael Foot's time as leader is still an excellent example of how to alienate those more towards the centre of the political spectrum. 306 constituencies will not become socialist, or even anti-Conservative overnight.



• Think you can appoint anyone as Shadow Home Secretary. Oh dear me, no. The fact remains that only two men have ever survived a full Labour Government as Home Secretary in 65 years: Jack Straw (1997-2001) and James Chuter Ede (1945-1951). The fact that five Home Secretaries came and went in the nine years after Straw moved to the Foreign Office speaks volumes. Oh, and the fact two of them lost their seats this month probably doesn't help. Keeping Alan Johnson in his current role, on the other hand, probably would.


• Ignore your women, especially if it leads to calling them bigoted or blaming it all on Sue. In these modern times, men-only cabinets are a dangerous concept, hence the discontent with the current cabinet set-up, which only has three women to its name. Furthermore, one of these women, Teresa May, is coming under fire for appearing to contradict the criteria needed to become the Secretary of State for Equality. Labour, on the other hand, have a number of talented women in their ranks: Harman has done well as Deputy Leader, Bevanite_Ellie is noted for her ability to command support on Twitter, and Sarah Brown frequently came to her husband's rescue.

Those are just a few points that the next Labour Shadow Cabinet will do well to remember: others include how Labour has a better record in manufacturing, how the Labour Party needs to be more convincing on immigration, and so on. But the main point to remember is that the coalition is unlikely to fall apart before October: therefore, the leadership campaign should not be rushed. One of the key reasons why the Tories failed to learn their lessons after 1997 and 2001 was because they did not hold very long post-mortems. In the case of Cameron, the party waited a good six months after the 2005 election before he was elected leader. The result? A Conservative Prime Minister.

Patience is needed: the more rational and reasonable Labour looks, the more panicky and edgy the Conservatives will appear. In the words of Guinness, good things come to those who wait.

For Labour, that will be at least three years. Best put the kettle on.

The Evening Stanners

How To Take On Your Own Party, And Other News

It may seem a rather odd exercise, but it is one every party leader must master: and this week, David Cameron needs to re-learn it rather quickly. Thatcher managed it for over a decade, as did Blair: Major and Brown did not, and fell by the wayside. It is of course, the art of leading your own group first, and the country second.

Cameron of course, is relatively experienced at this. But with proposals to make dissolving Parliament more difficult - that is, make it so that a combination of both Conservatives AND Lib Dems would have to dissolve Parliament - some of his backbenchers are not best pleased. 55% is the percentage of MPs proposed, which would mean that the Tories would not just be able to dissolve Parliament, hold an election, win handsomely, and leave Clegg and the Lib Dems in the lurch. This, I would argue, is quite a good situation: it means that Conservatives will actually have to change their way of thinking a bit. Surely a good sign.

Labour, of course, are not best pleased: but then, they're having to watch as the third-biggest party holds a fair amount of power, while the second-biggest party holds none. So you can understand the irritation. But until Labour actually get a permanent leader capable of taking this "Con-Dem nation" on, there's not a lot of good that will come from their protesting. Speaking of which...

Miliband vs Miliband

In quite possibly the weirdest leadership contest the country has seen - and indeed, the first one we've seen since Nick Clegg took charge of the Lib Dems in 1997 - Ed Miliband has declared he's running against, um, his own brother.

Who also appears to be the only other candidate standing.

Hmm.

Awkwaaard...

Dave is still the fave to win the contest, with Jon Cruddas (notable left-winger) and Ed Balls (notable Gordon Brown fan) being the other two probable candidates. Jack Straw, Alan Johnson, Harriet Harman and Yvette Cooper (the wife of Ed Balls) have all ruled themselves out. After all, brother vs brother is strange enough, but husband and wife?

MP Stephen Timms recovering after knife attack

Unfortunately, the new Parliament very nearly suffered its first casualty, after the Labour MP for East Ham, Stephen Timms, was attacked at his own surgery by a local youth.

Attacks on MPs are thankfully few and far between, and Timms is now recovering in hospital, but it is not exactly a good example of the regeneration of the East End. The Evening Stanners spent a large amount of time in the area, and can recommend much of it: until, of course, it starts to get dark and you're on your own. This is not always true of Shadwell, but is DEFINITELY true of Wapping.

Mind you, you probably know that from watching Tuesday's completely uninterrupted episode of Eastenders. Wait...

The Evening Stanners

How The Left Lost It

So, less than three days in, and the rage emanating from those who oppose the Lib-Con coalition is likely to burn the eyebrows off of anyone daring to question their opinion. Don't believe us? Let's have a look at the Facebook groups and webpages created before and after David Cameron and Nick Clegg swept to power:

• We don't want the Liberal Democrats to make a deal with the Conservatives (Simple, to the point, if a little negative)


• Not voting for David Cameron (Well that's true of anyone who lives outside his constituency to be honest)


• The I hate David Cameron fan club (So you're a fan of hate, then?)


• Petition to sack Adam Boulton for political bias (I agree. Especially as he keeps talking about Notlob)


• What's blue and doesn't work? A conservative government (You've got me there. Hehehehe)


• Britain is in safe hands, LOL jk, Cameron is PM (LOL jk? How do you pronounce that last bit? Or do you only speak via text?)


• I can't study. I blame it on the Tories (I sympathise: my last module was ON the Tories)


• No shock doctrine for Britain (But what about Total Wipeout? Oh, you mean the cuts)


• You 'Did a Clegg' - the 21st Century sell-out term! (I prefer 'Did an Iggy Pop')


• Call an Election now (All right. Heeeeeeeere Election, who wants some cookies)


• You will be missed Gordon! (Especially as we've only got 14 hours to save the Earth)


• Take Back Parliament (We tried Take That Parliament, but that would be setting the Barlow)


• I wish Goku would Kamehameha David Cameron (That one I might pay to see)

Quite a lot of them, aren't there? And that's the problem. There isn't just one anti-Conservative or anti-coalition webpage, there's a whole bunch of them. And very few of them actually seem to be suggesting how a left-wing government would actually do any better.

Now, unlike many liberal conservatives, The Evening Stanners does not have some sort of crazed vendetta against lefties. Lefties, whoever they may be, have a tendency to be extremely awesome. Left-handed people, for example, can claim to be in the same league as Barack Obama and Matt Groening, as well as Julius Caesar and Lewis Carroll.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily make them left-wing, but you get the idea. We drive on the left, we walk on the left, and very few people can claim to have never used the left side of their body. So we're left (oh dear) with the possibility that left-wingers, such as Karl Marx and John Lennon, might have had the right idea.

But ah yes, John Lennon. That might be where the lefties fall down a bit. You see, the man was undoubtedly a musical genius: anyone who can actually construct a song around the phrase "Paperback Writer" has clearly got a thing for words. But I believe the following phrase sums his attitude to life up rather well...

Lennon decided that he had sold out to the Establishment by accepting the honour and sent it back to the Queen in November 1969 as part of a peace protest. He had his chauffeur, Les Anthony, deliver the insignia to Buckingham Palace and sent identical letters to the Queen, the Prime Minister and the secretary of the Central Chancery, explaining his action.

He wrote: “Your Majesty, I am returning my MBE as a protest against Britain’s involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra thing, against our support of America in Vietnam and against ‘Cold Turkey’ slipping down the charts.” He signed himself: “With Love, John Lennon.”

Now, even if you are the most devoted Beatles fan in the world, that doesn't sound right. If you truly believe you're selling yourself out to the Establishment, and that's fair enough, why the hell have you got a chauffeur, and why is he taking your insignia back to the Palace for you? As Marcus Brigstocke once put it, "Imagine no possessions: well, fair enough John, but you're singing that while playing on your brand-new Steinbeck!"

But it was in Liverpool...

On a more serious point, one does have to ask this question to those on the Left: is there a point where selling out to the Establishment changes from acceptable to unacceptable? And if selling out can be acceptable, then why on earth do you lay into us so viciously when we do?

These almost inexhaustible contradictions are both the strength and weakness of the Left: a fascinating diversity is ultimately hindered by an inability to clarify where the line can and cannot be crossed. If the ultimate endpoint of right-wing ideology is facism, after all, the endpoint of left-wing ideology is anarchy. It reminds me of the frequent disorder in Paris, where a riot is effectively classified as "an increase in the number of cars being torched". You can just picture the scene...

I don't remember writing this - Boz

Jacques: Monsieur Defarge, it appears that the percentage of cars on fire has risen to well over 50%!

Defarge: Sacre bleu!

Jacques Two: This is an outrage. After all, 49% I could forgive, but this new percentage you speak of: it is blasphemy! It is madness!

Jacques Three: What shall we do, oh unsurprising literary reference?

Defarge: Fire up the Quattro, it's time for rioting!

Madame Defarge: Oh for the love of fromage, this novel was written before cars were even invented...

Defarge: Silence, you French slaaaaaag. Viva la Revolution! Darnay, you're nicked, etc.

Ahem. That last bit was totally relevant. Come on, I even got a Conservative slogan in there.

In short: lefties, you have genius within you. And you don't half show us how the right has a tendency to muck everything up. But winning power back requires much more effort than just saying David Cameron's a slimeball: people have been saying that for years, and look where he is now! So, as a more constructive use of your talents, it's well worth focusing on the good things you guys have managed to do over the years.

The minimum wage? Very left-wing idea, very good idea: the Tories voted against it, Labour backed it. Nuclear disarmament campaigns? Helped end the Cold War, that did. The National Health Service: such a brilliant left-wing idea that even right-wingers have applauded it, or at least realised the folly of attacking it.

In short: positivity and pro-activity first, merciless attacking of the right later. After all, it's well worth remembering that the right have a most unfortunate tendency to bring themselves down through power struggles. Maggie's fall in 1990 is proof alone of that.

The Evening Stanners