2010’s MP’s may not hold a candle to 2015’s ‘People’s intake’!

25% of MP’s after the next election are likely to be career politicians with little experience of business, public service or the professions according to the Think Tank New Local Government Network .  Does that concern you?  Is democracy going to be weakened or is this a storm in a tea cup?  And is this a fair representation of the Conservative PPC’s?  Voices are starting to speak out, none least Anne Widdecombe in the latest edition of Total Politics magazine who worries about a ‘third rate Parliament’ in 2010.   Whilst 2010’s intake may cause concern, Cameron’s Candidate Selection revolution gives great hope for the 2015 ‘People’s Intake’ of MP’s!

Covered in the Daily Telegraph today, (http://tiny.cc/KEgFf), analysis of the backgrounds of 782 candidates selected by the three main parties to fight seats at the general election, (within 10 months), shows that only a third have had any experience of business. One in four can be described as a “career politician,” having had paid employment working in Parliament, or worked as an adviser to a senior politician whether as an employee or volunteer.  The research by the New Local Government Network think tank using biographical information provided by the candidates and their parties shows that only 11.7 per cent of candidates have worked in the public services, including 2.6 per cent in health care. In addition, the figures show that fewer than three in 10 prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs) are female.  The analysis shows that nearly one in three Tory candidates have worked in Parliament or for a political party in the past. 

This is something that should hugely concern all of us.  Candidates divorced from real life experiences, certainly wont add value to the rich debates of the House of Commons.  Recently, I attended a Party event, which included a new PPC in a winnable seat, (I won’t name names).   It was fascinating.  I was sharing a pint with a local businessman who has successfully set up a start up business, which has grown into a huge employer, with offices across the country.  By any definition he is successful and merits being listened to for his experience.  What followed made me embarrassed.  The PPC went on to explain their views on small businesses and their blueprint for being successful.  It was rather like listening to a University Graduate tell Alex Ferguson how to build a winning team and win the Premiership!  This was from a PPC, with no commercial experience, young, who sounded like he was reciting a press release from Central office.  The successful businessman, with 30 years plus commercial experience, stood there aghast as he was being advised by this upstart who so obviously not attune with the really tough decisions being made in the real economy.  That lack of political antenna from the PPC concerned and was commented on as you can imagine by the businessman!  Credibility whithered….

I have nothing against career politicians but a House of Commons full of MP’s with real life experience and an understanding of life wins for me every time, than the career politician with a degree in Politics and a text book of answers. 

Candidate selection is a controversial area and generates much heated debate.  It is for many people a very personal area and sensitivities always seem to arise.  When I raised this issue previously, I was flooded with emails on the subject.  Whilst current facts on candidates choices are hard to argue against, candidate selection has changed forever in the Conservative Party, and the intake of Conservative MP’s in 2010, does not represent the revolution that Central Office has introduced ready for the next Parliament in 2015, (latest).  The debate on candidate selection has become too simplistic in many many ways and should be seen in two phases.

Pre the expenses scandal, many of the Conservative PPC’s, (like those of any Party), possessed a background with mostly some form of political influence.  Be it they were career politicians, (ie worked for a Politician/MP/think tank etc), or went the traditional route, ie worked their way through the local Conservative Party, eg Association Chairman and then became a Councillor, and then applied to be a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate.   The so called, ‘traditional route’.  The 2010 Parliament is set to intake many of these sorts of candidates as noted above.

However, as we all know, post the expenses scandal, post the backlash against MP’s and politicians in general, David Cameron has revolutionized Candidate Selection firstly by encouraging applications from people with non political backgrounds.  Hence over 4,000 applications from diverse people like nurses, ex soldiers, teachers, doctors, charity workers, flooded Central office with their applications and enthusiasm.  Candidate Assessment Centres, (PAB’s…Parliamentary Assessment Boards), have been busily assessing these applications over the past few months and word is, that there are some phenomenal candidates entering onto the books.  One assessor of talent on these PAB’s, (and reads this site regularly), is really motivated and inspired by the new talent emerging.

Coupled with this is Cameron’s revolutionary idea, (Hannan would point to it coming from ‘The Plan’), that candidates should be elected by Open Primaries, hence adding further legitimacy to the selection process. Totnes is a leading example, where the whole constituency was polled to select the local candidate.

Hence then, the 2015 Parliament will be the Parliament of the people, the ‘People’s intake’, the ‘People’s Parliament’, with the new revolutionary candidates emerging.

CCHQ gets a rough ride at times but on Candidate Selection it now has it spot on.  We Conservatives have a superb process now in place.  The PAB’s will sort out / filter strong candidates, based on thorough assessments, and then these candidates will go into Open Primaries and the people will then decide the best candidate.  No doubt, some of those candidates will be ‘career politicians’ and some will be the new intake of candidates eg the nurses, doctors, social workers etc.  The people will then decide who is the best candidate.  Who can argue with democracy?  We are all about ‘letting the people’ decide.

I have had emails complaining that the local Association should be left to select candidates and not CCHQ, (via PAB’s).   But this is pure bunkem.  Central Office are using professional Assessors who can help weed out the wheat from the chaff.  Modern businesses will either employ in house recruiter’s to help assess great candidates for their company or outsource candidate assessment to a professional body. Recruitment is an art and cannot be left to those not attuned to best selection methods.  This is no different than what the Conservatives are doing by using a team of professional assessors to screen best candidates.  These candidates, (passing PAB’s), at the end of the day will be then free to present themselves to Associations and then Primaries for election.  Associations cannot complain at this and particularly some of the ones that are have selected some shocking candidates in the past should zip it up.  Good on CCHQ for professionalising Candidate Selection.  Three loud cheers.  The public will certainly notice the difference moving forward in candidate quality.

Some emails to me have questioned the merits of being a card carrying member of the Conservative Party.  They question this because of previous benefits and perceived links to being a member was the THE route to local / Parliamentary Office.  Arguing that some of the candidates being assessed today don’t possess a political bone in their body and no affliations with the Conservatives in the past…..hence why belong to the Party as it matters not when seeking Office!  If these new candidates get elected, then there is no point in membership of the Party, they argue.  Wow.  I always thought membership of the Conservatives was because someone believed in their principles and what they were trying to achieve not because they only joined to seek office and hold power. 

Let’s also be clear, when people complain that the new candidates are not political ie the nurses, social workers, army officers etc, that does not mean that the CCHQ PAB’s will be selecting people who are left wing!  They are being thoroughly assessed and these people’s political judgement and gut feel naturally resides with the Conservatives. 

The proof is in the pudding of course, but I would argue that Conservative MP’s with real life experience are preferable to  ‘career politicians’ with no commercial or reality experience. 

Key to this is to attract the best candidates, remuneration has to be an incentive.  £65,000 basic is not a salary that will incentivize the best candidates in society.  Many of my friends would make brilliant MP’s but they are on salaries that are secure and far higher than £65,000.  Anyone who argues that £65k is a fair salary is frankly out of touch.  Take a look at the appointments section of the Sunday Times and you will see salaries of £100,000 for public sector roles that carry far less responsibility than an MP!  So I do align that an MP’s salary should be pegged at £100k to start and that MP’s should be allowed 2nd Roles eg Consulting a local business.  Again a reality check as they keep in touch with real life business issues.

Not everyone agrees with Cameron’s Candidate Revolutuion.  Anne Widdecombe warns, “I came into this place as a Member of Parliament, I leave it as an employee of the House of Commons… I think we’re going to have a third rate parliament.”  Anne’s full interview is here…take a look: http://tiny.cc/9qd6V  Two paragraphs I would loved to draw to your attention from the interview:

Iain Dale: What did you make of David Cameron’s plea for anybody to come forward who wants to be a Conservative candidate? Apparently 4,000 have.

Anne Widdecombe:  I think he’s wrong. It’s been well known for a long time that David and I have not agreed on candidate selection. I think he’s a fantastic leader, he’s winning. But all leaders get some things wrong and I think our approach – which hasn’t just been David’s – to candidate selection over the last few years has been completely misguided. We have gone for category rather than ability. We’re looking for more women. I’m all for more women, I’m all for more members of the ethnic communities, I’m all for more anythings as long as they get there on merit. I believe, as a woman, that every woman in Parliament should be able to look every man from the Prime Minister downwards in the eye and to think she got there on exactly the same basis that he got there. And if she can’t she’s a second class citizen. We’re going to have a Conservative Party full of second-class citizens.

Iain Dale: You are calling your successor in Maidstone a second-class citizen.

Anne Widdecombe: No. I think – and she would say – she wished there were no A-list. That she wished she’d been allowed to compete on merit because the fact is she’d have got through anyway. But what was happening was that we were told – and that moment in the selection process stands out in my memory -that we had to have, in the final, two men and two women regardless of the assessments we’d made. Helen [Grant, Conservative PPC for Maidstone and The Weald] was going to go through anyway. And one of our association said to the Central Office agent “are you telling us that we may not select on merit?” And with admirable honesty the Central Office agent said “yes”. Now that is lunatic: it is putting cart before horse. First you look at merit, then you look at category. I think we’ve actually insulted a lot of women who would have got there on their own merit. Instead we’ve insisted on equal numbers on the shortlist, fast tracking on A-lists. I’m very glad it didn’t happen in my day.

So where do you stand on the whole candidate selection debate? Is Widdecombe right that the 2010 Parliament will be a ‘third rate Parliamanet’?  Do you agree that Cameron’s Candidate Revolution will produce a Parliament to be proud of in 2015?

The next election is still a long way from being won.  We cannot be complacent.  But it is interesting to start reflecting, should the Conservatives win, what Gordon Brown’s legacy will be.  What has he achieved?  How will history judge him?

All big questions.  Historians would say it is too early to judge as Prime Minister’s have to be viewed after a passage of time.  But there is no harm looking at what Gordon will potentially bequeath an incoming Conservative Administration.

So let’s do this succinctly and look at the major policy areas.

Economy

- Britain is in a deep recession.  It has been savage.  Brown claims this is due to Global economic shocks but the IMF has stated in their most recent report:  ‘Imbalances and balance sheet strains had emerged even before the recent global shocks triggered a sharp decline in economic activity’.  ie we were heading into recession BEFORE the Global shocks took place. 

- Changes made by Gordon Brown, as Chancellor, to the way banks regulated, widely credited for the severest banking crisis in the history of the UK.

- Unemployment of nearly 3 million, (official figures), (in reality closer to 6 million).

- Unprecedented National Debt of £2.2 trillion – just under 150pc of gross domestic product. This would be the worst debt total since the 1950s, when Britain was in the process of paying back its war debts.

- Bailing out a banking system.  Cost of the bailouts - broken down. Total: £904bn or 63% of GDP. A few highlights:

Northern Rock — £14.6bn.
Bradford & Bingley — £24bn
Kaupthing Singer & Friedlaender — £3.3bn
Landsbanki — £4.5bn
Heritable — £500m
Dunfermline — £1.6bn
All bank recapitalisation — £78.1bn
Credit Guarantee Scheme — £250bn
Working Capital Scheme — £11.5bn
Asset-Backed Securities Guarantee Scheme — £50bn
Asset Protection Scheme — £466bn

TOTAL TAXPAYER EXPOSURE: £904bn or 63% of GDP.

- UK Households severely in debt.  In the run-up to the crisis household debt increased to 175 percent of disposable income—one of the highest levels among advanced countries

- House prices have dropped by more than 20 percent from their peak and commercial real estate prices are down by 40 percent.

- Endemic Fraud.  HM Customs and Excise looks odds on to miss its stated target of reducing fraud and error to 5% by 2011.  It has been revealed that mistakes had risen to 8.6%, (from 7.8), in 2007 – 08, which are the latest figures available. This means that fraud and errors in the tax credit system cost £2 billion last year, which amounts to £1 in every £10 paid out.

- Falling tax receipts… Tax receipts have fallen by £32 billion according to the National Audit Office.  This includes a £6.4 billion drop in VAT income following Alastair Darling’s decision to cut the rate to 15% last November. 

- The policies that Brown has employed no-one knows if they are working.  The IMF cannot make any judgement on the effects of Quantative easing.  Is it working?  Has it had any effect?  Who knows?  The IMF don’t

- Lack of support for Small Business.  Claim:  This Government has offered more support to small businesses in the recession. Reality:  Official statistics show that it has guaranteed fewer loans in the year to march 31st. Businesses received 2,360 loan guarantees worth £177.8m under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee (SFLG) scheme and its successor the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) scheme, launched by Peter Mandolsen. Please remember…….This was a central plank in the Governments economic strategy for the recession. But this total, which includes loans approved before April 3rd is significantly less than the £205 guaranteed in the previous year, (taken from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills report). This is also far below the scheme’s £360m budget set by the Government in March 2008, which was raised to £1.3bn in January.  This lack of lending under the schemes runs contrary to the banks’ pledges to make more use of the SFLG and EFG schemes.

Defence & Afghanistan

- An ongoing war, with no end date in sight.  No clear, measurable, objectives.

- A British Army with insufficient resources, including manpower and equipment eg helicopters.

- 207 dead soldiers and rising

- With a stated aim of helping democracy Helmand’s province, a region with a potential electorate of 80,000 voters….only 150 voted.  That’s a turnout of 0.18% .

 A dis-United Kingdom

- Between 1998 and 2003, for example, economic growth across different local areas of the UK ranged between the drastic extremes of minus 1.2 per cent and 9.6 per cent, expanding the gulf between the poorest and the most prosperous. These marked trends have persisted through the rest of the decade, further aggravating the national divide. The latest data for the 12 principal regions of the country show that total GDP growth from 2004 to 2007 ranged between 13 per cent in the West Midlands and in Wales to more than 20 per cent in London. The divergences of performance become ever greater, too, as one considers smaller localities. The consequence is that the gap between the standard of living in the most affluent parts of the nation and its poorest areas is now wider in Britain than in any other developed economy.

Politics

- Politicians with no respect and distrusted by the electorate following the expenses scandal.

- Brown’s team closely associated with the politics of smear and lying, the Damien McBride affair typifying the lows of Brown’s closest aides.

- Lack of Leadership.  Ducks the big issues eg whether he agreed with Megrahi release

Education

- 50,000 A-level students will miss out on a place at university.  This year 52,000 more people applied to University but only 13,000 extra places were made available.

- The number of young people not in employment, education or training (Neet) has leapt by more than 100,000 in the past year.  Government statistics show there are now almost 960,000 16- to 24-year-old Neets in England, more than 230,000 of whom are aged between 16 and 18. 

Welfare dependency

- NEARLY two-thirds of council housing tenants get all their rent paid by the taxpayer.  dip their hands in their pocket to pay a total of £10billion a year.  That is the equivalent of £476 every year for every privately-owned home in Britain.  How do you feel paying £476 of your money to this cause?

 Health

- A society ill prepared for Swine Flu.  Call centres manned by non medical professionals prescribing Tamiflu to everyone that calls.  Children advised not to take Tamiflu.  Vaccine in full production but untried and untested.

- Almost 1 in 4 adults in England are currently obese, and if we carry on as we are by 2050, 9 in 10 adults will be overweight or obese.  Did you know about 46% of men in England and 32% of women are overweight (a body mass index of 25-30 kg/m2), and an additional 17% of men and 21% of women are obese (a body mass index of more than 30 kg/m2 ).  The cost of overweight and obese individuals to the NHS is estimated to be £4.2 billion and is forecasted to more than double by 2050. The cost to the wider economy is £16 billion, and this is predicted to rise to £50 billion per year by 2050 if left unchecked

- Britain has the worst cancer survival rate in Western Europe.

Immigration

- MigrationWatch UK has provided an estimate that the population of the UK, (which is already the most overcrowded country in Europe), will hit………a massive 70 million in the next 20 years, (whoever is in power). Yes that is 9 million more than today.

- Keith Vaz, Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has announced that tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have entered Britain posing as students at bogus colleges and coupled with this the Government is doing nothing to track them down.

Going Green

- Going Green ….at a cost and massive debt.  It is reported that Britain faces a bill of up to £1.2 trillion to meet the agreed target set by G8 nations to cut carbon dioxide emissions in each country by 80% by 2050. This is made up of £600bn from the estimated cost of making all transport low-carbon by switching to electric or furl efficient vehicles.  £350bn which is the estimated cost of moving the majority of industrial and domestic energy needs to low carbon electricity. £250bn estimated cost of moving all heating from gas boilers to low carbon equivalent.

I could go on…and on…..please let me know what you would add to this.

Not a great legacy Gordon.  How can you sleep at night?

Leaders have opinions…or so they should do.  Gordon Brown is showing a shocking disrespect to the victim’s families of Lockerbie and to the British people as a whole by remaining silent on HIS GOVERNMENT’S views on the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the only person convicted for the horrifying atrocity of bringing down a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie.

Gordon Brown stated he was ‘angry and repulsed’ at the hero’s welcome Megrahi got on his return home to Libya, including a joyous hug & greeting from Colonel Gaddafi.  Brown againre-iterated that  his government had ‘no role’ and it was a matter for the Scottish Government.  That is the only elemtn of the situation that Brown is happy to comment on—the release scenes.  That is not the crux of the reason we want to hear from Brown. 

Brown can hide behind excuses that this is a matter for the Scottish Government.  But given that Colonel Gaddafi’s son stated that Brown’s Government was implicated because of trade deals, (namely oil), and Gaddafi himself thanked Brown and his Government over the release, that surely merits comment from our PM as he is linked in.

Brown needs to answer the following questions to bring this matter to a close….

-  Does Brown agree and support the release of Megrahi on compassionate grounds?

-  Did Brown or any UK Official have any conversations with Gaddafi or his regime over the release in the past 6 months?

-  Are any trade deals pending between the UK Government and Libya?

-  What role did Peter Mandolsen play in proceedings?

If Gordon continues to duck these questions that really does imply he has something to hide!

Interestingly, it appears today, that to qualify for release on compassionate grounds in Scotland, an individual is required to have a life expectancy of less than 3 months.  Dr Richard Simpson, a Labour MSP, said medical reports indicated that there was ’significant doubt’ over whether Megrahi would die within 3 months!  let’s wait and see!  Something does not feel right with this!

It seems increasingly likely that Gordon Brown will have to be deposed by Labour in the coming weeks/months, to have any chance in the next election.  David Miliband, Harriet Harman, James Purnell and Alan Johnson are the names floating round as the most obvious successors.  But who would Conservatives most fear?  And why should we target that potential leader to dim their brand.

Let’s look at each potential leader.  First to be discounted is Harriet Harman.  Labour, in even their wildest moments would not elect such an erratic performer as Harriet.  Becoming increasingly derided over her poor performance and her bizarre interpretations of equality, Harman is more akin to a national laughing stock and would be made mincemeat at the hustings.  Even in recent stories where she promotes equality and female shortlists, then is seeking to prioritise her husband Jack as a candidate, just show her hypocritical nature.  Hence, even if Labour made her Leader, we have nothing to fear from Harman. 

David Miliband, once with his own powerbase, now is seen as a politician who lacked that final killer instinct to be a leader.  Well known in the press for organising a leadership challenge to Brown last year, Miliband has sniped behind the scenes but never had the courage to show his true courage.  Even when his best friend James Purnell had the courage to resign, when Miliband had his best chance, he bottled it, and this is not forgotten amongst labour supporters.  His time came and past.  He is no political heavyweight and even holding a major Office of State, has made little impact.  Where is he on the news discussing Afghanistan?  Brown would even prefer the hapless Bob Ainsworth represent the Government…that says a lot for Miliband’s position.  It is also well known that Hilary Clinton thinks he is a little boy in a man’s job.

For James Purnell, a formidable potential leader, it is too early for him to strike.  He needs to build credibility and at the moment, amongst Labour supporters there is a whiff of traitor about him.  This whiff will go, after a Labour election defeat and he can then play the ‘I told you card’ and again build his brand.  He is the best Labour leader by a mile…but it is too early for him now.  Hence must be discounted as a threat pre the election.

So opinion polls show it.  Labour Unions Confirm it.  Private Conservative Opinion polls detail it.  Alan Johnson is the most likely next Leader, if Gordon goes pre the election.  Alan comes across superbly well in the media.  ‘That nice bloke next door’, ‘Mr trustworthy’, that ‘happy chappie’, Alan has a lot going for him.  His smile and natural demeanour would go a long way for Labour….and hence is a genuine opponent to be feared. 

Hence this begs a question.  Why have Conservatives not sought to give Alan Johnson special attention now?  Diminish his brand.  Dent his nice guy image.  The more groundwork we do on Johnson now, the better when it comes to any leadership battle.  If we leave it too late to highlight Johnson’s weaknesses and show him for what he is worth, we Conservatives will be seen as the ‘nasty party’ attacking him only when he stands for Leadership.  ‘Oh that poor Mr Johnson being attacked by the Tories…poor Alan’!!!!  Johnson is a potential sharp thorn in our electoral hopes, should Brown go.  Why not blunt his effect in advance?  We don’t need to do that for any other leader.  Johnson….yes….he is the most popular Labour figure.

What frustrates is that Johnson is a ‘Teflon’ Politician.  Very few things stick to him.  But there is much in his past we can target and stick to him.  He has held the following Offices of State for Labour….Secretary of State for Work & Pensions, Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, Secretary of State for Education & Skills, Secretary of State for Health, right up to today as Home Secretary.  We have plenty of ammunition to stick at him.

So Chris Grayling, you have a vital job to perform as shadow to the Home Secretary…..To put the pressure on Johnson.  Help lose his ‘teflon’ image.  Make him seem completely incompetent in his role as Home Secretary.  The Home Office is the political graveyard of many careers.  There are many issues to get Johnson hooked up into.  Knife crime, rising violent crime figures, overcrowding in prisons, rising immigration figures, ID Card Scheme, terrorists getting access to the UK via Student Visas, the intrusion of the Government into our everyday lives & the ‘Big Brother’ state.  Let’s keep him on the back foot put him under the spotlight.  His opinion poll rating will soon decline.

Over to you Chris….help the Party and diminish the potential effect of a Johnson on our electoral hopes.  With Johnson damaged, the more likely Labour will stick with Brown…and that would be a dream scenario for us……

I have to admit I was in two minds posting this article.  I have in the past been accused of attacking and disagreeing with Speaker Bercow on a too frequent basis.  Hence I thought long and hard about another critical post.  But this issue has annoyed me so much it shows that the ‘man who will clean up politics’ is desperately out of touch with reality.  So much so I had to pinch myself that this was a real story and not a joke.

When reading this story, please remember three things.  1) John Bercow has had a hefty payrise from £64,766 to £144,520, (his full potential salary but he maybe claiming the same as Speaker Martin of £141,868 but Bercow is refusing to reveal, hence lets presume the higher figure as he feels embarrassed to disclose).  Hence this is an increase in his pay of: £79,794.  (More than double!).  2) John has an apartment just down the road from the House, (which he used to claim 2nd homes allowance for but has now stopped).  3) The Speaker’s Apartment he now resides in is rent free.  That paints the scene.

Lead story in the Daily Telegraph today, (where else ), is the Speaker is having his lavish grace-and-favour apartment, (ie freebie),  in the Palace of Westminster refurbished at a cost of £20,659.36 to the tax payer.  Yes this is the man who in the wake of the expenses row promised to clean up the reputation of politics.

Bercow to his credit stopped claiming for his second home allowance, (no need really with a grace-and-favour freebie apartment in the Palace).  John claims that the costs of refurbishment are because he has a young family and needs to child proof his home, hence a study in the grand apartment, is being converted to a playroom.

A playroom in the Speaker’s Apartments.  This begs some interesting questions.  Speaker Bercow is presuming he will be the Speaker post the next election, otherwise why make these changes now?  He has a perfectly good apartment just down the road from the House, where his kids will have a great home environment already fostered.  So why the need to make changes now?  There is a chance he may not be in the role after the election.  Maybe a new Speaker in 10 months time would not want kids playrooms and then charge the tax payer to re-convert them back!  What a waste.  What a poor sense of timing!

Many would question John’s timing.  He obviously, the moment he was elected Speaker, set straight about altering and improving the Speaker’s Apartments.  The Daily Telegraph shows that the work listed below has been completed and the Speaker is in the process of claiming expenses.  Hence John was making changes the moment he was elected to the role. 

The other element of timing is of course related to the furore of MP’s expenses.  It is a poor sense of timing and sullies the public’s mood still further.  Can the Speaker not read the will of the people?  Surely he could have waited until after the election before making changes…ensuring he is still in the role of Speaker.  Of course ideally he would pay for these changes himself, like we would all have to!

We have a very mobile society.  People go to where jobs are nowadays.  Some companies provide relocation assistance, most don’t.  Hence, Bercow claiming for these changes to help his kids at the cost to the tax payer, wont wash with many.  Can you imagine relocating for a new job and telling your new boss, I need some extra money to make my house child friendly?  You would be laughed out the room.  So why different for Bercow?  This is public daylight robbery.  Dishonourable actions!……

So, I take literally David Cameron’s public test ie would these expenses feel right to the tax payer?  Do they make sense?  No….they stink.  First off he has received a significant pay rise and has a higher net disposable income.  His new apartment is rent free.  He will state he has the costs of running his current apartment just down the road to maintain.  But given he has decided to live at the House he will not incur the costs he previously would ie electricity, wear & tear / depreciation etc!. 

Let’s turn to value for money.  Is he spending tax payer’s money well?  Well, the Daily Telegraph reports a receipt for £7,524.30 for a new sofa and window seat cushions for the drawing room.  Hhhhhmmmm.  That does not feel so good to me.  Perhaps John should make use of the sale at DFS and he could buy a lovely Clarion 4 Seater Leather Corner Manual Double Recliner for £998, as below.  Great for the kids as well as the seats recline.  Of course leather, just as John likes!  But guess what John.  Given your new payrise, you have more take home pay and hence like the rest of the population, buy it yourself.

Remember these apartments are hardly in a state of decrepitation.  Speaker Martin spent £724,000 on refurbishment between 2000-2008, plus £992,000 on the garden and improved security.

So what else is Bercow claiming for?

£3,600 has been spent on fitting locks to the windows and having workmen check that access ducts in the wall panelling are lockable or childproof.

A further £3,880 has been spent on planters to provide additional child safety on the terrace.

One of the two studies is to become a playroom, with £1,087 spent on redecorating it. The note suggests putting washable paint over existing paper.

For the drawing room, a £6,764.30 sofa suite has been ordered, together with window seat cushions costing £760.

In the kitchen, a new large clock is being provided at a cost of £80, together with a noticeboard and blackboard, costing £86.73, a hob guard at £47.88 and an additional high-level pulley clothes airer.

The utility room is being remodelled at a cost of £497 in order to provide more hanging space. The floor in the room, and in the bathroom, is being replaced.

A double bed is being bought from Ikea for the housekeeper’s apartment for £479.

It is understood that a further £20,000 has been allocated to cover general maintenance.

John needs to desperately raise his game and stop taking the British taxpayer for a ride.  I was heavily critical of Speaker Martin.  But boy, I am wishing he was still in office.  Speaker Bercow has so far not brought any honour to the great office of Speaker…….

Peter Mandelson is a clever politician.  Loathed by Conservative benches, Mandelson is a shrewd opportunist who can manipulate popular opinion and massage  media messaging.  Brown relies on him implicitly now.  In the recent leadership debacle we learn daily new details of the lengths that Mandelson went to support Brown and prop him up, including speaking with each of the potential major leadership challenges to persuade them they were better off under Brown.  Without Mandelson it seems that Brown was a gonner!

There is nothing Mandelson likes more than power.  He is as addicted to power as much as any drug addict is to cocaine.  He simply will not stand by while Labour continues to drown.  Norwich North would have been a hammer blow to him.  Reportedly he loves Labour, perhaps unfairly I would say he loves power more.  Hence he MUST be now debating how the Labour Party can win / limit damage at the next election?  Norwich North would have confirmed to him that Brown is the Conservatives biggest advantage. 

So let’s put ourselves into Mandelson’s shoes.  He knows that Gordon Brown is now a liability and that there is little chance of Brown being in any way in a position to turn this ship around.  When and how to remove Brown is the best questionfor Mandelson to answer….and to plan for.

Labour strategicians are banking on good economic news coming the end of this year and the beginning of next year.  Labour will not want to wait till the end of June and most likely aim for an April election.  With the new tax year starting in April, people will see higher tax bills reducing their net pay.  This is not the message that a winning Government would want the electorate to experience pre going to the Polls, hence early April would be the optimal last date for an election.  S0 then Mandy must work back if April is the election date…when would a new leader be best placed to take the helm of the ship?  (calling an election before December would be suicidal as green shoots of recovery would not be felt by the electorate and that is what the Government are banking on to help their electoral chances).

So when would it be best to get rid of Brown?  Conference season in October?  This would not make much sense.  When replacing the leader, parties benefit for a short honeymoon period, whatever the circumstances.  The new Labour Leader could seek to distance themselves from the policies and unpopularity of Brown, to paint a new and rosy picture of what life would be like under their leadership but this strategy only works if an election comes within 2/3 months of replacing the leader.  If Brown was ousted in October, and Labour hope to benefit from better economic news and people to see recession is ending, hence aim for an April election, the new leader in place in October would be out of the honeymoon period and mired in events and any bad news.

So, if I was Mandy, (what a scary thought), I would aim for Brown to step aside in late November, with the Labour Party going through a ‘disciplined’ leadership battle, with a new Leader in place by the New Year.  New Year, New Leader.  Promote the hell out of him/her, (heaven forbid if Harman), in the New Year and then call an election for the last week of March/first week of April.

Agree?  Let’s see what happens……

Mandelson smells defeat under Brown….

Fascinating tribute from Charles Moore, who is of course Margaret Thatcher’s Official Biographer, to David Cameron, stating that he is the greatest Tory Leader of the Opposition since Benjamin Disraeli.  Take a look at the article here:  http://tiny.cc/nnZig

Moore states that the Conservatives have two advantages going for it.  Gordon Brown and David Cameron.  Many would fail to disagree with this.  Most interestingly, I think most in Labour would agree but it is what they will do about it that affects the result of the next election.

Moore cites his admiration for the way Cameron dealt with the expenses scandal making sure firstly the shadow cabinet repaid back any thing that did not look right and then Cameron turned his attention on to Conservative MP’s.  Whilst some MP’s grumbled, this was the right thing to do as it deflected attention off the Conservatives onto the Government and this strategy bore its fruits in Norwich North as Conservatives thumped home a whacking 7,300+ majority, in the first by-election since the expenses scandal.

Moore states: ‘Being Leader of the Opposition is notoriously the most difficult job in British politics. David Cameron has done it for nearly four years with a parliamentary party 30 per cent smaller than that which Margaret Thatcher led from 1975 to 1979. Judging strictly in terms of political management, I would say that he has so far been more successful than she. In fact, he must be the most skillful Tory opposition leader since Disraeli’.  That is some tribute.  But Cameron is not without issues.

The biggest issue Moore contests for Cameron is that policy needs to be defined more.  ’Voters do not recognise the Tory “signature” on anything much. In 1978/9, they would have known that the Tories promised something different on taxes, inflation, trade unions, and the Cold War. What do they know now? Nothing terrible, but also, nothing much. The vagueness of these impressions might not matter politically if in fact the Tories did know what they wanted to do. But where are they on terror, “human rights”, our constitutional decay, health service reform, local government, energy, our relations with America, the undeclared war in Afghanistan’. 

This asks an interesting question.  And it is true of any Opposition Party.  If the saying is ‘Government’s lose elections, not Opposition’s win them’, then why should Cameron reveal more?   Traditionally few Opposition Parties have spelled out their policies root & branch pre an election.  The more detail provided, provides more grounds for scrutiny and the spotlight must firmly stay on the Government and its incompetence.  Surely the goal is to provide tantalising alternative policies but not mapping them in the public arena to fine detail.

Cameron is a man that has changed much about the Conservative Party.  He deserves a great deal of credit.  He has gained public confidence on issues previously unheard of by Conservatives.  This evolves around his embracing compassionate Conservatism and the public trusting Conservatives with the health service and public services.  This is a huge win for the Conservative Party in gaining mass acceptance.

But does that make him the best Tory Opposition Leader since Disraeli?  That can only be judged after the next election.  If the Conservatives win with a big majority the Cameron deserves a pedestal in history for his work in Opposition.  If the Tories lose / hung Parliament, (and this can only happen if Labour remove Gordon Brown and there is a honeymoon period), then questions will be asked about why Conservatives did not reveal more policy.  All will be revealed within 10 months.