Tory MPs Reading List

I'm slightly bemused by the story in today's Sunday Telegraph about Tory MPs being given a reading list designed to make them better MPs.  A more pretentious bunch of claptrap I've never come across.  First of all, who has the right to tell their sub-ordinates what they have to do on holiday?  If my boss gave me a list of 38 work-related books to read on my fortnight on the beach I think I'd tell her to get stuffed.  

And the books on the list aren't exactly fun frolics.  Muqtada al-Sadr and the fall of Iraq, or 1948: The First Arab Israeli War don't quite lend themselves to a poolside and a pina colada.  Why do we insist that MPs must always be serious?  Why can't they get away from work for a couple of weeks when they are on holiday?  Would my MP be less good at his job if he read the latest John Grisham or Jilly Cooper or Alexander McCall Smith on holiday rather than the historical reading list they've been given?  Of course not.  Nor will he become a better constituency MP by reading about Lloyd George's women.  Of course, if these are the books that individuals want to read then by all means of course they should.

And we're always told that the long recesses aren't all holiday, that MPs work just as hard in their constituencies during recess as they do in Parliament during session.  So are they expected to read these 38 books in their two/three week holiday?  I'm a pretty voracious reader but even on the laziest of holidays I only average one book a day.  So what will they be losing to read this list?  Precious and deserved time with their families or time with their constituents?  I'd rather they had both.

I also want a governing party that respects the rights of individuals to choose their own leisure activities and how to lead their own lives.  If David Cameron makes it clear he can't trust his own MPs then what hope have the rest of us got?

Election Day Campaign Review

So it's finally election day and early accounts indicate that its a slow one. Time for a totally unscientific campaign review and a bold, but probably flawed prediction. Living in Surrey I've not been on the ground in the campaign so am relying on blogs, news coverage, snatched bits of gossip and my own opinions to make these judgments.

SNP

Started brilliantly and captured the Big Mo early on. Picked a good, local, popular candidate - then did their level-best to stop him speaking in case he was a bit off-message. It was easy for Labour to attack the campaign as another Salmond ego-trip as he spoke more than the candidate. Ultimately though that won't make a huge difference as people like to hear from the party leaders and many people in the area know John Mason anyway.

The Party needs to get a better answer to the question about what they'll do if the referendum on independence goes against them.

A good, solid campaign. 8/10

Labour

Dear God - how bad was the start of this campaign? They failed to abide by the first rule of elections - if you don't have a candidate don't call an election. The crucial first weekend was a disaster which has tainted the rest of the campaign by allowing the SNP to grab the momentum then run with it. When they selected their fourth/fifth/nineteenth choice candidate it was a good one and that helped to steady the ship. There have been a few gaffes and bad news stories since but nothing that will matter to people outside politics.

Before Mags Curran 0/10
After Mags Curran 6.5/10

Lib Dems

Have been anonymous, bland and focussed only on the fire station, admittedly a damn good local issue. Don't rate their campaign or their chances of keeping third spot.

Dull dull dull 4/10

Conservatives

A good show in a seat they will never even have a sniff of winning. A good candidate and a well liked Scottish leader have given the Tories more airtime and control of the agenda than is really their right. Will still get a kicking, but a respectable one and could possibly overtake the Lib Dems into third.

Punching above their East End weight 7/10

The others

Well, not being in the constituency there's not much to see or say. Looks like the SSP and Solidarity may finally wipe each other out of any sort of relevance. Expect the Greens to come fifth.

Prediction

Low poll of about 31% with Labour just holding on by about 1000. Conservatives to come third and everyone below them to lose their deposit. I expect everyone to be back in Baillieston in about 8 months time as Margaret steps down and Steven Purcell goes for his place in Holyrood, lining up a leadership bid as the next hapless Labour leader falls by the wayside.

There has been no number-crunching, no inside information, nothing but gut feeling so expect this prediction to be utterly wrong. :-)

A Tricky By-Election

The news that there will soon be a by-election in Glasgow East has sent many of my political friends into a frenzy of excitement.

On the face of it this is a rock-solid Labour seat. The last majority was 13,507 and the SNP need a 22% swing to capture it. Normally a swing of that magnitude would be just that little bit impossible at a General Election - but by-elections are something different. The expectation, given Labour's woes, will surely be that the SNP will pull off a stunning victory.

But it won't be that easy - rumours are swirling that the candidate will be Elaine C. Smith. Where does that leave the already selected candidate Lachie MacNeill. And if Lachie MacNeill is the candidate - does he have the experience, knowledge and abilities for such a high-profile campaign? I don't know Lachie so wouldn't like to say but it tends to be that the best candidate to put up a good fight in an unwinnable seat is not always be the best person to take it on to win it in the spotlight of a media frenzy. Will Elaine C. Smith - a woman whose own "Chairities and Politics" page on her website doesn't mention independence go down well with the local members?

As for Labour - they really are in trouble. Anything except a win for them will be a disaster. Everyone knows that, but do they have the stomach for such a battle? Or will the campaign for a new Scottish leader overshadow everything else?

And the Conservatives? Well everyone knows they won't win Glasgow East. In 2005 their share of the vote was 6.9%. The campaign team from Crewe and Henley won't be troubling themselves on the doors of the East End. But the last story that David Cameron wants is the wheels coming off the election machine which is doing so well. A squeezed vote and lost deposit (likely outcome surely?) will mean that one story to come out of the by-election is that the Conservatives are still unwelcome in Scotland, that the Crewe vote wasn't a sign of making genuine and sustainable progress in Labour's heartlands - it was nothing more than a protest vote. If Labour lose they will want to deflect some of the pain, and this will be the easiest (and cheapest) way to do it. So the Conservatives will be looking to hold their share of the vote - or even increase it - and probably overtake the Lib Dems for third place. And the Lib Dems? Well they will want to stop the rot of Crewe and Henley so I imagine there will be an interesting - if irrelevant - scrap for third place.

If Labour win, even by the tiniest majority, it will be touted as a major success and defeat for the SNP. If the SNP win it will undoubtedly be a great victory but will it come at cost of upset members? The Conservatives could see a grinding halt to their relentless march to the next general election and the Lib Dems could just slide further into obscurity.

Its a tricky by-election for every party which of course should make for great viewing for those of us not involved.

Is 2 Years 2 Years Too Long?

I'm really heartened by the announcement that the Conservative Party will take a tough line on getting people to move from welfare into work. There are plenty of people who know that claiming benefits is a much easier ride than getting up at 7 every day and working for 8 hours. Anything that can be done to get as many people back into the workplace is a good thing. And pointing out that state benefits are not a right is a great place to start.

I've been properly unemployed once in my life and it was a horrible time. It took about 6/7 weeks to get an appointment at the Job Centre and when I finally did make it I was astonished by what I saw. I was sitting at a communal table, happily filling out my little forms, listening to one ned say to his pal "Just tell them if they don't give you money today you'll rob someone - that's what I do". When I handed my completed booklet to the advisor (and I do use that word under caution) it was clearly the first time in a long time anyone had done so.

Change really does have to come from the bottom up from ensuring that threats from thugs aren't taken as an excuse to ensuring that the advisors act as such.

But the one thing I did learn is how easy it is to become depressed and fall into a rut. Weeks of looking through newspapers and finding nothing you like the look of, failing to even get a job at the local supermarket all take their toll very quickly. It's far too easy (and understandable) to become unwilling to get out of bed for yet another day of being disappointed and depressed by your situation. That's why I think 2 years before instigating some form of community work is too long. After 2 years people have lost key skills and the energy for returning to work. A programme of community and voluntary work beginning after 6 months would be a much more suitable option. Perhaps with some sort of "bonus" scheme added and of course part-time to allow job-hunting to continue. Of course the 2 year limit should remain so that this doesn't become a substitute for work.

You'll Win On Health - Just Get It Right

There are three subjects that the electorate care about - health, crime, education. Get those three right and no matter what else is happening you'll win the election. Other issues will have an impact but if you don't get these three core issues right then you're dead in the water. William Hague knows that - about 90% of the country backed the Save the Pound campaign in 2001, people queued up to sign the petition but in the end it didn't change their vote. People care about the environment but will choose who to vote for based on who'll get the yobs off their streets, not who'll save the polar bears. And try being in the line of fire when parents don't get their first choice schools - county councils change hands over these issues.

David Cameron is absolutely right to take Brown on over the Health Service. It's in a shocking state and people care and will choose who to vote for based on who they trust on health. Telling people that despite the spin local hospitals and services are under threat and pledging to protect them is a winning strategy. As long as people have faith you will act on it. Nicola Sturgeon can vouch for that one.

But for god's sake get it right. You had a great start to the week - I bet members loved the thought of a bare-knuckle fight on such a key issue, then it all went wrong. Turns out the research wasn't good enough, local MPs weren't fully on board and then an idiot researcher (probably the same one who bollocksed up in the first place) got bullied into apologising. Things like this detract from the strong central message.

A couple of tips - get your research right from the start and double check the work of 17 year old Emily and Tarquin, make sure the local MPs/PPCs know what's going on in their area and are fully behind it, know that the vested interests (the Trust managers) will come back at you and be ready to take them on too, never apologise to them and for god's sake keep going. Use Andrew Lansley more - he's attractive and appealing to the general public. Oh and yes - keep banging on about health.

Health, crime, education. Might never be the causes de jour - but will always be the things the swing voters care about.

In defence of David Cameron

Since I left the Conservative Party two years ago (at roughly the same time as David Cameron became leader but not because of that) I have undergone a real change in attitude towards it. When in the past people told me that the nasty element so often seen was the face of the party I argued against that, but I came to realise that they were right. Not that every member is nasty, in fact some are fantastic and there are some elected representatives who are fantastic and who I would vote for, and even work to see elected again. But the truth is that the real face of the Conservative Party is too often the smug, sneering, nasty, frothing-mouthed, Daily Mail reader that we're all used to.

And boy has is reared itself up over David Cameron and his trip to Rwanda. The howls from the loony wing of the Party have been deafening. How dare he go to Africa and find out what's happening around the world? Why do we care what happens to the colonials? The Rwandans don't vote - why bother? Why wasn't he in the country looking at the flood?

Well, let's take the last point - yes, for some people the flooding this week has been devastating. But really - do they want some politician to fly over them in a helicopter tutting and rolling his eyes? If he didn't have a bucket and a mop to help clear up then he wouldn't be of any use to anyone. But on the other hand, he had already visited flooded areas in his own constituency before he went to Rwanda. A Prime Minister must be able to concentrate on several urgent issues at once, running the country and fulfilling international duties cannot stop because of a crisis. Instead our leaders must be able to juggle lots of balls in the air.

And it was a good thing going to Rwanda. If we want to stop genocide happening in the future we have to understand what happened and why. We must learn to read the signs. No genocide ever starts as a genocide - it starts with name-calling, it starts with exclusionary policies and it starts with labelling people as different. If we can recognise the first stages then maybe we can help stop the second, third stages taking place. And if we can stop genocide occuring, if we can help people to be safe in their own countries, maybe we can stop so many coming to the UK (shameless nod to right-wing sensibilities).

13 years ago the world stood by and allowed a genocide to take place in Rwanda. And the genocide is still taking place there - women and children are still dying of AIDS; people are still dying from their wounds and killings are continuing. I'm delighted that David Cameron went to see for himself what is happening in Rwanda. It can only make him a better politician and perhaps even a better Prime Minister.

Dropping the Debt Monster

As I said yesterday I am delighted that the new SNP Executive has abolished tuition fees for Scottish students in Scottish universities (and none of your nonsense about endowments - it was a tuition fee). As someone who would never have gone to university without my fees being paid the thought of University becoming some sort of exclusive preserve for those who could afford it horrified me.

There aren't many things that government/taxpayers should provide for the public but education is one of those things. A country needs teachers, lawyers, doctors, etc etc and it should pay for their education. That's not to say that unlimited years should be covered with a whole load of perpetual students being funded forever though and I'm also not so convinced by the need for grants though, there is only so much money in the public purse and life isn't perfect.

When I worked for the Conservative Party pre-2005 I was delighted that the policy was to abolish student fees and in the constituency I worked in we worked quite a lot on this policy because we knew it was the right thing to do. I was horribly disappointed when David Cameron reversed this policy - it was just one more example of a very rich man assuming that the rest of the population could afford the lifestyle he can.

This was a good statement yesterday and the £15/£20 million cost is one well worth paying - in fact at approximately £3.63 per person it's a downright bloody bargain.