Clegg should demand real investment for renewing those vows

With Francois Hollande elected in France and Labour's modest triumph in the council polls, it is hardly surprising that David Cameron and Nick Clegg feel the need to renew the vows they exchanged in the shotgun wedding of 2010. But whether they should stick to the letter of the pre-nup that they signed on that fateful day is another matter. The economy desperately needs investment, and the government badly needs a sense of purpose. There are few signs that either are planned. And that reflects a failure of imagination by Nick Clegg and his improbably sidekick Danny Alexander.

The Budget was not just a disaster for the Tories, countering George Osborne's smugness with its extraordinary collection of crowd-displeasers. It was also a failure for Nick Clegg, because he failed to persuade his coalition partners that cutting the 50p tax rate at a time when the country (and Europe) has entered into a populist anti-rich rage might not be the best idea, just at the moment.

But then despite the hype there is little sign that the Liberal Democrats have gained much beyond becoming a punching bag for liberal initiatives already favoured by Cameroon reforms, such as gay marriage or even Lords reform. The Lib Dems have failed utterly to promote the sort of infrastructural investment that might move the economy from Osborne's recession into lasting growth. School building has been slashed. House building is a combination of anti-Labour spin and coalition inaction. The high speed rail will take years to materialise and Heathrow is chaotic not just because of Teresa May's passport panic, but because there is nowhere for the planes to land half the time. High speed broadband seems a distant dream, especially with BT involved.

We have seen that infrastructure can be delivered on budget and on time with the Olympic stadium. And I have no quibble with efforts to get better value for money than Labour in public building projects. But there is simply not enough action on providing the major infrastructural investment that could give the economy the kickstart it needs, boosting demand and jobs, and ensuring more people pay taxes rather than draw benefits. Rather than fighting plans for an extra £10bn cut in welfare budgets, Clegg should be seeking to cut the budget by getting people into real jobs. At present, all that's on offer is the dubious rebadging exercise known as the Youth Contract.

Within months, Europe including Germany will recognise - in part because of what's happening in France and Greece - that it needs a better balance between austerity and growth, and that investment projects are needed for the latter. The US under Barack Obama has recognised that, as has the IMF and OECD in its advice to member nations. This is not about cutting day-to-day spending, which will have to continue, though Osborne always underestimated its knock-on impact on private sector services, but about medium to long-term investments that will have a return.

So, rather than whining about Lords Reform, Clegg and his colleagues should force the investment issue with a real determination: new rail, schools, housing, airports. If he focused on that rather than the dubious achievements that he cites for his role in Government to date, the voters might even notice. By the same token, Labour should switch its arguments from the speed of the spending cuts to a ceaseless demand for more capital investment, with a strong critque of the government's enduring incompetence and inability to deliver. It too might find that a successful formula to consolidate and advance on Thursday's success.

More state funding for political parties is the only answer

Suppergate may be providing further discomfort for the Tories after last week's budget ineptitude. And plenty of indignant outrage will flow from those not involved, not least at the ludicrous figure of Peter Cruddas and his attempt to sell the most expensive dinners around. Yet supporters of democratic politics can neither afford the either the comfort of righteous indignation nor the cheap laughs that the incident provokes. Once again we can see how important it is to grasp the nettle of state funding for political parties. For, the truth is that each time an incident such as this emerges it further dents party politics. And that is bad for democracy as a whole.

I have long argued that greater state funding for political parties is the only way forward, and these events strengthen my view. It is true that at least we now know how the parties are funded. All the parties have come unstuck as a result of their reliance on large donors. Of course, there's a good case for capping the amount parties can receive from a single donor - and doing so closer to £5000 than £50000; just as there's a case for capping constituency spending all year round. But this inevitably descends into party political knockabout: this time we may be enjoying Cameron's discomfort, but he is not the first party leader to face such controversy. Greater state funding must be the answer. The Labour government should have bitten the bullet on all this years ago; Nick Clegg should certainly insist that his coalition partners do so know.

And for the benefit of those who think the taxpayer shouldn't fund political parties, don't forget they already do, and on a much greater scale now than before 1997. In 2011/12, according to the House of Commons library the opposition parties received £6.5m in so-called 'Short money' with nearly £600k more for party work in the House of Lords. There are also policy development grants to help develop manifesto policies. Party funding is now worth more than three times as much per Commons seat as it was in 1997.

So, all the parties should call a truce on this issue. Labour should accept that the unions fund the party too much, and find a more direct link to individual union members. The Tories should axe big donations. And the taxpayer should pay a little more to protect something that people the world over risk their lives for - and bring an end to charades like we have seen played out this weekend once and for all.

Fox fiasco, NHS bill chaos. Move Maude.

David Cameron's two big crises of the moment, the Liam Fox/Walter Mitty saga and the slow death of Andrew Lansley's pointless NHS legislation owe a lot to another member of his cabinet and a silly self-destructive piece of gesturist posturing. Francis Maude's obesessive opposition to political advisers in government has led Fox to use unorthodox methods to maintain the advice of his Alanticist soulmate Adam Werritty, while Lansley's ludicrous bill would never have seen the light of day had Cameron enjoyed half-decent political back-up in No 10 while it was being dreamt up.

I hold no brief for the increasingly bizarre Werritty or his politics, and some of the meetings that he set up would not have been appropriate for any political adviser. But a Secretary of State is entitled to have political advice that reflects his political position as a counterweight to the bureaucratic certainties that he will receive from his civil servants. The civil service is fine at offering what it sees as the tenable options on any issue, but it can benefit from radical challenge from political advisers as well as ministers. And the idea that ministers should not have sufficient political back-up to fulfil a democratic mandate is pretty undemocratic. I have no idea whether there is more to Werritty than a go-for for Fox: but if that is all that he is, he should have been able to work for Fox in an official capacity, albeit with fewer luxury hotel visits and first class flights. Had he done so, his role would have been properly defined.

Which brings me to Lansley's bill that is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves thanks to a re-energised David Owen and a canny offer from Andy Burnham, who has made a flying start back at Health by offering to back GP commissioning if the bill is dropped. As Camilla Cavendish points out in an excellent piece (£) in the Times this morning, the bill makes no difference to patients, it will be blamed for the next NHS crisis [which I believe will follow Lansley's equally ludicrous abandonment of targets] and it doesn't actually require primary legislation. Indeed it may even set back the private and voluntary provision already introduced as a result of Alan Milburn's reforms. But all of this was entirely predictable, and would have been seen by a half-competent, politically aware NHS adviser in No 10. Cameron lacked such a figure because the No 10 policy unit was virtually non-existent thanks to the strictures of Maude. Even today, it is filled with civil servants rather than politically astute figures, for the same reason.

Of course, Francis Maude thought he was being terribly clever when he announced a reduction in the number of Whitehall political advisers. And, funnily enough, the civil servants in the Cabinet Office cheered him on, as did the newspapers. It allowed a nice dig at Labour too. All of which would have been exchanged for a day's bad headlines had the coalition increased their number. Some ministers have created policy adviser posts for political appointees (who are subject to the strictures of civil servants on political activity) to get round the rules. But they shouldn't have to. The Prime Minister should have a strong cadre of able well-informed political advisers, and individual cabinet ministers should be able to assemble small teams of people they can trust politically to act in the interests of their democratic mandate.

So, if and when Liam Fox goes, and once Cameron finally gets rid of the disaster that is Andrew Lansley [and it gives me no pleasure to note that this blog told you so long before the election], he should also move Maude. And do a U-turn on political advice.

A pointless cull of MPs

What, exactly, is the point of the coalition's cull of MPs? It is said that it will bring more equity to representation, as it takes a few thousand fewer people to elect a Labour MP than a Conservative MP. Ofr course, that takes no account of lower levels of registration in the inner city constituencies where the differences are greatest. But let's leave that be for a moment. Achieving greater equity - something that is already the job of the Boundary Commission - doesn't require a reduction in the number of MPs by 50 at the same time. This is apparently happening to save £12 million. And at what price? Constituencies that bear some relationship to geography and council boundaries are to be shredded in favour of ludicrous agglomorations of wards pushed together to achieve the optimum size dictated by the coalition. In my home constituency of North East Somerset, we would now become Keynsham and Kingswood. The only small mercy is that Jacob Rees-Mogg would no longer be my MP. But that doesn't mean it makes sense. I used to chair Mitcham and Morden CLP in London: it is to be replaced by a new Mitcham constituency that will include a Lambeth ward for no good reason other than mathematical necessity.

But it is not really Cameron's fault that this whole farce came to pass. It is that of the Liberal Democrats, who were too naive to tie the cull of MPs to the passing of the Alternative Vote in a referendum. This left Cameron free to dump on Clegg from a huge height on AV while continuing with his constituency cull. The irony of the whole exercise is that it looks like it will not deliver the gains in seat advantage that the Tories hoped to achieve through their gerrymeander. Instead it may create as many aggrieved seatless Tory MPs as Labour ones. So, there are few winners - and any 'savings' are bound initially to be eaten up along with the cost of the time-wasting involved in a lengthy appeals process and subsequent internal party battles between MPs whose constituencies have been significantly changed.

Whoever thought this would win back public confidence in politics and politicians? Give them a seat on the Lib Dem committee for approving £2m donations from passing fraudsters.

Politics must be an election winner

That the election that we now know will take place on May 6^th is competitive at all is remarkable in itself. And the fact that there is any doubt about the result owes much to the weaknesses of David Cameron and the strengths of Gordon Brown. The extent to which Cameron overcomes his weaknesses and Brown plays to his strengths will determine the outcome of the election. But this must also be an election where politicians show that politics matters again, after the recent expenses scandals.

The opinion polls give a mixed picture: Labour stalwarts may prefer ICM’s 4-point Tory lead in the Guardian to YouGov’s 10-point advantage in The Sun. But both suggest a tighter result than the 15-20 point lead of polls last year. Cameron lost ground by retreating to his Tory comfort zone when he should have stuck with his initial instincts to regain the centreground won by Tony Blair in the last three elections. The result was that – with the possible exception of last week’s national insurance battle – a Tory policy blitz promised for after Christmas proved a damp squib. Meanwhile, despite a depleted party budget, Labour proved a sharper than expected campaigner and has played well to the economic strengths of the Brown-Darling team (so much so that Brown has said that in the – still unlikely – result of a Labour victory, Darling would remain as Chancellor).

But all that could change in the next four weeks. The novelty of the TV debates could be a game changer in three ways. First, if Cameron allows the sneering petulance that has occasionally reared its ugly head at PMQs to come through, he will turn off middle ground voters. Second, if Brown doesn’t manage to mix his undoubted gravitas with a lighter touch, he will lose to Cameron and Clegg. And, finally if Nick Clegg does as well as Vince Cable in the Chancellors’ debate, he could affect the result in some marginals to the detriment of the two larger parties.

For the two main parties, however, this will be an inauspicious election, as the combination of Westminster expenses and economic uncertainty could drive record numbers of voters either to abstain or to vote for fringe parties and independents. It is that as much as the polls that suggests a hung parliament remains the most likely result. And the big challenge for all the parties in the weeks ahead is to make people realise that politics matters and makes a difference to their lives. Whatever the result, this election campaign can only be judged a success if it switches people back to politics.

This post first appeared on the Public Finance blog today.

Labour needs US-style primaries

David Miliband is absolutely right to argue for a system of registered party supporters, as in the United States, in his article in Tribune (ironically not online, though significantly a Tribune leader attacking him is!).

As with most parties, Labour has been rapidly losing members in recent years, as its dated ways of doing business slip into increasing irrelevance nearly a decade into the 21st century. What Miliband is proposing is not a free-for-all as with the Tories in Totnes, but a system of registered supporters who vote in primaries, and are presumably available for invitation to fundraising and other events.

It was dispiriting to hear Neal Lawson, once a serious moderniser, defending the status quo - albeit with PR whichI support - presumably in the knowledge that a smaller party may be more likely to succumb to vote-losing ideas, as it did in the eighties. It is simply untenable to expect that the only people who should have a view on Labour's candidates are those who turn up to hear the minutes of the last meeting read before the guest speaker from Compass or the self-styled Campaign for Labour Party Democracy drones on about the evils of a three-term Labour government and the wonders of Hugo Chavez.

If politics is to regain a relevance in people's lives, we need simpler structures and much more flexibility about how people can register their support and get involved.

MPs wanted: no human beings need apply

It may not be fashionable to say so, but the news that Jacqui Smith and Alastair Darling are likely to be out of the cabinet as a result of the never-ending expenses saga is a cause for concern rather than rejoicing. I have known both for a long time, and I know both to be able, dedicated, honest people, who came into politics to make a difference and have been talented ministers in their time with the Labour government - I know in particular how much difference Jacqui made on schools policy, and her talents are sorely missed at education these days. But Jacqui has stronger support in Redditch than people think, as her result in 2005 (where there was no swing against Labour) showed and I hope she can keep her seat.

But there is a wider point here. The BBC poll today tells us that half the public thinks that at least half of MPs' are 'corrupt'. And there is no doubt that the last month has been a positive boon for the white van man/saloon bar world view, harnessed by the BNP/UKIP axis no doubt to shocking proportions this Thursday.

In the process, nobody wants to stand up for politicians. Of course, there are a few who have milked the system shamelessly and they deserve whatever they get. (I don't believe that includes either Darling or Smith - as both got caught out primarily because of a 2004 rule change affecting ministers and their designation of second home). Most MPs claimed allowances to which they were told they were entitled, and were not trying to milk the system.

And the Telegraph coverage has now lost all sense of proportion: listening to Frank Cook's apology for a claim (that was rejected) for a £5 church donation ending up in the Fees Office did not suggest someone trying to fiddle the system but an MP whose office has patently made a silly mistake. He did not deserve to see his 26 years in parliament turned into a piece of faux Sunday newspaper outrage. Was this really Sunday's biggest news?

Fewer and fewer people were willing to enter politics for the money, even with the allowances as they were. Most of those across all parties have worked for years, often at considerable personal cost, building up local support to become an MP because they believe in democratic politics and the contribution they might make to their community or causes.

They work incredibly hard in their constituencies dealing with expectations that have grown as their collective reputation has declined. As David Aaronovitch says today, if they are guilty of anything, it is not realising the impact of what John Keane calls 'monitory democracy' - the onslaught of Freedom of Information, the Internet, 24 hour news and new technology. Few of the political giants of the past would stand a day's scrutiny under this system, let alone years of it.

So, there will be changes to the systems of expenses, and there may be some democratic reforms too - though they should be done with cross-party support, not the shameless self-interest of some party leaders. But in the end we still need people to want to become MPs because we need people who are willing to make huge sacrifices to their personal life (and for most, becoming an MP means you have little time for much else) to do so.

What we are now likely to get as a result of the relentless assault of the last month are humourless self-righteous sorts who are, of course, incapable of making the slightest mistake. In such circumstances, the only person who would want to be an MP is someone with no hinterland or human frailties, or an egomaniac extremist who plays to the populist mood.

If people don't think much of our current MPs, just wait until they see what comes next.

This post was picked up by the Local Democracy blog.

Johnson is right on PR

Alan Johnson's article in today's Times rightly makes the case for the sort of fundamental political reform casually dismissed with typical selflessness by David Cameron as an 'irrelevance'. The AV-plus system recommended by the Jenkins commission would give voters a much greater connection with their MPs - as they must amass 50 per cent of the constituency votes after transfers - and the chance to register a protest vote whilst also backing a potential governing party.

It is an elegant solution to the crisis facing our democracy and one which deserves the support of Gordon Brown. That Alan Johnson, whose tenure at health has been an unsung success, may see this as part of his post-election bid for the leadership makes it no less worthy. Labour has been playing second fiddle to Cameron's breathtakingly self-interested use of the expenses crisis for weeks now. This is the sort of measure that could both restore the party's reformist credentials - and put it back on the front foot in the political debate.

Political parties are better for us than Esther Rantzen

As the drip-drip of Telegraph revelations continues, the cry goes up that we need an early general election to 'clear the air.' But this would be a big mistake. It would simply produce a parliament of extremists and policy-free independents. While the odd Martin Bell may be good for politics, a collection of people elected purely because of who they are not would be damaging to good governance.

The truth is that despite the fashion for extreme cynicism, politicians who stand on a platform tend to work towards achieving it, in areas as diverse as education, health, the economy and transport. Labour achieved over 80% of its manifesto commitments in its first term. The Tories with an alternative platform - given the time to formulate it - would work towards their alternative, as would the Liberal Democrats. But making politics a policyfree zone as a revenge for the moats and duck islands would lead to a lack of any such sense of purpose, substituting an ill-defined anger with politicians for the purpose of political parties. As Janice Turner puts it (pretty pointedly) about Esther Rantzen in an excellent piece in today's Times:

Do years uncommitted to a party make a celebrity admirably independent or mean that she simply couldn't subsume her ego to anything bigger than herself?

So, it would be folly to call an election at a time when perspective is so skewed. Instead, the parties should clean up politics, and consider other reforms which could improve confidence in MPs (such as an alternative vote or PR allowing both protests and effective votes). At the same time, all the parties must find the space to remake the case for party politics.

It is a lot stronger than the case for Esther Rantzen.

Pay more, end expenses

Gordon Brown is right to join David Cameron in apologising over expenses. But I see little point in adding to the synthetic outrage of newspapers over the whole saga. I trust no journalist who has written or pontificated on the issue has ever fiddled their expenses (and, in consequence, the taxman) in the past, and that the proprietors of newspapers filling acres of space on the subject wouldn't dream of finding ways to avoid paying taxes in the UK.

That said, the whole thing is an utter mess for MPs and very bad for the image of parliamentary politics. Like state funding of political parties, it is an example of where fear of a day or two's bad headlines has led politicians foolishly to opt for the worst possible solutions. MPs should be better paid - £100,000 a year, fully taxed, would be about what a GP earns - and get no living expenses beyond travel costs (through a railcard for all).

Political parties, already heavily funded by the taxpayer, should be largely funded by them with donations above £1000 banned. Those two simple measures might cause a day or two of synthetic outrage. But it would do more to clean up politics - and its public image - than any of the absurdly complicated alternatives being bandied about at the moment.

Lessons from Obama's victory

There has been a lot of talk about what Obama's victory means for British political leaders. Gordon Brown tells us it is a victory for progressive politics. David Cameron thinks it heralds a new generation of young leaders, including Dave presumably. It may mean both, but the bigger lessons for the parties are organisational and strategic. Here are six.

1. Obama used new media as never before, and in ways that no British party has come close to matching. This not only kept him in touch with his supporters, with access to blogs and YouTube videos, it gave him a huge base of financial support. McCain was in the slow lane, by contrast.

2. Obama won a big boost in young voters, as well as Hispanics. He managed to inspire in ways that previous leaders had failed to do. Part of the reason for the higher youth vote was his success with new media.

3. Obama had the superior get out the vote effort. This is what really mattered in close fought states like Florida, Virginia and North Carolina. His field offices vastly outnumbered those of McCain and he had far more people working for him. British political parties need to find new ways to get people working for parties at election time, expanding on the dwindling party membership. People on the ground do matter.

4. Obama ran a brilliantly disciplined campaign. He didn't rise to the bait when accused of consorting with terrorists or accused of being a socialist by the ludicrous Joe the Plumber. He reacted calmly during the financial crisis as McCain dithered. He remained polite towards his opponents as they indulged in silly name-calling (though this didn't mean his campaign ran no negative ads) and he inspired optimism rather than cynicism as a result.

5. Despite claims that he was a mad left-winger, he ran a centrist campaign while McCain swung rightwards. Had McCain stuck to his instincts, picking Lieberman and sidelining Bush's crazier advisers, he could have run things a lot closer. But Obama showed people that he was a safe centrist bet who had practical policies on issues that mattered to their lives.

6. He didn't reject his Democratic heritage when it came to past winners. Despite his differences, he used Hillary and Bill Clinton to brilliant effect. Unlike Al Gore.