Hopi Sen

I’m taking the week off, both from work, and this blog. As I’m an internet obsessive, even when on holiday, it’s more than likely that I’ll post links of things I read and find interesting, but the thousand word walls of text I’ve been producing recently will be diverted elsewhere for the next week.

I’ll probably still twitter though.

The Advance person’s life is not a happy one.

You get a call from some pointy head saying “We want to have some pictures to go with our oh so important speech on social mobility” First thing tomorrow OK?

The speech is at 11am in London, so the visit’s  got to be in central London too.

So obviously, if you’re a Nick Clegg advance person, you can’t got to a Labour council. That leaves you fairly few options.

Westminster you rule out because, well, it’s Westminster, not much Social mobility there, not since they deported the Council tenants to outer London. Though I suppose that is Social mobility, of a sort.

Croydon’s too far. Kensington? Too well off and Tory.  Richmond is to much of a battle between Lib Dems and Tories.  Can’t do Barnet because they’re in the middle of a scandal.

Southwark? God no, that’s Hughes patch, the media would be on that one like a rat up a drainpipe. Labour anyway, now. Kingston, Sutton, Bexley, Bromley ruled out for travel times. Wandsworth is an archetypal Tory council , and gets done to death.

So, Hammersmith it is.

Nor can you just visit any old programme. It has to be one that’s all voluntary. Oh and don’t do pensioners, because well, there’s a story about that. And it’s August, so you can’t do a school.

So some sort of Summer scheme? Maybe an Early years one? run by Volunteers? Bingo. That’ll do. Now, where is there one?

Cue call to local council leader. Naturally, they fall over themselves to be helpful.

“I’ve got a visit from a senior government minister” Any facilities that fit this brief?” “That sounds great, can I come and see it? Any issues? No? brilliant!”

You visit the centre for a recce. The centre is lovely, all bonny babies and teeming with happy toddlers. The Council press officer mentions something about a spending review, but hey, what’s wrong with reviewing spending?

Anyway, nothing’s been decided, and the council promises they’ve pledged to keep services, just make savings, so you just put a note in the briefing to the effect that a review of children’s services is underway, but this is matter for the council.

Then this happens. 

As a former press officer, my heart goes out to the poor bloody advance.

It’s not their fault the government is cutting spending on the very things they say are important.

But you know it’s her who’ll be getting in the neck (Advance is an essential, glamourless, hard job for which others get the credit for successes. Naturally, it is very often done by women).

Still, there is a silver lining.

At least Clegg wasn’t wearing a lapel mike when he got in his Limo.

(Hat tip, Political Scrapbook,)

Ed Miliband is absolutely right to rule out working with Nick Clegg. It might seem early, but it’s worth setting out the obvious straight away.

Nick Clegg has defined himself entirely with the Tory dominated Coalition policy agenda. Just as significantly, he has supported a political strategy that involves regular and full-throated combined attacks on Labour.

The idea that the Lib Dems are, under Nick Clegg, an equidistant party is increasingly ludicrous. Look at it this way, for Nick Clegg to serve as deputy to a future Labour Prime Minister would require such feats of political twisting that it would bring politics itself in disrepute.

We’re already seeing that one of the problems with the Coalition is the way it is being used by both parties (and, on AV, by Labour too!) to junk previous commitments without a second thought. Imagine if the Lib Dems under Nick Clegg were to do a reverse ferret on everything they said in this coalition as they served in the next. It would be downright embarrassing.

I don’t criticise Nick Clegg for his strategy. He had to take a difficult decision, and he took it. I happen to think he achieved about 90% of what was possible for his party in the Coalition negotiations, and he has helped create a government which he clearly supports.

In addition, as leader of his party Nick Clegg cannot create space between himself and his Prime Minister. Unlike Cable, Hughes, or even Huhne, Clegg must march in lockstep with Cameron to keep the Coalition stable and give it direction. Unfortunately, I think the stability is helping us go in the wrong direction, but I’m not a Lib Dem, so I can see that someone who is might not agree with me on that. (The fools!).

That’s all fair enough. It just makes being bi-political rather difficult.

So whatever future relationship Labour and the Lib Dems may have, Nick Clegg won’t be part of it.

It’s nothing personal, just business. Just as Nick Clegg knew he couldn’t work with an allegedly discredited Gordon Brown, so Labour’s next leader won’t be able to work with a rejected coalition Clegg.

This poses a problem for Labour too.

Much as I find Simon Hughes engaging, I’m not sure of his qualities as a partner in the hard labours of governing. Vince Cable is a fine man doing a hard job in impossible circumstances, but I think he’s unlikely to want to lead his party after the next election. The ex leaders club of Paddy, Ming and Charlie are likely to remain resoundingly ex, for a variety of reasons.

So who in the Lib Dems might Labour wish to reach out to? Tim Farron? Steve Webb? The list of strong, centre left Lib Dems is distressingly short. This may be because if you were a political centrist centre left moderate for the last 15 years there’s been an obvious home for you in the Labour party.*

Yet understanding who might be an alternative to Clegg is vital for Labour. If Clegg is an impossible choice for partner, but can remain as LD leader by continuing with the Conservatives, we would need to offer a credible alternative coalition to the Lib Dem party and that offer requires a potential leader willing to accept it, and who is able overthrow his leader in the process.

Of course, it is possible that this discussion is irrelevant. If the coalition continues happily after the next election, no such conversation is needed. Nor if Labour wins outright. But a wise politician considers all options, and the workings of the Social Liberals will be of great interest to our next leader.

*It’s noticeable that there’s a late twenties early thirties generation of leftish politically active people who joined the Lib dems presumably out of disappointment with Labour in government. Sadly, few of them are in significant positions. Except in Wales.

The Winter Fuel allowance is now a major story.

This is probably entirely egomaniacal, but I do sort of feel that I’ve some minor role in this. I’ve been banging on about it for days, and yesterday it turned into a proper story as journalists followed it up.  This is clearly all down to me going “Oi, look at this” on my blog, and nothing at all to do with journalists working their sources and getting real stories out of it.

Anyway, some developments. Labourlist have fished out the video of the Cameron Press Conference where he talked about the Winter Fuel Allowance.

It’s worth paying attention to the last question.  I think it’s James Langdale asking the question. Transcript is below.

Cameron :…Stop his candidates from lying about Conservative policy. Glad I got that off my chest, it’s something I feel very, very, strongly about.

Q:  Just to be clear, you will keep benefits, but you will not change them in any way. You will not means test, you will not change the criteria?

Cameron: We will keep what we inherit in all of those important areas. All of the things Labour has been saying are complete and utter lies.

Pretty Definitive, and it comes pre-clipped for handy repeated play on 24 hour news.

Compare and contrast to today’s Telegraph:

The excellent Joe Murphy of the Evening Standard has done some proper journalism* and got the DWP and Treasury to admit they are looking at cutting the Winter Fuel allowance for many pensioners, in direct contradiction of David Cameron’s pre-election pledge.

“Sources in both the department and the Treasury would not deny that the cuts were being looked at but described reports as “speculation about the comprehensive spending review”.

Mr Osborne today said the welfare bill was “completely out of control” and the deficit could not be tackled without cutting spending on benefits.”

Well worth reading his full piece here.  He also gets info that they’re looking at axing Child Benefit, presumably for upper rate tax payers.**

My only quibble is that the report descibes a saving of £2.7billion (following the FT report), which is, as far as I can tell, the entire cost of the Winter Fuel Allowance.

I find it hard to believe it would be axed completely, so I’m dubious about that number.

*this is a genuine compliment. I worry that I sound snidey when I say stuff like this.

**Truthfully, I’m not too upset about that policy direction, as it’s one of the areas I think we’d have had to look at too, pace Alistair Darlings comments today, where Alex Massie has judged my reaction perfectly.

Though if they’re intending to link Child benefit to tax credits, it’ll be much more expensive to administer, and linked to tax code, there will be obvious unfairnesses. The general point is a reasonable one. Devil in detail, though.

One of these things is not like the others.

“We will keep the winter fuel allowance. Let me take this opportunity to say very clearly to any pensioner … You know you are getting letters from the Labour Party that say the Conservatives would cut the winter fuel allowance, would cut the free bus travel, would cut the free television licence.

“These statements by Labour are quite simply lies. I don’t use the word ‘lie’ very often, but I am using it today because they are lies.

David Cameron, March 23rd 2010.

“We will protect key benefits for older people such as the winter fuel allowance, free TV licences, free bus travel, and free eye tests and prescriptions.”

Coalition Policy Programme, May 2010.

“…spending Mr Duncan Smith wants to pare back includes £2.7bn of winter fuel payments, a universal benefit paid to the over-60s that Mr Cameron made a conspicuous pledge to keep in the election campaign and coalition policy manifesto.”

The Financial Times, today.

I see quondam commentator, blogger and loudmouth Coalition government supporter Sunny Hundal has realised the terrible mistake he made in supporting the claims to office of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and his crew, and has humbly asked to be admitted to the brother (and sister) hood of the Labour party.

I understand there are others like this poor lost lamb. They too are welcome.

There is more joy in Victoria Street over one Lib dem that repents, than over ninety nine righteous party members who snidely point out we’ve been proven right all along.

Welcome brother, and may other poor foolish seekers after redemption follow in your path.

It’s clear Sunny will fit right in at the Labour party. His website is already following in our finest traditions.

The first post after Sunny announced he was joinging was a ringing call for the expulsion of another party member for betrayal and disloyalty.

Ah, they learn so fast these days,

I think the Labour party has rather bigger things to worry about than the career prospects of former Cabinet ministers.

Yes, Alan Milburn surely knows that working with the Coalition provides David Cameron and Nick Clegg with a nice headline in August, and gives political emphasis to Cameron’s claim to have moved to the centre ground of British politics.

But what Labour needs to focus on is the real impact the government plans will have on social mobility, not the trivial media impact of yet another unpaid adviser.

What’s the government doing? It’s cutting University places, and reducing investment in early years, post 16 and adult education. It’s reducing financial support for low income families through cuts to Early years tax credits and housing benefit. On top of that, the coalition plan to cut the local housing allowance to one third of local rents will crowd low income families into the very poorest areas of our Towns and Cities.

These are the Social Mobility issues Labour needs to talk about. (I’ve talked ad nauseum about the problems with proposed Benefits Reform, so I won’t do so here.)

One area that might have helped rebalance that assault, plans for a pupil premium, are likely to be less effective than advertised for a simple reason.

It’s unlikely the amount will be very big, and much of cost looks like it will come from existing grants that benefit schools in tough areas. This will represent more shuffling of budgets from inner city to suburbs than a radical change for pupils themselves. (Conor Ryan has more on this, and knows more about it than I do).

These issues are where Labour needs to be concentrating our campaigning energy, not slapping about some poor unemployed fellow simply trying to earn a crust as he slips into his political dotage (See what I did there? gentle sarcasm is a more effective belittling technique than outrage).

What’s more, these reports are often more observed in the commissioning than in their conclusions. Remember the Mercer and Bercow reports? No? Tsk.

So while Milburn is being a useful headline generator for the Coalition, there’s always the chance that at some future point he will attack the government. Perhaps when it’s unpopular and less important to be seen to be close to them (cf Jones, Lord Digby). One day the coalition’s current predilection for early-Blair style news management will come back and bite the government, and it would be fitting if it came from an Early Blairite.

But that said, While this is an easy August propaganda coup for the Government, the best response from Labour is simply not to get het up about it, thus making the coup appear bigger still.

So an ex-Cabinet minister wants to show the world he’s still relevant? Fine. Good luck, and make sure you pull no punches, old boy, You’d hate for anyone to think you’re a patsy, I’m sure.

Further updates from the right wing blogs about the internal Coalition rows on Benefit Reform. They’re trying to spin it as a victory for IDS, but if true, it’s a savaging.

Here’s Iain Martin, of the Wall Street Journal Europe:

“Whitehall peace talks have produced the outline of a deal which… could keep IDS inside the coalition tent and give the Chancellor what he wants.

“…if IDS can deliver the multi-billion savings that the Treasury demands, close to £3 billion of the savings will then be ring-fenced for him to use for his welfare reform programme… it remains to be decided precisely… how much of their benefit a claimant in work can keep.

“To help ensure that IDS can make the cuts… Number 10… now accept … commitments made by David Cameron … to protect specific benefits will… be revisited and potentially watered down.”

David Blackburn at the Spectator chimes in here.

The election commitments that Cameron may “water down” are presumably among these.

“Mr Cameron said a Tory government would keep the free television licence, pension credit, winter fuel allowance and free bus pass and said Labour leaflets suggesting otherwise were “pure and simple lies” and urged Mr Brown to withdraw them.”

An enterprising journalist should ask No 10 to go on the record over the status of each of commitments.

Anyway, run all this through my patented despinalyser, and what you get is that the deal that IDS is being offered is:  Cut benefits by some unspecified amount (and it is interesting that this amount is _not_ mentioned) and you get to keep £3 billion of that for your Universal Credit plan.

This is, of course, the deal I’ve long predicted IDS would be offered. Reduce benefits and do a version of your reform of in work benefits.

“…the end point is obvious.

The Conservative Welfare reformers will get a package with a lower basic benefit payment and/or a sharp deduction rate. This will leave millions of people on low incomes worse off, but allow Conservative Welfare reformers to claim that they have reformed the system to encourage work.”

If IDS accepts this deal, he will end up making hundreds of thousands of pensioners and low income families worse off. The may get a staicking plaster of “reform” to help him cover the cuts, but it’ll be insignificant in comparison to the lower income many of the poorest will get.

I’ve said previously that the question about IDS is whether he’s dumb enough to take the deal, or stubborn enough to walk.

These reports move us a notch closer to “Dumb”.

Very good post by Dan Hodges over at Labour Uncut about the fate of the Brown inner circle. Well worth a read, as is this response by Alex Massie at the Spectator.

One wrinkle I’d like to add.  Those dubbed “Brownites” may have fractured, but they certainly haven’t gone away. Forgive me in advance if you’re of sick as the Brownite label as I am, but it’s impossible to avoid in this instance.

One group of former advisers, MPs and staffers are clustered around Ed Miliband, and in large part are running his campaign*. If I were to characterise this group, I’d say that their mindset was more sturdily Kinnockite than Brownite. (It’s hard not to look backwards when applying labels)

They represent a conviction that the best of Labour values fits well with a winning electoral strategy. They’re Labour reformers, but are uncomfortable with what some of them see as the excesses of New Labour, especially on issues of defence, crime, civil liberties and so on, while being rather more open to more progressive policies on green, equality and economic issues. This has been the consistent view of this group for some time – call it the “just a step to the left” strategy.

Another group, what you might call the “hard Brownites”, were generally those with an economic focus or with the heritage of the traditional Labour right, are clustered around Ed Balls.

The unfairness of this label is that in opposition, they are being far from hard – indeed, from Tom Watson (who has focussed on issues far more than the leadership campaign) to Ed Balls himself, they seem more willing to open up and engage than almost any other group inside the party. Tom Watson ploughed this furrow by himself for the last year or so in government, but others are now joining him. After years of loyalty and enforcing discpline, it’s possible that they’re rather enjoying the freedom to think that opposition brings.

As Alex points out, it’s largely the Blair inner circle that have disappeared from the councils of the Labour party. Partly this is sensible restraint. Nobody wants to hear that the old guard are going to run things again.

But partly it’s that their analysis is a tough and unpalatable one. They believe the party needs to confront the deficit with a clear strategy, embrace reform of public services, have a strong anti-crime and pro-voluntarism message, and support private sector job creation.

Personally, I more or less assent to that agenda (I have concerns over choice in public services in a time of low spending, and I don’t see why progressive civil liberties and green policies couldn’t fit within that policy structure) but nothing would be more fatal than for such a policy programme to be proposed by warmed over veterans of the “out-riders” years. The “Blairites” need to find new champions, and that will take some time.

*Like anything, this is an exxageration. Like all the leadership candidates, Ed M has supporters who were close to Brown, close to Blair and who weren’t close to either. But there are a lot of ex No 10 people in the Ed for Leader camapign HQ. But no classification based on past afilliations will fit everyone. Where would you put Douglas Alexander and Eric Joyce, for example?