Month: June 2009

For the time being the cyber coup is over. The PM’s spinners took to the airwaves after the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting last night to report his victory. The few plotters that have gone public appeared defeated for the time being. There are veiled threats about the autumn. It is difficult to see they will have better circumstances then than they have now.

If they had the numbers to bring him down, they would have done so this week-end. If they had kept the Ministerial resignations rolling, and if each resigning Minister had criticised Mr Brown as a few did, it could have brought him down. If the backbenchers had been able to raise a significant number of names, and then started to announce new names every day, they might have forced a contest. Instead, both groups failed to work together, some appeared to be following their own personal agendas, and they were outspun by the centre. The rebels so far have lacked leadership, lacked planning and lacked resolve.Lots of Labour MPs do not like Mr Brown, and do not rate the party’s chances highly under him, but they have not yet been persuaded there is a better option that would save them.

Mr Brown has promised to listen more and to take his backbenchers more seriously. That will mean a tack to the left. The best thing he could do is abandon the Post office plans. Selling a minority stake for not very much, and leaving the taxpayer with the mighty pension deficit, was never a good deal. That could be the best bone to toss to the half starved backbenchers. It would mean the task of changing the Post Office would be left to the next government, who would then have a freer hand to do a decent deal that made sense for taxpayers and the business. I would want it to include a substantial employee shareholding.

People are writing to this site complaining that I have reported the true figures for the European election results. You cannot get away from the fact that the main party established to propose immediate withdrawal from the EU only polled 17% of the votes. We know it has never won a seat and is unlikely to ever win a seat in a first past the post election to Westminster, so we know it can never deliver its promise of withdrawal. That requires the votes of at least 323 MPs. Now, two elections on, we know it cannot command anything like half of those voting in a PR election where people are meant to vote as they think and feel. Without overwhelming numbers it is not going to get its way.

Some write in to complain about my viewpoint. Often they are people who voted Yes in 1975, the last time the British people were offered a referendum on Europe. I voted “No” on that occasion. I voted “No” because I did not believe all those politicians and business leaders who told us we were voting for trade and friendship – things I do want. I read the Treaty. It seemed to me we were voting for a journey towards political union, inviting too much legislation, bossiness and expenditure along the way. I have not been surprised by what has happened next.

As a democract, I have felt obliged to accept the verdict of the British people in that referendum. I have also demanded referenda on Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, all Treaties which the Conservatives have opposed. I have interpreted the vote in 1975 as a vote for a “common market”, and have always since spoken in favour of remaining part of some such arrangement, whilst condemning the many moves to federal government and centralised power in other fields.

The Eurosceptic movement needs to unite to fight the European leviathan. Treating each European election as another opportunity to send a mesage to other Eurosceptics gives great comfort to the federalists. They are in a minority in the country, but they have enjoyed solid majorities in Westminster for the last twelve years. Are Eurosceptics ready to do anything about this yet? Or do they wish to remain fragmented and without the numbers to start to change things for the better?

With most of the votes counted, four parties emerge with gains of more than 1% – Greens ( plus 2.5%), BNP (plus 1.4%), Conservatives (plus 1.2%) and English Democrats (plus 1.1%). Two parties have losses of more than 1% – Labour losing 7% and Lib Dems losing 1.1%.

UKIP added little to last time. 21 parties failed to score more than 0.5%. Yes2Europe polled 0% or 3,000 votes.

So what can we make of all this?

It proves that PR drives more people to extremes.It shows that it leads to a huge fragmentation of parties, as more and people set up parties to express their view but fail to get their message acrosss, or fail to adopt a popular message. It leads to laziness by traditional party campaigners – local homes in my area were only contacted by the Conservatives and UKIP, with nothing from Labour or the Lib Dems.

The Lib Dems came out of their preferred voting system particularly badly, despite help from the BBC to boost their chances. Although we were told they were less affected by the expenses saga, that is not how it came across in the Telegraph. They always suffer in Euro elections from their enthusiasm for all laws European and their wish to transfer ever more power to Europe and to bogus regions.

Those who want to pull out of the EU immediately had another bad night. Parties espousing that cause could only marshall about one fifth of the popular vote. They did manage to keep the Eurosceptic vote split. Those who want more Europe had an even worse night, as the majority opinion was Eurosceptic.

The commentators are concentrating on what it means for Mr Brown. It looks as if it means he staggers on, because his critics can wound but cannot kill him politically. As one said this morning, the results are so bad few Labour MPs will want an election any time soon.

The headline for the EU as a whole is a big win by the centre right. I take no joy from that. The so called centre right, the continental winners, are all parties that want more European laws, regulations and centralised power. They all want to do things that will make Europe less prosperous and less free. I am just glad my party today is fully detached from them. At last we have a full complement of Conservative MEPs all elected on a ticket which expressly rejects their federalism. What we need is a European Parliament that slashes the power and spending of the great bureaucracy, repeals laws and gives powers back to member states. Instead What we have outside the UK is more of the same, business as usual for the political class of Europe.

Did I miss something Caroline Flint said or did?

She was on the threshold of the Cabinet, in the important job of Europe Minister. Her goverment’s policy is to join the Euro in due course, to ratify Lisbon and to increase the powers and common purposes of the Union. I never recall her hinting she disagreed with any of this onward march to federalism. She never one hinted she wanted a change of policy.

In which case, where were the important and influential speeches to try to persuade a Eurosceptic UK that we needed this rash of extra Euro governent and centalisation? Where were the attempts to shift public opinion in her direction?Why did more and more people decide to vote Eurosceptic during her time as Europe Minister?

And when it came to standing up for the UK’s interests, by blocking unwanted laws and amending or repealing undesirable ones, when did she ever change anything for the better?

I accept that competence is often not a requirement for office in this government, but I do not see that she ever made a case for a more senior post by anything she did or said.

Much of the interest of the commentators looking at the European election results in the UK will be directed to the poor showing of Labour, and the implications that has for Gordon Brown. Some saw the election as a chance to express their general displeasure about the government. We will probably see the poorest ever result for an incumbent government. We then await Labour MPs responses, to see if any more want to join the ragged rebellion. It looks as if the PM is persuading would be rebels that a new leader means the General Election they fear. His message of delay seems to bring him reluctant support.

As some one who sees our current immersion in an intrusive and badly run European federation as part of our problem of overgovernment and wasteful public spending, I will be looking at the balance of votes between the federalist parties – largely Labour and the Lib Dems – and the Eurosceptic parties – the Conservatives and the range of pull out and democrat parties congregating on the Eurosceptic side. We cannot deal with overcentralised bossy government and excessive public spending without tackling the impact of Brussels on us too. For too long the Eurosceptic majority in the UK has been thwarted by its own splits, and by the willingness of too many Eurosceptics to vote for federalist parties at Westminster. My biggest frustration in the last decade has been the overwhelming federalist majority in the Commons, which has never reflected the mood on Europe in the country. Conservatives were alone in voting against Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon.

If you ask the public in opinion polls if they want the Euro they tell you by a 4 to 1 margin they do not. Yet more than half of the public typically vote for Euro supporting parties in a General Election. If you ask them if they want Lisbon, again 4 to 1 are against, yet more than half vote for Lisbon supporting parties at a General Election.

In a PR Euro election people can show their displeasure with Labour by voting for a different federalist party ( e.g Lib Dems), or a Eurosceptic party (Conservative) or a pull out party. For me, the choices made will be important for the impact it might have on the future conduct of European policy. Let us hope that a majority this time have voted Eurosceptic. I suspect this time we will at last see a majority overall voting Eurosceptic, split between those who want substantial powers back with a new single market based relationship, and those who want to pull out altogether. In presenting the results we need to concentrate less on the obvious splits in the Eurosceptic movement, and more on the fact that a majority want less Brussels government. Surely this time the British people will have spoken, and told the politicians they want less Brussels power, less Brussels waste, less Brussels lawmaking and less Brussels spending?

A constrained PM had to keep many of the old faces. I doubt if we will see an invigorated government suddenly putting right the wrongs of past years, suddenly gripping the agenda and pointing the country in a new direction.

The new Home Secretary could cancel the ID computer, saving us loads of money. He could tell us he will dismantle the worst features of the surveillance society, removing cameras, prying powers and meddlesome rules. To protect us he could instead put in proper border controls. Don’t hold your breath.

The not so new Chancellor could tell us when and how he is going to get out of quantitative easing, and when he will normalise interest rates and give savers a better deal. He could start to control costs and spending properly.

The new Communities Secretary could save us the money and hassle of unelected regional government by abolishing it. He could devolve some power to people and Councils away from the centre.

The new Europe Minister along with the old Foreign Secretary could hold the promised referendum on Lisbon, and try and explain to us why they have given so much of our power and money away – even better they could start to get some of it back, as a contribution to cutting the costs of the public sector and curbing the powers of big government.

The trouble is, the idea that this is a new government is just spin. It will be more of the same. Tacky sound bites, family squabbles, more wasted money and ever more power to the centre.

The PM was wise to keep Mr Darling and his accountant tied to the mast, and to keep Mr Miliband close by. It was sensible to promote the potentially dangerous Alan Johnson. Mr Mandelson seems to be calling the shots, and has the Hesletine slot as Deputy PM as reward.

He may now be able to cling on. It all depends on how many junior Ministers now resign in anger, and how many Labour MPs demand change. My guess is the ship remains becalmed and holed but stays afloat a little longer.

Early this morning local BBC phoned and asked me to comment on their live show about the current mess at the top of the government. I was surprised to be asked, but agreed to do so.

As soon as I heard their introduction I realised why I had been asked. They asserted that the resignation of Mr Purnell was just like my challenge to John Major, and they wished to remind the public of that distant event!

So for all those BBC programmes wanting to do the same, the answer is “No”.

My challenge to John Major was fundamentally different.

1. I applied for a vacancy, as the PM had resigned as party leader.
2. He had told us to “put up or shut up”. As the main advocate of a very different policy approach in the cabinet I felt I had no choice but to “put up”. I had continued a long disagreement about policy in private whilst being loyal to the PM.
3. The challenge was about big issues. I wanted to say “No” to the Euro and to any further power to the EU. I wanted tax cuts and had identified spending reductions that could be made without damaging front line services.

The Ministers now resigning have put forward no different policy approach, and are not responding to a challenge from Mr Brown. There is no vacancy. If only they would put forward a policy alternative, as we need it urgently to tackle the government borrowing crisis. Instead, all they talk about is the electoral prospect of the Labour party and their own careers.

People keep asking me who I want as the new PM. They often say “Which potential Labour leader do the Conservatives fear?”, or suggest we are out to keep Gordon Brown for party advantage.

Conservatives are united. We want David Cameron as the next PM. Having some interim Labour PM will not make much difference, as the opinion polls show. Can we get what we want? Not this year, as Gordon Brown is unlikely to give in to the popular pressure to call an election. Nor are a significant number of Labour MPs in the midst of their party’s electoral meltdown likely to vote in the Commons for an early general election against the advice of their leadership. I suppose if Labour swapped leaders a caretaker leader might make a few changes to the worst problems and go for an earlier election. That too is not in the Conservatives gift.

Just as with the Speaker, the issue of the leadership of our country rests with the large majority of Labour MPs in the Commons. People today forget they voted in 355 Labour MPs and the Speaker, with only 197 Conservatives in May 2005. There are 640 MPs in total, leaving out the Sinn Fein members. Labour should have no problem gaining a majority to struggle on.

So what will Labour do? One possible scenario is:

1. They will all vote against an early election.
2. Some will sign the round robin email telling the PM he should go
3. Attempts to unite around a single candidate like Alan Johnson will be met with threats from Brownites to put up a candidate against him, making the whole process in prospect much longer and messier.
4. Mr Brown will realise he has to keep his Chancellor, and confirm Mr Darling in his job. Mr Balls will be given some other promotion, maybe to Home Secretary.
5. Mr David Miliband has already confirmed his wish to keep his job as Foreign Secretary, and will be allowed to continue there.
6. The General Election will be in a year’s time.

A second possible scenario is Gordon Brown goes for broke. He continues with the plan to put Ed Balls in as Chancellor and Peter Mandelson in as Foreign Secretary. In the process he could trigger the loss of Mr Darling and even David Miliband. There could then be more rolling resignations or refusals to serve as the reshuffle continues. Trying to be tough could look strong if he called his critics bluff successfully, but could backfire spectacularly if the other Ministers have had enough.

On the day of the Brown fightback we learn of the arcane rules of the Labour party which make challenging a Labour PM very difficult. No-one persuaded Mr Purnell, who clearly thinks that if he and others like him keep on walking out, the momentum will become unstoppable.

The Chancellor seems to have worked out that he can make the sack more difficult to administer if he refuses in advance any other job. The rebels have now staked out some of their positions. Do they have the numbers to make it work?