Author: johnredwood

Some of you are complaining about delays or even wrongly suggesting censorship. I am exceptionally busy at the moment with a new Parliament, a new government to influence and a backlog of cases to take up for constituents. During an election there are no MPs, so MP  cases have to await re election.

My constituents’ cases take priority over moderating this site, and influencing the new government also takes precedence. I hope to catch up with the longer recent contributions this evening if my other work is then done.

If you want faster moderation then please follow these rules

1. Only submit  short contributions

2.Do not add supportive links which I have to find and read

3. Do not libel others or  make allegations about individuals that are contentious. I have no libel lawyer to read my site in the way a newspaper does.

One regular contributor who normally supplies interesting and well based material with official sources (which are fine) has for example complained that I did not publish allegations against the Conservative candidate in Thanet South before the election, and implies bias or unfairness in my editorial policy. As I made clear during the election I did not take comments on any candidate, positive or negative, in an individual contest, without a) a full list of candidates in the election and b) good proof because of election laws. I have incidentally often vetoed allegations against Mr Farage and UKIP to protect them, just as I have vetoed allegations against Labour or Conservative figures.

I would like to believe in public service broadcasting. Some part of me is heir to the grand tradition of Lord Reith. I helped educate myself by listening to Radio 4  or the Home Service. At its best the BBC can still produce interesting documentaries, good discussions and good educational programmes.

The idea of public service broadcasting has however been much stretched.  Aware of the need to keep popular consent for its poll tax to pay for it, the BBC has long decided to undertake a lot of popular programming which competes directly with free to air commercial tv. Can we really call soaps, old films, light entertainments, pop music, quiz shows and home improvement advertorials  public service broadcasting, distinct from other broadcasting?How do they differ from what free to air commercial tv serves up?  If the programme is very popular, then financing it will be easy without a poll tax. Of course people want popular programmes, but they get them paid for by ads on commercial tv, and paid for by subscription on other channels.

The  case for tax based subsidy is clearest for the World Service. Part of the UK’s presence in the world is to provide news, documentaries and educational programmes for  world audience. I have no objection to this being part of the government’s budget – maybe part of Overseas Aid or the Foreign Office costs. The World Service can be an important ally and source of information for people in oppressive regimes, and for all those worldwide wanting a good English language source.

The first task of the review should be to establish a modern definition of public service broadcasting. Then they need to decide how much of it we want.

The review also needs to look at the differing ways people can now gain access to BBC content. All the time BBC material is free to air there remains an issue on how to collect the revenue owing from those who manage to watch or listen to it. They may conclude that it will become too difficult to make people pay a licence fee, when there is plenty of non BBC content around, and when delayed BBC content may be available free anyway.

Perhaps the most important issue is competition. The large and subsidised website service offered by the BBC may be making it difficult for other providers to develop their offer. BBC publications has an impact on other publishers of material. The Review may like to ring fence the subsidised areas more, and make sure that the commercial parts of the BBC are free standing and have to compete on level terms.

I thought it would be unfair to spend a day on both Labour and Lib Dems, and ignore UKIP which polled 3.8 million votes. Today seems a good day to offer our UKIP bloggers a chance to give us their thoughts on their party, as there is suddenly an active and lively public debate within UKIP about the leadership, style and policies of their party.

The first question we would appreciate UKIP views on is the leader. Was the Executive right to ask Mr Farage to tear up his resignation, or are Messrs O Flynn and Wheeler right that UKIP now needs a less contentious and softer voice to take it forward?

Why has Mr Farage proved so incapable of winning a seat in Westminster, even after generating so much coverage for himself?  Was I right to say some time ago that if a party candidate these days wishes to win a seat, they need to move in and show they are committed to a given local community, and empathise with local opinion?  Why did Mr Farage think he could represent Buckingham in 2010 but then switch to Thanet South, a very different place, in 2015? If he carries on where would he stand next time? Why did he come a poor third in Buckingham, with a pro EU independent in second place?

The second question is what is the prime purpose of UKIP now we have elected a government which will give us an In/Out referendum?  As most of UKIP’s distinctive policies are based on getting us out of the EU, the sensible thing for UKIP to do now is to concentrate all its resources and political action on contributing to the Out campaign. If we vote for Out then UKIP’s purpose has been achieved. If the UK votes to stay in then UKIP will have to judge the mood and decide if it accepts the democratic will of the people or not.

The third question is was Mr Carswell right to say UKIP should not accept a large annual sum of public money to run an opposition in the Commons, or was the leadership right to say they should take the money and employ staff with it?

The fourth question is why did UKIP fail to break through in it target seats? Why did some of you tell me I had to switch to UKIP to get elected? Why did Mr Reckless fail to hold his seat? What has UKIP learned from its failure to win a single seat in the election, other than to hold a seat won by a Conservative who defected?

The government is right to argue that we should not be part of the EU’s new quota system for migrants arriving in Italy. It is right to help with the humanitarian task of rescuing people from the seas, and to stress the need to track down and prosecute the cruel traffickers who charge for people to embark on poor boats and risk their lives.

The government is also right on the broader policy issue. Many of the new arrivals in Italy are economic migrants, not asylum seekers, If the EU gives all of them who make it citizenship it becomes a reward for the traffickers, a green light for the expansion of their business. Economic migrants we help rescue should not queue jump or be given EU rights on arrival, if we wish to stop this lethal trade.

Fortunately the UK does have its opt out from Criminal Justice measures so we can decline to be part of any quota scheme brought forward under this legal base. It just shows how important it is to opt out and to keep our veto.

It also, however, reminds us of the continuing problems over the free movement of people. If other countries in the EU do decide to increase their  acceptance of new migrants and grant them full rights, then in due course they become eligible for the EU movement rights. It is a timely reminder of how we need both a government that will use an opt our or veto when needed, and will then seek a new deal to  tackle the underlying problem of free movement.

I have written a post on the BBC for tomorrow, which wrongly triggered today. Those interested in the BBC should revisit  on friday, as we have enough to talk about under the centre ground post today. I have delayed it another day as something more urgent has come up.

A few of you have criticised me for spending a little time on opposition  parties after the election. This is not a diversionary strategy, but the Conservative government is spending the next couple of weeks finalising the Queen’s speech which will then be the main topic of political debate. In the meantime it is important to consider the state of UK politics now we know more of the views of the voters. I did keep off the opposition parties unlikely to win any or many seats in the pre-election period as I could not see their relevance. I also spared you endless analysis of possible coalitions, both because everyone else was doing that and because I believed the polls which rightly predicted the total collapse of the Lib Dems as a party of MPs. Their collapse meant a victory by one of the main parties was much likelier than most thought, and it later became clear the Conservatives had moved ahead.

Many political commentators and strategists are stuck in a twentieth century time warp. They still believe elections are simple contests between Labour and the Conservatives, that they can be described by a two party swing, and that the one of the two main parties that most closely camps in the centre will win. They believe there are millions of swing voters who want something mid way between so called right wing Conservatism and so called left wing Labour.

Welcome to a twenty first century election. The last one was a contest between six parties, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat,UKIP, Green and SNP, with other nationalist parties also playing a part. There was an important battle between Conservative and Liberal Democrats in the south west and parts of London, a crucial fight between Labour and the SNP throughout all of Scotland, a battle between Labour and Liberal Democrats in some northern urban seats, and in a few seats a UKip/Conservative battle or a Green/Lib or Lab battle, as well as the traditional Lab/Con marginal seat contests.

On conventional analysis “red tories” and blue labour are the centre ground, along with the Liberal Democrats. UKIP, SNP and Green are left or right according to taste, so they should not score well or be relevant on traditional analysis. Recent results and votes shows how out of date this all is.

I have never myself seen the Liberal Democrats as centrist or moderate. They have an extreme position on the EU, welcoming  any transfer of power or money to Brussels.They have views on energy that are far from the mainstream, favouring dear energy for price rationing to cut people’s usage. They tend to be anti car, when most people rely on their cars for work, shopping and the school run.

Nor do I think it helpful for these same analysts to simply see UKIP or Green as extreme, given how many people vote for them. These parties have strong views that only appeal to a minority, but as noted that is also true of the Lib Dems views on energy and Europe.

I would suggest analysts and commentators go back to the drawing board. We need models of behaviour that reflects our multi party modern democracy, and understands the passions in the politics of identity which lies behind the SNP, Plaid, UKIP and others. In a later post  I will suggest a better way of analysing modern UK politics, and talk about how a party can build a strong voting base. If moving to the conventionally defined centre worked, surely the Lib Dems would have won by now?

The main reason the Lib Dems fared so badly can be summed up in two words – tuition fees. The change of their policy on fees was so fundamental because it opened up the whole issue of trust. The only campaign pledge most of us can remember from their campaign of 2010 was the one to abolish tuition fees. They said it so often and so successfully. I can remember the uncomfortable meeting with students they encouraged in Wokingham, when I said I thought any future government was likely to keep fees and put them up. We were all awaiting the Brown review on how to proceed. The Lib Dems pounced and made their very popular offer to the student audience.

When they entered government the Conservatives were generous to them in many ways, treating them as equal partners in the all important Quad at the top of the government and giving them important Ministerial positions throughout Whitehall. Their man was the Secretary of State responsible for tuition fees. Conservatives were willing for the senior Conservative HE Minister in his department to make the decision on fees, and for the Lib Dems to speak against and abstain. Instead Dr Cable handled it himself and proposed himself a 3 line whip for higher fees. I could not understand why he did this, as it was bound to be deeply damaging to the reputation of all Lib Dems.

The Lib Dems compounded their problem of trust by the way they repeatedly sought sole credit for the tax cuts and higher spending on the pupil premium in schools, whilst seeking to lay the blame for any less popular joint policy onto the Conservatives. The truth is all the policies that went through were joint, with the exceptions of the changed boundaries – a Conservative wish – in exchange for an AV referendum – a Lib dem wish. We got the latter but not the former. It all created a portrait of unreliable allies, people who only wanted coalition when it suited them.

The Lib Dem catchy slogan that they would provide heart to a Conservative government and head to a Labour government was a nasty slogan. 68% of the voters supported Conservative or Labour, yet the Lib Dems could arrogantly assert their moral and intellectual superiority to those parties. The electorate decided otherwise, not liking this approach. Their claim to be a moderate policy of the centre was belied by their strongly pro EU and green stance.

They also suffered from the rise of the Greens. If you want a pro EU pro green party that is clearly left of centre the Greens are the purer version. The Lib Dems could not work out whether to shift more towards the Green position, or to attack them.

In permanent opposition as an ideas and protest party it is possible to face left and right at the same time. In government you make choices which define you, and you are meant as Ministers to defend the common line. The new leader of the Lib Dems will have a difficult task to define what a new Lib Dem party stands for, and a further challenge to get people to believe it. I am not sure there is room for two pro EU green parties, as they enjoy a small voter base together, let alone divided.