To help promote awareness of this series among EuroKossacks, please recommend Welshman’s Diary at dkos. BooMan
Welcome to the second of the UK election diary series. Welcome especially to those from Daily Kos who have made the trip across to give us your company and support in our efforts to bring you all that is bright, new and wonderful in an election campaign that will almost certainly be of enormous disinterest. Disinterest not to Americans but to the British. Apathy is the likely winner again in this election.
It has been a momentous week. The Prime Minister is not due to trigger the election by going to the Queen to seek the dissolution of Parliament until early next week (have a read of Lizzie’s enjoyable diary here if you need to look up what this means). Yet my own belief is that, by a series of acts of great stupidity, the election is now, if it wasn’t before, decided.
Markos, I have news for you. Whatever you find when you come over as the Guardian US observer in the last week of the election, expect to be disappointed. It came to an end, appropriately, in the seven days leading up to April’s Fool.
First some domestic issues. If you haven’t seen the announcement on Dkos, the move of this diary to Boomantribune is the beginning of what I hope will be a much more major initiative. Other diaries on what is happening in Europe will also be found here, including that by Jerome a Paris on the French referendum and a new one on the Italian election by Gilgamesh.
Secondly, I am joined again on this diary by Lizzie for the Labour Party and Edis for the Liberal Democrats. Still there is no Conservative party representative. You might well ask “why not?”.
You see, after last week’s diary, I got an email from the missing duck Peter Cuthbertson. It said “Just wanted to drop you a line saying I like the look of the diary so far, and to encourage you to send me all the questions you send others, at least until you find a full-time Tory voice. You never know: some of the answers may be other than “Bite me!”
So, biting back any feelings about his previous prevarication, I said “great” and asked him for a copy of the photo of him and ex-Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher for pre-publicity. Later I sent him two more emails.
I got no response. Again not a quack from the duck. So I set off in search for him in the best traditions of the Gannon enquiry.
I thought that I had found him here:
No, I thought, that can’t be him. So I looked and looked and finally came up with that famous picture on an obscure site on the internet:
Cuthbertson I believe is the one on the left. The one on the right is Maggie.
Hang on, I thought. I need another look at the first picture:
Could these two people be the same? All the material has been passed over to the Gannon/Guckert enquiry team to investigate. My only fear is that in the unlikely event that Cuthbertson is found to have sites with the type of naked self-portraits that Jeff Gannon had, the images – judging by the only one we have -will be a lot less pleasing for those who might otherwise be of a persuasion to enjoy such things.
Meanwhile. we are without a Tory representative. Fear not. Instead of the apparently athletically challenged and unreliable Mr Cuthbertson, there is a hint that the delectable Chloe may join us. More on this as the story unfolds.
And so we come to this week’s headline:
TORY PARTY TAKES FLIGHT BEFORE ELECTION IS ANNOUNCED
The story is all about one Mr Flight, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party.
You, as an American, will have never heard of him. Relax. I assure you that 99.9999999999% of British had not heard of him either.
The landslide defeats experienced by the Conservatives in recent years have been due to the electorate not trusting them. I know this will be hard to understand from a people who elect Tony Blair as their Prime Minister, but I promise you it is true. Least of all, do they not trust the Conservatives to safeguard our public services and our National Health Service in particular.
Michael Howard, Conservative Leader, has worked hard like his predecessors to reassure us about this point. I believe that some progress was being made. His big election platform was that, despite intending to make some small cuts in Income Tax, the Conservatives would be able to achieve this by certain specified savings in public services that would in no way reduce their effectiveness.
Except onto the scene comes Mr Flight, a key contributor to the public services savings policy. At a private meeting of some Conservative backers, he explained that the savings proposed in their election manifesto involving a £35bn target for lower spending would “be the start” of more radical cuts in the public sector. The hapless Mr Flight declared that the Tories have a secret agenda but, he explained, first it had to gain power. Ah, the spirit of the neocons lives on in the garden suburbs of Merrie England.
The trouble is that some socially minded, or socialist minded, fellow had a tape recorder. He leaked the speech to the Times. The foul, slime-besmirched cheat! Or not, depending on who you believe was the greater threat to truth in politics.
There are many ways Michael Howard could have dealt with the matter. After all, it happened at the last election and the goon of a Conservative was simply hidden away, literally, for the rest of the election campaign. He could have bluffed it out and merely said that it was a proper statement that even greater savings could be made than those proposed, without diminishing the services to the public, but they were being cautious in the manifesto. I might have been sympathetic to that argument.
Instead, Michael Howard wanted to show he was tough. He sacked poor Mr Flight from the Deputy Chairmanship. Then, to show he was even tougher, a few hours later he had him de-selected from his constituency. Mr Flight has declared that he will not go easily or quietly.
I do not know which of the many political gurus were advising Howard, but they are a bunch of lame idiots. No one needed to prove Mr Michael “something of the night about him” Howard was ruthless. It impressed not one voter. Regardless of the sense behind some of Mr Flight’s comments, all the great British public will remember is that the Conservatives have a secret plan to cut their beloved public services according to their own man and he must be right because Michael Howard sacked him!
Remember the cheery duck I put forward as Conservative Party spokesman last week. Well, I have to bring you a very distressing picture of him:
Sadly I have to report that this poor thing, in which were held all the hopes of a Conservative Party come back at this election, is a Monty Python of a dead duck.
This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!“E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig! ‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-DUCK!!
So now for what our two commentators have to say about the week. I first asked them what their parties had been highlighting as new policies. Edis for the Liberal Democrats responded:
Secondly Tory spending plans. The Libdem Treasury team was already highlighting the inadequacies of the official ‘James Committee’ Tory calculations on ‘spending cuts’ before the Howard Flight clog-dance raised questions of a hidden agenda..
Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, outlined campaign themes to MPs. There are no ‘No-Go areas’ for the Liberal Democrats, who are the real opposition to Labour.
Several Libdem mini-Manifesto’s launched. :
1 On the family. Themes: We are no longer a nation that has one universal family structure. But all families share common concerns. Manifesto lays out policies on giving children a good start in life, balancing home and work needs, strengthening financial security of family arrangements. Includes a pledge to support same-sex civic unions as one means of strengthening families.
2 On the Environment Tough measures on Global warming needed. Sets out measures for cleaner transport and power.
3 On disabled peoples’ rights. Stress on promoting Independent Living, removing barriers to public and political participation, helping people have greater control over their own lives.
4 For Ethnic Minorities. Equal protection against racist attacks masquerading as religious comment. Human-rights based asylum and economic migration system set out.
Strangely, Lizzie did not respond to this question at all. Poor dear, I understand her difficulties. The Labour Party is largely re-cycling what it has already announced and has very little new to say that was not already said in its “safe” but lack lustre pre-election statement.
The great shame is that there is no Conservative here to explain their party’s new initiatives. Some of these, such as for the elderly, are very attractive. The absence of comment from them here, however, is perhaps a useful indicator of their impact on the British public. However much they may have had election appeal, the whole debacle over Mr Flight’s comments on public services have completely over shadowed them. If any Tory reading this doesn’t believe me, then read these extracts, many from their own people and newspapers, which shows the devastating effect of the last week.
The even greater shame is that all this occurred just as the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives were making some headway in embarrassing Tony Blair by his refusal to make known his Attorney General’s advice on the legality of war in Iraq. Teflon Tony slips through the net again.
And so to the question of what our commentators made of the week, including their take on Mr Flight. First Lizzie for the Labour Party:
So it would have been a good week anyway, with a nice budget and all, even if it hadn’t been for the hilarious antics of the Tories. During the Thatcher years, Labour’s problem was convincing the voters it was “safe” to vote Labour. Many were deeply in debt, having bought council houses (low-rent houses built by the post-war Labour government) at the height of a housing boom that had gone bust. But they trusted Labour even less with the economy. Better the devil you know….
Now, the tables are turned. The economy is stable, much more so than it was under the Tories. So why should anyone vote Tory again? Well, the National Health Service isn’t a lot better – but it’s better than it was under the Tories. Schools are still underfunded – but primary schools are getting palpably better. Public transport is still dire – but better than under the Tories when the town centres were full of competing bus companies running half empty buses, with not a bus for hours out on the estates. And the streets are cleaner, and there’s some fun Millenium stuff around, like the London Eye. Yes, Blair went to war in Iraq – but the Tories voted for that war, and in any case, Tories like war, don’t they? So the only reason to vote Tory is if you want tax cuts. And you only want tax-cuts as long as there won’t be cuts to public spending.
So the Tories have come up with a neat promise – more for less. Limited tax cuts without spending cuts. It’s all supposed to come out of “efficiencies” (i.e. axing the few programs that have made Blair’s government genuinely progressive). The idea, I think, is to make disgruntled ex-Blair voters feel better about parking their protest vote back with the Tories.
The problem with this strategy for the Tories is that it’s not enough for their base. They want red meat. So, in a “private” meeting of select Thatcherite Tories, Howard Flight, a conservative MP, is asked by a questioner whether a Tory government “could go further” once in office. Flight replies: “Whatever the fine principles, you have to win an election first.” Adds that the plans have been “if you like, ‘sieved’ for what is politically acceptable”. And a mole catches him on tape.
At which point all Labour needs to do is to order the popcorn. Tory polls slump. Howard sacks Flight as a shadow minister, and withdraws the Tory whip, so he can no longer stand as Tory candidate for his constituency. Lord Tebbit, arch-Thatcherite, accuses Howard of opting for the “nuclear response”. Flight seeks legal advice. His constituency likes him. Dammit the Tories like him – he’s offering them what they want. Trouble is, there aren’t enough of them to vote in a Tory government on anything as, well, Tory, as a slash and burn tax-cut program.
Labour ends the week 12 points ahead.
And now for Edis on behalf of the Liberal Democrats:
Apparently they won’t be sacked as candidates, unlike Howard Flight, the Tory in Arundel who embarrassed his leader so by letting economic cats out of bags. Remarkably he is not the first Tory candidate to be compulsorily stood down. In fact in Slough they are on their second enforced de-selection in two months.
One because the candidate turned out to be a Gun-Fetishist straight out of US boondocks nightmares, and his successor because he believes the European union is a Catholic plot to corrupt Britain. While I sympathise with Mr Howard’s desire not to be seen in the same coffin as these characters, the Tory habit of removing dissenting voices is actually quite worrying in terms of constitutional practice in Britain. MPs should be able to debate with their parties and leadership, they are not nominated afterthoughts of the Caudillo. More though on this later.
In the polls, as Lizzie notes, there has been some marked improvement for the Labour Party. My favourite poll of polls interpreter, UK Elect shows some small internal adjustment of their own previous figures in favour of the Tories but still indicates a massive loss for them. It also shows the loss of the seat of a key Tory Minister, David Davies, to the Liberal Democrats.
So that was the week that was. Except for one thing that I forgot to mention. I keep calling the Conservatives “Tories”. Well, it appears that I shouldn’t. The party’s head of broadcasting, Michael Salter, has written to television channels urging them stop using the label. “It will be Conservative candidates people are voting for and they will be Conservative policies rather than Tory,” said Mr Salter. This sad plea, throwing out two centuries of tradition, is the latest in a series of attempts by the party to shed its unpopular Thatcherite image and rebrand itself as a centrist political force representative of modern Britain. Like the compassionate face of George Bush, the possibility of it being recognised by the electorate exists only in the unreality of the minds of his closest staff.
If you missed last week’s diary, it is here. And my forecast for the next stage of the campaign? Expect this election to get very dirty – I can see little benefit in the Tories now holding back after the damage done to them this week. Iraq may be featured more strongly. The people to gain from such tactics are the Liberal Democrats.
plus Hitler/Cartman images. Bravo. Thank you Welshman!
Delightful. Thanks to the authors. What I didn’t get is much sense of the Liberal Democratic platform. I’m hoping for that in the next diaries. This one was a “bringing it up to now plus the Tory scandal” diary. I’m delighted with this series. I’m also delighted you found a home for it on Booman, thanks Froggy. Booman is rapidly becoming a voice.
Well, we didn’t really need a platform this week, either Labour or Lib Dems….
We have something next week I hope!
Better school dinners… longer holidays…more beer….
Fair question. Straight plug: this is what is going out in LibDem ads at the moment. Gives some feel for overall shape of campaign:
From Offical LibDem website:
OUR TOP 10 POLICY PRIORITIES
(Some explenations.
Point one refers to the Labour peformance targets for NHS treatment aimed at cutting waiting lists. LibDems claim there are now institutional delays in formal diagnosis of ailments because ‘waiting list staistics’ begin after diagnosis and there has been manipulation to improve the target acheivement figures.
Point seven is still in the programme despite the inclusion of Free travel in the last Labour budget as the small print restrictions in the Labour scheme in fact means lots of people will excluded.
Point 8 refers to the main tax levied by local councils, a Property Tax. Abolition of this is a major libDem campaign theme. )
Edis
Just looking at the list makes me sigh with envy that these issues are on the table. Alas for the USA, so much yet to be done. Thanks.
A pleasure to read.
Thanks for posting here – I recommended on dKos as well. As usual the diary is informative and well written.
Thanks to all of the international posters here – so much knowledge and information to be shared. We truly are an international community and need to know what is going on.
Again thanks for keeping us up to date. I may not always comment Welshman but I read all of the international diaries.
I’ll second that SallyCat.
Do you have any comment about the comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury? He came out very interestingly for “nice” non-scare mongering politics, but also made a very coherent argument for the involvement of religion in politics.
Basically he came out against racist politics and fear mongering even when the parties talk about asylum seekers, crime and terror; and “Urged them to pursue prison reform, promote stable families, tackle the arms trade and fight environmental damage.” Then he came Very brave and interesting. In an interview I saw, the interviewer asked if he was targeting the Tories and he said that he wasn’t. Tony’s 45 minute claim and any regurgitation of the terrorist threat comes to mind.
On a similar issue I am quite interested in how the negative campaigning has been going. Both leaders have abysmal approval rating (I assume that Kennedy is much better), and they are both digging hard at each other. This should benefit the Lib Dems, but they continue to be sidelined despite the vilification. Perhaps Kennedy needs a minor scandal to pack them in the aisles.
I hoping Lizzie (Hebble)or Edis (when he gets in from his evening’s canvassing and reads his email alert)will answer this question.
Lizze (Febble, not Hebble) here:
I’m a bit behind with the news, and now it’s wall to wall pope, so I’ll have to look into the Archibishop’s comment. I was also busy fuming about Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor’s intrusion, commending Michael Howard’s stand on abortion because he wanted to reduce the legal limit to 20 weeks, and actually expressing a wish that religion would pay a greater part in British politics “as it has in America”.
God help us.
So I’m grateful for the Archbishop of Canterbury for apparently balancing this out a bit.
I’ll try and post a bit more on this when I’ve had a chance to look at the news.
Slough Conservative candidates
I live in Slough and I can report that neither of the deselected candidates went quietly.
The first candidate (Robert Oulds), sacked after being pictured in the press with a gun, complained that he was just holding a gun belonging to a friend and a private picture was leaked. He thought he had been treated unfairly by Michael Howard.
The Slough Observer today reports on its front page that the second ‘Sacked Tory launches legal battle’. Adrian Hilton “has spoken to a QC” (Queens Counsel, a senior member of the Bar) “about a possible law suit against Conservative leader Michael Howard’s decision to ditch him as the town’s prospective parliamentary candidate”.
Mr Howard has also suspended the local Conservative Association, which suggests some resistance to the leader imposing a third candidate, Sheila Gunn. Ms Gunn seems to have a difficult campaign ahead of her.
The latest local political news does not seem to have been posted on the papers website yet, but for what it is worth: –
http://www.thisisslough.com/?module=displaysection§ion_id=97&format=html
The two cases in Slough are very similar, if less nationally important, to that of Mr Flight. All demonstrate that Mr Howard wants to look tough but comes over as a bully. This is reminiscent of the way Mr Howard sacked the head of the prison service, when he was Home Secretary.
Why is Prince Charles so cranky?
…not me. I’m not marrying her.
Prince Charles is grumpy because he has a rigid personality combined with a certain amount of introversion. The Prince does feel the need to make his personal views public, but they are so absurd that only his status keeps him from (much) public ridicule.
Having to deal with the modern world in general and the media in particular is something the Prince would rather not do.
The Prince has a reputation for being a difficult employer. He gets through a lot of private secretaries and is said to be obsessive about his views on correct grammar.
It recently became public that Prince Charles was in the habit of writing long letters to members of the Cabinet about public policy. Charles Clarke, then the Education Secretary, publicly argued with the Prince. This was almost unprecedented. Clarke was implying that if the Prince was an ordinary person his letters would be filed in the wastepaper basket, but that as he was the heir to the throne he was wasting a lot of official time.
Prince Charles has long been critical of modern architecture. He has had a settlement built, near his estate in Gloucestershire. My sister recently visited this settlement and described it as a sinister, stage set.
Prince Charles also does not approve of nanotechnology, but unlike the cowed architects the scientific community pointed out that Charles did not know what he was talking about.
This was a photocall with questions allowed in the middle of the family’s winter sports holiday. Global warming meant there was so little snow Harry had to ski on grass.
Joking apart, these sessions are part of a deal. The photo ops are in exchange for not being hassled during the rest of the family holiday. The day before British tabloids has done big spreads showing pictures of William’s “girlfriend” with them on holiday.
Thank you for the work that went into this diary. This is very different than what I read in last weeks Economist.
My queries on the Issues:
(A LibDem here so you can atribute any bias)
Let me take your points 1 by 1
1. I presume you mean the national retirement pension rather than unemployment and other benefits. The UK faces a similar demographic timebomb to the US but there have been changes already. The qualifying age is currently 60 for women and 65 for men. This is to be equalised so women only receive it at 65. The Tories had already changed the scheme from one bases on income to a two-track basic pension with additional ones from the employer(s) or purchased privately. They also removed the link under which pensions increased in line with average earnings to one where they rise by price inflation. This is one proposal Bush has put forward and sounds innocuous but long term it makes a huge difference to the amount paid each week/month.
Issues are likely to be the level of the pension, additional benefits like relief to pay local property taxes or for one-off payments to help with winter fuel costs. Blair has tried to make significant changes to the pensions of government employed workers like teachers and health service staff. Strikes were threatened when a minister tried to play hardball and refuse to negotiate. That threat made them climb down.
…I am hoping that Febble and the missing Edis will appear in the morning all bright eyed and bushy tailed with erudute answers to your excellent questions.
Missing? Moi?
Off to Campaign Planning briefing back later this am.
Edis (0906am BST)
…your National Health Service question. Since 2000, the Labour government has increased year-on-year expenditure on the NHS in real terms by a massive 7-8%. This compares to the 3-4% increase during the Thatcher years of the Conservative government.
Many believe that the increases should drop and many more that it will. I am not sure that it should and question the degree to which it will.
In broad terms, there appears to have been significant change for the good in the Health Service as a result of this expenditure. It has not yet been transformed, however, from being one of the least efficient among the richer European nations. There are hopes that it will get there before the money being injected into it dries up. The next three years are crucial. half the extra funds promised by the Treasury are yet to come.
Generally speaking, the UK public retain a much higher confidence in the Labour Party (and the Liberal Party) safeguarding their NHS than the Conservatives.
This is a legacy of the Conservatives still being seen as wanting to privatise health service provision, despite their vehement protests to the contrary. The sad thing is that the Conservatives probably could deliver a more efficient and better service if they were so minded, but only because they have been forced to accept the vitally necessary spending plans promised by the Labour Party under the ten year plan for this part of the public sector. Idle speculation, however, as the Tories won’t be given the chance to prove my point by the electorate. Thank heavens.
Social Security and its equivalents.
The big issues on pensions are likely to be a running theme in the election.
Grossly oversimplified, we have a basic state pension which we qualify for by paying National Insurance contributions over our working lives. If you have paid for a minimum number of years contribution you get a full state pension at (Currently) age 65 for men and 60 for women. There are historic anomalies arsing from women in the past paying reduced contributions which need to be sorted out. If you are registered unemployed your NI contributions are `credited’ to you, so you don’t miss out.
Many (but by no means all) people) also buy into private pension schemes, the best being those run by the Civil Service and by large companies for their employees.
Because of past semi-privatisation efforts, the value of the basic State Pension means that it is impossible to live a comfortable life if that is your only retirement income.
We have what is known as income support. This is a calculation of a minimum income necessary to survive. If your savings are under £3000.00 and your income falls below the target level you can get what we call `benefit payments’ to bring your income up to their minimum. So low are our basic pensions that millions of people without other pension provision have to register for state benefits. The have to fill out complex claim forms to prove their income is low enough to qualify and many do not do this as they feel humiliated.
Liberal Democrats are proposing raising the basic state pension to a level where people will not have to claim Benefits to reach the minimum income level. I will if there is interest (and when I get hold of the full policy statement, due for publication about now) post up more details.
Outlined below the key background points on Liberal Democrat proposals on pensions and benefits. As listed in official leaflet on this theme.
US readers may find this debate of interest in the light of the current US Social Security debate
>>>>>>>>>>>
KEY FACTS
1) 1 in 5 pensioners are living in poverty. About two thirds of the poorest pensioners are women.
2) Take up of Pension Credit (means-tested assistance for poor pensioners) is grinding to a halt. 1.63m pensioners are not getting money they deserve and need.
3) Proposals for a citizen’s pension have significant support. Other proponents of a Citizen’s Pension include the National Association of Pension Funds and the independent Pensions Policy Institute.
4) The Government has set the value of the basic state pension 25% below the poverty line. And this shortfall is going to grow even further under Labour. Tory proposals mean it would remain at 25%. Only the Lib Dems would close this gap – immediately for all at 75 as the first step to providing a Citizen’s Pension for all.
5) Not only is the level of the basic state pension too low – women are particularly disadvantaged by the system. A typical newly retired woman receives only £54.74 a week – only 70% of the full basic state pension (a typical newly retired man receives 97% of the full basic state pension). Under a Citizen’s Pension entitlement will be based on residence not NICs.
6) 12.4m people still live in poverty – 22% of the population. Overall, that’s lower than it was in 1997, but poverty among people of working age without dependent children has actually increased under Labour.
<<<<<<<<<
Edis
Official line on Pensions from the LibDems
>>>>>>>>>>>
More than £100 a month on the pension at 75 – a million pensioners off means-testing. Millions of elderly people are failing to get the pensions they have earned – and deserve and need – because of demeaning and unworkable means-tests.
Liberal Democrats will introduce a Citizen’s Pension set at a decent level and linked to earnings, so that pensioners share in the growing wealth of the nation.
The basic state pension will be worth £109.45 a week – an increase of more than £100 a month. For pensioner couples their pension will be worth £167.05 a week – an increase of more than £140 a month. We will guarantee this for all pensioners at 75 in the first full financial year of Parliament, as the first step to providing it for all.
Liberal Democrats will tackle women’s pension injustice. National Insurance rules are complicated and archaic and were create for a 1940s society. Some women get as little as 1p a week of pension. Women in particular would benefit from a Citizen’s Pension because entitlement will be based on residency not national insurance contributions and taking time out to bring up children will no longer be penalised.
The cost of the policy will be £2.9 billion in the first year. Full costings will be in the manifesto.
<<<<<<<<<
Edis
hey, nice site mr boo!
thanks welshman for a cool article.
anyone recommend any political writers/commentators in the uk?
i like adam boulton on sky , he seems really balanced and detached.
this new site has nice colours, easy on the eye.
any pols brave enough to take on peak oil yet?
looking very much forward to further enlightening fare here.
congratulations!
hey quit dissing charlie!
the ‘rorl’ media are awful, it’s true; nice to see his sons aren’t too fazed.
i have a soft spot for charlie; i went to a brit public school and what he must have gone through, it’s a pitiful role he has to play, and even though he’s fucked up -royally – he does try and have some decent environmental values.
i happen to agree with him about architecture too, and he paints, quite well.
i suggest other rorls are much more snarkworthy.
poor old sod, can you imagine anything more emasculating than his seemingly eternal position as almost-relevant?
after a childhood of cold showers in the icy scottish dawns, and a permafrosty protocol permeating every minute of his day since day one, i think he’s remarkably well-adjusted, considering.
enquiring minds: does he really have someone to spread the
toothpaste for him?
sheez, tell me it ain’t so!
Interesting piece in yesterday’s Guardian:
Staff reporters
Friday April 1, 2005
The Guardian
Tony Blair is planning to offer Prince Charles the role of “countryside tsar” in a third-term Labour government, the Guardian has learned.
The offer – to be announced on the eve of Charles’s wedding to his long-term lover, Camilla – is intended to give the prince some hands-on experience of running something in preparation for his future role as king.
Labour insiders also hope that the prince will help mend fences with rural voters, disenchanted by the government’s handling of foot and mouth, BSE and fox hunting.
The prince would work alongside Alan Milburn, Labour’s election campaign coordinator, and Lord Birt, adviser to Mr Blair, in a re structured Cabinet Office. Lord Birt believes that Prince Charles could be sent on a nationwide “mission to explain” New Labour policies to farming communities.
Lord Birt and Prince Charles are reported to have held “blue-skies thinking” focus groups, which came up with a proposal to top-slice the BBC licence fee with a view to putting the long-running Radio 4 serial, the Archers, on Channel Five.
“It kills two birds with one stone,” said one Downing Street insider last night. “It gives Charles a proper job, which is good for the monarchy, and it also helps reconnect us with the green welly brigade.”
The prince is understood to have made it a condition of taking the job that a third term Labour government would reverse its ban on fox hunting. One Downing Street source said: “Tony’s very relaxed about it, so long as it can be re-branded as a sport for the many, not the few.”
The culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, has already been in discussions with Clarence House about how to open up fox hunting to a more diverse, less elitist, group of participants. “It’s about giving kids on housing estates the same opportunities to hunt as posh children from the home counties,” said one culture department source. Ms Jowell’s office refused to confirm whether Britain would be pressing for drag-hunting to become an Olympic event in time for the 2012 Games.
Oops – didn’t see the date…..
I agree that Prince Charles must have been marked by his childhood and education. Had he been born in a less prominent family it is likely he would be happier.
One of the arguments against monarchy is the strain it puts on the individuals involved. A politician who achieves prominence has worked hard to put themselves in such a position. A Prince of Wales is in the spotlight because of who he is, whatever he does.
I suppose one of the problems for Prince Charles is having to put up with impertinent comments from people like me
hey can we make the sig not look like part of the post?
Booman may respond back to you when he has had some sleep, some food, finished his other work and is not to p*ss*d off that I am avoiding making any sensible guess at the answers to your questions 🙂
You can try putting it in < i>italics< /i>, or putting a line of — before it.
OK, so the Tories are going nowhere in this election. I didn’t really expect them to win anyway.
What I’m interested in is how much the Lib Dems can pick up, and whether the Labour margin of victory will be small enough to give Labour backbenchers influence greater than the overall Labour margin, in order to put pressure on Blair and the New Labourites.
So, what’s the best the Liberals can hope for? It seems like given their traditional positioning left of the Tories and right of Labour, they could gain tactical votes in appropriate constituencies from disenchanted members of both the Labour and Conservative parties. Couldn’t they hold most of their seats and pick up most of the constituencies where they’ve been in second position regardless of the party of current MPs? What would their totals look like then?
Given a Tory collapse, I don’t see why even most Labour voters would choose Blair if they had a more competitive Liberal to vote for instead.
I am sure you will get better answers from the others later, but have a look at the information given in UK Elect, a link to which is given near the end of the diary. It is looking safe for Labour but with some excellent growth for Lib Dems, involving a swing of 3-4% to them from Conservatives, as well as a swing from Labour.
I think your reading of their tactical position is correct.
Calculations of that sort are quite complex because we still have “first past the post” for these elections. Labour and Conservative support tends to be concentrated in “safe” constituencies whereas LibDem support is more even. A typical safe seat might therefore return something like 50% incumbent, 30% second and 20% third. The usual second party tactic is to try to squeeze the third party’s vote.
Even more complex will be the effect of turnout and complacency. The mechanism of election is slightly different to that in the US as it is far more personal contact based. Parties canvass door to door to identify their supporters (telephones may be used more extensively this time). All candidates get a copy of the electoral register on which voters are listed by address and given an alpha-numeric number. This identifies the voting station by letters and the number is just their place on the list. Voters get a card with that number on and parties put representatives at the door to the polling stations to ask for these numbers or their name and address. By cross–checking to the canvass results you can identify your supporters who have not voted and send people round to encourage them to vote.
As you can imagine, this is very personnel intensive so parties concentrate volunteers in areas that are close contests. The feeling is that one of the effects of the Iraq war will be that many Labour activists will not be willing to do this work. The more active tend to be the more radical and more opposed to the war. Similarly the traditional “old” Labour voters may be reluctant to turn out. These factors are likely to reduce the overall Laboour vote but probably not enough to affect the outcome.
As far as the LibDems are concerned, they are second and usually close in more Conservative than Labour seats. Because media coverage is mostly national, it is difficult to get to the point of persuading voters in a constituency that a LibDem win is possible. Seats are usually won at by-elections or where long local campaigns have got voters’ perceptions of the seat to that “tipping point”.
All MPs who are retiring from Parliament this session have been invited to a reception in the House of Commons at 6pm on Tuesday 5th April. Looks like its all systems go.
Edis
About 4 weeks ago the school I am a Governor at was booked for May 5 as a polling station.
I note that John Reid, one of Blair’s attack dogs is a catholic and of course Blair has Marian pretentions. He attends a catholic mass with his wife but has not converted. Makes you wonder if the Pope’s death will mean a delay for the announcement which was pencilled in for Monday or Tuesday. It could go a week and still mean prorogarion in time for May 5 but it would be very tight.
It has just been announced that Blair will not be seeing the Queen tommorrow to ask for the disolussion of Parliament. This does not necessarily mean that the 5 May date is off.
The latest date is next Monday 11 April for a 5 May election. The timetable is further complicated by the Pope’s funeral which will probably be on Thursday and Prince Charle’s wedding which is on Friday.