Lots of liberals don't like their politics being placed on the traditional left-right axis. Most Liberal Democrat front-bench spokesperson reject the terms when asked where they are by journalists. How refreshing therefore to see a similar line being used by Ken Livingstone in today's Guardian:
"Following May 1 some people are posing the choice as between moving "to the left" or "to the right". This is not the right question. Labour must place itself at the centre of a progressive alliance that can solve the problems facing the country." Yes, I lost. But still Labour must learn from London
His argument is quite interesting - not least as it comes from the man that used to be synonymous with trying to drag Labour leftwards.
There have been scores of articles this week seeking to give a steer to the Government. Now that Labour have reached historical lows in the polls (See The Sun or Political Betting) there will no doubt continue to be much more where that came from.
CentreForum's latest publication on special educational needs is published today (read it here): arguing that parental empowerment and choice should drive SEN provision - rather than the opinions of bureaucrats or the artificial 'inclusion' debate. It gets trailed in today's Guardian ('Minister seeks more help for dyslexic pupils'); keep an eye out for more press coverage coming soon...
On to the US, where the democrats can now definitively be said to have a nominee. Hillary Clinton went into the night needing a big win in Indiana and a narrow loss in North Carolina to solidify the doubts about Obama's electability in the minds of undecided superdelegates. It didn't happen. She got pummelled by 14 points in North Carolina and won Indiana by just 2. Obama won more delegates, more votes, and the larger state (and the one which is more likely to be competitive in November). The night's events blew a massive hole in Clinton's claim to be the more electable candidate.
Crucially, the media is also beginning to conclude that this race is over. Tim Russert declared on MSNBC that Obama has won the nomination. The opinion forming Drudge Report headlined with a photo of Obama and the words 'the nominee', while Obama's victory speech moved him firmly into general election mode. Rumours are circulating that Wes Clark - an important Clinton surrogate and long-time member of the inner circle - called her to tell her to withdraw. Fundraising is likely to dry up, and advisors are conceding that the campaign is effectively broke. If she wants to continue, she will likely have to put more of her own money into the race.
She needs to ask whether such an investment is likely to reap dividends. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that she will have withdrawn from the race by the weekend.
As the fallout from last week's elections continues to be assessed, attention turning to the role of policy in the results.
First off is Anthony Browne, director of Policy Exchange, who writes in today's Telegraph - 'Time to examine Conservative policies'. He sees policy as being crucial to David Cameron's continued pitch forward momentum:
"Cameron and his team need to "seal the deal" with the voters, not just relying on discontent with the Government, but setting out positive reasons to vote for them. That means concentrating on core themes - mending Britain's broken society, delivering real public-service reform, less Government interference in people's lives and more social responsibility."
Rather bleakly, Peter Riddell feels that policy will have little to do with recovery Labour's potential recovery ('Gordon Brown is a leader left with very few options'):
"I doubt whether the publication of the draft legislative programme for 2008-09 – with its proposals on housing, health, education and constitutional renewal – will reverse Labour’s unpopularity."
Labour's recovery, Riddell beleives, hinges entirely on the economy.
Polly Toynbee in The Guardian has an interesting variation on this theme ('Labour has nothing to say and no territory of its own'). She thinks Labour are boxed in on policy and will have difficulty attacking the Conservatives:
"[Labour] can hardly castigate Tory "reforms" out-sourcing more of education and the NHS. Labour did that too. Or rebut Tory promises to be even tougher on crime, sentencing and filling up more prisons, because Labour did that too. Favouring business and the hyper-rich? Labour did it too. Ungenerous to the poor? Labour will trip over its 10p tax debacle... That is where triangulation has led: Labour has nothing to say and no territory to call its own."
She is putting her hope in the ideas being espoused in a speech by James Purnell today. CentreForum will be going along to hear what is being said - so more about this in the future.
There's an array of interesting articles in the papers today with no particular (or even contrived) links:
This week started with Jackie Ashley's suggestion that a Labour rebellion could lead to Gordon Brown's resignation. We end it with a slew of articles wondering if the U-turn will result in the same thing - but on a more drawn out time scale..
As it happens, even the most hostile commentators don't suggest the effect of doing a u-turn will be as imminently disastrous as Ashley was suggesting. But its progressive commentators who are most interesting.
Polly Toynbee in The Guardian gets to grips with the detail ('Stop tinkering, Gordon. Be bold, and show whose side you are really on') - but ignores the implications of the IFS study earlier this week that taxing the rich won't necessarily bring in more revenue.
Nick Clegg has sparked an intense round of comments and reactions with his article 'A clunking climbdown', also in The Guardian.
Thirdly and, for the sake of brevity, finally The Economist looks to what the fallout will mean for the Labour party with an eye to next week's elections ('Beleaguered Mr Brown').
It concludes:
"Labour has been similarly keen to downplay hopes for May 1st. A modest set of results—Mr Livingstone scraping home in London and a slight improvement on last year's share of the popular vote elsewhere—may end up being seen as a spectacular double-whammy. Mr Brown's underlying problems—a declining economy, his shortcomings as a communicator—would remain; but even a short respite from them would be welcomed."
With a 21 year high poll result from a YouGov poll in today's Telegraph - Labour will do well to achieve even that.
As predicted, Pennsylvania went to Clinton by between 9 and 10 points last night, which leaves the democratic race, well, exactly where it was.
Obama has missed his third opportunity to knock Clinton out of the race (New Hampshire was the first, Ohio or Texas the second), but Clinton has yet again failed to significantly close the delegate (or, indeed, popular vote) deficit. Her campaign is in debt. Even if she secures 60-40 wins in all the remaining contests AND 60-40 wins in Michigan and Florida reruns which won't happen, Clinton would still go to the convention with fewer delegates than Obama. She can't win; he can't finish her off.
Obama will go to the convention having won more votes, more delegates, and more states. Although superdelegates may have concerns about Obama, Clinton's negatives have also significantly increased over the past few weeks of negative campaigning. And while Obama may no longer be putting together the impressive coalitions he built in winning states like Virginia in the heady days of February, he nonetheless did better among white men and low income voters than he did in Ohio.
Questions about Obama's ability to win among white working classes can be equally put against Clinton - why is she persistantly unable to win among black and upscale liberal voters - equally critical parts of the democratic coalition? The bottom line is that even if the superdelegates have concerns about Obama's electability, those concerns ought to be outweighed by the damage a coup by superdelegate would do to the party. This article has the best analysis. In the absence of a scandal which blows apart the Obama campaign, I see no scenario by which Clinton gets the nomination.
Anyway, the contest now moves on to May 6th, when more delegates than were at stake in Pennsylvania will be up for grabs. Obama is almost certain to win in North Carolina, but Indiana is perhaps the last interesting state - one that could go either way. Clinton has the support of the popular democratic senator, former governor and presidential candidate, Evan Bayh, but polls show the two candidates are neck and neck, and Obama has a lot more money to spend. Should be interesting...
How the tax and benefits system should be structured has been a hotly contested issue in liberal circles over recent years. The IFS today released a study commissioned by the Mirrlees review of the British tax and benefit system. The FT picked up on one aspect of the story - that a higher tax band of £100,000 plus is unlikely to raise much, if any, revenue ('Targeting rich will not work, says study'). However, the study is much broader and a better summary can be read in the IFS's own press release.
We're still going through the detail in the report , but its interesting how much the ideas seem to dovetail with our own work on welfare issues which can be read in 'Working on Welfare' on the CentreForum website.
Also in today's news
If you thought the Labour party might be in crisis, read Jackie Ashley in The Guardian today who will confirm all your suspicions. In her article, 'If the rebels prevail, Brown could be ousted in days', she maps out the terrible consequences for Gordon Brown of the 10p Income Tax rebellion.
"The Tories, it seems, will line up with an amendment from Labour's Frank Field to insist on a compensation package for those who will be worse off under the new tax rates. If Labour lost that vote, it would be all up for the prime minister."
The whole piece is well worth reading. It seems amazing that one of Brown's strongest supporters should be so negative. The likely explanation comes towards the end of the piece:
I am 100% against the official government view and, with every instinct, on the side of the Labour rebels. But disaster is looming and the real parliamentarians have carefully to weigh in the balance what they now do, and ask how much likelier it will make a Tory landslide a year hence.
So in actual fact the whole piece is really a message directed at troublesome MPs, and those that goad them on, to be loyal. However, the fact that a commentator has to paint such a lurid picture of destruction in order to pull them back from the edge shows just how bad things are at the moment.
With the first primary for six weeks tomorrow, it's time for Freethink to return to the US of A and consider the implications of the various possible scenarios and make some predictions.
In a sense, we already know what will happen. Barack Obama will win in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and Hillary Clinton will win the vast majority of what is between. John Kerry managed to pull out a victory in 2004 by winning the two cities at either end of the state and nothing in between, but Obama will find it harder.
Although many polls are showing there are 5 or less points in it, I'm sceptical that it will be that close. I anticipate a Clinton win of between 8-12 points for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, in recent polls Barack Obama has hit 45% on only two occasions, suggesting a consistent ceiling of support. Second, polls thus far have not added up to 100% because of the 10% or so of primary voters who remain undecided. Critically, those who make up their mind close to the election have tended to break for Clinton in the contests so far. When added to the fact that undecideds seem to be located disproportionately in the rural areas, this suggests that Clinton will get the bigger boost from current poll numbers than Obama will.
A result of between 5-10 points will allow Clinton to carry on, but should she lose in both North Carolina (which she will lose by a significant margin) and Indiana (where she has surrendered a double digit lead and which could go either way) the end will be nigh. A win by anything less than 5 points and her position is unviable. She may decide to fight on, but Obama will be the nominee. A win by over 10 points will allow her to fight on, but the delegate maths remains formidably against her. Given that Howard Dean is clearly keen to wrap things up well before the convention, a Clinton nomination still looks a fairly remote possibility.
On leaving the tube station on Thursday morning, I was confronted with a billboard boldly declaring “Suicide bomb backer runs Ken’s campaign.”
The headline refers to comments made in 2004 by Azzam Tamimi who is part of a campaign encouraging young Muslims to vote for Ken. In a BBC interview, Tamimi revealed that he would be prepared to perform a suicide bomb attack in Palestine. Another headline, “Embracing Islam gives Ken new election hope”, links pro Ken Islamic leaders and groups with Islamic extremism. The following question is asked:
“Ken appears to want the Muslims to help him with a historic victory of his own. The question many will ask is: what is he giving in return?”
A close association with someone making remarks such as those made by Tamimi could be damaging for Ken. However, the extent to which the stories have attacked Ken’s association with Islam in general could prove to be more damaging for Boris.
These two articles attack Ken’s association with Muslim leaders and groups, and express concern about a deal being struck between Ken and the Muslim community. This is likely to be perceived as Islamaphobic by the Muslim community, and with the Evening Standard being staunch and declared allies of Boris, could damage Boris by association among these communities. Given Boris’ history of inadvisable comments about Islam, his support from the BNP, and with other more moderate friends such as David Cameron keeping their distance, could these articles play into a narrative which actually harms Boris more than Ken?
Yesterday an open letter from the Fawcett Society was presented to the Home Office, pleading for immediate action to be taken in delivering better support and recourse to justice for women who have been the victims of rape.
Britain’s rape statistics are tragic. Figures from 2005-6 suggest that of the 14,443 rape cases that were reported that year, there were only 796 convictions. Shamefully, Britain has the lowest rape conviction rate of any leading European country, David Cameron told the Conservative Women’s Organisation in November 2007, with conviction rates at 50% in Italy but just 5.7% here. This also represents a massive decline since 1977 when Britain’s conviction rate stood at 33%.
Not only is the conviction rate for rape cases unacceptably low but the process is inefficient and slow, with most women waiting for days before receiving medical attention and months before their investigation is taken forward. A leading article in today’s the Independent suggests that the quality of evidence collection is low and that victims who come to the police are routinely disbelieved. And the cases themselves can often last for months. Moreover, it is feared that as many as 75% of all cases are never even reported. Appallingly, this means that only 15 victims in every 1000 ever see justice.
The support systems in Britain are also failing miserably. There are only 45 rape crisis support centres in the country (down from 68 in 1984) and those that still remain are threatened with imminent closure. This is the result of a badly designed funding system which allows centres to struggle as a result of the total inadequacy of sums available and by denying the centres any financial security whatsoever. Many rape crisis centres survive on a year-by-year basis, unsure of whether funding will be granted in forthcoming years and uncertain of the amount they can expect to receive. The centres are also overloaded, as women come from up to 100 miles away to use rape crisis services, and desperately under-resourced. The Croydon rape crisis centre was reported in 2007 to have had 67 women trying to get through on just two phone lines.
The government needs to take radical action now. It is feared that as many as one in four women have been victim to rape or attempted rape. There is a dire need to change the way society understands this crime and to reform the way our government offers support and justice to victims. The number of reported cases that go to court must rise dramatically, and Britain’s conviction rates have to improve. The delivery of aid and support to victims needs widespread reform, and large-scale public information campaigns need to communicate the severity of the crime and its devastating consequences, in co-ordination with the press and non-governmental organisations. It is time to challenge society’s tolerance of this unacceptable situation and bring our justice system up to standard.
CentreForum's recent publication on Liberal Democrat-Conservative relationships continues to get press coverage - this time in an article by John Rentoul on Tory preparations for a potential hung parliament...
This weekend saw a PR blitz by Jacqui Smith as she continued to push the 42-day detention bill through parliament despite a distinct lack of evidence to support yet another smash and grab on our civil liberties.
In support of the proposal, Smith has drawn on a speech that the MI5 chief Jonathan Evans made back in November. In this speech Evans made clear the severity of the terrorist threat and explained the changing nature of terrorist organisations. Smith has taken this intelligence on the terrorist threat and presented it as proof of the need for 42 day detention. This is an inference that Evans himself certainly did not make and it is with this jump that many experts in the field are taking issue.
There continues to be a derth of evidence that allowing detention without charge for 42 days is the best way to tackle the terrorist threat we undoubtedly face. Smith herself acknowledges that there has not yet been a situation in which the police would have wanted more than the 28 days they currently have. And no-one has answered why the threat in this country demands that police be able to detain suspects for 42 days when two days is sufficient in the US and 12 is adequate in Australia?
There has, however, been much opposition from people well placed to judge the potential effects of the law. Keith MacDonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions has denounced its usefulness whilst the Government’s own Terrorism Minister has called for further evidence. The former Attorney Lord General, Lord Goldsmith goes further:
"Not only is it wrong in principle but it also is counter-productive because it can lead to the risk that part of our community, particularly the Muslim community, sort of sees this as an attack on them and some misguided young men therefore decide to join what they see as a cause to fight us."
Goldsmith is not alone in his concerns about alienating the Muslim community. Labour MPs and even cabinet ministers that represent urban areas in the North and work with these communities, have expressed their concerns about the possible effects of such measures. Keith Vaz says the government does not have the support to push the measure through. The stakes for Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith remain high. He may be forced to choose – as Tony Blair did – between the embarassment of a parliamentary defeat and the embarassment of compromising on a bill he has clearly supported. In the current political climate, with the media narrative firmly against him, neither option is likely to engender much positive coverage for the embattled prime minister.
Most advocates of PR recognise that there are inherent disincentives for any Government to introduce reform. It is a brave party that changes the system that put them into power.
So its perhaps no surprise that Governments are most open to change when they are most under pressure. The Independent reports today that Labour figures are flashing a bit PR ankle in return for the Lib Dems encouraging their supporters to give their second preferences to Ken Livingstone in the London Mayoral election ('Labour asks for Lib Dem help to beat Johnson') Ken has been behind in the polls for some time now - including most of the recent polls looking at the second round ballot.
'Peter Hain, the former cabinet minister and a long-time supporter of AV, said: "The natural preference vote for Lib Dems in London is for Ken if they want to be part of the progressive London majority. This would strengthen the case of those who support it [AV]."'
Its an interesting story, though no huge surprise that it appeared in The Independent - an newspaper read by a high proportion of Lib Dems.*
Its unlikely that these overtures won't get anywhere with the Paddick camp - but the people making these overtures know that. By making sure their second-vote appeal gets into the papers, Labour get to make their pitch for second votes direct to the Lib Dem voters.
Also in the news:
* Whilst the proportion of Independent readers who support the Lib Dems is quite high, other papers with larger circulations are read by larger numbers of Lib Dems.
A slight diversion today, to bring news of an interesting website: gapminder. Those with an interest in development issues will find much of interest in the 'gapminder world 2006' database.
Plotting life expectancy against fertility and playing it over time is particularly interesting - giving a view of China's astonishing development and the impact of the AIDS pandemic in Africa (the blue countries). Tracking individual countries such as Laos, Cambodia, and Rwanda gives a dramatic visual representation of their recent histories.
Those with an interest in sword swallowing swedish statisticians (admittedly a niche market) will also find much of interest in watching Hans Rosling present his lecture. Fast forward to near the end for the good stuff.
Elsewhere, there's an interesting article in the Times about the potential next Vice President.
My thoughts on the matter are that, for McCain, Crist is a no-go because of persistent rumours that he's gay, Lieberman because he would leave a vacant Senate seat in Connecticut which the Democrats would almost certainly win, and Rice because of her proximity to Bush. I suspect Mitt Romney, despite the personal antipathy between them, best offers McCain the fiscally conservative, 'obviously qualified to be president' candidate that he needs.
For Clinton, Wes Clark and Evan Bayh are probably the two favourites. For Obama, Clark might also be an option depending on the extent to which his relationship with the Clintons (to whom Clark is VERY close) has degraded by the time he wins the nomination. Otherwise, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius, Bill Richardson or Tim Kaine are all distinct possibilities, with Biden offering the foreign policy experience and Sebelius and Kaine offering the executive experience; both of which Obama lacks. Bill Richardson potentially offers both, and a truly historic African American-Latino ticket. Watch this space...
It's always interesting to see how a story develops as it is passed from commentator to commentator. This game, a kind of journalistic Chinese whispers, is even more interesting to follow when you have a hand in the initial story.
The CentreForum pamphlet, Lib Con was published last week and is one of the sources for Fraser Nelson's piece in this week's Spectator - 'Watch the Tories sidling up to the Lib Dems: the foundations for a post-election pact'
Mr Nelson has clearly been gauging reaction from the Conservative side to the ideas set out in Lib Con. They make interesting reading - including the idea that:
'[Conservative] party strategists are already placing prospective policy measures into three categories. Those that could be implemented without any new legislation (such as welfare reform), those that would require Lib Dem support (education reform) and those that would only be possible with a working Commons majority (renegotiation of EU membership).'
When those close to Cameron decide what fits in those three categories - and how much they care about each - the Conservative negotiating position for the various post-election scenarios will be clearer.
The sister paper to Lib Con was Lib Lab, published in the autumn. That didn't receive as much attention from the Labour-watchers as Lib Con has from those following the Conservatives.
That makes you wonder whether the work seemingly necessary work that Cameron and co are doing is being reciprocated in Labour ranks at all.