Gordon Brown's "bigot" Gaffe.

There are at least thee lessons which can be learned from Gordon Brown's much pubicised "gaffe" earlier this week.

1. The fact that elections increasingly focus on the performances and personalities of the leaders places them under almost intolerable strain. The only comparable situation I can think of is that of military commanders in battles of movement. I am not surprised that, under these circumstances, Mr Brown should have made an unguarded comment. It would be interesting to know what unguarded comments the other leaders have made, without the misfortune of having them broadcast through a live microphone.The Prime Ministerial debates have exacerbated this situation. In this election we have heard little of the other leading politicians in any of the parties (who can name five from each, never mind the 25 or so who would constitute a cabinet?) and the candidates in the constituencies have become mere ciphers. To adapt a phrase: "The exposure of the party leaders has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished." Debates between the spokespersons of the parties on all major areas (see post, Party Leaders' Debate, 14th April) would help to spread the load and give us a better understanding not only of the different policies but also the strengths of the rival teams.
2. Mr Brown's unguarded comments give us further evidence, if such were needed, that these "casual" encounters with "ordinary" voters are not casual and ordinary at all, but carefully staged, or at least, that is the attempt. The incident adds fuel to the view that all politicians are dishonest spinners. More open honesty might reap dividends.
   
3. Since the days of Enoch Powell, and probably before, the subject of immigration has never been properly and openly discussed. This is because the politicians are frightened of upsetting those floating voters in a handful of key marginal seats who, under our flawed system, decide elections. It is interesting that in last night's debate none of the three leaders put the case for immigration: all the emphasis was who would best curb it or, in Nick Clegg's case, cope with it. Similarly, the arguments for Europe, for higher taxes to create a decent society, for a more enlightened and effective method of dealing with criminals, are never put. The first past the post electoral system enables the tabloids to set the political agenda. STV could change that and lead to a more grown up debate.
   

Hanging in the Balance

I find it irritating that both the media and parties persist in using the negative term "hung" rather than the positive term "balanced" to describe a parliament in which no party has an over-all majority. The term "hung" in this context is borrowed from the USA where it is used to describe a jury unable to come to a conclusion. There is every reason to suppose that a parliament which more accurately reflects the balance of opinion in the country will come to better decisions than one which is able to impose the view of a minority on a reluctant majority. The Iraq War was just one such a decision: the Poll Tax another. By contrast our government in the Second World War was a coalition which was perfectly capable of both uniting the country and bringing matters to a successful conclusion.

The Lib-Lab Pact of the late 70s was not a coalition, since no member of the Liberal Party joined the government, but an agreement to support a minority government. The 70s were not the most successful time in British politics, but it is worth remembering that, during the periods of "majority" government either the rate of unemployment fell only when inflation rose, or if inflation was curbed unemployment soared, passing the symbolic half million mark whilst Michael Foot was the responsible minister. Only during the period of the Lib-Lab pact did both fall together.

Today the Conservatives are trying to frighten us with the argument that unless we do our patriotic duty and give them a majority we shall lose our triple A rating and our economy will go into further free-fall. A letter in yesterday's Guardian ( from Alistair Peck, 28/04/10) points out that this is "so much hyperbole" since "... there are 16 AAA rated country economies: 12 use proportional representation, 10 also have coalition governments."

A letter on the previous day from Hugo Radice, concludes:

"Why ... do our financial, business, political and media elites swallow the Tory-city line? Because the success of the government's bailout of the banks threatens the dominant neo-liberal view
that markets are better than states at managing our economy. Their scaremongering over the debt...(is) designed to ensure a speedy return to business as usual for free-market capitalism."

My sentiments exactly.

The Solution that Dare Not Speak its Name

Tomorrow night's leaders'' debate will focus on the economy, and will presumably concentrate on the allegedly "huge" public deficit, the cuts in public services allegedly necessary to to put it right, and how soon these cuts should be implemented.

For an analysis which shows that the public finances are by no means in the parlous state that all the parties and most of the commentators seem to think, please see my post "The Economic 'Crisis' " of 8th April. It is also worth mentioning that the present is not a bad time to have a larger than normal public debt, as abnormally low interest rates make it less expensive to service.

The abandonment of the "like for like" replacement of Trident, the compulsory National Identity Card and expensive and ineffective national data-base schemes will obviously achieve welcome economies, but most cuts in public services will adversely affect those most dependent on the state, the poor and the vulnerable. Like, I suspect, most people, I have little faith in the idea that economies can be achieved by "efficiency savings" which do not affect front line services.

What speaks volumes about the parlous state , not of our economy but of our politics, is that no party has the courage to propose the alternative method of cutting current borrowing: that of raising taxes. The standard rate of income tax is 20% and it seems to be assumed that civilisation as we know it will end at any thought of its being raised. But as recently as the 19880s the rate was 25% and life seemed to trundle along quite comfortably for the overwhelming majority.

The adverse effects of the recession have fallen disproportionately on a minority of the population. Most of us are still comfortably off, and some with large mortgages have gained considerably as a result of low rates of interest. It is shameful that no party has the courage to say that, rather than cutting public services, the well heeled should, once the recovery is assured, be asked to pay a little more.

It is infantile to pretend that we can have Scandinavian levels of public services with American levels of tax. Someone should have the courage to say so

To tactical vote, or not to tactical vote, that is the question.

On his retirement as Liberal Leader David Steel talked of the part luck had played in his career. As a young MP he had won a high place in the ballot for private members' bills, and his subsequent Abortion Act made him nationally known. That was good luck.

Then in 1983 the Liberal/Social Democrat Alliance almost, but not quite, pushed Labour into third place. With over 13 million votes there was no doubt that Mrs Thatcher and the Conservatives were the winners, but the Alliance's 7 781 000 were very close to Labour's 8 457 000. That, said Steel, was bad luck. Had the two figures been reversed than the indignation produced by the gross unfairness of the result (Labour took 209 seats against the Alliance's paltry 23) would not have evaporated so quickly, and a reform of the voting system would have been irresistible. Politics could have been transformed a quarter of a century ago.

The question many Liberal Democrat supporters must decide in this election is whether to vote tactically to keep out the Tories, adamantly opposed to any sort of electoral reform, or to remain true to their principles and vote Liberal Democrat. I believe the later course is the right one. The three major parties are so close that, whoever wins, in terms of either seats or votes, will have no democratic legitimacy to form a government alone. If the Liberal Democrats can push either of the other parties into third place then, this time, the case for real proportional representation, using STV rather than the unproportional AV, really will be irresistible.

So every Liberal Democrat vote is vital, whether or not it results in the election of an MP.

Another sudden conversion to the nanny state

Last night Sir Richard Branson was reported as demanding compensation from the British government or the EU for the losses his Virgin airline has experienced during the ban on flights. His justification for the claim is that the authorities were over cautious in banning all flights for five whole days.

Clearly these authorities are in the same position as social workers: damned if they do and damned if they don't. If flying had been permitted earlier and a plane had crashed there would have been outrage (and demands for compensation from the relatives of victims.) As an occasional air traveler I feel over-caution is absolutely appropriate.

The economic justification for profits is that entrepreneurs such as Sir Richard take risks.
When they are right they are amply rewarded. Sometimes things go wrong and there are losses. However unfortunate and unpredictable the cause, that's the name of the game.

As with bankers, airline owners cannot expect to reap the rewards of their enterprise in the good times and expect sudden conversions to the nanny state to be acceptable when things go wrong.

St George's Day

Yesterday lots of people were displaying the St George's Cross in one form or another. I wonder what they felt they were celebrating?

Some years ago, in response to a demand from Gordon Brown that immigrants should adopt "British values" someone with a foreign-sounding name wrote to the Guardian saying:

"Yes, certainly. Which British values would you like us to adopt? The highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe; putting our elderly relatives in homes and forgetting about them; rampaging around the continent boozed up on lager and vomiting in the gutters at football internationals? "

Since St George is the patron saint of England I'll concentrate on the alleged English values which were propagated by the novels of such writers as Percy F Westerman and W E Johns which, along with the weekly Wizard and Hotspur, formed the unelevated reading of my boyhood: honesty, modesty and fair play.

• Honesty: "My word is my bond" was (is it still?) the motto of the Stock Exchange and was supposed to apply to all the "clean limbed English."
  
• Modesty: all English boys (and girls?) were all supposed to be self effacing, self deprecating, but of course highly competent in an understated way.
• Fair Play: epitomised by cricket but a virtue which applied to all aspects of life.
  

Senior civil servants being "economical with the truth," extravagant gestures whenever a footballer scores a goal, and the Tories' disproportionate expenditure in elections compared to the other parties all illustrate that there's not a lot of these values about nowadays.

I shouldn't mind a day put aside to revive them, and should be interested in any additional worthwhile values others might like to add.

Again, you pays your money...

Last night I had to watch the leaders' debate at the house of a friend, as I do not have Murdoch's Sky system. At the end of the debate both of us agreed that Nick Clegg had again done well, but not, this time outstandingly so, that Gordon Brown had greatly improved his performance and David Cameron remained unconvincing.

At the end of the debate the result of an instant YouGov/Sun pole was flashed on the screen and, to our surprise, declared Cameron the clear winner. This "news" remained on the screen. We waited for the results of other polls, but none came

Clearly the Murdoch media provide you with the "news" the Murdoch organisation want you to hear. Once again thank goodness for the BBC and more balanced news.

If there were no other issue is the election, the fact that the Tories are in hock to the Murdoch organisation and are committed to cutting back the BBC at his behest is the reason for keeping them out.