Laws on the ropes?

David is… Mr Integrity. Integrity is the thing that drives him. I believe that he may have been caught, in a way, in the imprecise nature of the word ‘partnership’. The word is used in the House of Commons regulations… I think in good faith he concluded that it did not apply to him.
(Lord Ashdown, David Laws’ predecessor as Yeovil MP)

I have some personal sympathy for David Laws. What a month it has been. He was still campaigning for re-election at the beginning of the month. He didn’t expect then to help negotiate the first coalition government for 65 years. He didn’t expect to become Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He didn’t expect some of his closest friends and family to learn he was gay.

Now the Daily Telegraph suggests he broke parliamentary rules by claiming second home expenses to rent a room from his partner, James Lundie. Mr Laws’ defence is that Mr Lundie was not a ‘partner’ under the expenses rules.

He did not want his relationship revealed. He and Mr Lundie “are intensely private people. We made the decision to keep our relationship private and believed that was our right. Clearly that cannot now remain the case.”

How frustrating these revelations must be for him. But as the expenses saga unfolded last year, surely every MP must have considered how their own circumstances might have appeared under close scrutiny. It was clear they would be judged by their adherence to the spirit, not just the letter, of the rules.

Mr Laws says he will pay back £40,000 and refer himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.  Surely it would have been prudent to refer himself last year? Surely that must have occurred to him last year? It may not have prevented the Telegraph uncovering the story, but it might have taken some of the steam out of it.

Now David Cameron and Nick Clegg have a rather awkward situation to deal with. In theory it is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide Mr Laws’ fate. But perhaps he will delegate the problem to his deputy. David Laws is a Lib Dem; he is Mr Clegg’s problem.

If he goes, would he have to be replaced by a Lib Dem? Or could he be replaced from either coalition party? It is an important question for the coalition. I suspect that resignations such as this (if it occurs) may often need to be followed by a minor reshuffle.

The pressure on Mr Laws will be all the greater for his ministerial responsibility. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury it is his job to wield the axe on public spending. His expenses claims may detract from his moral authority in one of the most crucial jobs in government.

Update: David Laws has resigned from the Cabinet. He is replaced by the Scottish Secretary Danny Alexander, perceived as a more awkward fit than Mr Laws. As the Times describes it: “Coalition wobbles in bid to keep its balance.”

 

A crucial opportunity

We’ve a very important job to do on Thursday.

Vote.

Every Westminster constituency is up for grabs. 650 of them. For many of us it’s time to choose our local councillors too. Both elections are important, but the opinion poll story suggests our votes in the General Election are particularly crucial.

As I’ve argued, there are many parallels with the election of 1992.

But in some ways, the parallels with February 1974 are more important.

In that election, a surge in support for smaller parties produced a hung parliament (or ‘balanced’ as the Lib Dems like to call it) which left the Conservatives too weak to govern. Harold Wilson became Prime Minister, leading a minority Labour government. In need of strength, he called a fresh election in October 1974, securing an overall majority of just three seats.

Apparently the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, believes whoever wins the election ahead “will be out of power for a whole generation.” Perhaps he was thinking of 1974. Our economy then was in deep trouble. The years ahead brought great strife and many strikes. It took Labour 18 years to return to government following its defeat in 1979.

We are immersed in a fiscal nightmare; last year the government spent £163bn more than it raised in taxes. Dealing with the deficit will be very painful. We may be out of recession for now, but the years ahead will be harder, not easier. Pity the Prime Minister calling an election in 2015.

But it is not 2015. It is 2010 and we’ve a very important job to do. We must think of the five years ahead, not the years after that. We must put our country first as we cast our ballot.

In 2005, 61.3% of the electorate turned out to vote. In 1992, the last time we knew it would be close, the turnout was 77.7%. I suspect we’ll see a similarly high turnout this time.

I will be voting in Poplar & Limehouse. It’s a fascinating contest; a three-way marginal where Respect’s George Galloway has entered the fray to unsettle Labour’s Jim Fitzpatrick. It presents the Conservatives’ Tim Archer with a golden opportunity to win a challenging seat; a diverse, deprived, inner-city constituency.

George Galloway campaigning for Respect outside my home.

The BBC’s take on my constituency is here. Few seats will be watched with such interest, but every seat is important. Even safe seats are decided by those who actually turn up. They are only ‘safe’ because the voters make them safe. In 1997, the ‘Portillo moment’ showed that no seat is truly safe.

Voting is a great privilege and a great responsibility.

As a Christian, it’s interesting to note how many of my brothers and sisters feel it’s not their place to vote. Some of them don’t want to compromise their beliefs, by voting for the lesser of two evils. Others note that voting is not sanctioned in the Bible and that Jesus did not engage in the government of his day.

However, God created us to “fill the earth and subdue it,” and to rule “over every living creature” (Genesis 1v28). Later St Paul writes that “there is no authority except that which God has established” (Romans 13v1), “it is necessary to submit to the authorities” (v5) and “the authorities are God’s servants” (v6).

It reasonable inference that Christians might play a role in government or in electing it. It is even more important for us to pray. Each of us is but one man or woman and we have just one vote. But our prayers call upon a supreme authority for whom all things are possible.

While I have my doubts about the extent of the state, I do believe it has a role to play in regulating society and meeting the needs of the most vulnerable. This is a good mission. But it can be undertaken well or badly and I believe we all have a responsibility to ensure our government acts well.

The debate about Christian engagement will go on. There is a similar argument in Islam, where some believe voting is “Shirk” (forbidden and unforgivable). But Muslim political engagement here in the UK is very strong, probably stronger than amongst Christians.

It is probably explained partly by a feeling of oppression as a minority in a secular christian country (small ‘c’ deliberate) and partly by an optimism that change is possible. Whereas the rest of us, Christian and secular alike, have come to feel that our votes count for very little.

Perhaps that’s true, but they still count for something. If they didn’t politicians wouldn’t be fighting so hard for them.

Christians may find it useful to check out the Conservative Christian Fellowship, the Christian Socialist Movement or the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum. Together they established Christians in Politics, a broader resource.

Vote for Policies is an independent website which merits 10 minutes’ investment. With so much focus on the personalities and the impression given by the parties, which party might we choose if it were entirely down to the policies? Vote for Policies might help.

If you want to examine the policy issues from first principles, check out the party manifestos (listed alphabetically, not by preference!)

Alliance Party (NI)

British National Party

Christian Peoples Alliance

Conservatives

Conservatives & Unionists

Democratic Unionist Party

English Democrats

Green Party

Jury Team

Labour

Liberal Democrats

Official Monster Raving Loony Party

Plaid Cymru

Respect

Scottish National Party

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Sinn Fein

UK Independence Party

 

Where are they flocking from?

Gillian Duffy was a lifelong Labour voter who told Gordon Brown she was now “absolutely ashamed of saying I’m Labour.”

Mrs Duffy raised a number of issues with the PM: crime; tax on pensions; national debt; immigration and student tuition fees. She spoke forcefully and he responded persuasively in a four minute exchange. Afterwards he dismissed her as a “bigoted woman” in a private conversation.

Why?

You can’t say anything about the immigrants, because you’re saying that you’re a… But all these eastern Europeans what are coming in, where are they flocking from?
(Gillian Duffy, Rochdale, 28 April 2010)

One assumes they may be “flocking” from eastern Europe!… Mr Brown thought the encounter was a “disaster” and the idea of talking to her “ridiculous”. But really the encounter was fine. It was a heated discussion, probably uncomfortable for him, but not particularly harmful. And after the conversation, Mrs Duffy told the BBC she would probably still vote Labour, though perhaps that is now in doubt.

The infamous exchange (from BBC News)

A deception?

My only complaint with Mr Brown’s handling of the conversation was on the issue of debt.

How are you going to get us out of all this debt, Gordon?
(Mrs Duffy)

We’ve got a deficit reduction plan to cut the debt by half over the next four years.
(Mr Brown)

If only that were true… At the end of March, the public sector net debt was £771.6 billion (excluding financial interventions). That is a lot. In the year ahead, our interest payments alone are projected to be £43bn.

£43 billion.

That is more than the government proposes to spend on defence. It is twice the budget for transport or half the budget for education.

It is more than the government expects to raise in corporation tax. It is over half the VAT take.

It’s not as if we can afford to spend so much on interest. Last year alone, the government deficit was £163 billion. It spent £163bn more than it raised in taxes. This is not just a number; it is an obscene amount to borrow.

Alistair Darling’s plan is to cut the deficit by half over four years. If he is successful, in four years time we will borrow just £82bn. The deficit will be half what it is now, but the national debt will not be. It will have risen by hundreds of billions of pounds. Any budding chancellor should read my blog on debt: good, bad or ugly?

Gordon Brown told Mrs Duffy he would cut the debt by half over four years. Obviously, he meant the deficit. A slip of the tongue. The difference is profound, but the language is deceptively subtle. Cutting the deficit by half may sound great, but the burgeoning debt draws us ever closer to economic doom.

“A sort of bigoted woman”

I must digress no more. What Gordon Brown said after leaving Mrs Duffy was more damaging for him.

She’s just a sort of bigoted woman that said she used to be Labour.
(Gordon Brown, oblivious of his personal microphone)

Perhaps he was right? Mrs Duffy selected eastern Europeans to illustrate her immigration concerns. Perhaps she is a bigot?

She seemed to acknowledge the issue could get her into hot water: “You can’t say anything about the immigrants, because you’re saying that you’re a…” It’s impossible to know what she almost said, but I’ll hazard a guess: she was concerned about being labelled a racist. However, she persisted and made the point, somewhat ineloquently, that immigration is too high.

I don’t believe her primary concern is eastern Europeans. I believe it is immigration. For her, recent immigration is characterised by eastern Europeans. It’s a reasonable perception. A million eastern Europeans have registered to work in the UK since the jobs market was opened to them in 2004. I believe she would have been equally concerned about immigration to Rochdale from Spain, China, Australia, Birmingham or, God forbid, Northern Ireland.

That is my perception, and I may be wrong. But Mrs Duffy seemed to recognise the danger of talking about immigration. Even the Prime Minister hears the word ‘immigration’ and thinks ‘bigot’. Mrs Duffy was evidently upset when learned what he’d called her.  He later visited her to apologise.

Gordon Brown hears his error on The Jeremy Vine Show (from BBC News)

Immigration is an important issue. We must be allowed to discuss it. There are many arguments in favour of immigration. There are strong arguments against it too. But even if debate was clear cut, if immigration was acknowledged to be A Good Thing, there will be many who remain concerned. Those concerns should be addressed, not ignored or dismissed as bigotry. That approach has given succour to the BNP, and that is – in my view – A Bad Thing.

Click here to compare the main parties’ immigration policies.

Gordon Brown should have learned from John Major’s error in 1994. He probably has ‘bastards’ in his own cabinet too, but all politicians know that a microphone has only one job, and that is to listen. He must be careful what he says when a microphone is listening.

 

A reprieve for cider drinkers

After the Budget, I wondered: who do cider drinkers vote for? Along with some other measures, the proposed big tax rise on cider has been shelved.

The general election is on 6th May and Parliament will be dissolved in a few days. So soon after the budget, the Government has had to cut deals to pass legislation (including the finance bill) and the higher cider tax is one of the victims. The winners, of course, are the cider drinkers and manufacturers of the West Country (and elsewhere!)

The Government has a healthy working majority in Parliament. But it cannot do all it pleases. It is not all-powerful. In this case its ambitions were thwarted by MPs fighting for their constituents (particularly for cider makers, not just the drinkers). These MPs may have been acting in concert with others fighting for different causes.

Sometimes – working together – the ‘powerless’ carry enough strength to deliver. Perhaps the Great Ignored could collaborate to influence the election and the next Government.

Cider drinkers probably won’t swing the election, and the Government knows this. If Labour stays in office after 6th May, the tax rise will be reinstated.

But it doesn’t concern me; just stay away from my Guinness!

 

Expenses – the new system

There is a new system for MPs’ expenses. Like many of us, I took some interest in the expenses scandal when it first broke and suggested some of my own ideas for how the new rules should look. I also recognised how I might have fallen foul of the rules at the time.

The changes are sensible and worthwhile. See here how the new rules stack up against the old ones.

It’s good to see the maximum accomodation allowance cut from £2,000 per month to £1,450. I suggested £1,200 would be enough for a decent one bedroom flat in central London, but the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is more generous.

MPs won’t be able to use their allowance to pay for mortgage interest, so it excludes property investment from taxpayer-funded expenses. It wasn’t among my suggestions, but it’s an appropriate response to the public outrage.

In November, Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommendations included a ban on MPs employing relatives. Derek Conway was the primary abuser of this tradition, but I didn’t agree with a ban. An MP’s work is so demanding, in terms of both time and geography, it seems reasonable that spouses (spice?) should be allowed to work alongside them. Eve Burt is one MP’s wife who felt this very strongly, campaigning vigorously to keep her job! IPSA has wisely conceded that MPs may continue to employ one family member.

It is good to see that MPs must now submit receipts for all claims. As I argued last year, MPs should only be reimbursed for expenses actually incurred. if they consider it too onerous to supply a receipt for any claim, then it’s probably too small to bother reclaiming.

 

Who do cider drinkers vote for?

I was impressed by Alistair Darling’s budget on Wednesday. Politically, it was hard to fault. Economically, he played it safe and didn’t upset the markets.

Evidently the Budget deficit needs to be tackled. Otherwise the credit ratings agencies will become tetchy and credit will be harder to come by. The big question is: how soon should the deficit be reduced? Are savage cuts the way forward? Or do we simply need to make a start? The main parties are divided on the issue and so are economists. But the political gap has closed a bit. Nick Clegg is no longer calling for savage cuts and the Conservatives’ tone was much more hawkish several months ago.

The government plans to halve the deficit in four years, despite European Commission encouragement to act quicker. Their argument is that to cut quicker would harm the economy still further.

There were no great economic revelations in the Budget. The big decisions, the painful ones especially, will come later. That political judgement was straightforward. But aside from that, Mr Darling played a dextrous hand.

Among his cards, the decision to grant a two year stamp duty holiday to first-time buyers of homes up to £250,000 (neglecting a nod of courtesy to the opposite benches for the idea). It’s paid for by an increase in stamp duty on £1m homes. Not for two years, but permanently. I can’t imagine this will cost Labour too many votes.

And this one’s inspirational: a tiny increase on a pint of beer (2%) alongside a much larger increase in cider (10% above inflation). Beer drinkers will feel they got off lightly. Who do beer drinkers vote for? Probably any and every party (though traditionally Labour!) Meanwhile, who do cider drinkers vote for? Here’s a clue:

Cider duty up - costly for Labour?

 

Generals v Politicians – a war of words

Every request that the military commanders made to us for equipment was answered. No request was ever turned down.
(Gordon Brown, Iraq Inquiry, 5th March 2010)

Fighting a war brings all sorts of challenges. There is a foe to contend with, but it’s harder when your armoury’s missing some key bits of kit, or when you step onto hot desert sand and find your boots melting. Effective transport is crucial, but the Snatch Land Rover used in Iraq and Afghanistan has been described as a ‘death trap’. And helicopters have been slow to arrive, their absence sometimes blamed by parents who feel their injured sons might have survived had they reached a field hospital sooner.

In some cases, parents report shelling out for better kit: webbing or helmets for example.

So what was the problem? The Prime Minister is careful not to accept blame for this under-resourcing. Why then do the generals (or admirals/air marshals) feel compelled to say they didn’t have enough?

He cannot get away with saying ‘I gave them everything they asked for’. That is simply disingenuous.
(Lord Guthrie, Chief of Defence Staff 1997-2001, speaking on 6th March 2010)

He is dissembling, he’s being disingenuous.
(Lord Boyce, Chief of Defence Staff 2001-3, speaking on 6th March 2010)

There is a clear sense of frustration among some key military leaders. They haven’t accused Mr Brown of lying; the word ‘disingenuous’ is their weapon of choice. It makes me curious. Did the generals ask for what they needed? Did they go to war claiming they had what they needed when in fact they did not? Should they have resigned for resource reasons as Robin Cook did for political reasons?

Gordon Brown hinted his predecessor would not have gone to war if the generals told him they were unprepared. Well, of course not! But it’s a rhetorical point. The generals are unlikely to say ‘no’ to their masters; it’s not in their blood. They know that fortune favours the brave. They know the difference between essential and desirable. And with the essential kit, they know that all things are possible.

What our troops lacked in Iraq and Afghanistan could perhaps best be described as ‘highly desirable’ rather than essential. While the political struggle continues, we have been able to undertake military operations with broad success. The generals have their cut their cloth as required, but some men and women needed better provision and have paid for its absence with their lives.

What the Prime Minister yesterday said… narrowly and precisely was correct… What Gordon Brown didn’t address… was the underlying underfunding of defence that goes right back to the outcome of the defence review in 97/98.
(General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of General Staff 2006-9, speaking on 6th March 2010)

Finally some clarity. As I expected, while the fact-claims of the generals and the politicians appear to conflict, the truth accommodates both.

But now we have a problem. In recent times, retired military chiefs have routinely criticised the government. We don’t expect this so much from serving officers; as men under authority, such insubordination would be at odds with the career that took them to the top.

General Dannatt is a notable exception. Before his retirement, he was happy to make life uncomfortable from time to time for his political masters. In so doing, he voiced publicly what other generals may have said in private to the ministers. He is a man of great experience and wisdom. He also has a natural outspoken honesty which I believe may be sorely tested under a Conservative government.

That’s because General Dannatt is now an adviser to the Conservatives. If they win the general election, he will take a peerage, but won’t become a minister. He will bring great strength to David Cameron’s team, but his decision is clearly a controversial political judgement. The announcement was leaked while he was still in the pay of the army. I believe it has dented his authority.

With regard to the other defence chiefs, an explanation has arisen as to why they might have felt motivated to speak out against the prime minister.

When Guthrie and Boyce attack Gordon on defence spending note they are consultants and non-execs of defence coys. and have vested interest.
(Lord Foulkes, via Twitter, 13th March 2010)

Well, perhaps they do. But what they said is either true or it isn’t. If it is true then I would expect to hear from them. In these circumstances, who else could speak out? If it is not true then Guthrie, Boyce, Dannatt and others are all singing from the same flawed hymn sheet. Gordon Brown had plenty of facts at his disposal for his appearance before Sir John Chilcot. But they were spun carefully and the truth behind them was hidden.

In any case, Lord Foulkes has form. He sees the military as the enemy. He is a tribal Labour loyalist who defended Speaker Martin when the game was lost, freely attacks those he regards as his opponents without regard to the arguments and tried to smear General Dannatt last summer.

Am I saying the politicians are wrong and the generals are right? Not at all. We live in a world of limited resources. And it is for the government to decide on the allocation across ministries. I have no doubt that generals will always want more. So will doctors, head teachers and many others. When the resources fall short, they’ll have to make do. Or if not, then resign as Norman Tebbit has argued.

Resignation is the ultimate political statement. It is a very tough decision, especially when the stakes are so high. For most of us, there is a very practical reason we might not want resign our jobs. How would I pay the mortgage? For generals and politicians the reason is likely to be more philosophical. Had Lord Boyce resigned before the Iraq war he could have pulled the plug on the whole adventure. Unless that was his objective, it would not have been an attractive option.

So while resignation is always an option, for the most part it is far from ideal. But speaking out against a sitting government is fraught with problems as Professor Vernon Bogdanor explains. We are not about to be led by a military junta, but the generals must think very carefully before engaging in politics. And if they back off, the politicians must show more respect.

 

Ryanair-bashing

I’m looking forward to this. I think Ryanair has a horrendous attitude towards its customers. There is plenty of room in the industry for new airlines but unfortunately each route would seem to have limited scope for competition.

It doesn’t seem reasonable to me that normal costs necessitated (for the vast majority of people) with flying are netted away from the actual price of the flight. The flight ‘prices’ are only so low because they don’t reflect the cost of the flight but depend on super-profit being generated by the fees on paying with a typical debit card or actually getting on the aircraft.

I wonder if the Competition Commission should consider imposing a rule that prices should as a minimum cover the cost of the product/service. It would have the effect of increasing Ryanair’s flight prices, but would also force their hand on other ridiculous costs.

There are certain costs which are basically part-and-parcel of providing flights to customers. Taxes and airport fees are among them. The fees due as a result of normal payment methods are also among them. They should be reflected in the cost of the flights. Even if they’re not reflected, it’s pretty clear that taking 120 people from London to Turin evidently can’t be done for £1.99 each. That ludicrous pricing policy needs to be changed.

When I buy a pint, the pub does not separately charge me for the glass to hold it in, the duty paid, the marketing costs of selling it and then a credit card fee. They may impose a minimum payment of £10, but implicit in that minimum is an acceptance that it is the pub and not the customer who will pay the fees.

I interviewed O’Leary once and asked him about customer satisfaction issues. He said Ryanair had the the lowest customer complaints of any major airline. What nonsense, surely? I expect most customers would not know how to complain such are the administrative barriers to doing so. I suspect the only way of doing so is via a premium rate phone line. Ryanair has no interest in customer satisfaction beyond the immediate impact on their turnover.

So I’m looking forward to watching Panorama on 12th October.