Kid's last minute home made Euro plea

Seen in a north Kingston window this afternoon.  However, I'm still not sure it isn't about the European football...

Exclusive - Farage reacts to new Coetzee role

The news that Nick Clegg's 'world class' strategist, Ryan Coetzee, has been appointed to run the yes to EU campaign has at least one supporter:

 

Put your money on a big NO vote...

Why I'm backing Libdems4change (despite the use of a '4')

Last Thursday's election results were a disaster for the Liberal Democrats.  But they were no isolated event.  They come on top of almost equally disasterous results (particularly in the big cities) over the previous four years.  In fact the party's losing streak began as soon as Clegg took over the leadership and before the party joined a coalition government in 2010.

The scale of that disaster is huge - no councillors in Manchester, Southampton, Islington, Lambeth or Lewisham (where just a few years ago we either ran the council or had high hopes of doing so), replaced as the official opposition in Liverpool by the Greens with a mere four councillors and returning just 118 councillors across all of London - more than half in just two boroughs: Sutton and Kingston.  And that's before you get to the utterly disasterous Euro results, after a campaign fronted by Clegg and promoting his European vision.

The leadership's initial reaction to this was crass and patronising - implying those losing candidates (of which I was one) didn't work hard enough.

And then Nick Clegg gave his view, saying in a 'lady's not for turning' moment:

I don’t begrudge anyone for raising searching questions, for asking challenging questions about strategy and about leadership, all of it. It’s the most natural thing in the world after the electoral losses of the last few very very difficult days. But the question is, is that really a shortcut to doing what the Liberal Democrats want to do for Great Britain. And I think that losing our nerve, buckling down, washing our hands of all the decisions, exactly at the point that our decisions are being proved right, would be the wrong thing to do. 

But unlike Clegg I believe it is clear the party cannot go on as it is.  The party's strategy of essentially rejecting most of its previous support base in favour of a new centrist electorate who vote for governing parties has been tested to destruction.

It is perfectly possible to govern as radical outsiders trying to change the system - but this has been repeatedly rejected by Clegg and his team.  Instead Clegg argues that the Lib Dems can be either a party of protest or party of government - a line he has used ever since he was being advised by the world's worst political strategist - Richard Reeves.

So, Clegg gives me no choice.  He's not prepared to change a strategy and direction that can only end one way.  If he was, I would have no qualms about backing him - this battle is not, and should not, be about personalities.  But Clegg and his advisors are now wedded to a strategy that plainly is not working and if he won't change, he needs to go and be replaced by someone else who will make that change.

You can sign the Lib Dems for change petition here.

Nick v Nige factchecker

LBC have very conveniently published a fact checker after last night's debate.  And it suggests neither participant's claims were fully compliant with the actualité...

UK income falls more fairly than France

Hamish McRae wrote an interesting article on income inequality and  the recession in Monday's Evening Standard quoting a report from researchers at UBS.  In it they stated that the loss of personal income due to the recession in the UK has affected all income groups pretty evenly - which contrasts with most of mainland Europe and the US where the fall in income for the richest 10% has been much less than for the poorest.

I've finally tracked down the report on the web here and I've reproduced the table that compares income falls over the last five years by decile:

Those progressive paragons of France and Scandanavia - who the left are telling us to be more like - saw the poorest 10% lose far more than the richest.  In France the poor's income dropped nearly 10% whereas the richest dropped by less than 5%.  In Finland the richest 10% actually saw incomes rise over the last five year.  In contrast in the UK, the poorest decile's income fell by about 7% over the last five years - slightly less than the richest 10%.

One can't help wondering that the UK would look much more like the US and most of Europe if the Tories (or even New Labour) were governing on their own. 

Pay fall figures show Labour's economic stupidity

Labour have been bragging about how UK pay has fallen over recent years compared to our European neighbours.

But unsurprisingly they fail to make any reference to the numbers of people out of work all together.  But the following chart from Reuters might help them to understand the bigger picture.

Nearly all the major economies in Europe have higher unemployment than the UK and nearly all of them - despite recession have seen wages fall less than the UK (or even rise).  The exceptions are Germany (which hasn't been in recession and seen a very small rise in pay levels) and the Netherlands (which has seen pay fall by further than the UK, but has lower unemployment).

So even though most UK employees have seen their pay squeezed, they have generally kept their jobs.  But for Labour that isn't the right policy - they would rather another 750,000 workers sit on the dole so the UK could enjoy French levels of unemployment so that those still in work could enjoy an 0.7% pay rise.

And there's one other fact that Labour might not want to publicise from their own research - those people in the public sector enjoy substantially higher pay than those in the private sector and have seen their pay drop by half the rate of those in the private sector.  So it will be interesting to hear their justification for the substantially better terms, conditions and (particularly) pension rights public sector employees continue to enjoy, when the IFS say, "In 2009, the average public-sector worker earned about £16.60 per hour, which dropped to about £15.80 in 2011, while, hourly pay for private-sector workers in 2009 was just over £15.10 and dropped to about £13.60 in 2011."

Clegg to quit in Feb 2014?

Liberator 's blog reports that Lib Dem activists may be moving against Clegg as he "seems to have reached a stage in his leadership, where he can no longer disguise his contempt for his own party."

Clegg's speech at the conference of what's left of ALDC at the weekend certainly gave that impression.

I haven't heard anything that suggests an active campaign to oust Clegg, but I have heard from a number of sources within the party that Clegg had been planning to stand down as leader next February, with the aim of handing the baton on to Ed Davey. 

The timing is significant in that it is a few months before the Euro elections and a new leader bounce might save the skins of four or five MEPs who are facing defeat if the party continues to bump along under Clegg's leadership.  MEPs are extremely important to the party's campaigning capacity with well funded offices and the ability to engage with voters in all parts of their huge constituency regions. 

But the handover plan was apparently scuppered by the rise of Tim Farron - who now looks like the favourite to win a post Clegg leadership election.  A Farron leadership would be unlikely to enjoy such cordial relations with Cameron and the Tories and would certainly mean an end of the Clegg project. 

The fact that these rumours are re-circulating perhaps suggests the plan is back on - with the Cleggites perhaps emboldened by Farron's internal troubles over his voting record on Gay marriage meaning he is no longer such a clear favourite.

But regardless of whether any of this is true - I think we are seeing the start of the party turning its mind to what a post Clegg leadership might look like.

West begins to roll back from Kenya sanctions

Kenya goes to the polls a week on Monday and it looks like it will go down to the wire between Raila Odinga and Uhuru Kenyatta.  Kenyatta, of course, is due to defend himself sometime in April against charges of crimes against humanity at the ICC regarding post election violence in 2007. 

This has lead to the accusation that western powers won't do business with ICC indictees - which has unleashed a whole variety of diplomatic issues as well as, crucially, being seen by many Kenyans as the old colonial forces trying to tell them how to run their country.  It also goes against the principle of being assumed innocent until proven guilty.

But this morning a letter signed by 21 western ambassadors and high commissioners - including the UK, US and EU appeared in the Kenyan Daily Nation - but sadly not in their online version - to the effect that their previous discussion of what would happen if Kenyatta were to win was wrong.

Danish Ambassador, Geert Andersen, wrote 'The choice of Kenya's leaders in the election is up to the Kenyan people alone. We do not endorse any candidate over another.'

Today's opinion polls show the race to be a statistical deadheat,  Back in January Odinga had a 12 point lead.

Unionist caution needed on Barosso EU entry comments

I'm sure the champagne corks are popping in the 'Better Together' HQ after European President Jose Manuel Barosso said that newly independent states would have to reapply for EU membership.

I'm sure he is right that states created by that secession from a larger entity would have to apply to join the EU.  But that's not the case if Scotland votes for independence.

The United Kingdom is the entity that has EU membership and it was created by the Act of Union in 1707. If Scotland votes for independence then it is surely arguable that both remaining parts - Scotland and the rump state (as it were) are new states and both either remain EU members or neither do.  Scotland is an equal part of the union - as is England - and there can be no UK without both parts.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but I can imagine the legal wrangles over this issue going on for years.  And at the end of the day they are diversion from the main debate.  And that is as much a 'heart' issue as it is one based on logic or legal argument.  So the Better Together campaign shouldn't celebrate too soon - they need to make a case for maintaining the union based on values and positive principles - which so far they have struggled to do.

Time to cut the EU budget

The news that Tory rebels and opportunistic Labour MPs have defeated the coalition by calling for a cut in the EU budget means it is time for Lib Dems to rethink their atitiude to the EU.

With austerity across Europe it seems bizarre the political elite that is calling for belt tightening in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal among others is incapable of practising what it preaches.

The line used by opponents of a budget cut (including Lib Dems) is that it will be impossible to agree budget cuts, so the best that can be hoped for is a freeze or small increase - so there is no point in trying.  And by not backing Cameron they are making it more difficult for him to negotiate.

This is pragmatism taken to a ludicrous degree which tells the people in the UK and across Europe that the man in Brussels is not one of us.  Because the EU won't refom itself or its policies such as the ludicrously overblown CAP it makes it more likely the only recourse is for people to pursuade their government that withdrawal is the only option.

So instead of ignoring this vote - the coalition should use it to strengthen their diplomacy - particularly among those governments facing tough EU backed austerity measures.  Showing the poorest in Europe that even the most priviledged Brussels bureaucrat is 'all in this together' may be the only way of keeping the EU together and curbing the rise of right wing isolatist parties like UKIP.

A journey round the SDP

Thanks to Mark Pack's posting on Lib Dem Voice I visited the so-called SDP's website.  And a jolly good read it is too.

It starts off with the statement:

"Formed in 1981 by four senior Labour party members – David Owen, Roy Jenkins , Shirley Williams and Bill Rogers. The SDP was eventually to gain the support of 28 Labour MP’s and 1 Conservative MP...
...Believing Enough Is Enough, the SDP now stand alone as a patriotic, centre Left party that supports the ordinary people of this country, is for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and supports an English Parliament to give equality to all the Nations of the UK."

The idea that a party can claim the heritage of Jenkins, Rogers and Williams and in the same breath call for UK's withdrawal from the EU is somewhat bizarre to say the least.  But it gets better.

The election section has details of the fewer than 20 candidates the party fielded at the recent local elections (a significant number who appear to be town/parish candidates).  And it has an hilarious analysis of the relative success of their three candidates - all from the same family - in Birmingham who polled a grand total of 178 votes between them. 

But the best section is the entirely unself-aware section under 'About us' where they provide 'Some pictures from the past and the present' highlighting an old newsletter including an article calling for a federal Europe and a line or so down a picture of their current banner calling for EU withdrawal.

Sadly, they have set up their website so you cannot copy any pictures from it, but it is worth a visit even if only to confirm the approriateness of their web site provider - Moonfruit.

Clegg's isolation bad for the coalition

One too often wonders if there is any strategy guiding Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem leadership. Today ought to have provided an opportunity for Clegg and the Lib Dems to show that the coalition is simply a business relationship and the two parties involved are not joined at the hip.

Backing Cameron's actions on the Friday was bad enough and appearing to say the complete opposite over the weekend - while nuanced - was always going to be presented as a flip flop. And the tabloid press were always going to jump at the chance - see today's Sun for example.

Clegg should have sat next to Cameron - laughed off the inevitable jibes that would have headed his way - and in the unlikely event he was allowed to make an intervention used the opportunity to explain why he disagreed with the PM and the Euro-loony tunes behind him. But also made it clear that disagreement was healthy and the in the nature of a coalition between two different parties. Instead he comes across as weak, two faced and out of the inner circle of decision making. Which I suppose is where the Tory press want him.

Conservative eurosceptics should be careful what they wish for

Conservative eurosceptics are arguing that any new Euro treaty that leads to a closer economic union for the Eurozone should be vetoed by the British PM if it doesn't include unspecified protection for the City of London. Or if there is no veto it should be subject to a referendum - with the clear assumption that the UK electorate would reject any treaty.

Boris Johnson, who should know better, told the Beeb, the UK should oppose any change which created a "very dominant economic government" across Europe.

"If Britain was asked to sign up to such a thing within the 27 (all the members of the EU), it would be right to veto it and if we felt unable to veto it, I certainly think that it should be put to a referendum,"

In common parlance this is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Vetoing a Eurozone bailout would be an act of extreme foolishness. The economic consequences for the UK and, yes, the City of London of a Eurozone collapse would be devastating.

With the European economies - whether they use the Euro or not - tetering on the brink those that are opposed to all things European would appear to prefer economic meltdown than to agree a sensible package of emergency measures which may help to alleviate the current crisis. Failure to agree a deal not only brings down the Eurozone it also destroys the large chunk of the UK economy that does its business with the zone.