Ouch!
The Economist sticks the boot into Republican hopeful Mitt Romney on the eve of his convention speech.
The Economist sticks the boot into Republican hopeful Mitt Romney on the eve of his convention speech.
30 August 2012
29 August 2012
Media vultures start to circle Clegg
It is clear Nick Clegg is in trouble. His poll ratings are dire and show no sign of improvement. Even the mainly loyal readership of Lib Dem Voice are split down the middle on whether he should continue as leader. And his advisers seem to be floundering about looking for anything that might turn things around. Or at least that can only be the reason for Clegg's sudden conversion to taxing the rich, having voted to do the opposite in this year's budget.
Now the Guardian's Martin Kettle has waded into the debate with a thoughtful piece which makes the case for change at the top of the party.
Now the Guardian's Martin Kettle has waded into the debate with a thoughtful piece which makes the case for change at the top of the party.
27 August 2012
Reshuffle speculation
Given all the speculation about a cabinet reshuffle I thought it's time to re-enter the debate. Here's a reminder of my suggestions from January last year...
Cabinet reshuffle.
Cabinet reshuffle.
26 August 2012
Donald Gorrie
Donald Gorrie was a giant of Edinburgh politics. He was first elected to the corporation in the early 70's - and had been on the scene ever since - in various roles. This Beeb piece while boringly accurate doesn't do him justice.
There are a huge number of things to say about Donald Gorrie - and lots of them will come out over the next few days and weeks.
But let's be clear Donald was absolutely clear the Scottish Lib Dems made a strategic mistake in refusing to deal with Alex Salmond in 2007 (and before). And events since then have proved him right...
There are a huge number of things to say about Donald Gorrie - and lots of them will come out over the next few days and weeks.
But let's be clear Donald was absolutely clear the Scottish Lib Dems made a strategic mistake in refusing to deal with Alex Salmond in 2007 (and before). And events since then have proved him right...
24 August 2012
Friday favourite 73
Stumbled across this on YouTube a few days ago - David Frost with John Betjeman (among others) from 1968 with the Stones opening the show. Sadly parts 2 and 3 don't appear to be available. But enjoy anyway.
23 August 2012
ComRes poll exposes Clegg's strategy
In all the discussion over the future (or lack thererof) of Nick Clegg in this week's Lib Dem Voice poll, one bit of opinion research has been somewhat glossed over.
Earlier this week ComRes published the results of a poll which asked:
'Do you agree or disagree that being in coalition with the Conservatives has shown the Liberal Democrats to be a credible party of government?'
This is in essence the strategy oft annunciated by Clegg and devised by his former adviser Richard Reeves. Their argument is that years of opposition has meant that the voting public simply see the party as a repository of protest votes and a period in government is a the key to breaking the glass ceiling of around 25% support that the party has struggled to overcome. The strategy is somewhat silent on what the party should do in its time in government - simply being in government is supposed to do the trick.
Well the voting public have sent Messers Clegg and Reeves a rather big rasberry. ComRes found that just 18% of the voting public agreed that the Lib Dems are a credible party of government with 61% disagreeing. Among those who voted Lib Dem in 2010, 33% agreed and 49% disagreed.
Being in government was never going to be enough - it's what the party does there that is vital. The party needs a coherent message about what it is doing in government and why people should vote for more of it in 2015. If it can't do that it will deservedly lose next time round.
But the problem is when your so called strategist confuses means (being in government) with ends (what you do) it is impossible to answer the question. Let's hope whoever replaces the hapless Mr Reeves does actually understand political strategy - but given the party's predisposition to employing policy wonks I fear it will simply carry on being in government until an ungrateful electorate throws it out in 2015.
Earlier this week ComRes published the results of a poll which asked:
'Do you agree or disagree that being in coalition with the Conservatives has shown the Liberal Democrats to be a credible party of government?'
This is in essence the strategy oft annunciated by Clegg and devised by his former adviser Richard Reeves. Their argument is that years of opposition has meant that the voting public simply see the party as a repository of protest votes and a period in government is a the key to breaking the glass ceiling of around 25% support that the party has struggled to overcome. The strategy is somewhat silent on what the party should do in its time in government - simply being in government is supposed to do the trick.
Well the voting public have sent Messers Clegg and Reeves a rather big rasberry. ComRes found that just 18% of the voting public agreed that the Lib Dems are a credible party of government with 61% disagreeing. Among those who voted Lib Dem in 2010, 33% agreed and 49% disagreed.
Being in government was never going to be enough - it's what the party does there that is vital. The party needs a coherent message about what it is doing in government and why people should vote for more of it in 2015. If it can't do that it will deservedly lose next time round.
But the problem is when your so called strategist confuses means (being in government) with ends (what you do) it is impossible to answer the question. Let's hope whoever replaces the hapless Mr Reeves does actually understand political strategy - but given the party's predisposition to employing policy wonks I fear it will simply carry on being in government until an ungrateful electorate throws it out in 2015.
18 August 2012
Friday favourite 72
Well with the imprisonment by the new Communist regime in Moscow of three members of a pretty poor punk combo, there is only one possible choice. What is most abhorrent about the case is the Russian state's use of psychiatry to justify their actions - just like the old Socialists. The act of protest is not a sign of mental illness and was comprehensively debunked in the 60s and 70s. I'm not sure even the Chinese use it as an excuse in their repression these days...
17 August 2012
Telegraph reveals Gove's playing field sales cover up
The breaking news this evening is that the Department for Education has failed to reveal the full extent of the school playing fields sold off under the coalition. Well that's what the Telegraph reports anyway.
In a rebuttal widely re-posted on the web including by the esteemed Mark Pack DfE figures were quoted showing that just 21 playing fields had been approved for sale by Michael Gove. Now it appears that 30 have been approved of which four involved Gove going against the advice of the gloriously named QUANGO the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel.
It seems to me that fundamentally nothing really has changed between theses two sets of figures - other than the credibility of another mega Whitehall department is further reduced.
To me the bigger point is why on earth is a Whitehall department taking these sort of decisions? Why do we need a QUANGO to advise ministers on this issue? And why are taxpayers footing the bill for this central bureaucracy?
Surely whether a school sells off its playing field is a decision for the school, the community most effected and the local council who have to deal with the planning implications?
The best thing Michael Gove could do is to return this sort of decision to local communities, sack his advisers and abolish the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel. But I suspect he'll be dragged out to make some half hearted apology and take on even more power to 'make sure it doesn't happen again'.
In a rebuttal widely re-posted on the web including by the esteemed Mark Pack DfE figures were quoted showing that just 21 playing fields had been approved for sale by Michael Gove. Now it appears that 30 have been approved of which four involved Gove going against the advice of the gloriously named QUANGO the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel.
It seems to me that fundamentally nothing really has changed between theses two sets of figures - other than the credibility of another mega Whitehall department is further reduced.
To me the bigger point is why on earth is a Whitehall department taking these sort of decisions? Why do we need a QUANGO to advise ministers on this issue? And why are taxpayers footing the bill for this central bureaucracy?
Surely whether a school sells off its playing field is a decision for the school, the community most effected and the local council who have to deal with the planning implications?
The best thing Michael Gove could do is to return this sort of decision to local communities, sack his advisers and abolish the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel. But I suspect he'll be dragged out to make some half hearted apology and take on even more power to 'make sure it doesn't happen again'.
16 August 2012
Is this the long promised Scots Tory breakaway?
Ever since Ruth Davidson defeated Murdo Fraser for the leadership of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party rumours have circulated that elements (possibly including Fraser) were thinking of setting up a party free of London control.
Cameron's candidate, Davidson, defeated Fraser for the leadership last November in a campaign that saw Fraser and his supporters call for the abolition of the existing party and the creation of a new Scottish centre right party.
So the emergence of a party called the 'Scottish Progressives' with a rather slick website is an interesting development.
The Progressives in Scotland have a long history (at least in municipal politics) and had dozens of councillors in Scotland's main cities as late as the 1970s. This latest incarnation claims to be a continuation of that tradition - but its policy positions appear more 1980s student union.
It will be interesting to see whether the Scottish Progressives attract any of the Fraserites or if they are just another right wing faction - albeit with a nice website...
Cameron's candidate, Davidson, defeated Fraser for the leadership last November in a campaign that saw Fraser and his supporters call for the abolition of the existing party and the creation of a new Scottish centre right party.
So the emergence of a party called the 'Scottish Progressives' with a rather slick website is an interesting development.
The Progressives in Scotland have a long history (at least in municipal politics) and had dozens of councillors in Scotland's main cities as late as the 1970s. This latest incarnation claims to be a continuation of that tradition - but its policy positions appear more 1980s student union.
It will be interesting to see whether the Scottish Progressives attract any of the Fraserites or if they are just another right wing faction - albeit with a nice website...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)