A quiet triumph for the Coalition...

Labour told us nobody wanted it - not the parents, the pupils or the teachers. They told us the Unions would not wear it. They told us it would destroy our state education system.

Today, Michael Gove announced that more than 1000 secondary schools have applied to become academies - 240 in the last month alone. 647 have been approved. 384 have already converted. In the few short months since the Coalition's legislation was passed through the commons, a third of all secondary schools are either now academies, or in the process of becoming an academy. Schools are becoming academies at a rate of two every school day.

It seems that the education system has voted emphatically for the new reforms. What a triumph for Michael Gove and the Coalition government.

When Labour learns to love Tony Blair they will return to power...

First Polly Toynbee, now Jackie Ashley. Its turning out to be a bumper week for the political reality that is slowly dawning on the Labour party.

Tony Blair once said that the New Labour project would only be complete when the Labour Party learned to love Peter Mandelson. Naturally he assumed that after delivering three consecutive and hugely popular election victories, his own position would be unassailable. He also did not recognise the stupidity of the left.

Labour's problem is Tony Blair. The only Labour politician of our lifetime to have inspired a generation with his political vision and aspiration.

When Labour learn to love him, they will return to power.

The humiliation of the Yes campaign...

Really good analysis of the Yes2AV campaign from Liberal Vision. Well worth reading..

The LibDems are being crucified by the left, Mr Cable, not the right...

As Vince Cable condemns the Tory attacks on Nick Clegg, he should be asking himself who exactly are his real enemies. In a perceptive blog, James Graham notes

A lot of Labour politicians are hellbent on a strategy that is about destroying the LibDems, even if it means effectively letting Cameron off the hook. There's no getting away from the fact that the LibDems are now seriously weakened, but what has that gained Labour? Look at Scotland. Labour let the Tories win the popular vote in England, which is an absolutely extraordinary failure.

You only have to read Polly Toynbee - doyen of the left and herself a former SDP member - to understand where such vitriol is coming from:And this is a view increasingly found across the left of British politics. The LibDems should never want power. Their job is to be a Labour party mark two - a chill out room for the main Labour event. A pale shadow of top-down, centralised, sclerotic socialism - but without the war in Iraq.

How badly they misunderstood the nature of their swelling support: they were a safe haven for voters not wanting tough choices, nice people with apolitical instincts, trusting Clegg's promised "new politics" would keep their votes clean from contamination. Had the Lib Dems stood apart and stood their ground, loudly opposing Tory plans, objecting to the savagery of the budget without quite bringing down the government, they might have kept their virginity.

In a well argued piece for Saturday's Guardian called The left is practically defined by people who hate Nick Clegg, Andrew Brown points out that on student fees - a cause seen by the left as the the LibDems greatest betrayal despite having been originally introduced by Labour against a manifesto committment 

the outcry against them comes from people who see themselves losing a privilege they had considered as a right. There's a word for that, and it's not "liberal"

He continues,

hatred of Clegg is concentrated on the fact that he betrayed some of the policies he ran on; but he did so because the country voted against them. That's democracy. Sometimes the majority is wrong. Sometimes it disagrees with you. But the majority still gets to decide, as the Lib Dems, in coalition, have discovered. There's no reason whatever that a party with 23% of the votes should get 100% of its programme through. The people who think it should are not being democratic.

As Olly Grender wrote in a piece entitled Don't Vote Against AV because you hate Nick Clegg, a week before the referendum 

both David Cameron and Nick Clegg will still be in the same jobs next week. A vote for or against AV won’t change that

It was published in the New Statesman and aimed squarely at the left - not the right.

The unpalatable truth, Mr Cable, is that the LibDems are being destroyed by the left. Just as Islam reserves the ultimate punishment for apostacy, the LibDems are being crucified by the left. Not the right.

Cable on Conservatives...

Ruthless, calculating and very tribal is how Vince Cable describes the Conservative party in an interview for Radio 4 this morning which immediately makes headline news for all the wrong reasons. If instead he had described the party as soft, woolly and disorganised, what do you imagine the reaction would have been? You just can't win...

The power of Primaries...

Among the more questionable arguments used by the Yes2AV campaign was that the system would make MP's work harder - having to appeal to an electorate beyond their core supporters. They would also have us believe that AV does away with MP's whose majorities are of such a size that they have a job for life. AV of course, does neither of these things. But although the arguments may be false, the intention to achieve both these outcomes would enhance our democratic system beyond recognition.

With The AV voting system now passed into history and with it any opportunity for major electoral reform anytime soon, the Coalition should be looking very carefully at open Primaries being held in each constituency at the mid-term point. Primaries are an election in which party members or voters select candidates for a subsequent election. These would have the effect of legitimising MP's with their local electorates, whilst ensuring that new candidates are able to put themselves forward through the open nature of such events. I am told that if primaries are tagged onto the back of other local votes - local authority, mayoral or even parish councils - the cost to each constituency of a postal vote is around £24,000 - around £15 million pounds across 650 constituencies nationally. A small cost to ensure MP's are popular, accountable and directly mandated by their electorate.

Hammering the LibDems

We believed, perhaps a little over-optimistically that the British people would understand the difference between compromise and betrayal says Paddy Ashdown after a night of fierce defeat for the LibDems in local elections up and down the country. We have yet to see any referendum results, but the omens do not look good. The party's eighty-year dream of electoral reform looks like remaining excatly that.

And the Conservative party that so meticulously negotiated, designed and forged that same national Coalition? Not a scratch. It seems that somewhere between goose and gander, equality has disappeared. Indeed the electorate have completely lost the plot.

The Coalition agreement generously awarded fully 70% of the LibDem's election manifesto and an estimated 60% of the Tory one. Not only were 59 LibDem MP's openly welcomed into every department of state as fully integrated Coalition partners - whilst many of the 312 Conservative MP's had to put ministerial careers on hold - a 'quad', comprising both Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, was set up to scrutinise all legislation before the Coalition made any policy committments. This, as with so many other inclusive and fully collegiate measures directly reflected the way this Liberal Conservative Coaltion was to be conducted. As well as destroying Labour's 'thick of it' macho political culture, the LibDems are given respect. Their views are valued. Their policies given far more weight than their numbers would suggest.

So when the junior, seemingly more progressive partner, is destroyed by the electorate whilst the major partner actually gains councillors, you have to ask why.        To be continued...

Miliband fails to deliver...

There was a sense that the royal wedding was a Tory Party broadcast in fancy dress and the first act in what may yet be a new Conservative century writes Mary Riddell finally beginning to realise how much of a mistake was the election of nice Mr Miliband.

Labour's #Yes2AV leader campaigned with LibDems's Huhne & Cable for a 'progressive majority' in favour of AV - with the latter two making all the running. Funny that, because implicit in the referendum is the need for each party leader to galvanise and deliver their party on the right side of the argument.

Both Clegg and Cameron have done exactly that, each enthusiastically arguing their case and commanding the overwhelming support of their party both for and against respectively. So the need for Miliband to deliver his 40% of the electorate and decide the outcome was paramount.

If the #No2AV campaign wins on Thursday, it certainly won't be Clegg's fault.

Good Teachers are born not made...

Mr Gove has said that he will encourage those who retire from the Armed Forces to try their hand in the classroom. Writes Alice Thomson in today's Times. Good teachers are born, not made.

He should throw open the school doors to managers, professionals, sportsmen and parents who want to give it a go. they should be given a trial in the classroom, observing teachers and being observed.

Those who thrive can then receive more formal training and proper renumeration for their talents. Those that flounder can leave before they have committed themselves to an unsuitable vocation.

Good teachers should back a plan that could turn them into an awe-inspiring profession and it would give children a better chance to succeed - whatever type of school they attend.

Q1 GDP figures...

Tomorrow's Q1 GDP figures don't come much bigger.

City consensus is between 0.2% and 0.8% - with the OBR on the upper limit - whilst the left are building the figure up for a fall...

AV is too important for Labour...

Peter Mandelson appeals to Labour supporters in today's Independent to vote Yes in next week's AV referendum. And his reason to do so? To damage the Tories and undermine Mr Cameron's position. This, apparently, is the best reason we have to vote in a once in a generation referendum on our voting system.

Is it any wonder all the major issues of the day are being decided without the involvement of Labour... 

Parris on LibDems...

If (the LibDems) had joined Labour in a Lib-Lab Coalition, they'd now be having the mirror-image row with supporters who objected to propping up Labour. There's a reason for this tiresome symmetry. If you run a party that strives to attract disaffected supporters from Left and Right, you're forced to leave you're overall compass blurred. In opposition, this will maximise your vote; in government it will maximise the sense of betrayal felt by your supporters and MPs writes Matthew Parris in today's Times.

Yes to AV is talking to itself...

This analysis from David Herdson at Political Betting.com really rings true...

Allison Pearson on aspiration

As Mrs Merton might inquire with a steely smile: “What do you think persuaded Oxford University to relax its entry requirements for the son of Professor Ralph Miliband?” asks Allison Pearson in today's Telegraph. In one of the most brilliantly written pieces I have read on aspiration, she understands exactly what is at stake.

Labour's promises to the next generation

My Labour party... enables people right across the country to get on and do better... which crucially improves the chances of the next generation says Ed Miliband in an interview with Evan Davis on Radio 4's Today program. He continues ...only 9 per cent of people in this country actually think the next generation will do better than the last.

What Ed Miliband needs to explain is why Labour spent 13 years building a vast array of public sector projects - hospitals, schools, roads and railways - on PFI? Labour calculated that those staggering sums - £155bn at the last count - could be repaid by the next generation. Long after Gordon Brown and his cronies have retired with gold-plated pensions to the House of Lords.

How exactly does burdening our children's generation with the bills of this one, promote improving the chances of the next generation?

Jeff Randall on 2011 Budget

Between 2000 and 2010, there was a 53 per cent rise in real-terms government expenditure, but GDP went up by only 17 per cent. Jeff Randall clearly explains Labour's deficit overspend in terms that Greek, Irish and Portguese voters will understand.

Ed Miliband preaches the virtues of the "British promise", an unwritten pledge that "each generation will pass to the next a life of greater opportunity, prosperity and wellbeing". Explain to me how this can be achieved if we allow tomorrow's debts to soar so that today's benefits can be funded on tick. There is only one answer - denial.

Budget 2011

So who's being hit in today's budget to finance cuts in fuel duty, 50,000 more apprenticeships and pro-growth business reforms? The bankers through increases to the bank levy, long-term non-doms who'll be paying £50,000 instead of thirty thousand, north sea oil companies sitting on massive profits as a result of huge rises in crude prices and lastly people who are avoiding paying tax. Same old Tories eh?

Blue Labour

People have to take responsibility for their lives but they can't be responsible without having more power says Maurice Glasman in an interesting Analysis program for Radio 4 on Blue Labour. This is the lunacy of the Thatcher and Labour years - we'll do everything for you, you're not going to have any assets, you're not going to have any power at work, you're not going to earn enough to feed your family, but you've got to be a responsible, patriotic citizen. He continues, so what we want is a redistribution of power to people where they live and where they work - and that requires statecraft, it requires the state standing back and trusting people to sort out their problems together.

Sounds like Big Society to me. But in an extraordinary passage he adds I want to return to the Tudor state model where there's a conception of social order, a balance of interests, where there's statecraft, where there's robust, autonomous institutions that defend the good.

Labour's blank sheet of paper

I can make no commitment to do anything differently says Ed Miliband  at a press conference designed to launch new economic policy initiatives yesterday. Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls went further Ed Miliband and I are clear on this; no commitments to reverse these changes, they would be irresponsible.

So, hold on. With all these cuts, all this noise, all these headlines, all these policy launches, Labour can make no commitment to do anything differently writes Matthew Hancock. Why, then, should we listen to a word that any Labour frontbencher says? After all, they can make no commitment to do anything differently.


The Government meanwhile, is embarked on radical reform. Things may appear difficult right now, as each vested interest makes their voice heard. But the Coalition are dealing with a huge number of long-standing problems in the national interest - a record deficit, reforming welfare, education, health, pensions, the police, supporting enterprise, and taking millions out of income tax. These reforms are not easy. The benefits will be felt over time. But the contrast is stark between the empty opposition of Labour, and the Government taking on the difficult challenges we face.
 

Alice Miles on NHS reforms - Go to Cumbria

Rejected by the BMA, the Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of Surgeons, physiotherapists, unions, health charities such as DiabetesUK and the British Heart Foundation, not to mention Shirley Williams and the patients themselves writes Alice Thomson in today's Times(£) about the Coalition's proposed NHS reforms. A pretty convincing 'no' you might think. Not quite. Go to Cumbria she urges.

Mr Lansley has been unable to express his plans clearly but in Cumbria they are already working. GPs have control of budgets, they have virtually abolished primary care trusts and, crucially, patients receive better service.

The reforms in Cumbria came about because of a huge funding crisis several years ago when the local primary care trust ended up £37 million in the red. It planned to close all nine of Cumbria's community hospitals to make up the deficit. But then a woman named Sue Page was appointed as Chief Executive and she decided on a new approach - allowing doctors to get involved in decision-making so that they could keep patients out of the two main hospitals and save money.

Putting GPs in charge of a patient's progress allowed more treatment at home and less in expensive hospital beds. Slowly GPs took charge of the local hospitals and finances and by next month they will manage 97 per cent of the £800 million primary care budget. Since they took over there hasn't been one case of drug-resistant clostridium difficile in the nine community hospitals and the average stay has dropped from 36 days to 10.

One GP, Peter Weaving, says: "Its gold standard service on your doorstep, cheaper and better." He is convinced that when his colleagues see the benefits, they will understand the changes.

The first really convincing piece I have read about the Coalition's NHS reforms.

Online delusion?

Do we exhibit distinct 'e-personalities' when online? Research from Stanford University's Elias Aboujaoude suggests we behave like drunks. And not the fun kind, but boastful, bullying and self-pitying drunks. "We binge-shop on Amazon and eBay because it's so easy, we routinely lie about ourselves on Facebook and Myspace and get into nasty fights in chatrooms, where the insult is the default volume because we are anonymous". Interesting piece in The Sunday Times News Review section (which I can't link-to because its an ipad app). Sounds familiar to me.

Prejudice and the ECJ

Do we really want decisions on what our laws should be to be taken by officials who cannot distinguish discrimination from prejudice, or actuaries from Nazis? asks Alastair Palmer in today's Sunday Telegraph. He is talking of course about this weeks ruling by the European Court of Justice that insurers are not entitled to take into account the differences between men and women when charging for policies because it 'discriminates' against one group.

The judges made an elementary mistake about the meaning of the word “discrimination”, confusing the unacceptable practice of manifesting prejudice against groups of people with the perfectly legitimate process of drawing distinctions between them on the basis of well‑attested evidence.

No sane person thinks that by charging them more to insure their cars, companies are treating young men in the way Germany treated the Jews in the Thirties. Faultless logic, perfectly argued.

Charles Moore interviews Mervyn King

If the banks face no risk we shall all go down writes Charles Moore in an excellent piece for today's Telegraph. On the financial crisis, he says that greed and foolishness were rewarded and prudence was punished likening the banks to the powerful but malign vested interests of the 1970's - nationalised industries like British Leyland, the Coal Board and unreformed trade unions: their power lies not in the good they can do, but in the havoc they could wreak pointing out, in Mervyn King's perceptive quote, that the banks are global in life, but national in death. He concludes, I'm glad someone (Mervyn King) is speaking up against a world where morality has simply turned upside down. Well worth reading.

This is not the end of history

As domino's fall across the Middle East depriving the local bully-boys of their Ba'thist power bases, the BBC talks of 1989 and the velvety-end of communist Eastern Europe emerging chrysalis-like into the sunlit uplands of democratic freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What the Ba'thists celebrated as Arab nationalism, long ago turned into brutal autocratic dictatorship - led by Iraq where the silent witnesses to Saddam's despicable regime are still being discovered in mass graves in the Mesopotamian desert - often without a tongue. Police states run through fear and repression, from Iran in the East to Morocco in the west; Egypt in the north to Yemen in the south. A deep wound on the face of democratic freedom and progression, they are the reason I gave my consent to the invasion of Iraq. I did not do so lightly, nor will again without exacting a much greater level of circumspection.

I note that each domino knows just what they don't want - the current autocrat and their nasty little siblings - but none can articulate exactly what they do want. Tunisia has already reverted to the status quo ante - minus the figurehead who has already fled with the country's wealth. Egypt reverts to rule by an army council - difficult to see how septuagenarian defenders of the former regime are the likely candidates for democratic reform.

What is really needed is a precursor to democracy, a change in culture that allows democracy to seed, grow and flourish. One that presages the end of history - a free press that speaks the truth, an independent judiciary able to stand up to the ruling elite and an end to the corruption that so destroys people's hopes. Only then can we again consent for something so precious as democratic freedom. This is not the end of history and these are not the last men.

Matching Labour's spending plans

Plenty of tribal abuse for George Osborne in yesterday's Guardian from his article called Labour's reality deficit. One argument often used against him on economic policy was that the Conservatives pledged to match Labour's spending plans up until 2008 - the implication being that the Tories were just as complicit in the economic meltdown as Labour. 

But if you look back to Michael Howard's election campaign of 2005, the Conservatives were quite explicit about cutting public spending, albeit by a paltry £2 billion at that time - although Howard Flight and Oliver Letwin appeared to have other ideas. He also committed the party to formally managing immigration in an attempt to engender integration after the years of open-door immigration as well as addressing the widening democratic deficit so apparent across the EU and its institutions. Precisely the issues that have become most problematic for Labour.

And the result? A massive outcry from the left that the 'same old tories' were intent on dismantling the state for ideological reasons (sound familiar?) or are 'institutionally racist' to talk about immigration (remember Gordon Brown's 'bigot-gate' moment?) or are just a bunch of swivel-eyed xenophobic bigots, obsessed by Europe. Although it seems the first unintended consequence of the Lisbon treaty is now going to cost British women around £35bn in additional motor insurance.

Michael Howard lost the election and the easiest way to neutralise the issue was then to accept Labour's spending plans - just as Gordon Brown had accepted Conservative spending plans going into the 1997 election before embarking on a spending spree that our children will still be paying for - through off-balance sheet PFI costs - in thirty years time. What will be interesting to see, is what Labour commits itself to in the next parliament for reducing the other half of that record deficit it racked up whilst in office. It seems that Labour did indeed find a very successful way of binding the hands of its successors.