So much for predictions

POLITICS is always likely to throw up some surprises, however, the twists and turns of the General Election would have confused the writers of Broadchurch.

For months the polls showed the same picture, well the ones which were published that is. The election was supposed to be too close to call. The Conservatives and Labour were running neck and neck, the Liberal Democrats would take a mauling, but only just enough to teach them a lesson, the United Kingdom Independence Party would become a key player and the Scottish National Party would rise from the ashes of the referendum to be a greater threat to the union than ever. Something was meant to happen with the Green Party but to be honest no-one was really paying that much attention.

The plan was set. The Tories would be forced to enter a second coalition with the Lib Dems, who having suffered at the hands of the electorate and able to manipulate the threat of an SNP/Labour opposition would be firmer and stand by their principles. It was meant to be a coalition which would see the growing far right of the Conservative party mitigated by the left of the Libs. Nick Clegg would step down and Vince Cable or Danny Alexander would step to the fore.

Of course there was a risk of a Labour/SNP coalition but it was unlikely, particularly after the categorical statements of Ed Milliband. Clearly the main threat was just fear mongering on the part of the Conservatives in what turned out to be an incredibly divisive move who has put the Union at greater risk than the SNP ever could have.

Of course Labour and Conservatives both claimed that they would win a majority but no-one really took them seriously, queue much eye rolling from Dimbleby, Robinson, Marr et al whenever they said it. 

Well that was the plan. There was however one slight flaw, no-one followed it. From the minute Big Ben struck 10 it was obvious something had gone drastically wrong, possibly not entirely obvious to former Lib Dem Leaders Paddy Ashdown comment that he would eat his hat if his party lost 47 seats, as it was they lost 49. Political commentators who had been gearing themselves up for days, possibly weeks, of coalition negotiations now faced the prospect that the Conservatives may do far better than expected, and that the Lib Dems and Labour would do far far worse. As the night wore on and it became clear that there would be a Tory majority government without the restraint of the Liberals people started to realise what a hideous mistake they had made. 

By the morning people woke up to a new, far righter wing, Britain. Big names had fallen, Cable, Balls and many more had been thrown unceremoniously out on their ears. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and Labour chief Ed Milliband both stood down in the wake of the results, as did technically UKIP leader Nigel Farage only to spring back a few days later into the role. The Scottish National Party had swept Labour from Scotland to become the official third party. 

Simply put the political map of Britain changed and not necessarily for the better. It wasn't all bad though. The turn out was far higher than expected which just goes to show that the one safe bet I made on the election was just as wrong as every other prediction.    

Terror laws create division

DESPITE only returning from summer recess on Monday the British coalition government is already mired in controversy and disputes with proposed anti-terror laws.

Prime Minister David Cameron has come into conflict with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and civil liberties groups over plans to tackle extremist elements in the UK.

The proposals come in the wake of revelations that approximately 500 Britons have travelled to Syria to join with the fundamentalist Islamic State organisation. 

Speaking to MP's on Monday Mr Cameron set out his commitment to the new laws: "It is abhorrent that people who declare their allegiance elsewhere can return to the United Kingdom and pose a threat to our national security.

"We are clear in principle that what we need is a targeted, discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the UK."

Civil liberties groups and MP's have expressed reservations over the issue amid fears that the far reaching policies could be used to curtail human rights.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve warned that some of the concepts in the proposed legislation would be a "mistake".

"I do share concerns that have been expressed that the suggestion British nationals, however horribly they may be alleged to have behaved, should be prevented from returning to this country. Not only does it offend principles of international law, it would actually offend basic principles of our own common law as well," he said.

Among critics from within the Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition is Sir Menzies Campbell who told BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "I think it's rather difficult and it might well constitute illegality. To render citizens stateless is regarded as illegal in international law.

"To render them stateless temporarily, which seems to me the purpose of what's being proposed, can also I think be described as illegal.

"At the very least it's the kind of question that will be tested here in our own courts and perhaps also in the European Court of Human Rights."

The row has reinvigorated the debate over freedoms within the UK which were addressed last year following the detention of journalist David Miranda. At the time the National Union of Journalists released a statement warning of the impact upon the freedom of the press and democracy.

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary, said:

"The shocking detention of David Miranda for the crime of being the partner of a respected investigative journalist points to the growing abuse of so-called anti-terror laws in the UK...

"This is not an isolated problem. The NUJ believes that journalists are coming under more scrutiny and surveillance, being stopped at borders and their work interfered with, simply for doing their job."

If passed Mr Cameron's plans to protect Britain against suspected terrorists could undermine the very values which he hopes to defend. For those travelling to conflict zones, whether for charitable or journalistic purposes, this could be inherently concerning. 

To combat extremism Mr Cameron needs to realise that by creating yet more feelings of isolation and separation within communities he is only magnifying the problem.

UKIP creating two party system

RATHER than establishing itself as a fourth political party recent figures on donations have highlighted how the United Kingdom Independence Party is creating a two party system.

In reports this week UKIP drew £170,000 more in donations than the Liberal Democrats during the April to June financial quarter.

While party representatives have hailed the figure as proof that they are being taken seriously the disparity between UKIP and the two leading parties is more likely to represent and shift away from the three, or four party, system towards and two party one controlled by the Conservatives and Labour.

A UKIP spokesman said it was "a sign that electorally and financially we are now superseding the Liberal Democrats".

Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader who is due to stand as an MP in South Thanet, said: "We have got a long way to go in terms of our fundraising but we are getting there. To overhaul the Lib Dems for the first time is another symptom of a very real change that is taking place in British politics."

The change Mr Farage has spoken of may not be the one which he hopes for though.

Compared to his party's £1.4 million Labour garnered £3.7 million in political donations while the Tories received £7.1 million.

The Liberal Democrats have dismissed the figures as unreliable. Party executives have claimed that £241,000 of the Eurosceptic party's donations should have been declared in the previous quarter, while a further £1million was from one donor. Businessman Paul Sykes made the donation stating that he was keen to support UKIP's bid for seats in May's European elections.

The release of the figures has led to a battle between the Conservatives and Labour, as each uses the donations to undermine their opponents.

Highlighting the amount received from Trade Unions since Ed Milliband became Labour leader  Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps said: "We all know what payback they want from weak Ed Miliband: more wasteful spending, more taxes, and more debt than our children could ever hope to repay."

The figures will be an embarrassment to Mr Milliband as he continues to attempt to distance himself from claims that the party is in the pocket of the unions.

Meanwhile Labour Shadow cabinet office minister Jonathan Ashworth MP criticised the amount which the Conservatives have received from donors who have attended private dinners with Prime Minister David Cameron and other senior government figures.

"When millions are flowing in from hedge funds and exclusive groups of donors, is it any wonder David Cameron stands up for the privileged few?"

For now however if either UKIP or the Liberal Democrats want to be able to launch an effective campaign next year they have a long way to go. Based on the money it looks as though the Conservatives and Labour will be able to maintain their hold on the British political establishment for some time to come.

Strong arming Europe risks British interests

BRITISH Prime Minister has signalled that he is prepared to take on Europe once more as parliament debates limiting the powers of the European Court of Human Rights.

Following his humiliating defeat over the election of Jean Claude Juncker as the head of the European Commission Mr Cameron has seemed determined to demonstrate his strength in defending British rights in the bloc.

The bill, which Mr Cameron claims would 'reassert British sovereignty' could become his most contentious battle to date. Having loaded his cabinet with eurosceptics this week it seems as though it is a battle which he has no intention of backing down from.

If successful it could lead to Britain's expulsion from the Council of Europe, something which opponents of the bill could precipitate a forced withdrawal from the European Union.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieves, who was replaced as part of Mr Cameron's reshuffle earlier this week, has voiced his concerns of the move, reported by the BBC as saying it could be a "legal car crash with a built-in time delay."

The proposal comes shortly after Mr Cameron helped push through emergency legislation to circumvent a European Court of Justice ruling on the holding of personal data. The speed with which the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill has been rushed through parliament has worried some peers in the House of Lords.

Labour peer Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, a QC and civil liberties campaigner, was reported as saying: "It is a serious abuse of Parliament, and the use of emergency procedures to enact laws that are controversial and have significant impact on individual rights is happening too often."

Meanwhile Mr Cameron's campaign to have newly appointed EU commissioner Lord Hill allocated one of the top spots as discussions on candidates stalled yesterday.

For Mr Cameron taking a strong stance on Europe is key to his election strategy for May 2015. In the wake of losses to the anti-Europe United Kingdom Independence Party in elections earlier this year he is in a desperate race to regain ground. With so much still to be debated in Europe he may find that by rushing legislation through he misses the long term effects on British interests. 

Clean sweep for Cameron

David Cameron's highly anticipated cabinet reshuffle is starting to looking more like a clearing of the old guard than a change for the better. 

Just as Tony Blair tried to reinvent his party into New Labour Mr Cameron's changes are being seen by some analysts as a clean sweep to try and change the party and recoup ground after recent humiliating losses to UKIP and over Europe.

The two most notable scalps to step down are Ken Clark and William Hague.

Known eurosceptic Phillip Hammond is expected to leave his post as defence secretary, leaving space for Ian Duncan Smith to move out of the Department for Work and Pensions, where he has had a controversial time as the minister.

Despite reflecting a rise in Eurosceptic ministers the real focus of the reshuffle is the increase in the number of female members of the cabinet. It seems unlikely that Mr Cameron will meet his 2010 election pledge of having a third of his cabinet as women, however, this could represent the greatest move to equality in government for some time.

Explaining his decision to step down as foreign secretary Mr Hague said: "By the time of the general election next year, I will have served 26 years in the House of Commons and it will be 20 years since I first joined the cabinet. In government there is a balance to strike between experience on the one hand and the need for renewal on the other, and I informed the prime minister last summer that I would not be a candidate at the next general election.

"Accordingly I am stepping aside as foreign secretary, in order to focus all my efforts on supporting the government in parliament and gaining a Conservative victory in the general election – after four years in which we have transformed Britain's links with emerging economies, significantly expanded our diplomatic network and the promotion of British exports, restored the Foreign Office as a strong institution, and set a course to a reformed European Union and a referendum on our membership of it."

Ahead of official announcements analysts have predicted that  Esther McVey, the employment minister and former breakfast television presenter, Liz Truss, the childcare minister, Nicky Morgan, the women's minister, Amber Rudd, the whip, Anna Soubry, the defence minister, Priti Patel and Margot James, members of the No 10 policy board will all be given key places on Mr Cameron's cabinet.

Mr Cameron is known to have avoided too many significant reshuffles during the government's time in power, preferring instead to promote an idea of stability in his leadership. The change in so many key figures ahead of the general election next year has created some concern among political observers though.

Commenting on a report published today Emma Norris, from the Institute for Government think tank warned that the reshuffle was "ill advised" with so many big policy announcements due before May.

"Any new minister has a big learning curve to climb – and if moved into post in July 2014, not long to climb it. The prime minister needs to balance the desire to refresh with the need to hang on to those who are at the forefront of overseeing his key reforms," she said.

"With the long-awaited reshuffle imminent, there are likely to be several changes among junior ministers. While this may or may not make for good party management, it threatens to disrupt policy implementation at the point when stability and focus are needed most."

Mr Cameron's new cabinet may play well with female voters, concerned about the lack of representation in government, and the increasing number eurosceptics. The loss of so much experience with the replacement of the Tory old guard, a continuing dominance of middle aged, affluent white men and a preponderance of 'yes men' in his inner circle could mean that Mr Cameron's ostensibly cynical electioneering gambit may backfire though as he fails to govern effectively over the coming months.

 

Lies, damned lies and government statistics

THE objectivity of government figures has been called into question this week amid allegations of spin and misrepresentation.

The most recent case surrounds the removal of a post by the House of Commons Library which allegedly criticised government claims regarding a fall in waiting times at hospital accident and emergency units. According to some reports analysis by the think tank disproved assertions made by David Cameron during Prime Ministers Questions on Wednesday.

It accused the Prime Minister of using a "simplistic reading" of statistics to justify his claim that "average waiting time" in NHS hospitals had fallen from 77 minutes under Labour to just 30 minutes.

The analysis stated: "The data does not show that the average time in A&E has fallen since 2008. Rather, the typical total time in A&E has risen (for admitted patients, at least), and the typical time to treatment has remained static.

"It is welcome that the rich data on the amount of time patients spend in A&E is becoming part of the wider political debate on the NHS. But in order for it to be useful and informative, it must be discussed in a way which fully respects the data."

The post has since been taken down and replaced with a message which said: "The blog post 'Have A&E waiting times fallen?' has been removed by the House of Commons Library as it does not meet our expected standards of impartiality.

"A revised post will be uploaded as soon as possible."

Despite its removal Labour ministers have been quick to seize upon its content, describing Mr Cameron's use of the statistics as "cynical spin".

An accounting for Labour leader Ed Miliband's own use of facts and figures has also been requested this week by the Conservative MP Matt Hancock after he claimed that "independent experts say four fifths of all new private sector jobs created since 2010 are in London".

In a direct letter to Mr Miliband Mr Hancock said: "The statistic you make reference to is from an out of date Centre for Cities report which only looked at the regional labour market between 2010 and 2012.

The most recent, unadjusted ONS statistics for the last four years (Q1 2010 to Q1 2014) suggest that London has accounted for less than 1 in 4 net additional private sector jobs created (21.7%).

"I know that you would not want to inadvertently mislead the British public into believing that the employment situation is worse than it actually is.

"Indeed since you appear to have put this erroneous statistic at the heart of your new policy launch, I believe that it would be only proper for you to issue a full and public correction, and in doing so, accept that our long-term economic plan is helping to create jobs across Britain."

Earlier this week it was revealed by the BBC that 16 of the last 47 complaints issued by the United Kingdom Statistics Authority over misuse of data by the government had been sent to the Department of Work and Pensions.

It is not the first time revelations of misleading information have plagued Ian Duncan Smith's department. In March the Commons work and pensions committee also criticised the DWP for shortcomings in the handling of claims for Personal Independence Payments (PIP).

At the time Dame Anne Begg MP, the committee chair, said: "Statistics should be used to shed light on policy implementation, not to prop up established views or feed preconceptions."

Manipulation of data has always been known to occur in politics. The old adage "lies, damned lies and statistics" is well founded. With so much access to information nowadays, however, politicians may find it harder to use massaged data to demonstrate a point to an increasingly cynical electorate. 

Security is preferable to liberty for the majority

DESPITE being widely publicised and beset by criticism people just don't seem that concerned about the level of government surveillance on their lives.

While civic rights groups have condemned proposals for an increase in official monitoring of phone calls and social media figures showing people's opposition to the concept reflect a lack of interest by the majority of those polled.

Last week former Defence Secretary Liam Fox called for an increase in the level of surveillance to protect against British nationals fighting in Syria returning and causing problems in the UK.

 There are those who say if we don't get involved, if we hunker down then we will be fine. There will be no backlash. That is utterly, utterly wrong because the jihadists don't hate us because of what we do. They hate us because of who we are. We can't change that. It is our values and our history that they detest more than anything else," said Mr Fox.

"The whole area of intercept needs to be looked at. We have got a real debate, and it is a genuine debate in a democracy, between the libertarians who say the state must not get too powerful and pretty much the rest of us who say the state must protect itself.

"If required it is the first duty of the state to protect its citizens … it is a real worry and it is a problem that is going to be with us for a very long time. At heart it is an ideological battle and we have to realise that we have to win the ideological battle as well."

Civil liberties groups immediately hit back at the idea, calling for more transparency and an independent review of current legislation.

Emma Carr, acting director of Big Brother Watch, said: “It would be reckless to attempt to to legislate on further surveillance powers before a comprehensive, independent review of the existing legal framework has taken place.

“A broad political consensus has emerged in support of a review, with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Shadow Home Secretary and the Home Affairs Committee all recognising that the public should know more about how our surveillance laws are being used and whether the current oversight mechanisms are adequate.

“We know from examples in the US that there is far more information that could be published without jeopardising security. Greater transparency would build trust and improve accountability yet the data being recorded by the police and agencies is seriously inadequate. This does not require legislation and should be addressed by the Home Secretary without delay.”

Instead of backing the calls as wished by Ms Carr Home Secretary Theresa May has made it clear that she wants to see changes to the law making it easier for the government to carry out surveillance on individuals.

"I know some people like the thought that the internet should become a libertarian paradise, but that will entail complete freedom not just for law-abiding people but for terrorists and criminals," she told the attendees at the Lord Mayor's Defence and Security Lecture at Mansion House, in the City of London.

“I do not believe that is what the public wants. Loss of capability, not mass surveillance nor illegal and unaccountable behaviour, is the great danger we face.

“The real problem is not that we have built an over-mighty state, but that the state is finding it harder to fulfil its most basic duty, which is to protect the public,” she said.

With a YouGov poll carried out late last year showing a majority stating that the current level of surveillance was either just right or not enough it seems as though Mrs May could have her supporters.

The poll, released long after the revelations from former NSA analyst Edward Snowden as to the level of government intrusion into people's lives, had 42 per cent agreeing with the current balance and 22 per cent wanting more surveillance. Only 19 per cent of those polled actually said that they supported a reduction in monitoring.

With scare stories hitting the press on an increasingly regular basis those fighting for civil liberty at find out the they are in a losing battle as people opt for security.  

'No more austerity' lack purpose, not coverage

SATURDAY'S "No more austerity" has reignited debate about British politics, just not the one the protestors envisaged.

Campaigners have complained that the march against the government's spending cuts did not receive the coverage they had wanted due to a "media blackout". News organisations hit back, stating that the lack of extensive coverage was down to a lack of interest in the story.

According to the group, the People's Assembly, 50,000 people turned up to the march. The problem according to some commentators, however, is that they weren't saying anything new, or providing solutions to their grievances. Instead many were there for a day in the sun and to take advantage of the after-protest festival, rather than any substantial political action. 

Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Andy Burnham, was among those who criticised the coverage of the event. 

"By any reckoning, this was a major national protest and it seems to me that the BBC's coverage did not reflect this," said Burnham in a letter to the trust.

"Indeed, other major news channels seemed to reach a different editorial judgement, covering the story in more depth and interviewing participants."

The problem facing Mr Burnham is that without a clear message the only thing the march showed was how little people know about politics, rather than how much they cared about the campaign.

Writing on the 'People's Assembly' website comedian Russell Brand, who has an estimated net worth of $15million, said: "The People's Assembly will bring down any government that doesn't end austerity. Austerity means keeping all the money among people who have loads of it. This is the biggest problem we face today, all other problems radiate from this toxic swindle.

"We can organise a fairer, more just society than they can, these demonstrations are the start, it will be a right laugh."

Without giving a clear agenda, and by making the whole affair sound like a day out at a festival some critics have pointed out that Mr Brand removed any purpose for the British Broadcasting Corporation to cover a "non-story".

Defending the corporations editorial decision a BBC spokesperson said: "The BBC has covered the protests against government spending cuts and NHS changes that took place in Manchester, with coverage across all platforms on Sunday including the BBC News Channel, radio news, within the lead story on both the News at Six and News at Ten, and a full report on BBC News online."

On the 10th July six key unions are planning a coordinated strike involving approximately 1.5 million people. It will impact business, harm public service and transport and cause chaos across the country, all in the name of making a political point. If the 'People's Assembly' want coverage then they need to realise that this is a protest, not a festival, and actually deserves coverage. 

Tory's braced for storm over Oxfam backlash

CONSERVATIVE condemnation of Oxfam's latest advertising campaign has shown how out of touch the party is according to commentators.

The charity is currently facing investigation following a complaint by Tory backbench MP Conor Burns over the advert which depicts a 'perfect storm' of zero hour contracts, high prices, benefits cuts, unemployment and childcare costs causing poverty in Britain.

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph Mr Burns said: "Many people who support Oxfam will be shocked and saddened by this highly political campaigning in domestic British politics.

"Most of us operated under the illusion that Oxfam's focus was on the relief of poverty and famine overseas. I cannot see how using funds donated to charity to campaign politically can be in accord with Oxfam's charitable status.

"For that reason I have asked the Chairman of the Charity Commission to investigate Oxfam as a matter of urgency."

Oxfam Campaigns and Policy Director Ben Phillips defended the advert, saying:  "Oxfam is a resolutely non-party political organisation, we have a duty to draw attention to the hardship suffered by poor people we work with in the UK.  

"Fighting poverty should not be a party political issue, successive governments have presided over a tide of rising inequality and created a situation where food banks and other providers provided 20 million meals last year to people who could not afford to feed themselves. This is an unacceptable situation in one of the world's largest economies and politicians of all stripes have a responsibility to tackle it."

The furore comes in the same week as the release of a joint report from Oxfam, Church Action on Poverty and the Trussell Trust revealed a startling rise in demand for food charity in the UK, with more than 20million meals provided in 2013, a 54% increase on the previous year.

The claims have been further supported by research conducted by Save The Children, which warns that if the current situation is not tackled by 2020 approximately 5 million children, one third of children, in Britain will "be sentenced to a lifetime of poverty".

Since the news broke social media has been ablaze with criticism for the complaint as users warn that the government is dangerously out of touch with the needs of the poorer elements of society.

 "@suemitton1: @Ed_Miliband MPs very unhappy with Oxfam poster 'The Perfect Storm' they say the truth hurts! Well done Oxfam! "

"@jasongorman: This is why the gov't was so keen to gag charities in their lobbying bill "

"@lizzjones18: Actually condemning Oxfam for telling the truth about Austerity Britain the perfect storm ! SHAMEFUL say Gov.."

"@Helen121: Tories attack Oxfam Perfect Storm poster as 'shameful' for exposing results their policies. You couldn't make it up."

With less than a year to go until the General Election the government may have found that by complaining it has drawn unwanted focus to the growing problem of poverty and inequality in the UK. 

Lord Butler missed the fiscal problem

THE differences in priorities for the United Kingdom coalition government has brought to the fore the problems with having two opposing forces in power together. Since its formation the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government has faced a string of criticisms over inabilities to create cohesive strategies and policies on a range of topics.

The most recent judgement on the possible ineffectiveness of the coalition government has perhaps been its harshest though. In a statement to the House former Cabinet secretary Lord Butler of Brockwell condemned the government for the failure of the parties to work together and warned that it was “looking divided and weak, more concerned with washing their dirty linen in public than with running the country.” He continued by stating that “the country would have been better served by bringing this Parliament to an end now so that a new Government could be elected with a fresh mandate.”

While the Tories and Liberal Democrats have had a number of notable disagreements, particularly over free school meals and knife crime in recent weeks, it is not just its differences in beliefs which are causing problems though. With recent polling figures showing that neither Labour or Conservatives have enough public support for an all out majority should an election be called tomorrow, and the Liberal Democrats sliding to fourth place behind the right wing United Kingdom Independence Party, Britain’s political landscape is undergoing radical changes.

Gone are the days of the clear two party system, with coalition governments looking to become more common in the future as the UK follows in the steps of other European countries. Meanwhile party-centered politics have started to move towards a centre ground with little differences apparent between the three old guard parties at times. It is perhaps for this reason that groups such as UKIP are able to gain ground as the electorate attempts to find some means of expressing its views.

Overall, however, it is the difference in economic ideals which remains the greatest obstacle. At the heart of government policy is the question of affordability. Fiscal policy is a contentious matter, increasingly so when there are two parties with differing agendas attempting to agree on it.

In the financial year 2012- 2013 the total government spending was £683 billion, of which the two areas of which health and social protection received just short of half with a combined £337 billion. The allocation of these funds to maximise their efficiency has been the subject of much debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians,  as was made clear in the recent storm between Education Secretary Michael Gove and School’s Minister David Laws over the financing of free school meals..

Lord Butler may be right in his statement that by calling a snap election now would avoid the two leading parties from spending the next twelve months electioneering and thereby allow the crucial work of government to continue, What he fails to take into account though is that without a coordinated financial approach from all parties the divisions are likely to reappear in the future, election or not.

The threat from UKIP falters as inexperience shows through

WITH little more than a week until voters cast their ballots in European and local elections new polls show a shift in the views of the British electorate.
Two seperate polls have placed the Conservative party ahead of opposition Labour for the first time in two years. ICM has placed the Tories ahead with 33 per cent of the vote, compared to Labour's 31 per cent. Meanwhile a second poll commissioned by Lord Ashcroft has Labour lagging two points behind its Conservative opponents on 32 per cent.
It is the place of the Liberal Democrats and the United Kingdom Independence Party which has been most notable, however. Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrat party has seen its place as Britains' third party threatened by the right wing UKIP, under the leadership of Nigel Farage. In three out of four key polls the Liberal Democrats have failed to break the two digit mark while UKIP have accrued between 14 and 15 per cent of the vote.
Despite appearing flustered on the BBC Sunday Politics programme over his party's manifesto promises Mr Farage has dominated the news in recent weeks with his anti-European rhetoric. A recent poll ahead of the European elections put UKIP ahead with 31 per cent of the vote.
While UKIPs rise has concerned some political commentators its inexperience and right wing views may not translate as well in local, and particularly general, elections as they do for those in Europe, seen by many in Britain as an opportunity for a protest vote without affecting the country.
The apparent inability of some members of the party to engage in the political process and face opposition comments has highlighted the lack of ability the party actually holds in more mainstream politics.
Emphasis has been placed on the lack of political sense by some members of UKIP, which claims in its manifesto that it wants to see more front line policing and prioritises fighting crime, after one of its councillors called the police on blogger Michael Abberton for posts he made on social media. Officers informed Mr Abberton that they had to respond to the complaint despite no laws being broken and requested that he remove the tweets, something he was unable to do after they have been reposted by numerous others.
The posts allegedly relate to Mr Abberton posting a political swipe at UKIP in which he highlighted potential reasons to vote for them including its pledges to raising income tax for 88 per cent of the poorest in society and scrapping paid maternity leave.
Recently Mr Farage has attempted to reinvigorate the party's reputation as a political force by refuting accusations of insitutional racism within its ranks. UKIP, which campaigns on an anti EU, anti-immigrant agenda has been wracked by racist comments from its members and allegations of xenophobia over its attitudes to anyone entering Britain. These claims have been further supported by the departure of one of its youth members Sanya-Jeet Thandi today.
Ms Thandi has been used by UKIP as a figurehead in its campaign to appear inclusive. Leaving the party today, however, she stated of concerns over its "aggressive anti-immigrant rhetoric."
Writing in the Guardian newspaper Ms Thandi stated: "The direction in which the party is going is terrifying. UKIP had descended into a form of racist populism that I cannot bring myself to vote for."
In a further damaging statement Ms Thandi urged UKIP supporters to not vote in the upcoming European elections.
Despite recent populist polling figures it appears as though reality is catching up with Mr Farage's party. As the cracks appear it seems more likely that once people have used it to highlight their discontent with the establishment it will sink into obscurity once more.

Posted via Blogaway

Catching up for festive period

Well it’s that time again when we say goodbye to one year and welcome in another and what a year it has been for all of us here in wet and soggy Somerset. Looking back it has seemed like the better half, little bit and I have barely had a chance to stop. First off we celebrated Liz’s Diamond Jubilee, 60 years in the same job and no matter what Charles says she doesn’t look like she has any plans to retire yet.

Everyone threw a big party for her which was all going swimmingly until Philip had to be taken off to hospital, he really hasn’t been well this year.

Sports day went brilliantly, you may have caught some of it yourselves. Cousin Mo really showed his stuff and Jess won gold in her events. Bradley, you remember him he was the one who got the new bike last year, has had a brilliant year in cycling.

It hasn’t been all smooth sailing, well apart from for Ben but enough of sports day for now. Aunty Beeb has been having a few troubles again this year. It looks like Jimmy, he was the one who always smoked those foul cigars and wore too much jewellery, and some of his friends have really gotten out of line. Beeb had tried to keep it out of the press but as Uncle Rupert found out last year that doesn’t work. It turns out that quite a few of the people who belong to their club have being having a spot of bother but we try not to get involved in all that sort of thing.

In a slightly better turn of events Paul finally managed to get most of the squatters out of his father’s house earlier this year, although some of his friends and family weren’t too happy with the decision I can tell you.

Mark’s little internet venture has had a few problems. It seems that some of his investors weren’t too pleased with their payoff. That is just the way this year though, no-one seems to have enough money to around. Then again what’s new about that?

After last year’s holiday debacle in Syria, we checked into it but decided not to go again this year, we thought that a quiet cruise would be nice. Next year I think we are just going to stay at home, it was an absolute disaster. Mind you the captain did seem like a decent enough chap.

I mustn’t forget to tell you the good news it looks like Will and Kate, they were that nice couple I mentioned in last year’s letter, are expecting a baby. It made up for some fiasco earlier in the year when some pics of Kate were doing the rounds we heard.

Anyway that pretty much sums up everything got to crack on with sending out the rest of the cards. That couple we met in America a few years back for instance are still contacting us, apparently he has done well for himself becoming President of something or other, it may have been his golf club for all I know. It amazes me how many people contact you around this time of year with all sorts of info you wouldn’t care about. Anyway bye for now.

Auntie’s in trouble from big brother

While it may be perfectly possible that the whole British Broadcasting Corporation Newsnight fiasco may have escaped the attention of the majority of the press outside of the United Kingdom I somehow doubt that it has gone entirely unnoticed. This is partly because as a former British journalist I am steadfastly resolute in my belief that the world hangs on every word which we print and broadcast.

Okay Newsnight messed up, in quite spectacular style; it is not the first news programme to get its facts wrong though. It probably doesn’t even rank as on the top 100. For one thing Newsnight did not actually reveal Lord McAlpine’s name, which seems to be what the majority of the online commentators are accusing it of doing. If anything Newsnight’s greatest flaw, and by extension that of now former Director General George Entwistle, was to underestimate the power of social media and the internet. What was once the purview, more or less, of the investigative journalist is now in the remit of a 10-year-old with a computer.

While this may have become apparent to a number of people it seems to be something which the more traditional elements of the press still have trouble coming to grips with. The recent debacle with the BBC has proved that the old divide between broadcast and print journalism still has some grounding, despite having a common enemy of sorts in the internet. The BBC’s downfall has been exacerbated by the reaction of the print press and the clear determination to take some of the attention away from the actions being raked over in the Leveson enquiry. This is a fact which has not been lost on the Chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten.
“I think my job is to make sure that we now learn the lessons from the crisis,” he said. “If I don’t do that and don’t restore huge confidence and trust in the BBC then I’m sure people will tell me to take my cards and clear off,” he was reported as saying. “But I will not take my marching orders from Mr Murdoch’s newspapers.”

It isn’t just their colleagues in the press who appear to be trying to make the most out of the situation.

Auntie is under attack from big brother it would seem as politicians wade into the debate. It isn’t the first time that the British government has used a crisis at the Beeb to try and assert an additional element of control over its editorial stance. Combined with the Leveson enquiry into the press and the Saville enquiry, however, it may be that this time they get their wish.

The internet has allowed for a greater spread of information than ever before. Social media has also created a greater awareness of the power of that information and with it if not outright fear than at least a healthy respect for it. It would be a mistake though to allow that fear, or respect for, information to lead to news outlets having its control removed from their power, particularly over one misjudged and disproportionately reported on program.

A passion for politics?

If ever there was an ideal demonstration of the amount of influence the United States of America has over the rest of the world it is undoubtedly the impact which the run up to its election has. The fact that there are more elections going on than just the Presidential one, more candidates that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, seems to have been missed out of the global enthusiasm.

When America does something it tends to be on a huge scale. Everything is a show, everything is turned into a show. When they are electing their President why would anyone assume that it would be any different?

With the two key candidates racking up something in the region of £2billion dollars, or as Mitt Romney may describe it “pocket money”, it is understandable that they would generate a reasonable amount of interest.

As a Brit the way American elections play out is something which at once amazes me and then amuses me, it is just so different from our own relatively grey and dull affairs. The concept of attack ads for instance is just something which wouldn’t really work in the United Kingdom. It may be that we are just so cynical that we always look at the worst of our politicians but they just wouldn’t have the same impact in this country.

Whereas in America politicians are seen as larger than life symbols of a nation in this country they are seen as somewhat grey and uninspiring for the most part. When American politicians take to the airwaves they are filled with passion. They spout memorable and carefully crafted quotes; they espouse rhetoric worthy of a blockbuster script. When politicians in the UK try something similar it is “I’m a Celebrity...get me out of here” and they get suspended from the party. It just isn’t the same really.

From our perspective across the pond it does seem that Americans vote with a passion which we Brits just cannot seem to muster. If our politicians spent $2 billion on campaigning they would be roundly demonised. Once there may have been a loyalty to the party, a passion for politics, a sense of duty in Britain, once people felt that voting was important. Nowadays, however, it seems at times as though no-one cares anymore, and that includes the politicians we vote for.

In America it can seem to us poor out of touch Brits that any form of election is an opportunity for a pageant. In Britain we are rapidly approaching electing Police and Crime Commissioners and no-one seems to know who the candidates are, let alone what a Police and Crime Commissioner actually does.  There just doesn’t seem to be the passion for politics in Britain that there is in America, perhaps that is why we follow our cousins in America so closely, they get to have the excitement we miss out on and then some.

Good news, bad news for PM

It has really been a good news, bad news, what was he thinking news day for Prime Minister David Cameron.

While his stance on maintaining the ban on prisoners being allowed to vote will have gained a certain mixed reception it must be his jumping the gun on hinting that there may be an improvement in the gross domestic product which will be his moment of the day to try and escape from.

The seemingly innocuous statement that there may be “good news” ahead could potentially lead the PM into very bad news situation. It is a testament to the need for carefully coordinated communications when dealing with politicians, and the press. Many people would not think of the phrase as an explosive revelation breaching regulations on the release of sensitive information.

At the end of the day, however many people will be wondering whether or not the slip means anything other than that the Office of National Statistics, which is due to release the actual figures tomorrow (Thursday 25^th October 2012), will kick up a fuss over losing its thunder. In and of itself it may mean very little, taken in a wider context though it becomes a serious matter. The markets rise and fall on the slightest whiff of information, rumour and suggestion can have as much of an impact on the price of stocks and bonds as cold hard facts, something which the ONS is keen to maintain its control over.

What it also demonstrates is that once again politicians, no matter how senior, do not appear able to maintain a confidence on something which has national importance. It would not be seen as incontrovertible that Mr Cameron made the ‘slip’ as a means by which to get ahead of the ONS releasing the figures to the press and thereby ensure that his government, which up until now has been taking something of a battering on the economy, could bask in a bit of the glory before it was eclipsed by everything else.

Instead what he has successfully done, however, is removed any good news from what could have been an incredibly positive story and turned it into another government fiasco article.

There is always the chance that Mr Cameron’s ”good news” has nothing to do with the soon to be released figures. If having received the figures at 9:30am and being one of the few politicians allowed to see them he did mean something else though then he must surely be accused once again of mistiming his comments. What appears to be the core to this case is that either the Prime Minister knowingly let slip confidential information regarding the financial markets, albeit in an oblique way, or he made an ill timed and misjudged comment about an unrelated matter which will surely demonstrate that he is unable to think about the bigger picture of what impact his statements may have. Either way it does not bode well for the Prime Minister’s communications ability for the future.

EU-broke or just bust

There is something to be said for the recent contretemps which has caused friction between Britain and the rest of the European Union. Then again perhaps the standoff between David Cameron and Angela Merkel over EU spending is not such an unforeseen event.

Cameron has already demonstrated that he is prepared to take a firm stance when it comes to Europe. Likewise Ms Merkel has postured plenty of times before in the belief that she who shouts loudest lasts longest.

The current friction between the British and German leaders is, perhaps one of the more predictable that have been faced over recent years. With so much uncertainty surrounding the euro, and the lack of fiscal control being demonstrated by other EU countries, it is not surprising that Cameron has promised to use the United Kingdom’s veto any type of deal that does not impose a total freeze on spending.

What has struck the writers of this blog, as well no doubt as it has the policy makers at Number 10, is that if Ms Merkel does attempt to cancel next month’s EU budget summit then she will be demonstrating exactly why the Prime Minister, on one of the rare occasions, is right to stick to his guns.

The question must be asked as to what Ms Merkel hopes to gain from cancelling the summit, other than to stoke her not inconsiderable ego, that Mr Cameron could not achieve by implementing his veto. At worst she would leave the EU without any clear direction to focus its energies, at best cancelling the summit could ensure that Cameron’s position is strengthened by demonstrating that he has the power, albeit by proxy, to influence the entire bloc just by threatening a course of action.

What the whole debacle has clearly demonstrated is that the EU is clearly being run by school yard rules writ large. Whereas Ms Merkel could have used the summit as a place whereby leaders could debate their opinions and hope to turn people to their sides through reasoned debate she has decided to take the stance that if people won’t play by her rules then she will take the ball away and ruin the game for everyone.

Whether Cameron actually would use his veto is a matter which can only be judged after the fact. He has already demonstrated that he is not afraid of alienating EU leaders, and UK politicians, over his stance to the bloc. All Merkel has managed is to push him into a corner whereby his only option is to use the veto no matter when or where the summit is hosted. Rather than creating an atmosphere of discussion she has generated a toxic scenario where no-one will achieve anything. If she had taken the wiser path then a reasoned debate could have taken place instead of posturing and strong arming. This unfortunately has become the norm within the EU and its governance. It is also perhaps one of the most crucial reasons why any economic decisions involving the bloc must  be treated with scepticism by the individual states. Ms Merkel has argued to cancel the summit if she does not get her own way, Cameron has argued to veto any decision which is not in line with his feelings, with two out of the 27 acting in such a way how can the EU ever be trusted to succeed on solving an economic debacle on the scale that it is supposed to be tackling?

The press' whipping boy

If the recent resignation of Conservative Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell has demonstrated anything it is that the power of the press is stronger than it ever was. Unfortunately in this case it was also shown that the power which it wields can easily be subverted to suit the purposes of interest groups and lobbyists.

Andrew Mitchell’s resignation was not forced because of anything he may, or may not have said, to police officers. It was forced through a determined effort by the police federation, the press and MP’s, both opposition and from his own party. At most his comments, if they were said, merited a disciplining by the Prime Minister not resignation.

The whole situation has weakened not just the coalition government but David Cameron’s own position as Prime Minister. By exposing the Prime Minister’s key weakness, bowing to the pressure of the press, he has irredeemably opened himself and his government up to attacks from every interest group, union and protest movement who may disagree with a policy.

What has also not been stated clearly enough during this whole sorry saga in British governance is that the issue has never really been about his use of the word pleb. As insults go it is fairly tame, particularly when Mr Mitchell freely admits and apologises for using the F word in anger at the officers in question. The whole issue is one of class, or the perception thereof. 

Perhaps this is why it has grabbed the attention of the press so much. The poor downtrodden masses being once again walked over by the arrogant elite was always guaranteed to get some coverage.

The sad fact is that the coalition government has continually demonstrated far more newsworthy levels of ineptitude, as has the opposition in the interests of objectivity. Until the papers picked up on the word pleb it wouldn’t have crossed the mind of many for any other reason than being an anachronistic word with little to no relevance anymore.  Reporting the hard facts, however, and attempting to find relevant news stories is far harder, and seemingly therefore less important, than playing on outmoded concepts of class.

George Osborne’s mistimed train ticket fiasco has if anything highlighted just how class orientated the press is becoming in regards to the articles which they are running. The fact that a government minister failed to purchase the correct ticket should if anything demonstrate that he is just like the vast majority of the so called plebs who the papers are sticking up for, rather than being a elitist who feels that he is above the rules of the little people.

We are no longer living in an era where the class which you are born into determines the rest of your life. We live in world where anyone can make anything of themselves which they wish, provided that they are willing to put the work in to do it. The class system in the UK is not about holding people back, it is about giving them a reason to fight and strive to improve their lot in life.