Financial and business news and articles
Letters: State of play on party funding
Polly Toynbee unreasonably criticises the Electoral Commission investigation into donations to the Conservative party from Bearwood Corporate Services (Unlike Ashcroft, the horror of Tory cuts will stay hidden, 2 March). Our inquiries began 18 months not two years ago and a full summary of the outcome of the investigation is on our website. It was, inevitably, a lengthy investigation due to the volume of evidence, legal issues and financial analysis involved. We always aim to complete investigations as quickly as possible, but our priority is to conduct a fair and thorough investigation within the legal framework parliament has set, and the powers available to us.
Since the commission was established voters have been given unprecedented information about how political parties are funded. We have published details of over 25,000 donations, amounting to more than £380m. Where parties accepted donations they shouldn’t have, we’ve made sure they are surrendered. And we review and publish parties’ statements of accounts, and records of campaign spending, to ensure they follow the rules.
We have long pressed for powers to require the disclosure of information relevant to our investigations. We hope to receive these after the election, in time for the 1 July start date proposed by the current government with cross-party support. These will certainly help us to do our job. But to compare any aspect of this regime to that administered by the Commons fees office in relation to MPs’ expenses, as Toynbee does, is absurd.
Jenny Watson
Chair, Electoral Commission
• Simon Jenkins (The root of the Tories’ dire Ashcroft gaffe is our medieval party funding, 5 March) is to be congratulated on reminding us of the wise words of Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, a leading academic on the funding of political parties: “By making them even more dependent upon state funding, they automatically become less democratic.”
Labour debated this issue at its 2006 conference and rejected more state funding. In a submission to Labour’s consultation, I and others proposed that its response to party funding should be founded on: membership, transparency, collective action and spending (not donation) limits. Those principles reflected the findings of the Electoral Commission’s inquiry into the funding of parties published in 2004, which also rejected more state funding. Its report was ignored by all three main parties in the Commons, and hence never debated.
It is good to see that the role of membership and small donations is finally being recognised by Labour party head office, with the “Give to Win” appeal. This is now being promoted on a decentralised constituency basis by Progress to help Labour candidates counter the impact of Ashcroft’s millions in marginal seats.
Peter Kenyon
Chair, Save the Labour Party
• Your suggestion (Editorial, 2 March) that all parties share responsibility for the distortion of our democracy by offshore paymasters is misleading. During the passage of the 2009 political parties and elections bill the Liberal Democrats tabled and supported amendments to cap donations, limit constituency spending and end the purchase of seats in parliament by foreign millionaires. In the Lords, we even succeeded in securing restrictions on “non-doms”. Yet Jack Straw failed to implement the change parliament passed, while the Conservatives voted against every reform we proposed. As a result, the outcome of the 2010 general election could easily be the most infected by big money since rotten boroughs were abolished in 1832. So much for the Brown/Cameron promises of cleaner politics.
Paul Tyler
Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman, House of Lords
• Norman Tebbit is wrong (Principle and uncertainty, 2 March). So-called “hung” parliaments are not the problem. They are a better reflection of the popular will than the artificial landslide majorities our antiquated voting system often produces. The problem is the prime minister’s power to call a second election whenever he or she decides. We need fixed-term parliaments so that, whatever verdict the voters give, the politicians must make it work for the full term.
Professor Ron Glatter
Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Related articles
No comments yet.
Lord Ashcroft’s place in the sun
about 6 months ago - No comments
Chris Riddell on Lord Ashcroft’s living arrangements
Westminster wives
about 6 months ago - No comments
She swears, she drinks, she has extramarital flings… The modern MP’s wife is unrecognisable from the simpering cheerleader of the past. So what has changed? And what impact will the other halves have on this year’s election?
When Alicia Collinson’s husband, Damian Green, was first elected as a Conservative MP in 1997, she was provided with a small pamphlet produced by the Parliamentary Christian Wives Fellowship. It was called “Two for the Price of One” and the title was printed across the cover in precisely the same shade of green as the leather benches inside the House of Commons chamber. The eight-page leaflet contained all manner of helpful tips and guidance on how to be a politician’s wife in a breezy style that seemed to have come straight from the 1950s.
“If you look good, you feel good,” the authors stated cheerily, before going on to advise that: “For wives, it is a great help to have a very good relationship with your local garage as you are bound to break down when your dearly beloved is on a parliamentary trip to China and you may need rescuing.”
But it was one sentence in particular that enraged Alicia Collinson. “It’s this one,” she says, pushing the pamphlet across the coffee table and jabbing at the relevant page. “They say: ‘Try to ensure the absent parent speaks each week on the phone to each child personally if possible.’” Collinson snorts with indignation. “That really got my goat. It’s full of things like that, assuming you can do things while your husband’s in parliament. Well, no, you can’t if you’re working, too. There was this assumption that you were just part of the package.”
Times have changed dramatically for the political wife. In previous decades an MP’s wife was expected to be little more than a photogenic adjunct to her husband, someone who could be relied upon to judge cake-baking contests at the village fete and smile prettily in public. Most of the time this charming little creature would be careful not to speak out of turn or proffer any political opinion that might risk embarrassing her husband or his party. Her role, like that of Clementine Churchill or Clarissa Eden before her, was to raise children, run a household and provide constant support to her overworked and sporadically bad-tempered spouse.
On the rare occasion that a wife did speak out, it resulted in a horrified outcry. Margot, the wife of former prime minister Herbert Asquith, was blamed for her husband’s political downfall after she publicly accused her stepson of being drunk. (He had, in fact, been shell-shocked during the First World War.) Now, however, Margot Asquith’s indelicate comment would barely merit a raised eyebrow. In modern politics, it is quite normal for the wife of the chancellor to scream the “c” word in reference to her husband’s treacherous colleagues, as Maggie Darling was reported to have done in Andrew Rawnsley’s recent book about the fall of New Labour. Over the past few months a worrying number of political wives (and it is, on the whole, still largely wives rather than husbands) have crawled out of the woodwork to admit to all sorts of brazen peccadilloes, including binge drinking, promiscuity and the odd extramarital affair.
Sally Bercow, the wife of the Commons speaker, gave an extraordinary interview last December in which she admitted to a debauched past, drinking more than two bottles of wine a day and engaging in a string of one-night stands. “I would end up sometimes at a bar and someone would send a drink over, and I’d think: ‘Why not?’ and we’d go home together,” she said. “I liked the excitement of not knowing how a night was going to end.”
Unlike the quietly spoken, loyal wife of parliamentary legend, Mrs Bercow appeared to be wholly unconcerned as to whether she might be diminishing her husband’s professional kudos. Her political opinions, too, are unashamedly opposed to her spouse’s: whereas John Bercow was a Tory MP before becoming speaker, Sally Bercow is standing as a Labour councillor in Pimlico, central London.
Then, in January, it emerged that Iris Robinson, the wife of the Northern Irish first minister, had an affair with a 19-year-old when she was 58. The ensuing barrage of “Mrs Robinson”-themed newspaper headlines forced Peter Robinson to stand down temporarily. Although both the Robinson and Bercow sagas are extreme examples, there is a growing trend for parliamentary spouses to emerge from the shadows.
Samantha Cameron, wife of the Conservative leader, is creative director at Smythson, the luxury stationery firm. Ed Miliband’s partner, Justine Thornton, is a senior environmental lawyer. Sarah Brown, wife of the prime minister, enjoyed a successful career in public relations before taking up permanent residence in No 10. Shadow chancellor George Osborne’s wife, Frances, is a bestselling biographer, and Sandra Howard, wife of former Conservative leader Michael Howard, has written three novels.
“I think the role has changed a bit,” says Mrs Howard, whose latest novel, A Matter of Loyalty, was published last year. “Three decades ago there were more wives who didn’t have their own career. Cherie Blair did us a really good service by continuing to work as a barrister while her husband was the prime minister because no one could ever complain about a spouse working again.”
“It’s a shift that mirrors what has happened in society,” agrees Alicia Collinson, author of Politics for Partners: How to Live with a Politician and a barrister specialising in family law. She deliberately chose not to take her husband’s surname. “I got very criticised in the press when Damian first became involved in politics because I was a barrister and had my own job, but now the constituency isn’t fussed about it… I used to know one MP who talked about his wife being ‘the hostage’ in the constituency.” Collinson takes a sip of her tea. “He’s now married to someone else.”
Not only are political wives no longer quite held hostage in the shires, they are seen as potential vote-winners. The impact of Michelle Obama, who has expanded the role of political wife and is seen as a crucial asset to her husband’s success, is beginning to make itself felt in the UK. Whereas in the past an MP’s spouse was occasionally wheeled out by central office for a pre-election photo opportunity, the modern political wife has a far more complex role. She must juggle the demands of career and family while developing a public persona that is sufficiently straightforward to be inoffensive and yet interesting enough to intrigue the electorate. Her clothes will be scrutinised and her past raked over. She is expected to have an opinion and yet to keep it to herself. And when her husband films a YouTube broadcast from his bespoke Notting Hill kitchen, she must appear in the background amid the cereal boxes and Blu-Tacked toddlers’ paintings, busy and yet in control: the perfect appeal to the Mumsnet generation.
Perhaps it is unsurprising that some political wives, like Sally Bercow or Iris Robinson, chafe against the restrictions imposed upon them. Others, like Miriam González Durántez, wife of the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, take a more relaxed approach. González, who heads up the trade department of the international law firm DLA Piper, says that a political wife can be “supportive without being submissive… I am sufficiently confident to understand I can have a proper career, and I also understand I happen to be married to Nick and people will want legitimately to have a look into who he is as a person – and provided that they respect our children I’m happy for anybody to have a look. What you see is what you get.”
When we meet in a boardroom at her company headquarters in London, González seeps unapologetic glamour. She has film-star looks and hair that appears expensively blow-dried. Today she is wearing a grey silk shift dress, a chunky gold necklace and fashionable high-heeled ankle boots. It would be difficult to imagine anyone less like the pink-cheeked, floral-swathed MP’s wife of popular imagination.
González embodies the new breed of “Sam Cams”, the independent career women and mothers who happen to be married to politicians but who are determined not to be defined by their spouses and who share the running of the household as equally as possible. The Cleggs have three sons under the age of eight: their father takes them to school every morning and their mother puts them to bed at night.
“Nick’s well known with the neighbours for going to do a very early interview and coming back to go to school before going to Westminster,” says González. Do the children understand what their father does? “Partly. My five-year-old thinks he’s the captain of the Liberal Democrats. My eight-year-old is quite perceptive and understands some of it – he advises on plans to capture Osama bin Laden.”
Westminster hours, however, remain extremely inconvenient for MPs with young children (even since Labour’s landslide victory in 1997, when 120 of the new MPs were women, many of whom were appalled by the unsociable working hours and pitifully outdated office equipment). “It isn’t friendly for families,” says González. “I remember, for example, being very, very shocked – and let’s put this into context: it must be a Westminster village reaction – but I remember Nick saying at some point: ‘I’m a father before being a politician’, and some colleagues were actually thinking: ‘What a weird thing to say.’ I was thinking: ‘Surely that is a perfectly normal thing to say?’ I think it’s incredibly unuseful that Westminster tends to vote at 10 in the evening rather than at four in the afternoon, like you would do in any other kind of job. There’s a lot of evening engagements and media engagements, and that takes a toll on the family.”
It is perhaps partly for this reason that some wives still choose to stay quietly behind the scenes, determinedly ignoring the onward march of equal opportunities. For every Miriam González there is a “Surrendered Wife” like Norma Major, who stood smiling and faithful beside her husband without uttering a single controversial word in public throughout his premiership and who remained loyal to him even after it emerged that he’d had an affair with Edwina Currie. Pauline Prescott, who stood by husband John despite a dalliance with his secretary, calls herself one of a “dying breed” in her autobiography, and is dismissive of “women’s libbers”.
Sandra Howard, who did not publish her first book until her husband had stood down as leader, says the old-style political wife works on the principle that “anything you can do to help, you do. If allowing the person you love to do what they want to do means a little bit of not thinking about what you want to do, it’s almost a non-question.”
The Surrendered Wife must bite her tongue when asked for her opinion, lest she run the risk of embarrassing her husband. “I remember being told that a political spouse will never win the seat for their partner, but they can sure as hell lose it,” says Howard.
When the expenses scandal broke last year, it emerged that almost 80 MPs employed either their wives or girlfriends as parliamentary assistants, secretaries or case workers. (Political husbands are still very much the exception to the rule: Caroline Flint, the Labour MP for Don Valley, employs her husband Phil Cole to run her constituency office, while Margaret Beckett’s spouse, Leo, has been her parliamentary assistant for years.) At the time, there was an outcry at the thought of family members cashing in courtesy of the taxpayer, and the rules governing the employment of spouses and family members are currently under review. The constituency wives, many of whom had worked extremely hard for their MP husbands, felt they had been unfairly scapegoated. Alicia Collinson recalls a trip to the local garden centre with her husband at the height of the expenses scandal to buy some plants. “A man driving his car wound down his window and shouted out: ‘I hope you’ve got a receipt for that,’ and then drove off thinking he was very clever. We’ve never claimed for gardening. It was just ignorant.
“The climate has changed. The respect that parliamentarians were held in is no more… the level of contempt one experiences is quite extraordinary. It’s been very unpleasant. A lot of spouses have been very upset.”
Another wife, who has run her husband’s constituency office for the last 17 years, says: “I got very badly bruised by the whole thing. People don’t realise how hard we work or the hours we put in. We’re the ones who are there at seven in the morning or 11 at night when the phone goes.”
It is perhaps these wives – the uncomplaining troopers who keep their husbands’ schedules organised and their stationery cupboards stocked with Post-it notes – who provide the bridge between the surrendered spouses of the past and the sleekly independent career women of modern times.
But although the increasing number of MPs’ wives pursuing their own careers has been heralded as some sort of feminist breakthrough, much of the media coverage of these women remains distinctly sexist. There is a lingering sense, in spite of the enormous strides made by women such as Cherie Booth and Miriam González, that a political wife’s role is to gaze adoringly at her husband as he makes a keynote speech or to be photographed walking along the Brighton seafront during party conference season, appearing well dressed but not too glamorous in case she is accused of being out of touch with the common man (or woman).
So it is that Sarah Brown – doubtless influenced by the intimate confessions of her Michelle Obama about the president’s bad morning breath – has twice taken to the podium to introduce her husband to the Labour party conference. In 2008 she smiled ingratiatingly and called him “my hero”. Last year she exclusively revealed that Gordon was “not a saint – he’s messy, he’s noisy, he gets up at a terrible hour”.
Mrs Brown, who gave up a career in PR, has carved out a niche as an electoral accessory whose job it is to show Gordon in a warmer, more modern light. One minute Mrs Brown will be in a TV studio, eyes welling up as she listens to her husband unburden his soul to Piers Morgan, the next she will be opening London Fashion Week wearing an Erdem dress and updating her Twitter account (1,118,558 followers and counting, including Paris Hilton and Naomi Campbell).
Sarah Brown has provided us with a whole new category of political spouse: a wife who knows how to exploit modern media in order to promote herself and her husband as a successful brand. She is known to have used her sartorial influence to overhaul her husband’s wardrobe and her PR savvy to insist that the couple went on holiday in Southwold, Suffolk last year in an effort to prove their fondness for England. In fact, so successful has she been in modelling herself as cheerleader-in-chief that one member of the prime minister’s inner circle is said to have dubbed her “Mrs Goebbels”.
As the general election approaches, the leaders’ wives in particular will have a prominent role to play in wooing the voters. Already there have been snide comments emanating from government sources that Samantha Cameron does less charity work than her counterpart in No 10. And at the recent Tory spring conference it felt as though far more attention was paid to the cut of Mrs Cameron’s silk ruffled blouse than to what her husband had to say about fixing “broken Britain”.
“I think the trouble with politicians is they have a fixed image in the media which doesn’t involve their personality,” says Alicia Collinson. “So having another side to both David Cameron and Gordon Brown and allowing their wives to convey something that isn’t just the stiff upper lip of a politician can be helpful for the electorate in the run-up to an election. They can see what a politician is like from every angle.”
But reactions to Sarah Brown’s celebrity among the other political wives are mixed. Some find her acting the part of adoring spouse on the national stage a touch retrograde. Miriam González says she’d always go to see Nick deliver a major speech and would expect him to do the same, but adds that: “I wouldn’t ask him to come to the podium to kiss me afterwards, and that is not what I’d do in reverse.” Others, like Alicia Collinson, believe that having a loyal wife in the public eye “suggests that the politician has at least got good taste”.
And perhaps in the end it is not a wholly irrational reason to vote for a particular MP. They might lie about tax rises, cheat on their expenses and have terrible breath in the morning, but at least they have the love of a good woman who knows how to make friends with Paris Hilton on Twitter.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Catherine Bennett | Talk to us about politics, not your lovely home life
about 6 months ago - No comments
The Cameron and Brown personality parade misses the point that voters care about issues, not character
Recently, on a day when no cameras were looking and he was surrounded by political nonentities, mainly mothers, an off-duty David Cameron was amazingly haughty to a friend of mine. Maybe it was just an off-day. Or maybe, what with all the nation’s mums to think about over, a stressy Mr Cameron had important political things on his mind. What do mums feel about Lily Allen? Would they like him to drink Guinness or bitter? Enjoy gardening or football? Shopping-wise, which out of Primark and Marks & Spencer do mums think more appropriate for a national leader? Examined by Titchmarsh, he came out for the latter.
Lucky Gordon Brown: though pressed on his retail experience by an insistent Piers Morgan, he was never forced to admit to a supermarket preference. But the prime minister confessed, and a cutaway to smiling Sarah Brown confirmed that this was a positive anecdote, that he once accompanied his wife to a supermarket, but stayed in the car.
Admittedly, it’s unlikely she would have stood up and added that they were not, at the time, on speaking terms. We just have to take Brown’s uxoriousness on trust, like his grumpiness-denial and a claim that he once drank “half-a-dozen” pints a night. Are there any witnesses to this excess? The more political parties urge us to go out and vote on the basis of their leader’s characters, the more, if they want to avoid complicity, broadcasters might want to think about testing these auto-eulogies for accuracy.
Does Cameron really play darts? Does Brown, yet more implausibly, never throw anything more substantial than newspapers, and “wake up in the morning thinking what I can do to help people looking for jobs”? Stringent investigation of these claims could provide fabulous light entertainment. Although, inexplicably, waterboarding has yet to feature on daytime television, Jeremy Kyle routinely uses a lie detector to expose disingenuousness, even though all that is generally at stake, for survivors, is not a position at the helm of government, but a chance to “save your relationship”. Once Brown and Cameron were wired up they could even be asked a few supplementaries, about banking regulation, or the size of coming cuts.
Last week, invoking the more urgent electoral issue of himself, Brown gave voters a few tips for personality assessment. “It is for other people to judge,” he said, “but I believe that character is not about telling people what they want to hear but about telling them what they need to know.” And another hint, to help the public succeed where generations of divorcees have failed: “For better or for worse, with me what you see is what you get.” But like a Cretan, who thinks it worth adding, “just ask my wife” to the line “all Cretans are liars”, Brown accepts that the public might, occasionally, feel the need for corroboration.
Over to Sarah Brown. “What you see is what you get with him,” she said, in response to the bullying stories. A comment which only confirms, like an earlier line, “I know he wakes up every morning thinking…”, that here is a couple so close that their “mirroring” has reached the exemplary, automatic stage.
Even so, it’s worth noting Mrs Brown was not speaking under oath. Here is a loyal spouse who stands to be evicted, if she is disbelieved, then rehoused in Kirkcaldy; albeit with support from Naomi Campbell. Nor, perhaps, should the cautious voter believe in Samantha Cameron’s purported diffidence about Number 10, on the basis that she is already a rich baronet’s daughter and a big name in the world of handbags. She still wants to win enough to deploy her children and, in tonight’s profile of Cameron by Trevor McDonald, to throw down this gauntlet about her own Mr Wonderful: “He’s always been incredibly strong, and kind, and supportive.” How do we know this is true? Because the rules of all-political Mr and Mrs now require that candidates provide character references for the wives, as well as themselves.
Dave guarantees, in Samantha, “an amazing woman, a working mum, a very successful career woman” – so a leetle bit more modern, maybe, than Gordon’s “beautiful, elegant, compassionate, dignified” Sarah. Whom he proposed to on a beach. And loves ever so, Piers: it “just grows and grows”. Will he be sure to tell us if it stops? “I’m an open book as far as people are concerned,” Brown says. “Anything they want to know, I’m happy.” Actually, politics aside, it’s hard to think of anything he’s left out. Most of us probably know more about Sarah Brown’s proposal of marriage than we do about our own mother’s.
Presumably, given there has never been disclosure on this level, that the media did not demand it and that no one in their right mind would volunteer such intimacies, Brown and Cameron’s advisers believe that a public hardened by tales of Prescottian bulimia and Mrs Blair’s neglected Dutch cap will respond only to enhanced levels of authenticity stimulus. Heath’s yacht, Mrs Thatcher’s larder and Kinnock’s Welsh idyll have given way to a televised account of his baby’s final moments by Brown, a father who thereby enters an almost obscene contest for public sympathy with his rival, another bereaved father.
On each side, the strategy looks as risky as it is undignified. Their particular brands of insincerity – agonising awkwardness in Brown’s case, supreme smarm in Cameron’s, phony WAG stuff from both – could easily be the strongest impressions created by protracted exposure. More important, this belief in the electoral power of character may be misplaced.
Evidently Brown and his manipulators have evidence, or instincts, that tell them the contrary, but there are doubts about the significance of leaders’ characters in elections, even in an age when it is common to argue that presidential politics and a celebrity-obsessed media have increased their impact. And it is not, anyway, as if charismatic politicians are new. Winston Churchill was a celebrity, and he was rejected. So was Neil Kinnock, even though he was more appealing than John Major. Look at Berlusconi’s behaviour, and you could even argue that voters don’t pay as much attention to character as they should.
Concluding a 2002 study, Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections, the psephologist Prof Anthony King said the conventional political wisdom on character is wrong. Research, he wrote, “indicates that relatively few voters are swayed by candidates’ personal characteristics”. So Brown musn’t worry about being snubbed by Match of the Day.
“Far more important,” King writes, “are voters’ long-standing party loyalties, their views on issues, and their judgments of how well or badly presidents and parties have performed – or will perform – in office.” Ah. Maybe, given the economic tumult Mr Brown has just prophesied, it is a bit early to give up on football. Any port in a storm.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Embarrassment for David Cameron over Tory hopefuls’ lobbying links
about 6 months ago - No comments
Conservative drive to ‘clean up politics’ faces test over failure by several candidates to fully declare their work for lobby firms, says Nick Mathiason
David Cameron’s drive to clean up politics is facing an embarrassing public test after it emerged that a number of prospective Conservative MPs have failed fully to declare in their campaign literature that they work for lobby firms representing powerful business interests.
The revelation threatens to destabilise Tory hopefuls in the upcoming election as voters in constituencies where alleged “secret lobbyist candidates” are running will be the subject of a targeted online advertising blitz on Google and Facebook orchestrated by 38 Degrees, an innovative online campaign group.
Only last month, Cameron warned that lobbying “was the next big scandal waiting to happen”. But campaigners claim that while secret lobby links extend across all parties, the Conservatives are the worst offenders.
Last night, the Tories hit back saying they “are committed to shining the light of openness onto the lobbying world” and suggested Labour candidates’ links to lobby firms were far more extensive. But several Tory candidates seem to have kept back details of their work for lobbying firms, including:
■ Priti Patel, the Tory candidate for Witham, a new seat in Essex. On her website, Patel says she is a director of a company providing “business and communication strategy” advice but fails to clarify that she works for one of the world’s most powerful lobby firms, Weber Shandwick, personally advising Microsoft and bank lobby group, International Financial Services London.
■ Penny Mordaunt, the Conservative candidate for Labour-held Portsmouth North, who is a 15% shareholder in lobby firm Media Intelligence Partners, which boasts among its clients Sony, Orange, and DHL. Mordaunt is also listed as the firm’s director in Companies House. Mordaunt also worked for 10 months last year at leading public PR firm Hanover.
■ George Eustice, Cameron’s former press secretary, fighting the three-way marginal in Camborne and Redruth, Cornwall, has failed to disclose on his campaign site that he works for powerful Westminster lobby firm Portland, which acts for Google, Tesco and McDonald’s.
■ Prospective Labour MP Emma Reynolds on Friday hurriedly updated her biography on her campaign website to include details of her work for lobby outfit Cogitamus, which advises the biggest names in the construction industry on government relations.
The Observer is aware of a significant number of parliamentary candidates who will be unmasked in coming days as part of a co-ordinated campaign by Spinwatch and 38 Degrees aimed at introducing a statutory register of interests. This would force lobby firms and parliamentary candidates to clarify who they represent and work for.
David Babbs, 38 Degrees executive director, said: “The election is a chance to clean up parliament, which is why it’s time for all PPCs to come clean about their links to lobbying. 38 Degrees members are going to work together to make sure that those people who want to be our MPs promise to put their voters first, not their friends in big business. 38 Degrees is a 100,000-strong, people-powered movement, and during this election we plan to work together to cut through the spin and make sure politicians answer to us. We’ll be challenging PPCs on their lobbying links, and if they refuse to draw a line under their past business interests we’ll be raising money for ads in local papers to make sure local voters hear the facts.”
Tamasin Cave, from the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, said: “The public is calling for – and deserves – a new type of politics, so it’s vital that prospective MPs are fully transparent about their links to lobbying. If they are helping powerful companies get privileged access to key politicians in the runup to the election, we have a right to know who they are lobbying for and which policies or contracts are being discussed. Covert lobbying harms public trust. Lobbying firms clearly hire these parliamentary hopefuls to both open the door to politics now and to secure a direct line to any future government. If you want to influence politics, it pays to employ political insiders.”
Eustice defended the lack of information about his work for Portland, saying his campaign website was intended to set out his beliefs. The one-time Cameron spin doctor also said there was a welter of publicity when he left Cameron to join Portland. In addition, he had been a tireless campaigner for more transparency in the public relations arena.
Mordaunt said her role at both Media Intelligence Partners and Hanover was centred on communications work rather than public affairs. She explicitly denied she was a lobbyist and said she supported the campaign for a statutory register of lobbying interests.
Patel did not comment on her links with Weber Shandwick. But the firm’s corporate communications and public affairs chairman, Jon McLeod, confirmed that Patel advised Microsoft and the International Financial Services London. He stated: “Weber Shandwick is clearly an agency with a political dimension. We would not be good at our job if we weren’t.” McLeod confirmed he was a vocal supporter of legislation to create a statutory register of lobby firms.
Last night, the Tories said they would introduce new rules to stop central government bodies using public money to hire lobbyists and “push for the lobbying industry to ensure greater transparency of their operations through self-regulation, and we would be prepared to legislate if this fails”.
Cave said: “As David Cameron said just last month, this isn’t a minor issue with minor consequences. It’s not just public policy that’s affected by lobbying – government contracts worth billions are potentially at stake. Cameron has spoken about the urgent need to shine the light of transparency on lobbying. But words alone won’t bring public scrutiny: we need new rules that force lobbyists to come clean about their activities.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Brown draws flak over role in handling military budget
about 6 months ago - No comments
Cameron uses prime minister’s questions to challenge Brown over military funding claims made to the Chilcot inquiry
It was possibly the most supercharged prime minister’s questions of the year so far. At 12:09pm last Wednesday the ritual jousting turned toxic as David Cameron challenged Gordon Brown’s testimony at the Iraq inquiry days earlier.
Brown had told the Chilcot inquiry that he never refused urgent requests for more military funding. Cameron did not believe him, citing two former chiefs of the defence staff who had criticised the prime minister for offering the inquiry evidence that was “disingenuous” and “dissembling”.
Several Labour backbenchers could not hold their tongues. But, they roared, Lord Guthrie and Admiral Lord Boyce were “Tories”. The implication was damning; these men might once have been characters of honour whose duty was to serve the nation but now their criticism could be dismissed as readily as, well, Cameron’s.
It was a poisonous putdown. In their view, the opinions of two of the most powerful figures in modern military history had become corrupted to the extent they were no longer impartial.
Some blamed Sir Richard Dannatt, the former army chief, for politicising the military. After all, Dannatt’s consistent criticism of defence spending in Afghanistan had preceded reports that he would become a defence adviser to the Conservatives. Beyond the hullabaloo over political bias weighed against genuine concern over soldiers’ welfare, the debate boils down to whether Guthrie and Co have a point? Did Brown starve the military of funding when he was chancellor, leaving the forces short of vital equipment?
The answer may depend on whose side you are on. Guthrie and Boyd remain adamant that Brown mishandled the defence budget when chancellor and that his prudence meant, for instance, fewer troop-carrying helicopters in Afghanistan, one of the most vexing issues facing commanders in Helmand province. Their critique was bolstered by an inquest verdict hours before Wednesday’s Commons exchange. Four soldiers were unlawfully killed after troops were given “inadequate” training, according to Wiltshire coroner David Masters.
Brown, too, remains unmoved. He told Cameron that “every request” made by defence officials for “urgent operational requirements” was met. In fact, said the prime minister, £18bn had been invested in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the military budget. In real terms, spending was up. The Tories, claimed the prime minister, cut it by 30% in the 1990s. But the truth, as so often, is somewhere in between.
Analysts point out that the MoD has a long-term core budget while the additional cost of fighting wars comes from the Treasury reserve. Many believe this dynamic fuelled disagreement between Brown and the military men.
However, the future for defence spending appears less ambiguous. Swingeing cuts are a certainty. Days before last week’s PMQ, the defence select committee bemoaned a £21bn funding gap for scheduled military projects. If they win the election, the Tories will have to preside over huge cuts in military spending. The question is, will Guthrie and Boyd sit quietly on the sidelines when that happens?
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Conservative defector condemns party’s ‘vile letter’ and hostility towards Europe
about 6 months ago - No comments
MEP Edward McMillan-Scott accuses Tories of euro-scepticism and ‘double standards’ for expelling him while only suspending Lord Archer
The former leader of the Tories in Europe launches a scathing attack on David Cameron’s Conservatives today, accusing them of “visceral euroscepticism”, “twisted” thinking and bullying tactics that forced him out of the party.
Edward McMillan-Scott, who defected to the Liberal Democrats on Friday, has also accused the Tories of “extraordinary double standards” for expelling him permanently, having only suspended Lord Archer, who was sentenced to four years in prison for perjury in 2001.
Writing in today’s Observer, McMillan-Scott, who remains a vice-president of the European parliament, says the Tories unleashed a “campaign of vilification” against him after he claimed that Michal Kaminski, the Polish MEP who now leads their centre-right group in the EU, had an antisemitic, homophobic and racist track record.
A strong pro-European and member of the Tory party for 43 years, McMillan-Scott gives voice to years of frustration at the party’s hostile attitudes to the EU under present and past leaders, including William Hague.
In his outspoken attack on the party over its handling of his expulsion, McMillan-Scott says he has been smeared by Tory press officers who have tried to claim he is the one who holds antisemitic views.
He adds that they have distorted facts about his defection and claims that the party produced no documents to support its case when he appealed against expulsion. “I am not bitter, but they are twisted. It is not a nice party now,” he writes.
He accuses Cameron of tolerating eurosceptics who depart from the party line while persecuting him, a pro-European, for daring to express sincerely held doubts about the leadership credentials of a controversial fellow MEP.
“David Cameron shields his europhobes,” he writes. “No murmur was made when last weekend Lord Tebbit in effect encouraged Conservatives to vote Ukip in the general election against the Speaker, John Bercow. The dog whistle is really at a lower pitch: that Ukip supporters know that there is a real home for them, back in the Conservative party.”
Last night, speaking from the Liberal Democrat spring conference in Birmingham, McMillan-Scott said the party had shown “massive double standards” by expelling him while suspending Jeffrey Archer for five years.
When the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, mentioned McMillan-Scott’s name at a rally on Friday night there was a huge roar from activists. Yesterday he was seated in the front row for a question-and-answer session, so Clegg could welcome him.
The row over McMillan-Scott blew up last year when he stood as vice-president of the European parliament against Kaminski, who was Hague’s choice. Following McMillan-Scott’s stand, Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Conservative MEPs, withdrew the party whip.
On 15 September, without any prior notification, McMillan-Scott was expelled from the Conservative party after 25 years as an MEP, four years as leader of the MEPs and three years on the party’s board.
• Hague is also likely to come under fire if he declines an invitation to appear this Thursday before a parliamentary committee investigating the granting of a peerage to Lord Ashcroft .
The three Tory members of the public administration committee – David Burrowes, Ian Liddell-Grainger and Charles Walker – have already said that they will not attend the one-off meeting, at which confidential Cabinet Office records relating to the decision to grant Ashcroft a peerage in 2000 will be discussed.
But the event is now in danger of running into farce. Ashcroft, a “non-dom” who does not pay UK tax on his overseas earnings, is unlikely to appear in person and Hague, too, looks doubtful.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
How Lib Dems got where they are today
about 6 months ago - No comments
The Liberal movement’s victories, setbacks and transformations from the turn of the last century to the present day
1906 The Liberal party wins a general election landslide built on a call for free trade and an anti-Conservative pact with the new Labour party.
1916 David Lloyd George heads a Conservative-Liberal coalition in the 1918 postwar election, with Labour becoming the official opposition over the Independent Liberals of Herbert Asquith.
1922 The Conservatives break away from Lloyd George’s wartime coalition, leaving the split Liberal and New Liberal parties floundering, with many Liberal MPs (including Winston Churchill) defecting to the new Conservative government or Labour opposition.
1945 The postwar election is a disaster for the Liberals, who take only 12 rural seats, wiping out the party leadership and its urban representation and leading to decades in the wilderness.
1976 Newly elected Liberal leader David Steel enters into an electoral pact with Jim Callaghan’s Labour government, giving Callaghan a much-needed parliamentary majority that had been lost in byelection defeats. The pact broke down before Labour’s defeat in the 1979 election.
1981 Moderate Labour MPs Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and Bill Rodgers (the Gang of Four) break away to form the Social Democratic party (SDP), taking a ignificant number of Labour MPs with them. The SDP forms an alliance with the Liberal party, jointly winning nearly 25% of the vote (yet only 23 parliamentary seats) in the 1983 election.
1988 Following Margaret Thatcher’s victory in the 1987 election, the SDP and Liberals merge, despite loud opposition from members on both sides, becoming the Social and Liberal Democrats.
1997 Under the leadership of Royal Marine-turned-MP Paddy Ashdown, the Liberal Democrats record their best result since 1935 in the 1992 election, then more than double their number of MPs five years later by reacting to New Labour’s move to the centre with a campaign to raise income tax to fund education reforms.
2005 Charles Kennedy’s Lib Dems win 62 seats with 22% of the vote, benefiting from widespread anger over the Iraq war.
2010 Nick Clegg narrowly won the leadership in 2007 and is preparing for a general election, declaring that the his party will have four demands before lending any minority administration its support: reform of the tax system, more spending on education for poorer children, a switch to a greener economy and political reform in Westminster.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
It’s Nick Clegg’s chance to shine, so he’d better not fluff his lines | Andrew Rawnsley
about 6 months ago - No comments
The Lib Dems have a fabulous opportunity, but will need exceptional discipline during the campaign
In conversation with friends about the forthcoming televised election debates between the party leaders, Nick Clegg was heard to say: “I’d better not screw up.” That self-deprecation is an attractive side of his character. If Gordon Brown entertains for a moment the possibility that he might fall flat on his face before 10 million or more viewing voters, you can’t imagine him saying it out loud.
Nick Clegg is right to be nervous that he doesn’t fluff his chance to shine in the TV arc lights. This general election is a golden opportunity for him and his party. A whiskery government asks for a fourth term under a disliked prime minister who has presided over the deepest recession since 1945. An unconvincing Conservative party hasn’t persuaded the country that its air-brushed leader can be trusted with power. If not now for the Lib Dems, when?
The usual case made against them by their opponents is that they are a dilettante party. This time they can say that, when it came to two of the big calls of the last decade, they got it right and their larger rivals got it wrong. Labour and the Tories were united in supporting George Bush’s invasion of Iraq. The Lib Dems opposed the war. Iraq is in a better place today than it was five years ago, but there’s no escaping the epic amounts of blood and treasure squandered because the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam was so calamitously mishandled. The Lib Dems can contend that they also displayed superior foresight at home. Labour and the Tories were as one in encouraging the reckless gamblers of high finance during the bubble years. The Lib Dems were the lonely and now vindicated voice which warned that the debt-fuelled boom would ultimately implode in a ruinous bust.
They can also argue – though it would be best for them not to be too sanctimonious about it – that their parliamentarians came out of the expenses scandal looking less mucky than either Labour or the Tories. Not a single Lib Dem MP has been found guilty of “flipping” to bilk the taxpayer for mortgage payments and home refurbishment while avoiding capital gains tax.
Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and other members of the leadership team have also worked hard to enhance their credibility in straitened economic times. They’ve abandoned the party’s tiresome old habit of offering wish lists of goodies to the voters by ditching as unaffordable previous promises to give free care to the elderly and to scrap immediately student tuition fees.
Now to their handicaps. The first is that the Lib Dems can’t credibly claim that they have a chance of forming the next government. The second is that they can’t say who they would govern with in the event that the election produces a hung parliament – what they prefer to call, because it sounds less unstable, a “balanced parliament”.
That outcome could finally give the Lib Dems their long craved chance to shape government to their agenda. At the same time, the prospect of a hung parliament turns the election campaign into a minefield which they will have to safely traverse between here and polling day. Nick Clegg is enigmatic about precisely what he would do in the event that the election does not give a parliamentary majority to either David Cameron or Gordon Brown. I don’t blame the Lib Dem for his muteness on this subject. He is not Mystic Meg. A “photo finish” – in which Labour and the Tories have an equal claim on power – is just one of several possible scenarios. There is a variety of ways in which parliament could be hung and the Lib Dem leader has no more idea than anyone else what may confront him on 7 May.
His reluctance to spell out how he would jump is explicable for plenty of other reasons. To express a preference now would be to take a big risk that his party would split under him. Some of his most senior colleagues believe they would be crucified by much of the media and subsequently immolated by the voters if they try to sustain Gordon Brown in office after he had been rejected by the country. There is interest in the idea, first floated in this space some months ago, of sustaining a Labour government on condition that there was a new prime minister. Step forward, say, Alan Johnson with his long-term commitment to changing the voting system. But there are formidable obstacles in the way of such a deal – not least the likely reluctance of Gordon Brown to go gently into the night.
Many Lib Dems, a party instinctively on the centre-left, would be viscerally hostile to any sort of arrangement with the Conservatives. The Tories are flatly opposed to electoral reform, surely the sine qua non for the Lib Dems of doing a deal with anyone.
In the event of a hung parliament, an understanding which allowed orderly government – the passage of the budget and other key elements of business – looks a more likely outcome than a full-blown coalition. This is not least because the Lib Dems have cramped the ability of their leadership to deliver them quickly and smoothly into power with another party. Long ago, when his members became suspicious that Paddy Ashdown might do a deal over their heads with Tony Blair, the party imposed a complex “quadruple lock” which makes decisions dependent on bewildering permutations of votes by the party’s MPs, its federal executive, a special conference and a ballot of its members. How wonderfully Lib Dem to shackle their leader with more checks and balances than the constitution of the United States imposes on an American president.
Any hint from Nick Clegg that he has a preference between Gordon Brown and David Cameron would hand a massive gift to his opponents. Labour is already trying some elemental blackmail by telling voters that support for the Lib Dems could let in the Tories by the back door. The Tories are likewise trying to scare other voters with the idea that support for the Lib Dems could allow Gordon Brown to cling to office even if he has been clearly rejected by the country.
Nick Clegg’s current formula is to say that the party with the strongest support will have the “mandate” and the “moral right” to form a government “either on its own or with others”. What he has not spelt out is how he defines mandate. Does this mean the party with the greatest number of MPs or the party with the greatest share of the vote? That opacity is deliberate. If he says most votes, that will be taken as a wink that he leans towards the Tories. If he says most seats, that will be taken as a nudge that he is keener on Labour.
The Lib Dems will be intensely pressed during the campaign to jump off the fence, especially when opinion polls put us in hung parliament territory. It’s really not reasonable that the media treats this as a question to which only the Lib Dems owe an answer. It can equally well be asked of Gordon Brown or David Cameron what they will do to ensure stable government in the event that the country declines to give either of them a parliamentary majority. But there’s not much point Lib Dems moaning about that. They ought to be accustomed to life not being fair. They will need to demonstrate exceptional, not to say uncharacteristic, discipline if they are not to be impaled on this question. If his MPs start letting slip opposing preferences, Nick Clegg’s campaign will fall apart.
He has been trying to switch the emphasis to what he would demand in return for support in the hope of redirecting attention to his party’s policies. Today, in a speech to the Lib Dem spring conference, he will set “four tests” for Labour and the Conservatives: reforms to tax, schools, the City and parliament, including changes to the voting system. Some people, among them his own activists, will lament that global warming is not on his list of deal-breakers. Others, including his opponents, will ask why he has left off protecting the health service. This approach is not without its risks.
Most voters have a formed view about Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Their wives have also begun a toe-curling competition to win votes which is not much more edifying than had Sarah and Sam decided to settle it with a wet T-shirt contest.
By contrast, Nick Clegg has a very fuzzy profile with the public. If they’ve even heard of him, they don’t think they know him. If they know him, they don’t think they know him very well. The leaders’ debates will be his great opportunity to change that. He has won the same airtime as his opponents. The big two could have tried to insist that they got a larger share than the third man, but they feared that wouldn’t be tolerated by the broadcasters and wouldn’t be seen as fair by voters. So the Lib Dem leader has been given equal exposure and status with Gordon Brown and David Cameron which treats him as a candidate for prime minister even though he is not. This is a privilege neither Charles Kennedy nor Paddy Ashdown ever enjoyed. It is a fabulous opportunity for Nick Clegg. Yes, he really had better not screw up.
The End of the Party is the number one best-selling non-fiction hardback. To order signed copies of Andrew Rawnsley’s book for only £17, visit guardianbooks.co.uk or call 0845 606 4232.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Edward McMillan-Scott: Standing up to extremism in Europe cost me my place with Tories
about 6 months ago - No comments
What the Conservatives say publicly about Europe is not what they really think, says the MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber
William Hague has been using positive words to describe the Conservative party’s future relations in government with our EU partners. I have been around the higher circles of the party for long enough to know that a visceral euroscepticism has been growing there since John Major’s day. I had a stand-up row with Hague when, while leader of the Tory MEPs, he tried to get me to back his “Never to the Euro” ticket.
It was chilling to hear the then party leader say to one very senior spokesman at an EU meeting some years ago: “We can say what we like here, but it will be different when we are in government.” I should have left then, instead of carrying on the pro-European fight from within.
David Cameron shields his europhobes. No murmur was made when last weekend Lord Tebbit in effect encouraged Conservatives to vote Ukip against the Speaker, John Bercow, in the general election. The dog whistle is really at a lower pitch: that Ukip supporters know that there is a real home for them, back in the Conservative party. Dan Hannan MEP plays the same game, even declaring that he had resigned his spokesmanship in Europe to campaign full-time for a referendum on EU in-or-out. No slapdown there, either; certainly no expulsion. But then he is a chum of Sam Cameron’s; they were at Marlborough College together.
My decision to join the Liberal Democrats this weekend was made easier by the vile letter the lawyers conducting my appeal against expulsion last year from the Conservative party received last weekend. They described it to me as “intemperate”, and advised me that, since the party refused to supply any documents about my expulsion, there was no hope of a fair final hearing next Thursday at Tory HQ. So I withdrew from the appeal and thereby resigned from the Conservative party I have served more or less faithfully for 43 years.
No doubt my successful stand for re-election last July as European parliament vice-president against the “official” candidate from Poland’s Law and Justice party, Michal Kaminski, put forward by Cameron’s controversial new group, caused him some discomfiture. But the campaign of vilification against me when I explained my reasons – that Kaminski had a recent antisemitic, homophobic and racist past – was so bizarre that it began to attract attention.
Indeed, Toby Helm in this newspaper was the most attentive. He had been present at the national commemoration in July 2001 of one of the most notorious massacres of the second world war in Nazi-occupied Poland. At Jedwabne in July 1941, more than 400 Jews were rounded up by their Polish neighbours and herded into a barn where they were burned.
At the time of the apology, Kaminski was the local MP and he made it his business to organise opposition to the commemoration. He denies this now, as he denies so much else of his easily discovered past, using the Nick Griffin defence: “If I said it then, I would not say it today.”
Last week Cameron was interviewed by the Jewish Chronicle and assured its readers that he would bear down hard on extremism in Britain. This sits uneasily with a man who propitiates it in Europe.
Conservative press officers hounded Labour over Damian McBride. The same pack have been repeatedly reported to me by journalists as using heavy tactics. One hapless Yorkshire Post journalist was called one week by six Tory boys demanding a right of reply for Kaminski. He coolly and properly said that, if he accepted that, he would also have to give space to Nick Griffin. The same team put it about that I was antisemitic because I once met Hamas – actually to tell them to stand for election. They are out again this weekend distorting the facts about my defection to the Lib Dems. I am not bitter, but they are twisted. It is not a nice party now.
A move to the Lib Dems is easier because I have known, liked and respected Nick Clegg for some years, whether as a key negotiator on trade while Sir Leon Brittan was EU commissioner or later as an MEP.
Most of my family are liberals and I am comfortable joining the Liberal family. From being a liberal Conservative I have become a conservative Liberal. And it is not a nasty party.
Edward McMillan-Scott is MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber and continues to sit as an independent vice-president of the European parliament
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Liberal Democrats start to believe that this election could be different
about 6 months ago - No comments
From eternally Tory Eastbourne to the Labour heartlands of West Yorkshire, the Liberal Democrats are convinced that they can take seats off both main parties at the forthcoming general election and end up holding the balance of power in a hung parliament. Could it really happen?
Annemarie Field smiled, her pale blue eyes sparkling in the sunshine. “I always used to say that if you put a blue rosette on a cornflakes packet it would win a general election in Eastbourne. This town is Conservative.” She should know, having worked for the town’s two local papers since 1985. But this year might be different.
Eastbourne is one of the top target seats for the Liberal Democrats, who are determined to overturn a Tory majority of 1,124. Field described the party’s campaigners as an army of “yellow ants” marching through the streets. With two months to go, they are delivering 45,000 leaflets and 25,000 targeted letters every fortnight. Their candidate, Stephen Lloyd, will knock on 2,000 more doors before 6 May.
“We don’t have multimillion-pound donations from Lord Ashcroft or the unions,” said Danny Alexander, the MP who chairs the group in charge of the party’s manifesto. But the Lib Dems appear to have something else: an unprecedented ability to organise locally.
That is what they are doing against the Tories in the south – and against Labour, largely in the north. It is a geographical spread which brings accusations that the party changes its message to suit its audience.
In this seaside town, the Lib Dems’ focus has been car parking – and, in the wake of the MPs’ expenses scandal, on the sitting Tory MP’s second home.
“The Lib Dems are desperate for Eastbourne,” said Field, walking into the newspapers’ main office. “If I was a gambling person I wouldn’t know who to put my money on,” she said to a male colleague. He swung his chair round to face her and nodded. “In fact, I might put my money on Stephen Lloyd,” he said. “Me too,” boomed another, raising his arm.
It is not only in Eastbourne where the Liberal Democrats are increasingly optimistic. At their party’s spring conference in Birmingham this weekend, the same conversations could be heard in the hallways, the restaurants and the bars. There was talk of whether the party could gain from public fury about expenses; debate about how the words “hung parliament” had thrown the party into the news like never before; chatter about whether Nick Clegg could exploit his role as equal player in the three televised leaders’ debates.
By yesterday many were daring to consider the question: could the 2010 general election be a turning point? They were boosted by the news that Edward McMillan-Scott, a former Tory MEP who once headed the party’s grouping in Brussels, had joined the party.
Then there was the rallying call from their leader. “On Monday morning I want you to get out there and go for broke in what will be the biggest fight of our political lives,” he told delegates, who rose to their feet and roared in appreciation. It all sounded good, but then again hadn’t they heard it all before? Wasn’t it much more likely that the activists dressed in yellow would wake up on the morning of 7 May disappointed again?
Some disagreed. “I think this election is starting to look different,” said Olly Grender, a former party director of communications who worked with Paddy Ashdown. “What is uniquely interesting is the strength of feeling that it is time for a change, and the same strength of opinion that David Cameron is not the embodiment of that change. That creates an opportunity for the Liberal Democrats.”
Grender said the televised debates were vital. The fact that broadcasters, and in particular the BBC, were taking the party seriously would create a “ripple effect”. Then there was the “hung parliament scenario”, which Grender called a “double-edged sword”. It made the party relevant but also raised fears among voters of its economic dangers.
“I headed the media in 1992 and anyone involved in that campaign came out deeply scarred,” said Grender, as he recalled the “absolute certainty” with which pollsters predicted a hung parliament in the exit polls and the “absolute nonsense” that proved to be the cold light of day.
Grender said it was “critical” that Clegg was not drawn on the issue. On Friday he wasn’t. On stage, he referred to “you know what”, baiting journalists looking for any sign that he was ready to make a pact. Clegg lifted up his red tie, then smiled and pulled open his jacket to reveal a blue lining.
Today he will tell delegates in his conference speech that it is for the public to decide. “I am not a kingmaker. The 45 million voters of Britain are the kingmakers. They give the politicians their marching orders, not the other way around. It’s called democracy,” he will say.
Clegg says his party is interested in promoting its four main areas of policy focus: tax, education, cleaner politics and the financial crisis. Nevertheless, fears emerged among left-of-centre delegates at the weekend that he would get too close to Cameron .
Yesterday evening MPs and others gathered for a fringe meeting to formally launch the Social Liberal Forum – a pressure group committed to “reinventing the left” in Britain. Some admitted they were uneasy about the notion of a Tory-Lib Dem pact.
Clegg had aimed to reassure delegates by clarifying comments that appeared to support the former prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. “I violently opposed and was hostile to pretty well everything she did,” he said.
But Grender argued most delegates would not put themselves on the left-right political spectrum. “There is a strength of philosophy and it is liberalism.”
Many people spoke at conference about what was happening outside, on the streets of Birmingham, through Yorkshire and into Newcastle, across Cambridge, London and into the south-west. Tim Farron, who is defending a majority of only 267 in Cumbria, told delegates that the Lib Dems had to deliver 10 times more leaflets that their rivals just to be heard. In a rousing speech, the MP compared the campaign to a football match in its final five minutes.
John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, said he had seen activists in action in his own constituency and “boy, are they fighting for it”. But he also introduced a dose of realism, saying that the national polls suggested the party was “indestructible yet uninflatable”. That said, the key to the general election could be the Lib Dem-Tory marginals, he said. The results there could determine whether or not Cameron won his much-yearned-for majority.
In Eastbourne, seagulls flocked above the union flag flapping in the wind over the station, beside neat, landscaped gardens which run parallel to the beach and above rows of well-kept, sizeable homes. At 100 Seaside Road last week, the windows were filled with yellow and orange posters. Four volunteers sat inside the front room rhythmically picking up leaflets and stuffing them into envelopes.
This war room has been active for years, not months, funded by Lloyd and a large number of relatively small donations. The candidate’s message is persistently local: his three top issues are a campaign against a parking scheme, a fight to save a local college and policing.
As one of the writers at the Eastbourne Herald claimed: “You can’t win in Eastbourne with Lib Dem policies.” And Lloyd’s team were having “field day” attacking the local Tory MP, he added, largely because it had emerged that Nigel Waterson’s children went to school near a home he owns miles away in Beckenham, Kent.
“I live locally, I shop locally, I know the issues that people experience every day because I experience them too,” said Lloyd, repeating the mantra he has used to the people of Eastbourne.
The other message repeated again and again was that only the Lib Dems could beat the Tories in Eastbourne. Lloyd, whose own roots are in the Labour party, said he was grateful for the votes Labour supporters might bring.
The Tory response is to stress the other side of the equation. “The question that matters in this is election is whether people want five more years of Gordon Brown or David Cameron and the Liberal Democrats do not feature in that,” said Waterson. He criticised Lloyd’s campaign as “particularly nasty and personal” and warned it could backfire.
But if the question for the Lib Dems in affluent towns in the south-west is how to persuade Labour supporters to back their assault on a Tory incumbent, how can it challenge Labour in some of the most deprived wards in the country? Does it cynically change its message to boost its chance of election?
Bradford East is another seat the Lib Dems are desperate to secure – this time by seizing it from the Labour MP, Terry Rooney. In 2005 it wasn’t a target. The candidate, David Ward, remembers the “battle bus” flying straight past his office on its way to Leeds North West. “But this time it will stop,” he said. “The party is relentless with target seats.”
Ward’s constituency was added to the list two years ago and since then central office has demanded monthly updates about the number of leaflets and letters dispatched and doorsteps trodden. Clegg has already visited a number of times.
Ward drove his car around the constituency to demonstrate its diversity. He passed through the attractive cottages at the northern tip, before turning in to one of the most deprived estates in the country. Some of the houses lay deserted with huge metal plates hauled up over windows and doors. At others the gates had fallen off their hinges.
The estates gave way to Bradford Moor, where shops such as Sana Fabrics, Ahmed Foods, Nangla Furniture and Akbar’s lined the streets. In Bradford East half the children were on free school meals, there were five big working-class estates and in the poorest ward a child was five more times likely to die than in Ilkley, an affluent spa town outside the city, said Jeanette Sunderland, the leader of the Lib Dems on the local council and Ward’s campaign manager.
Sitting back into her chair in the campaign headquarters, she flung her hand up towards a map of the sausage-shaped constituency, colour-coded by deprivation. “That means poverty,” she said, sweeping her hand over the lower half of the map, which was red. “And no one lives up there,” she said, pointing to the smaller area of blue.
Behind Sunderland stood a flip chart on which were written four key policies for the Lib Dems. “We take the complex national messages and we explain why they matter to you in Bradford East,” she said. “The £10,000 personal income tax allowance will benefit everyone, while the mansion tax on homes worth more than £2m will hit no one. There are no millionaires in this constituency. There isn’t a house worth £1m, never mind £2m. And the pupil premium to target the most deprived school students will bring in £12m.”
Here too, leaflets are being printed in the thousands. And it is an example of another way that the Lib Dems target areas – starting with a council seat, then another, until they have a ward, then two, then more. Finally, as is now the case in Bradford East, they throw all their energy into securing an MP.
Here too there is leaflet after leaflet reminding voters that there is one party that can’t win: this time, it’s the Tories.
Both Sunderland and Ward rejected the claim that the Lib Dems changed their message to suit the town. Sunderland said it was about talking about the parts of the message that were relevant . “In Little Horton ward in Bradford there is no point talking about tax – most are on benefits,” she said. Electoral reform was a non-issue in Bradford, especially for families where the decision was whether to eat or warm their houses.
Ward claimed disillusionment was rife in Bradford East. To prove his point promised that the first person he asked would not know the name of their local MP. He was right. “I haven’t got a clue,” she said in a strong local accent, laughing. Mubarak Khan, a 42-year-old taxi driver, said he had always backed Labour but now wouldn’t bother voting at all. “They promise and don’t deliver – on education, health, transport, even policing. I won’t be voting.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds