Carpe Diem!

In a few days, Prime Minister Gordon Brown will visit the Queen and ask for a dissolution of Parliament, thereby signalling the official start of the 2010 General Election. All the posturing will be over, and the people of Britain will spend a few weeks being bombarded with leaflets, party political broadcasts, canvassers, and phone calls from the parties seeking their vote.

But in the political climate of 2010, does anybody really deserve our vote? Over the last year politics has been dominated by scandals involving members of the two Houses of Parliament. There was the scandal of the MP's expenses, although this also encompassed members of the House of Lords. Then just the other week, a number were caught in a trap when a team from Channel Four's Dispatches programme, convinced a number of of members leaving the House, that they could make money working for lobbying firms.

Three MP's and a member of the upper house are now facing fraud charges, because of expenses, and there is a possibility of more to follow. The issue of 'flipping' houses in order to get the most out of the second home allowances, has caused astonishment amongst ordinary members of the public, and some of the practises must have been virtually fraudulent in themselves. In the expenses scandal itself, ridiculous claims were made, and sometimes granted, duck houses, moats, trouser presses, sandwiches, mars bars. It defied normal logic!

Yet, mostly what was happening was not actually illegal. However, our MP's and seemed to have lost all sense of reality, and it was as if they had completely lost whatever moral compass they had. Politicians have never been the most popular of people anyway, and often came very low in public opinion, usually down amongst estate agents and journalists. The public is now firmly convinced that the only reason anybody enters politics is to get as much out of it as they can.

But these events were only really the final nail in the coffin of politician's reputations. The claims and counter claims that emerge from the parties, truth, half-truth and stretching the meaning of 'economic with the truth' to breaking point. Perhaps it is ironic that it is Robert Armstrong's birthday today, when once again his famous phrase is used. But the public have had enough, and unless this election campaign is able to rise itself above the mire, then it could be the lowest turnout in an election since any records were kept.

The public are impatient with the negative campaigning, as the posters have been going up for months now. Labour saying how bad the Tories will be, and the Conservatives vice versa. The personal way they are targeted as Gordon Brown's and David Cameron's pictures loom over us. This has always been a part of our politics, but now people want to hear what the parties will do, not just how awful the other lot will be

With politician's held in such disrepute, and with the prospect of them dominating our television screens for the next few weeks, their stock is not likely to increase. Even more than in previous elections, people, if they bother, will be voting for who they dislike the least. This election could be where minor parties will make the greatest impact, but more than anything it should be the Liberal Democrats golden chance to get in with the big boys.

If our political leaders had any sense, they would realise that more than ever, this is the time to be straight with the public. The economic situation is such that everybody knows that a price has to be paid, but the main parties seem reluctant to really seize the day, and be totally open about what they would do. On the Chancellor's debate last night, no one was really coming out with any detail as to where cuts would be made. All sorts of excuses can be made, that they will be announced in the autumn spending round, or that we haven't got the figures yet. But, the public are fed up with this sort of evasion.

They want to see changes in British politics. They want to believe that those who represent us really are listening, and are putting their needs first. The culture of greed must not only be seen to end, but they want to see evidence. There are many changes that will come into force in the new parliament, and members will be much more restricted in what they can claim for. But these sorts of changes are merely superficial, what the public really wants, is a total turn around in the attitude politicians display.

They want the parties to be honest about where they will cut if elected. They want numbers, and they want it explained in a manner they can understand. Those of you who read this will know what is meant by deficit, national debt, GDP, IMF INS, but that doesn't mean the general public will. And it would be patronising to assume it's because they are uneducated or not smart enough to understand.

It should not be beyond the wit of the parties to put all this into terms that reaches out to the general public. An explanation as why they think cutting should be postponed, or why it should start immediately should be made readily available. The other issues regarding care for the elderly, unemployment, cuts to services, NHS and education funding, these should be clearly defined, and how the economic situation affects each of these.

All the parties will campaign on the agenda of change, but it is the usual changes politicians talk about, and are just designed to gain or hold onto power. What the public want to see is real change in and of politics. They want to feel that the politicians are looking out for their interests, and working as the public servants they are elected to be. They want them to be more accountable, and whichever party, or parties, are in government following the election, will need to implement reform, not only in word, but in deed.

The post-election world could well be very different, whichever party wins. The public will expect real changes in behaviour, and these will need to be concrete not superficial. So our political masters have a choice this time. Be honest and really change, or forget any thoughts of being trusted ever again!

Do you Belize it?

Whatever the financial situation, the 2010 budget was always going to be an 'election budget.' In a few weeks time the voting public will decide who, if anybody, they want to govern Britain in the immediate future. There may be a clear majority for one party, but at the moment, it seems more likely it will either be a hung parliament, or a small majority, for either the Labour or Conservative Parties.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, a position he has held since June 2007, Alistair Darling, had a very difficult balancing act to perform. He firstly had to convince the money markets that the government had the right ideas for dealing with the financial situation, cutting the deficit and dealing with the debt.

His second task, was to show the people of Britain that although the situation is not easy, that the government still believed that it was important to continue to invest in essential public services, as well as training and employment opportunities for those who have been left jobless, and to bolster small and medium sized businesses.

As is well known, some two years ago, the global financial system suffered a collapse brought on principally by the actions of banks in lending to people who would be unable to repay, but also borrowers taking on easy credit. In the end, the number of people defaulting on their mortgages got too much for the system to stand. Although this 'bubble' originated in the States, the way the risk was moved around and spread, meant that when it burst, nobody was safe.

As this 'financial tsunami' spread, many banks and other financial institutions came under severe pressure. Savers began to fear for their money, and some big names, such as Lehman Brothers, and the financial markets, there was a real danger that the whole edifice could come down. Governments all over the world felt that the only effective course of action was to inject huge sums of money, to try and keep the system alive. In the United States the Bush administration started, and it was continued by Obama when he assumed office.

In Britain, similar moves were made by the government, which included taking some of the worst hit institutions more or less into government ownership. These moves have managed to stabilise the system, but propping them up isn't enough. In order to get the economy moving again, the banks needed to start lending again to businesses, but they were so traumatised by what happened, much of it self inflicted, that they have been very reluctant. Resulting in many closing, or laying off staff.

That is a very basic outline of the causes of the current situation. However, the end result has been that the moves taken by the government has meant a huge deficit has occurred, as well as increased government debt. Many companies failed during this period, and unemployment has risen substantially. Lots of blame has gone back and forth over the causes of the recession, and to what extent the actions of individual governments have either made it worse, or eased the effects. These are all legitimate arguments, but economic historians will still be arguing over the causes and effects for many decades to come. That is not for this analysis.

My aim is to examine the budget brought forward by Alistair Darling yesterday afternoon. It won't be an in depth economic examination, that can be done in much greater detail, and with more expertise elsewhere. I intend to try and give a sense of what I believe the Chancellor was trying to do, and ask questions about what else should have been done. Now, and in the past.

Budget day is one of parliament's great occasions. Indeed it for times such as this that Churchill insisted the chamber be rebuilt to it's original dimensions following its bombing during World War II. The benches are full to bursting, and even senior ministers like Financial Secretary to the Treasury Stephen Timms have to sit on back benches. The atmosphere is electric, and although these days there is some idea of the measures to be included. The Chancellor often manages to spring a surprise or two.

However, the 2010 budget was not one to make big announcements in. The economic situation is still too uncertain, and although recently things have seemed to be steadily improving. The housing market strengthening, unemployment falling, inflation falling, it is still too fragile. It probably wouldn't take too much to send things back down, with the possibility of a double dip still looming. Therefore, calm and steady was the mantra, and Alistair Darling pretty much stuck to that, very much in keeping with his personality.

The Chancellor is not renowned for rhetorical flourishes during his speeches, but he does have an unexpected sense of michievousness. On the two principal occasions he demonstrated this, firstly, after a list of taxes that would effect the better off he said, "We have not raised these taxes out of dogma or ideology, " which I assume was said with his tongue firmly in his cheek.

No matter how fair or necessary you may believe this to be, a Labour government will always ask for those who can afford it, to shoulder a greater share. In the same way a Conservative government will always favour big business, and its belief that if you encourage the individual they will take responsibility. I would argue that New labour manages to mix these up quite successfully, but that's a discussion for another day.

The second time also came with a sense of the dramatic, and was definitely designed to be a crowd pleaser, at least on the government benches. This was when he announced that new tax information exchange agreements had been signed with Dominica, Grenada, and wait for it.....Belize! Whatever legitimate reasons there are for this agreement with Belize, this was a direct dig at the Conservatives, particularly their deputy chair Lord Ashcroft, as he followed it with a comment on how long it had taken to release Ashcroft's tax information.

This was playing to the crowd, and provided a bit of light relief in what was always going to be a very downbeat budget statement. However, Alistair Darling is not anywhere near as theatrical as Gordon Brown was when delivering these. He has a quieter, less animated style, which suited very well the circumstances surrounding the 2010 budget.

But, overall the budget was designed to appeal to all sectors of the economy. There were ideas to extend the funding for training for the unemployed. To encourage universities to create an extra 20,000 places, particularly in technological and scientific disciplines, including mathematics. Perhaps an attempt in the long term to plug the shortage in qualified maths teachers. He announced that there would be reductions in taxes for small and medium sized businesses, with some not paying rates at all. Mr Darling also brought in measures to encourage investment by doubling allowances. He sought to build on measures already announced last December in the health service, such as cancer checks,and education with catch up tuition in maths and English for 7-11 year olds.

But because of the need to tackle the deficit, it was savings which were the real area of interest. The Chancellor talked much about efficiency, and how much had already been done in various departments. He told of how £26.5 billion had already been implemented, with a further £11 billion to be identified. Savings were also to be made by moving civil servants from London to less expensive areas of the country. This is a very good move, but probably something that should have been done, by any government many years ago.

For many weeks, and months, now the Conservatives have been saying that Britain must start dealing with the deficit much sooner, whilst the Government has said that to do so too soon would harm the economy. Indeed, many organisations such as the IMF and the World Bank broadly agree with this view, though they would also say that deeper cuts in services should be made.

The IMF in a recent report said, "For the global economy, with the exception of some countries, current conditions do not justify a significant rolling back of macro­economic stimulus or financial policies in 2010. The recovery remains sluggish compared with past standards, at least in the advanced economies." This appears to support the Government's stance that starting to introduce cuts too soon would jeopardise the recovery.

There were letters recently to newspapers from economists giving different points of view, which only really proved the old mantra that if you put two economists in a room you get two opinions, unless one is Keynes then you get three.

However, the public despite many doubts, do not seem overly enthusiastic about the plan to make immediate cuts, and opinion from the global financial institutions tends to countenance against it. Their attacks on policy regarding the deficit having failed, the Tories have therefore switched it to the debt. This is the difference between what the government collects in taxes, and what it spends, and exists regardless of whether there is a recession. However, its size is affected by this, and whilst it currently is 54% of Gross Domestic Product (basically how much money the economy makes), and is predicted to rise to 75% by 2013-14.

Whilst this may still be lower than our major competitors, in the end it is still an issue that needs to be tackled in the long term. When Labour took office in 1997 the debt stood at 43%, so during the long boom, something should really have been done to reduce it. No matter how well things went in the United Kingdom, there would always be events outside that would affect us, even if not on the scale of current crisis.

There are always going to be fundamental differences between the Labour and Conservative parties regarding the role of the state. Alistair Darling summed up the Labour view very well yesterday, "At the heart of our decisions is a belief that Government should not stand aside, but instead help people and business achieve their ambitions. " This is very important, and explains in a simple phrase the different approaches the parties take. Mr Darling then emphasised that only governments have the ability to act in these situations, as well as a responsibility for the good of the British economy.

One of the crucial differences between the parties is in the area of regulation, especially of the banking and financial systems. It will be argued about for years, but the rampant deregulation that occurred in Britain and the US in the 1980s, contributed significantly to the crisis. There is certainly a taste for tighter regulation of financial institutions in the post-crisis world, something which the Conservatives will need to adapt to. A classic liberal party, the free market is very important to them, and the thought of having to bring in tighter regulation will be a hard decision.

Throughout large chunks of the Chancellor's speech, the opposition sat stony-faced. They burst into life on a couple of occasions, when policies they had previously advocated were taken up, such as the removal of stamp duty for two years for first time buyer up to £250,000, which was fair. But overall, they did not react to the main points. Although Oliver Letwin found the mention of Belize very amusing.

Alistair Darling did revise down slightly his growth predictions, bringing them in line with those of the Bank of England. Many commentators say that this is too optimistic, and whilst I am not in a position to comment, if the Bank is expecting growth to around 3%, then what information do the others have they don't?

So what does the budget really mean for Britain? In the end, it was about setting out what the priorities are for a continuing Labour administration, and how different they would be if the Conservatives take power following the election. It was designed to appeal to both long-term party supporters, with the taxes on the better off, and continuing help for pensioners, but also those who were attracted to 'New Labour' project. These included tax breaks for small businesses, the games sector which has grown so substantially, and to encourage closer links between business and universities.

Alistair Darling was at pains to emphasise the way the Conservatives had opposed the bail out of the banks. But, let's be fair here, in that although they did at first, they did come round. But it does seem strange that they have been so poor at defending themselves, which leads you to think their positional change was more political than persuaded, as by and large the public supported the idea.

As a supporter of the Labour government I believe this budget was a good one for Britain's future, and will help the recovery going whilst it is still in its early stages. It doesn't answer all the problems facing Britain. There is still the problem of the debt to be dealt with, and it is reliant on a lot of things that are currently uncertain. Such as the pace of growth, and future tax revenues if unemployment continues to fall, and retail sales maintaining improvement.

More detail now on where cuts will need to be made might well have been better, as it would have easily dealt with these accusations. Although the Chancellor did concede today that they would be very deep, comparing with those made in the 1980s. The Conservatives have yet to say where immediate cuts will be made, and they are now in a difficult position. They have constantly said their cuts would be deeper than Labour's, but now have to decide, whether to take the plunge and say that they will make the deepest ever. Or stick to the risky strategy of not giving detail until after the election, if they win.

The Chancellor has said that the detail will emerge in the autumn spending review, which the government can probably just about get away with. The Conservatives are stuck with the problem of whether the public are prepared to take a risk on electing a party, that does not seem to have a firm economic policy. This was probably part of Alistair Darling's thinking. Forcing them into a corner where a decision needs to be made.

The final budget of the parliament over, the Chancellor can feel satisfied with what he did. There were no fireworks, and it may be dependent on a number of uncertain factors, but it was a budget designed to enable a stable and steady recovery to be maintained.

Mad, bad, and just plain boring!

The United Kingdom Independence Party does not hide its primary objective, to ensure the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union. They believe that the UK has given up some 80% of its law making rights to the EU, and at a cost of £40 million a day, money which could be better spent elsewhere.

However, this figure is very misleading. Britain does pay more into the budget than it receives, a distinction it shares with Sweden, Finland, Holland, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Austria and Belgium. The UK is the second highest net contributor, but the total deficit for the period 2007-13 is aimed to be 4.2 billion euros, which works out a around 11.5 million euros per day. So although the UK is a net contributor, it is nowhere near the figures UKIP propound.

Having been very much a one note party since its inception in 1993, UKIP is now trying to broaden its appeal, by forming policies on taxation, health, transport and a wide range of others. However, the central tenet of these, favour the better off to such an extent, they make the Conservatives look positively egalitarian in their approach. The Tories at least understand the need for, and benefit of progressive taxation. The flat tax proposed by UKIP, benefits the already well off, and hammers those who wish to achieve more within the middle income bracket. Basically, they would destroy the desire to succeed.

They have felt the need to expand on these policies, because of the current distaste with politics, and distrust of politicians, within the electorate. The 2009 European and County Council elections proved fruitful ground, as UKIP achieved second place overall in the European, and they gained seven councillors in the County elections.

So, it is easy to gain the impression that UKIP is a party on the up, and that they will gradually become a part of the political mainstream. There is still a lot of discontent in the country regarding politicians from the established parties, and UKIP hope to benefit greatly from this. But they also realise that being a one trick pony, would lead to people just asking what else they had to offer.

However, they are very deluded in one essential area. Such is their commitment to the anti-European cause, that they have convinced themselves that that message was the main reason for their success. In reality, it was the disgust with the parties in parliament, especially the scandal surrounding MPs expenses. Because the Liberal Democrats are a major part of that institution, on this occasion UKIP became the main party of protest.

On Friday 18th March, they held their Spring Conference in Milton Keynes, in which they attempted to lay out a programme to appeal to the electorate. Unfortunately for Lord Pearson, the opening speech at the Conference was made by Nigel Farage, "(A) flirtatious creature who does a good impression of a normal bloke,'' as described in today's Telegraph by Tanya Gold. There are lots of things you can say about Farage, none of them complimentary, but if there one thing he is good at, it is public speaking.

In the opening speech he was able to stir up the delegates. Farage has a style that is very reminiscent of old style political speakers from the 1940s and 50s. You could easily imagine him standing on a box, attracting crowds of curious listeners, as he bellowed and gesticulated. Unfortunately for him, these onlookers could also be gathered at Speaker's Corner, where those who are viewed as pure public entertainment unleash their fury, and Farage would not look or sound out of place there.

However, the point here is that whatever you may think of him, Farage knows how to perform. This must make it even more painful for them, when Lord Pearson gets up to speak. All political parties tend to be loyal to their leaders, and certain amount of exaggeration is to be expected after they make a speech. However, in this description of Lord Pearson's on Friday, "A hugely successful UKIP Spring Conference ended with a rousing speech by Party Leader, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who approached and left the stage to a raucous standing ovation," really stretches the definition of 'rousing' to breaking point.

Lord Pearson stumbled throughout, in a slow droning voice. Even the delegates were struggling to cheer loudly, and the supposed standing ovation was probably more in pity than acclaim. He went on to attack both main parties for their approach to Europe, even though he was challenged on 5live yesterday, that the Conservatives were the most Euro-sceptic they had been for years. But, for UKIP, they don't go far enough, and David Cameron's insistence of a role for Britain in the EU, even if to more europhile observers, we find that a doubtful claim, as anything that seeks to co-operate within the institutions is considered anathema.

As could be expected, however, Pearson concentrated the bulk of his attack on the European Union, and listed a whole string of statistics, and information just as misleading as the one regarding the UK's budget contribution. He described as weak the government's defence of Britain's membership, when they had stated it, "(B)elieves that our membership of the European Union has brought real benefits to the United Kingdom through jobs, peace and security. Through our membership, we belong to the world’s largest trading bloc. Over half of the United Kingdom’s trade is with the EU, with an estimated 3.5 million British jobs linked to it. Our membership allows us to live, work and travel across Europe."

But whatever difference people may have over what we get, the vast majority of British people, seem content with membership. UKIP often claim that most people want to withdraw, but this is palpably untrue. The majority opinion lies somewhere between Labour's full engagement, and the Conservatives repatriation of powers policy. This falls far short of wanting to withdraw. Indeed even the Telegraph reporter, not a paper noted for its pro-European stance, described it as the party of 'Little England euro-sceptics.'

This was not the rousing speech that UKIP claim. It was the speech of a man totally out of touch with the reality of life. This is the same man who invited Geert Wilders, to show his anti-Muslim film, and promote UKIP's racist agenda regarding immigration. Indeed, UKIP are seeking to ban the burka, which ironically is a copy of the policy being being discussed in France, which is looking unlikely now to be implemented. Speaking to the converted, Pearson made no attempt to broaden UKIP's appeal, which is what they must do, if they want to make that breakthrough. A place to register your protest is one thing, but becoming part of the political mainstream is another thing altogether.

If UKIP are to threaten in the General Election, they need to do two things. Firstly, they need to persuade undecideds that their message is a good one. But secondly, as well as trying to get candidates from other parties to agree to their anti-European Union message, they need to attract voters from other parties. The Conservatives being the most likely victims.

In recent months a number of Conservative supporters and councillors have switched their support, including Lord Monckton, former adviser to Mrs Thatcher, the entire Harrow Road branch of Westminster en masse, as well as former MPs Sir Richard Body and Jonathan Aitken.

But you do not break the mould of British politics by standing candidates down when another agrees with your basic policy. In order to be taken seriously, they need to fight their corner, on all their policies, otherwise they will only ever be a single issue party, and most likely a protest vote.

UKIP, tries to present itself as something different, but in the last few years MEPs Tom Wise, Michael Nattrass and Ashley Mote have all either been investigated, charged or found guilty of fraud. They expelled former leadership challenger Nikki Sinclair because she objected to the alliance in the European Parliament with Italy's Northern league, and also have some extremist links in the UK, such as with Traditional Unionist Voice, a hardline loyalist splinter from the DUP.

The party has also suffered when a large donation was deemed illegal, and after a legal case by the electoral commission, and an appeal, cost the party some £750,000. So all in all, instead of being a party of change, UKIP seem to be nothing but a reactionary party, on the extreme right of the political spectrum, which has a lot of problems.

The United Kingdom Independence Party want to change the face of British politics. They want to do this by taking the country back to the supposed era that John Major once evoked so lyrically, "(T)he country of long shadows on cricket grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers." The world that existed, in the films of Ealing Studios, but not in the reality of day to day existence.

So as the 2010 General Election approaches, UKIP will be attempting to break through and snap up the anti-European vote they have convinced themselves exists. But as with their view of Britain, and indeed England in reality, it is a complete fantasy, and come election day, they could well find that 21st century Britain delivers them a severe slap in the face.

Clegg's coalition clangers!

Nick Clegg is in a bind! His instincts are conservative, but his party is centre-left! Yet, there is a chance the next election will produce an indecisive result, and he is desperately trying to steer the Liberal Democrats into a position to take advantage.

Yesterday at the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in Birmingham, he made his last big speech, outside of the election campaign. Mr Clegg was the last of the main party leaders to do so, and he attempted to lay out a vision for a Liberal Democrat government. The Labour Party had unveiled their slogan, 'A Future Fair for All,' and the Conservatives countered with, 'Vote for Change,' (though neither the Conservative website, or ConservativeHome seem overly keen to display it). The Lib Dems, on the other hand, have typically nicked bits of both to produce, 'Change that works for you, building a fairer Britain.' However, their site seems to have a different slogan for each policy area, so expect to be suitably confused.

Nick Clegg is a confident man. he has always seemed to have a belief in his own destiny, the sort of thing probably instilled in him at Westminster School. In a croaky voice, looking like he had just left his office in the city, he stood before the gathered delegates. His opening salvo, a declaration that people should not accept, 'That's just the way things are,' sounded like he had picked his speech up in the middle. Did he forget his introduction? The laying out of the themes to give it coherence!

The Liberal Democrats have long been the third party in Britain, and under their previous guise of the Liberals, since losing the General Election of 1922, following the split between followers of Lloyd George and Asquith. Since then, they have desperately attempted to appeal to voters from all sides, to regain former glories.

After a long period in the doldrums, things started to improve substantially in the 1980s, certainly in vote share, during the alliance with the Social Democratic Party. The 1990s, and early 21st century have proved quite fruitful, and they are easily the third party in Parliament, even if seats do not reflect their actual support.

The 2010 General Election should represent their best chance to breakthrough the Conservative and Labour domination. Even if they weren't able to gain the seats their vote deserved, the case for electoral reform could have been made. So Mr Clegg's task was one of trying to say enough to please his own supporters, whilst appealing to both the main parties watching with interest.

Yet, seemingly he has attempted to cosy up to the Conservative party in the last few days, making a number of statements which seemed to rule out working with Labour, in the event of the them being the largest party in a hung Parliament.

In an interview in the Spectator, he attempts to come across as more conservative than the Conservatives, but ends up just sounding like a child who is desperate to please. Indeed, in the photo above the Guardian's report on the article he looks like a rather rascally schoolboy, who has been caught doing something he shouldn't.

He goes out of his way to praise the Thatcher government, saying that, "(I)f the Conservatives had any imagination or verve," they would ape the policies of Nigel Lawson on capital gains and income. Although to be fair, in the same interview he does criticise Cameron and Osborne on their support for the vested interests of the banks. Teaming up with the Tories would seem more natural for Clegg was a member of the Conservative Association whilst at Robinson College, although it could be argued, he has always shown a penchant for minority politics, as the Tories were very unpopular there.

In recent weeks Clegg had often sounded like he was doing the jobs the Tories have patently failed to do. He consistently attacked Labour's record in office, acting as if the Liberal Democrats were the official opposition. But, in this speech he began by talking about how support for the Conservative and Labour parties has declined, and how the Liberal democrats are there to step into the breech. The thing is, nobody really seems to want them to. If the polls are anything like indicative, whilst the main parties are not gaining the mass of support, they are not flocking to the Liberal Democrats either. Instead, the possibility is that voters will not turn out at all, or turn to minor parties in protest.

At a time when voters feel alienated from politics, the Liberal Democrats should be stepping forward to fill the void. They were the first choice party of protest for many years. Winning stunning by-election results, and their brief alliance with the Social democratic party, before amalgamation, in the 1980s, gave them short-lived dreams of power.

Between March 1977 and October 1978, the old Liberal Party had a taste of power in partnership with the Labour government of James Callaghan. But although the cooperation seems to have helped stabilise the situation at the time, it was not particularly popular with the public. This is perhaps a lesson they need to remember, and not try too hard to appeal to both, but set out their own agenda, and then let things unfold as they will.

So, a few days ago, Nick Clegg was making positive noises about the Conservatives, but at the spring conference he has concentrated on distancing himself from them. He has been somewhat forced into this because of hostility from delegates. Indeed, according to the Guardian, "Those on his party's left, who outnumber the liberal voices, are privately threatening rebellion or resignation if their leader supports a Conservative budget." Yet, in the Spectator interview he was describing Margaret Thatcher as an inspiration. It would be a mistake to think of this as just normal Liberal Democrat indecision. These are the actions of a leader who in trying to appeal to everybody, who could well end up appealing to no one!

The Liberal democrats, like the two main parties, have set out a number of key priorities. In the Lib Dem case it is only four, and they are based around the usual themes of tax, the environment, education and cleaning up politics. The policies, however, are just rehashes of the ones labour has already published, or ones already in action. How close they are to the Tories we will discover when those are announced.

He said he wouldn't act the role of 'kingmaker,' that the decision was up to the electorate, but he returned to his strong anti-Conservative theme. Last year he accused them of scaremongering over the economy, and yesterday he told of how

''David Cameron, George Osborne and Ken Clarke marched into the City of London the other day and declared that if voters didn't give them the result they want, the markets would tear the house down. Cynical, desperate, the Tories think they're entitled to victory - the moment they feel it slipping from their grasp, they start lashing out. It's a political version of the protection racket - do what we want, or else.''

Whilst there may be truth in this assessment, it is an incredibly dangerous game to play. The Conservatives remain the most likely to be the largest party following the election, and statements like this would not make them conducive to working closely with the Liberal Democrats.

I think Fraser Nelson painted a very accurate picture of Clegg when he said, "(I)f there is such a thing as Cleggism, this is it; a mosaic, rather than a fusion, of policies. Some red, some blue. Tax cuts for the poor, to please Lord Tebbit. Tax rises on the rich, to assuage Labour voters." But perhaps most damningly, he than adds, "(T)his approach is not so entirely dissimilar to Tory policies." So he is simultaneously bowing to internal pressure to distance himself from the Conservatives, whilst following the same line in many areas. Though, once again, as part of his trying to steer that middle course, said it would be dangerous to start cutting too soon.

But his attempts to distance himself, are again countered by a headline today saying, ''I would back Tories in a hung poll." So he is contradicting himself, just twenty-four hours after seeming to rule out partnership with the Conservatives. This shows Clegg's totally confused thinking, as he tries to marry his personal preferences, with those of the party.

The Liberal Democrats are still stuck in the middle. They have tried to spend the last few years being to the left of the Labour government, but their instincts have taken them back towards the centre. Unfortunately for them, there are already two parties there, and not much space for another one. Their only real hope lies in either the Tories lurching to the right, or Labour the left, and filling the void. But neither is likely before the election. As said, Nick Clegg's instincts seem to be Conservative, but the really big beast in the party, Vince Cable, and the vast majority of the membership is centre-left.

Nick Clegg has failed to set out a vision for the Liberal Democrats. Something that would separate them from the two major parties, and their only hope in the foreseeable future lays either as a very junior member of a coalition, or to hope for a Labour victory, in which they can bring sufficient pressure to ensure that the promises on electoral form are carried through.

But, in the end, all he has probably done is alienate himself from both parties, and the Liberal Democrats could well find themselves stranded, and even squeezed, in the battle over the centreground, but with neither trusting them enough to work in close partnership with.

The blame game!

It was perhaps to the Chilcot Committee's disadvantage that they chose now to invite Gordon Brown to appear before them. In the last few months he has become a reinvigorated man, displaying much of the confidence that seemed to leave him, as he became beset by a number of problems following his appointment as Prime Minister.

He had two main themes with which he countered the questions put to him. Firstly that the United Kingdom was right, along with the United States to take action against Iraq. Secondly that at no time were British forces denied the equipment they requested.

During the period from March 2003 until July 2007 Mr Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer, a position he had held since 1997. Therefore he was right at the centre of events leading up to the invasion, and in charge of the money to fund it, and the aftermath.

The first half of the Prime Minister's evidence was taken up with the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. The Committee here seemed to have been influenced by the evidence given by Clare Short, the former Secretary of State for International Development, on 2nd February 2010. She had stated that the then prime Minister, Tony Blair, had kept the discussions to a very small group, and that Gordon Brown had been largely excluded.

Whether you agree with the line that Gordon Brown took at the Inquiry, or not, he did not try to duck out of his role of responsibility as a member of the Cabinet. Clare Short had tried to give him a get out, by saying he wasn't closely involved, but he agreed that he was, "adequately briefed, adequately informed, adequately aware of all the different aspects of this question in order to share in the collective responsibility for the decision?" When questioned by Sir Roderic. This was very much in agreement instead, with what Alistair Campbell had said when giving his evidence.

As could be expected, Mr Brown was asked whether he believed that Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction that the Americans were insisting they had. He commented that it 'was known to many countries, not just our country, about the weaponry that the Iraqi Government held, and, of course, at that time there was a greater certainty amongst the intelligence community that this weaponry was there." This, as we know turned out to be untrue, there weren't any weapons in Iraq, and baroness Prashar did not follow up by asking how he felt afterwards when this became evident.

Mr Brown was very skilful in bringing the discussion back to how Iraq was not seeming to comply with UN resolutions. This was despite repeated questioning from Sir Roderic Lyne, asking if there was an imminent threat from the Iraqi military. This was a legitimate line to take, as the original reason given for the invasion, was to prevent Iraq having access to weapons of mass destruction.

Gordon brown did, however, refuse to accept Lyne's line that Tony Blair had given an assurance to President Bush that the United Kingdom would be there if, when, military action was taken. Mr Brown's assertion was that Britain was preparing for military action if required, but was still resolutely pursuing a diplomatic solution. He did maintain that he had not seen the letters between George Bush and Tony Blair, so implying that he would not know about any assurances. But on the issue of international cooperation he was very clear.

"I am afraid this became a test of whether the international community was prepared to deal with problems in a post-Cold War world where instabilities were becoming more and more apparent." The Prime Minister seems have accepted the Bush regime's, 'You're either with us or against us,' mantra in its entirety. The blame here is being shifted onto the United Nations, or more specifically member states, and Tony Blair's insistence that the French had said they would not agree to military action under any circumstances.

This was a very clever ploy by Mr Brown, as he very carefully linked together international co-operation with the decision to invade Iraq. It became, to him, a sign that only by going along with this, are other states showing commitment to the ideals of international co-operation, and would enable them to work more closely in the future to solve problems.

However, would it not be truer to say, that this dissent is not a sign of weakness, but one of strength? The United Nations is not an arm of American, or British diplomacy, but a way for members of the international community to try and sort out issues peacefully. Indeed, the Americans certainly under George W Bush, had such an antipathy towards the UN, that they surely should not have been surprised when they weren't willing to just go along with what the US wanted.

Gordon Brown continued to insist that for him, " (T)he major issue was that a breach of the international community's laws and decisions was something that was unacceptable." This he seems to have considered of greater importance than the threat of WMD. However, if he truly believed this, he would have pressed much more for the diplomatic route, and followed Robin Cook (the sadly missing voice of this whole inquiry). Military action should only have been a last resort, and because, even if WMD had existed, there was no imminent threat, was unjustified.

When questioned regarding the legality of taking action, Mr Brown seemed to indicate that he had been aware that the Attorney General had expressed doubts, but had had no direct knowledge. However, he was at the Cabinet meeting where Goldsmith had shared his view, and said that he 'was unequivocal.' But Mr Brown had said that there were also moral and political considerations to take into account. Once again the Committee failed to follow up this line of enquiry, as surely it would have given a fuller picture of how the Prime Minister came to reach his decision to support the invasion.

Sir Roderic Lyne has been by far the most effective member of the Chilcot Committee when it comes to cross examining the witnesses. He often seems the only one to have read all the evidence, and have a genuinely sceptical view regarding the whole enterprise. Therefore his question, "Do you think that this Cabinet, in which only two members were fully in the picture... was able to take a genuinely collective decision, or was it being asked essentially to endorse an approach that had been taken by your predecessor at a time when the die effectively was already cast?" Should have been a real killer!

Unfortunately, Mr Brown avoided answering this question directly, a skill learned from three years of Prime Minister's questions, repeated that he believed the right decision was taken, and then turned it onto the lessons that had been learned for the future. This is where Sir Roderic let himself, and us down, in that he allowed the Gordon Brown to get away with this, instead of pressing him on this aspect of collective responsibility. There has been evidence from previous witnesses that indicates the Blair form of government was a series of closed meetings, and that the information was distributed on a strict 'need to know ' basis.

Mr Brown seemed to get a bit angsty when challenged that Britain was in reality going along with an American deadline, insisting that the decision that had been taken in the House of Commons the previous November needed to be followed up. As a military decision this is probably correct, but his attitude seemed to suggest unhappiness with the line of questioning. This, however, is really at the route of the whole Iraq issue. To what extent was the United Kingdom just following the diktats of the Bush administration, in the belief that this was essential to 'the special relationship?'

He puts the blame for the failure to plan adequately for post-conflict reconstruction on the shoulders of the Americans. But Britain too had been fully involved in the decision to invade, and therefore, we had a collective responsibility to plan for this eventuality.

Saying seven years later, "(W)e now know that you cannot win the peace simply by military action, you need to engage the people of Iraq, or any other country, you need to give them the chance of political empowerment at some stage... you need economic development. People have got to have a stake in the future." Is not good enough!

Long experience should have taught the British establishment that wars do not leave ploughed fields and happy people in their wake. They leave death, destruction and poverty! These things should have been properly thought out. We knew the Iraqi forces would be no match for us, and large degree of scepticism as to how the Iraqi people would feel would have been sensible.

I was pleased to hear Mr Brown bring the issue of post-conflict (I think calling it a war gives the impression the Iraqis were in a position to put up a fight) reconstruction, and indeed send a paper to the Americans. But, he doesn't seem to have pressed his case, and perhaps if he had followed Clare Short out of the Cabinet on this issue, then his position would have been an incredibly powerful one. perhaps, even his ambition of becoming Prime Minister much earlier might have been achievable.

I accept that Britain did a lot of work in the immediate aftermath to try and help Iraq begin to rebuild. But the initial lack of a real plan, and because of the lack of international support, meant everything was happening far later than it should have. Mr Brown spoke eloquently about how the international community needed to work together much more closely, but as Sir Roderic said, "(P)resumably, it will only be able to operate in areas where there is an international consensus in favour of the action, which obviously wasn't." The UN did become involved in the reconstruction process, but that was out of its obligations to the Iraqi people, and not to boost American or British occupation.

Mr Brown, who as Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the invasion, had overall responsibility for the financial implications. The most controversial of these has been the supply of equipment for our forces, and whether they were adequate for the task in hand. In November of 2002, some £500 million was made available for preparations, some of which was for equipment.

He stated unequivocally, "I made it absolutely clear that every application that was made for equipment and every application that was made for resources necessary for the conduct of the campaign in Iraq had to be met by the Treasury, and we created a system that was quick and fast-moving so that we could make sure the Ministry of Defence had the equipment they
needed as quickly as possible." This is the crux of the matter on this issue. There are contrary statements from military chiefs who say the equipment wasn't there, and that Mr Brown even refused funds, and it is the truth of this which we will examine now.

Mr Brown said that he knew of no occasion when a request for equipment was turned down. In August of 2009 Sir Richard Dannatt stood down as the head of the army because he said, of his repeated requests for equipment, and poor pay and conditions for the troops. The equipment issue however is a very emotive one. Many young soldiers have died, and the blame is often put on inadequate equipment being supplied.

This has been followed up recently by a statement by former special forces chief Sir Graeme Lamb that the SAS were denied even 'Vietnam-era equipment.' However, this strikes me as going too far. There may well have been shortages, but if the equipment was so outdated, then that information would have come out long before now. He may well have just been trying to make a point, but such accusations merely generate heat and not light. Sir Graeme's outburst is contradicted, and his views described as 'outdated' by senior defence staff, that equipment had improved dramatically since Sir David Richards took over as Chief of the General Staff last August.

The former defence staff chief, Lord Guthrie (1997-2001), said in an interview with The Times, "Not fully funding the Army in the way they had asked ... undoubtedly cost the lives of soldiers. He should be asked why he was so unsympathetic towards defence and so sympathetic to other departments.” This is a fair question, and there is certainly a perception that funding for equipment was lacking. Much of this coming from the families of those who fought in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Gordon Brown was insistent that there were no set limits on equipment, and that if more was required, they should request it. Indeed, he talked about the Challenger tanks that had to be specifically prepared for the Iraqi terrain, and that £2 billion pounds was spent out of the £8 billion total on supplying equipment.

He said that vehicles required for the terrain were supplied when requested, and there were no issues of delay. However, as Lawrence Freedman pointed out, if the requests for UORs (urgent operational requirements) are too frequent, this puts a lot of pressure on the defence budget, due to training and maintenance requirements.

A point that Mr brown made time and again was that the costs of running the Iraq operation were in addition to the consistently rising defence budget. He felt this was very important because he was saying that, "I know our military staff would like to have even more equipment and would like to spend more, but we had a rising defence budget at that time and on top of that we met every expense associated with Iraq." Now, this is true, but it does not answer the central issue as to whether the troops had the correct equipment. He was shifting the emphasis here onto whether, in fact, the necessary equipment was being ordered by those in a position to do so.

"It is not for me to make the decisions that the military themselves, along with the Defence Secretary, can make about specific items of equipment, but the real terms rise in spending was there for the military to make the decision as they thought best." As Mr brown said to the committee.

The families of those killed in Iraq were asking three questions; "(W)ere you aware of concerns about the lack of armoured vehicles; did you receive any requests for funding, particularly between 1997 and 2006, for the purchase of armoured vehicles; and lastly, were any concerns raised with you about the use of Snatch Land Rovers?" Mr Brown expressed his sympathies for the families, but still insisted all requests were met. Indeed he says the military chiefs constantly assured him of this.

In reference to particular vehicles, Bulldogs and Mastiffs, Mr Brown said that they were supplied as quickly as procurement allowed, and the money was released immediately. But, according to the Prime Minister the ordering process, "(E)ven if it had been carried out in full, which it hasn't been because of military decisions, that would have not given us the right vehicles, as I understand it, for Iraq." There is a severe 'Not me gov' culture here on both sides. The military saying the correct equipment isn't being provided, and the politicians saying it wasn't ordered.

It was in this area of defence funding that Gordon Brown came into his own. As he read out a whole list of statistics regarding year on year allocation, and indeed that the defence department had received money on top of that allocated in the spending reviews. This seemed to take Sir Lawrence Freedman aback, and he rather stumbled into his next question, without any follow up.

Mr brown then continued his offensive, and said that the Ministry of Defence wished to increase spending by 9% in 2002, whereas they had been allocated an increase of 3.6%, which as he pointed out, would have set a bad precedent for spending in other departments.

Indeed, although at one stage the Chiefs of the Defence Staff, Lord Walker the most prominent, threatened resignation, eventually a compromise was reached, and Lord Walker wrote a letter to the then Chancellor, "Although the settlement is tight, I should be able to make it clear that the chiefs have been the architects of the modernisation plans and they are not the result of inadequate funding." This seems to put the ball firmly back in the military court in the months leading up to the invasion.

However, there was a sting in the tail to this questioning. Sir Lawrence brought up a Defence Committee report dated just yesterday that implied that these constant adjustments in attempting to keep equipment procurement within budget, made it difficult to deliver this on time, and within cost. Therefore, "(S)omehow we haven't managed the equipment programme well enough over the past decade to be able to produce the equipment that's needed for our forces at time and at cost."

This raised a big issue with the equipment, or at least large scale equipment, that is a problem for the military. Indeed, it is a similar concern for the NHS and other areas where research and development, and technology are a large part of the cost. When equipment is purchased, 'defence inflation' as Sir Richard Dannatt called it, it is done so at a price, but often this can change, and although over the years this policy has been altered to more fixed price contracts, it does create a problem of ensuring equipment to standard, and keeping it within cost.

Additionally, the time factor is a crucial one. In 2005 a new Lynx helicopter was ordered, but because of procurement, and design and development, it won't be ready until 2014. This would seem to indicate, that the additional helicopters required for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, would have needed to be ordered, with a knowledge these conflicts were going to arise. As to whether already existing machines could have been bought more quickly, I expect they could have, and issues of preparing them for the specific conditions they would encounter, more rapidly put into operation.

It was here that the lack of experts on the Chilcot Committee really showed itself, and a seeming fear to press the big fish. Perhaps having the Prime Minister in front of them left them a bit star struck, and they felt unsure about driving home points. There seemed to be a difference of opinion regarding helicopter supply between the Public Accounts Committee and the MoD, but Freedman wanted to move on because of time.

It would have been really important to question Gordon Brown on this. In 2002, there were complaints that helicopters were in serious short supply, with the PAC saying there was a 38% gap between needs and provision. Some accuse the Prime Minister of misleading, but you can not mislead, or dissemble as Lord Boyce accused him, if he is not sufficiently pressed by the committee.

In today's Telegraph Lord Guthrie said that what Mr Brown said about providing all the military is not true. However, this is contradicted by Sir Richard Dannatt who said that what The Prime Minister said was 'narrowly factually correct.' Both men speak of the problem of 'defence inflation,' where increases are not adequately covered by inflation matching budget increases, but also about different time periods. Throughout his evidence Gordon Brown was very careful to maintain that he ensured that urgent operational requests for the Iraq invasion and occupation were met. Whereas Lord Guthrie was talking about 1998.

This is the problem for the ordinary observer. These semantic games will go on, and as we do not have access to all the figures, we are not really in a position to judge who is telling the truth. Both sides will attempt to protect their own backs, and there is no way of saying who is really telling the truth.

So what can we make of Gordon Brown's performance yesterday? As I said in opening, he was certainly in confident mood. He appeared to have all the information at his fingertips, something many of the panel seemed to be sadly lacking.

He was able far too easily to control the agenda. Everytime he was aked about situation leading up to the invasion, and the question of weapons of mass destruction, he would steer it onto the issue of Iraqi flouting of United nations resolutions, especially 1441.

To his credit he didn't avoid the issue of collective responsibility, but at the same time, indicated that he wasn't present at important times, such as when Lord Goldsmith first expressed his doubts. It also seems unlikely that he was totally unaware of the contents of Topy Blair's correspondence with President Bush, unless he was by this time so isolated from the centre of real power, which could be what Clare Short meant when giving her evidence.

Gordon Brown came well armed with statistics regarding defence spending for the years 2002-6, and quoted them with alacrity. Everytime the Committee attempted to get onto the subject of equipment he would repeat, in varying ways, "(T)hat there would be no financial barrier to doing what was necessary to be done."

He then cleverly switched the focus onto the role of the military chiefs themselves. Indicating that they had the responsibility of actually ordering the correct equipment. This is certainly true, but whilst there may have been real terms increases in defence spending, the very nature of the business means that in practical terms, this may not actually be enough.

However, as he said, defence is competing with many other departments for government money, and takes a larger share than almost any other. The problem is getting the balance right, but because in wartime young men and women's lives are on the line, this can never sound like an adequate explanation. But, if the Public Acounts Committee report is correct, then there was a shortfall in helicopters at an important time in operations, and the question is how much is Mr Brown responsible for this?

He did have his fingers on the purse strings, and perhaps more money should have been allocated for specific pieces of equipment. But, the military chiefs also have a responsibility to ensure they have the correct equipment on hand, and that the troops are adequately trained to use it. Both sides blaming the other does nothing to clear up the debate, and the political ramifications will rumble on.

The Chilcot Inquiry has uncovered a lot of information, and a story has unfolded. But they have often failed to really get to the heart of issues, and yesterday was no different. Gordon Brown resolutely defended his position throughout the period leading up to, and during the Iraq conflict and occupation. The Committee has come under a lot of criticism, and once again failed to press home important ponts. What did he say and do when it was apparent there weren't any WMD? And why did he stay in place when it became so obvious that reconstruction was almost an afterthought?

Gordon Brown seems to elicit more vitriol from political opponents than Tony Blair ever did, and they just seem to pick up on the comments by former military chiefs, without reading and listening to what was said yesterday. There are two sides to this story, and both are at fault. The families of all those who have fought, especially those who died, deserve a full explanation regarding this conflict, and yesterday didn't really do much to enlighten anybody. However, unlike Tony Blair, Gordon Brown sincerely expressed his sympathies for the familes who lost children, brothers, sisters and parents, and I will end with the words he rounded off his evidence with;

"I want to end by emphasising, if you will allow me to do so, that the soldiers and the civilians who gave their lives in Iraq, deserve both our sympathy and our debt of gratitude and no one who makes the decisions that Cabinets and governments have to make can do so without recognising that lives are affected and sometimes lives are lost as a result of the big decisions and big challenges we have got to meet. So I want us to recognise that people from the service families lost their lives, but also that civilians lost their lives in Iraq and we have got to bear that in mind in all the decisions that we make for the future."