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."

Something of the trite!

David Cameron today made what was probably the most crucial speech of his political career. It will probably be his last opportunity to lay out his case to a big audience, before Gordon Brown asks for a dissolution. It's become so important as the Conservative lead over Labour has significantly lessened in recent weeks. and the prospects of a hung parliament loom even more starkly. If the latest poll, showing a 2% lead, were repeated at the election, it would be difficult for them to gain a majority, even if they do have a lead in the marginals.

Cameron had two tasks ahead of him as he walked onto the platform at Brighton. Ironic in that this was the very stage where Gordon brown launched Labour's fightback at the October Conference. The first was to rally the Conservative troops, and send them out to try and win the Tories first election since 1992. The second, was to lay out a vision, and to explain why voting Conservative would be in Britain's best interests.

The atmosphere at the Conference was in stark contrast to that at the Manchester Conference, which had a real air of triumphalism about it. Indeed , part of the Conservative problem was that they became complacent, and seemed to believe that all they needed to do was stay together, and victory was assured. This may well account for their reluctance to be clear on policy, outside of generalisations to appear different to the government. They were very wary of making any statements that could cause divisions.

It has, therefore, been to the dismay of all Conservative supporters, to see the healthy fourteen point lead they had in the polls following the Conference season, almost disappear. There have been a number of reasons for this. Despite his best efforts, ever since he became leader Cameron has tried to be a modern leader, with his webcameron site, and allowing cameras into his home. This was a form of politics new to Britain, and was an attempt to make David Cameron seem the ordinary family man, 'Dave' someone you can connect with.

However, Cameron hasn't managed to do this! I don't think this is actually really connected to his background, but more to the fact that because there is an impression that he has been inconsistent on policy, and not come up with a vision for his new 'compassionate Conservatism.'
He has failed to convince the public that his Conservative party is different from the view many have of it as 'the nasty party,' so vividly described by then chair Theresa May in 2002.

In recent weeks, the Conservatives have suffered a number of setbacks. Firstly there was the row over the so called 'marriage tax,' a series of proposals designed to give tax breaks to married couples. Now this is entirely in line with Conservative principles, but that is exactly its problem. It takes us back to a time which the Tories believe existed in the 1950s. It does not fit in with twenty-first century Britain, a country in which the idea of family has changed substantially.

In a recent interview on Radio Four's Woman's Hour, he described marriage as 'the right thing to do,' which although it may well be something he firmly believes in, does not suit our modern age. The emails were substantially against Cameron's stance, and the policy does appear to discriminate against single parents, unmarried couples, and gay couples who are not able to marry, but confined to civil partnerships.

This has been swiftly followed by the seemingly changing policy on budgets cuts. Last October they appeared to be indicating that cuts would need to start immediately, but at the end of January, Cameron, in an interview said there would not be 'swingeing cuts' which seemed to take a step back from this. However, more recently, the policy has firmed up again, and this inconsistency leaves the public uncertain of where the Conservatives stand. This is compounded by their refusal to say exactly what would be cut and by how much.

However, one thing that has done the Conservatives a lot of damage has been the way they have made Gordon Brown the centre of their attacks. They were very quick to jump on the bandwagon over the bullying accusations, but this has spectacularly backfired. The affairs of the charity have been exposed as somewhat dubious, and the unethical behaviour of the head, led to the resignation of all the patrons. Indeed, despite the headlines they tried to squeeze out of this story, today's poll shows that the majority are doubtful of the truth of the story. The misjudgement the leadership made in this area, just ties in with the doubts people are having about the party.

These are exactly the kind of personal attacks people are fed up with from their politicians. Picking apart policy is one thing, but by focussing everything on the Prime Minister, it just seems the Conservatives are lacking ideas, and therefore attempting to make Gordon Brown's personality a factor.

David Cameron has tried very hard to make changes in the Conservative party. He has encouraged many more women and minority candidates in winnable seats to stand, and to be selected. Though recent events in Suffolk and Westminster indicates there is still a way to go. Today he described Britain, accurately as, "(T)olerant, compassionate, brilliant, multi-racial," and that the Tories were now like that.

I may not believe that the Tory party, or David Cameron are ready to run this country, but I am happy to accept that he has tried very hard to make the party more reflective of our society.

The speech itself was short, lasting just over half an hour, and was notable for a lack of detail, and costings. There were no new initiatives, no big vision of how the Conservative Party would go about making the changes they want to. By making it so short, he was attempting to avoid having to fill in the substance, but it just left us with more questions than answers.

In education, he repeated the plans to encourage small independent schools, based on the Swedish system. However, the education system in Sweden was always much more restrictive, and it is now under scrutiny and as Helena Holmlund and Sandra McNally have said it costs much more than the Tories are claiming, is unnecessary, and 'has not been an amazing success.'

He went back to the 'broken society' mantra, something the Conservatives have been claiming for some time now. But claims that there are 100 knife crimes a day in Britain, which would equate to nearly 40,000 a year. A claim that is grossly inflated, as the last set of crime survey figures show less than 18,000. Whilst these figures are still too high, Cameron's deliberate misreading is not worthy of him, and his Shadow Home Office spokesman, Chris Grayling, recently received a ticking off from the head of the statistics authority for misuse of statistics.

As could be expected the economic situation featured heavily, but as could be expected from David Cameron's old style Conservative Party, the emphasis was on business, not people. There would be cuts in corporation tax, and the hope that business will lead us out of the crisis. However, there was no talk of investment in these businesses, just vague comments about encouraging new ones to be established. He made no attempt to explain how this investment he wants would be encouraged, though I suspect he meant his plan to allow his corporate buddies to buy up bank shares, at cut price rates.

This was the issue with the whole speech. It lacked a coherent structure, for recovery, or for social change. Lots of vague promises, but nothing with any substance behind it. No ideas where the cuts that are needed would be made. No costings for the 'army of health visitors to help mum and dad when the new child arrives.' He spoke of the achievements of Conservative councils, yet an article in the Spectator by Ross Clark spoke about how Essex County Council, David Cameron's flagship, had failed to make statutory payments to residents affected by a relief road. Is this how David Cameron would run a Conservative government? Reneging on its legal responsibilities to Britain's citizens!

David Cameron feels he has a 'patriotic duty' to win the next General Election. Well 'Dave', fortunately it is the people of Britain who will decide, based upon who they think will stand up for them the most, and not you, or Gordon Brown. However, when he uttered this phrase, the delegates, were very slow to applaud. It was almost as if the applause sign had broken down, and someone had to tell them when to clap.

This sort of arrogance is reminiscent of 'Old' Tory, not new. As is their emphasise on the private sector, whilst punishing the public. Their pay freeze will affect all teachers, and all other civil servants above anything but entry level. They will be punishing these hard working men and women by giving them an effective pay cut, and then cutting back substantially on the services that everybody needs. You can airbrush the surface, and make the party look more like Britain today, but underneath, it's still the same old Tories.

As I watched the speech, I was constantly waiting for that big idea. I'm not going to vote Conservative, but I was expecting that something, that meant I could see why people would be prepared to elect David Cameron as the Prime Minister. But the look of contempt throughout on Ken Clarke's face, told me a lot. The vacuousness of the Tory platform is plain to see, and therefore dangerous. On Andrew Marr's show today, George Osborne was saying that an economic plan was not possible, until they were in government, and could talk to the bank of England. How can the British people put their faith iin a party that won't tell them what they are prepared to do for the economy, until they're in power?

They seriously cannot expect the British public to put their faith in such insubstantial ideas? The conservatives have fallen in the polls, because nobody knows what they stand for, only who they stand with. David Cameron repeatedly said he would be frank with us, but all I can say is, that Frank must have gone back to his day job warning us against drugs.

Looming behind David Cameron, throughout was William Hague. Now transposed to being the front man for the campaign, Cameron seems even smaller next to Hague. A man who was leader too soon, at a time when no one would have been able to lead the Conservatives to victory. A man of real substance, sitting there, having to listen to all these vague, insubstantial promises.

Anne Widdecombe once said there was, 'Something of the night!' about a former Conservative leader. I fear that with David Cameron there is, 'Something of the trite,' and that the old fashioned, pro-big business anti-public services Conservative party is what he really represents, and that it is the ordinary people of Britain that will suffer.

A fair future?

Gordon Brown today laid out the four pillars of the impending election campaign, setting out what he believes to be the important issues that will be fought over.. 'A Future Fair for All' is not a slogan that will have people chanting in the streets, and indeed in many ways is a hostage to fortune. The opposition parties have already been pointing out the unfairness that still exists, but the government is not pretending to have got everything right.

Gordon Brown is not ducking these issues, but one of the big problems for a politician in Britain, is that no matter what you say, someone will pick up on it. If the government highlights its successes, then its disappointments are pointed out. If it admits to mistakes, then its failings are brought out for all to see, if the Prime Minister admits to fallibility, then there is plenty of agreement, but if he doesn't , then there are many people happy to do it for him.

It is a no win situation, but with the Conservatives having a consistent poll lead, and the public wondering if it is time for change, the government has made the first strike in the election campaign. Yes, I know, it hasn't started yet, but the 'long campaign' is now underway, and the parties will be vieing with each other to set the agenda.

The Prime Minister chose to celebrate his 59th birthday, not with of his family, but at Warwick University under the glare of the waiting media. In choosing today to set out the four main pillars of Labour's bid for a fourth term, he has set the tone. He has gone for maintaining what he sees as the strengths of the Labour Party, 'standing up for the many and not the few,' and protecting our public services, especially our schools and health service.

However, there are grim realities also to be faced. The country has an annual debt of around £200 billion, brought on by a collapse of the global financial markets. This led to a retraction in the banking sector, and the fears that many would completely disappear from our high streets. The government decided it was in the interests of savers to step in to try and prevent this happening, and ensure ordinary people did not lose their savings, which are now guaranteed as part of the restructuring of the banking sector.

As well as nationalising Northern Rock, a massive injection of funds was given to the banks that were struggling. Much of this coming from a policy known as 'quantative easing,' which is when the Bank of England buys up government and corporate bonds, with what is in effect non-existent money. This then provides more money on the balance sheets of those from whom the bonds are purchased, and increases the money in the system. Which was expected to then be lent to businesses to help them through the crisis. This came to an end on February 4th, and as Stephanie Flanders said, "Quantative easing may well have saved the economy from a credit led depression. We will never know." This sounds similar to the so-called Y2K bug, and the moves governments and companies made to prevent meltdown. Was it a complete waste of money, or did the preventative measures work?

Unfortunately, the banks have failed to carry through their promises to lend to small businesses, or if they are, then interest rates are way above the 0.5% Bank of England rate. As would be expected the banks said they were lending to eight out of ten, but not to 'high risk' companies. Whilst this sounds reasonable, an article just this week in the Daily Mail stated that out of £1 billion set aside under the Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme, only £12 million had actually been lent out. So perhaps when the bankers were giving their figures, they 'accidentally' misread 100 for 10, when in reality it is 8 out of 100 firms being lent to. It seems fairly obvious that a 'high risk' company is one still going! It would seem that the government could well have been tougher on the banks receiving this money, and were perhaps too trusting that they would change. The way many seem to be more worried about reestablishing bonuses, demonstrates that they have not changed since their heyday of the nineteen eighties.

All parties agree, cutting this deficit needs to be a priority for any incoming administration. The question, however, is should this be done at the expense of all other government priorities? The Conservative's shadow chancellor George Osborne, at the party Conference last October, laid out a list of cuts that they would make upon entering office; a pay freeze for public sector workers earning over £18,000 pa, in the budgets of departments, 'cut the cost of Whitehall by over a third over the next parliament'. However, David Cameron stated at the end of January, that they would not be making 'swingeing cuts' in the first term. This is an attempt to make them sound more like the Labour Party, but freezing the pay of public service workers will just demoralise them, and drive many into the private sector, and perhaps lead to a shrinking of the public sector, which may be part of the plan.

The government, on the other hand, is determined that services should be maintained. Yes there will be a pay freeze in the public sector, but this will hit senior civil servants the most, and the salaries of teachers and nurses especially are exempt. The Tories plan to freeze those over £18,000 will hit all teachers, and the vast majority of public service workers, who have completed their training periods. Instead Labour intends unnecessary government programmes, inefficiencies and lower priority budgets will take the brunt of the cuts.

If the situation wasn't so serious, it would be amusing that in the last week there has been a letter from twenty economists saying immediate cuts were needed, followed shortly by sixty saying it would damage the economy. So unless one Tory policy supporting economist is worth three Labour policy supporting ones, the balance seems to be in favour of protecting services and jobs first, before turning to cutting debt. A policy the Conservatives now seem to be tacitly accepting.

The government has also vowed that health and education will continue to be priorities. Money will still be spent on maintaining school buildings, a programme the Tories intend to cut £4.5 billion pounds from. They have also said they will allow lots of independent schools to be established, similar to the Swedish system, which is now coming under great criticism in that country. The patient guarantee scheme is also a major plank of health reforms, and at present, the Conservatives have not said if they will continue to guarantee seeing a cancer specialist within two weeks if needed.

So this is the background to the first and second pillars, 'secure the recovery, not put it at risk,' and 'protect frontline services not cut them.' The government realises that making sudden cuts will only damage the economy, and lead to many businesses failing, because there is always a knock on effect, and thousands more losing their jobs.

The government has invested heavily in job training, and all 18-24 year olds who have been out of work for over six months is now guaranteed a job, training or work experience. Although this is a great scheme, I think I would have to agree with the Tories here, and start it at three months, as after this motivation starts to become an issue. There is a group of school leavers known as NEET's (Not in Education Employment or Training), which the government has vowed to cut, but although an aspiration, may prove very difficult to actually do.

This ties in with the third pillar of the election campaign, 'Invest in new industries and future jobs.' This is part of the government's 'Building Britain's Future' document, which sets out how they will be investing in IT, investing in energy saving technologies before they become commercial, increased investment in R and D and biosciences. The training is a vital part of this, so young people are equipped to work in the industries of the future, especially as britain switches to a low carbon, technology driven economy, which will require new skills.

The fourth, and most controversial pillar is, 'Stand up for the many not the few.' Why controversial? Because this unlike the others will be difficult to measure, and the statistics most open to interpretation. 500,000 children have been lifted out of poverty in the last thirteen years, and policies such as Sure Start have helped many families to give their children a better start in life. But there has also been an increase in the gap between rich and poor, so although this group has been reduced, it is a situation that still needs a lot of work. Now the Conservatives have said they will keep Sure Start, but it will be targeted at the 'most disadvantaged and dysfunctional families' and come under central government control. This sounds fine, but how will they decide which families are most in need? Which measure will they use?

Thirteen years of Labour government has brought many changes for the better, the minimum wage, improved spending on schools, more money for the NHS, the Northern Ireland peace accords, tax credits, the winter fuel allowance, and many others. The Conservatives voted against many of these things, although they accept many now, if not in their current form.

Gordon Brown said today, "I know that Labour hasn't done everything right. And I know..I'm not perfect." It would be pointless giving a list of things the government has got wrong, as that will depend very much on your political persuasion. But there are some things most people can agree on. The Iraq Invasion, possibly the defining moment of Tony Blair's Prime Ministership, was an error that still haunts the government. I was reminded today that there are many children of immigrants who are held in detention centres, away from their parents. Whatever differences there are over immigration, and how to deal with illegal ones, this is a policy that should stop immediately. There are others of course, but these strike me as universal ones.

As for Gordon Brown's personal failings! Perhaps his biggest one is that he lacks the charisma expected and TV savvy of the modern politician. This is something Cameron has off to a tee, in his attempts to be Blairlite, but fortunately the British people prefer a bit more substance to their politicians.

These then are the four main themes of Labour's impending election campaign. But how how do they fit in with the chief slogan of, 'A Fairer Future for All?' Securing economic recovery is naturally good for everybody in the country, as is in the end we all benefit from this. This is why protecting frontline services is so important. They are there for everybody, if and when needed, regardless of income, and it is this universal element that separates Labour from the Tories. The Conservatives say they will target services at the most needy, but this is a far more expensive strategy, and requires constant supervision, and they will need to set the levels at which it is measured.

Investing in new industry and jobs will also benefit everybody. A low carbon economy will have health benefits for everyone, and will just help make Britain a cleaner and more pleasant place to live. This is regardless of views on climate change, some things are just good to do. This is more than about cost, but the imperitive is driven by the belief that any warming is largely influenced by human activity, which is why it is such a priority for the government.

The importance of high speed rail, and improved road links to the economy, making it easier for people and goods to get around. The investment in training is good for all young people, and there are similar programmes for those over twenty-five. The country will benefit as a whole from investment in new sciences and technology, as the government seeks to make Britain a leader in these fields in the twenty-first century.

Finally, how does 'Standing up for the many not the few' fit in in with being fairer for everybody? By fighting to make things better for the majority of the citizens of Britain, which the Prime Minister described as the 'mainstream majority' everybody benefits. Working families tax credits, Sure Start Centres, the NHS, training programmes are available to everybody regardless of income. The Conservative policies seem to very largely be aimed at the very top and the very bottom of society, and the mainstream majority will lose out.

There are going to be a lot of column inches spent on this tomorrow, and each newspaper will put its own spin on what Gordon Brown announced. The Tory supporting papers will really pull out all the stops trying to prove how much unfairer Britain is, whereas the Labour supporters will emphasise the positive aspects of the message. In the end, people will make up their mind based on their own experiences, and if they feel Britain is a fairer country.

The voting public have been asked to 'take a second look' at labour, but more importantly, to ask themselves what the Tories are really saying, and if they threaten the very things that make their lives better. A future fairer for all does not mean Britain is not fair, it is a statement of intent that the Labour party will not rest, and remembers that every citizen of the United Kingdom has a stake in it.

Alienated not apathetic!

Political apathy in Britain appears to be on a high. The expenses scandal in the Houses of Parliament has increased people's distrust of those who seek to lead and legislate on our behalf. But, is this a new phenomenon, or just a symptom of a malaise that has been spreading over the years?

In 2003 in an article by the BBC's Sean Coughlan on young people's attitude to voting he said, "Politicians are seen as sleazy and untrustworthy, parliament is seen as a mysterious pantomime and political coverage is seen as incomprehensible and dull." One student interviewd even believed that Tony Benn was the leader of the Conservatives, so non recognition of party leaders is nothing new. To perhaps add insult to injury, the politicians and the journalists were seen as living in an enclosed world, separate from everyone else.

I believe this to still be very true. Indeed, I would extend it slightly to the world of the political activist. Those who are actively engaged in the process, and follow it closely, often fail to realise that the vast majority are switched off by it, and find it boring.

However, it is not only the young who are less involved in party politics. Membership of the main parties has decreased sharply in recent years. The Conservatives have seen a drop since 1950 of over 2.5 million members, with a slight increase in the period following Margaret Thatcher's first election victory in 1979. However, since 1992, probably following 'Black Wednesday' their membership has declined substantially. Labour have fared no better, with a peak in the early fifties as political participation increased across the board, a dramatic fall in the late seventies, a bubble around 1997, then a steady decline since. The other main party the Liberal Democrats have experienced a steady decline since the late sixties. Indeed, in 2005 the total membership of the main parties was just 1.3% of the population.

In stark contrast to this, has been the rise of membership of single issue groups. These are not necessarily parties, but organisation such as Friends of the Earth and the National Trust. The National Trust by 2008 had almost as many members as the Conservatives and Labour combined. Political pressure groups such as Oxfam has also increased substantially, though others like CND have seen a drop in membership. All this indicates is that over the years people's focus has shifted. Nuclear weapons still exist, but the environment is seen as the big issue these days.

Minor political parties have also seen increases in participation, though more incrementally. The exception being UKIP who have seen a sharp decline from the peak of 2004, when they received a lot of media attention because of Robert Kilroy Silk. The Greens and BNP are the English parties who have benefited, whereas the SNP have also increased their membership in recent years, after in big drop in the years immediately following devolution.

As recently as 1983 party membership as a proportion of the electorate was around 4%, and has now declined to less than 2%. So, although there have been peaks for individual parties, the trend for the main ones has been downwards since the fifties. But, as we have seen, membership of quasi-political organisations, and minor parties has been on the increase.

The problem, in reality, is not one of apathy but alienation, and the belief, by the public, that they lack an effective voice. After all, we have all seen the anti-war, anti-globalisation protesters on our television screens. The participation of people, especially the young in pressure group politics, indicates that people are passionate about issues, but feel outside the main political bubble.

The desperately low turnouts of 2001 and 2005 however, may not be indicative of dislike of parliament. It could be an indication of content, and not seeing the need to make a radical statement. I would say this was true of 2001, but 2005 was overshadowed by the Iraq war, which might account for low turnout, but also the failure of minor parties to benefit. This is where 2010 may differ dramatically. The increased dislike for the politicians in parliament could well affect all the main parties, and anybody not seen as part of the 'Westminster village' increase their share of the vote substantially, though whether under the forst past the post system this will convert to seats, is another point altogether.

In the mid-nineties the Conservative government of John Major suffered a series of setbacks. A big campaign called 'back to basics' was derailed by the behaviour of some Conservative MPs, in financial and marital scandals. Although the campaign was never intended as a moral one, it proved a field day for the media, and along with the Prime Minister's problems with his anti-European rebels, and the ramifications of the ERM catastrophe, the impression was formed of a government past its time.

The 'new' Labour government of Tony Blair was embraced across the political spectrum as something exciting and fresh. The massive majority that Labour obtained that year was seen as a mandate for change. However, although much has happened since that heady day, much of it for the better, the public are more disillusioned than ever. The expenses scandal has encapsulated public discontent with mainstream politics, but it takes more than a number of dishonest MPs to turn voters away.

The image of politicians has never been good. Jonathan Swift wrote in Gulliver's Travels, published in 1726;

"(T)hat whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to the country than the whole race of politicians put together."

The cartoons of Hogarth and Gillray are images that stick in the mind once you've sen them, and these were appearing in the eighteenth century, not recently. I would go as far as to say that I doubt our modern politicians could survive the portrayal they received at these satirical hands. As a student of seventeenth century English history, I have read many damning pamphlets about the political masters of the day, and the insults thrown make ours sound very weak, so it is important to view the current situation in context. The difference now is that with twenty-four hour media coverage, everything will be analysed to the nth degree.

Watching parliament can be an interesting, yet painful business. The endless debates, the long drawn out process, and the complicated procedures which are straight out of an eighteenth century book on etiquette. This seems ridiculous to even us political watchers most of the time, why should William Hague be the 'member for Richmond?' Mr Hague would be good enough, and might be more useful to casual viewers, and indeed visitors. Yes, there is a certain charm to the archaic procedures, but they do little to inform or enlighten.

If the procedures of the Houses are regularly watched, then it can be seen that debate is often good and well mannered, if a little parochial on occasion. Members across the parties agree on things, and consensuses are reached. Unfortunately, all we mainly get is the pantomime of Prime Minister's Questions. Although this event dominates people's perceptions of parliament, it only became a regular occurrence in 1961. PMQ's is more about theatre and points scoring than really getting to the heart of issues. The governing party (whoever it is) will use it as an opportunity to say how well things are going, and the opposition how badly. But more than that, it is the behaviour of the other members of the House which creates the poor image of MPs behaviour.

Parliament comes across as boorish and childish, and along with scandals like the expenses, Profumo and Hamilton, their behaviour is considered unacceptable for those in positions of such influence. Then there is the way that it is perceived they ignore our views. In 1990 a large demonstration. which became the 'Poll tax Riot' was ignored by the Conservative government of Mrs Thatcher. Indeed, it was the way this policy led to her unpopularity and downfall later that year, that actually led to its abolition. In 2003 hundreds of thousands marched in Central London, and across the country against the upcoming invasion of Iraq, but this too was ignored.

Whilst we understand that we elect our MPs to represent us, and that they are not delegates, it too often seems as though once they get to the House, then we are forgotten until the next election. The above examples are extremes, but all over the country, and outside the House, people and groups are protesting against certain legislation and actions. The huge protests that occurred when the Chinese Prime Minister visited, show that people are not apathetic, they are passionate about issues, but feel as though their voice is not heard.

So, what do we do about this? What can be done to engage people in politics so that they will turn out and vote in the future, and become more engaged in the politics of this country?

Last week in the House of Commons a debate was held, in which the government stated if they were returned, a referendum would be held asking the public if they wanted a different voting system. This is called the alternative vote, and is meant to be part of a number of reforms that have been underway since 1997. But reforming the House of Lords, and even turning it into an elected second chamber is only window dressing, it is in the House of Commons that things need to change.

Changing the voting system may be a positive move, although whether the proposed system would provide any more than a temporary respite is open to question. It is in the conduct and accountability of our elected representatives that real change needs to occur. The new rules on MPs allowances are one measure, but at the moment, members are not helping themselves by often refusing to admit to wrong doing. But also their behaviour in the House needs to change. We want to see more respect for each other, not cat calling, and our ministers, including the Prime Minister, properly answering questions at the dispatch box. However, it is also incumbent on the opposition to ask questions other than those designed to embarrass ministers.

There is currently a spat going on regarding a tweet supposedly sent by Labour's David Wright referring to Tory members. Whether Wright actually said what is reported is not really important on its own, it is the reaction to it that lets us down. Instead of ignoring it, and trying to give a positive message, many Conservatives are getting involved in the name calling themselves. How can they expect to be taken seriously?

The public also want their members to be more accountable. To start with, the idea the Tories have tried with local primaries is one worth trying. Naturally there are issues of oppositions voters supporting the weaker candidates, but if all parties did it then that would iron itself out. It could just be the public who decide the shortlists, and the members who pick the candidate, but an idea worth closer investigation. It may help the voter feel they have more of a stake in choosing their MP, outside the actual election.

But once in parliament, MPs would need to be in regular contact with their constituents. Perhaps monthly town hall style meetings in which electors would have the opportunity to question the member on his or her actions, and to raise issues of concern. Although surgeries and other forms of communication would still go on, this direct contact would allow the constituents to question face to face. Safeguards to prevent the parties trying to control the agenda would need to be in place, so perhaps local journalists could conduct the sessions.

In parliament, we would often like our MPs to be more independent. We understand about the need to get through a legislative agenda, but perhaps if three line whips could only be imposed on matters in the manifesto, it allow more freedom for members to vote with their consciences. The idea of MPs as 'lobby fodder' takes away from their real jobs to represent us in parliament. We don't expect them to be delegates, but with more freedom to vote as they see fit, governments would need to be a lot more careful about drafting legislation. This could well mean less of it, which as said on a previous occasion, may not be a bad thing.

Finally, education is also an important plank in encouraging people to get involved. Schools need to start teaching properly about how the parliamentary system came into being, and the brave men and women who often fought and died for the right to a greater voice. They need to learn how it works, as it by understanding, that the future generations may be better and make the changes, that we need to start now.

All this would require a huge shift in attitude from the party leaders, but if the public are to gain any trust in politicians, then radical changes have to follow, and not tinkering around the edges. As I have shown, distrust and disrespect for politicians has been around as long as politics, but just because until now nothing has really been done, it doesn't mean it shouldn't. As i have demonstrated, it is not apathy to politics people suffer from, it is alienation, and that is what we need to cure.

I would be interested to hear the ideas of others on how we can improve the system as well.

No alternative!

Approximately 65 million years ago a meteor landed somewhere around the Yucatan Peninsular in Mexico. It has long been thought that the most apparent result of this impact was the extinction of the dinosaurs. Unfortunately, today this belief was dispelled as our parliament discussed whether or not to drag itself kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.

Watching the great lumbering beasts of the Tory Party; Douglas Hogg (the one who claimed for a moat), Sir Patrick Cormack, Richard Shepherd and John Gummer, combined age 273, rail against the proposals for voting reform was a painful exercise. They had no reasons other than just saying it had served us well, or to be more accurate, served them well for a long time. Cormack said it 'was against our constituents interests,' though he offered no evidence of this. Liberal Democrat David Heath had the best line, when he described it as a 'Neanderthal system,' which the Tories didn't even use to elect their own leader.

Electoral reform is not a new argument. The reform acts of 1832, 1867, 1884, 1918, 1928 and 1969 which variously extended the franchise, and lowered the age of voting, demonstrate that the state of voting in British elections has altered over the years. Every time these reforms came before parliament they met opposition, as the reactionary forces constantly attempted to prevent progress. However, once passed, they quickly became accepted, and although they will fight tooth and nail against reform to the voting system, eventually it will happen, and they will learn to live with it.

Parliament is in desperate need of more reform! The expenses scandal has done a lot of damage to its image, although, along with estate agents, MPs were never the most trusted members of society anyway. It did, however, confirm the impression in many minds, that politicians were just in it for themselves. The way that many then sought to justify themselves that it was within the rules, and approved by the committee, then lowered their estimation even more. It seemed as though they 'just didn't get it!'

The people that passed these claims are indeed at fault, but what gets us who just watch our MPs at work, was that they appeared be no 'moral' guidance going on here. As the woman Mark Oaten was staying with in 'Tower of Commons' asked, "(W)hy did you need three irons in two years? Or as the chef said to Austin Mitchell, "You earn £60,000 a year, and you can't afford to buy your own food!" To the vast majority of us, including those who are in well paid jobs, this is an unworldly lifestyle, in which it seems every little thing is claimable.

The Legg Reprt made many recommendations, MPs were asked to repay money, and all the main party leaders accepted the report in its entirety. Many MPs have appealed, on the basis they have been unfairly judged, and indeed, some have had their repayments reduced. These details are important, but to the ordinary voter, looks like members of parliament are still refusing to take responsibility for their actions, rightly saying that if they behaved in a similar fashion, they would not only lose their jobs, but probably end up in court. Although some members now face criminal charges, considering the scale and range of claims, four seems a very scant reflection.

Constitutional reform has been a long and painful process. During the election campaign in 1997 the Labour Party promised to change parliament, and end the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, and to 'make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.' This has been, and is being done, but much more slowly than people envisaged. The important thing, however, is that the Labour government has gone about the business of implementing changes, changes which Conservative governments did not intend to make, and they also consistently opposed devolution in Scotland and Wales. This has successfully been implemented, and extended to Northern Ireland, and now accepted by all parties. In politics changes are often opposed, but once successful, embraced by all sides.

So, last night's debate was to be the first step on the road to changing the way we elect our members of parliament. The method proposed is called the alternative vote, or AV. This is actually a very simple method, and the main burden falls upon the returning officers, not on the elector. All that would happen when you went into the polling booth is that when presented with your ballot paper, instead of just putting a cross against your preferred candidate you put a one. You can then rank all the other candidates in order.

Now, this is where confusion can result, and it is important that if a campaign ensues, is explained properly. Not all candidates have to be ranked. So for instance, if there are six in a seat; Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP, BNP, OMRLP, the voter could just vote number one Conservative, number two UKIP (or Labour one, Lib Dem two), thereby ensuring that the ballot paper can only be counted for those two candidates. It is important this is clearly understood, as many people may think they need to rank all the candidates in the seat.

The idea of AV is that a candidate has at least the tacit support of over 50% of voters. If no candidate achieves this, then the bottom candidates second preferences are redistributed, and so on, until someone obtains the 50% +1 mark. One of the arguments was that people would vote for the least worst option, well guys, if you talked to voters regularly, you'd know that's what they tend to do anyway.

The system is not proportional, and so the question as why bother is a relevant one. It about people knowing that their vote has value. Regardless of who you support as a first preference, unless you only voted for that candidate, your vote is not lost if they fail to win, or come top of the poll. It might also change the face of the House of Commons, allowing a stronger voice for parties outside the Conservatives and Labour. Those of you who follow these things will know it is estimated that the 1983 and 1997 elections would have resulted in bigger majorities. This may be true, but all those members would have had the support of over 50% of their constituents.

The fact that this could also lead to parties with extreme views having representation is a price that you sometimes pay in a democracy. It isn't pleasant to think that they may be heard being expounded in our parliament, but if you believe in a democratic system, then there are penalties for that. You either believe in democracy, or you don't!

The United Kingdom prides itself on its openness, and tolerance. It believes itself, with some justification, to be a country which encourages free speech, and that our parliament is a beacon of democracy. However, it seems that in many ways, that stops at the door to the Houses of Parliament. Not only for centuries have people been entitled to legislate based purely on which family they were born into, but also whether they reached a certain rank in the Church of England.

At last night's debate, there were members from both main parties, arguing that the current first past the post system, was fairer, and meant that we had 'strong' single party government instead of coalitions. This brings me back to the democratic principles we so pride ourselves on. Democracy is not just about being able to change our government every few years, it is also a set of principles, if ill defined, by which we are governed. It has been nearly eighty years since the last government elected by over 50% of those eligible to vote was elected. This, however, was the National Government led by Stanley Baldwin and was a coalition built to deal with the depression. It was in the nineteenth century when only the Conservatives and the Liberals were battling it out, that 50% was generally reached.

Ever since the emergence of third parties, Labour in the early twentieth century, and the revived Liberals in the post-WWII period, the governing party has failed to win 50%. That's fine many say, it means single party government! But what it can lead to is an elective dictatorship, where a party with a massive majority, can pass its legislation virtually unchallenged. Opposition becomes very difficult, as points, no matter how well made, can just be brushed aside.

The argument that many make is that AV could well lead to the Liberal Democrats being permanently in government, as they are the ones most likely to benefit from changes in the system. Theoretically they do, but that is depending on being able to predict how voters will rank the parties. There is an assumption that Labour voters will tend to rank Liberal Democrats highly, and vice versa, but local conditions, and preferences make that uncertain.

There is the question of whether people would change their voting habits under the new system. This is impossible to know, but it may mean voters feel more inclined to put their first preference at number one, in the knowledge that although they are unlikely to win, they have demonstrated their choice, and then can put their acceptable candidate at number two. Untidy, yes! But does this mean it will produce a worse result?

The cases of Italy and Germany, are mooted. Italy because of it's long periods of unstable governments, and in germany the way the Free Democrats have switched from coalition to coalition. Yes this is a danger, but just because it happens there, does that mean it will happen here?

This does take us back to the point about democratic government. In a democracy parties negotiate, and debate. Even with large majorities Conservative and Labour governments have failed to pass legislation, and often make deals with each other to get bills through. It is possible that formal pacts will emerge out of elections, as currently in Germany's 'grand coalition,' but also that a party could govern with a minority, and negotiate each piece of legislation. This could well lead to less being passed, which many would feel is a good thing in the first place.

So as well as the voter having more say, perhaps better, and more carefully considered legislation would be passed. Yes, this would almost certainly affect manifestos, as parties might not be able to make such wild promises, because they don't know what would be acceptable to the others. But, if the parties are having to be more considered in what they put forward, then other parties will be more willing to compromise their own agendas.

As a final point, I believe that it could lead to more honesty. This is a purely personal belief, so not to be taken as the intent of any political party. It is preposterous the Kenneth Clarke and Bill Cash are members of the same party. They have many principles that put them on the same side, but also many that are diametrically opposite. As the system became more accepted, then they could happily be members of different parties in the House. They would probably even vote the same way on many things, but they wouldn't be tied down by being on the same side where they differed. As I said, a personal view, but perhaps one worth considering for the future.

The case was often made that there is no time to get the change on the statute book before the election. However, as there is no intention of holding it on the same day, that is an irrelevant point. It was important to discuss it as it shows the government has real intent this time. Whatever circumstances have led Gordon Brown to change his mind on this issue, it is now a real Labour commitment.

At about a quarter past ten last night the House passed the amendment saying a referendum should be held by October 2011 by almost a 2-1 majority; 365 - 187. Whilst realising that this is merely the first step on the road to reform of the electoral system, the bill still has to get through the Lords, and time is an issue, I don't believe that is the real concern.

We now have a government, that will be going into a General Election, with a firm commitment to change the way we elect our members of parliament. Unlike 1997 and 2001, this has now been debated, and an amendment passed by a vote of MPs. Small steps, but parliament nearly always prefers evolution to revolution.

History is on the side of the reformers in this. The dinosaurs are being expunged slowly from parliament, time and tide are removing them. There may be a temporary set back if the Conservatives are returned at the election, but in the end, the system will change. It already happens in Scotland, and the Conservatives themselves supported it for the House of Lords. The days of the 'Neanderthal system' are ending, and the lumbering beasts passing will not be lamented.

Little boy lost!

Appearing blinking before the cameras, having changed his normal short trousers and blazer for a smart business suit, and after handing his school cap to his butler, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne presented what he called his 'new economic model for growth' in a speech to the gathered members of the press. He promised to set out 'in detail' the Conservatives new economic policy document.

At first glance, ideas to ensure macroeconomic stability, of which deficit cutting is the main plank, seem really good. Preserving Britain's AAA credit rating is important, and is something the government is also concerned about. The apprehensions in this respect are due to a report by Standard and Poors which said that Britain had a weak economic environment, and that the banks reputation had taken a considerable hit, and has had to rely on a lot of state support.

However, it then went on to say, "(T)he U.K. system has a reputation of being both open and attractive to new lenders. Representing a major financial pool, we consider that the U.K. market will remain appealing." Therefore, Standard and Poors seem to be saying that although things are bleak at the moment, as indeed they are everywhere, Britain's underlying financial principles remain attractive to outsiders, and will continue to attract investment.

So, not the damning economic indictment of Britain's economic future that the Conservative's like to portray. Indeed, the Conservative's equivocation on what they will do in this area, is potentially more damaging to the economy, as markets are uncertain how what they would really do. This is, of course, all compounded by the complete lack of detail on where the cuts will come, and 'in a large part' what they will be cut by.

The other points of a more balanced economy, reducing youth unemployment, reform of public services, sound like things we can all agree with but all suffer from two main weaknesses. Firstly that there is no indication of where the money will come from. They have long pledged to cut £4.5 billion from the schools building fund, and there doesn't seem to be a plan to redirect any of it into other areas. The second issue is that the Conservatives aren't explaining how this would all work. The policies lack the important detail required to inspire confidence.

The Conservatives also seem to be setting themselves up for a series of rows with the banks. They, like the government, are looking to reform the banking system, but the banks will not lie down and just take it. The way they have very quickly attempted to revert back to the culture of bonuses, and disdain for the public, shows an institution that does not learn from its mistakes, and wiil not go quietly into the night.

The government are also going to have these problem, you would say, and are almost certainly right. The Tories, though, are likely to compound the situation because, according to Robert Peston, of, "(A) negotiated entente with the Bank of England (which) would taint the central bank's hard-won independence." This independence has recently been an annoyance to the government, as its governor Mervyn King has been warning of the hardship ahead, and mildly critical of policy. But, it had also been one of the mainstays of the decade of continuous growth that preceded the recession, because it made the decisions on interest rates and monetary policy, and was free of government interference.

The Tories have always stated that regulation is strangling enterprise in the United Kingdom, but their ideas of improving tax competitiveness rankings and regulation are not expanded upon. It is all very well stating it as an intent, but as governments have found for time immemorial, these things are easier said than done.

In contrast to this Osborne highlighted an ambition to ensure that the whole country shares in prosperity, especially outside London and the South-East. This, however, would require a Conservative government to regulate to encourage businesses to establish themselves in these areas. This is not only contrary to David Cameron's pledge to end top down government, but is against their free market principles.

Finally their ideas for a greener economy are, by reducing emissions and increasing green technologies, almost a carbon copy (groan) of the Labour governments.

The Spectator is a well respected Conservative supporting magazine. But on their website Tuesday afternoon editor Fraser Nelson wrote, "I'm afraid I did not detect a 'new economic model' in George Osborne's speech. He has said he will eliminate a large part of the deficit over the next parliament." Osborne kept repeating this mantra under press interrogation, but I can't see Tories posters emblazoned with 'We'll cut the deficit in large part' catching the public imagination. However, Nelson's most damaging accusation came when he said, the deficit plan, "(W)as even woolier than Labour's plans to halve it."

Even Andrew Neill, former editor of the Sunday Times, was less than respectful. describing the speech as 'major' (using that too often seen signal of making quotation marks with his fingers), on Tuesday's Daily Politics. They highlighted how the Tories have moved away from talking of cuts, to growth. Now I'm not going to condemn this, but it wasn't that long ago at the Manchester Conference, in which he stated, "Tackling Britain's debt crisis" as his biggest priority. In recent days David Cameron has said there will be no 'swingeing cuts' in the first year, and whilst it is good to see the Tories moving away from the idea of drastic cuts in public spending, they are not providing the plans to 'balance the economy.'

This description of wooliness could well be applied to the entire Conservative economic plan. No idea is explained or costed. Every time he was asked for specifics Osborne just wriggled and refused to give details. He was like a little boy lost, his homework was too hard and even though he had tried to copy the boy at the top of the class, he didn't understand what it was he had read out.

Lies, damned lies, and ballistics!

An annoyed Clare Short appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry today! Sensing an opportunity to give it to her former comrades, she did not hold back in her criticism, especially of Tony Blair's style of government, and Lord Goldsmith's change of mind. Ms Short gave a convincing account of her time as Secretary of State for International Development, and her tales of exclusion from the political process, and how her voice was lost in the fog of war.

However, experience teaches us that there are always two sides to a story. Clare Short obviously feels like a woman scorned, her attempts to bring moderation, brushed aside by the testosterone loaded cabinet of Tony Blair. But, there was also a palpable sense of betrayal. She had been given assurances that a second resolution would be sought, but the invasion continued regardless.

The writing seems to have been on the wall for Clare Short early on. In the House on March 19th, Tony Blair seems to have refused to use her name, instead referring to the work of the department in parliamentary questions. She was then replaced by a junior Foreign office minister to make a statement on humanitarian and contingency planning. The minister, Mike O'Brien, had been the one in Washington discussing this, which must have made Ms Short feel even more marginalised. Meanwhile, she had been dispatched to talks with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and between them, they must have felt like they were outside the room, looking through frosted glass. They knew they were supposed to be there, but they were excluded from the party, because they refused to play ball.

Alistair Campbell said in his evidence that Ms Short, "(W)as very difficult to handle at times," and indeed implied that she was only trustworthy when she agreed with the policy. He also indicated that her relationship with Tony Blair was part of the problem, when in reference to dealings with Donald Rumsfeld, and the less than cooperative relationship with the US state department, he said, "(I)f only Clare Short had been getting on better with the Prime minister at the time." Alistair Campbell here seems to be blaming Ms Short for a hold up in agreements regarding the humanitarian situation. Campbell does not seem to have had much love for Ms Short to start with. In his diary he describes her as rude at Cabinet meetings, and on 17th March, just three days before the invasion, was drafting letters of exchange in case she resigned. An email from Jonathan Pollitt says, "Probably better not to have them drafted by someone who so clearly despises her." Whilst this does not say that Mr Campbell, was anything other than honest in his recollections, any remarks regarding Ms Short must be regarded carefully.

Tony Blair and Clare Short seem to rubbed each other up the wrong way. They had a frosty relationship at the best of times, and there was always a feeling that she was in the Cabinet for political balance. The Department for International development was created for her, and overall seems have been the ideal job. It gave her an area of responsibility, in which she had long had an interest, but at the same time, kept her away from the big jobs and discussions in Cabinet. When Campbell described her as rude, it was to do with perceived lack of pressure on the US to deal with the situation in Palestine.

So, we come to today's appearance before the Chilcot Inquiry. When she sat down, her countenance was one of determination, as though she was going to say her piece, and not allow herself to be sidetracked. In this manner she was very similar to Alistair Campbell, which possibly accounts for their unhappy relationship, at least in part. She may have lacked the assured style of both Mr Campbell, and Mr Blair, but in her own way, she got over everything she wanted to say.

The first attack was on Tony Blair's 'Presidential' style, and how the cabinet was almost ignored. meetings were almost meaningless, and it was conducted in little chats. Images of smoke-filled rooms, where small cabals decide the direction of the country immediately spring to mind. These complaints about Tony Blair's style have been around for a long time, but they do make it easy to see how a member could be marginalised, or at least have the impression they are being so. Ms Short said that Gordon brown had been pushed aside also, and at one stage said that, "Gordon, Robin, and I were against," an invasion without a second resolution. Alistair Campbell had stated that Mr Brown was closely involved, but as he removes himself from the centre of the decision making process at this time, he needs to explain himself more fully. Mr Brown will shortly appear, and be able to give his own side. This was followed then by a reminder of the persistent complaints that briefings were given to the media before they were made to the House. This all adds to the impression that Tony Blair did see the role of Prime Minister as a decision maker, in the mould of a company CEO, in which the rest of the board merely rubber stamped his diktats.

Ms Short said that the Cabinet, and the Commons were misled. Firstly by Lord Goldsmith on the legality of the invasion. Ms Short said that he was 'leaned on' by Tony Blair to declare the war legal. Unfortunately for Lord Goldsmith, his inability to explain how he came to change his mind last week, does nothing to rebuff that. He seems to have been caught in a pincer after all. It might not have been with the office junior Lord Falconer, but by elements both in the UK, and the USA.

Then followed the most devastating assaults on Tony Blair. Time after time she said they were 'conning' and being 'deceitful,' almost as if all her years as an MP had removed the word lying from her vocabulary. She seemed to be dying to shout 'HE LIED' at the top of her voice, but her calm, if at times stuttering performance, had more impact. The drip, drip, drip of statements supporting her thesis rang disturbingly true. It wasn't only the Cabinet that were treated like this, but the House, and issued a direct challenge to the panel when Mr Blair and Lord Goldsmith reappear, that they misled the inquiry by saying that the Cabinet had been given the opportunity to question the Attorney general on his advice on 17th March. Though, as we have seen, Ms Short flew out to Washington that day, so may not have been present.

But to this writer, the real issues appear to have been regarding the post-war arrangements. Clare Short agreed to stay on despite her reservations, as she seems to have felt that she had a role to play in the post-conflict arrangements. In her resignation letter of 12th May 2003 Ms Short says, " I am afraid that the assurances you gave me about the need for a UN mandate to establish a legitimate Iraqi government have been breached. The secret security council resolution that you and Jack have so secretly negotiated contradicts the assurances I have given in the House of Commons about the legal authority of the occupying powers, and the need for a UN led process to establish a legitimate Iraqi government." In his reply Tony Blair said he did not understand this point as, "We are in the process of negotiating the UN resolution at the moment."

Claire Short eventually resigned from the Cabinet in may 2003, then in 2006, the Labour whip altogether, and she sits in the House as an independent. Did she get her revenge today? Only time will tell, but the picture that she paints of Tony Blair is a very unflattering one, and they are questions that will need to be asked, let alone answered. A lot of what Ms Short said about the lack of post-war planning supported evidence already provided, the real damage could be her direct accusations that the Cabinet and the House were misled. Part of Ms Short's charm is that she isn't a smooth lawyer or speaker. She sounds just like you and me. Personalities did play a part in the relationships, and if not difficult to handle, Ms Short certainly seems an abrasive character, which didn't quite fit the collegiate style that Tony Blair wished to bring to Cabinet. Clare Short felt not only marginalised, but betrayed. She held back on her resignation as she believed that the UN would be involved in the humanitarian aid, but that instead the UN was being also thrust aside. The next important steps for the inquiry are to recall Alistair Campbell, Lord Goldsmith and Tony Blair, but they need to ask the questions which today has raised, and make them explain what they did and why!