Death by a thousand cuts?

It has been a while since I last posted, and whether that has been a good thing or not, I will leave to you. A lot has happened in that time, as the 'emergency' budget has been presented and the government has started on the path it believes to be the right one. However, is this the right path for Britain? Will it lead to a better society, with more freedoms, or the end of our public services as effective providers?

It is, of course, too early to tell, although depending upon our view of how things should be done, many of us either fear, or look forward to the policies being carried out. It will be of no surprise to you that I lean towards the former position, but it is important to explain why it isn't a knee-jerk reaction to a government I didn't elect.

When the last government left office, it was widely acknowledge that something needed to be done about the country's finances. The deficit stands at around the £150 billion mark, and the debt is something that is looking likely to increase over the next few years. The Labour government's opponents say this is a disgraceful legacy which means savage cuts in public spending are required, whilst I, and other supporters, would say we took necessary action to prevent a recession turning into a depression.

Unfortunately, this action was not enough to stop Labour losing the election, and the eventual formation of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. I have written previously on this, so do not intend to repeat my views here, they can be read in http://harbottlegrimston.blogspot.com/2010/05/convinced-or-condemned.html

We are approaching the first one hundred day mark, and the media will have a large number of articles considering what they believe has been achieved, or otherwise during the period. This will make very odd reading as the Telegraph and the Mail, natural Conservative supporters, produce largely negative reports. Their attitude to the coalition has been really quite vitriolic at times, and it almost seems they want another election, in the belief it would result in a Tory majority.

The Guardian and Independent, both supported the Liberal Democrats to varying degrees, and with the reason of producing a coalition, though a Lib Dem/Labour alliance was what they had in mind. Therefore, I suspect that apart from the AV referendum, they will be largely negative. The Express will be absolutely in favour, whilst the Mirror against, and the Times I expect mainly positive.

It is not their attitude that will be interesting, however, but the reason why. As pointed out, the Telegraph and Mail will be negative, because they believe that the Conservatives have given too much away. This may come as a shock to many of us, but it seems that the Liberal Democrats have turned them soft.

So,what have the coalition done in their first few months in government? The first announcements centred around an initial £6 billion worth of cuts, which were much harder than they envisaged, because much of the waste had already been found and dealt with by the Labour government.

The second thing was to tell us how much worse things were than they thought, in order to soften us up for the budget. Figures released since, would seem to indicate the coalition have been, 'economical with the truth,' as unemployment has fallen, and growth figures have been much better than expected. In addition, the deficit has been less, although the debt a little bigger.

But, they achieved their initial task, and prepared everybody for an austerity budget, which hits at the poorest members of society the most. Why this more political take on it? Because it seems impossible to read it any other way. Yes, the banks have been hit with an £8 billion levy, but unlike the cuts in services and welfare, this is against institutions and not individuals. The government's line is that this budget was 'unavoidable,' yet they have a choice as to how they go about dealing with the situation. This coalition appears to take the path of least resistance, and take services away from those who need them the most.

The banks will recover from this, and in fairly short time as the economy, hopefully, continues to recover. But the welfare cuts, and the rise in VAT, hits the poorer hardest because the increase is a greater percentage of their disposable income. Welfare will account for some £11 billion of cuts, and is an attack on those least able to defend themselves. Services are taking the brunt of the cuts, which affects those at the bottom, with the better off, seemingly getting off unscathed.

Amazingly there is an even worse aspect, which makes it harder to bear. The Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Moore (he replaced Danny Alexander who replaced David Laws), and he appeared on Question time a couple of weeks ago. He was challenged by an audience member to explain how the housing benefit cuts were fair, when it could make them homeless?

Now, I know Moore is a member of the government, and is defending the coalition view, I have no problem with that. However, it was his complete lack of empathy that disgusted me, as though this person's life (and the thousands of others in a similar situation) was of no consequence, all that mattered was the agenda. Empathy is important in a politician, Blair and Clinton being prime examples, but Moore failed to demonstrate any. Now this may be a personal trait he lacks, I'm sure there are members of the cabinet who wouldn't have been so stark, but it made the government seem utterly soulless and not be concerned about how their policies are affecting people.

That's the budget, and in October we will get the spending review when the flesh will be put on the bones. Cuts will be somewhere between 25% and 40%, and some departments will, naturally, face bigger cuts than others. It will probably not be until next January, when the VAT rise kicks in, that the first real protests from the public will emerge, and then in May, the local elections which will be the first opportunity for the public to show what it thinks through the ballot box.

This seems like the ideal time to look at the main legislation that the government is proposing, and their 'big idea.' It is planned that next May, along with local elections, parliamentary and assembly ones in Scotland and Wales, there will a chance to vote on whether to change the electoral system.

I support the change to a proportional voting system in Britain, but unfortunately we will not be voting on that. What we should have the opportunity to do, is vote to change to the alternative vote system, which I have described on a previous occasion.
There is no absolute guarantee this will happen, as many Conservatives are against changing the system, so may defy the whip, and the Labour Party finds itself in a quandary.

The bill that will go through parliament, Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, contains other elements Labour disagree with. Primarily, the plan to reduce the number of constituencies to 600. It is not reducing constituencies that Labour has a problem with, despite the propaganda issuing from the coalition, but the way it is being done. It usually takes about a decade for the boundaries commission to sort out what changes need to be made, as they look at demographic change, and how it affects parts of the country. However, in order to get this through, it appears as though it is being rushed, and there is a view that it is designed to favour the Conservatives. Principally because, not only will Labour urban areas be swamped by Conservative suburban and rural areas, but a great reduction on Scottish and Welsh MPs, which tends to vote for the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.


Personally I hope the Labour Party decide that a short term gain is not to their advantage. Defeating the referendum in parliament can only work in the Conservatives favour, as they don't support a change in any form. Labour should allow the coalition to create its own divisions, which will occur if either Tories defy the whip and vote against the referendum, or even more likely, support an amendment to ensure that a certain threshold has to be reached as in the Scottish devolution vote of 1978. Many have wondered whether the referendum is something that would put pressure on the coalition. I think this will only happen if it is defeated by Conservatives in parliament. If Labour vote it down, that will not mean the end of the reduction in constituencies, but will give them an excuse to take electoral reform off the agenda, and blame Labour for defeating it. If the referendum is lost in the country, then the Liberal Democrats will have no option but to accept the argument had been lost.

Moving on, the coalition has attempted to present itself as something different in British politics. But, words are easy, it's actions that speak loudest, and the coalition doesn't seem to be living up to these. At Prime Minister's Questions Mr Cameron seems have very quickly learned the art of not answering questions, and the planted ones are so blatant, it is embarrassing to watch. Mr Cameron only seems to have one mantra at present, 'It is because of the mess the last government left,' which is only useful for a very short time (as Labour discovered after 1997), as people will quickly begin to ask them what they're doing about it.

A subject I am particularly interested in is education. My years at the grammar school in Dedham followed by Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and my work in Colchester, led me to take an interest in how education can improve the lives of everyone in society. The government's education department, has been a real catastrophe, and the Secretary Mr Michael Gove, an unmitigated disaster. I do not doubt that he has many talents, but attention to detail does not seem to be one of them. The Building Schools for the Future programme was an important one for the Labour government. There may well have been issues with it, it seems impossible to do anything perfectly, except cock-up, but its intention was to provide schools with much refurbishment. For those who ask why it hadn't been done already, in 1997 a Labour minister said it will take twenty years to sort out the extent of the neglect by the Tories.

The problems with the list of schools affected by the halting of BSF are well known. Five lists have had to be published, and Mr Gove apologise to the House. The problem is, that schools, and the public, are now unsure what is true and what isn't any more, which means the department is already distrusted. The lists also appear to have been unfair, as they hit Labour constituencies much more than Conservative ones,
and before the cry goes up that Labour ones benefited more from the work, there were previously a lot more Labour MPs. Yet, Labour lost over ninety seats, and are still in the majority of constituencies hit by the projects being stopped.

That, however, isn't the main unfairness of this policy. If an area had just two or three projects stopped, or unaffected, I could understand it. Constituencies with a great number, you would think would be likely to have a mixture of them. yet some Labour seats, with six or seven have them all stopped, and Sheffield Hallam, which has something like twelve projects, all of which are unaffected. Whilst not proof of anything, at least raises the question of whether there is a hint of politics behind the decisions.

Then, to make things worse, this week Cambridge University sent a letter, which raises doubts over plans to do away with AS levels. The university considers them as good indicators of a student's progress, and helpful especially in enabling those from poorer backgrounds to get into 'top' universities. They didn't say the system didn't need reform, but not the complete abolition Mr Gove was advocating. The third problem, is the Academies Bill that has just been through parliament, which was restricted to three days debate on its third reading (the final stage in the Commons before it goes to the Lords, and once passed then into law). This haste caused a great deal of unhappiness, not only with the opposition, but amongst Liberal Democrat MPs too, although it was eventually passed.

Taken individually these would be considered serious issues, but as they have all happened within a couple of weeks, it makes the department appear to not know what it is doing. The haste with which the Academies Bill has gone through the chamber would seem to indicate a government fearing either scrutiny, or that they will not be around for long. They plan to be in power until May 2015, and a properly scrutinised bill, could have enabled these new academies to be established in September 2011, with all the kinks smoothed out as far as possible, and it would also be clearer how the spending review will affect education.

The next project will be to pass the legislation enabling 'free' schools to be set up, although where the money for this is coming from I'm not sure, unless it is being taken out of that already in the education budget, or new money miraculously appearing. The latest research seems to indicate that where these schools already exist, Sweden and the USA, the results are very patchy. Still, we'll have to wait and see how it unfolds, but I fear it will be for the benefit of the better off, leaving the poorer children to struggle. If the reports in today's 'papers are true, and school's will be able to select more easily, then the gap between the have and have nots will rise even more.

The other big policy announcements have been on the NHS, and they are worrying, and seem about turning doctor's surgeries into independent businesses. I am concerned that the government seems to be trying to privatise our public services by stealth, and that state run ones will virtually disappear. Although I disagree with this as a philosophy, i think they should be honest if this is their intention, so we can vote on it. As the government has not stated this explicitly, I can only extrapolate from their actions to date, and the general directions of their policies. I hope I am wrong, but time will tell.

The realisation of this concern comes in the guise of David Cameron's big idea, known as the 'big society,' which has always struck me as a Conservative version of Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' of the sixties. In this plan, Mr Cameron expects charities and other third sector organisations to replace public services in areas where they are cut by the government. It is a myth put about by some Tory supporters that Labour is afraid of the charitable sector, yet this is, of course, untrue. However, they view them as additions to state run services, although it is true that there are areas where they work that government or local authorities have failed to act. Sometimes government will then come in, but it is recognised that these services, and people are a valuable part of civil society.

Mr Cameron wants the third sector to step in and run our services to make up for the cuts government says are 'unavoidable.' However, they are also cutting back on third sector funding, so it is going to be difficult for these organisations to fill the space, and they seem to think a lot of new ones will suddenly crop up. They are, in fact, relying on those working, and those that lose their jobs, to get involved in these, in order to provide the experience and expertise.

But, it is my opinion, and that only, that the government is expecting private companies to begin to fill the gap, and that this will have to be paid for by someone. If government pays, they will expect much more return for the money, if individuals, then only those who can afford to will benefit.

Any Conservative supporters who read this will naturally say I am exaggerating, yet if you look at what is planned, what other outcome is possible? The circumstances do not exist for the private sector to create the 2.5 million jobs (as opposed to the 1.3 million losses in public and private sectors expected to be lost), as it is the world economy recovering from recession, not just Britain. The only way the private sector will be able to create a lot of jobs, is if companies are established to provide the services the government previously did.

Before I conclude, I will say some positive things about the government. Firstly, Mr Cameron has tried to bring a friendlier, and lighter tone to his government. He strikes me as a decent man, who I believe is just mistaken in his policies. The coalition is something different in Britain, as we are not used to formal peacetime ones, though the two parties in this one, do not seem natural bedfellows.

The one area of policy they so far seem to have got right is foreign affairs, especially in their reaction to the Israeli flotilla incident. Although much can be made of his '1940' slip (the real issue here was the 'junior' comment), Mr Cameron is to a large extent correct, in that the USA views Britain as secondary, and we should stand up to them more.

So, as we approach the one hundred day mark, I would say the coalition has a lot of work to do. They need to work out whether they are going to rush through legislation, giving the impression of a government in fear, or take their time, and make sure it's right and has a lasting effect? The education fiasco has not created a good impression, and shows the danger of trying to do things too quickly. They need to slow down, and think about what is really the best way to govern, and not just be driven by ideology.

In the end, it is really too soon to say how this will work out, and I, and no doubt you, will watch very closely. I am not a supporter of this government, but we can't afford for them to fail in their aims to make Britain successful, but I just don't see it happening, if they continue on the current path. Will the cuts they are making mean the end of public services in Britain as we know them, and will civil society be able to replace them, without making it a business?

But in the spirit of openness, I invite you to suggest subjects you would like Sir Harbottle to investigate next.

ConVinced or ConDemned?

Thursday May 6th 2010 was a big adventure for all of us who took part in, or watched the General Election unfold. The exit poll turned out be be almost correct, by complete accident. The Conservatives were easily the biggest party, but far short of a majority, and Labour lost nearly 100 seats. The Liberal Democrat poll figures failed to translate into votes, although they did see a slight increase on 2005, but lost seats.

But this provided the supreme irony. Despite their diminished representation in parliament, Nick Clegg did find himself 'kingmaker.' After many days of tooing and froing, and fluttering his eyelashes at Labour, but showing a bit of leg to the Tories, Cameron and Clegg decided to enter a civil partnership.

This was then consummated at the door to number ten Downing Street, with a public kiss...sorry shaking of hands. Less than twenty-four hours previously, Gordon Brown had accepted the inevitable, stood down, and gone to tender his resignation to the Queen. The former Prime Minister left office with dignity having fulfilled his final constitutional role, and stayed in place until it became obvious the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would reach an agreement of some sort. As he left Downing Street with his wife and children, he must have felt many regrets, not least that he was never able to secure his own mandate. But, perhaps even more so, that he was leaving with a reputation that many feel he does not deserve. History will now have to be the judge of Gordon Brown's time in office.

When David Cameron made his first appearance as Prime Minister (a shiver went down my spine as I wrote that), he paid a tribute to the previous thirteen years, as Britain being, "(M)ore open at home and more compassionate abroad." A sentence which seems to be contrary to his mantra that British society was broken, which he repeated often during the campaign. However, he then went on to say that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had decided to create a formal coalition, and today, as they stood in the rose garden, a joint document was released with detail of the agreement.

The big issue of deficit reduction seems to be an unhappy medium, whilst though no parties policies on this would have been welcomed, they seem to have just split the difference here. Perhaps not altogether a bad thing, as they will be attempting to cut more quickly, but nowhere near as radically as the Tories would have done on their own. However, I believe that any cuts in services now will be to the detriment of the economic recovery. We'll have to see on this, but the likelihood is that there will be large cuts in jobs and services, which will just push up unemployment. They boast that they have stopped the 'jobs tax' is only partly true, as missing from the document is an explanation that it will still apply to employees.

On schools, NHS and defence there is no detail, other than trident will be retained whilst Liberal Democrats, "(C)ontinue to make the case for alternatives." This is a disarming fudge, which basically means, "Make as much fuss as you like Nick, we're sticking to it!" Some of the policies on pupil premiums seem to have been agreed, but no mention on how the 'free schools' the Tories are so determined to introduce, will impact the budget. NHS funding will apparently increase, though no amount mentioned, and defence will get a full review, which all three parties had in their manifestos.

The tax measures are a real hotch potch of ideas, taken from both parties. Whilst this would be inevitable in a coalition, they should at least lead to a coherent whole. To start with, "(P)rovision will be made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on budget resolutions to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to this coalition agreement." It doesn't strike me as much of a coalition if one of the partners will abstain on certain issues. Will they be free to vote against if they feel strongly enough? There are proposals to increase employee thresholds on national insurance, which sounds good on the face of it, but they can't cut taxes, and tackle the deficit. There is no focus in these plans, and any plans to start dealing with the deficit, and debt, will fall disproportionately on public spending, with the inevitable lose of jobs.

When it comes to banking, in all honesty I can't really disagree with what is in the document. It seems that they agree that greater regulation is needed, and that a levy should be imposed. I would however, be cautious on introducing it before an international agreement is completed, as it could lead to some banks leaving our shores. The banks have asked for a lot of what is proposed for them, but the only real concern I have is that no detail has been worked out yet, which means we don't know exactly what we're getting.

The Conservative quotas on immigration have been accepted lock, stock and barrel, but the ending of detention for children for 'immigration purposes' is a welcome one, if carried through quickly. I'm a bit surprised that the Liberal Democrats have signed up to this, as throughout the campaign, they were aware that immigration has brought many benefits, and that quotas are not the correct way to deal with the issue. I feel this will prove a sticking point when they get down to detail.

Political reform is one of the most important things the new government will deal with, although spun as superficial by the Conservatives before an agreement was reached. A referendum on the alternative vote will be passed by the house, probably without the need for whipping unless Labour suddenly start opposing it under the new leader. However, it's not in the house that there will be an issue, it's that almost certainly both parties will be campaigning for different outcomes. This can only make the coalition look divided, and it is preposterous for a government to introduce legislation for something they intend to campaign against. Reform of the upper house is now in flux, as it is not now certain it will be wholly elected, and the system used will be proportional representation. However, I fully expect Liberal Democrats and Labour to vote in favour of the wholly elected option, so should still go through.

Both parties have agreed on raising the retirement age, and will end all current 'welfare to work' programmes, to be replaced by a single programme. This sounds fine, but how would it be designed to cope with different needs at varying levels? For instance, someone in the 18-24 age bracket will have very different needs to an ex-professional with years of management experience. It always dangerous to treat everyone as the same, because nobody ends up satisfied.

Unfortunately the Liberal Democrats seem to be going along with the introduction of 'free' or 'charter' schools. It is dressed up as, "(T)hat new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand," but what it means is taking money out of the state system, including the schools building fund, to the detriment of the system. If parents wish to establish these schools, they should be privately funded, and not take funding away from the majority of children.

There will be referenda on any new European Union treaties, and no new transfer of powers. The Liberal Democrats have completely subsumed their European credentials to the Tories. It doesn't matter what they say about understanding they have differences, the Liberal Democrats have signed up to the Conservative view, including it appears the 'nutters' grouping. If the Lib Dems in the EU parliament join up here, then there could be a large number of defections.

Many of the proposals on civil liberties appear to be sensible and workable, but we'll have to see what they really do, and if they replace them with other legislation that performs the same task. I didn't have a problem with ID cards, but it appears they will be scrapped, which will be popular with many, but they aren't removing the DNA database, just remodelling it. Unfortunately the woolly language gets worse when they say good reason needs to be shown for storing of internet and email records, and there is no indication of criteria, so presumably they will act on police advice, the same advice that led to the ID card scheme etc, in the first place. However, I do like the relaxing of non-violent protest legislation, especially if it means I can make mine in Parliament Square this Saturday.

Many of the environmental plans are ones that most people will accept. The only opposition will come from climate change deniers, though there could be conflict over nuclear energy. The liberal Democrats have given the Tories a free run on this whilst being allowed to, "(M)aintain their opposition to nuclear power." This will probably include abstaining on the planning statement, even if they can speak against it. This is a derogation of duty on their part, unless they've got an agreement for Tories to abstain during the referendum, then this 'coalition' is all one way.

So as we enter a new era of British politics, it is impossible to know where it will end. But this document just appears to show how much the Liberal Democrats have given away, to a few sops on electoral reform, and agreements to abstain in areas of disagreement. This will not impress Liberal Democrat members much, and many voters now feel betrayed by their leadership. Many grassroots Conservatives will also be unhappy, especially with the concession on the AV referendum.

What the long term consequences for both parties, and leaders, will be is impossible to know at this early stage. There appears to be evidence that quite a few Liberal Democrats have been joining the Labour Party, though it is only if this is sustained will we be able to gauge the real feeling.

The big question is whether or not the coalition can survive for a full parliament. There are many differences in outlook between the partners. and the strains will begin to show very quickly. Quite a few Liberal Democrat MPs are ex-Labour Party members, especially Vince Cable the new Business Secretary. He may well find it too difficult to maintain working closely with the Tories, and is the candidate most likely to provide the 'Heseltine moment' of this administration.

Some of you may consider this event unlikely, but those of you who remember the mid-eighties, will recall how difficult it was for the more leftish Conservatives to live with the agenda of the Thatcher government. I can see Cable getting more and more frustrated with policy as the Conservatives attempt to implement much deeper cuts than he believes is right for the economy, and will eventually resign his post. Whether this has further consequences is far in the future, but I believe this coalition is very unstable, and I can't see it lasting the full term, regardless of what pieces of paper are signed.

As they stood in the rose garden at Downing Street this afternoon, (I suspect this will become a regular occurrence as the joint presidents become the focus of this alliance), there was a real love-in going on. Finishing each others sentences, they might have been twins who had grown up together. All the back biting and arguing of the campaign was gone, and I expected them to walk off holding hands.

But, in my opinion, whatever the relationship between the leaders, and the sops that have been offered, the fundamental differences will tear this coalition apart, which will bring it to an end much earlier than intended. The Labour Party is currently undergoing a leadership contest, and whoever replaces Gordon Brown will not have long to work out the direction they wish to take the party in.

Naturally I wish the new government well, and that they will go some way to solving some of our problems, but I fear that they will take us in the wrong direction, and that many people will lose their jobs, and that schools and other public services will suffer. All this is for the future, for the time being, good luck to them, because they are going to need it.

Hang separately or hang together?

There are just four days to go until election day, and it still doesn't look like a clear victory for any party. The only thing that really seems to have changed, is the public have been engaged by the Prime Ministerial debates which have dominated our Thursday evenings. I'm not going to talk about who won and who didn't, because our political affiliations bias us all.

What did happen, however, was that the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, seems to have made a connection with the public, and this has been backed up by a seeming surge in Liberal Democrat support. Whether this will translate into actual votes is another story, but from a general belief that the turnout could be the lowest ever, to thinking that it could be back up towards 70% again shows the real worth of the debates, and the inclusion of the Liberal Democrat leader on equal billing.

Ironically it was David Cameron who allowed Clegg into the party, and it may well turn out to be the most spectacular own goal of the whole election. Whatever people may think of the Liberal Democrats and their policies Nick Clegg has brought something different to the table. If Cameron and Gordon Brown had just been battling it out, then people may have switched off the campaign completely.

As a sideline, the issue of the length of the campaign seems to be an issue. Although it officially started on April 7th, in reality it has been going on for the last two years. Without the debates, boredom would have set in very early indeed. I don't know what can be done about this. Labour have proposed fixed parliaments, but as we see in America, the election campaign tends to start about two years into the term. So not a panacea, although it would take the power for deciding away from the PM.

To those of us who trudge around our constituencies, or zoom off to do work in marginals we hope to hold, or gain, one clear theme is the number of undecided voters. Many are upset by the expenses scandal, and indeed there will still be a large number of non-voters, who firmly beleive no politician can be trusted. Conversely, a lot of new people have registered, especially amongst the young.

It is hard to know where these votes will go, as each party is claiming converts, and getting them. Labour voters are going to Lib Dems, as are Tories. But some are also going to minor parties, which could skew the result completely. All the main parties need to make sure they learn from all this, and not take the electorate for granted. I wrote about this before the election, and still feel the points are valid
http://harbottlegrimston.blogspot.com/2010/03/carpe-diem.html

The debates were the big game changer, as Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats seem to have really joined the Tories and Labour parties as a potential government. The system seems to be against them, but my personal belief, is that on election day, if people believe that a Liberal Democrat could win the seat, or play a role in government, they will support them.

There have been a number of occasions when the leaders have been put on the spot, and not come out well. There is famously Gordon Brown's meeting with Mrs Gillian Duffy, dubbed 'bigotgate' (I think someone ought to launch an investigation into gategate. Surely there must be more original ways to name these incidents). But David Cameron had 'gaygate' when he messed up with the Gay Times, and the incident when pressed by a father on access to schools for his disabled son. In the first debate Nick Clegg described the Conservative European partners as 'nutters' for which he has had to apologise, because it was considered an insult to people with mental health problems.

There is much complaint of media bias in this election, and the way the Gordon Brown incident was focussed on did seem to back that up. However, on the day it happened, Cameron's encounter was played a fair bit on the news channels. Clegg's apology on the other hand, does seem to have been largely ignored. The newspapers unlike the BBC are not required to be balanced, but it is galling, and raises suspicions that other incidents may be being withheld.

The polls have been up and down like yo-yos throughout, and since the Liberal Democrats became major players, it has been even more confusing. The Conservatives would seem to be leading, with Labour and Lib Dems swapping second place between them. However, although they show a pattern, they are unable to demonstrate what is going on in individual seats, and the results from those are likely to be very unpredictable. Election night will be very exciting from that perspective, and will probably make all the polls virtually meaningless.

So, as we enter the last 80 hours of the campaign what awaits us? There are four major scenarios, A Labour majority, a Tory majority, a Labour minority, a Tory minority, or a variety of coalitions. A political earthquake could yet bring about a Liberal Democrat majority, but that seems unlikely.

The public appear to have made up their minds, in that they have, that they would like a hung parliament this time. They seem to feel that none of them can be trusted to act in the country's best interests on their own. I can see their point!

Conservative governments are perceived as only acting for a certain strata of society. Whether this is true or not is not relevant, it is the perception. Labour government's are said to not be good with the economy, again a matter of perception, which if we examined historically would both be shown to be largely untrue.

Since 1979 both parties have had long unbroken periods of rule, which have seen many peaks and troughs. The Tory period saw the rise of the yuppie and the selfish society, or lack of if Mrs Thatcher is believed. It also saw three recessions, the third one being in a large part responsible for the disaster of 1997, and two wars. At its death it became mired in sleaze, which although affecting very few MPS, tarred them all.

The Labour government saw a long period of growth, with much money being invested in services. However, there has also been a feeling that the state has become more authoritarian, especially in the period following 9/11, and then the attacks of 7/7, as security became a major issue. Perceptions of crime (although official figures show a a drop, it is perception again)have also led to more CCTV cameras being set up by police and local authorities. Then came the invasion of Iraq, a policy which many loyal supporters, and the majority of the population opposed. However, from a political perspective, of the main parties, only the Liberal Democrats hands are clean, which is probably why it hasn't reared up during the campaign.

The current economic crisis, though worldwide, did have other affects that perhaps could have been avoided if either party had done some things earlier. Bank regulation being one, and perhaps the most vital. The 1980's saw massive deregulation, but Labour have done little to roll that back in the last thirteen years, as Gordon Brown himself admitted a couple of weeks ago. There have been disagreements on policy, but mainly all three parties have supported the government's measures to a certain degree. For the record, although the Conservatives were initially against intervention, they did come round, so although the accusation they were against it is technically correct, it is not a point to labour too much.

Whoever gets elected will have very difficult decisions to make on the economy, and the public will feel as though they have been made to bear the brunt of it regardless. Whether cuts are made now or later, or which taxes are raised, there will be many losers, and almost no winners, so it could well be a completely different issue that helps p[people decide which way to vote. This could well be the issue of electoral reform, as the public decide they don't want single party rule anymore, and want to see politicians working together, not just scoring points.

So neither party can really claim to have the monopoly on the right things to do, and the Liberal Democrats have not been involved in government for ninety years. Therefore, whichever party gets in, there is an element of risk involved, because given a majority, to what extent can we believe they will be different from before?

So, I will make a surprising declaration. I would like to see Labour as the biggest party (preferably with the largest share of the vote), but far enough short of a majority to mean they have to work with the Liberal Democrats. I beleive thia would guarantee the elctoral reform I beleive is essential to reforming british politics. This could well be the most important thing to come out of the entire process. The debates have proved to have a big impact, now is the opportunity to continue in that vein, change the system, and get those in power to think more about us.

Gentle jousting!

Last night the leader's of the three main parties had the first ever debate between those considered most likely to be Prime Minister following the election. It attracted an audience of nearly ten million, and is perhaps indicative that the dissatisfaction with politics and politicians, has increased interest. Maybe, these debates are what will save the 2010 General Election from becoming a debacle.

It seems to be generally agreed that Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats came top, but in reality he would have had to perform terribly not to. This isn't to say David Cameron and Gordon Brown did especially badly, but the public are less familiar with Clegg and the Lib Dem arguments. Therefore, they were always bound to give the impression of freshness.

But, they were the old third party arguments being put forward. The old parties have failed, we are the only ones who can really bring new politics to Britain, only we will tell it like it is! This is rubbish, like the Conservative and Labour Parties, the Lib Dems have put forward a programme for government. There are no new ideas, no radical costings, or more honesty on where the cuts will be made.

Nick Clegg came top because he won the 'beauty contest.' He looked younger even than Cameron, brought on by unfamiliarity. He does have style, and he did do well, coming across as confident and in control. But, it is enhanced by the public not really knowing that much about him before last night. The acid test comes next Friday, when we see if he can repeat his performance, and carry forward some momentum. If he can, then will be the time to take him seriously!

David Cameron always had the most difficult job to do. He is the one most expected to be Prime Minister come May 7th if any party is to achieve an overall majority. The first shots weren't promising, as the camera moved in on the leaders he seemed to be standing like a tailor's dummy, and this was enhanced by his high tan. But he did start confidently, and came across as a reasonable man. He does seem to care about, and believe in what he is saying. However, this is not enough, and substance needs to come across too.

There were a number of occasions when he allowed himself to be cornered by Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg. As the Prime Minister said to him, 'this is not question time, this is answers time.' I expect Mr Cameron did have answers for the points put to him, but as with the final PMQ's, he seemed to freeze under the weight of expectation.

The big problem for David Cameron and the Conservatives, is they've been portrayed as the next government of Britain for the last two and a half years. This is a heavy burden to carry, and they have tried to put together a programme that will appeal to the public. But, a seemingly exciting manifesto is filled with all sorts of promises, that people wonder how they can be afforded. The Conservatives have been saying the main priority is the deficit, but he said very little about that. It was on potential spending commitments where he fell down, as he appeared unwilling to make commitments, which made him seem evasive, when he was under pressure.

I will be writing a profile of Cameron in the final week of the campaign, so won't give an overall impression of him here. I will just say that last night he did not perform as well as we, or I'm sure he, expected. I expect him to do better next week, if he doesn't, it may well deal a death blow to his chances of being the next Conservative Prime Minister.

Gordon Brown was cleverly portrayed as the underdog going into the first debate. But nobody was really surprised by how it unfolded. The Tories are spinning that he crashed and burned, but they are well aware that is is untrue. When it came to detail, he was easily the best briefed, but he has the same sort of problem that Mrs Thatcher had, in that people don't particularly warm to him.

The British people and the political system however, are rightly suspicious of beauty contest winners. They also look for more substance in their leaders, which, as much as it pains me to say it, they have possibly learned their lesson following Tony Blair. Although Mr Blair had many great qualities, he was more style than anything else. Gordon brown is all substance, he lacks the charisma of a Cameron or even a Clegg, and his rather dour expressions do not help.

Last night he seemed to decide it was pointless trying to play the media game, as whenever he does, it doesn't seem to work. Therefore, he stuck to his strengths, stuck firmly to the messages he has put forward for the last year or so, and made his policies the centre of his answers. He did ask tough questions of David Cameron a couple of times, and did manage to corner him on police numbers, and where the money was to come from. Whether these helped or hindered him is difficult to tell.

Many of the post-debate polls put the Prime Minister in third place, though the Sky viewers gave him a slight edge over David Cameron. This seemed to be more down to who he is, rather than what he said, and it will be interesting to see if any of the pollsters ask what people can remember about what was actually said over the weekend, and next week. The Liberal Democrats have received the expected bounce in the one poll released tonight, and moved into second place. They made a slightly deeper impression in the Tory score, but it could really just be an indication of the public's unhappiness with the main parties, than a real enthusiasm for the Liberal Democrats.

So was last night's, and the subsequent debates, worthwhile. I believe It was, in that it was a less contentious arena, and the leaders were forced to try and really explain what they would do. Indeed, having three will allow each to demonstrate different strengths, and weaknesses.

Can Nick Clegg maintain his higher profile, and win over more supporters? Perhaps the debates will prove the most convincing case for reform of the voting system, because the Liberal Democrats could greatly increase their vote, but still finish way behind the others in seats. In my opinion, he will improve the LD's support, but the bounce will be short-lived, as he now has expectations to live up to, that will be difficult to achieve.

David Cameron's job is more difficult. he is expected to win, and therefore has a lot to live up to. He is a bright and young, and seems full of energy and ideas. He needed to project himself, but after a confident start, appeared to shrink under the expectations. As said earlier, he will be better next week, having been through the mill once, and will probably give a performance more like that expected.

Gordon Brown played safe, and to his strengths. He would have liked to have scored better, but I think he was playing the long game. Next week's debate on froeign policy could well be difficult for him, but the final one on the economy should be his for the taking. He played on his experience last night, and although Mr Cameron did get in a couple of good digs regarding what should possibly have been done previously, the PM was able to shrug them off. Detail is the Prime Minister's strength, not soundbites, although he was the one able to get the most laughs, and I expect him to continue that tactic.

As a final word, it would have been better if the audience could have got involved, challenging each of them on what they said. Question Time is popular for a reason, and that sort of format would have probably have generated more interesting clashes between the leaders. This was more like the leaders trstign each other out, to see where they thought they could gain an advantage, and was more like a gentle spar than a gladiotorial contest.

I will give my opinions on the second debate this time next week.

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.