What's wrong with our politics in a single paragraph

On the Spectator Coffee House blog today, in a piece ostensibly about Ken Clarke's current woes, James Forsyth mentions the following in the opening paragraph:

Dominic Grieve’s fate as shadow Home Secretary was sealed by a lunch at News International headquarters in Wapping. Grieve went to lunch with various Sun executives and rather than talking tough on crime he laid into the paper for how it covered the issue, claiming that it stoked fear of crime. The word then came back to Tory high command, via Andy Coulson, that the paper would not endorse the Tories as long as Grieve remained in that job. He was duly replaced by Chris Grayling in the 'pub-ready reshuffle' of January 2009 after less than a year in the job.

Doesn't that just sum up a big part of what is wrong with our politics in a single paragraph?

It shouldn't be for executives of national newspapers to decide who is or is not appointed to cabinet and shadow cabinet positions. Sadly it is all too easy to believe what the extremely well connected Forsyth states above.

This is why subjects like drugs policy, crime and the like can never be debated rationally as part of political discourse because politicians are terrified of what newspapers might say and therefore how discussing controversial subjects may well terminate their political career. So they generally steer clear. When they don't they are crucified as Ken Clarke is finding out today.

I just wish politicians, including those right at the top would grow some backbone and stand up to the vested interests in these newspapers. I guess though whilst they have the circulation and the implicit power that gives, this pattern will continue.

Prison reform - we need to ride out inevitable press hysteria

I was listening to John Pienaar's weekly podcast last week. The guest was my old sparring partner Shane Greer and one of the things they discussed was Ken Clarke's plan to ensure that prison is not used as a punishment so often and to make more use of community sentences.

I already blogged last week about how I think Clarke's plan is potentially very good. On the podcast they were debating the merits of this but the point was made that irrespective of how well community sentences and other alternatives to prison may work out, all it will take is one or two high profile cases of criminals who would have previously been in prison and who commit an horrendous crime for the press to go ballistic about how the policy had failed.

Sadly I think they were both right. The media in this country has never been very good at calmly assessing the evidence. It is possible that a more non-custodial approach may reduce recidivism. It may be that a change in policy could be a huge step forward in reforming our criminal justice system for the better. The problem is we may never find out. It will only take a few high profile cases that the press/media are able to focus all attention on (probably with the help of the opposition judging by Jack Straw's initial reaction last week) for it to be politically very difficult for the government to continue with the policy.

We need to try and encourage more use of evidence. Whatever system we have in place there will always be problems but we need to assess the overall impact. Critically we need to judge if reoffending rates are reduced. In order to do that we need to give the policy time and for there to be enough evidence on which to base an assessment.

If it turns out that changing the policy is demonstrably a bad move (from the actual evidence, not the press coverage) then I will be the first to concede that we need a different approach. But please, let's make sure we take the decision for the right reasons, not because of screaming tabloid headlines.

Ken Clarke shows how Labour's Lib Dem "betrayal" narrative is nonsense

Every opportunity that Labour spokespeople get these days they attack the Lib Dems. Not usually for any specific Lib Dem policy but for the fact that they were willing to go into coalition with the Conservatives. It often seems like Labour MPs feel like jilted lovers whose rightful and "natural" partners the Lib Dems have inexplicably spurned them for an ill-suited lover and that they will surely soon live to regret this folly.

What this ridiculously simplistic narrative fails to take into account is that there are not just areas of commonality with Labour (of course there are some) but there are and always have been areas of commonality with the Conservatives. It is nowhere near clear cut that a partnership with Labour (irrespective of the fact that the parliamentary arithmetic made it unworkable) would have fitted like a glove and a partnership with the Conservatives is utterly doomed.

Yes there are some of the Conservative policies that I and many of my Lib Dem colleagues would rather not have seen enacted (not least in the budget last week) but we have been able to get plenty of our own policies as part of the deal and ameliorate what our party sees as the worst excesses of the Tories.

One of the areas where the previous government were woeful was civil liberties and justice. Labour was authoritarian from the start of its tenure in office and these tendencies got worse and worse as time went on. The prison population shot up from around 50,000 in 1997 to well over 80,000 by the time they left office. Little time was given to the idea that alternative approaches may work. No, they were all dismissed as "soft on crime" as the numbers of people banged up were forced inexorably up.

A good liberal principle is to only imprison people when there is no alternative and to examine the ways in which such a drastic sanction (which is often the direct cause of further crime later) can be avoided. So I am delighted to see that Ken Clarke has started off in his post as Justice Secretary by making it clear that just continually banging people up is not always the right approach and that we need a more constructive way of approaching this issue. He is strongly signalling that there will be more use of community service and attempts to rehabilitate offenders.

Now I am not naive enough to think that this problem can be solved overnight (or indeed ever fully) but the fact that the government has laid down a marker that their approach will not be dictated by the "bang 'em up" brigade is very welcome and dare I say it, liberal. In fact it is probably no exaggeration to say that Clarke's speech today is the most liberal from the cabinet minister responsible for justice in a political generation at least.

And how has Clarke's predecessor Jack Straw responded to this? With a scaremongering article in The Daily Mail (the Mothership of the "bang 'em up" mob) which makes it clear that he is proud of the fact that the prison population is now pushing 85,000. He basically accuses the coalition government of being soft on crime and makes it clear that as far as he is concerned there is no alternative to an ever rising prison population even though it costs an absolute fortune, recidivism rates are through the roof, prisons are massively overcrowded and many times his government was forced to ensure some inmates were released early (which demonstrates that despite all the rhetoric by its own terms their policy was failing).

So we come back to my initial point. I have fairly strong liberal instincts and if I had not been a member of any political party I would have been very pleased with what Ken Clarke had to say today and the clear direction of travel upon which he intends to embark. I would also have been distinctly unimpressed with the behaviour of Straw and his colleagues trying to poo-poo the idea that a more constructive approach is "soft on crime". In other words what this government with its many Tory MPs is planning is very closely aligned with my own politics and almost diametrically opposite to that of the Labour Party.

As it happens I am a member of the Lib Dems but on this issue that is irrelevant. I would support the government on this anyway. And it is a stark example of why the narrative about the Lib Dems having done the dirty on them that Labour keeps pushing is nonsense. Our party is not the "natural" partner of Labour on lots of issues. Their reaction today is a stark reminder of that.

They should bear this in mind next time they hurl accusations of "betrayal" at us.

Ken Clarke - the great political survivor

Something that has been a bit overlooked in all the excitement over the new coalition government is just what an incredible achievement it is for Ken Clarke to be resuming a cabinet position after 13 years in opposition.

Clarke was a government whip under Heath from 1972 - 1974 and then became a junior minister when Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979. From 1985 he then took on a succession of cabinet posts under both Thatcher and Major culminating in Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1993 - 1997.

There can't be many politicians whose government careers span 38 years. And of course we have no idea how long he might last. He could easily be in the cabinet for a good few years yet. He's only 69.

What also makes his achievement even more remarkable is that he was able to maintain his position in Cameron's shadow cabinet despite his very pro-EU views in a party dominated by anti-EU sentiment. I know that now the coalition with the Lib Dems has come about there are plenty of pro-EU cabinet ministers but to have been in contention for a good post in opposition was an achievement in itself.

So let's raise a glass to Ken Clarke, one of the great survivors of British politics!

Ken Clarke - loose cannon?

Following Ken Clarke's comments at the weekend about inheritance tax (he said that fulfilling their pledge on reducing the threshold was not one of their main economic goals) Iain Dale has said that it is a minor gaffe, he should just concede so and move on.

That is fair enough as far as it goes but it does demonstrate what I referred to a couple of months ago, that he is not exactly in lock-step with the Cameron leadership.

Dale also says that Clarke was not quite up to speed with the fact that the IHT policy was actually a commitment and not just a pledge. It's not really good enough though for a senior party grandee who has been brought back to the front-bench to add weight and gravitas to not be fully up to speed with policies that he then goes onto national TV to discuss. I have heard in the past that Ken Clarke is considered to be lazy by some of his colleagues. If the Tories are serious about vying for power, they cannot allow any of their front-benchers to have the charge of being lazy sticking to them. I certainly don't think that charge could be applied to any of the Lib Dem front-bench although we of course suffer from not getting as much coverage as the other two main parties (Vince Cable excepted at the moment!).

I originally thought bringing Clarke back was a good move on Cameron's part but now I am not so sure. I suspect it will only take one or two more gaffes like this before he is sidelined.

Ken Clarke's disingenuity on VAT cut

I just heard Ken Clarke being interviewed on 5 Live on my way home.

He came across pretty well as always and was able to bat away the questions about the Euro as I would have expected.

He was challenged about his apparent support for the 2.5% VAT cut which he had advocated prior to Brown/Darling announcing the policy themselves and his defence was that he said he had been in favour of it if we could afford it which he then went on to say we could not. He then pointed out that he did not vote for the change in the Commons. He blamed the Labour spin machine for the misrepresentation.

This is fair enough as far as it goes, however this is pretty disingenuous. Cameron and Obsorne's main objection to the policy has been that it would not work (which I agreed with and posted about here), and as that has started to be proven they have been pushing this point over and over again. So in fact this is in direct contrast to Clarke's position which is that he thought it was the best option for a fiscal stimulus. Even if it could have been afforded, Cameron and Osborne would have been against it. So the new Shadow Business Secretary is diamatrically opposed to his leader and Chancellor's policy on a major plank of the response to the economic problems and has not backed down from the position, just deflected it on a technicality.

I look forward to further contortions!

Ken Clarke is back!

So Ken Clarke is going to come back into the Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Business Secretary (although I saw on the ITV news he was described as Business Secretary - a bit premature I thought!).

There is already reaction here from Iain Dale and here from LabourHome.

I think this is a good move for Cameron as it brings a heavyweight (in more than one sense) back into the Shadow Cabinet and lord knows they need them. It is of course a risk as his views on Europe are out of step with the majority of the party to put it mildly but you have to assume that Cameron will have had some sort of assurance from him that he will not stir things up - time will tell.

I do agree with one of the comments on LabourHome however that bringing him back will undermine George Osborne as having a former (and fairly successful) Chancellor in the Shadow Cabinet can only diminish his status surely.