There was once an old political saying – variously attributed to both Stanley Baldwin and Harold Macmillan – that neatly defined the limits of state power in the middle part of the 20th century.
"There are three bodies no sensible man directly challenges: the Roman Catholic Church, the Brigade of Guards, and the National Union of Mineworkers," it went.
Times change, of course, and a modern rendition would undoubtedly have different bogeymen in the guise of those with whom no government dare fall out.
Media baron Rupert Murdoch, as we saw in last week's column, would certainly be one. The all-powerful motoring lobby might be another. But if you had to pick a third, it would probably be the Police Federation.
Attempts to reform the police over recent decades have invariably foundered as soon as the Federation – as influential a trade union as the NUM once was – started flexing its muscles.
Three years ago, the then Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith tried to shelve a police pay increase that had been awarded by an independent assessor – and was swiftly forced to back down.
Fifteen years earlier, Ken Clarke – no softie he – had launched a much more wholesale attempt at reform.
When Clarke moved from the Home Office to the Treasury it landed in his successor Michael Howard's inbox - but even that legendary political hardman decided a scrap with the boys in blue was not worth the candle.
So it is not without political significance that this week has seen the publication of a brace of reports which taken together amount to something of a double whammy for police pay and conditions.
On Tuesday, former rail regulator Tom Winsor published the results of a review calling for the abolition of overtime payments worth up to £4,000 a year to officers.
The following day, Lord Hutton – that's former Barrow MP John Hutton rather than Tony Blair's favourite retired judge – published a much more wide-ranging review into public sector pensions.
Among other things, it recommended not only the end of final salary pension schemes in the public sector, but an increase in the retirement age which would see police, members of the armed forces and firemen working till they were 60.
Already, the public sector unions – including the Federation - have made clear that the government has a big fight on its hands if it tries to implement this week's proposals.
As Unison's Dave Prentice put it: "This will be just one more attack on innocent public sector workers who are being expected to pay the price of the deficit, while the bankers who caused it continue to enjoy bumper pay and bonuses."
There are certain to be demonstrations, possibly even strikes, which will put the Police Federation in an interesting position to say the least.
For of course its members will be expected to control the protests called by those campaigning against the very proposals which they and their colleagues are being threatened with.
In one sense, this is a reform whose time has come. Final salary pension schemes are a thing of the past across most of the private sector, and in that context the retirement benefits enjoyed by public sector staff have started to look more and more anachronistic.
Yet the country's six million public sector workers remain a big and powerful constituency for any government to take on, especially in the aftermath of a recession.
Ultimately it may come down to a rather crude consideration, namely how many votes there are in public sector pension reform.
The answer is: probably not many. But there are a great many more potentially lost ones.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Dave's useful idiots
Of all the many insults hurled at Gordon Brown during his troubled premiership, perhaps the most wounding was the one delivered by the then Lib Dem acting leader Vince Cable during Prime Minister's Questions in November 2007.
"The House has noticed the Prime Minister’s remarkable transformation in the last few weeks from Stalin to Mr Bean," he told guffawing MPs.
But three years on, the now former Prime Minister may well have permitted himself a wry smile or two at the transformation in Mr Cable's own political fortunes.
In the space of less than 12 months, he has gone from Saint Vince, the most trusted politician in Britain, to a man now widely regarded as little more than a useful idiot for the Tory-led coalition.
Some of it is purely by virtue of his having swapped the luxuries of opposition for the harsh realities of power, at a time when the government was bound to be unpopular whoever was in it.
Yet even within that context, Mr Cable has demonstrated an unusual ability to shoot himself in the head.
His 'declaration of war' on media baron Rupert Murdoch, after being honeytrapped by a pair of female undercover reporters into speaking too frankly about his government role, has backfired more spectacularly than a turbo-charged boomerang.
The end result was that Tory culture secretary Jeremy Hunt this week nodded through a deal which will make Murdoch the dominant player in UK print and broadcast media, with even more financial clout than the BBC.
But if Dr Cable's ambitions in the field of media policy have been well and truly thwarted, the same would seem to apply to his conduct of regional policy.
After the election last May, Dr Cable put it about that he was going into bat to ensure that those English regions that wanted to would retain a region-wide political and economic voice.
Such a stance was, after all, in keeping with a Lib Dem election manifesto that promised to "reform" regional development agencies rather than abolish them wholesale as the Tories' did.
At one stage, Dr Cable was privately telling regional political leaders that the RDAs in the North East, North West and Yorkshire would be effectively be preserved, under the new guise of Local Economic Partnerships.
On the face of it, it hardly seemed Dr Cable's fault that this did not end up happening, and that communities secretary Eric Pickles prevailed in his determination to dismantle the entire regional political infrastructure.
Yet a Freedom of Information request by the Newcastle Journal has since revealed that, far from putting up a huge show of resistance, Dr Cable met his Tory counterpart just twice to discuss the issue.
In terms of the bigger picture, the RDA abolition and the Murdoch bid for BskyB point to a wider political reality - the inability of the Lib Dems to influence major policy decisions taken by this government.
And if proof was needed that this is now a widespread perception among the public, the result of Thursday's Barnsley by-election, which saw the party slumping to sixth place, surely provides it.
For some of us, the result brought back memories of those dear, dead days when world-weary Lib Dem activists used to sing a song called 'Losing Deposits' on the last night of their annual conference, to the tune of 'Waltzing Matilda.'
But for Dr Cable and his fellow Lib Dem ministers, there will be no such wallowing in nostalgia for more innocent political times.
Evidence is mounting that membership of this Coalition government is destroying the Lib Dems as a political force – possibly permanently.
How much more of it the party can take before it is obliged to go its own separate way will continue to be the defining question in British politics over the coming months.
"The House has noticed the Prime Minister’s remarkable transformation in the last few weeks from Stalin to Mr Bean," he told guffawing MPs.
But three years on, the now former Prime Minister may well have permitted himself a wry smile or two at the transformation in Mr Cable's own political fortunes.
In the space of less than 12 months, he has gone from Saint Vince, the most trusted politician in Britain, to a man now widely regarded as little more than a useful idiot for the Tory-led coalition.
Some of it is purely by virtue of his having swapped the luxuries of opposition for the harsh realities of power, at a time when the government was bound to be unpopular whoever was in it.
Yet even within that context, Mr Cable has demonstrated an unusual ability to shoot himself in the head.
His 'declaration of war' on media baron Rupert Murdoch, after being honeytrapped by a pair of female undercover reporters into speaking too frankly about his government role, has backfired more spectacularly than a turbo-charged boomerang.
The end result was that Tory culture secretary Jeremy Hunt this week nodded through a deal which will make Murdoch the dominant player in UK print and broadcast media, with even more financial clout than the BBC.
But if Dr Cable's ambitions in the field of media policy have been well and truly thwarted, the same would seem to apply to his conduct of regional policy.
After the election last May, Dr Cable put it about that he was going into bat to ensure that those English regions that wanted to would retain a region-wide political and economic voice.
Such a stance was, after all, in keeping with a Lib Dem election manifesto that promised to "reform" regional development agencies rather than abolish them wholesale as the Tories' did.
At one stage, Dr Cable was privately telling regional political leaders that the RDAs in the North East, North West and Yorkshire would be effectively be preserved, under the new guise of Local Economic Partnerships.
On the face of it, it hardly seemed Dr Cable's fault that this did not end up happening, and that communities secretary Eric Pickles prevailed in his determination to dismantle the entire regional political infrastructure.
Yet a Freedom of Information request by the Newcastle Journal has since revealed that, far from putting up a huge show of resistance, Dr Cable met his Tory counterpart just twice to discuss the issue.
In terms of the bigger picture, the RDA abolition and the Murdoch bid for BskyB point to a wider political reality - the inability of the Lib Dems to influence major policy decisions taken by this government.
And if proof was needed that this is now a widespread perception among the public, the result of Thursday's Barnsley by-election, which saw the party slumping to sixth place, surely provides it.
For some of us, the result brought back memories of those dear, dead days when world-weary Lib Dem activists used to sing a song called 'Losing Deposits' on the last night of their annual conference, to the tune of 'Waltzing Matilda.'
But for Dr Cable and his fellow Lib Dem ministers, there will be no such wallowing in nostalgia for more innocent political times.
Evidence is mounting that membership of this Coalition government is destroying the Lib Dems as a political force – possibly permanently.
How much more of it the party can take before it is obliged to go its own separate way will continue to be the defining question in British politics over the coming months.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Labour has future of electoral system in its hands
When Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg took the historic gamble of joining the Tory-led coalition government last May, he created for himself an excruciating political conundrum.
By forcing the Conservatives to grant a referendum on reforming the voting system, Mr Clegg opened up the tantalising prospect of turning the Lib Dems from a party of permanent opposition to one of moreorless permanent power.
Yet at the same time, by aligning himself with what was bound to be an unpopular administration, Mr Clegg simultaneously ran the risk of seeing the prize of electoral reform swept away on a tide of anti-government protest votes.
The fact that he then went on to make himself the most hated man in Britain in some quarters by breaking a 'solemn promise' on university tuition fees only served to underline the point.
For make no mistake, Mr Clegg is set to become the central figure in the May referendum that was finally given the go-ahead this week following a last-minute game of parliamentary ping-pong between the Lords and Commons.
At the moment, the 'no' campaign is not talking about him, trying instead to make the argument against the proposed new Alternative Vote system on the grounds of cost and complexity.
But don't be fooled – these are just the opening skirmishes, and before too long, this is going to get personal.
'Don't give Nick Clegg a permanent seat at the Cabinet table' is quite simply the no camp's most potent message in this campaign, and it's one we will be hearing a lot more of in the run up to the 5 May vote.
Perhaps understandably, Mr Clegg has so far been nowhere to be seen in the 'yes' campaign, even going so far as to tell Radio Four's Today programme yesterday that the referendum was "nothing to do with" him.
Instead, in the week that The King's Speech swept the board at the Baftas, the pro-reform camp wheeled out the film's much-decorated stars Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter to voice their support.
While Ms Bonham Carter, as the great grand-daughter of the Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith, does at least have some family political tradition to maintain here, one could be forgiven for asking 'who cares?'
But that is not the point. The point is that here are two high-profile personalities supporting electoral reform whose names are not Nick Clegg.
On the Labour side, several prominent ex-ministers have already got involved on the 'no' side, including John Prescott, whose track record in referendum campaigns should probably make opponents of electoral reform somewhat wary.
But what should Labour supporters of AV like party leader Ed Miliband do – stay out of it and let the luvvies do the talking, or seek to provide a measure of leadership themselves?
In a sense, it's a win-win situation for Mr Miliband. If the referendum results in a 'yes' vote, the evidence of recent elections suggests it will benefit his party.
But if the country votes 'no', the coalition will be destabilised, perhaps even to the extent that an early general election could result.
The attitude of the Labour leadership will ultimately be crucial, in that it will almost certainly be Labour voters who decide the outcome of this.
Conservative supporters will by and large vote to keep first past the post, as David Cameron urged yesterday. The Lib Dems will vote en masse for change.
The great temptation will be for Labour supporters to vote tribally against AV in order to give the Coalition a bloody nose, but given a strong enough lead from Mr Miliband, my hunch is that most of them will back the change.
That is, of course, assuming they can overcome their dislike of Nick Clegg.
By forcing the Conservatives to grant a referendum on reforming the voting system, Mr Clegg opened up the tantalising prospect of turning the Lib Dems from a party of permanent opposition to one of moreorless permanent power.
Yet at the same time, by aligning himself with what was bound to be an unpopular administration, Mr Clegg simultaneously ran the risk of seeing the prize of electoral reform swept away on a tide of anti-government protest votes.
The fact that he then went on to make himself the most hated man in Britain in some quarters by breaking a 'solemn promise' on university tuition fees only served to underline the point.
For make no mistake, Mr Clegg is set to become the central figure in the May referendum that was finally given the go-ahead this week following a last-minute game of parliamentary ping-pong between the Lords and Commons.
At the moment, the 'no' campaign is not talking about him, trying instead to make the argument against the proposed new Alternative Vote system on the grounds of cost and complexity.
But don't be fooled – these are just the opening skirmishes, and before too long, this is going to get personal.
'Don't give Nick Clegg a permanent seat at the Cabinet table' is quite simply the no camp's most potent message in this campaign, and it's one we will be hearing a lot more of in the run up to the 5 May vote.
Perhaps understandably, Mr Clegg has so far been nowhere to be seen in the 'yes' campaign, even going so far as to tell Radio Four's Today programme yesterday that the referendum was "nothing to do with" him.
Instead, in the week that The King's Speech swept the board at the Baftas, the pro-reform camp wheeled out the film's much-decorated stars Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter to voice their support.
While Ms Bonham Carter, as the great grand-daughter of the Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith, does at least have some family political tradition to maintain here, one could be forgiven for asking 'who cares?'
But that is not the point. The point is that here are two high-profile personalities supporting electoral reform whose names are not Nick Clegg.
On the Labour side, several prominent ex-ministers have already got involved on the 'no' side, including John Prescott, whose track record in referendum campaigns should probably make opponents of electoral reform somewhat wary.
But what should Labour supporters of AV like party leader Ed Miliband do – stay out of it and let the luvvies do the talking, or seek to provide a measure of leadership themselves?
In a sense, it's a win-win situation for Mr Miliband. If the referendum results in a 'yes' vote, the evidence of recent elections suggests it will benefit his party.
But if the country votes 'no', the coalition will be destabilised, perhaps even to the extent that an early general election could result.
The attitude of the Labour leadership will ultimately be crucial, in that it will almost certainly be Labour voters who decide the outcome of this.
Conservative supporters will by and large vote to keep first past the post, as David Cameron urged yesterday. The Lib Dems will vote en masse for change.
The great temptation will be for Labour supporters to vote tribally against AV in order to give the Coalition a bloody nose, but given a strong enough lead from Mr Miliband, my hunch is that most of them will back the change.
That is, of course, assuming they can overcome their dislike of Nick Clegg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)