All quiet on the Barnett front

Why has it all gone quiet over the Barnett Formula? And could it be anything to do with Glasgow East? Here's my column in today's Newcastle Journal.

***

Earlier this year, a brief flurry of excitement went around the Westminster village that Gordon Brown might be about to do something that few thought possible for a Scottish PM.

The Treasury had ordered a study into the workings of the controversial Barnett funding formula which governs the allocation of public spending within the UK - surely a precursor to its eventual abolition.

At the same time, Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems agreed to set up a Commission to look at the Scottish Parliament’s powers and funding, likely to include consideration of whether the Scots should move towards greater financial self-sufficiency.

Could the 30-year-old formula, long a source of disquiet in the North-East on account of the tens of millions of additional spending it awards to Scotland, finally be on the way out?

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson certainly thought so, proclaiming on his blog that "the skids appear finally to be under the Barnett Formula.”

I myself was slightly more circumspect, commenting on these pages that the long battle for a fair funding deal for the North-East still had a way to go yet.

Since then, though, nothing. Maybe Mr Brown has thought better of it. Maybe the various reviews, studies and commissions are taking longer than expected to come to fruition.

Most likely, it's been put on the back burner pending the resolution of other political crises requiring more immediate attention.

The issue, of course, has not gone away. This week's report by the regional think-tank ippr north once again underlined the case for reform.

It found that although the gap between Scotland and the North-East in terms of public spending has narrowed in recent years, it still stands at £716 per head.

The report's main author Guy Lodge said the Barnett formula was no longer "fit for purpose" and should be replaced.

"It does not result in a fair distribution of spending, and is becoming an increasing source of tension between the nations of the UK," he added.

In its response to Thursday's report, the Treasury certainly gave little indication that anything was about to change.

It said there were "no plans" to change the Barnett formula, describing it as "a fair allocation which reflects population shares in the different nations of the United Kingdom" - which is pretty much what it's been saying for the past 11 years.

But whatever the reason behind the apparent lull in government activity around the issue, it is doubtful that much more is going to happen in the next fortnight at least.

Why? Because on July 24, voters in Glasgow East will go to the polls to elect a successor to Labour MP David Marshall, who resigned his seat on the grounds of ill-health last month.

Like Crewe and Nantwich, like Henley, this was undoubtedly a by-election that Mr Brown could have done without.

The main opponent will be Alex Salmond's Scottish Nationalists, and even the slightest movement on the Barnett Formula is bound to be exploited.

Mr Salmond, indeed, got his retaliation in early in his response to Thursday's report, saying: "It is abundantly clear that the motivation of both Labour and the Tories on this issue is slashing Scottish spending."

He claims that, far from being subsidised by England, Scotland's oil revenues are actually subsidising the rest of the UK to the tune of £4.4bn a year.

Does Glasgow East represent any sort of threat to Mr Brown, given that Mr Marshall had a majority of 13,507and had held the seat for Labour since 1979?

Well, ordinarily, no - but these are not ordinary times and the Prime Minister's record in by-elections thus far hardly inspires confidence.

Furthermore, there is one aspect of the Glasgow East contest that carries a particular danger for Mr Brown - the fact that it is taking place in his own Scottish political backyard.

If he can't win this one, Labour MPs will justifiably start to wonder whether he can actually win anywhere.

Mr Brown can at least take comfort from the fact that the by-election is taking place two days after the start of the summer Parliamentary recess, reducing the scope for plotting.

But the fact that even Harriet Harman has been talked about during the past week as a possible replacement demonstrates the extent of the trouble the Prime Minister is in.

My guess is that Labour will hang on, and that the immediate danger for Mr Brown will recede until the start of the conference season in September.

But as for the future of the Barnett Formula, the Prime Minister finds himself as caught between a rock and a hard place as he ever was.

It was, I think, always Labour's hope that it could safely ignore the problem, and that the formula would simply wither on the vine as spending between the different parts of the UK gradually converged.

It has now become clear, though, that this process will take so long that unless something is done sooner, the union could well fall apart in the meantime.

Reforming the Barnett Formula might have been one of the many radical things that Mr Brown dreamed of doing once he got to Number Ten.

Now he's there, though, he has found himself far too preoccupied simply with staying alive.

Will DC bring DD back?

No, says Iain Dale, who as Davis's close friend and former campaign manager probably knows more than most.

But I'm not so sure. As I've said on Iain's blog, Cameron does not strike me as a vindictive man and if, in time, it becomes clear that bringing back Davis in a senior role would strengthen the team - which in my view it will - I think he'll probably be prepared to let bygones be bygones.

Whereas incoming Labour Prime Ministers are required by the party's own rules to appoint Shadow Cabinet members to the Cabinet - although it didn't stop Tony Blair sacking four of them after a year - there is a fairly long Conservative tradition of bringing in heavyweights from outside whenever the party enters government.

Lord Carrington, chosen as Foreign Secretary from outside the then Shadow Cabinet by Margaret Thatcher in 1979, was an example.

There has been much talk in Tory circles about whether Prime Minister Cameron would bring in, not just DD, but also IDS, Ken Clarke and even Peter Lilley if he wins the next general election.

Such talk is a tacit recognition that the current Shadow Cabinet, while strong on intellect and ideas, is lacking in that indefinable quality that, in the days of Trollope, used to be known as "bottom."

My guess is that at least two of the aforementioned "Big Beasts" will return, and that the first Cameron Cabinet will indeed look fairly different from the current Shadow Cabinet line-up.

The Harman Hypothesis

Much comment in the MSM and blogosphere alike today over the leadership chances of Harriet Harman as she stood in for Gordo at PMQS. The Sun reckons she's already plotting to take over, as does Andrew Rawnsley. Mike Smithson on Political Betting rates her chances, but Ben Brogan thinks she's already blown it. Iain Dale suggests Jack Straw could be in on the plot, while a thoughtful Tory perspective comes from new-kid-on-the-blog Alan Collins.

So what do I make of it? Well, if Harriet Harman is seriously being talked about as the answer to Labour's problems, it merely demonstrates the depth of the crisis the party is in.

Harman is political Marmite - she has her very strong admirers among a certain stratum of politically-correct London society - but she is not, and never has been, generally liked by the broader mass of the British public.

This did not really matter when Labour was choosing a deputy leader. The job of deputy is more about reassuring the faithful than reaching out to the uncommitted. But it will matter if and when the party comes to choose a new leader - particularly after their experience with Mr Brown.

I suspect that Harman knows this, and that her comment at PMQs about there not being enough airports for the men who would leave the country if she became PM displayed a certain degree of self-awareness.

Her primary objective in any leadership battle will be, firstly, to hold onto the deputy leadership - a generational shift in the leadership, for instance to David Miliband, could make her a casualty along with Gordon - and to secure the sort of senior role in the next Cabinet that Gordon has denied her.

I suspect her real aim is to be Justice Secretary rather than PM, but letting the speculation ride for a bit will do her no harm in this context, as it underlines her claims to be seen as a "key player" and strengthens her position for the inevitable job bargaining that will accompany a leadership change.

My guess is that she will eventually throw her weight behind the "Anyone but Miliband" bandwagon that appears to be growing and back the candidate most likely to give the Foreign Secretary a run for his money. As things currently stand, that surely means either Straw, or Alan Johnson.

The greatest finals

The Monday after the end of Wimbledon always leaves me with a similar feeling to Twelfth Night. Something you look forward to all year has been and gone for another 12 months, and it is invariably a week or so before life returns to "normal."

Was Nadal-Federer the greatest Wimbledon Men's Final in history? Many are already saying so. For my part, I would rank it in my Top 3 alongside Borg-McEnroe (1980) and Smith-Nastase (1972) although I still think the most remarkable performances in Wimbledon history were Arthur Ashe's outfoxing of a rampant Jimmy Connors in the '75 final, and John McEnroe's demolition of the same opponent nine years later.

I reckon I have watched part or all of every Wimbledon Men's Final since 1970. Here's my Top 10.

1. 1980 Borg bt McEnroe. Still the greatest final for me - just. Lit up by McEnroe's sheer genius.
2. 2008 Nadal bt Federer. Nadal manages to hold it together despite blowing two match points in the 4th set. Incredible.
3. 1972 Smith bt Nastase. A lovely period piece from a gentler Wimbledon age.
4. 1975 Ashe bt Connors. The greatest individual Wimbledon performance - Ashe's tactics echoed those of Ali against Foreman.
5. 1977 Borg bt Connors. Possibly Borg's best final - Connors was still the best player in the world at the time.
6. 1984 McEnroe bt Connors. Mac's masterclass - surely the most comprehensive demolition job in the history of Wimbledon finals.
7. 1992 Agassi bt Ivanisevic. The counterpuncher overcomes the big server, a rare occurence at 1990s Wimbledons.
8. 1991 Stich bt Becker. Almost as big an upset as Ashe-Connors, Stich played serenely well to win this one.
9. 1970 Newcombe bt Rosewall. Heroic effort by Rosewall, who regains from Nadal the title of "best player never to win Wimbledon."
10. 2004 Federer bt Roddick. Roger at his sublime best - he made poor Roddick look ordinary.

Two fingers to the electorate

As promised, my weekly column in today's Newcastle Journal focuses on Mr David Clelland's little local difficulty, the row over MPs expenses - and what it all tells us about trust.

***

Over the course of his political career, David Clelland has been a notable servant of the North-East, both as an MP for the past 23 years and as leader of Gateshead council before that.

But in spite of – or perhaps because of – his doughty work on behalf of the region, the Tyne Bridge MP has only twice hit the national headlines.

The first was ten years ago, when he left his wife for his then secretary Brenda Graham, now the second Mrs Clelland, although media interest in the “story” proved thankfully short-lived.

The second was this week, when it emerged that he had told a constituent, Gary Scott, where he could “stick” his vote at the next election after he sent Mr Clelland a letter of complaint about the government’s record.

Mr Clelland’s actions have engendered widely differing reactions. Some have cited his behaviour as evidence of the “arrogance” of the political class and the growing gulf between MPs and the public.

To those of this persuasion, MPs are “servants” rather than “masters” and should behave as such, no matter what the provocation.

Others have seen Mr Clelland’s dismissive response as an indication that Labour has given up on the next general election already.

As Mr Scott himself told The Journal: “Labour are struggling for supporters as it is but if they don’t want voters who dare to question policies, they are finished.”

But on the opposing side of the argument, there are those who have applauded Mr Clelland’s honesty in speaking from the heart rather than sending the standard stock reply: “Thank you for your letter, the contents of which have been noted.”

Surely, they argue, we want our MPs to be human beings, not machines? It’s a fair point.

Still others have hailed Mr Clelland a hero for striking a blow for MPs who long to be able to tell vexatious letter-writers where to get off.

Said one MP’s researcher: “They regularly write book-length tomes on everything from climate change to Big Brother and expect the MP to address each and every point - all of which takes time away from helping constituents in true need.”

For my part, I would in the natural scheme of things have a fair degree of sympathy for this point of view, and indeed for Mr Clelland personally.

By and large, he has been a good thing for the North-East – most notably in campaigning for both a fairer funding deal and a stronger political voice for the region over the course of many years.

One thing, though, makes me stop short of a more whole-hearted endorsement – the fact that, on Thursday night, he voted to keep the discredited system of MPs allowances.

This, to me, says rather more about Mr Clelland – and the other 171 MPs who voted alongside him – than a minor spat with a constituent.

For the benefit of those who missed it, MPs were presented with a report from a special committee recommending the end of the so-called “John Lewis List” which enables them to claim expenses for new kitchens and TVs.

The review committee also wanted to replace the so-called £24,000 allowance for the upkeep of second homes.

In the event, MPs voted by 171 to 143 to keep both, although many more abstained.

Overwhelmingly, it was Labour MPs who voted in favour of retaining the current system, even though Prime Minister Gordon Brown had indicated that he favoured reform.

Conventional wisdom might suggest that North-East MPs, who have to live away from their constituencies during the week, would naturally tend to support generous allowances for second homes.

Other regional parliamentarians besides Mr Clelland who voted to keep the current system included Nick Brown, Kevan Jones, Stephen Byers and Ronnie Campbell.

But significantly, it was by no means a universal view among the Northern Group of Labour MPs, with Sir Stuart Bell, Vera Baird, Helen Goodman and Chris Mullin all backing the proposed reform.

It is also worth noting that Sir Alan Beith, whose constituency is further away from London than any MP in England, let alone the North, also supported change.

What we have here, then, is not so much a regional divide as a clash of values – between MPs who think it is fine to charge the taxpayer for new tellies and those who would draw the line at that.

Perhaps at a deeper level, too, it is a clash of values between those who care what the public think of them, and those who are happy to tell the electorate to “stick it” – to coin a phrase.

In the context of the overriding need to rebuild public trust and confidence in the political system, Thursday’s vote was not just perverse, it was stupid.

Yes, MPs need a certain amount of taxpayers’ money to do their jobs, but for them to insist on their right to buy TVs and sofas on the public purse – particularly at this stage in the economic cycle – was just asking for trouble.

It was not, of course, backbench MPs who were primarily to blame for the loss of public trust in politicians that has occurred over the past decade and a half.

It started with the Tory sleaze of the mid-1990s and intensified as a result of New Labour’s spin and sleaze over the past 11 years under both Mr Brown and Tony Blair.

Yet here was a rare opportunity for backbench MPs to do something about it, to actually start to rebuild the frayed bond of trust between them and the people they purport to represent.

By spurning that opportunity, it is not just Mr Clelland who has given a metaphorical two fingers to the voters.

Rough justice

The BBC drama Criminal Justice completed its run last night after having me and around 4.8m other viewers on tenterhooks for most of this week. If this doesn't win Baftas galore next year, I'll be amazed.

Basically the premise behind the programme appeared to be that everyone in the criminal justice system is bent except the defendant, Ben Coulter, and his gorgeous, idealistic 26-year-old barrister Frances Kapoor, played by Vineeta Rishi. I for one find this premise entirely believable.

Some found it too hard to watch in its searing portrayal of prison life and the evil that men are capable of. Watching a prisoner trying to conceal a smuggled mobile phone up his arse during a low squat I could probably have done without, likewise the scene in which heroin is forcibly injected into Ben by the other prisoners.

This was one of the less believable aspects of the production. I'm no expert on smack, but I would have thought that directly injecting it into the veins of a first-time user would more than likely be fatal.

The highlight of the whole thing for me was the performance of that marvellous actor Pete Postlethwaite. His character Hooch was the real hero of the piece, and his ultimate decision to put himself on the line for Ben carried shades of Sydney Carton's "far, far better thing."

Ben's ultimate fate was left hanging in the air. Would he be able to move on with the rest of his life, or would his experiences inside leave him irreparably damaged? This programme was something of a mind-fuck, but it was Ben's mind that was being fucked with as well as ours.