Politics

Tony Blair on how ignoring structures is “bunkum”

Many people who I have worked with in politics over the years, and readers of my old blog, will know of my slight obsession with process and organisational structures. The simple, but often overlooked, fact that the processes by which organisations make decisions has a direct impact on the quality of those decisions and thus determines how well that organisation achieves the outcomes it has set for itself is something I am always keen to remind people of. So I was interested to spot this in the coverage of the extracts from Tony Blair’s memoir;

‘Blair writes of his earlier approach: “We were saying, forget about complex, institutional structural reforms; what counts is what works, and by that we meant outputs.

“This was fine as a piece of rhetoric; and positively beneficial as a piece of politics. Unfortunately, as I began to realise when experience started to shape our thinking, it was a bunkum as a piece of policy. The whole point is that structures beget standards. How service is configured affects outcomes.”‘

Well d’oh!

I’ve always argued that one of Blair’s great failures as a politician was his inability to understand how organisations and institutions worked. Partly I think this is due to his lack of interest in history and learning from history. Something that is unusual in a succesful politician. This lack of understanding hobbled his attempts at reform. It is a nice “I told you so” moment to see that he himself in part recognises this.

1st September 2010 11:05 0 Politics

100 hundred and a bit days of the coalition

The 100 hundred days mark of the coalition government has been and gone and I realise that so far I haven’t written about the new government and my reaction to it. So this post is a brief summary of my thoughts so far.

The first thing to note is that, in governing terms, a hundred days isn’t all that long. It certainly isn’t long enough to make anything but a sketchy and very preliminary judgement on the coalition’s success. This is important because in this situation rushing to judgement is the last thing we should do. I said back at the end of June when writing about Nick Clegg’s speech to the Liberal Democrat local government conference that “the next few months should be about holding our nerve” and nothing that has happened since has changed my mind on that. Instead I am beginning to suspect that the months may turn into years of nerve holding.

However, without rushing to judgement, I have reached some initial conclusions about how things are shaping up. It is clear that the leadership of both political parties, Lib Dem and Conservative, are committed to making the coalition work and to it lasting the full five years. Away from their leaderships there are many in both parties who are nervous and uncertain, and others who have doubts about the direction the coalition is going in. But none of this is strong enough or widespread enough to amount to a level of discontent that would threaten the existence of the coalition. The idea that this coalition couldn’t work and that it would inevitably and quickly fall apart is proving to be nonsense.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t think that the coalition will come under strain or that it lasting the full five years is guaranteed. It is possible that it could come of the rails. As I see it the biggest potential threat to the coalition would be if the referendum on AV is lost. But that aside, the chances of it lasting the full five years are very strong.

It is also clear that the new government is genuinely a coalition in the sense that it consists of two parties working together in partnership. Loose talk of the Liberal Democrats being poodles and meekly propping up a Tory government without anything to show for it is simply not born out by the facts. The coalition agreement itself clearly demonstrates that the Liberal Democrats are having an impact on the government’s agenda and we have seen examples of where this has continued in the weeks since the agreement was signed. How much influence the Lib Dems have and whether it is being used in the right directions is a separate debate, but anyone seeking to deny that that influence is there is simply being foolish.

I have also come to the conclusion that the coalition is not only working well enough to stay in existence but that it is also providing “good” government. By this I mean that many of bad practices of the New Labour years of “sofa government” have been banished. We are seeing proper cabinet government and a greater openness. The very fact that two parties have to discuss and have a say on major decisions is in itself leading to better decision making. I also detect that a greater and healthier role for parliament is beginning to emerge. It is early days and the picture is mixed. I am seeing infantile populism and rushed and ill thought out initiatives from some Tory ministers. But overall the trend seems to be positive. We will see if it continues.

So the coalition government is working, in some ways working well, and Liberal Democrats are influential within it. In the performance of Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister and the other Liberal Democrats who hold ministerial office I can see nothing to complain about. So, at the moment and aside from particular policy concerns, I am not losing any sleep over the Liberal Democrats role as part of the coalition. What is keeping me awake at night is the performance of the Liberal Democrats as a political party, but that is another argument for a separate article.

So I am content with the coalition so far. But that does not make me, yet, an enthusiastic and unconditional supporter. At this point I start to think about my list of specific policy concerns. There isn’t space here to go into each of them in detail but I will try to give a flavour of my thinking.

The biggest issue is, I suppose for everyone, the budget, deficit reduction and the economic situation. For me this is the area where holding your nerve becomes most important. While the debate around the “fairness” of George Osborne’s emergency budget has been pretty intense, and to my mind somewhat inconclusive, I am deliberately refusing to rush to judgement on the economic policies of the coalition.

I do have concerns. These are that the cuts are handled properly, made in the appropriate places and don’t do unnecessary damage to public services. That infrastructure investment, particularly green infrastructure investment, is maintained. I believe the danger of a “double dip” recession is real and that steps should be taken to avoid this. Finally, from the perspective of social justice, I want to be sure that the coalition’s economic policies are not only genuinely fair, but are seen to be fair. In particular, I don’t think the government has so far been tough enough on the banks.

However, and I may say more about this elsewhere, we are not yet at a stage where we can make a judgement about whether the new government is getting it right on the economy or not. There are many key decisions yet to come, so for the moment, I think it is wise to wait a while to see how things are worked through.

Outside of economic matters there is mixed picture. On foreign affairs I have seen nothing to object to. On the civil liberties agenda there has been much that is positive. I am not as worried about the moves made in education as some seem to be although I have some questions. I am more concerned about health, mostly because I question whether further big bang organisational reform is what is required at the moment. Something more organic would seem to be a better way to go. My two biggest concerns are firstly a fear that the political reform agenda will turn out to be too timid and secondly that an opportunity to pursue a really positive and radical reform agenda in local government is about to be missed.

To some the above may seem overly negative. Alternatively, I am sure others would describe me as an apologist for those who have “betrayed” the party and its voters. What I am trying to do, as a Liberal Democrat and supporter of the coalition, is to be open about my concerns and fears in the expectation that many of them will be answered, over time, in a positive way. In short, early days as it is, I believe the Liberal Democrats were right to enter the coalition and I was right to back that decision. What the coalition has to do now is deliver. So the argument is no longer whether the coalition in itself is right, it is now whether or not it can govern in the best interests of the country.

28th August 2010 22:57 0 Politics

Luton Liberal Democrats website refreshed

Not much blogging happening at the moment, but that doesn’t mean I’ve been idle. One of the things I have been working on is a refresh of the Luton Liberal Democrats website. A little late, but it needed redoing following the general election.

I admit that it doesn’t look very exciting, but I intend to add some photo galleries and there will be new content as we get closer to next year’s local elections. I also hope to get one or two more people involved in updating it so that it isn’t just reliant on me and we can get a bit more regularly changing content.

The website is based on WordPress and uses a special WordPress theme for Liberal Democrat websites that I have written. I will be blogging a bit more about that in the next few weeks.

The address is: www.lutonlibdems.org.uk

24th August 2010 16:52 2 Geek Stuff, Luton, Politics

Luton man jailed for throwing egg at Tory peer

I am attempting to return to more regular blogging and will start with the news that the man who threw an egg at Tory peer Baroness Warsi when she visited Luton back in November last year has been jailed for six weeks. The man, a 23 year old Luton resident named Gavin Reid, was sentenced by City of Westminster magistrates court today.

Details on the BBC website; ‘Luton man who threw egg at Baroness Warsi jailed‘, & on the Guardian website; ‘Man gets six weeks in jail for throwing eggs at Tory peer Lady Warsi‘

Call me an old liberal softy if you like, but I do think jail time for throwing an egg at a politician is a bit harsh.

29th July 2010 15:39 1 Luton, Politics

Nick Clegg’s speech to the Liberal Democrat Local Government Conference

On Saturday I got to hear Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, speak to the local government conference of the Liberal Democrats.

In The speech itself Nick dealt with the Party’s reaction to the current political situation, the pressures of coalition government, the economy, and laid some ground for yesterday’s budget.

It was a confident and reassuring speech made to an audience of councillors and party actvists. In content it contained nothing very remarkable. Yet it struck me that it was very much the speech of a government minister giving a government line. Not something we are especially used to and remarkable enough in itself for a Liberal Democrat!

Afterwards there was time for a few questions from the audience. I found it interesting that in answering the questions Nick was more animated and engaging. It seemed that you could gain a much clearer sense of his true thinking from his response to the questions than you could from the prepared speech. It is one of the more attractive things about Nick Clegg is that, while he can do the politician thing, if you ask him a question he finds it very difficult not to try and give you an honest answer.

I also reflected on how comfortably Nick seemed to be wearing government office. I suspect that dealing with the choices of government, and the issues, arguments and langauge involved in that, suit Clegg’s communication style. Some politicians are a more natural fit for opposition. I don’t think that Nick Clegg is one of those.

Nick admitted that entering the coalition is a huge gamble. He recognised that it is a risk, but a risk worth taking. “Let’s try and shape events not simply stand as spectators”, he said.

He talked of the personal pressure of office and how he has established a discipline of taking some time everyday to remind himself of the reasons why he is doing this. He then went on to highlight some of the liberal things the coalition is achieving.

But his main message was about public finances and the forthcoming budget. This was he said a time of unprecedented fiscal crisis. He was “in cold sweat” about how bad it is. But he was keen to blame Labour for creating the mess.

I thought that his argument that failure to deal with the deficit would represent a kind of generational theft came across very strongly. The political difficulties of dealing with the deficit were also highlighted by discussion of how as a Sheffield MP he had to handle the decision about the withdrawal of the government loan to Sheffield Forgemasters. This was “not easy”.

He stressed how the budget is a hugely important political moment. His view was that we needed to make big contoversial decisions soon, not just for political reasons, but because in a time of uncertainity there is a need to give the country a very clear direction.

On the politics he was optimistic. He recognised that coalition government is an act of compromise, but that outside the media and the Westminster village people find this fact totally uncontreversial. The public have a far more sensible view of the politics of coalition than many are giving them credit for.

One important factor that I think he was right to stress is how being in government makes the Liberal Democrats “relevant” in a way that they have not been before. This means that fears of the party losing it’s identity are misplaced. “Without relevance you can’t express your identity” was the point he made.

The thought I came away with most strongly after listening to Nick Clegg that morning was how much this coalition adventure is about being in it for the long haul. It has to be about staying the course for the full five years as that is the only way this will work. So for most Liberal Democrats the next few months should be about holding our nerve.

24th June 2010 08:53 0 Politics

Special Conference

I am on my way to today’s Liberal Democrat Local Government Conference and thought it was about time I got round to posting my thoughts on last month’s Special Conference held at the NEC in Birmingham and called to discuss the coalition deal. So here it is:

Politics is always about both head and heart. Political decisions are made either through a process of rational thought, or by the emotional reactions of the human beings involved, or more usually by a combination of the two.

The ‘head’ of the Liberal Democrats on display at the special conference had made its mind up in a pretty clear and determined manner. It was more or less agreed that the logic of the situation the party had found itself in after the election pointed to a fairly narrow range of options. The Party seemed to have decided that a rational analysis of the risks and benefits of different courses of action leads to a strong argument for participating in this coalition.

Did head win out over heart?

Is it a clear case of the head being for and the heart being against? It certainly was for my friend Linda Jack one of the few speakers against the motion, who clearly stated that she was “voting with my heart”. But I think it was more complicated than that. While the head maybe clear the ‘heart’ of the Liberal Democrats was a lot more confused.
We feel very nervous. We know the risks are very high.

This pattern of a clear head and a troubled heart seemed to run through the speeches made in the vast aircraft hanger like hall.

The speeches

I did miss the standing ovation for Simon Hughes’ speech, which I have heard several people describe as his best speech for years, as I was having a cup of tea and a, very tasty, muffin at the time. But of the speeches and contributions I did hear this is my assessment;

Vince Cable gave the best speech I heard. I think he spoke for many, if not most, people in the party when he argued that although the risks were great for the party, for the benefit of our ideals and the country we had to take that risk.

Why should we participate in the coalition? “I want to confront the present reality and advance my hopes for this party and this country” he said.

The speech that moved me most was the one by Tom McNally. Others have noted Toms extraordinary journey from Labour Prime Ministerial advisor to Minister in a Lib Dem/Conservative coalition. But his speech showed how that journey wasn’t without passion and principle. His was one of the more effective lines of the day as in describing his responibility for the Human Rights Act he declared that he was now “Minister with responsibility for this Party’s soul.”

The best speaker in the two intervention slots was Alex Wilcock who managed to make several telling points in a short space of time.

The most politically effective speech I thought was from Lynne Featherstone MP. As the new Minister for Equalities she dealt well with issues of concern for the Party – “there will be no roll back on equalities on my watch” – and set out an agenda for her new role grounded in political reality – “We are here to help David Cameron’s frontbench deal with the head bangers on his back bench.” (I will say though that the speech would have been more politically effective if journalists and TV cameras had been allowed in to report on it.)

Time to get dirty

There were a number of speakers who made an argument that was essentially along the lines of it is time for the Liberal Democrats to grow up. This is a time for the party to get real, make the tough decisions, and become proper players in politics. Andrew Stunnell MP used the line that the Liberal Democrats are “not a hobby”. Similary Chris Davies MEP said “We are members of a political party, not a knitting circle”.

Evan Harris typically made the point by quoting Woody Allen – “Is sex dirty? Only if you’re doing it right!” Well, he argued, it’s the same with politics.

Evan’s speech saw one of the more poignant moments as the long applause the hall gave him demonstrated the respect the Party has for him and our distress at him narrowly losing his Oxford seat.

But it was Vince Cable who got it most right – “The biggest comfort zone is opposition”.

Shopping lists

While some did get rather excited at the sight of real live Liberal Democrat cabinet ministers, most understood the point that power and position is only important for the things it can achieve.

So there was much talk about the amount of Liberal Democrat policies in the coalition deal. But there were also those who had brought their shopping lists.

The amendments were all about things peole wanted from this deal; concerns over human rights and support for the HRA, social liberal concerns about social justice and the new governments approach to the poor, the ever present issue of tuition fees, the Digital Economy Act, and so on.

I did wonder what the two speakers from Wales thought they would achieve with what was essentially a whinge that there was not enough in the coalition deal for Wales. I do hope that now we are in government demands goodies for particular constituencies or areas doesn’t become a feature of Liberal Democrat conferences. Pork barrel politics is never very attractive.

Electoral reform

One of the themes I want to highlight from the day, mostly because i have some sympathy with it, was an underlying dissatisfaction with the deal over electoral reform.

The clearest advocate for this was former MP David Rendel, who was apparently the only member of the Party’s Federal Executive to vote against the coalition agreement. He was not a happy man. He said that the decisions of those crucial party meetings had “left me feeling very lonely”.

His concerns are real, I have some understanding of where he is coming from. He could be right that we will see five years of good government followed by five decades in the wilderness. I very much hope he is wrong.

But then that is very much the gamble we are taking. Will the things we achieve for the country be worth the potential political damage that could hit the party and can we turn delivery in government into renewed growth for the party.

But as Chris Huhne MP pointed out in his summation coalition government can work. With his tongue in his cheek he referred back to a previous coalition government, the 1940-45 coalition government under Churchill; “you know what I learnt about the Second World War? – we won!”

At the end of the debate the vote against the coalition agreement was barely into double figures.

19th June 2010 09:52 1 Politics

So its Simon

The thoroughly predictable result of the contest for the deputy leadership of the parliamentary party of the Liberal Democrats is the election of Simon Hughes. Congratulations to Simon.

The impression given beforehand was that his take on the role was to be a voice for the backbenches and assert the party’s independence. But his immediate comments after the election were about unity and his support for the coalition. This nicely illustrates the difficult balancing act he will have to perform in order to make this role work. I hope he has developed a clear idea of the role he wants to play and the agenda he wants to pursue. For without that clarity there are likely to be problems.

I wish him well.

10th June 2010 13:47 0 Politics

Why I would back Farron for Deputy Leader

Soon we get to find out who the Liberal Democrat MPs have chosen as deputy leader. Who they choose matters, but not a huge amount.

There is a famous quote about how the role of Vice President of the USA is “not worth a pitcher of warm piss”. How much then is the Deputy Leadership of the Liberal Democrats worth? Especially as it comes without a role in government.

There has been some exaggerated talk about the importance of this role. Not least from the two candidates themselves. The demands that the holder of the post should be elected by an all member ballot being especially silly.

Let us be clear – Nick Clegg is Leader of the Liberal Democrats and leader of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party. This role is to be deputy leader of the parliamentary party only. This is a Westminster role and has it’s significance in a Westminster context.

There are other Liberal Democrat leaders across the country. In Europe, Scotland, Wales and local government who have the authority to lead in their particular sphere of influence. In the Party as a whole any Deputy Leader would be out ranked by the Party President.

If the eventual winner tonight seeks to turn this role into something it is not I warn them that they will come a cropper. They should steer well clear of any pretensions they may have to be “the leader outside the government”. That is not say that the role won’t be significant, and more so than in the past.

The parliamentary party has a lot of work to do to adapt the way it works to the new context of coalition government and find ways to retain an independent voice. As has the Party as a whole. The role of Deputy Leader will be important in this. There is a need for a conduit between the backbenches and the frontbenches, between the party in government and the party in the country, and between Liberal Democrats in government and the voters.

So it should not be an organisational role. Establishing and running a team of backbench spokespeople is a bad, and potentially dangerous, idea. Instead it should focus on communication. If the winner tonight concentrates on that they have the potential to be an important and influential actor on a very big stage.

So who should it be?

In Tim Farron and Simon Hughes we have two highly impressive and charismatic politicians. I like and admire both of them and in truth would be content with either of them. But if I had a choice I would vote for Farron.

I am and always have been a big Simon Hughes fan but so often that admiration has been tinged with apprehension and disappointment. I would have the same feelings for him in this role. He is also in this contest the predictable establishment choice. In a funny way he is the “safe bet”. Yet the last thing we should be doing now is playing it safe.

There is also, this being a communications role, the need to catch the mood of the country and set the right tone. One of the problems with the coalition government that is already obvious is that it feels too southern and priveleged. It would be very helpful if parts of the Liberal Democrats could differentiate themselves from that. While Simon Hughes has always been a powerful defender of the poor and disadvantaged, my reckoning is that the comprehensive school lad from Cumbria would be better able to make that contrast. Farron is also funnier. So on that basis my vote would be for him.

9th June 2010 19:15 1 Politics

Luton South is now Lib Dem target 56

Luton South would be Liberal Democrat target seat number 56 at the next General Election.

Paul Walter has pulled together the list of the new target seats for the Liberal Democrats ranked by the percentage point difference between the party’s percentage of the vote, and that of the winner.

http://liberalburblings.co.uk/2010/05/the-new-liberal-democrats-target-seat-list/

According to this list the constituencies in Bedfordshire come in the following order:

Luton South is 56

Bedford is 135

Bedfordshire Mid 300

Bedfordshire South West 435

Bedfordshire North East 463

Luton North 512

9th June 2010 08:03 0 Luton, Politics

The effect of incumbency in Luton

A while back I noticed this interesting article on the effect of incumbency on the general election result on politicalbetting.com. It highlights the results of the two Luton seats as strong examples of where it believes this played out:

“Striking differences can be seen in the same towns, between incumbents and non-incumbents. For example, in Milton Keynes North, where the incumbent was a Conservative, the swing to the Tories was 9.2%; in Milton Keynes South, where the incumbent was Labour, the swing was 6.2%. In Swindon North, where a new Labour candidate stood, the swing was 10%. In Swindon South, where the MP ran again, the swing was 5.5%. Most notably of all, perhaps, in Luton South, the swing to the Conservatives was 4.6%, while Luton North, where the sitting MP had distinguished himself during the expenses scandal, showed a rare swing to Labour of 0.5%.”

8th June 2010 13:00 0 Luton, Politics

Shuker and the Commons Communication Allowance

The Daily Express has a story criticising the advice that the new MP for Luton South Gavin Shuker gave to his predecessor Margaret Moran about the Commons Communication Allowance.

‘New squeaky clean Labour MP did margaret moran’s dirty work‘

I am not sure there is really that much in this story, but then the news that Moran sought to gain maximum poltical advantage out of her use of the Comminications Allowance is not news to me. It will interesting to watch what Shuker does with this money.

7th June 2010 08:04 0 Luton, Politics

Why I will support this extraordinary coalition government

I started an interesting and challenging new job this week. Yet, while trying to get to grips with a new organisation, new tasks, and new colleagues I have been acutely aware of those other Liberal Democrats also starting new jobs. Admittedly their new roles are an order of magnitude more interesting and challenging than mine. However, the urge to be home watching the news channels, reading the web and blogging about it all has been intense.

So what do I make of a full blown Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition government? Well apart from being staggered, bewildered, astonished, gob smacked and hugely flummoxed, I am nervously excited. I am excited because change opens up opportunities and politics has really changed radically this week. I am nervous because the risk for my party is huge. If we get this wrong it could destroy us.

I wrote on Monday lunchtime about rational reasons why I could support a deal with the Tories. But I surprised myself during the period between then and the making of the deal with how emotionally comfortable with that idea I had become.

This says a lot about my personal desire for a change of national direction. But it is also about the attitude displayed by the Labour Party. The Labour Party is the reason why I support this coalition deal.

I shall explain why.

I wrote on Monday of the need for new leadership and stable government. How we needed this to tackle the economic situation and carry out political reform. And that a deal with Conservatives could be in the national interest if it could deliver this. But I added a caveat that substantial and meaningful political reform had to be a central part of the package and that this had to include proper reform of the voting system. If it didn’t it would not be acceptable.

I don’t fully understand the nature and implications of the referendum on AV, but I don’t think it is enough. We have got an elected upper house and fixed term parliaments as well as some other really good reforms, but AV is not proportional representation.

Oh and where is STV for local government elections? I want what Scotland has got. Did we argue for this?

AV is not good enough. So I should be saying no to the deal. But I am not.

The reason why is the realisation of just how utterly incapable of rising to the occasion the Labour Party was. It wasn’t just all those Labour MPs that spoke out against doing a deal with the Liberal Democrats because of tribalism, fear of true radical reform of the political system, perceived partisan advantage, or just that they preferred opposition to the hard choices of government. It was also the arrogance and the complete failure to grasp the reality of the situation displayed by the Labour negotiators.

As James Graham says in his excellent article on Comment is Free;

“For me, this represents a final let-down by the Labour party after 13 years of disappointments. It has become a hollow shell of what it once was. There is hope that it can now reinvent itself as a genuinely progressive party that rediscovers the enthusiasm it once had for individual human dignity. Sadly, however, the early signs show that it is going to retrench into a tribalist sect interested only in gaining outright power for itself. The fact that two of the things the Labour negotiating team would not even contemplate was dismantling the database state and ending the detention of immigrant children makes you realise quite how corrupted the party has become in office.”

It is not just that the Labour Party doesn’t deserve to be in government, as tired and as hollowed out as they are; they are no longer capable of meeting the challenges of government.

This coalition will be good for the country and I will support it. Whether it is good for the Liberal Democrats remains to be seen.

12th May 2010 22:59 2 Politics

Reasons to be cheerful: those second places

While we are waiting to see how the hung parliament negotiations end up, I imagine that most Liberal Democrats are still feeling a little down about the result of the general election. However, there are one or two reasons why we should be a little more cheerful.

One of these is the second places the party is now in across the country. Anthony Wells reports the following:

“We know the Liberal Democrats didn’t end up increasing the number of seats they hold, but they did substantially increase the number of second places they have, and have more winnable marginals. The notional 2005 figures had the Lib Dems holding 62 seats and in second place in 188. Following the 2010 election the Lib Dems hold 57 seats, but are in second place in 242. On the 2005 notional figures the Lib Dems were within 10% of the winning party in 31 seats, now they are within 10% in 45 seats.”

10th May 2010 16:05 1 Luton, Politics

Why I would support a deal with the Tories

Whatever the Liberal Democrats choose to do as a result of this hung parliament will carry with it considerable risk. But the least risky choice is to act in the national interest.

I am getting a little bit tired of politicians and commentators, particularly those who are not supporters of the Liberal Democrats, telling me what I and my fellow party members should or should not do and pontificating on what we will or will not put up with.

I grew up in 80’s hating Thatcher with a passion. I remember the harshness of those years, the ‘them and us’ attitude, the heartlessness and insularity, the damage done to our economy and social fabric. I remember also how they wasted the opportunity of North Sea oil revenue, introduced Section 28, the Criminal Justice Act ban on ‘repetitive beats’, the sleaze of Neil Hamilton and all that.

But I am also conscious that for many who voted in this election that is all just history. I also know enough of my political history to know that Thatcherism isn’t the only way to be a Conservative, that as a councillor I have achieved things by working with Conservatives, and I am mature enough to know that to be a member of the Conservative party doesn’t automatically make a person the evil spawn of Satan.

I am a progressive. In traditional terms, on economic policy I am on the left of the Liberal Democrats. I want to see radical change to Britain’s political, social and economic structures. I am a dreamer, an idealist, a Guardian reading, muesli eating, bleeding-heart liberal. So surely I would prefer to work with the Labour Party?

Yet I have seen the Labour Party close up in action. It is often a very unpleasant sight. I have seen their arrogance, their authoritarianism, and yes often their conservatism. I have seen the way they take the people who support them for granted, the way they often treat with contempt those they purport to represent. Too many times, when presented with the opportunity to do the progressive thing, I have seen them chose timidity and crush people’s hopes of a better way.

I don’t want to work with Labour. I don’t want to work with the Tories. I am a Liberal.

But I am prepared to work with Labour; I am prepared to work with Tories; if it will deliver change.

After 13 years of Labour the country needs new leadership. Government needs a fresh direction and the release of the new energies that change brings. It also needs stable government over the medium term to enable us to tackle the hugely difficult pressing issues we face, not least economic recovery. The country also needs to renew its political system, to develop a new politics. Not just in theory and rhetoric, but in a practical demonstration of how politicians can work together.

Looking at where we are now, the reality of the election result, I would welcome a deal with the Conservatives to provide stable government. It wouldn’t be easy, it would involve considerable risks for the Liberal Democrats, but it would be, I believe, in the best interests of the nation.

So if Nick Clegg does a deal with the Conservatives today or tomorrow I am likely to support it.

The caveat

But, and it is a crucial ‘but’, the need to develop a new politics is as crucial as the need to deal with the economic situation.

Substantial and meaningful political reform has to be a central part of the package. I would not accept a deal that suggests that the need for tackling the economics can override or postpone the need for tackling the politics.

Does it need saying that that substantial and meaningful political reform has to include proper reform of the voting system?

10th May 2010 13:13 4 Politics

My, rather bewildered, reaction to the result in Luton South

I’ve been struggling to understand the reasons for the eventual result of the election in Luton South and still haven’t arrived at a clear conclusion. I said yesterday that the voters had the good sense to see through the celebrity candidature of Esther Rantzen. Yet were they displaying good sense in rejecting a change to the Conservative or Liberal Democrat candidates and instead electing Labour candidate Gavin Shuker?

I am of course desperately disappointed. The amount of work and commitment given by the small team of Luton Liberal Democrats to this election was extraordinary, as was the level of support given by those from outside. They really did deserve a better result.

I also have to pay full tribute to Qurban Hussain the Liberal Democrat candidate. He is a man of great integrity and has shown a principled commitment to serving the community in Luton in different ways over the years. I had so hoped that he would have had a chance to bring that commitment to the role of Luton South’s Member of Parliament. He handled his disappointment at the result with great dignity.

Instead Luton South has Gavin Shuker as its MP. Who, as far as I could tell, fought the election on the platform of not being Margaret Moran, of having been born in Luton, living in Luton, and having relatives who worked at Vauxhall. A platform which, I reckon, I and a few thousand other people in this town could also have stood on. What other achievements he has to his name, what he believes in, what he will try to do as an MP, I have no idea. We will have to wait and see what kind of representation he provides for the town.

I did genuinely think that the Liberal Democrats had a chance of winning in this election. There were solid arguments that, if the people of this town wanted change, the Liberal Democrats were in a good position to deliver it. My belief that we had a chance of winning was naturally strengthened by the national reaction to Nick Clegg after the leader’s debates. So I was optimistic.

I also thought that, while support for the Conservatives in Luton is in long term decline, something I still believe, if the seat wasn’t to go to the Liberal Democrats it would be won by the Tories. What I didn’t expect was that after the scandal surrounding Margaret Moran and the way that the Labour Party in Luton supported her up until the very last moment, the level of anger that produced, and the expected rejection of Labour and Gordon Brown across the country that the Labour vote would hold up so well.

I am shocked and puzzled by the strength of the Labour vote in Luton South and, to a lesser extent, in Luton North.

Did people fear change and what it might mean? Was it fear of a Conservative government and how it would affect them? I really don’t understand why after being treated so shabbily by them, after being taken so for granted and treated like fools, so many people in Luton still chose to stick with Labour. I really would like to understand.

So if there is anyone from Luton who voted Labour reading this blog please do use the comments to this post to explain why.

9th May 2010 18:08 0 Luton, Politics