Clegg, Cable and hypocrisy

In my profile I had written about myself "Dislikes hypocrisy". One of several reasons for my not voting for the Liberal Democrats next week is the fact that they have demonstrated their particular hypocrisy big time. This all relates to questionable sources of funding that all the three main parties have secured prior to the election. In the video above the BBC's Jon Sopel does a very good hatchet job on Vince Cable. Sopel absolutely correctly makes Cable wriggle over the hefty donation the LibDems received from a now convicted fraudster, Michael Brown. Naturally Cable and Co are finding excuses not to return the money which effectively had been stolen from other people. Of course the LibDems aren't exactly awash with funds and seeing their bank account depleted by two and a half million pounds would be really bad news for them!

That the party is holding on to this money is both legally and morally questionable. But what really infuriated me was the 'holier than thou' attitude of Nick Clegg in, I think, the first of the leaders' debates in which he castigated the Tories and Labour over receiving money from Lord Ashcroft and the UNITE union. What rank hypocrisy! At least Ashcroft has benefited the country by using some of his money to set up 'Crimestoppers', a very different man indeed from the disgraced Michael Brown.

First debate with Party Leaders coming up

This evening sees the first of the three televised debates between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. As I don't have a functioning TV connection I shall not be watching it live but might well listen to it on Radio 4. I guess the participants are more than a little nervous right now but who, if anyone, will come out on top? A common consensus seems to be that Clegg should benefit a lot because this is a rare occasion when his party gets equal billing with the Tories and Labour. And herein lies a problem: the Lib Dems might hold the balance of power in a hung parliament but they are not going to be, on their own, the next government. So in a sense what they promise, what their manifesto says is slightly irrelevant. With just the two main party leaders the thing has balance but the whole debate will be muddled in my opinion by possibly two of the leaders ganging up against the third. We shall soon know!

Cameron has a lot to lose because expectations are high that he will be very much better than Brown at least. What about Gordon then? This is not natural territory for him and I would hope that he gets well challenged. Surely he will have to get away from tractor statistics and slogans. But can he do that?

Sky invites party leaders to TV debate

A very significant entry today by Adam Boulton on the Sky News political blog. Apparently Sky have hand delivered invitations to the leaders of the three main UK parties to participate in a debate before the next general election, now less than a year away. The possibility of such a thing happening has been on the cards for some time but Sky have stolen a march on their competition by actually putting the wheels in motion. A huge raspberry from me to the BBC by the way: although the Sky thing has been news all morning the Beeb have made no mention of it on their News website front page or even on their 'politics' page for that matter. This is an example of the BBC's arrogance that I'm afraid is all too common. I should mention as well that Sky are happy to let their rivals run the programme (unedited) on their own channels.

What of the response so far of the three said leaders? As expected both Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg have quickly said "yes" but at the time of writing nothing yet from Gordon Brown. In fairness to Mr Brown he, not before time, has said some more about the release of the convicted Libyan terrorist Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, so it could be argued that he didn't want to get sidetracked into commenting on the Sky invite. One of Brown's big problems (and many have commented on this) is that faced with an awkward question he is nowhere to be seen but failure to respond in the next day or two to whether he appears on the debate will only reinforce the suggestion that he dithers and lacks courage. It sounds as if we will see an empty chair if he fails to turn up - always assuming that he hasn't resigned or been forced out by then!

In this highly visual age Brown has the misfortune to be mediocre in front of the camera - witness his performance on that YouTube video. On the other hand both Cameron and Clegg are much more comfortable in these sort of surroundings and certainly the former can think on his feet in a way that Gordon certainly can't.

I have to say that I'm very pleased to see this move by Sky, it is high time that the electorate had the opportunity to connect with government in a way that has been lacking for many years now. One of my many criticisms of Tony Blair is that at election times it was next to impossible for the ordinary voter to get to ask him a question when he visited somewhere or other - his minders would hand pick his audience so that he wasn't faced with penetrating questions; in other words a total abuse of democracy! Fans of Blair might want to negate my view here, pointing out that he took on a TV audience at the time he was committing this country to the Iraq adventure, credit to him for that, but that situation had a single issue and obviously he could have his various answers well prepared in advance.

Any reservations on my part? The first difficulty is the little matter of finding the right person to chair the debate. Some might suggest Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys as attack dogs who wouldn't let the politicians get away with things but they are wedded to the BBC and I can't imagine that organisation allowing them to do such a thing! Can someone totally neutral then be found who would make sure the party leaders did answer the questions posed. Also there are the minority parties such as UKIP, the Greens and BNP. I can imagine them crying "foul" if they don't get similar air time to put their points across. These last mentioned would I believe have to be in a separate programme because more than three parties at any one time is totally unmanageable if one wants to get in depth answers about policies. It seems that Sky would be happy to host separate programmes for Scotland and Wales (and presumably N Ireland) so that the nationalist parties from each of them could have their say. These doubts in my mind are relatively trivial though and it will be fascinating to see how things pan out.

Glasgow by-election bad for Labour and LibDems

A lot of bloggers, especially the political anoraks, are writing about last night's humiliating defeat for Labour in the Glasgow East by-election. I'll just add my two-penneth...

Yesterday the general consensus was that Labour would just scrape home, the reality that occurred was a swing of over 22% to the victorious SNP. So what conclusions can be drawn? Most attention in the media seems to be directed toward the future of Gordon Brown's premiership and remember it was only just over a year ago he took over the top job with no party election. If there was a move to oust him who could take over I wonder, there are no obvious candidates on the horizon. Let us say, for arguments sake, Brown was moved aside and Jack Straw took the reins (this is all hypothetical of course). It would be almost impossible for yet another person to become prime minister without getting a mandate from the electorate and with Labour's present low standing in the polls and worsening economic situation who on earth in their right mind, Jack Straw or anyone else, would take this particular poisoned chalice. So what can Brown do other than soldier on in the forlorn hope that things will be better for him in 2010.

Interestingly, as with 'Crewe and Nantwich', it almost looks as if the constituency voters have decided to go for the candidate with the best chance of winning to ensure Labour get a drubbing. This has meant a straight transfer from Labour to Tory at C & N and Labour to the SNP in Glasgow. The very poor results for the LibDems and their leader Nick Clegg have been somewhat masked by the disasters for Labour. Is the fact that the LibDems are dropping below the radar due to Mr Clegg or his party being once again squeezed out of Westminster as has happened before. Certainly they have been in the doldrums since the time Charles Kennedy was pushed aside; like it not the fortunes of a political party are very much related to who their leader is regardless of particular policies. At the moment their economics spokesman Vince Cable is far and away their most effective parliamentarian and has had a 'proper job' in his earlier life as well.

Our political system can never be perfect of course and so now we are faced with a limp along disheartened government for what could be nearly two years. Whether it's all or partly Brown's fault is debatable as regards our economic plight but without doubt for the working person house prices, essential monthly outgoings and continuity of employment prospects are the things that matter most and will significantly affect the result of the next general election. The bad news for Labour of course is that all these things are almost certain to worsen over the months ahead.

As I have said before on this blog Gordon Brown used to have luck on his side and got the plaudits he didn't fully merit. Now he gets the blame for everything even for those things way outside his control. Yes sometimes it's a rough old business, politics.

Nick Clegg is new LibDem leader

So now we know. Nick Clegg is the new party leader for the Liberal Democrats having beaten Chris Huhne by a few hundred votes when the result was announced yesterday. Some are thinking that Clegg is a bit of a Cameron clone and it will be fascinating to see how he makes his party distinctive to the electorate.

Clegg was asked today whether he believed in God and with a slight hesitation he said "No". However he is married to a Spanish lady who, surprise surprise, is a Roman Catholic! I think that their children are being brought up in that faith. So the multilingual Mr Clegg has been quite candid about this slightly taboo subject. I am someone who respects those with religious beliefs even though I'm not a practising churchgoer and have no problem with a party leader who doesn't believe in God. Incidentally like many I love the words and music of Christmas carols and of hymns generally come to that. In fact some religious music and hymn tunes played on a church organ can be incredibly special.

It looks as if it could be some time before the next General Election and people's intentions can change before then but Devon and Cornwall could be a right royal battleground between Tories and LibDems. When the time comes we can expect a lot more attention from parties and pundits than is usually the case as our results could be really crucial to the outcome.