Looking for gold in a coal mine

Why on earth is Jeremy Heywood trawling the Civil Service for a good speechwriter? I doubt there's a single Civil Servant who can write decent political prose. It's rather like looking for gold in a coal mine.

If you want a good speechwriter, look no further than Phil Collins, Blair's man with the golden pen. See the wonders that he did in a brilliant speech he wrote with James Purnell last week. Blair's final conference speech is one of the best political speeches I can remember in recent years if not the best.

Yes, I know he stuck the boot in a few times in a recent article in Prospect. But if Labour is still a Government of all the talents, then Phil is the guy. Carter, get Collins.

Personality goes a long way

Compass is setting the terms of the internal debate within the Labour party about 'where next?' In a hermetically sealed Institute of Education yesterday, the Compass conference laid the path for the democratic left over the next few years. The statistic that was quoted ad nauseam was the fact that there are 15million Labour identifiers in the UK but only 9.8million of them vote. On this basis, Compass advocates a re-assertion of centre-left principles and policies.

They are on to something. A huge note of caution has be sounded however. Something that struck me yesterday is that while many of the policies and principles that were advocated will resonate, much of the language will not. Most outsiders would have been completely bewildered at much of yesterday's discussion.

But surely, politics is a battle of ideas? Well, yes, on one level. Modern politics is so much more as well. The left in the USA has been continually outflanked by the Republicans finding an emotionally connected language that tapped into people's concerns and motivations. Intellectually, the left has been ahead but politically the right have been out of sight. Read the analysis of the Bush-Gore debate on healthcare in the 2000 presidential election in Drew Westen's, The Political Brain, to see what I mean.

It was utterly dismaying to hear Douglas Alexander dismiss Barack Obama's presidential bid as the 'politics of celebrity.' In this, he is completely and utterly wrong. Obama has celebrity, he is overflowing personality, but he also has deeply considered policy positions and a first class and genuinely ground-breaking campaign organisation.

Alexander went on to say, "Politics is a collective endeavour, it is team sport rather than a spectator sport." He is right in part. Only in part though. This analysis completely misses an important aspect of politics in the modern age. Personality does matter, who delivers the message forms part of the message itself. People in this new media age relate to people. Politics is not just a dialectic battle of opposing political ideologies. It is a battle of communication also. We may not like it but do not misunderstand this for one moment or the consequences will be fatal.

This does not mean that only young, photogenic people can get elected. The Liberal Democrats completely misunderstood this aspect of modern politics when they elected Nick Clegg over Vince Cable. The latter is a far more effective communicator and far better in the modern media environment that his party leader. He is also considerably older and less good-looking I'm afraid.

In the words of Samuel L. Jackson's character in Pulp Fiction, 'personality goes a long way' (admittedly he was talking about relative merits of dogs and pigs at the time but let's leave that to one side...)

The message is part of the medium. So is personality.

Credit to Steve McCabe

Steve McCabe MP, who ran Labour's campaign in Crewe and Nantwich, has written a very straightforward and very honest article for this week's Tribune. Credit to him for not hiding and, instead, taking it on the chin.

Reading between the lines, McCabe actually describes a pretty fundamental challenge for Labour. He describes a really tough environment where defence of the Government's record is a blunt instrument and 'don't risk a Tory Government' no longer works as a rallying cry. The ideological debate that is raging is all well and good. But what is the recovery strategy?

Steve's job was mighty tough and you have to respect the fact that he stood up to be counted.

Labour's new dividing line

Two articles are published simultaneously that map out two alternative directions for Labour. My guess is that the short term will be about dealing with events, particularly those thrown up by economic difficulties. However, the intellectual debate will rage in the background. I hope so because this is the exactly the philosophical and ideological discussion that needs to occur for Labour to have purpose after the next election, win or lose.

The first is by Phil Collins with Richard Reeves. Phil is Tony Blair's former speechwriter. I haven't had a chance to read it as yet but a flight to Amsterdam to see my sister should provide the opportunity (if the magazine is out.) From the article in the Guardian reporting Collins' piece, he seems to be arguing for a post-state liberal social democracy and asserts that Labour is heading for 'tragedy' if it doesn't accept this new post-Blair agenda.

Jon Cruddas' viewpoint is more established. And he puts some flesh on the bones in The Independent today. His perspective is more of a post neo-liberal interventionist government providing enhanced social insurance. On one point he is absolutely, 100% right: Labour is just not resonating at the moment. There needs to be something urgent and clear to dislodge that.

On the surface, the two visions are very different but we'll have to see more detail. What is certain, is that given that Phil has just started working for James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary and putative leadership contender (once there is a vacancy!), the discussion will broaden and deepen over the coming months. Behind closed doors lads, please.

Freedom of the Underdog

Great piece this morning by Johann Hari in The Indy. I agree- now is the time for Gordon Brown to free himself from electoral concerns and do all the things he's wanted to do in politics. Underdog status could be the making of Gordon Brown. Clear the diary and spend the next few days writing a list of ten things you've ever wanted to achieve and spend two years trying to achieve them.

It's a wonderful position. American Presidents have a recalcitrant Congress to deal with in their second terms when they could be at their boldest. But in the UK there is no such constitutional check. Ironic, given that constitutional reform is one example of New Labour's unfinished business that could be tackled in the next two years.

And what's more, this freedom could be really enjoyable. You can have an idea on Saturday and within a few days you can be doing it without lengthy political naval-gazing. Leave the business of administering the British state to your colleagues. Remove them if they are incompetent but otherwise just leave them to get on with it. Don't save the British economy, leave that to Alistair Darling.

And the best thing? People will see you enjoying yourself. People will see what you stand for. Your opponents would be placed on the back foot- have a little giggle at them. And who knows, your underdog status might just win you the game.

Clegg riding the tax waltzer

Nick Clegg describes the tax regime under Labour as a 'tombola tax system.' Good line. But the tax system he proposes is akin to a waltzer tax system, just as you think it's spun one way, it spins back again. The whole thing ends up in a dizzying mess.

Let's leave aside his claim that some people on low incomes are paying 'effective' tax rates of 90% (did he mean 'marginal' rather than 'effective' by any chance? Are you telling me that someone on £10,000 pa could be taking home just £1,000 pa? Nonsense.) The mishmash of proposals will have all sorts of bewildering effects. Let's just take those on low incomes:

- Basic tax down to 16%. Good.
- Tax shifted to pollution (the poorer you are the higher proportion of your incomes in consumed by energy costs and the like). Bad.
- Reducing taxes further after tax avoidance clamp-down. Goodish. If tax avoidance was so easy to cease someone else would have done it by now so probably won't happen. Remember the non-doms saga?
- Scale back tax credits. Bad- Clegg is right that it would be simpler to take people out of tax altogether. Simpler but I'm afraid more costly and less targeted.
- Introduce a local income tax system. Good or bad. If you are single and working could be good depending on the rate. If you are a working couple would be bad. If you are on a fixed income, undeniably good.

So overall, if you are on a low income I think you would rightly be concerned about the overall Lib Dem tax package. The most amazing thing is that having castigated Gordon Brown for the complexity of the current tax system, it would be just as difficult if not more so to calculate whether you were better or worse off under the Lib Dem proposals.

The one thing that the Lib Dem tax waltzer isn't is simple. Dizzying, quite fun, politically opaque, yes but simple, no.

Frank Field

I'm getting very bored of Frank Field now. He's over-stepped the mark with his criticisms of the PM today.

And now Bryan Gould is being given a platform as well. Didn't he bugger off to New Zealand after being humiliated in a Labour leadership election by getting less than 10% of the vote in a two-way fight? Some voice of authority that.....

The biggest political gamble ever?

I can't quite imagine how a politician could gamble more than Wendy Alexander has chosen to do on the question of Scottish Independence. The tactical manoeuvre was completely inept. Alex Salmond easily swatted away the call for an early referendum on Scottish Independence and now has a blank cheque of Labour support whenever he does decide to go for it. Scots are unlikely to go for independence as John Curtice explains here but given a straight yes-no question on independence in, let's run with a scenario, the context of a new Conservative government that Scotland hadn't voted for and a moderately or highly popular SNP Scottish administration, a 'no' vote, though unlikely, is far from certain.

What may have seemed like good Holyrood politics, wasn't. The SNP is now completely in control of the process and Labour will either have to fall in behind with some whining about the timing or sustain a huge political cost. This is insane.

Why not just get on with being a good and competent opposition, put together a coherent case for reform of the devolution settlement, then argue consistently and clearly for a devolution v independence v status quo referendum further down the line? Such a referendum would be almost certain not to result in a vote for independence. Again, nothing is certain but on an issue such as this you need to play the probabilities.

Finally, a word for the SNP. If you believe that independence would be anything other than a disaster for Scotland you are mistaken. This is not to suggest that Scotland couldn't survive as an independent country, of course it could. It is rather to argue that Scotland secures enormous benefits from the union as currently constituted.

For the whole of the UK, the independence of Scotland would be a complete national humiliation, it would diminish the respect and authority we enjoy in the international environment. That will harm our ability to secure the right international agreements on trade, the environment, and so many other areas that require international cooperation. Our ability to manage our own economy, society, and environment will consequently harmed.

Wendy, you've not only gambled your own stake, but you've gambled ours as well. Goodness knows what the consequences will be but I suspect we are now into damage limitation mode.

The missing link

I re-read the article in Prospect by Danny Kruger, one of David Cameron's court that was referred to by Jon Cruddas in his speech on Tuesday night. I have to say it was a brilliantly constructed piece, intellectually dense, but nonetheless felt a bit contrived when it moved from the theory to practice. Was David Cameron's attack on supermarkets really an example of 'fraternalism' in action or did it just make a good headline at the time?

Having said that, it is clear that a substantial amount of intellectual work is being done on the right of British politics in a similar way to the 'Third Way' and 'communitarian' debates that influenced New Labour thinking in the 1990s. In fact, Kruger takes Giddens' 'Third Way' as much of his reference point for the construction of a modern conservatism.

In a nutshell (with a lot of texture removed....) Kruger argues that both the left and right of British politics have been trying to free themselves from their historical positions in politics- the left grounded in 'equality' and the right 'liberty.' Modern conservatism is based on a liberty-loving fraternity. He defines 'fraternity' quite eloquently as the 'sphere of some.' It is about small groups, cooperatives, communities, families, and so on. In other words, it is the spontaneity of civil society that provides security and prosperity. Kruger doesn't mention Burke's 'little platoons' but he could well have done. Essentially, small is beautiful but this is not the same as Conservatives pursuing an individualist 'society' (if there is such a thing in the neo-liberal creed.) It is easy to see why the Conservatives have courted the voluntary sector so effectively.

Essentially, what Kruger is attempting to do is glue the incoherence of conservatism that has been at the root of its crisis. Thatcherism has also been described as 'liberal conservatism.' It is good term because it demonstrates the crisis quite clearly: liberalism is chaotic, radical, subversive whereas conservatism is about stability, continuity, and certainty. Thatcherism unleashed market forces and in so doing tore apart the very type of society that conservatives hold dear. That societal damage was the source of new Labour's intellectual and political opportunity.

So does fraternalism provide the glue? Is it the missing link between liberalism and conservatism? Well, let's just take what David Cameron has been saying about poverty. He wants to combat poverty but asserts that the old statist solutions have failed. So in a new alliance with the voluntary sector mixed with some conservative tax allowances to promote marriage, hard-core poverty will be tackled. But the problem with this analysis is that a lot rests on the ability of the voluntary sector to meet these expectations. The work of the voluntary sector is critical but its weaknesses are obvious: capacity, comprehensive coverage, and variable performance. I'm not saying that the state doesn't have some of these weaknesses also but there is a danger of relying too much on the voluntary sector to achieve enormous social policy goals.

Perhaps the Conservatives are aware of this? Perhaps that is why they have lowered the bar on the definition of poverty from 60% of median adult earnings to 40%?

So the critique of the new conservatism can't be that it's just superficial or it's not real. It is. The better criticism, and this was a line pursued by James Purnell on Tuesday, is that it is wistful and ultimately won't achieve the aims it sets for itself. It can't deliver in other words. To make that argument effectively, Labour has a great deal of thinking to do itself.

What can Labour learn from the Democratic primaries?

An article that I have written for the new website Labour Outlook is available here:

What can Labour learn from the Democratic primaries?

Compass event

Compass put on a sizzling debate last night on Labour's future direction. Two contributions in particular stood out- those of Steve Richards and a devastating but completely constructive contribution by Jon Cruddas. Actually, I left the meeting feeling that if we don't win the next election it won't be because we lack ideas, conviction or talent.

First to Cruddas' contribution. He counselled that the Conservatives have changed, not just in terms of style but in terms of philosophy as well and Labour underestimates that at its peril. Moreover, and anyone who followed the London Mayoral elections can vouch for this, they have adopted a new emotionalism to their political language. Labour's language by contrast is managerial and aloof. Cruddas has read and absorbed 'The Political Brain' (which is emotional rather than rational) by Drew Westen and 'Words that Work' by Frank Luntz. He also pointed to Danny Kruger's article in Prospect on 'fraternity' and the new conservatism. I will re-read today but what it all amounts to is that Labour is confronting a formidable and new challenge which has to be fought with new tools and a new narrative (I'm going to ban myself from using this word soon.)

Cruddas explains how the new Labour coalition is fracturing. As someone who spent election day ward hopping in a typical English marginal seat, Rugby, I can vouch that he is right. The suburbs are moving away decisively. More worrying was the core Labour ward where I was knocking doors last Thursday afternoon. My colleague and I got to the end of one street and looked at each other in horror as we realised just how soft our vote was. We won the ward but only having put in an unprecedented amount of work over the previous six weeks (we normally just tread water there but this year we treated it as if it was a marginal ward.)

But Cruddas' analysis was by no means a counsel of despair. Labour can re-connect (another word I'm going to ban myself from using....) It needs to acknowledge the insecurities that people are feeling. Another American book that is worth a read is the 'The Great Risk Shift' by Jacob Hacker who explains how it is not just those at the bottom end of the income tree that are facing insecurity, it is the majority. A similar situation could well be happening in the UK but that will require further analysis. If my impression is right then therein lies an opportunity for a strong Labour argument.

There is no doubt that these insecurities exist and that is a natural corollary of globalised finance and corporate investment. And that is why, as Steve Richards eloquently argued, the prevailing political mood actually offers an opportunity for Labour. When your job, household income, housing costs are inherently unstable you then need active and interventionist government to counter-balance wider and unpredictable economic forces. Richards argued the fact that Northern Rock has been nationalised without obvious political cost demonstrates how the mood has changed. He's right and there is a discussion to be had about the appropriate level of regulation of financial markets and the need for consideration of how we can create more proactive financial watchmen.

Richards and Cruddas were on to something last night. Most importantly, the overarching messaging was that there is no clever set of tactics that will get Labour out of this. There needs to be a more fundamental re-think. And fast.

Wandering away from the event through Westminster Hall with a spring in my step, who should march in my direction? None other than the Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron. If there was any danger of running away with the enthusiasm of the moment, this brought me quickly back down to earth. Game on.

Postscript: I also went to listen to James Purnell's lecture to the Fabian Society. His dismantling of the Tory argument on poverty as expressed in their 'Making British Poverty History' report was incisive and clear. His articulation of a more personalised, coordinated and responsive approach to eradicating child poverty was powerful. His analysis of where Labour is following last week's local elections was slightly optimistic about the current situation, resting as it did on the 'it's the economy' line but much of what he said chimed with what we heard later at the Compass event. There really is a way out of this.....over to you, Gordon.

Two teenagers on the 133 bus

I was on a bus going up Brixton Hill yesterday and found myself sat in front of an animated conversation about the Mayoral race between two teenagers. Two teenagers on their way out for the evening were discussing the new Mayor, Boris Johnson.

The young man, who supported for Boris, was gaining the upper hand, "Well he's gonna get rid of them bendy buses. They catch fire y'know. Whaddya call it? Spontaneous combustion innit? And Ken was a joke, man. The idea of of having a beach on the South Bank was nutty man. If yer from London why d'ya care about that? It's fine for tourists and that but what about Londoners? Y'know, the ones who are from 'ere."

His companion, a young lady of about the same age, was dumbfounded but spluttered, after a slight pause, "You need your 'ed testin'. You do know that Boris is a Tory don't you? I'm not saying I voted or naffin'. What's the point? But a Tory? What's wrong with you, man?"

The reply came, "Yeah but he's different to most of 'em. He's like a liberal more than a Tory. I'm not saying I voted either but if I did I'd vote for Boris."

"You need your 'ed sorted."

Make of the conversation what you will but there's no doubt the Mayoral race had an impact....

It's not just the economy, stupid

So much, so much. Following the local election post mortem is like standing in the middle of the climax of a firework display. Every angle, every axe, every agenda is whizzing and fizzing around the pages of the Sunday press and TV studios. Gordon Brown must be reflecting on something wise that Tony Blair once said (not the only thing...) As you gain more experience, you learn to trust judgement over intelligence.

But the disagreements seem to be not just about 'where next?' but over 'what happened?' Two points to anyone who campaigned on Thursday are obvious:

i) It is not just suburban voters that are beginning to taste what it's like to vote Tory. It is traditional Labour support as well- in smaller numbers then their more affluent neighbours but significant nonetheless. Jon Cruddas' analysis in the Sunday Mirror is right. Ivan Lewis is optimistic in describing the elections as a 'suburban revolt.' Labour losses may have been concentrated in areas that had suburban characteristics but the quiet but significant switching of the traditional, working class could be just as corrosive to Labour's chances at the next election. Labour ignores this at its peril.

ii) It's not just the economy, stupid. Pocket book issues are hurting Labour, one of which, the abolition of the 10p tax rate, was self-inflicted. But this is more fundamental than that. The Government's achievement over more than a decade are tremendous but people are confused about the direction in which Labour is heading and they still feel that their lives and communities should be better. They are not wrong and the Government needs to answer their fears and insecurity.

So the best advice of the day? I think that has to go to Matthew Taylor, former Number Ten strategist. Define competence, tell people how it can be measured then focus exclusively on meeting the challenges that you've set for yourself.

Big policy documents and 'meeting long term challenges' are not the order of the day. Labour has two years, it is about reminding people what a Labour Government is about, why it is different to the Tories, why it is important, and showing that it can lead and deliver. So it's not just the economy, stupid. It is about showing that it is Labour that will make people's lives and communities better.

Some of the mist clears?

There's quite a bit of 'down and out' analysis this morning and there will be more of it over the weekend I'm sure. Martin Kettle and Matthew Parris both come to an apocalyptic conclusion.

John Curtice in The Independent offers a more sanguine view. It's not over yet but boy does Labour have a job of work to do. My only quibble with his analysis is that he takes the economy as perhaps the overriding and predominant factor in voting motivation to the exclusion of almost everything else. There are broader factors at play here that Labour has to address.

One final analysis on the optimistic side by Hopi Sen is worth a read. Valiant and swash-buckling, Custer had nothing on Hopi. Cheered me up immensely. On one point in particular, I absolutely agree with Hopi- organisation is critical. In Rugby we were hit by the same factors as elsewhere (and yes the 10p tax abolition was an issue with white, working class voters in particular and, yes, many of them did vote Tory) but we didn't lose a seat as a result of some pretty keen targeting. That sort of targeting won't enable us to win back the Council but it keeps the Labour Group in tact and ready for better times. It was the equivalent of a defensive 0-0 away in the Champions League. But that is what was needed.

Boris Johnson wins

While I don't think this is very good news for London at all, I'm not going to leave the country as some are threatening. I hope Mr Johnson realises the huge responsibility that he has and conducts himself in a manner befitting this very important Mayoralty.

Ken was a very good Mayor in the main and that is worthy of recognition. His people dragged him down and he shouldn't have let that happen.

Local election aftermath

So the blood-letting begins. And already it has got off to a false start (and Mayoral results haven't been announced yet.) It has been characterised as the Progress line (don't forget the southern, middle-class) versus the Compass line (it's the core vote, stupid.) The reality is that if you read the Progress and Compass responses to last night's appalling results, they are basically arguing a similar and rather superficial point. Apparently, we have to assemble a winning coalition to win. Get it?

As Neal Lawson of Compass concedes, Labour has the to retain the support of both the working-class and middle-classes. The genius of Blairism is that it unified the interests of both. Now I don't see how a political strategy that achieved a majority of 64 in some the most trying of circumstances just three years ago can be described as 'dead' as Neal declares in his piece. My experience on the door-step yesterday is that Labour is hemorrhaging support from both the middle classes and the (white) working class. More worryingly than Neal Lawson suggests, the white, working class was often jumping straight to the Tories. The BNP were a fleeting concern and they have flatlined in this election with some local exceptions but it is the Tories who pose the major threat to Labour's core vote now.

Politics moves on and the priorities of the last ten years are not necessarily the same priorities of the next ten years. There is no doubt the Government has reached an impasse and only a new appeal will induce a recovery. This appeal can not be about sprinkling goodies on this group and that group as a desire to secure their allegiance. Instead Brown needs a clear vision, consistently and clearly communicated, and backed up by a political sensitivity.

What is that vision? Nothing I have heard so far is in any way convincing- 'big challenges', 'on your side', 'unlocking talents', it all sounds hackneyed and wan. We know we have to build a winning coalition. But how?

Brown's choice: re-erecting the tent v the strategic strike

Labour is poised for a period of internal reflection no matter what the results are like tomorrow. You can speculate endlessly about what the outcome will be but in low turnout elections (and with rain on the day turnout could be affected further- the forecast for Rugby where I am campaigning is here.) The reality is that a great deal depends on local factors such as the effectiveness of local organisation when you are looking at turnouts in the low 20s. That is difficult to judge in advance. So I'm not going to make a prediction other than to say that the London count will be very exciting indeed.

So there will be a weekend of hysterical reaction when actually the results mean very little from a national perspective. Next week, a fierce internal debate about how Labour should begin its recovery will swing into action. Tuesday sees a Compass 'what now?' event and it's the Fabian's turn on Thursday with a talk on Labour's appeal in the south by the thoughtful John Denham MP.

Jonathan Freedland clearly defines the terms of the debate. The Compass approach of 'recovering the lost Labour vote' of public sector workers, ethnic minorities, "urban intellectuals" and the traditional working class versus the strategic strike approach of targeting a small number of swing voters in a small number of constituencies. Freedland describes this as the approach of the centre-left Progress Group.

This strategic discussion is all very well but in practice what will it mean? Instinctively I tend towards the broad Compass approach but until we see what it means in black and white it is difficult to conclude that they have the answers. We will see over the coming weeks.

Nothing I have heard yet is a convincing platform for halting Cameron's march onto Labour ground. Some of that can be undone tactically- i.e. undermining the credibility of Cameron by challenging the substance or effectiveness of what he is saying on the NHS, the environment or poverty. But there needs to be something broader also.

I will cover the debate as it evolves over coming weeks as this is a key moment for the Labour Government. These debates will be critical in determining the outcome of the next election. Just one comment is worth making at the outset. The Government is going to have to get itself in a position where it is assessing the politics of its decisions not just the administrative merit. This is where it went wrong over the 10p tax issue. This is not government by focus group but it is a more sensitive form of government. If it gets the politics wrong then the strategic discussion becomes an irrelevance. Instead, Brown's administration will simply be playing back-foot politics. The damage will be limited but victory will be denied.

Labour ignores Tory poverty drive at its peril

I am a 'guest author' on The Independent's website today on the latest Tory march onto Labour territory.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/04/anthony-painter.html

Ken Livingstone- what's the right strategy?

According to a PoliticsHome panel of experts Livingstone should project himself as a 'competent CEO', portray Boris Johnson as a clown, give jobs to the Lib Dem and Green candidates and avoid Gordon Brown and Labour.

Maybe the PoliticsHome strategy by a committee of 100 experts methodology is flawed. But I don't think that's a winning strategy at all.

Ken's personality (and, let's be honest, his flaws) means that any attempt to project himself as boring, straight down the line corporate boss will unravel fairly quickly. If he is drawing attention to Boris Johnson's colourful personality at the same time it will only make his new persona seem even stranger and could well benefit his opponent. By giving jobs to the Green and Lib Dem candidates he would look weak, desperate, and like he was running out of ideas. Brian Paddick has already said that he wouldn't take up a job offer from Ken anyway. And who exactly do the experts think is knocking the doors day after day for Ken if it's not Labour activists?

Ken can win. He was head and shoulders above the other two candidates in the Newsnight debate last night.

But the way he can guarantee victory is lifting the weight of the world off his shoulders, showing a bit of his natural charm once more, look comfortable in the role and take on his opponents on the policy.

More than that, he needs to articulate just how important the role of London Mayor is from the perspective of security, the environment, transport, the economy, affordable housing, London's international prestige, and to give a focus to major occasions such as the 2012 Olympic games. It is a major role that requires a talented and competent political heavyweight. He doesn't need to attack Boris other than on the policy. If he articulates just how important the role is then people will quickly shy away from the blundering, stuttering, incoherent Boris Johnson no matter how much they may find him amusing.

In the last four years, Ken has contended with suicide attacks on London, the collapse of one the major tube operators, and has won the Olympic games while contributing to the creation of a mesmerisingly brilliant international city. That is a very strong record. That's his pitch. Warts and all, he is the man for the job.

There, a post about London and I didn't use the word 'vibrant' once. A first in modern journalism.

Postscript: Ken manages to avoid calling London 'vibrant' as well. This broadcast is just the sort of stuff that's needed. Needs to develop the 'what could go wrong' line a bit more but the right tone: positive, personal, and clear.



Postscript 2: Steve Richards' thoughts in The Indy this morning are worth a read.

Compulsory voting? Electoral reform?

The Government is consulting on the introduction of compulsory voting and changing the voting system for Westminster elections. Are either of these things a good idea? On balance, I favour the introduction of preferential voting (where second or third choices are re-distributed to the leading two candidates) but I am opposed to compulsory voting. I've come to two opposite conclusions but for the same reason.

There is only one good reason to change our system of voting. That is democratic engagement. Political engagement is weak in the UK and is getting weaker. Local organisations of all the parties are failing to motivate voters to either vote or participate in the democratic process. That harms politics: it makes political decisions seem remote and imposed and that further feeds disillusionment. Politics is something that is done to people rather than done with them.

I have always been sceptical about electoral reform- I never bought the arguments about 'fairness' and I do still have concerns about handing disproportionate power to minority parties in Government (that can happen in the current system of course and is more likely to when you have a third party with 50 seats or more as the Lib Dems currently do.) But the gains to be had from an electoral system that forces parties to engage locally with 70% or 80% of the electorate rather than 45%-50% are considerable and parties that fail to widen their appeal will face electoral defeat. So I am in favour of the Alternative Vote system for Westminster elections because the democratic benefits could be considerable and the risks are not monumentally greater than the current system.

But compulsory voting is another matter. The 'liberal' objection, that to force people to express an opinion is wrong doesn't quite fly. We force people to do all sorts of things (including registering to vote, for example) when there is an overriding community benefit. But voting rates have been declining, give or take, for a considerable period of time. It is something that politicians, local or national, should be deeply concerned about. Compulsory voting would mask this fact and therefore would allow politicians to feel that they were engaging competently when the opposite could well be true. That would only further feed disillusionment. If you want to really anger people then introduce state funding for political parties at the same time...

So the Alternative Vote could improve democratic engagement and compulsory voting could harm it. I am for the former and against the latter.

Post script: How would the parties benefit from change? Labour would benefit most from compulsory voting (its voters have a lower propensity to vote.) In the current context, Labour would also benefit to a certain extent from electoral reform in terms of seats won (though coalition politics would probably then determine whether it was in or out of power.)

It is worth seeing some research from a year ago about the second preferences of Liberal Democrat voters.

Conservatives on balance would favour the status quo. Liberal Democrats have much to gain from any type of proportional voting system. Compulsory voting is neither here nor there for them. I bet on the basis of this analysis, you can predict how each of the parties' will vote on the overall package.....the question is whether the Conservatives can prevent the changes coming in before the next election by crying foul at a Government changing the rules of the game.....It will be a brave short term political decision for the Government to try to force these changes through in time for the next election.