The sins of one's father

One cannot atone for the sins of one's father. One cannot even atone for their accounting choices. I dare say that, gazing back through my family tree, among the many fine and upstanding people, several of the characters that feature would have done something of which I thoroughly disapprove. I imagine there was a racist, a bully, maybe a petty criminal and a blithering incompetent. There's little I can do about it. And I reckon I do things that will make my daughters in future roll their eyes in bewilderment.

I actually feel a bit sorry for David Cameron for this is the problem he now faces. He cannot undo the business decisions his father made and it must be very excruciatingly painful for him to see a figure he loved and so obviously admired to be hauled over the coals, especially as his financial arrangements were far from unusual and all tax owed - under the law - was paid. People claiming that Cameron has benefited from tax dodging are simply wrong. He hasn't.

Nothing illegal has occurred. That does not mean, however, that the prime minister hasn't made a series of terrible of mistakes that yet again leaves his judgement open to question. While the urge to defend the honour and privacy of one's father is a perfectly natural instinct, it is hard to imagine how it could have been handled more incompetently.

It is the end of yet another wretched week for the government and most of the problems are entirely self-inflicted. In his interview last night, yet again David Cameron said 'I don't have anything to hide', but it was the fifth statement on his financial affairs, having spent the week trying to dodge the question.

David Cameron was at pains to say Blairmore Investments wasn't set up to avoid tax. Yet, the 2006 prospectus for the scheme stated:

'The directors intend that the affairs of the fund should be managed and conducted so that it does not become resident in the UK for UK taxation purposes... the fund will not be subject to UK corporation tax or income tax on its profits'.

And it is noticeable that both the prime minister's £300,000 inheritance and £19,000 profit from Blairmore both happened to be just below thresholds above which tax would have been due.

Why also did Cameron sell his stake in January 2010? It surely cannot have been because he feared how it might appear if he were to win that year's general election, can it?

And while not strictly necessary under the rules, it is a noticeable omission from his Register of Interests after repeatedly asserting his transparency.

The claim that 'we are all in this together' also sounds particular hollow now and Cameron's criticism of others using offshore vehicles - such as Jimmy Carr - does appear at the very least foolish, if not hypocritical, now.

These are awkward questions which the prime minister may still face pressure to answer.

Oddly, though, they're almost irrelevant. The bigger issue is political competence. Lurching from self-inflicted wound to self-inflicted wound, the government currently gives the impression of being tired and out of ideas, much like John Major's administration after the disaster of Black Wednesday.

Consider the last few weeks. George Osborne's budget took three days to fall apart spectacularly. Jeremy Hunt is proving more unpopular at health than even Michael Gove at education and the junior doctors' dispute shows no sign of being over anytime soon.  Sajid Javid found himself on a jaunt in Australia when Tata was holding a crucial, and long expected, meeting on the future of the British steel industry. Even the EU pamphlet, while in many ways perfectly understandable, is a £9.3million invitation for a bit of internecine warfare.

One can only think that the most plausible explanation for this is the EU referendum. The government is chronically divided and is struggling to present an agreed voice on almost anything. We witness, on a ridiculously frequent basis, ministers within the same departments saying contradictory things - meaning that focusing and simply getting the basics right is very difficult to achieve.

The biggest danger for the government is that this image of incompetence might sway voters in the EU referendum. While it is fair to say neither side of the Brexit debate has covered itself with glory, no one wants to be on the same side as an incompetent and it always looks worse coming from a government. Voters might tick the box to leave the EU simply to give the government a bloody nose rather than because it's something they actually want to do.

Despite the ineptitude, however, any calls from Labour for Cameron to resign are way over the top and while the government does seem tired, it remains very hard to imagine a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn ready to step into the breach.

It is recoverable, of course. Cameron simply must shore up the team around him for currently he is receiving woeful advice. And if the Prime Minister wins the EU referendum - which still seems most likely - he will have the opportunity to shake up his cabinet, refresh it and try and push on; though it will be a struggle to keep all sides happy.

In the end, it does rather feel that the final days of the David Cameron era has arrived. If he loses the EU referendum he's a goner anyway, but if he wins he will at least have the opportunity to depart on his own terms.

Corbyn's cabinet chaos will be forgotten, Cameron's EU chaos won't be

Strange days in politics. On the one hand, Jeremy Corbyn was supposed (or so we were led to believe) to be sacking Hilary Benn on the basis he rebelled against his leader during a free vote on whether a handful of British planes should occasionally bomb Daesh in Syria. On the other, we have the sight of a prime minister, suspending collective responsibility within the government, allowing ministers to campaign during the coming referendum either for or against staying within the European Union. Simultaneously, therefore, the government is abandoning any prospect of having a coherent EU policy ahead of a vote.

There is no doubt Corbyn’s handling of the reshuffle has been shambolic at best but in the grand scheme of things it is insignificant. David Cameron’s decision, however, has huge ramifications and he is running the very serious risk of placing himself in the unenviable position of being the prime minister who leads Britain out of the EU.

In 2006, Mr Cameron bemoaned how, while ‘parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life, [the Conservative Party was] banging on about Europe’. Indeed, it has been the dominating item of discussion and division within the Tory Party now for more than 25 years. Cameron doesn’t like to admit it, but he didn’t want to hold a referendum on the matter at all. It was just the latest in a series of concessions offered to Eurosceptics within his own party to try and keep them vaguely disciplined and on-side. Cameron’s desire to reform the EU may be genuine – and, my word, a rather huge amount of reform is surely necessary – but he certainly doesn’t want Britain to leave the organisation.

The latest concession, however, means that Cameron's authority has been seriously dented - and probably not just on the EU either; ministers will surely be tempted to test the boundaries of collective responsibility on other matters too.

The Prime Minster will return from Europe, claiming to have successfully negotiated a new deal; he will recommend that his government, the opposition and voters should choose to tick the box that will keep Britain in the EU. No new deal, though, no matter how overarching and comprehensive, will satisfy the Eurosceptics within his own party - and we shall witness the spectacle of some of Cameron's ministers campaigning to leave the EU. The government will not have an agreed vision for the future of the country.

Speaking to the World at One, Ken Clarke, a veteran EU loyalist, compared Cameron’s position to that of John Major’s during his Maastricht battles in the 1990s.

‘It is just like John Major, who tried to put people in the cabinet to get them to be more loyal, found that it didn’t work, they all briefed against him and were openly disloyal…. David probably has been forced into it because one or two of them (ministers) are obviously already briefing the newspapers and have been for some time.’

Of course, it’s worth bearing in mind that the polls currently indicate the Brexit campaign is losing. And, as we saw with the Scottish in/out referendum, voters are more likely to stick with the status quo rather than feel beguiled by the promise of drastic - but uncertain - change.

But, as pollsters and pundits saw at the General Election last year, predicting the minds of voters is especially hard at the moment. The Guardian recently reported that from the last 21 polls, 13 showed remaining in the EU in the lead, four gave quitting the EU a lead and four were tied. But, such is the overwhelming disenchantment with the major parties, voting against their wishes is terribly fashionable. It remains too close to call.

So, yes, Corbyn's discomfort is probably worth a brief click of the tongue at the wonder of it all, but ultimately, whatever happens to this shadow cabinet, the Right Honourable Mr Benn and others, it will be a mainly forgotten episode, perhaps an unfortunate footnote in a distressing time for the Labour Party. What David Cameron does in the coming weeks and months will have much more momentous consequences. What his decisions mean for Britain's membership of the European Union and, indeed, the long term future of the United Kingdom itself - as a vote to leave the EU may well trigger the SNP to force another Scottish independence referendum - has no chance of being forgotten whatsoever.

A perilous path to an inevitable war

Assuming the House of Commons votes as expected and consents to allowing the RAF to bomb Islamic State (ISIL) targets in Syria, from the furious level of debate going on one would be forgiven for thinking Britain was preparing to deploy a taskforce of the size used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But, instead of tens of thousands of British troops being despatched to the border to gather as part of a massive international invasion force, Britain plans to add a few planes – Tornadoes and Typhoons – to the eight Tornadoes already carrying out bombing sorties on ISIL in Iraq. We are assured that this exceedingly modest force will produce real, tangible results; that we will witness the Brimstone missile – which adorns the Tornadoes but not the Typhoons – accurately decapitating ‘the snake’ with the minimum of collateral damage and those already fighting really cannot cope without our input.

It may be the case that this small increase in airpower does, indeed, make an important difference but there must certainly be a risk it simply adds yet more complications to a perilously messy battleground. And while we wait to see how the military action plays out, the political risks on all sides will remain immense.

There seems to be universal agreement that defeating ISIL cannot simply be done from the air but the motion to be voted on tomorrow rules out deploying British forces - one wonders whether this will remain a firm pledge if there were a Paris-style atrocity in London. Instead, we are, apparently, hoping to rely on 70,000 ‘moderates’ to secure land vacated by ISIL as they retreat from our bombs. There is a great deal of scepticism about this assertion and, in what was an otherwise impressive performance by David Cameron in the House of Commons, it was the closest the prime minister came to a ’45 minutes from attack’ claim. If things go wrong, if little evidence of this force emerges and terror returns to the streets of Britain, it will appear as though Cameron, like Tony Blair before him, massaged the views of the Joint Intelligence Committee to push Britain into another conflict. His authority will be dashed for good.

Moreover, it has emerged on the eve of the debate and vote Cameron has told his MPs:

'You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers'

This thoughtless, dim comment blows apart Cameron's attempts to build a broad coalition for bombing ISIL in Syria. There are many differing, and honourably held, views about how to tackle this terror threat but no one taking part in the debate here feels any 'sympathy' for ISIL. It is an astonishingly offensive and foolish thing to say which not only insults vast numbers of people across the country - probably a majority - who oppose further military action but may also galvanise parliamentary opposition on all sides.

For Jeremy Corbyn, it is hard to find anything in his self-destructive handling of the situation about which to be positive. While the debate should be focused on the rights and wrongs of military involvement in Syria, what we might be able to achieve balanced against the inevitable risks of conflict, the centre of attention has been Corbyn and the furious split that has emerged within Labour. Corbyn has a strong mandate and plenty of support within the wider Labour Party as a whole but he is a terribly isolated figure within the parliamentary Labour Party. It is not hard to imagine figures such as Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn and Shadow Defence Secretary Maria Eagle vacating their positions soon.

As a permanent rebel, Corbyn was never likely to inspire much loyalty from his shadow ministers and when it is so blatantly clear his policies – on matters such as Trident and military action – contradict the opinions of so many of his close team, he was always on a hiding to nothing. While not having a collective policy on the matter of whether the country goes to war or not is a blow to Labour’s authority, offering his MPs a free vote on the matter was always the likely outcome and should have been offered from the outset. Instead we’ve been exposed to Corbyn at one moment trying to be the diplomat allowing debate within the parliamentary party while in another attempting an impression of a tough guy, insisting that he and only he would be deciding Labour policy.

There is no doubt that misguided military action in the region has helped create the stage upon which the ISIL death cult has been able to flourish and we can’t afford another incompetent intervention like Iraq and Libya. We must try and starve ISIL of funds and weapons – as Corbyn has argued – but in the short and medium term this does nothing to stop further attacks in Europe and more terror in their lands. 

It is impossible to present a good answer to this desperate situation. Bombing at any stage will cause civilian casualties, but we see civilians being murdered in horrifically perverted ways on a daily basis by ISIL regardless. Without Syria returning to a stable state the refugee crisis that has swept across the Middle East and into Europe cannot be solved. ISIL can play no role in the future; but fighting them from the air, across a land beset with chaos, seems unlikely to contribute to any sort of stability. Yet, it is at this moment that the UN has called, with remarkable unanimity, for states to join war against ISIL, wherever its war-mongers can be found.  And, whilst ISIL can ignore the border between Iraq and Syria, it makes no sense for those fighting the cult to do the same.  Furthermore, even if our military power is unlikely to make any significant difference to the outcome, our commitment to supporting our close political allies – especially France, at this time of great need – will be valued.  What is more, if we were to refuse to fight in the air over Syria, where Raqqa has been declared the capital of the ‘caliphate’, we would be handing these people a propaganda victory.

And yet, I must repeat: there is no good answer to this desperate situation. I find myself in the odd position of thinking that, were I to have a vote tomorrow, I would probably side with Corbyn, despite little of what he has said influencing my thinking. I would oppose getting involved now on the basis of that dodgy ’70,000 moderates’ claim and the belief that a much more comprehensive international coalition needs to be formed to do the job properly, both during the conflict and, even more crucially, afterwards. 

The only certainty is that we cannot ignore ISIL.  This is a movement inspired by violence and it will not neglect us.  Whatever is to come, we can be pretty sure it will be terrible.  Perhaps the only logical conclusion is to acknowledge that, ultimately, we surely cannot rule out doing the job properly and using British ground forces.

Corbyn is avoiding his duty by avoiding Syria

I know the focus was never likely to be on Jeremy Corbyn’s efforts at Prime Minister’s Questions, as George Osborne was unveiling his double whammy, the Autumn Statement and Spending Review all rolled into one. But, Corbyn may as well not have bothered turning up he made so little impact.

It is not that the subject matter of his questions were completely inappropriate – challenging the government’s commitment to green energy and the plight of, and services offered to, abused women – they were just the wrong subjects on the day.

The Prime Minister is preparing to present to the House of Commons proposals, which will at some point be debated, that could see British armed forces going into action against ISIL in Syria. I know that the Labour Party is hopelessly split on the issue, but it falls to the Leader of the Opposition to raise these important issues on occasions like PMQs.

And while the pressure to support such airstrikes is huge – and, speaking personally, I do think we have a responsibility to help try and fix the mess which we are undoubtedly partly to blame for creating – the shooting down of the Russian plane by a Turkish fighter is reason enough to consider pausing for a moment, just to allow for anger to subside, for events to follow their course.

Had Jeremy Corbyn made such a plea, even though David Cameron is likely to have brushed it off, the Leader of the Opposition would have been making a reasonable point, one which would have broad appeal. After all, hastily sending our military in to such a confusing, multi-layered, conflict zone, without detailed talks and agreements between as many of the significant players as possible, is the last thing we should be doing.

But no. Not a word on the matter did Jeremy Corbyn mutter. It was left to the SNP’s Angus Robertson to mention Syria. Sadly for Corbyn, avoiding the issue isn’t going to make it go away.

Postscript

While I'm on the subject of the opposition, how on earth did shadow chancellor John McDonnell put himself into a position where he had to appear on television and condemn the brutality of Chairman Mao? I understand it was supposed to be a gag about Osborne flogging of British assets to a Communist government in China - an attack which has some merit - but to say it fell flat is slightly flattering.

I do quite like McDonnell's style on television; he's quite open and happy to be contrite - some may say he has a lot for which to be contrite - but he should steer clear of attempts at edgy humour.

While Labour shouts, the real battle is in the Tory Party

Somewhat unfortunately I found myself in an argument with an ‘ultra-leftie’ Corbyn fan the other night, one who clearly hadn’t got the memo about a kinder politics from his Dear Leader. He thought it was reasonable to illustrate a graphic explaining ‘How Tory Welfare Reforms Work’ with an image of a Swastika, claiming it was merely ‘a diagram’. When I suggested this was a fairly offensive comparison to make, I was taken to task. The implication was that if anyone implied that this 'diagram' might be unfairly tainting the Conservative Party with Nazism, then it was the viewer's - in this case, my - fault. Clearly, he had not managed to grasp the power of semiotics. 

For merely questioning his taste I was accused of being a Tory. And this is where the Labour Party now find themselves; unreasonable people railing against the world, convinced their own view is the one true view, accusing those who might question them of apostasy. The vast majority on the left, the thoughtful, kind, principled but pragmatic, have been rendered dumb by the earthquake that has occurred beneath their feet. Until Corbyn and his shadow cabinet emerge with a package of coherent policies, the official Labour Party is something of an irrelevance, failing to provide a decent opposition.

Meanwhile, in the real world, George Osborne has been busy donning a cloak of moderate sensibilities and set about stealing some of Labour’s best policies and there is barely a whimper of protest – or indeed claims of ownership – from Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow cabinet. Lord Adonis, whose talent for ideas and getting things done was such that he was close to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, has been left flailing in the wind and, given the opportunity to resurrect his idea of an infrastructure commission, leads it with George Osborne’s blessing. For a party serious about forming the next government, losing the talents of Lord Adonis is little short of criminal.

Other ideas Osborne has pinched or developed include the devolution of business rates, grand-parental leave, the abolition of non-dom status and the national ‘living wage’. And remember the city academies idea – chaotically attacked by the last shadow Labour cabinet – was the brainchild of a certain chap called Andrew Adonis when he was a part of a Labour government.

George Osborne’s pitch is part of the real battle currently going on in British politics; who will succeed David Cameron. The PM has reiterated this week his intention to last the full five years of his second term, but, as I have written before, this simply isn’t practical or honest. If Cameron isn’t to stand for election again – and there is time for him to find a way to renege on this pledge – he has to leave office giving his successor sufficient time to outline his or her vision for the country before the 2020 general election.

The Shadow Chancellor, who, inevitably as he is the one ordering ‘austerity’ across the country, has a reputation of being the hard man of the government, the hatchet man. To counter this, he has, without any shame, turned into a magpie and is happily stealing good ideas from wherever he can find them, trying to present himself as the possesor of the common ground, a man not attached to a particular political dogma and above the day-to-day political fray. For now, until when or if there is an economic downturn, he remains the Tory Party’s lucky chancellor and a supreme tactician.

Theresa May, on the other hand, has, with one speech, jeopardised her chances of succeeding in her campaign to become next leader. Ignoring the government’s own statistics (see this excellent James Kirkup piece here), she painted a fearful picture of a Britain being held back and divided by immigration, warning about how we must protect our borders from the hordes outside and, by doing this, remain strong, a ‘beacon of hope’. It’s not a million miles away from the vision created in the film of Children of Men. 

The motives for her speech are curious. This vision might appeal to some grass roots Tories, timid and fretful of the outside world, comfortable in their shires, but it's a weak pitch for leadership. The government has failed to hit its own targets at reducing immigration. Logically, the only way to get net migration to the tens of thousands is to bar European Union migrants and the only way of achieving this is to pull out of the EU to end the freedom of movement. (Her refusal to even acknowledge the migration crisis affecting Europe is a discussion for another day).

Unsurprisingly, this has prompted a ferocious backlash from business groups who find themselves on the same side as refugee groups. Simon Walker, the Director General of the Institute of Directors, said:

‘We are astonished by the irresponsible rhetoric and pandering to anti-immigration sentiment from the Home Secretary. It is yet another example of the Home Secretary turning away the world’s best and brightest, putting internal party politics ahead of the country and helping our competitor economies instead of our own.

‘The myth of the job stealing immigrant is nonsense. Immigrants do not steal jobs, they help fill vital skill shortages and, in doing so, create demand and more jobs. If they did steal jobs we wouldn’t have the record levels of employment we currently do.’

With such a response from what is supposed to be part of their core constituency, May’s speech and stance is very hard for any other minister to defend though some will foolishly try. A rattled Prime Minister later gave it a go on the BBC.

I have never much rated Theresa May’s chances to succeed Cameron; a long-serving Home Secretary yes, but she gives the impression of being too hard and too unsympathetic. She first warned of the Tories being seen by too many as the 'nasty' party and yet, here she is the one reviving the image. Combined with simply being factually wrong on the impact of immigration and annoying large swathes of business, I think her chances of becoming leader have slumped further.

The other much-touted contender, Boris Johnson, didn’t hurt his chances at the Conservative Party conference. He is the conference darling, his speech was packed with jokes and he presented a vividly more humane Tory alternative. But he is way behind Osborne at the moment, to such an extent the Chancellor can happily say he would be ‘very surprised’ if Boris didn’t make it to the top team under Cameron. He didn’t add ‘if he’s a good little boy’ but was probably thinking it.

The clock is now ticking

When David Cameron pours himself a glass of wine this evening, kicks off his shoes and sits back to relax, he may feel content that not far in the too distant future, he will be a former prime minister and able to spend decent, quality time with his family. But he may also have a nagging feeling that, by announcing his intention to stand down after a full second term - should he be elected of course - he has unleashed instability and chaos upon an already troubled Conservative Party.

A ten-year tenure as prime minister is enough, as Cameron rightly observed. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had evidently lost touch with reality, to put it politely, by the time they had been in office so long. Cameron, already prone to hubris, is wise to want to escape.

There is, however, no chance that he will be able to serve a full second term. He isn't a president; the Tories will need a new leader for the next general election, currently scheduled to be held in 2020. Instead of quashing speculation that he might stand down after a 2017 in or out referendum on the EU, it seems likely to only intensify such talk. He will constantly be asked when he intends on standing down by any reporter lucky enough to be granted an interview.

And the timing is extraordinary. To announce his intention to stand down just weeks before a general election seems an utterly unnecessary distraction and might actually damage his electoral chances; do the general public want to vote for someone who already has his eyes on retirement?

In true football manager style, Cameron spoke of 'the Theresa Mays, and the George Osbornes, and the Boris Johnsons' who could succeed him. All likely candidates at this stage, certainly, but any successor would need a decent run-in time to stamp their mark on the party before a 2020 poll. And it's worth noting, both May and Osborne hold positions which are vulnerable to political weather and their stars could wane.  As for Boris, whatever his personal popularity may be, he remains a liability.

Other potential successors will inevitably emerge. Liam Fox and Owen Paterson still seem keen to be champions of the Tory right wing but it's hard to imagine either could mount a serious challenge. And the trouble for these two - and for those mentioned above - is that they would have been at the top of their party for a decade or longer. Fresh faces may be required. And, as yet, it's hard to identify likely candidates from the modernising wing of the party. A shift to the right looks likely and potentially dangerous for a party that would have been in power for ten years by 2020.

In the event that the Tories find themselves in government after May, every speech or move made by any likely successor will be scrutinised for any hint of leadership ambitions. Inevitably, these moments will be over-read and misinterpreted. All this turmoil will only destabilise and fracture the party further.

So Mr Cameron should enjoy that glass of wine while he can: he may have just unleashed years of trouble for his party.

'Have you anything to share with the nation?'

It was the sort of event which would have made Harold Macmillan proud. The prime minister holding court at his country pile, with a select band of supporters – the vast majority male of course – to spend the day discussing political devolution in England, deciding what they think would be good for you. And then, at the appropriate time, a senior member of the party would deign to emerge and tell an expectant media what they had decided. One presumes that hacks present swiftly doffed their caps and said ‘thank you, guvnor’ in unison.

With great magnanimity, William Hague – for he was the senior minister – said the government was ‘open to discussions with the Labour Party and other parties as well’, and somewhat preposterously claimed that there had already been lengthy discussions on the matter of English devolution.

‘The issue of fairness for England – as well as for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – I think is one that cannot now be avoided. That is something we have to face up to.

‘It has been discussed for a very long time. The time has now come to make some decisions about this.’

While it is certainly true that the West Lothian question is an issue that has been raised over the years, to suggest there has been any serious discussions about political reform – less still, reached any conclusions – is disingenuous to say the least. And other aspects, such as regional devolution, comprehensive reform of the absurd House of Lords, and extending the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds seemed not to warrant a mention.

Vernon Bogdanor, the constitutional expert and former tutor of David Cameron, has spent much of the day warning against rushing into political changes in England. And, writing persuasively in The Times, said:

‘The Scots have been thinking about their constitution for years; they set up a constitutional convention in 1989 to produce proposals on devolution.

‘The English have only just begun to think about their constitution. Their thoughts could be brought into focus by a royal commission which would hold public evidence sessions throughout the country, beginning a dialogue between government people.

‘After a constitution has been drafted, it must be submitted to the people for approval in a referendum. It would need a solid majority in each component of the United Kingdom. If the current turmoil stimulates a search for a long-term constitutional settlement, then the referendum process in Scotland will have brought real benefits to the whole of the United Kingdom.’

David Cameron would do well to listen to his former lecturer. Instead, though, he wants English devolution to be carried out 'in tandem' with handing out more power to the Scots, promised in the famous cross party 'vow' published in the Daily Record before last week's referendum. Any failure to deliver this pledge to Scottish voters will do enormous damage to the reputation of all politicians in Westminster.

On the one hand, though, it is tacit acknowledgement that the Conservatives have nothing to lose by pursuing this aggressively English agenda; the party has been effectively wiped out north of the border with only one MP defending a seat.

Meanwhile, on the other, he knows it is an uncomfortable issue for Labour, as they have 41 Scottish MPs, who have been relied upon in the past when a Labour government has wanted to force through controversial measures in the past. Bafflingly, it seems that Labour haven’t drawn up any alternative devolution suggestions within England, despite the fact that an appeal to English nationalism was bound to be the Conservative's tactic. As a result, Labour’s response to questions regarding English votes for English Laws, is genuinely shifty and unprepared. Simply saying it's 'David Cameron's trap', while being self-evidently true, isn't sufficient.

Another aspect to the prime minister's actions is that it offers an opportunity to compete with the UKIP in going after English nationalist votes. Until the fall out of the Scottish referendum, I had no idea the English were so downtrodden. And yet, according to a ComRes poll for ITV, published this evening (22-09-14), 61 per cent of people think England it taken for granted in the UK. 

It is clever party politics from David Cameron, but to indulge in such games over major constitutional change, and gear up to making it a dividing line at the 2015 general election, is wholly inappropriate. He may well be able to briefly assuage his troublesome backbenchers, but trying to railroad through reform in such a high-handed, patrician and tribal manner, won't do the British constitution any long term good at all.

Gordon Brown; the Unionist's final throw of the dice?

When David Cameron was finally able to evict the ‘squatter holed up’ in Downing Street after the General Election in 2010, he must have thought he wouldn’t have worry about Gordon Brown again. The irony, therefore, that the Prime Minister is trusting his one-time opponent basically to lead the final stages of the battle to keep the union together must be painful indeed. Any personal animosity has, for now, been swept aside.

It is hard to conclude that the MP for Kirkcaldy’s intervention, pledging an array of devolved powers to Scotland, was anything other than an act of desperation. All three major Westminster parties have pledged their support for this package of constitutional reform, regardless of whether there has been any consultation with voters about what exactly they want. Moreover, while the reforms are apparently exclusively Scottish, it will rapidly prove to be an impossible position to maintain; Wales and Northern Ireland would certainly want something similar and regions, Cornwall, the North East, Yorkshire, will clamour for reform. Nick Clegg has already acknowledged this, saying further devolution in Scotland will:

'signal a much wider rewiring of the governance and constitutional arrangements in the country as a whole, particularly governance within England which remains an unusually over-centralised country'.

Hence, regardless of whether Scotland votes yes or not, Britain is on the cusp of potentially huge, and rushed, constitutional change.

Brown has been thrust into the limelight at this late stage as even his opponents are recognising that, despite his pretty disastrous time as prime minister, he remains the equivalent of Heineken; he can reach voters other pro-Union political figures just can’t reach. Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg have cancelled their appearance Prime Ministers’ Questions to head to Scotland and campaign for a No vote, but their presence is, if anything, a boost to the Yes campaign. Alex Salmond said today: ‘The message of this extraordinary, last minute reaction is that the Westminster elite are in a state of absolute panic as the ground in Scotland shifts under their feet.’ The farcical scenes around the country of the Saltire being raised above town halls and even Downing Street, as if such an act would swing a floating voter, rather gives credence to the SNP leader’s view.

The toxicity of the Tories in Scotland cannot be underestimated; in my recent trip up there the venom reserved for Mrs Thatcher was still fresh and vivid. In many ways, the imposition of the 'Bedroom Tax', though applicable nationally, echoes the hated Poll Tax. Hence, One of the SNP’s strongest lines, repeated over and over again, is voting for independence is the only way Scotland can avoid ever having to endure a Conservative government again, conveniently forgetting that the Tories haven’t won an election since 1992 and, in parliamentary terms, remain virtually wiped out north of the border.

Ed Miliband has been inept, unable to harness the millions of Labour voters the party is normally able to rely upon; the Labour Party’s brand has been damaged by Alex Salmond constantly calling them the allies of the Tories. Such a comment would make any Labour voter in England bristle with irritation but it will still carry power. Labour's recent time in office also does them few favours too. While it may have established the Scottish parliament, paving the way for the situation we have today, the party, particularly under Tony Blair, shifted to the right, no longer recognisable to many.

And Clegg? As it is his party keeping the Conservatives in power, thus enabling unpopular measures such as the ‘Bedroom Tax’, he will struggle to find a sympathetic ear.

Gordon Brown will be seen every day between now and the referendum. Yesterday, he spoke without notes, with power, passion and fluency – Cameron’s advisers would have raved at such a performance. It was an echo of the early speeches Brown made before he was rendered thumpingly dull by the process of power.

Much of the contents echoed his book My Scotland, Our Britain, the best, most positive, pro-Union argument I have yet read, where he explains how it is possible to a both proud Scot and a proud Briton. And it recognises how the debate is one of economics and politics as well as an issue of the heart. And the former Labour prime minister may yet still win the day for the Union cause. Combined with the potential for constitutional change, we are faced with the prospect of a quirky historical twist that Gordon Brown could achieve something more long lasting and profound as a backbench Kirkcaldy MP than he ever did as Prime Minister.

UPDATE

It hasn't taken long for politicians from England's regions to start calling for extra powers to be devolved. Andrew George, MP, for St Ives, tells the Western Morning News:

'All parties now acknowledge the benefits and opportunities of allowing the nations and the regions of the UK to manage their public services and shape their futures whilst releasing themselves from the dead hand of micromanagement from Whitehall.

'If Scotland and Wales can be offered further powers then Cornwall must be next in line. After all, Cornwall is already recognised as a distinct region for economic development purposes, as a separate people and for its distinct language.

'After all, who is best-placed to decide how Cornwall's housing stock and development plans are best managed? Inspectors in Whitehall or democratically elected representatives in Cornwall?

'Who is best-placed to manage Cornwall's health and social care? Health managers in Whitehall and Leeds or the people, patients and clinicians of Cornwall?

'Who is best-placed to decide ho Cornwall's economic development aid is spent? Ministers and mandarins in Whitehall or the business leaders, workers and elected representatives of Cornwall?'

The full article can be found here.

'Will no one rid me of these turbulent priests'

David Cameron has a problem with bishops. Several of these troublesome fellows have spent the last few weeks castigating the government for failing to do enough to help Iraqi Christians.

As the influence and terror of the Islamic State has grown, Christians, along with the ancient Yazidi community, have faced a very stark choice; either to convert, flee or die. The threat of genocide is real. In the last week, horrifying reports have emerged that captured Yazidi men, women and children, refusing to convert, have been buried alive. Reuters reporter Humeyra Pamuk, for example, spoke to Samo Ilyas Ali – one of those who fled – who recounted what happened when IS forces entered his village and started digging holes in the ground:

‘We did not understand. Then they started to put people in those holes, those people were alive.

‘After a while we heard gunfire. I can’t forget that scene. Women, children, crying for help. We had to run for our lives, there was nothing to be done for them.’

It is against this background that the bishops have spoken so forcibly and implored the government to offer asylum to Christians, fleeing from places like Mosul and Qaraqosh, where Christian heritage dates back 1,600 years.

The Bishop of Manchester, the Right Reverend David Walker, told The Observer: 

‘We would be failing to fulfil our obligations were we not to offer sanctuary. Having intervened so recently and extensively in Iraq, we have, even more than other countries, a moral duty in the UK. Given the vast amounts of money that we spent on the war in Iraq, the tiny cost of bringing some people fleeing for their lives to this country and allowing them to settle – and who, in due course, would be an asset to our society – would seem to be minuscule.’

Bishop of Worcester, Dr John Inge, added:

‘I would be very disturbed if the government refused to do anything. The situation in Iraq is absolutely horrendous. It would sit very ill at ease with our values if nothing were to be offered. I am disappointed nothing has transpired so far.’

The pressure continues; in the last couple of days, the Bishop of Leeds, the Rt Rev. Nicholas Baines, has written to the Prime Minister, with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, asking for the government's policy towards Iraq to be clarified. Cuttingly, one of his questions reads:

'The focus by both politicians and media on the plight of the Yazidis has been notable and admirable. However, there has been increasing silence about the plight of tens of thousands of Christians who have been displaced, driven from cities and homelands, and who face a bleak future. Despite appalling persecution, they seem to have fallen from consciousness, and I wonder why. Does your government have a coherent response to the plight of these huge numbers of Christians whose plight appears to be less regarded than that of others? Or are we simply reacting to the loudest media voice at any one particular time?'

And the other day, the hugely admirable Canon Andrew White, from Baghdad's St George's Church - a man who has surely done more to promote a positive of Britain and its best values in Iraq than any other - appeared on the Today programme to add his voice to those campaigning to offer asylum to up to 30,000 Iraqi Christians:

'Christianity [in Iraq] could be nearly dead and Britain has refused asylum to any Iraqi and now we are desperate. It is a matter of life and death.'

Yet, despite the urgency of the situation and the vocal interventions, the government has remained remarkably silent on the issue; it almost seems as though they're embarrassed. After the first article appeared in The Observer, this was the comment which came from the government:

‘The UK has a proud record of offering sanctuary to those who need it. Every claim for asylum is carefully considered on its individual merits.’

This frankly pathetic, inadequate, statement hardly does justice to the horror of the situation.

It is, of course, true that, historically, Britain has opened its doors to the oppressed; Charles II allowed the Huguenots, escaping the Catholic Church in France, to settle here in the 17th century; more than 100,000 Eastern European Jews settled in the late 19th century, escaping persecution, particularly in Russia; and in the 1972, many Ugandan Asians came here after being expelled by Idi Amin.

But is the claim still justified? Let's just glimpse at a few recent cases

1 - More than 2.5million have fled the fighting in Syria, packing into refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Britain has taken 500.

2 - The government has fought bitterly against demands to allow Afghan interpreters, who worked with British forces during the recent war, to come here and escape the obvious dangers they face. Reluctantly, they have agreed about half of the 1,200 interpreters who were still working with the British military on December 19, 2012, will be able to come here. It’s still hugely unsatisfactory and a betrayal of people who risked their lives to help British troops. Any who stopped working before this date will not be eligible.

3 - In the case of the Gurkhas – who fought for this country – a it took the charms of Joanna Lumley to embarrass the government into finally acknowledging their cause.

4 - And just a few weeks ago - despite a very high profile campaign against female genital mutilation - Afusat Saliu and her daughters were deported to Nigeria despite the very real risks her children could be targets for the horrible, abusive, procedure from her wider family.

Obviously, asylum is still offered to the desperate. According to the Refugee Council, in 2012 16,918 asylum applications were decided. Of those, ’64% of initial decisions were refusals, 30% were grants of asylum, 5% were grants of Humanitarian Protection or discretionary leave, and 0.5% were grants of leave to remain under family or private life rules'.

This isn't a party political issue, it's a problem which afflicts successive governments. Levels of immigration, rightly or wrongly, remains a major public concern and neither the Conservatives nor Labour - and increasingly the Liberal Democrats too - wants to be seen as a soft touch. The government seems afraid of acknowledging the desperation of the Iraqi Christian community, fearful of how it will be depicted in sections of the media ahead of what will be a tight general election. But simply relying on our 'proud record of offering sanctuary', too often seems to be an excuse for inaction, for blocking asylum and ignoring the plight of those who need our help. On top of all the suffering they are facing, Iraqi Christians do not deserve to be victims of such short-term political imperatives. 

The Trouble about Turnouts

A handful of case studies:

Robert Jenrick

Deftly puncturing the unrealistically high hopes of UKIP, Robert Jenrick was the most recent Conservative MP to be elected, at the Newark by-election on June 5^th. He now has a majority of 7,403 but, despite this apparent endorsement, he only gained 45 per cent support from a turnout of just under 53 per cent, unusually high for a by-election; he was backed by a little over 24 per cent of those eligible to vote. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

At the last General Election, the constituency with the highest turnout was Renfrewshire East, where Jim Murphy was returned for the fourth occasion. More than 77 per cent of the electorate turned out and the shadow Secretary of State for international development got more than 50 per cent of votes cast. Overall though, he still hadn’t received the backing of more than 40 per cent of the total of those allowed to cast a vote.

And in Witney, Prime Minister David Cameron may have got 58.8 per cent of the support of those who voted, but still only had the endorsement of just over 43 per cent of the all the constituency's voters.

No local councillor has anything like the support of an MP. At the local elections in 2014, national turnout was about 36 per cent and could be horribly low in some extreme cases; a pitiful 13.86 of the electorate bothered to vote in the Liverpool Central Ward.

Turnout for elections for the government’s recent gimmick of Police and Crime Commissioners was pathetic. National 36 million people could express their opinion; in November 2012, just 15.1 per cent of people took time to do so.

All this leads us to the thorny issue of strikes. According to the Morning Star ‘millions’ of people could strike on July 10 when five unions, the members of the National Union of Teachers, Unison, GMB, the PCS and Unite are all playing to take to the streets and ‘challenge Con-Dem pay cuts’. It may not, ultimately, be millions who take to the streets, but there will be a sizable protest against the coalition government's pay restraint which means the vast majority of public sector workers are going to see their pay rises pegged to a meagre one per cent a year until 2018 at least.

Anti-austerity campaigners on October 20, 2012. Photo: Paul Mattsson

Disruption will be widespread. Teachers, NHS staff, workers in job centres and benefits officers, staff in tax and passport offices, passport controls, immigration, museums and galleries, crown courts, country courts, magistrates and civilian staff in police stations; all will be taking to the streets after successful strike ballots by their unions. Yet in none of these ballots was there a turnout of more than 50 per cent. It is, therefore, very easy to see the simple political attraction of curbing such a demonstration by introducing a turnout threshold, ruling invalid any ballot that failed to reach the required level.

Today, at the final Prime Minister's Questions before MPs go off on their Summer Recess, David Cameron said this:

'I don't think these strikes are right... I think people should turn up for work. I think the time has come for looking at setting thresholds in strike ballots... The NUT strike ballot took place in 2012, based on a 27 per cent turnout.

'How can it possibly be right for our children's education to be disrupted by trade unions acting in that way? It is time to legislate and it will be in the Conservative manifesto.'

It is fairly clear what his intention is then and it is probably a measure which will get widespread support from those who think strikes are an unpleasant disruption which have no place in modern society. But glossing over this and the rather fundamental role protest has in a free society, introducing a turnout threshold of, say, 50 per cent - as suggested by Mayor of London Boris Johnson (himself elected with 51.53% of the vote on a 38.1 per cent turnout) - threatens to undermine further the authority of any elected figure and could well backfire.

Voting for a politician is so much easier than taking part in a strike ballot. Polling stations abound and it is not even necessary to carry your polling card when you do pitch up to mark your ballot paper. The organised can rely on postal ballots. Yet, despite, the lack of inconvenience, so many, disillusioned, disaffected, utterly fed up with all of the above, simply don't bother. As said above, the 53 per cent turnout in the Newark by-election was unusually high, buoyed by eager, naive, competition from UKIP. The turnout in Manchester Central in 2012 was just 18.2 per cent and they normally hover around in the thirties - this table shows the turnouts of every by-election since 1997.

Strike ballots, on the other hand, are only held through the postal system, a tactic, introduced under Margaret Thatcher, itself designed to reduce turnout and undermine credibility. It is not possible to turn up to your place of work, put it a cross in a box and put it in a ballot box. No one is suggesting making it easier for strike ballots to be held.

Already, the reputation of politicians could hardly be lower but, by forcing through such a change, they will leave themselves open to the very damaging charge that they deserve a more flexible, and frequently lower, level of democratic support than everyone else; one rule for Robert Jenrick, Boris Johnson, all those councillors and PCCs and another for teachers, nurses and basic state workers struggling on some of the lowest wages in the country.

Whatever happened to #BringBackOurGirls?

For a few brief days, the girls kidnapped in Nigeria captured international attention. The slogan #BringBackOurGirls, complete with hashtag, abounded on Twitter and, following Michelle Obama’s example, politicians and public figures the world over were photographed clutching posters bearing the same message.

But now, sadly, attention has moved on; the schoolgirls – taken by the Islamic fundamentalist group Boko Haram who stated their intention was to sell them into slavery – remain in captivity and Britain’s own feeble efforts to assist go almost unnoticed.

An RAF Sentinel left RAF Waddington, in Lincolnshire, on Sunday. It is a spy plane equipped, according to the Daily Telegraph, with ‘ground mapping radars to build up detailed 3D images of terrain’ and it saw widespread use in Afghanistan.

Somewhat pathetically, however, the plane has not got to Nigeria; it is in Senegal more than 1,300 miles away from its destination. It is currently grounded with an unidentified problem and the Ministry of Defence have no idea how to fix it. They are, according to a spokesman, hopeful the plane will join the efforts to rescue the girls ‘sooner rather than later’. Doesn’t that statement resonate with a keen sense of urgency?

In many ways David Cameron is right; Britain and the West cannot simply dispatch troops, gunships and special forces to Nigeria to take command of the efforts. It is, after all, a sovereign country and one that is stuck in an increasingly wretched conflict with this appalling Islamic fundamentalist group, and it has to be allowed to decide for itself what outside assistance it wants and needs.

But that doesn’t preclude the British and other governments from heaping pressure on to the Nigerian authorities as it is evident how inadequate the response of Goodluck Jonathan’s government has been. For weeks, the president refused offers of international assistance; meanwhile, the girls were reportedly camped less than 30 kilometres from their school for 11 days, with no attempt made to free them. Haaretz has reported how Nigeria has been unable to deploy surveillance drones bought from Israel several years ago as routine maintenance has not been carried out and spare parts had not been ordered. The broken British plane just adds to this catalogue of ineptitude.

The fleeting nature of the international outrage over this issue is curious, especially as Boko Haram is stepping up its campaign of violence and has become a major destabilising force in the region. More than 250,000 people have been displaced in the north of the country and in the last two days alone bombings killed almost another 120 in the city of Jos and a further 48 were killed as three villages were attacked in the north of the country. Boko Haram's aims are to turn Africa's most populous country into a hardline Islamic state, where elections are banned, secular education stopped and contact with the West cut. The desperate poverty in the country, particularly in the north, acts as a significant recruiting sergeant for the cause; international involvement and cooperation is vital to overcome this movement.

But one gets the horrible impression that it is tragically being dismissed as just one of those things that happens in Africa.

Dave's immigration woes are of his own making

A more cunning prime minister would have been able to boast about today’s immigration figures. ‘Look’, he would say, ‘our economy is on the up, more people are in work than ever before and more of those jobs are going to hardworking Britons.

‘With careful handling of our finances, we have begun the task of tackling the economic disaster we inherited, saved it from the abyss and now we are focusing on securing the economy.

‘On top of all of this, people from across Europe are now flocking to our shores, seeing us as a place of security, of resilience, of vitality, coming here eager to work and build our economy, helping to secure the prosperity that we all want.’

But whatever he is, David Cameron is not a cunning prime minister. Playing the anti-immigration card is an easy election ploy, especially in the midst of the deepest recession for a century. It pleases his backbenchers and taps into the public’s unease; providing voters with a more realistic immigration policy was never really on the cards.

So, instead, as more net migration hits more than 212,000, David Cameron’s pledge to reduce this to below 100,000 looks completely unachievable and it will be for others, UKIP and his increasingly restless backbenchers, to take the spoils.

It was ever going to be thus. The largest number of migrants coming to this country come from the European Union and the government has practically no power to restrict this movement (the restrictions that did limit Romanian and Bulgarian migration lifted at the start of this year). The prime minister can talk as much as he wants about renegotiating our relationship with Europe but this isn’t going to make any significant progress before the next election.

The government know this is happening. In an interview published this week in Total Politics magazine, David Willetts, minister for universities and science, while claiming there was a surge of students from China, admitted the curbs had ‘played disappointingly badly’ in India with numbers falling by 38 per cent between 2011 and 2012.

So it leaves the government vulnerable from all sides on immigration. Those who believe in the free movement of people and think immigration has and continues to enrich Britain attack the government for harming universities with their restrictions and deterring people who could contribute. While anti-immigration voices and those on the right, from MigrationWatch and UKIP, shout louder about leaving the EU and call for stricter controls to be introduced.

And everyone, in unison, can accuse the government of losing control of their own policy.

David and Jeremy really don't want 'your kids to die'

There are reports coming from North Korea suggesting Kim Jong-un has ordered the execution of every blood relative of his uncle – himself purged and killed last month – including women and children.

In November last year, the Oxford Research Group estimated more than 11,000 children had been killed in the conflict in Syria.

Across large parts of Africa, militias specialising in terror, such as the Lord’s Resistance Army, abduct, drug and force children to fight, rape and pillage. The statistics are blood-chilling.  Reports suggest tens of thousands of children have been abducted by the LRA in countries including Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan.

In too many conflicts, children are seen as disposable, cheap cannon fodder; expendable. And, in all the cases above, it can be argued that those responsible for these deaths genuinely do not care other people’s children are dying.

                                                                     

Now consider this headline:

David and Jeremy want your kids to die (unless you’re rich)

It appears above a blog by comedian Rufus Hound in which he talks about his decision to stand as an MEP for the National Health Action Party. Evidently, Hound feels passionately about the NHS and is furious about what the coalition is doing with it. He deserves credit for wanting to stand for election and actually try and do something about it, rather than being a chatshow-sofa and stage bound dilettante comedian like Russell Brand.

But it’s also very clear that while David [Cameron] and Jeremy [Hunt] may well be making an enormous hash of the NHS with their exceedingly top-down and bureaucratic reforms, they do not want anyone’s ‘kids to die’. I know it's hyperbole but it’s an absurd, ad hominem, attack which does Hound no credit at all and is unlikely to be the message the NHAP really wants communicating. 

Too often in political discourse, sensible debate gets sidelined and replaced by lazy stereotypes and cheap bribes. For example, it isn’t ‘class war’ to raise the top income tax band to 50p; voting for the Labour Party is not akin to supporting the gulags and terror of Stalin and supporting the Conservative Party does not equate to being a fascist. If Hound wants to command serious attention, he should let the details of his blog do the talking and not resort to such a crude, simplistic, headline. 

It’s well known that the prime minister lost his son Ivan back in 2009, after suffering from cerebral palsy and epilepsy. At the time, David Cameron paid very heartfelt tributes to the efforts of the NHS. Hound may profoundly disagree with the government’s reforms – and even the most generous critic can find much to question – but to suggest Cameron ‘wants’ other parents to suffer the heartache and pain he went through is particularly unpleasant.