Peter Kenyon

Labour headed for opposition today?

'Vote Clegg, get Cameron' was the warning to voters ahead of last week's election. Latest developments with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats back in talks point to a Con/Lib-Dem coalition, possibly being announced before the end of the day. Talking to trade union contacts over the past few days, I have sensed a real desire to keep the Conservatives out of government. When the Labour National executive Committee (NEC) meets later today, I will listen keenly to accounts of talks between the Prime Minister's emissaries and the Liberal-Democrats. The BBC's Chief Political Correspondent Laura Kuenssberg has just reported that Schools Secretary, Ed Balls, may have pushed the Lib-Dems too hard and into the Tories hands. Whatever, the truth of that it would be tragic if the possibility of protecting the country from conservativism were lost. The parliamentary arithmetic could have delivered a traffic light coalition, just. If there is still scope for considered negotiation, my inclination will be to give Lab-Lib talks another chance, with a negotiating team committed to success.

Housing - another failed market example

News from the National Housing Federation of a prediction that 2009/10 will see the smallest number of houses built since 1923 comes as no surprise to those of us familiar with market weaknesses. The lesson for Labour election strategists is that we have to go to the electorate with credible promises. We can demonstrate how Labour in government can no longer rely on market forces. Labour can show it is intervening to lift new starts now. And we need to offer bold commitments to build large numbers of affordable units wherever they are needed to reduce waiting lists, create jobs )mopping up slack in the construction industry), and training anew to keep pace with labour market shortages of skilled trades people. Tory Councils holding up house building, and /or refusing to insist on at least 50% affordbale social housing igrantin planning permission should be exposed for denying people affordable homes.

Of course,  Conservative 'shadow' housing minister Grant Shapps claims the data is "another failed Labour statistic". No, more a load of Shappstrap - it's a failed Blairite/New Labour statistic. That's why I remain puzzled by the idea that Tony Blair who vetoed council house building as Prime Minister can be of any help to Labour in the forthcoming election.

I just hope these NHF figures are a further reminder to Prime Minister Gordon Brown to reposition Labour as the party of government that intervenes in markets to ensure people's needs are met.

Labour delivering: more cash for council housing

Don't take my word for it. Read all about it here. Property Week reports:

The government has almost doubled its investment in building new council housing in what it has labelled the largest spending in the sector “for at least two decades”, in a sign of Labour setting out its priorities compared to the Conservatives ahead of the election.

Labour's core vote needs to ask would Cameron's Tories invest in housing for you? To which the answer would be yes, but it would be private and they would have to make a profit out of your need.

Tory beggar my neighbour policy: Vote Labour

You heard it from the man himself, David (begger my neighbour) Cameron. The response is obviousl. Vote Labour.

Election campaigning: Billboards

The Labour Party obviously has some friends left, even in the Murdoch press. This cartoon in today's Times highlights the potential folly of billboard campaiging in British General Elections. If this is an example of how the Conservatives are going to outspend Labour..go CCO..keep up the good work.

Iraq war II inquiry: will it be open and wide-ranging?

I'm just hoping that the Prime Minister Gordon Brown is going to take everyone by surprise and announce an open and wide-ranging inquiry into the second Iraq War at 3.30pm this afternoon. Any attempt to save his predecessor's blushes, his own or those of the opposition Conservative Party are unlikely to endear him to the electorate, or the vast majority of Labour Party members.

UPDATE: 1600 - Open - NO, wide-ranging - POSSIBLY, timetable - too long, subject to parliamentary debate - NO. Personally, this is not a statement I could defend in public, given repeated statements from the PM about openness and accountability. Another lost opportunity.

More prefer Labour government to Tory: Conservativehome

Buried at the bottom of this posting on Conservativehome is the following statement:

The only serious caution for David Cameron comes with a question that forces voters to choose between Labour or the Conservatives: "44 per cent would still prefer a Labour government and 42 per cent a Conservative one. This is despite 72 per cent dissatisfaction with Labour."

Everything still to work for, which is why Save the Labour Party is calling for an emergency Labour Party NEC.

Euros: What's in Westminster water?

Having just seen the declarations in Wales and Yorkshire and the Humber, I am wondering what's in the water in Westminster and the City? Labour was down 12 % points in Wales and 7.5 % points in Yorks and Humber.

City of Westminster 2009 (2004)

Conservative 42% (38%)
Labour 18% (21%) - down 3% points
Green Party 13% (9%)
Lib-Dem 12% (14%)
UKIP 8% (10%)
BNP 3% (2%)

Turnout 28.76% (35.63%)

City of London 2009 (2004)

Conservative 33% (32%)
Lib-Dem 19% (18%)
Labour 16% (20%) - down 4% points
Green 15% (12%)
UKIP 9% (11%)
BNP 2% (2%)

Turnout 34.56% (36.97%)

Perhaps its because we have been out campaigning fairly regularly.

Cameron laid bare

An image for the era? If there is a prize for the cartoon worth more than a thousand words, this must be a strong contender.

But was it drawn before the duck-pond story quacked broke?

An austerity Parliament: Labour's opportunity

Baying for blood might increase newspaper circulation. It is not going to save parliamentary democracy. Calls for Speaker Martin's head are an inglorious distraction from thinking though who and what must follow the rotten, corrupt state of our party politics.

Rank-and-file members of political parties are virtually the only people who remain truly honorable in our party political democracy. It is they who should have a dominant say in how events unfold. The industrial wing of the Labour  Party - the trade unions will hopeful take the opportunity to remind both government ministers and PLP representatives of how many of their members are at risk of summary dismissal for making an error on an expenses claim, let alone an extravagant or fraudulent one.

Weeding out the wannabees in Labour's ranks is the task of the moment. But not on the back of Torygraph reports. I'm currently getting stick from Labour Party members for putting too much faith in the review of MPs expenses back five-years to be overseen (I understand) by the National Audit Office. The Labour Party (whether it's Head Office, regional offices or CLPs) does not have the resources to weed out the possible frauds and even the property scams. Extravagant claims are probably easier to spot. I first called for NEC action involving CLPs last Sunday here. The 'within the rules' defence was shot long before this scandal broke by the Green Book guide to parliamentary allowances, for anyone who had bothered to read it. Ministers who persist in using that defence deserve summary dismissal from government. Failure to repay must occasion deselection, with the worst offenders banned from restanding at all. I have admiration for the voluntary repayers where there is no question of misleading the Fees Office. But it should be left to CLPs to decide in the first instance.

However, that only deals with the past. What about the future? Is the public really going to stomach second-home purchases at the tax-payers expenses? That's a subject about which the Tories are currently unremarkably quiet. Oh yes, extravagant claims must be repaid, but building a property portfolio from the public purse, oh, no - wholly and necessarily incurred on parliamentary duties. Does the Labour Party want to continue to field candidates for Parliament that have Establishment aspirations? This touches on levels of pay, as well as expectations about London accommodation for out-of-London MPs. I suggested a lodging allowance linked to voting records here. Then there are questions about the size of Parliament itself and the Executive (or government). Personally, I would not follow the Conservative herd demanding a cull - fewer MPs in the next Parliament. Instead there should be a major reduction in members of the second chamber. A constitutional reform package ending prime ministerial patronage, slashing the size of the Executive and minsters pay and perks, abolition of the House of Lords, the creation of an-elected slimmed down second chamber, recall rights to enable citizens to demand by-elections to hold elected members of both chambers to account, reduced roles for the Whips would all seem essential to improve accountability and reduce costs. This is a national debate Labour should be leading. 

Austerity for the nation demands an austerity Parliament and executive starting now. If that means some MPs have to take out new mortgages to pay back some of their ill-gotten gains - tough. At least they will learn first hand another practical lesson about what the credit crunch means for working people when your income is frozen, cut, or gone.