Will they be dancing in the streets of Raith?

The prime minister will soon be heading back to Kirkcaldy for the festive break. A well-known story claims that following a good result by the prime minister's team, Raith Rovers, a football commentator ignorant of geography claimed 'They'll be dancing in the streets of Raith.'

Gordon Brown is probably not a man for dancing but, even if he was, he might not be in a mood for a jig. He tried to send Labour MPs away from Westminster with a positive message, but as Peter Riddell has pointed out, many of Labour's wounds are self-inflicted. The problems started with the encouragement of the view that there would be an early election, only to walk away when the figures didn't look so good.

If you were invited to the Brown household for lunch (a rather good home cooked lamb stew, shop bought rhubarb tart and a glass of supermarket wine if you wanted one), what words of comfort would you offer?

Some Labour MPs think that the election of Dave Cameron's 'stunt double', Nick Clegg, as Liberal Democrat leader will take votes away from the Conservatives. Clegg has not shown a very sure hand by first declaring himself an atheist and then saying his children are being brought up as Catholics.

Although the polls are not good for Labour, they are not disastrous. A ten point lead is not as bad as the 30 per cent lead Tony Blair had two years before the 1997 election. The Conservatives are not find it easy to get consistently about 40 per cent and there are some doubts about Dave, the quality of his team below the top level and the fuzziness of his policies.

But Gordon really has to get a grip and to show that he is in command of the government and has a distinctive and clear strategy. And the economic news next year may not turn out to be so bad as expected with the central banks coordinating effectively to inject liquidity into the markets and the MPC disposed to make further cuts in interest rates.

The N Word

Yes, it has reared its head in relation to Northern Rock and not just from the lips of Vince Cable. Nationalisation of the troubled mortgage lender has been given a de facto blessing 'urbis et orbe' by no less a figure than the Governor of the Bank of England.

Those of us old enough to remember the 1970's shudder at the thought of reverting to the policy of rescuing failed companies. But potentially each taxpayer has already pledged £2,000 to the cause of Northern Rock given that the Bank has now guaranteed institutional loans to the Newcastle based bank.

Apparently nationalisation could be a good idea as it would stop the shareholders (of whom there are a lot of individual ones) blocking sensible plans to restructure the company. It might then be possible to sell off chunks of the bank to other lenders and private equity companies, recouping most of the money.

It will, however, create another opportunity for the Conservatives to attack the Government for mismanagement.

Is Brown disengaging from Brussels?

Gordon Brown claimed that he was unable to attend the signing of the EU reform treaty in Lisbon last week because of a 'diary clash'. But surely his meeting with the House of Commons Liaison Committee could have been re-scheduled? As it was, Britain was the only country not represented in Lisbon at head of government level and David Miliband, standing in for his boss, was reduced to shaking hands with an usher.

Brown also went to the EU summit in Brussels via London and it was his first visit there since he succeeded Tony Blair in June. When he was Chancellor Brown was far from keen on attending meetings of the Ecofin Council. Is Brown disengaging from Brussels?

The problem is that Britain has to be there to exert influence and the efforts of the Permanent Representation will not succeed if they are not backed up at the highest political level. Britain's influence is needed to counter French protectionism with Mr Barroso softening his pro-market views to take account of French and German concerns as he seeks reappointment in 2009.

Social mobility still at 1970s levels

Social mobility in the UK remains far lower than in most other advanced nations in spite of the government's professed determination to tackle inequality, according to research undertaken by LSE for the Sutton Trust. The potential for children born in 2000 to move to a higher income bracket than their parents is still as low as it was for children in the 1970s.

The researchres found that childern's life chances were still firmly linked to parental background. For example, children from affluent backgrounds who did badly in test scores when aged three tended to overtake poorer but more gifted children by the age of seven.

The report highlighted inequalities among those gaining university degrees. While 44 per cent of young people from the wealthiest households acquired a degree in 2002, just 10 per cent from the poorest fifth did so.

The report casts doubt on the effectiveness of government reforms to tackle class inequality. The issue of social mobility is a central pillar of Gordon Brown's plans for a Britain in which people can achieve their aspirations. In September he called for a 'genuinely meritocratic Britain.'

The underlying issue is how effective - and how proper - government intervention is in what happens in families. A good education system is unlikely to succeed if there is not parental support and encouragement to their children.

Tackiest Christmas stunt?

This must count as the tackiest Christmas photo involving a politician so far this Yuletide, but apparently Lembit Opik is about to propose to his Romanian cheeky girl singer companion, Gabriella. Bring on the asteroids!

Meanwhile, the best leader the Lib Dems never had, Vince Cable, has done his last Prime Minister's Question Time. The nation waits will with bated breath: will it be Nick or Chris? One of them could decide who is PM after the next general election, except that it couldn't be Chris as he might have lost his highly marginal seat. Perhaps Vince could be brought back in those circumstances?

Who would be Home Secretary?

Being Home Secretary must be one of the toughest jobs in British politics, even though some of the responsibilities have been transferred to the new Justice department. Roy Jenkins wrote an interesting piece about the role many years ago in which he recalled that one was at the mercy of unexpected events. For example, the 'Mad Axeman' escaped from Dartmoor. People came to the conclusion that he was equipped with his axe and might lay about them at any time when in fact he was being disposed of by his criminal compatriots.

To some extent Jacqui Smith's troubles are of her own making, although Gordon Brown is also fully involved. Deferring the introduction of the police pay increase will only save £40m for the exchequer, and cost the average copper £200 over the course of a year, but it has incensed the boys in blue. Their concern is that it undermines the arbitrarion mechanism set up by Mrs Thatcher which followed years of low pay awards under incomes policies which led to a substantial number of departures from the force.

Public reaction has not been entirely sympathetic to the police, pointing out that they are far from badly paid. On the other hand, given the complexity of their duties and the challenges they face, one would expect quite a high level of pay.

If £40m is crucial, the public finances must be in a worst state that we had thought. Gordon Brown says that holding firm on public sector pay is essential for the fight against inflation, but this settlement hardly seems inflationary. One suspects that the government has caused an avoidable political storm, and upset another group of voters, for little real gain.

How to start a panic

Internet sources are bigging up the possibility of a fuel protest at the weekend:
Fuel

This sort of thing can become a self-fulfilling prophecy as motorists start to panic and fuel pumps run dry.

The Financial Times had a much more sensible piece pointing out the obstacles in the way of an effective protest:
1. The police have a new set of instructions and would not allow blockades of refineries to develop as they did in 2000 (mind you, the police are not exactly in a good mood with the government after they didn't get the full pay rise they were promised)
2. A similar attempt in 2005 failed.
3. Staging such a protest just before Christmas would hardly be an effective way to win popular support.

History and Policy website

This website is run by historians and seeks to provide a better understanding of public policy through an historical perspective. There is, for example, an authoritative short account of New Public Management.

Visit the site here: History

Breaking the Alastair Campbell rule

Alastair Campbell used to say that if you allowed a bad news story to dominate the headlines for more than four days, you were in trouble. Labour are certainly in trouble with the 'dodgy donations' scandal. Every time they try and get on top of the story, a new revelation emerges, this time about Peter Hain and the deputy leadership contest.

Wendy Alexander, Labour's leader in Scotland, is under heavy pressure to resign. She is a loyal Brownite and if she went the position of the hapless Harriet Harman might then be in question which would be even more damaging to the Government.

Gordon Brown has talked of looking at the whole system of funding. Ultimately, this could mean 'state' funding of political parties which means taxpayer funding. Parties have made themselves so unappealing to the average citizen that memberships have plummeted. Nevertheless, the structuring of choice they provide is essential to a modern democracy.

From Stalin to Mr Bean

For all the puffed up hyperbole of David Cameron, it is often the meditative and quietly spoken Vince Cable who launches the effective punches at Prime Minister's Questions. He did so yesterday by noting the transformation of Gordon Brown from 'Stalin to Mr Bean'. Actually, I am not sure that Private Eye's characterisation of Gordon as Stalin has ever really worked and has certainly never been as funny as the musings of the Revd. Tony Blair.

Incompetence and sleaze are bad enough, but problems in the economy could be more troubling for New Labour. British, or more specifically English, people have a great faith in 'bricks and mortar' as an investment. Indeed, some treats their homes as their main pension pot.

Now it is not just 'buy to let' apartments that are proving hard to sell. House prices in the fevered London market fell by 0.6 per cent in October. Even more worrying, the credit crunch means that smaller lenders are finding it difficult to get any more cash to land or only at very high rates of interest.

The growing multiple of incomes to house prices was never sustainable and although a correction will be seen as bad news, in fact it is good news for those trying to get a foot on the housing ladder.

The competence problem

Given the lack of a sharp ideological divide between the major parties, governing competence is increasingly the standard by which governments are judged. Gordon Brown's government has encountered a series of problems which, if they continue, will make them look as accident prone as that of John Major.

It was a breach of procedures to burn vast amounts of confidential data on to disks for the National Audit Office. The NAO should have come to Washington and examined them in a secure room. It was also a clear error to then dispatch them by an insecure means of transit. Any organisation is only as good as its weakest link.

A more underlying systemtic problem is the state of HM Revenue and Customs with its reported bags of unopened post. Did the merger of the Inland Revenue and the reputedly more savvy Customs and Excise three years ago create an unwieldly bureaucracy?

Morale and the ability to operate effectively appears to have been effected by a series of cutbacks in staffing. We saw in the case of the Rural Payments Agency how such cutbacks can create chaos. They are a popular way of saving money when the public finances are under pressure. But they may have undermined the ability of a vital government service to operate effectively.

'Goats' under scrutiny

Gordon Brown's 'government of all the talents' came under scrutiny last week as Lord West, a self-described 'simple sailor' turned security minister blamed his political inexperience for misstating his own pre-trial detention policy.

By ennobling four Westminster outsiders - an admiral, a businessman, a surgeon and a UN diplomat - and entrusting them with ministerial briefs, Mr Brown sought to show he valued unvarnished, expert advice. The idea was to portray the prime minister as a national leader rather than a tribal politician.

Not all the new ministers have found public politics plain saling. This has aggravated the resentment among some MPs who have seen outsiders rise rapidly in government. On several occasions, the foreign office minister Lord Malloch Brown has put himself on the wrong side of agreed British policy. Labour colleagues also did not like him describing himself as the 'wise eminence' behind the foreign secretary.

Lord Digby Jones, the former CBI director-general, has proved to be an energetic and enthusiastic trade minister. But he has courted controversy by voting just once in his first few months in the Lords. Lord Darri, a surgeon turned minister has won plaudits for the first stage of his NHS review. Lord West is also spoken of in the highest regard by those who work with him.

Bringing outsiders into government is not a new idea. Harold Macmillan relied heavily on his personal friend and industrialist Lord Percy Mills who held a number of ministerial posts.

Attempt to engage public fails

The Brown Government is keen to engage the public in the policy-making process through a number of new mechanisms. However, attempts to have what Gordon Brown called a 'widespread and informed' debate on the Queen's Speech have sunk in a slough of public apathy.

Only 71 people have responded to a cross-Whitehall online consultation on the draft legislative programme and many of the comments have little, if any, relevance to the proposed bills. For example, one posting states: 'I would love to use my bike more, but the state of the roads in Warrington are pretty bad.'

An invitation to e-mail Harriet Harman, the leader of the Commons, with thoughts on proposed legislation generated about 50 messages, but that was better than the three substantive comments received by the Scottish Office website.

The Government did also stage a series of regional events, but officials have been coy about how many turned up. One run in London cost £50,000 despite the Whitehall venue being made available free of charge.

Different forms of engagement may do little to overcome a fundamental distrust of the 'political class'.

The regulatory state is very much with us

Mick Moran developed the concept of the regulatory state as an ideal type to explain how the 'command' or Keynesian welfare state had been displaced by a state in which regulation was a predominant form of government activity. The regulatory state is very much part of the depoliticisation debate. Some writers have suggested that it allows government more effective indirect mechanisms of control while shifting the blame for failures elsewhere.

It is interesting to see how much the term 'regulation' featured in the Queen's Speech. There were proposals for 'stronger health and social care regulation'. The regulation of human embryology is to be reformed, as is party finance and structure.

Away from the speech itself, plans were announced for a new government agency to oversee the use of biofuels in the UK, in an attempt by ministers to dampen criticism of the government's renewable fuels strategy. The Renewable Fuels Agency will seek to ensure that biofuels are not imported from areas where they contribute to rising greenhouse gas emissions by supplanting areas of natural forest.

Against the background of all this activity, it was interesting to see that the Queen's Speech also promised 'a measure to reduce regulatory burdens on business.' In practice the greatest regulatory impact, particularly in small businesses, is in the areas of human resources and health and safety legislation. However, much of the regulatory burden in these areas is driven by the EU so it is difficult to see how it can be readily reduced by domestic legislation.

Under the Blair Government (although initiated by Gordon Brown's Treasury) the Hampton Review sought to tackle complaints about regulation by merging smaller agencies. In some cases, however, this rather mechanistic policy may have rather perverse effects, as is evident in relation to the debate about the future of one regulatory agency I am involved in.

In the Blair-Brown transition, there was some evidence of more sophisticated thinking in the Brown camp about looking at some of the economic and social costs of regulation which is often driven by media demands that government 'do something' about a particular problem. But so far it has borne little fruit.

It's all at the Co-op now - including Dave

At one time the Co-operative Party, the political arm of the Labour movement, was a separate entity from the Labour Party, but not for long. It became an affiliate of the Labour Party and something of a rotten borough (John Stonehouse, who tried to stage his own disappearance to avoid criminal proceedings, was one of its MPs). There are still technically 29 Co-op MPs who receive financial assistance from the Co-op.

The Co-op used to be a very big part of everyday life (see It Was All At The Co-op. (Scroll down) It's still a significant retail player, particularly in insurance and funerals.

Now David Cameron has launched the Conservative Co-operative Movement to help people run their own public services. Defending this foray into traditional Labour territory, the Conservative leader said: 'The co-operative principle captures precisely the vision of progress that we on the centre-right believe in: the idea of social responsibility, that we're all in this together, that there is such a thing as society - it's not just the same thing as the state.'

The reference to society is a direct repudiation of Mrs Thatcher's statement that 'there is no such thing as society' in her Women's Own interview. Actually, like many statements of this kind, it has been taken out of context, Mrs Thatcher's point being that things like family and community were more comprehensible to most people than abstractions like society.

Millionnaire minister quits to drive racing car

If one had written this headline twenty or thirty years ago, the assumption would have been that the minister was a Conservative one. But Lord Drayson, who will be driving a bio-ethanol car in the Le Mans racing series, held unpaid posts in the business and defence departments. In fact, he has not left the posts altogether, but taken leave of absence, which is a new concept for me in relation to ministerial posts.

'Lord Who?' you might ask. As a millioniare Labour donor and the winner, via his former company, Powerjet, of a lucrative government contract, the 47-year old peer was the subject of controversy when Tony Blair awarded him a life peerage in 2004 and brought him into government a year afterwards. But he is regarded as having been a highly effective minister, pushing through reforms to a reluctant defence bureaucracy and insular industry.

What many in business circles sees as disturbing is that there is no replacement for him as a dedicated minister for better regulation. His role is being divided among existing ministers. This chimes with some rather contradictory messages about the 'regulatory state' arising from the Queen's Speech about which I will write subsequently.

Immigration comes to the fore

A MORI poll shows that race relations and immigration are currently rated by voters (some 40 per cent) as the most important issue facing Britain, even ahead of the National Health Service.

Making the issue respectable could help the Conservatives, but there are also downside risks as is shown by the resignation of the prospective Conservative candidate for a Midlands constituency after he praised the controversial stance taken by Enoch Powell.

Governments always get themselves in trouble when they are shown to have got the figures wrong and this is what happened over migration. Not only did it appear that the Government has lost track of the number of migrant workers (which is not easy to measure), it also emerged that foreigners were taking most of the country's new jobs.

Gordon Brown opened himself up to criticism on this issue by pledging that his government would work with business to give 'a British job to every British worker.' Official figures have shown that fewer British workers are now in work than at any time in the past five years. Of 2.17m jobs created since 1997, 1.13m have been filled by foreigners. The most recent figures show that the number of Britons in work is falling while employment of both EU and non-EU foreign nationals continues to rise.

Some industries such as horticulture are highly dependent on foreign labour, in part organised through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers' Scheme (SAWS) which from next year is confined to Bulgarians and Romanians. The fact that, say, lettuces are readily and cheaply available in British shops reflects the presence of these workers.

Why not use workers from the local unemployed pool? It's not just that they will not work at minimum wages. Growers will tell you that such workers often turn up late or do not turn up at all and have less good work habits than their East European counterparts.

David Cameron has called for a 'grown up conversation' about population growth and the strains it imposes on public services. He has linked this to a broader debate about the 'atomisation' of society related to the growth in single person households linked to higher divorce rates and later marriages.

Tory strategists believe that Gordon Brown's patriotic rhetoric has opened a window for the opposition party to debate the issue without appearing racist. The 'are you thinking what we're thinking?' message in the last general election was coded, but probably not subtly enough.

Conservative Party chairman [sic] Caroline Spellman has been careful to emphasise that the issue should be discussed, but in a restrained and sensitive way.

Command Chancellorship no more

The relationship between the Prime Minister and Chancellor is one of the most important and sometimes the most fraught in British politics. For ten years we have been used the first Command Chancellorship since Neville Chamberlain was in the role when Baldwin was prime minister.

Not any more. It looks as if Gordon Brown's fingerprints were all over the leaked govenrment decision to make concessions to business on capital gains tax, showing that the PM has not abandoned his old Treasury fiefdom. This contrasts with Tony Blair's relative neglect of economic and financial policy and the defiance that Gordon Brown showed when he did try to intervene.

Alastair Darling had vigorously defended his CGT regime in defiance of criticisms from business. Now he has learnt about his admittedly limited climbdown from the press and will have to make a formal announcement to clarify the position.

Chancellors who have been subservient to the prime minister have never done very well in the job, Antony Barber being the prime example. For some time Alastair Darling has positioned himself as someone who was close to Mr Brown but not under his control. However, as a somewhat confused Downing Street intervention on bin tax showed, we can expect more of the same.

The King is dead, long live the King!

Who was the best prime minister we never had?

A few years back I read an interesting book about the 'nearly men' who might have become prime minister but didn't. I am not talking about failed leaders of the opposition here, who have grown in number in recent years, but senior politicians who failed to make the top grade: the likes of Iain Macleod (robbed by early death), 'Rab' Butler and Dennis Healey.

In connection with its annual Awards Ceremony at the end of November the Political Studies Association is running a poll on the 'best prime minister we never had'. Of course, it's all a bit of fun, but it opens up some interesting 'what if' questions about British political history.

Let's narrow the rather long list provided by the PSA and YouGov to four contenders: three Conservatives - 'Rab' Butler, Michael Heseltine and Kenneth Clarke - and one Labour politician, Dennis Healey.

'Rab' had as many as three chances to become prime minister, although perhaps only two were credible: when Macmillan succeeded Eden and when Sir Alec replaced Macmillan. On all these occasions Rab lacked the steel to plunge the knife, and maybe that's a required quality of a prime minister: a certain toughness. Rab was the epitome of diffidence, although the death of his first wife was also a major setback for him. Incidentally, I understand that psephologist David Butler is his cousin.

'Hezza' was one of the big beasts of British politics. He has recently taken back control of his beloved Haymarket Press which I nearly went to work for in 1968. I interviewed Hezza a couple of years ago and he was in fine form. But I think that if he had succeeded Margaret Thatcher he would have torn the Conservative Party apart by trying to repudiate the Thatcher legacy. British politics would have looked very different.

Ken Clarke was the most credible leader the Conservatives had after 1997. He has a certain 'blokeish' appeal and could probably have landed some punches on Tony Blair compared with William Hague, a talented individual for whom it all came too early. But, of course, Ken is an unashamed Europhile and that makes him persona non grata in the Conservative Party these days, particularly among activists who preferred the hapless Iain Duncan Smith.

I actually gave my vote to Dennis Healey. In part this is because I like him as a person and hope to meet him again at the Awards Ceremony. He is a political bruiser, but you have to be. He is also a very cultivated man, who is proud of his intellectual 'hinterland'. The last time I met him he quoted his latest poem at me. I am not saying it was very good, but how many politicians try?

Dennis was Chancellor during a very difficult time for Britain after the first oil shock. When I last met him, Gordon Brown was at No.11 and he drew a contrast between the global circumstances Gordon was dealing with and the ones he had to face.

If Dennis had won the leadership after Callaghan stood down, he would have had a chance of winning the 1983 election. Rather than writing the longest suicide note in history in its election manifesto and getting in a race for second place with the Liberal/Social Democrat Alliance, Labour could have mounted a credible challenge to Margaret Thatcher, Falklands War or no Falklands War (the effects of which are still disputed by psephologists).

Of course, all this is the stuff of those 'what if' books you see on airport bookstalls. After a while, their alternative scenarios run out of steam. But it's an interesting form of speculation that can be instructive.

The age question

I heard Vince Cable, the acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, being interviewed on the radio this morning as I drove to work. Although I thought he was taking a rather utopian 'holier than thou' stance on Britain's relations with Saudi Arabia (which it is always easy for Liberals to do as they never have the responsibility of government), I did think that he put over his case very effectively.

He has ruled himself out of the Lib Dem leadership case because of his age. Of course, that was what did for Ming, although somewhow he looked older than his years, while Cable looks younger than 64. It's odd that with an ageing electorate, and with older people far more likely to vote, it's thought that the optimal age for a party leader is 40.

Of course, I know that technology and associated social mores are changing very rapidly, e.g., Facebook. Someone who is in middle age can perhaps still communicate with the young and with the older generation (although some young people communicate effectively with their grandparents).

Perhaps the relevant variable is experience. Even an older Lib Dem has no experience of government. But then neither does Dave Cameron. Tony Blair didn't when he became prime minister, although I think that was the source of some of his subsequent problems.

The West Lothian question rears its head

New proposals on the so-called 'West Lothian Question' have been put to the Conservatives by Sir Malcolm Rifkind: West Lothian . Is his East Lothian response to the original West Lothian question posed by Tam Dalyell a piece of political mischief making or a contribution to an issue on which the recent Green Paper on governance is strangely silent?

With Scotland having its own SNP government, there is something anomalous about Scottish MPs being allowed to vote on, for example, health and education issues that affect only England. Of course, in part this is a consequence of having devolution in three parts of the UK, but no general federal settlement (which is not possible given that even the north-east, which has a stronger regional identity than most, did not want an elected regional government - quite rightly in my view).

Of course, even with the reduced number of Scottish MPs following devolution, Labour can depend on Scottish seats for a majority. And the issue is particularly awkward for a Scottish prime minister of the UK who is keen on emphasising 'Britishness'.

The issue acquires new salience with the Scottish 'Government' seeking to take measures such as free prescriptions for all. Such bounty is only possible because of the 'Barnett Formula' which allocates funds between the three parts of the UK. It was devised by Joel Barnett, then Chief Secretary of the Treasury, in 1978 although he subsequently said that he did not think it would last a year or even twenty minutes.

It ensures that Scotland gets more money per capita than England. Its defenders insist that Scotland needs more money because of its remote populations in the Highlands and Islands, plus the additional health care costs that arise from many Scots following unhealthy lifestyles in terms of smoking and alcohol consumption. Scottish Nationalists also claim that Scotland has been robbed of its oil revenues by the English.

As an Englishman of Scottish (and Cornish) descent, I wouldn't want to take sides. But, party politics aside, there has to be some resolution of the implications for England of devolution to Scotland, which is likely to be more extensive over time.

What is the new Business Council for?

I am old enough to remember the heyday of the National Economic Development Council (NEDC). During the heyday of tripartism from 1962 to 1979, the Council provided a meeting point for government, business and unions. Indeed, the 'Neddy Six', the six TUC members of the NEDC, provided a key interface between the unions and the government. Neddy limped on under Margaret Thatcher until it was painlessly put to sleep by John Major.

Nowadys government wants to be seen on good terms with big business. Tony Blair's stated ambition was to make Labour 'the natural party of business'. He particularly liked talking to chief executives of big American organisations and shadowy bodies like the Multinational Chairmen's Group. However, when the European Round Table of business leaders went to No.10 shortly after Tony took up residence and asked him to take Britain into the euro, to their chagrin they were told 'no can do'. And the reason was, of course, that Gordon would not countenance such a step.

Now Gordon is in No.10 and the emphasis is on transparency as well as inclusivity. He has set up a business council made up of fifteen business leaders, more of half of whom are knights or dames. They read like a list of the business great and good and inevitably include such ubitiquous figures as Sir Richard Branson (who might well be our president if we had a republic) and barrow boy made good Sir Alan Sugar. On the government side at the first meeting last week were Gordon himself, His Master's Voice (Alastair Darling) and the business and skills secretaries.

The stated purpose of these worthies is to act as a 'sounding board' for the prime minister, 'giving him a strategic business perspective on government policies and operations'. When the council met last week the agenda included 'human capital, globalisation and climate change.' The first meeting lasted two-and-a-half hours (and the business leaders won't have got much sustenance given that No.10 probably uses the cheeseparing Government Hospitality Service who were in evidence at No.11 and seem to have some connection with Buck House).

What was not discussed was the ongoing row about Capital Gains Tax which has set much of business opinion against government. Sources close to No.10 said that business leaders had been warned in advance not to mention the pre-Budget report.

Alsatair Darling held his own meeting on the subject with Britain's 'four main business groups' (presumably the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses). The Government is apparently willing to consider 'marginal' changes to the CGT decision, but has ruled out any reinstatement of the taper relief or indexation allowance.

I don't think this was a very well thought through decision and it could damage what has generally been an effective relationship between New Labour and business. However, whether the Conservatives will be able to make much political capital out of it is another matter. It's a big issue if you are a small business person (although it doesn't seem to have percolated the thinking of my daughter who is active in her local chamber of commerce). However, as of last week, only 13,578 has signed the relevant petition on the Downing Street website and 600 people have joined a Facebook group called 'entrepreneurs against the abolition of taper relief.' Sounds fun.

Identikit candidates in Lib Dem race

The two declared candidates, and likely front runners, in the race for the Liberal Democrat leadership - Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne have a number of remarkable similarities:

* Both went to fee-paying Westminster School
* Both are former MEPs
* Both have wives from elsewhere in the EU
* Both share a relatively liberal economic philosphy

The latter is a problem for both of them, given that Liberal activists who are the electorate tend to lean to the left. In the last leadership campaign, Chris Huhne tried to edge towards the left.

There is, however, one big difference between the candidates that has been little commented on. Chris Huhne has a knife edge majority of 568 in the Hampshire constituency of Eastleigh. Nick Clegg represents the leafy part of Sheffield (Sheffield, Hallam) where he had a majority of 8,682 and over 51 per cent of the vote at the last election. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to go into a general election with the leader having to give much of his attention to holding his own seat, perhaps then to lose it as a hung Parliament gave the Lib Dems a real chance of a share of power.

The telegenic Clegg is the same age as David Cameron and shares a not dissimilar background. But he rejects suggestions that he is 'Cameron lite' and looks like the best bet for the Lib Dems. But a lot could happen between now and December.

Brown under the cosh on referendum

As Gordon Brown attends the EU summit in Lisbon, he is under the cosh from the British media on the subject of a referendum on the new treaty. One poll suggests that 75 per cent of British voters would like such a referendum.

Brown's strategy seems to be to hope that everyone will have forgotten about it by the time of a general election two years away, particularly given that most voters are more interested in subjects like health and education. However, it could set back attempts to re-buid his image, particularly given that he has placed emphasis on 'trusting the people'.

Under some media pressure, Tony Blair did agree to a referendum on the original constitutional treaty, although there was no referendum on the substantial extensions of EU power brought about by the Single European Act (approved when Mrs Thatcher was prime minister) or the Maastricht treaty.

The claim made by the Government is that the treaty has been significantly altered and that key British concerns are now protected by 'opt outs'. This was the line David Miliband was attempting to take in a Radio 5 interview this morning, but he seemed to be wriggling under pressure.

Ultimately it would need a lawyer specialising in the EU to rule on these matters, but although the revised version of the Treaty is somewhat different, and certainly upset the French, it is more difficult to claim that it is substantially different. However, calling a referendum would land the Government would even greater political problems, particularly if it was turned into a de facto vote on Brown's premiership.

Church and State

For the past few days I have been reading up on the subject of the Establishment of the Church and England. Why? Because the Political Studies Association is preparing a response to the summer Green Paper on Governance and I have drawn the short straw.

Should one bother about the issue at all? Well it occupies over two pages in the Green Paper, admittedly some of it on arcane topics like Royal Peculiars. It has been a challenge for me to get my head round some of the issues. But advocates of modernisation would argue that we should not stop short at the Church-State boundary, particularly in a multi-faith society.

It should also be noted that there could be a crisis if the current Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne and proceeds with his intention to be 'Defender of Faith' rather than Defender of the Faith which is what as Supreme Governor of the Church he is supposed to do. But then some would argue that the whole notion of a Supreme Governor is a contradiction.

It's actually quite difficult to work out what the distribution of allegiance to different faiths is in the UK. The 2001 census contained a question on the issue for the first time since 1851. The results were complicated by the fact that, in a protest at the question, 390,000 people classified themeselves as 'Jedi knights', making them a larger grouping that Buddhists, Jews or Sikhs.

If the Jedi Knights are treated as no religion, then 71.6 per cent of the population professes to be Christian. The next largest group is Mulsims with 2.7 per cent. Only 15.5 per cent state that they have no religion.

However, opinion poll data in response to the question 'Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?' produces a different response. 41 per cent said 'none'. Of course, the question implies membership. 29 per cent said that they were Church of England/Anglican as against 11 per cent Catholics, although the evidence suggests that there the Catholic church now has more regular communicants than the Church of England.

The explanation for this paradox is that there are many people who are baptised members of the Church of England but have little or no regular contact with the Church, something that goes to the essence of an Established Church. When I had an entry in International Who's Who I listed myself as an 'Anglican'.

What does that mean in my case (and I suspect many other nominal members of the C of E? It means that I went to a C of E primary school, as all my grandchildren of school age do (although at least one of their parents is a more regular attender at church than I have ever been). I hence received a substantial early grounding in the theology of the Anglican Church which remains with me to this day.

The Church of England is divided into three main factions: Anglo-Catholic; Broad Church Liberal; and Evangelical (this is a bit of an over simplification but will do). Many Anglo-Catholics eventually 'go over' to Rome and the numbers have increased since the introduction of women priests. However, others hope that one day the Church of England will overcome the 'Henrician anomaly' and re-unite with the Roman Catholic church, but possibly with a separate Anglican rite. Arguments over theological questions with Catholic friends always come down to the doctrine of transubstantiation which I certainly cannot accept.

The Evangelicals are a growing force in the Church of England. In their more extreme versions, they resort to practices like speaking in tongues. They emphasise the literal truth of the Bible (including the Old Testament). They believe in the Protestant doctrine of the individual having a direct relationship with God with a limited role for intermediaries. My local church is in this camp and I would not enter it under any circumstances.

I would align with the broad church liberal camp. I welcome women priests and I have no objection to priests who are gay. I would set to one side most of the Old Testament and refer to the New Testament and in particular the Sermon on the Mount. And because I don't accept there was a bodily resurrection (as distinct from a renewed sense of Christ's presence among the disciples) I have never become a communicant member of the Church of England.

What I do see the Church of England is a national church which, in the words of a recent piece by the Bishop of Derby, aims at inclusivness and above all at being 'constantly available' to any citizen (as well as having a responsibility for the maintenance of much of the fabric of the national heritage, although perhaps someone else should pay for that). Others, such as the former Bishop of Woolwich want the Church 'to be responsible for God for their own corporate life, their own choice of leaders, their own ground rules of behaviour' so that they can 'seek release from their captivity.'

Clearly the present situation is full of anomalies. The Second Church Commissioner operates in effect as a kind of minister of ecclesiastical affairs, but was not able to give satisfaction to a MP whose constituent had been unable to get a bill settled by Bradford Cathedral despite taking them to court. The Bishops in the Upper House are something of an anomaly in a multi-faith society, but the creation of a wholly elected upper house could solve this problem.

There does appear to be a vade mecum available. Iain McLean of Oxford University has suggested a reform of Establishment on the 'Scottish model'. Reform It should be remembered that when the Queen is in Scotland she does not worship in the local branch of the Anglican Communion, the Episcopalian Church, but at the Kirk (the Church of Scotland). Given that, it is something of a mystery why the then Archbishop of Canterbury refused to give communion to the Moderator of the Church of Scotland at her Coronation in 1953.

The 'Scottish model' is disputed even in Scotland. But in essence it would mean that the Church of England would remain as a national church, but would be removed from political control. Many experts see the Green Paper as giving some encouragement in that direction.

Lembit Opik Lights up the Liberals

Although the Liberal Democrats have more than their fair share of men in suits (and relatively few women MPs), they also have their characters, in particular Mid-Wales MP Lembit Opik.

Opik first gained attention because of his demands for the Government to set up some sort of body to deal with the threat of asteroids colliding with the Earth (although presumably if one landed in Mid-Wales it would threaten more sheep than people).

He then took up with a very popular celebrity, weather woman Sian Lloyd. Known for her gesticulating weather forecasts which are sometimes parodied on satirical shows, Lloyd recently became the oldest woman (she is 49) ever to be voted 'rear of the year': Rear

Many might have thought that Opik was fortunate to be involved with such a personable and attractive woman, but he ditched Lloyd for one of two twenty-something sisters who form part of a 'Romanian cheeky singing duo.' Posteriors seem to feature in their songs, so perhaps there is a connection there with Lloyd.

Now Opik is the news after a meeting of indignant secretaries in the House of Commons who were protesting at a rule which stipulates that 'busy' MPs can jump the queue in the Commons canteen, post office etc. Not unreasonably, the hard pressed secretaries felt 'disrepected'.

Opik declared that he was their champion. The meeting was packed out with many left in the corridor, but Opik used his privileges to force his way in, only to be thrown out again.

Lembit Opik is not a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Democrats. But he is probably better known than many of the credible candidates who do not include the astute deputy leader, Vince Cable, who has declared himself 'too old' at 64.

Are you serious?

The picture from the Greenwich Mercury shows London mayoral candidate Boris Johnson contemplating traffic queueing for the Blackwall Tunnel which is one of the few routes to connect North and South London below Tower Bridge (there are three others: can anyone name them?) I sometimes stay near this road and the traffic goes on all night. Since the tidal flow system was stopped for health and safety reasons, the queues have got worse.

However, my real theme is not traffic problems in my birthplace Greenwich (which has been targeted for its own congestion zone). Now that a general election is out of the way until 2009/10 next year's London mayoral election becomes more significant. The Mercury describes Bozza as a 'maverick' and an 'eccentric', but harsher words have been used.

In a recent incident in the Commons, Bozza thought he was speaking about a proposed law but referred to the wrong section. Eltham MP and Millwall supporter Clive Efford had earlier given it large to Bozza. It all became too much for the former cab driver who had confronted nothing so ridiculous when asking 'Where to, guv?' and left the chamber in a fit of giggles.

Can one conceive a world city like London having Boris as its mayor? The Conservative selected him because at least he does have a profile unlike some Conservative (and New Labour) candidates who seem to have been turned out by a factory somewhere in Cheshire complete with a smart suit. Colleagues who go to schools a lot tell me that Bozza is popular with the young because he is not another identikit politician. The Liberals, by the way, will be fielding one of the highest ranking (now retired) gay policemen in the Met.

Red Ken is none too popular these days. Watch this space.

BTW, apologies to any one who has tried to post comments recently. I got that aspect in a bit of a tangle, but it should be ok now.

Age and politics

The population is ageing. People live longer and are fitter. Yet one of Ming Campbell's problems as leader of the Liberal Democrats was that he was perceived to be too old at 66.

Admittedly, he did look older than his age. But Winston Churchill first became prime minister when he was 65, admittedly at a time of great national emergency and was 80 when he left office. 'Supermac' was 62 when he took office and his successor, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, had turned 60. That was the age at which Harold Wilson felt he ought to retire.

Of course, only a few people knew at the time that Churchill had had a stroke in his last term as prime minister. Today, there is much greater transparency about the health of politicians. Given the rapid pace of technological change, a politician can seem older than his chronological age.

I think the Liberals' problems are more fundamental than the question of who is leader, although their current ratings are among their worst for 20 years. Where do they position themselves on the political spectrum? They got some electoral dividends in 2005 for being perceived as to the left of Labour. But is that a sustainable position, given that many of their seats are vulnerable to a swing to the Conservatives?

Their great hope is a hung Parliament and a changed electoral system which they think would benefit them. But, depending on the system adopted, other parties such as the Greens and parties of the far right could benefit as well.

Does social class still matter?

Successive generations of A level and University students of politics often had to deal with a question based on Peter Pulzer's famous quote: 'Class is the basis of British politics: all else is embellishment and detail.'

Conventional wisdom for some time has been that class is no longer a good predictor of voting or other forms of behaviour. Market researchers, particularly those working on consumer goods, have abandoned social class categorisations for lifestyle groups, reflecting a more fragmented society. To find out which 'Acorn' group you are in, go to: Up My Street

Nevertheless, the issue of social class has reared its head again with Dave Cameron, an old Etonian, as the Conservative leader. Of course, Tony Blair also went to a fee paying school and to Oxford, but he wasn't a member of the elitist Bullingdon Club which, it has been claimed, is 'characterised by debauched behaviour by rich young men in morning dress.' Whether it would be any better if they were wearing sports jackets and cords is a matter for you to decide.

Of course, wealth and income is no longer related to social origins in the way that it was. Britain has become a more metriocratic society, particularly if you have been to one of the better universities (no longer just the 'golden triangle' of Oxford, Cambridge and London).

Social class divisions still persist, although often expressed in postal code terms, e.g., CV31 versus CV32: the former area being less prosperous South Leamington, the latter being the more up market north of the Royal Spa.

They clearly still have some resonance, even if the social class divides are less clearly defined than they once were. Possibly David Cameron's origins can be exploited by Labour, although probably more effectively outside London and Southern England.

Of course, at the moment Labour seems to be falling out with Blairites getting their revenge on Brownites in the Sunday press. However, just as I thought the Labour lead the polls were showing was shallow and fragile, the same is true of Conservative leads now being shown.

The electorate remains volatile and probably the two main parties are level pegging which is certainly an improvement for the Conservatives. However, much of their gains have come from the Lib Dems who have been in free fall. Knives are already sharpening for the decent but electorally ineffective Ming Campbell. As Liberal spokesperson on foreign affairs, his age was an asset, but now it is handicap, particularly as he seems to be older than he actually is.

Where to guv?

Cab drivers in London feature prominently in the mythology of British culture and politics. Private Eye even has a column in which a mythical cab driver (sometimes based on a public figure) gives his absurd views on contemporary issues. Prince Philip rides round London in a cab converted to run on electricity and sometimes gets hailed by would be passengers.

'Doing the Knowledge' is one of the most arduous training and socialisation processes anywhere. I have a reasonably good memory but I couldn't begin to master all the 'routes' that my friend Kevin Portch has had to learn. Sat Nav? Don't mention it.

Kev said 'Where to guv?' for the first time on Friday. By tradition the first fare is free and it was a £23 one from Hoxton. The passenger (a well-known musician) gave £25 to charity.

Read about Kev's experiences here:
Portchy

A memorial meeting for Nelson Polsby

Today I attended a memorial meeting at Worcester College, Oxford, to celebrate the life of the American political scientist Nelson Polsby. Nelson was remembered with warmth by the many speakers which included the Chancellor of the University, Chris Patten who recalled when Nelson had come to observe him at work at the Conservative Research Department. Shirley Williams was in the audience, looking very sprightly.

Nelson Polsby was significant for the study of politics in the UK in at least three ways. First, he was of a generation of political scientists who had a real interest in politics, whereas at least some in succeding generations often seem to give priority to theory or technique over actual engagement with politics.

Second, he was not an Anglophile in the full sense of that word, but he had a great appreciation for and understanding of Britain (for example, reflected in a co-authored 1981 book Britain and its Discontents.) One speaker remarked that Nelson did attempt to imitate the upper class British accent, but seemed to think that everyone in that station in life seemed to speak like Roy Jenkins.

Third, he was one of the outstanding figures in a generation of American political scientists who saw Britain as a great comparator. Leon Epstein who died recently was in the same category. Another great figure is Harvard's Samuel Beer in his 97th year who took part at a panel at the APSA in Chicago in September. Younger political scientists in the US who look to Europe tend to be interested in the EU than a particular member state (invoking an implicit federal model in some cases).

I arrived in the morning for a planning meeting on a commemorative book and was almost bowled over by an academic procession going in the opposite direction. Headed by an academic in full regalia, it was made up of first year students of the College dressed in subfusc and heading to the Radcliffe Camera to matriculate.

The politics of inheritance tax

The Chancellor, Alastair Darling, has told the House of Commons that the cut-off point for inheritance tax for couples will rise from £300,000 to £600,000 straight away, rising to £700,000 by 2010.

The Conservatives sees this as an attempt to steal their clothes. Labour claims that they have been working on this and other changes advocated by the Conservatives for some time. They also argue that their proposal has the merit of not benefiting the very well off.

What I am interested in here is not so much the partisan point scoring, or even how one replaces the considerable revenue that will be lost from inheritance tax (which was always one of the main constraints on Labour). Without having looked at the proposals in detail, it appears that some of it will be clawed back by changes in capital gains tax. This will remove some benefits that were given to small businesses by Labour. My entreprenuer daughter, just about to buy a factory for her expanding business, will not be pleased.

I suppose my original take on inheritance tax was that this was an issue that mainly concerned people who were Conservative voters anyway: those who were affected and did not vote Conservative were influenced by other considerations anyway.

As someone who would have been affected by the old threshholds, my attitude was that it was a tax on my estate rather than me and each of our children would get 100k before the tax started to bite. Not that I am a 'Skier' which is the term applied to the older members of the population who are 'Spending the Kids' Inheritance.'

Having read some of the vox pops (which I always find interesting, even if they are not very scientific), I started to get a different take on the issue. It was clear that many people saw this tax as an injustice. In their view they were not wealthy people, but had accumulated wealth because of rising house prices and their own hard work and savings. They felt that in many respects they were being penalised for saving. I can see where they are coming from. Often the problem with taxes of this kind is that the very wealthy are able to find means of evading their full impact.

Sheffield University have a social and spatial inequalities research group: Sheffield . Work done by them and reported in the Financial Times found that at least a quarter of households in the 30 most marginal seats are liable to inheritance tax (at present levied on 7 per cent of UK estates). Moreover, their data is drawn from the 2000 census and since then property prices have more than doubled while the inheritance tax threshhold has increased up to today by less than a third.

Inequality of wealth is growing in Britain and there is some evidence that this does concern voters, hence the issue of non-domiciled residents. Should we bother about this trend at all, which is driven to a large extent by structural changes in the world economy, and which Labour policy measures have done little more than hold in check?

If one looks at a society like Brazil which, like many Latin American countries, has a high Gini coefficient (i.e., is very unequal) it is evident that very serious social tensions and frequent breakdowns of social order result. By accident or design, I found myself in a barrio in Santiago, Chile in a van with some Brazilian colleagues. They were very sniffy about the slums which they said were nowhere as near as bad as those in Brazil. And nearby the Chileans were building modern social housing.

In the 1970s there was something of an obesssion with the distribution of wealth and income in Britain. Very high marginal rates of taxation were counter productive in terms of economic efficiency and raising revenue. But have we gone too far in the other direction? Do we need to look again at these issues?

A colleague remarked to me yesterday that the British public were probably not able to absorb any more taxes: indeed, there is poll evidence that they think that they are paying too much tax, reviving the concerns among those in the median income bands that Mrs Thatcher tapped into so effectively in 1979.

However, how the tax burden is shared out is a different matter and may play out differently. How one would translate that into policy is another matter, as the Liberal Democrats abandoned their proposal for a top rate of 50 per cent. In any case, the issue is more one of wealth than income. Redistribution would not, of course, provide of itself an answer to complex issues of social exclusion. But are there costs associated with the UK becoming significantly more unequal?

A week is a long time in politics

Harold Wilson once famously remarked that a week is a long time in politics. That has certainly been shown to be true over the last week. Before the Conservative party conference a snap general election was seen as inevitable, leading to a victory for Gordon Brown and humiliation for David Cameron.

My view has been all along:
1. That there was no constitutional necessity for an election
2. As a political gamble it was high risk
3. Gordon Brown wouldn't call one in November (I expressed this view on Radio WM last Monday)

If Gordon Brown wanted to get on with the business of government, he could have said this at the Labour Party conference. Now David Cameron is able to portray him as frightened of an election and has won a substantial tactical victory. Again, I have always thought that David Cameron was a smart politician, his main problem being with some people in his own party.

However, having an election delayed until 2009 may not entirely a good thing for the Conservatives. In that sense, their victory may be a little pyrrhic. However, it has done wonders for Conservative morale and damaged that of the Labour Party. In that sense it is a serious political miscalculation and no doubt there will be some fall out (and fall guys) within Labour ranks.

Sometimes, however, one does despair of the electorate. It's a perfectly respectable and defensible political position to want lower taxes and less government. But in a vox pop in the Sunday Times today one voter said that she would vote Conservative 'if they reduce tax and put more money into healthcare. I'd like to see more police on the streets too.'

How can one square that circle? Reducing waste and inefficiency in government is no doubt one answer, but it is easier said than done and cuts in civil service staff may already have been taken too far in some cases (note the problems with the Rural Payments Agency).

It's very difficult to satisfy an electorate that wants lower taxes and better services. It may this that eventually undoes New Labour, although any party that remains in office for too long ultimately gets removed.

Roy Jenkins the villager

I have now solved the question of where Roy Jenkins was buried. Although his funeral service was at St.Augustine's Church, he is buried elsewhere in the village cemetery. The entry in the DNB, written by no less an authority than Anthony Howard, is therefore wrong and an E mail has gone to Oxford.

Someone once wrote a book about 'Shaw the Villager'. Most people thought of GBS as a playwright (his plays have not worn well) and an iconoclast, rather than a resident of Ayot St.Lawrence.

But apparently Roy Jenkins had his role as a villager according to the Oxford Mail:

The chairman of East Hendred Parish Council, Dr John Sharp, said he had played an important part in village life.

He said: "He was active in village affairs and opened the Millennium extension at Snell's Hall. We are proud to have a plaque up there.

"He also presented prizes at the horticultural show. He was very much part of East Hendred."

The Rector of East Hendred parish church and next-door neighbour, the Rev Ernest Adley [now replaced by the Rev. Rita Ball], said: "He was a good neighbour. The touching thing for me was that I was ill over Christmas and when he discovered that, he sent me a signed copy of his latest book."

As it so happens, one of my granddaughters is going to Snell's Hall tonight for a sleepover with the Rainbows.

Polls sow Labour doubts

The latest set of polls suggest that the Conservatives have been given a boost by a good week at Blackpool. The Labour lead has been cut to three points or the two parties are even level again in one poll. This is no surprise to me as I thought that the lead was fragile with the electorate quite volatile and in many cases undecided.

Having marched his troops up the hill, Gordon has to decide whether to march them down again. Of course, he has said nothing, but his people haven't discouraged election speculation. Perhaps they hoped that it might be a spoiler for the Conservatives, but all it did was unite and reinvigorate them.

Gordon Brown may still go to the country because there may be bad economic news ahead. But the electorate may well sense that there is a motive for going now.

Dave's speech

I thought that this was a good speech of its kind. Not using an auto cue, only a few notes, made Dave looked relaxed and in command. But I was still left with the 'where's the beef?' question. I know that in a sense the speech was a kind of housekeeping list of 'what I would do if I I found myself in No.10', but there still is a lack of a unifying, energising theme. I am afraid we have heard all this stuff about 'a new politics' from politicians before. OK, there is an emphasis on the family, but this fails to take account of how much families have changed in my lifetime.

BBC News did an informal focus group with voters from the Dartford area. Two women in mid-life I know who work as secretaries come from this area and it is people like Tracy and Sue who will really determine the outcome of the election which is effectively fought in a small number of marginal seats. The voters in Dartford thought Dave was 'fresh' but that Gordon was 'authoritative'.

We aren't buying a house fragrance but someone to run the country. Dave reminds me of the nice young man my middle daughter buys her Mercedes off, not so far from Dave's constituency in rural Oxfordshire. Nicely turned out, good background, thoroughly decent young family man, super chap all round. You would buy a used Mercedes off him. But you wouldn't want him in No 10 Downing Street as prime minister.

An unnecessary election?

Speculation about an early election is now reaching fever pitch and it looks as if Gordon may be tempted, if only to show that he is not that cautious. We elect a party to govern for five years, not a person, and it seems to me that an election after half that period is unnecessary. As Peter Riddell was pointing out in The Times yesterday, voters may be suspicious of why a 'cut and run' election is needed. Is there bad news ahead?

Turnout could be low and if it all ends with a similar Labour majority to the present one, or even a smaller one, what is the point in terms of partisan advantage?In any event if there is an election we shall follow the contest in Warwick and Leamington which has a wafer thin Labour majority, although some redistricting since the last election should help Labour. James Plaskitt, under-secretary of state for Work and Pensions, will presumably stand again, as will Chris White for the Conservatives.

Warwick and Leamington was for a long time the constituency of Sir Anthony Eden and was known as Garden of Eden. When he visited the constituency, Sir Anthony and Lady Clarissa would progress through the streets in an open car. Patriotic bunting would be displayed and the crowds would cheer as if they were royalty, which in a sense they were. Sir Anthony did actually have a house in the constituency. A friend of mine subsequently lived in it and found someone dead in the front garden one morning. I doubt whether Sir Anthony was inconvenienced in this way.

Sir Anthony's first opponent back in the 1920s was the Countess of Warwick. The Countess had been a mistress of Edward VIII and took him to meet the founder of the agricultural workers' union, Joseph Arch, in nearby Barford. Arch gave it large to His Majesty and the meeting did not go well.

The Countess was the inspiration for the song 'Daisy, Daisy, give me an answer do'. When she campaigned in the Socialist interest, she set forth in her chauffeur driven limousine to meet the proletariat.

Dave deals with the Lord Snooty question

Dogs may not have votes but their owners do

I was listening to Dave Cameron on Radio 5 as I drove into work and I thought that he did pretty well. It is easy to be mesmerised by recent poll figures and to forget that we are not dealing with some old fogey but a very smart, modern politician.

He was particularly effective on the 'Lord Snooty' question. Asked if he now regretted going to Eton, he said that he was very grateful to his parents for the upbringing that they had given him, including going to a fantastic school. In relation to the argument that he and his advisers were 'out of touch' he pointed out that both William Hague and Warwick graduate David Davies went to state schools, one in South Yorkshire and one in Tooting. Indeed, many of us remember Hague being pictured at his 'A' level Politics textbooks after his appearance at the Conservative Party conference. Davies came from a particularly disadvantaged background, possibly even more impoverished than that of John Major.

I think the Labour Party should drop this line of attack. It's not very effective, particularly in the south of England where any election is likely to be won or lost, hence Dave's 'southern strategy' on issues like inheritance tax and stamp duty. Mind you, he wilted a bit under questioning on the details of these plans, in particular how the revenue would be recouped.

Above all, it's a return to old style inverted snobbery which is no better than the real thing.

Conservative policy offers

Apparently we are going to see a lot of policy offers from the Conservatives this week as they try to tempt voters to back them. Whilst publicly calling for an immediate election, behind the scenes they hope that they can avoid one.

I was invited on to Radio West Midlands Drive Time programme to comment on two of the goodies on offer. I wasn't very impressed by the pledge to increase the inheritance tax threshhold to £1 million. This issue excites Daily Mail readers a lot but most of them are going to vote Conservative anyway.

Given the level of house prices, I (or my estate) would probably be beneficiaries of such a move. But given that Britain is becoming a more unequal society, do we will want to weaken the one form of wealth tax we have?

Of course, the counter argument is that the very rich are able to arrange their affairs to escape such taxes and the burden falls mainly on the moderately well off. However, the Conservative idea of paying for this tax cut by taxing citizens domiciled abroad may be difficult to implement in practice and revenues could disappoint.

Raising the threshhold at which stamp duty is paid on property purchases is probably more electorally attractive given that it would benefit many first time buyers who are struggling to purchase. Of course, the longer term solution here is to do something about the supply and demand balance of housing in England, but no party is willing to take that on because of the strength of the conservationist lobby.

What is sometimes overlooked in discussions of election prospects is that the Conservatives would not need a very big shift in votes to take quite a lot of southern marginal seats off the Lib Dems and Labour. Anecdotal vox pops suggest a lot of uncertainty among voters there with younger women, for example, seeing Dave as 'fresh' and 'new'.

Peter Riddell have a good piece in The Times yesterday on 'Seven Deadly Signs for Brown': Riddell

Dave, what is your core take home message?

Stand by for some repetitive media comment about this being a 'make or break' Conservative Party conference for Dave Cameron. Of course, it is likely to be the last Conservative conference before a general election and the Conservatives are trailing in the polls. But these polls relate to how people think they would vote in a hypothetical election, not how they would actually vote after a campaign. Expect something of a recovery for the Conservatives just from media exposure unless things go disastrously wrong.

Most British voters like to position themselves around the centre of the political spectrum in a bell shaped curve. The Downs median voter theory has stood the test of time well and has actually influenced the decisions made by party strategists. So Dave was quite right to try and re-position the Conservatives nearer the centre of the political spectrum. The tactical ploy of 'vote blue, go green' was a smart way of indicating that the Conservatives had repositioned themselves, although the tree logo is one of the worst I have ever seen.

But Dave has three key problems. First, party activists tend to be more extreme than their voters and leadership. Many Conservatives were unhappy about his strategy, but were prepared to largely keep quiet when it seemed to be working, such was the appetite for power. However, Dave has been getting increasing criticism from the right, exemplified by an interview with Norman Tebitt in the Times magazine yesterday. (Tebbitt was once famously described by Michael Foot as a 'semi house-trained polecat').

Those on the right argue that three elections were won with right-wing policies under Gordon Brown's new pal, Margaret Thatcher. True, but the opposition was in complete disarray for much of this period and Mrs Thatcher did introduce some much needed changes in Britain. Then it all went sour with the poll tax.

These attacks seem to lead Dave to trim to the right, confusing his message. For example, he has come under criticism from environmental groups for moderating his stance, although some of the suggested policies in this area were likely to be none too popular with core Conservatives. Of course, there are a few drums he can comfortably bang, like the call for a referendim on the EU treaty. However, if I was going to give one piece of advice to Dave, it would be: stop looking opportunist by jumping on every bandwagon that comes along.

Second, there is anecdotal evidence that Dave's Old Etonian origins, married to an aristo wife who works in a posh Bond Street boutique, don't go down too well with some northern voters. You see remarks in vox pops of the kind that he wouldn't what it's like to live on a sink estate, but then what politician would? I don't think that being an Old Etonian should be a disqualification for public service. But it can be an image problem, as exemplified by 'Lord Snooty and His Pals' in Private Eye.

The biggest problem of all, however, is that it is still not clear what Dave's core take home message is. There has been a lot of talk about social responsibility, about people tackling issues in their own communities and involving charities more in service delivery (which New Labour has been doing anyway). That's all fine and well, but it's not as if New Labour is campaigning for social irresponsibility - certainly not under that son of the manse, Gordon Brown. Dave may be 'the heir to Blair' when that is the last thing that people want.

There has also been a lot of talk about families, the implicit message being that conventional families are somehow better than those with lone or step parents. But conventional families are perfectly capable of being dysfunctional (anyone who has provided pastoral care to students for over thirty years will know that).

It's important that we have an effective opposition and at one time I thought Dave would provide that. Now I'm not so sure.

Last week saw the death of Sir Ian Gilmour, one of the most erudite advocates of 'One Nation Conservatism'. It will take me a while to sort through my correspondence and notes of meetings with him (he gave me a great deal of help on projects in the early 1980s).

Sir Ian was if anything more of a toff than Dave: he was married to a daughter of the Duke of Buccleuch and we used to lunch at White's. But he had no side to him. I think that's true of Dave as well. But he does need to make it clear this week what his core take home message is.

The case against an autumn election

I don't know whether Gordon Brown will call an autumn election. I don't think he knows himself. He will wait to see how 'Dave' gets on at the Conservative conference first. But he is under a lot of pressure from his advisers to call an autumn election. The media are also stoking up the story because it provides good copy for them.

An early election would be a disaster for British psephologists, because they are simply not ready. However, that is not my main concern.

British parliaments are elected for five years. Very often an election is called after four years (as in 2001 and 2005). John Major hung on to the last possible minute in the hope of a miracle recovery.

It is unusual to have an election after two-and-a-half years when a government has a working majority. Of course, there has been a change of prime minister. But it was well known in 2005 that Tony Blair was going to step down and that Gordon Brown would be his successor. No one can claim that they were misled. When Jim Callaghan took over from Harold Wilson, there were no serious (as distinct from partisan) demands for an election.

My sense is that the British public do not like unnecessary elections. Calling one now could seem opportunistic. These arguments would be somewhat weaker next May.

Many people in the Labour Party think that Gordon Brown should cash in on his poll lead while he can. But in some ways I think that the poll lead is a mirage. There is a 'Brown bounce', but the polls are also recording a 'bandwagon' effect. Brown's lead could easily evaporate in a campaign or he could end up with a smaller majority or no majority at all.

There is some anecdotal evidence that the Conservatives are doing better in the seats they have to win like my own constituency of Warwick and Leamington, the former 'Garden of Eden'. The poor Liberal showing could lead to a lot of Conservative gains (although with fewer seats they could still hold the balance of power).

Gordon Brown is a cautious man. There is much that he wants to achieve. He does not want his DNB entry to read 'Prime Minister, 2007-2007.' I think he will wait until next spring. The analogy with Callaghan in 1978/9 is misleading in my view because the circumstances were different (I was one of the few people not surprised by Sunny Jim's decision).

But I could be wrong. We could soon be plunged into the 'excitement' of a general election campaign and face the choice: Gordon or Dave (and what about Ming)?

A visit to East Hendred

Two of our daughters live in rural Oxfordshire and every so often we go out (with one of them at a time and their families) to a gastropub for Sunday lunch. I leave the bookings to them. From time to time I am vaguely aware that we are at a locale favoured by Roy Jenkins for lunch in his later life, e.g., The Fish at Sutton Courtenay.

I was therefore interested to find last Sunday that we were having a very good lunch (appropriately) in East Hendred where Jenkins had his main home. I greatly enjoy his biographies, especially the one of Churchill which was a masterpiece. I also admire his contrubution to reform as Home Secretary and the responsible way he acted as Chancellor. Being President of the European Commission is an impossible job, but he did his best.

I wouldn't say I was a fan of Roy Jenkins as a person. The only time I encountered him was at a 'degree in' for Nelson Mandela at Buck House. Our Chancellor, Sonny Ramphal, who had visited Mandela in prison, embraced him warmly. Jenkins made a long speech in flowery Latin which left even Prince Philip bemused. Jenkins was too much the upper class Oxbridge man for my personal taste.

Somewhat to the bemusement of my daughter, who did not know who Roy Jenkins was, we went off in search of his home and grave. Grumbling about possible damage to her Merecedes 4 x 4, we parked in the narrow lane by the church.

Inside the church looks like a typical 'broad church' C of E establishment, the only contemporary note being that the Rector is a woman called Rita and three of the four vicars in the pastoral team are women. By 'broad church', I mean no 'bells and smells' (stations of the cross in the most extreme cases), but no Evangelicanism either with speaking in tongues and all the other nonsense about which I might write at some time.

Now according to the DNB, Jenkins is buried in East Hendred churchyard. However, there do not appear to have been any recent burials there (one would expect his grave to be marked). I think his house was near the church, but I couldn't identify it. There was one that seemed similar, but it had a different name. I will have to check a video I have of a television programme about him when I have time. This was, of course, the house where Tony Blair went for mentoring lunches with Roy before he became prime minister.

East Hendred is a curious village. Near the Wantage Road, it is rather down market with some (former) social housing. As you progress down the long road through the village, it becomes more and more affluent with electronic gates controlling access. This was, of course, the area where Jenkins lived.

The road then continues up to The Ridgeway from where there are extensive views. Jenkins did not come up here to exercise, but followed a regime of walking briskly round his tennis court a predetermined number of times (there was, of course, also a croquet lawn).

From The Ridgeway you get an excellent view of the new particle accelerator at Harwell. One of my daughter's employees came up here with his girl friend in his white van and was rudely interrupted by the Thames Valley Police who suspected that he was a terrorist rather than engaging in the rites of Venus. When we were up there a police 4 x 4 circled around, demonstrating how extensive the terrorist threat is believed to be.

If anything can explain where the Jenkins grave is, please let me know. I don't think that there are two churches in East Hendred.

Introduction: why I prefer Gordon to Tony

For some time I have thought about writing a blog about British politics with the current ferment about a possible general selection providing the final stimulus. Pressure of work means that I won't be able to post very often, but I hope what I have to say may be of some interest.

I should say that I am not a very partisan person as my interest in politics is analytical. However, my politics were once described as marginally left of centre. I believe in the old Austrian social democrat slogan, 'as much market as possible, as much state as necessary.' I am also a supporter of UK membership of the EU.

I also have quite a lot of time for Gordon Brown. I met Gordon when I was chair of the Political Studies Association and we presented him with the Politician of the Year Award. We had quite a long chat and I found him a much more engaging person one to one than his dour image would suggest.

During the Blair-Brown transition period earlier this year, I was invited to a series of policy seminars run by the Smith Institute people at No.11 Downing Street. I must say that I prefer Gordon's dignified approach to politics to the celebrity imitating style of Tony. Politics is a serious business and Gordon frankly admits he is a serious person, as I am.

That doesn't mean that this blog will not be critical of Gordon from time to time.