The Observer may as well have endorsed Russell Brand

Giving an endorsement based not on solutions, but on correctly identifying the problem, seems an odd thing for a newspaper to do – yet that is exactly what The Observer did yesterday. I would argue the problem lies in our broken, unfit-for-purpose electoral system – something spotted by a certain Mr Brand a couple of years ago – which is why the paper may as well have endorsed him. 

“Just 23 more seats”? Make that 63, Mr Cameron…

Many of us living and/or campaigning in Lib Dem-Conservative marginals will no doubt
have seen the propaganda from CCHQ intended to win over wavering Lib Dem/Conservative voters. But the total number of seats the Conservatives need to win for an outright majority is 63, not 23 as the Tories would have us believe.

The “novelty” of ‘red lines’

There’s been a fair amount of coverage of the ‘red line’ on education trumpeted by the Lib Dems yesterday, closely followed by another one on a ‘stability budget’ this morning. But are these, in fact, anything so novel, or is it merely the media waking up to the way coalition negotiations would work – five years too late?

Things I’m wishing Clegg would say tonight

A more youthful Clegg in 2010 (Photo: Guardian)

Tonight sees the first – and only – real debate of the 2015 General Election campaign, when 7(!) party leaders will go head-to-head on ITV. Ahead of the debate (see here for speaking order), I’ve been musing about what I’d like to hear Nick Clegg say in his opening and closing remarks.

Why I’ll be ignoring most of the poll-related hype

The news this morning is full of discussion of polling statistics following the dissolution of Parliament at midnight. One commentator suggested that polls are inherently unpredictable, drawing on the recent election in Israel – read on after the jump to find out why I think that observation, and and all the hype about the polls, is wrong.

3 things I learnt from watching #Coalition

Disraeli may have thought that “England does not love coalitions”, but I certainly enjoyed the Channel 4 dramatisation of those  crazy days of May 2010, broadcast last night. If you’ve not yet seen it, I strongly recommend catching up (before April 28th, 2015). You can find out what I thought was interesting after the jump; feel free to leave your own thoughts in the comments!

Re-emerging from the “black hole”

I’m considering re-starting this blog, at least in the run-up to the General Election (and possibly beyond). In case some of you are wondering why I’ve been pretty much silent on social media etc in the past few months – a state a friend of mine referred to as going “to see a black hole” – you can read on and find out after the jump.

With pressure mounting, will Cameron surprise with a reshuffle?

Photo credit: David Jones/PA Wire

There is no doubt that David Cameron’s premiership is in trouble following yesterday’s testimony to the Home Affairs Select Committee and its aftermath: while the appearance of Met Police chiefs did not have the attention and the drama of News International execs appearing before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, it did result in the release of the exchange between John Yates and Ed Llewellyn, Cameron’s Chief of staff (see the entry at 15.59 here for the most complete transcript I’ve come across).

This, on the same day as the revelation that the same man (Neil Wallis) who caused Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates to resign was also advising Andy Coulson – albeit informally – while Coulson was working for Cameron on the Conservative election campaign, around April last year (according to the Indy).

There are, of course, other questions that remain – particularly in relation to any discussion of the BSkyB takeover that the PM might have had with NI executives, especially his friend Rebekah Brooks. But, assuming that he weathers the stormy exchanges that he’s likely to have in the Commons and before the 1922, Cameron will need to do something to regain the initiative as MPs head off on their summer holidays, albeit a day late.

Dangers real and imagined

The only way Cameron might realistically not weather the storm – at least in the short term – is if there is a coup against him from within the Tory party. Labour cannot do any more than just shout from the opposition benches – that is the nature of opposition – but the longer they keep talking about it, the more damaged the PM will become; hence the very sensible suggestions from a former Blair advisor writing to Cameron in the Telegraph on Monday. The Lib Dems’ polling numbers would still make anything other than electoral slaughter unlikely should an election be called, and pulling the plug on the Government would lead to one (especially since the Fixed Term Parliaments bill still hasn’t been passed): Roy Greenslade’s call in the Guardian on Monday for Nick Clegg to bring Lib Dems over to the Labour benches is as fanciful as the idea that a Labour-Lib Dem coalition would have worked in May 2010.

So it is the Tory ranks where the biggest potential danger for Cameron lies. Such danger is unlikely to manifest itself openly in the short term (although the briefings against George Osborne that Newsnight reported happened on the plane back from Nigeria, as well as the Chancellor’s conspicuous absence from screens or microphones, bring back some memories from the Blair/Brown days); but the longer the scandal goes on with Cameron on the back foot, the more likely a coup becomes. Whether a summer recess is conducive to plotting is, of course, debatable – away from Westminster, MPs are less likely to become involved in a coup attempt in numbers large enough for a coup to be effective (see the various failed plots against Blair and Brown), but it also makes small gatherings of key plotters less conspicuous (ditto).

Whose head is next to roll?

Aside from the possibility that Dick Fedorcio, the Met’s communications chief (who appears to have been the one to have actually signed off on the hiring of Wallis), will add to the list of former Met employees, the next casualty of the hacking scandal is, I think, likely to be someone within the No 10 staff and/or the Cabinet.

No 10 has been quick to point out that Ed Llewellyn had cleared, with the Permanent Secretary, the email exchange that led to information on the hacking investigation not being discussed with the PM in September 2010. Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, also rushed to say that no ministerial rules had been broken by the exchange. Both those things suggest that, in the absence of any other revelations, Ed Llewellyn’s job is safe. However, Tim Montgomerie reported hearing that Sayeeda Warsi’s job as Chair of the Conservative Party may be less secure.

All of which leads me to (albeit many months later!) take up Nick Thornsby’s challenge of considering what might happen if a reshuffle does happen. This has been the most stable government so far since January 2001 (Peter Mandelson’s second resignation), as both Blair and Brown had to deal with resignations, or carried out reshuffles, on a less-than-annual basis; that alone means that a reshuffle may well have been on the cards.

Some reshuffles are more equal than others

It could be that Sayeeda Warsi’s removal – if that is indeed what happens – is a simple sack-and-promote job, with the Baroness returning to the red benches and someone coming in from either the red or the green benches to take her place. Whoever takes her job must surely be someone who isn’t a natural “Cameronite” – which rules out most of the new intake, who would probably lack the gravitas and authority required anyway. If Cameron could persuade Sir John Major to come out of retirement, he might well fit the bill, but more realistically, perhaps someone like Bill Cash could be elevated to appease the right-wing Tory backbenchers.

More likely, in my view – because of the need to dramatically change the focus of the story, and because one of the reasons so few Cabinet members have been on air in the last few days might have been because they’d been busy laying the ground for a reshuffle, – is that there is a wider reshuffle. This might end up with Baroness Warsi keeping her Cabinet seat, but in a different role; her symbolic importance as a female Muslim cabinet minister is irreplaceable. A different potential ‘sacrificial lamb’ might be Ken Clarke, who is hardly beloved by the Tory right; whether the Baroness could (let alone should) replace him is a different question.

It could, of course, go further than a couple of swaps or replacements. Whether, for instance, the Chancellor is moved would perhaps be telling of the extent to which Cameron is prepared to shake things up in a way Blair never dared to. I could see a situation where, for instance, William Hague is put in charge of the Party machine (taking Baroness Warsi’s job), with Osborne put at the Foreign Office; Osborne might then be replaced by Clarke (who was, after all, quite a success as Chancellor in the mid-1990s, if my history is right).

Incidentally, I don’t think any changes are likely with the Lib Dem team. Any percieved strengthening of the junior coalition partner would play very badly with the Tory right, and some potentially welcome moves (like bringing David Laws back) would probably be percieved in that way. But nor are demotions likely, since these would upset the delicate balance between the two coalition partners, which is still recovering from the AV fiasco and the outcome of this year’s local elections.  So I’d go with preserving the status quo, for now at least, in that respect.

Other distractions

I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point today David Cameron ends up apologising for hiring Andy Coulson – something which, according to Labour, he has not done – given yesterday’s revelations. But I would be surprised if he doesn’t then try to shift the media attention away from the story with something like a reshuffle – the question then becomes, how extensive that reshuffle will be. Of course, the continuing Eurozone crisis, if not the events elsewhere in the world (sadly, we seem unlikely to be easily diverted from the #hackgate saga by something like a famine in Africa anytime soon) might do it for him. Whether Cameron continues to be led by events or seizes the initiative will help to define what sort of Prime Minister he really is.

 

PS: although I agree with Nick Thornsby’s call for Nick Clegg to make the most of the hacking scandal in principle, I don’t really see how the DPM can actually do more than remind people he and other Lib Dems had raised concerns about Coulson and that those concerns had been ignored, while stressing that he is continuing to work to address the big issue of the day – the Eurozone crisis – and pursue the longer-term goals (reforming the way media, politics and police inter-relate; constitutional and other reforms, etc) which the Coalition was created to pursue.

Police bail practice: stop all the clocks

I wonder how the person who was sitting in the legal advisor’s chair in Salford Magistrates’ Court on 5th April this year is feeling, knowing that they are intricately involved in today’s top story on the BBC News website about review of bail cases?

Admittedly, I am somewhat puzzled why the story is breaking so long after the High Court decision, which was handed down on May 19th (see para 15 for reference to the legal advisor). Presumably, the advice which was sought by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), to which the BBC News story refers, was only issued recently; in any case, the Home Office and ACPO seem to have been caught somewhat unawares by the view expressed in that advice that the High Court decision is binding.

Here’s my take on what the case was about, what it means, and whether all the fuss is worth it.

PACE and detention

The case centered on whether the police have the power to detain someone for further questioning (through a “warrant for further detention”, or WFD) more than 96 hours (4 days) after the original arrest, in the absence of any new evidence. There is currently a common practice by police to arrest someone, get permission from the court to detain them for questioning and, while they carry out enquiries, release them on bail, only to re-arrest them at a much later stage if their enquiries so require.

It was assumed that the “PACE clock” (referring to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which sets out the framework for arrest, police investigations, etc. – it has been much amended since 1984!), which gives the police only a limited time to question the suspect – up to 96 hours, – stops while they are on bail and can be “re-started” at a later time (NB this is for matters unconnected with terrorism, to which a different framework applies).

In this particular case, it appears that no new evidence came to light during police investigations (otherwise, the police could have used a different section to re-arrest the suspect), and they tried to apply for an extension of the previous detention period when they re-arrested the suspect several months after the initial arrest (which took place in November 2010).

Stop all the clocks

The District Judge sitting in the Salford Magistrates’ Court – apparently at the prompting of the legal advisor – read the relevant part of PACE as meaning that no further detention can be authorised beyond the four-day period from the original arrest (“the relevant time”, in the language of the Act) had expired. This extinguished the possibility of authorising an extension of the detention period.

Manchester Police applied for judicial review (unsurprisingly perhaps!), but a High Court Judge ruled on May 19th that the decision of the Salford Magistrates’ Court was correct and could not be challenged. The BBC News story suggests that the legal opinion sought by ACPO agreed with both courts.

Should we be concerned?

Having read the judgment, and still having some memory of studying PACE during my BVC, I would say the panicked reactions expressed in the BBC News article are completely over the top – as are the more recent reports in the Guardian that Theresa May is considering emergency legislation on the issue.

If someone is arrested on suspicion of a crime, and not charged, the police can still release them on bail (and breach of bail terms is in itself an arrestable offfence, from what I can remember – hence why I’m particularly puzzled by the reports of Scotland Yard’s guidance saying that the police will have no power to arrest someone who breaches their bail terms or fails to surrender; perhaps they might require a magistrates’ court to authorise it, but I see no problem with police needing judicial oversight to deprive people of their liberty).

All the judgment does is prevent the police from being able to arrest the suspect for further questioning (without new evidence coming to light), often many months later. Again, I see little problem with that – if the police have enough evidence to charge someone, they can still do so, and I’m not convinced the police should have the power to arrest someone for further questioning if they have no new evidence, anyway.

In any event, it’s not really the judgment (either the High Court’s or the Magistrates’) that said all this – all the judges were doing was applying the law as it is stated. So what concerns me, personally, is that an intervention of a legal clerk in a Magistrates’ Court managed to draw the attention of the police – and the Home Office – to the fact that the practice of using the “PACE clock” was completely unjustified in statute, and prompt them to do a re-think.

What’s perhaps of even more concern is that so little thought seems to have been put into the possibility that the courts have interpreted the police’s powers correctly, and that ACPO are now apparently “running around like headless chickens” trying to work out how to find ways to detain people when the police have been caught out using powers they didn’t have. Not perhaps Auden-esque depression, but rather the panic that this case seems to have now caused is, I think, telling of how little prepared the police and the Government can be for someone standing up to them in defence of individual rights and freedom…

Pondering Oldham (Part 1)

Just over 12 hours since the polls closed in Oldham East & Saddleworth, much commentary has already been written – so I thought I’d add my own ponderings to the list, before I get distracted by something else.

Having spent 10 days over 3 visits up in Oldham, I am naturally disappointed that the Liberal Democrats’ Elwyn Watkins lost. I met him on a number of occasions and got the impression that he would have made an excellent MP for the area – something I had already guessed about from the fact he chose to stand up to Woolas’ lies and take him to court (contrary to what Labour have been saying, it wasn’t about him being a “sore loser”, but about drawing a line which political attacks should not cross). Indeed, it was what made me come up to Oldham in the first place – and then return; the friendliness of the campaign staff and local party members helped with the latter, too (a particular thanks to Ben & Shan Alexander, Martin Dinoff and Kevin and Linda Dawson for putting me up!).

Staying for the moment with the negatives, it was also disappointing that Labour were more effective at getting their vote out (especially in the evening); although I suspect the timing of the announcement by the Labour-run Manchester City Council that it would be cutting 2,000 jobs may have helped Labour’s “wrong cuts” narrative (Oldham isn’t a million miles away from Manchester, for anyone as weak on Northern English geography as I was before coming up here!).

It is also a sham that we were not more effectively able to counter Labour’s misrepresentations – some might call them lies – about what the Coalition were doing. Labour’s campaign – “a vote for fairness”, sadly devoid of actual policies for what was meant by ‘fairness’ (unlike the Lib Dems’ similarly-themed General Election campaign last year) – ran on two main issues, at least looking at their literature: tuition fees, with the idea that voters should “punish Nick Clegg for breaking his promise”, and police cuts. Let me explain why I think both could have been made more of by us.

I’ve blogged before why I think the new system is fairer and thus meets the second limb of the pledge, and when people raised the issue on the doorstep, I tried to repeat the arguments – with some success. People were also receptive to the letter from a local student which made the case for the new system very effectively – on one page of A4; unfortunately, this went out relatively close to the poll, allowing Labour to make a lot of noise about tuition fees in the preceding weeks.

On police cuts, Labour ran a “Save our Police” campaign, I think before they even selected their candidate, which was quite effective at stoking up fears that front-line police will be cut, particularly in the Greater Manchester area (which Oldham is a part of). But since the overall thrust of the Coalition is to cut back-office police (by reducing the amount of paperwork police have to do, and trimming things like HR departments), this was closer to a lie than a simple misrepresentation.

Moving on to the more positive things, though, there is much to be said for the fact that our vote didn’t collapse. In fact, it went up by 0.3%, and was only slightly down on the historically good 2005 election (useful data and interesting analysis from the must-follow BritainVotes here). Given the national media narrative, it will be a relief for activists all across the country – though admittedly not quite the massively invigorating boost that a win would have been.

BNP also lost their deposit, unlike in past elections in Oldham. This is certainly a positive result for British democracy; much though I value plurality of opinion, I have little sympathy for modern-day fascism (or, indeed, fascism in any day and age), so another blow to their already over-stretched finances is welcome.

British democracy also benefited from the fact that people turned out to vote, and in higher numbers than was expected, too – at 48.8%, it was higher than some historic by-elections (Brent East in 2003, for instance, only had 36.2%). Whether or not that hurt the Lib Dems remains questionable; there were reports of higher-than-expected turnout in the Saddleworth part of the constituency, which was perhaps more favourable to us (though I have little reliable information on what the actual impact of that was, if it indeed was the case).

A final positive was that the strategy of the Tory squeeze – which was explicitly at work in the last week of canvassing, even before last weekend’s polls came out – clearly paid off. But the point should perhaps be made that a lot of voter contact in the last week was aimed at exactly that – whereas a lot of the literature that went out to persuade people back into the LibDem fold (or against voting for Labour more generally) clearly wasn’t successful.

I shall ponder these points about campaigning strategy – and perhaps more broadly the implications for the Coalition and politics in the near future – in another blogpost, hopefully later tonight or in the next few days.