The Government Can't Lose The Fees Vote ... Can They?

As the media scramble from one MPs declaration of voting intention to another, it is worth putting the whole issue the fees voting into the context of the whole House of 650 members. The winning post - assuming no abstentions would be 326, so the whips on both sides will no doubt be working out how to get to that figure.

Presumably the Speaker and his team will not vote; knocking out John Bercow (Buckingham), Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley), Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) and Dawn Primarolo (Bristol) from the vote. In addition, the 5 Sinn Fein MPs will no vote either. In addition there is one vacancy in Oldham East & Saddleworth. Which leaves us dealing with Coalition strength of 362 and a total opposition strength of 278; so the anti-fees MPs would have to solidify all of their own MPs and overcome an 84 vote lead (which is, essentially, switching 43 MPs).

Are the opposition united on this? It is difficult to imagine many or any of them not voting against the government; Labour sense an opportunity here and have even drafted in Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy) to vote. If any Labour MPs did agree with the policy I suspect they were lept on froma great height a long time ago. It also looks very likely that the DUP, SNP, Plaid and SDLP will all fall into line too. Alliance MP Naomi Long (Belfast N), Green MP Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavillion) and the three Independents (Lady Hermon, North Down; Dennis McShane, Rotherham & Eric Illsley, Barnsley Central) all look solid too. So short of illness or some other disaster (snow?) it should be a united front from the opposition; 278 in the bag.

Despite his own claims, it looks like David Davis (Haltemprice) will not be a rebellion of one; so far Illford's Lee Scott, New Forest's Julian Lewis and Shipley's Phillip Davies have said they will vote no too. In addition, Bob Blackman (Harrow E) and former teacher Andrew Percy (Brigg & Goole) may yet vote no too. Six Tories in total; bringing the vote numbers to 356 to 284.

And then the question is which LibDems will break ranks and vote no and which might abstain (even an abstention impacts the total votes). Today Tim Farron (Wesmoreland & Lonsdale), LibDem President, has come out against. In addition to Tim, we have on record former Leaders Ming Campbell and Charles Kennedy. Plus Mike Hancock (Portsmouth), Julian Huppert (Cambridge), John Leech (Manchester), Ian Swales (Redcar), John Pugh (Southport), Bob Russell (Colchester), Mark Williams (Bristol), Simon Wright (Norwich S), Roger Williams (Brecon), Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) & Greg Mulholland (Leeds). Total, so far, of 13. Before abstentions that leaves the vote 343 to 297; a government majority of 46.

So it is going to take one massive earthquake; even if all the non-government LibDem MPs vote against, and even the PPSs, it would still take a mass Tory rebellion to bring this down.

I admire anybody who is willing to take to the streets for what they believe in (as long as it is non-violence), but for all the excitement that student leaders and the media are trying to whip up about the vote I cannot see a way, at this moment, that the government can lose. That may all change but with 24 hours to go, the fees vote looks a lot less exiting than we are lead to believe.

Conservative harden position against unitary

When City Hall originally bid for unitary status, a lot of Conservatives out there in the yonder didn't take the threat seriously - generally because it was, and still is, simply ridiculous that the areas worst performing council should apply more more powers. A lot of such Tories thus stuck their heads in the sand and hoped that the treasury / boundary commission / government would do their jobs for them and kill the unitary bird stone dead. I have to say that I believe the stalled start for the anti-unitary campaigners is one of the reasons why this has got as far as it has. Anyway ...

Today I read in the local press that David Cameron has declared that if unitary has not passed before a general election then the party will scrap it altogether. (Read here, and note that the comments are attributed to Shadow Local Government Minister Bob Neill rather than Cameron himself, but hey-ho). This is significant because it is the first time that the party has come out specifically against the plans in this way. At heart I'm sure a lot of Tories are pro-unitary, but most of us don't want to pay £100m for the priviledge.

This move by Cameron / Neill will worry Labour - they know their only chance of stopping the "One County" bid is via flame-haired Communities Secretary Hazel Blears blocking it, but many Tories now know the only chance to block unitary full stop is by winning that general election.

I hope that all these anti-unitary Tory Councillors sitting on their big fat majorities remember this and get campaigning in key Norfolk marginals to ensure we win those seats then - wouldn't it be ironic if they won by a country mile in their own seats only for us not to win the key seats and for Labour's bonkers plans to progress.

So given all this, the continued spending of taxpayers cash makes my blood boil. Too much has been wasted by all sides on this now; Labour will be praying for this to move quickly, the Tories will try and block and then pray for that election. All this time, we all know who the biggest losers are.

Council tax payers.

Defectors are as welcome as always!

The news that a LibDem MEP for the North-West of England, and also a Labour Suffolk County Councillor, have both today defected to David Cameron's Conservatives should be very welcome for the party. It gives Cameron a real roll, as the government decend into choas and the polls shift in the Tory favour it demonstrates that Cam has the big mo'.

However, regular readers will note my general dislike of defectors. I just don't think you can trust people who one day are slagging off a certain party and campaigning to oust them from politics and are happily handing over their membership cheque the next. Sometimes they look desperate (like former Tory MP Quentin Davies) and sometimes they look careerist (such as the now Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward, who was once Tory MP for Witney). The first defection I can really remember was Emma Nicholson, a Devon MP who quit the Tories for the LibDems. I went on to read her auto-biography and was totally unconvinced. She's certainly gone further under the LibDems (now a Baroness) than she would have under the Tories (she may just have risen back to rank of Branch Treasurer by now).

So whilst I say welcome to these two gentleman, I think both have a lot to prove ... a lot of leaflets that need delivering and a lot of doors need knocking on. But, for now, let's just enjoy the moment!

Davies defection is a blow to Cameron, but it says more about Labour's newest MP than it does about the Tory Leader

You have to hand it to Labour they always manage to pull it off - and the stream of Tory defectors (9 in 10 years) continues to swell their ranks and boost their PR. However they always manage to do this because of the line of Tory dimwits willing to aid Blair and Labour in their quest to bugger up Britain.

Quentin Davies is the latest MP to do this and the defection will give Brown a much needed boost on the day that he becomes Prime Minister. It is certainly bad news for the Cameron Big Tent and it does raise the issue of how many other MPs are so-discontented with his leadership. But...

I believe this whoe sorry affair says more about the judgement and character of Quentin Davies than it does about the Cameron leadership. Davies is one of the few people in politics that doesn't see how Brown will chew him up and spit him out - being used by a party that he has fought against for 20 years and a politican he referred to as "losing control", "imprudent" whom he hoped "something nasty" would happen to. Now Davies suddenly changes his mind. Do we really want this man on our benches specifically or even as a British member of parliament generally?

And this is before we come to his voting record. Quite frankly I hadn't realised what a throw-back he was before looking into this in detail. He voted against gay rights, against the fox hunting ban, against anti-terrorism law and for the war on Iraq. If that is the person that the Labour Party want on their side then they are welcome to him. How Labour can accept Davies or how Davies can accept Labour is beyond me.

The truth is that this defection isn't about policy, or leadership or even principle. It is about one rather tragic figure who will now find himself isolated on both side of the House of Commons. Judging by the mauling Davies got on Newsnight he has got some rough days ahead of him. I won't shed any tears and look forward to the phrase "Con gain Grantham & Stamford" at the next election ... because he won't have the guts to fight a by-election.

I will leave this post with a true story. I spoke to a fellow Tory Councillor on the phone this afternoon. He said: "I was thinking about defecting to Labour until I heard they'd accepted Quentin Davies. Now I don't think I'll bother - I don't want to be associated with people like him." Well said, Councillor!

UPDATE: It should be pointed out that Mr Davies was a shadow cabinet member under IDS and now feels at home with Mr Brown. Who should be worried more by this - Iain or Gordon?

Great new blog

Want to combine Tory politics with allotment know-how and gardening tips? Easy, click here.

LibDem trio defect to Cameron's Conservatives

LibDems has better reach for that sherry bottle again as news breaks that three more LibDem candidates quit their party and join the Conservatives. Most pleasingly - for Cameron and the Conservatives that is - is that the three make up a union steward, a doctor and the man who wrote the LibDem LGBT manifesto. In a statement that must stick in the throats of all LibDem activists, one of them calls Sir Ming a "has been" and warns that the party is in "reverse gear". Furthermore, another says that only the Conservatives can help the NHS.

This makes seven LibDem candidates to join the Conservatives this year, in which some LibDem blogs have been calling their "annus horriblis". However, I have yet to find a single LibDem blogger who has commented yet - as Iain Dale points out, if this was a spate of Tory defections the gloating would be deafening.

I said that the polls didn't matter for the LibDems but the trend does. This latest news certainly adds to that trend. Sir Ming might yet be in trouble.

How festive are the party websites?

I know that is the question that we have all been asking over our turkey sandwiches. Just how much of a festive theme has each main party thrown into their on-line campaigning?

The LibDems are the party who desperately need a sherry-fueled episode to mask their dismal 2006 - a year in which they have dumped a leader and end up rock bottom in the polls. Yet their website - here - seems to have totally ignored Christmas altogether. There is one story about the number of people eating turkey on their own this year but precious little else. You will be aware that I feel the national LibDem website is awful when compared to some really rather better local efforts, but this really is rather poor. Festive rating: 1/10

I am greeted at Labour's site - here - by a pop-up which asks me to join the party so I can vote for the new leader. I wasn't aware that Blair had resigned, but hey-ho. The frontpage has a lovely big festive message that offers us "best wishes for Christmas and the New Year". There is also a flashing graphic of Christmas tree lights that then displays an achievment of the current government. Pretty good, fitting with the current party image, contemporary design. Festive rating: 7/10

Is Christmas too traditional for the modernisers at Cameron's Conservatives? Hardly as their site - here - includes a very flashy graphic which shows snow falling over the hill sides which are littered with Christmas trees. It is a shame that where you would normally expect a message to pop up (like "Merry Christmas") it doesn't and you end watching the graphic waiting for something to happen which then doesn't. A bit disappointing but it is the most technical of all the sites and, somewhat ironically, the most traditional. Festive rating: 7/10

Oddly there is no festive message on any of the sites from any of the party leaders - the Conservatives lead on Labour Chairwoman Hazel Blears challenging her own party's health policy, whilst the LibDems stick to a story about Iraq and Labour advertise their programme of Spring Events.

Come on parties - let's have a bit of Christmas cheer about you all!

Are we voting for ends or means?

The level of debate in the pastoral office at school has been raisied this week, as we move on from the future of the penny-sweet industry to political ideology and thought.

My good friend, colleague and Eaton resident is threatening not to vote next May. He is classic LibDem fodder (young, caring, pro-environment, basically a bit left wing but hates New Labour) but as I have scratched the surface of his beliefs he shows worrying signs towards authortarian Toryism.

Anyway, his complain was that the parties were "all the same these days." "Nonsense", I declared. I believe that is the lazy answer for people who don't want to think things through. Are you honestly saying, I went on, that all three parties have the same education policies, the same tax proposals or the same ideas on immigration?

"Ah-ha", he quickly rebutted, all of those things are about the micro-management of the system not about broad based ideological differences. Such an arguement got me thinking. In the 80s we had the classic Conservativism versus Socialism debate, personaified (if you like) by Thatcher and Foot. A classic cold-war battle being fought in British politics.

Name any three major party frontbenchers and I'd bet you they'd agree on the projected outcome for the country. We all want a strong economy, good education, a working transport system etc. However, where we disagree is how to achieve that - so politics is becoming about the means rather than the ends.

So, says my friend, he is being asked to vote for slightly differenent versions of management rather than for political leadership. Before he votes he wants to see a real battle of ideas - not the day-to-day policy of school funding, but of where we want British edcuation to go and do.

Maybe he has a point, I concluded. After all, Cameron, Blair and Campbell could probably draw up a "vision statement" on which they could all sign up to. So we, the voters, have no choice about where UK plc is going - just a choice of vehicle to get there.

Any interesting arguement and so much more worthwhile than guessing whatever happened to all those 80s bands you just don't hear of anymore.