I wouldn’t say there was election fever in Britain; most of the election campaign’s first week has been uninspiring, dull stuff without real controversy or passion. That may be because the two big parties both have such visible weaknesses (Gordon Brown, for Labour; most things except David Cameron, for the Conservatives); it may be because of the general mood of quiet, surly anger against politicians not entirely caused by the expenses scandal of last year, but very much sharpened by it. It may be that this election will turn out in the end to be truly dramatic, but that the drama will begin only after the votes have been counted – that is my suspicion. In fact, though, general elections usually begin like this, with a sluggish yawn. At some point we forget the dull ache all over and fever breaks out. Perhaps that’s now happened after Thursday’s debate. More of that below.

Sarah Teather and Vince Cable with Brent activists | Liberal Democrats | Creative Commons

But first, the manifestos. Traditionally in the first week of the campaign each party issues a manifesto – a book or booklet outlining what its programme will be for the next Parliament. What it would do in government, in other words. Manifestos are mysterious things, hugely varying in length and style, and anyway not much read by voters. It used to be that you had to buy them, if you were interested (by law the parties had to sell them; they couldn’t give them away), so no one other than political geeks ever did. And manifestos only tell you so much: a party is in no way bound to carry out its manifesto pledges, and is likely to do many more things, if it gets power, than are contained in its pages. Look at Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 manifesto, for instance – you’ll find no mention of the privatisation agenda that became so important a component of Thatcherism, except for the suggestion of a partial sale of one small organisation. If you’re interested in British political history, you can read old manifestos here. Another interesting website is The Straight Choice, which has now collected and archived over a thousand British election leaflets.

David Cameron | Conservative Party | Creative Commons

This time, manifestos are online. Labour’s, much mocked for it Maoist imagery, promises to secure the fragile economic recovery, and to protect front-line public services, and to deliver constitutional reform including change to the electoral system and even work towards a written constitution. The Conservative Manifesto invites us to “join the government” and pledges to stop Labour’s planned national insurance rise for employers – a kind of payroll tax and to cut the deficit more quickly, while protecting the National Health Service. It promises tougher rules on immigration and a radically different approach on Europe, changing the law to protect the British constitution from EU encroachment. The Liberal Democrats promise fair taxes – including removing all those earning under ï¿¡10,000 a year from tax altogether – and, as they always do, substantial constitutional change including a move to proportional representation.

leaflets I've been sent in Brent Central

Locally, there’s not massive evidence of campaigning yet, at least in my part of London: Brent Central constituency is a rare Labour-LibDem marginal where two current MPs – Labour’s Dawn Butler and the LibDem Sarah Teather, who has the advantage of being one of her side’s most televised faces – fight each other because boundary changes have extinguished their existing seats. There have been a few leaflets, mainly from the LibDems, and there are a few posters around – but nothing at all from the Conservatives, which reflects the highly targeted way all the parties campaign these days. All the declared candidates for Brent Central are listed here, by the way. The leaders have as usual been touring the country wildly in what seems the most “presidential” campaign yet in the UK. This is a development many British people are depressed by: we want politics to be about parties and issues rather than about personalities, or at least we say we do. But somehow, election by election, the focus on the style and personalities of the leaders, and even of their wives, continues inexorably.

Which brings me to last night’s debate between the leaders – a truly historic moment in British politics, since we’ve never had such a thing before, a fact that may amaze Americans and Europeans for whom this sort of thing has long been a fixture. Why has it never happened before? Perhaps precisely because of our traditional preference for seeing politics as a team sport. More importantly, there’s never been agreement before now because it’s never been in the interests of all the party leaders to take part. Conventional wisdom here has been that whoever is in the lead can only lose from a debate: Tony Blair for instance avoided a debate in every election he fought, because he was streets ahead and had nothing to gain. This time, though, things are different. Gordon Brown wanted a debate because he is, or was, so far behind, needed to gamble on a game-changer and, more cynically, want to neutralise the Conservatives’ ability to outspend him in the campaign by focusing the whole election on the equalising format of television. The question is why David Cameron, who was so far ahead, agreed; I think the answer must be that, since he personally is by far his party’s strongest asset and Gordon Brown is by far Labour’s biggest problem, he was happy to make the election a man-to-man contest.

the very first UK TV leaders' election debate

But to comply with the requirement to achieve balance the broadcasters has to include the LibDem leader Nick Clegg – and last night he was the clear winner. You can watch the full 90 minute debate here. Clegg relaxed into the format much more quickly than did the other two, an impression that I think stuck in viewer’s minds even as the other men got into their strides. Although at times he hesitated and looked to his notes, he also on occasion managed to communicate to the audience in front of him and at home much more effectively than his opponents.

The strategy of the others was intriguing: David Cameron steered clear of strong attacks on Gordon Brown, his own polls apparently having told him that goes down badly with voters. But he’ll surely have to revise that before the next debate, having seemed relatively ineffectual in the face of Gordon Brown’s reasonably effective combativeness. He only really impressed in the way you might have expected from such a normally capable public performer right at the end with his prepared speech – though Frank Luntz, the American pollster who’s been hired by the Sun, has been saying this morning he felt that speech came over as too personal and “American” for British voters’ tastes. Brown certainly didn’t land the kind of blow he was hoping for – most people think he didn’t shine. But he’ll be delighted not to have been beaten by Cameron, and that Clegg has done so well. It might not help his candidate here in Brent, but the normal conventional wisdom here (which might not hold quite as usual this time, it should be said) is that LibDem success hurts the Tories more than it does Labour; plus, he’ll be hoping for tactical votes from those in Labour-Tory marginals who are attracted to Clegg (hence his keenness to tell us he “agrees with Nick”).

I think this debate has shaken up the campaign considerably. It wasn’t hugely exciting, but in imposing Nick Clegg so firmly on the scene, it may well shift votes. Clegg is already the most powerful liberal in Britain since Lloyd George. If he can perform as well as this in the next two debates, and avoids blunders, he could achieve his party’s most serious breakthrough yet and have a decisive influence in or over the next government. Remember, too, that his economic spokesman Vince Cable is the most popular and trusted major politician in the country, so you can expect to see them together as often as the LibDems can possibly manage it. A hung Parliament – where no party has a majority – was a real possibility even before last night. Now, it looks like the most likely outcome. And that could change Britain for good.

Just three weeks to go…

A Pint of Bitter: British Election Campaign Week 1 – Lib Dem Clegg wins first TV debate is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Last week’s budget wasn’t much to write abroad about – very few of us here expected it would be. In truth Alistair Darling had very little room for manoeuvre, Britain’s budget deficit being so high at just under ï¿¡170 billion. Some government backbenchers might have wanted to bribe the electors with a giveaway budget: one of the great Labour myths is that it lost the 1970 election because the then Chancellor, Roy Jenkins, opted for fiscal rectitude in his pre-election budget, rather than indulgence. The Jenkins path was forced upon Darling, though. There was simply no money to give away. In any event, the now unsackable and uncontrollable Chancellor clearly believes that the voters are fed up of, and unimpressed by, the apparently dishonest financial sleight of hand Gordon Brown consistently used when he was responsible for the country’s finances. So he opted for solidity by choice and necessity. Tax on cider has gone up, which won’t please the West Country – but then the Labour vote there is low anyway. The rest of the budget was small beer. Even so, conservative and business commentators lambasted him for not doing more to convince the world he plans to reduce the UK’s national debt, which is only going up. My one complaint was that he did not renew his tax on bankers’ bonuses – surely that would have been a popular move, and would have brought in a useful couple of billion.

Alistair Darling | HM Treasury | CreativeCommons

All of which set the scene for this week’s “Chancellors’ Debate” on Channel 4, which you can see extensive highlights of here. As expected, the Liberal Democrat Vince Cable was perceived to “win” the debate. Even a few years ago there were signs that Cable had a rare political gift – I remember the American pollster Frank Luntz spotting in BBC focus groups that he was notably more trusted than other economic spokesmen. Since the global crisis, though, his reputation has soared along with the deficit, and Liberal Democrats must wish, desperately, that he were their leader. A couple of years ago they dumped their old one (Ming Campbell, who’d got the top job off the back of his star performance as foreign spokesman, leading opposition to the Iraq war) precisely for being too old, and replaced him with the less solid, but more telegenic Nick Clegg. Clegg has been doing reasonably well recently but is still untested, while the other old stager Cable would be the obvious choice now.

Vince Cable | Alex Folkes/Fishnik/Liberal Democrats | CreativeCommons

What’s strange about the current political situation, though, is that Alistair Darling’s boringly “stolid” strategy seems to be paying off – and the Conservative challenge to have become distinctly wobbly. It’s very hard to interpret recent polling because some polls still show Conservative leads of around 10%, and the average lead is something like 6 or 7%; but the common feeling of commentators is that that lead is narrowing. Governments here usually narrow opposition leads during election campaigns, so if current trends continue, we may have the closest general election in Britain for decades. Why aren’t the Tories doing better? Surely, with the country’s finances in such a state and against a tired government with an unloved leader, they should be roaring towards power? Tony Blair’s old strategist Alastair Campbell thinks the answer is that their offering is confused; here’s the Times piece he refers to, which agrees. I think the problem for the Conservatives is that they’ve been caught out badly by the banking crisis and recession – in a way, rather like the Liberal Democrats have.

George Osborne | Ewan McIntosh | CreativeCommons

In 2005 when he became leader, David Cameron launched the Tory party in a new direction, trying to ditch the old image of being in favour of cuts in public services and tax cuts for the rich (an approach that had lost them three elections running, don’t forget) in favour of a much more upbeat message of concern for the environment, health and the quality of life. But just as the Tories had successfully case off doom, gloom came to meet them. Now, events have forced their Shadow Chancellor George Osborne back into arguing for deeper, faster spending cuts, which is comfortable, natural territory for them, but means  they can’t help appearing to have turned one way then the other in recent years, with many voters not really knowing what they stand for. So far, so understandable. But they have also made errors, like allowing themselves still to be cast as tax-cutters for the rich. I’m a Labour supporter, so I’m naturally biased, but there is a real feeling here that some voters – especially fed-up previously Labour voters – are looking hard at the Conservatives and are less sure than they were about defecting. It’s not as obvious as it once seemed that they’ll win on May 6th. But who will? Will anyone?

The civil service is certainly planning for the possibility that no one will. This level of organisation for the eventuality of a hung parliament – one in which no party has a Parliamentary majority – is new, but surely sensible. The civil service is the one institution that can provide continuity and offer practical support to politicians if they need to hammer out an agreement for government this summer. The rule is, basically, that Gordon Brown continues in power until it’s clear he can’t, and someone else can, command a majority in Parliament. That could mean even if defeated, he stays in Downing Street for days or even weeks while he tries to put together some sort of deal with the Liberal Democrats. I’m not sure that a hung parliament would be a disaster for the country: a very close election will undoubtedly be good for political engagement here, and a minority government of either colour depending on Liberal Democrat support could be more stable and effective in dealing with the economic crisis than many fear. What would be damaging, though, is a prolonged period of uncertainty – especially if the leader of the biggest appears appears to be trying to hold on to power illegitimately. Whatever else happens, I hope we don’t go there.

The Seven Stars

Booze-wise, I was in the Seven Stars last week, in Carey Street just behind the Royal Courts of Justice. If I had to name London’s best pub, this is one of the three that come instantly to mind. It’s cosy in winter, and the simple, music-free inside is a brilliant place for conversation. The beer’s terrific (it’s Adnams plus a guest beer or two) and it’s worth ordering food here, too – they serve more interesting than usual pub food, which gives the place a really old-fashioned, almost “eighteenth century tavern” feel. It’s right opposite the back entrance to the High Court, so has a very legal theme – and a nice black cat, apparently called Thomas Paine. I’ll be back in the summer when the place is at its very best, with punters crowding the street outside. I wonder which of the three men above will be in Number 11 Downing Street by then – and how much my beer will cost.

A Pint of Bitter: Could Darling’s dullness and Tory wobbles give Britain a hung Parliament? is a post from: Anglotopia.net

So now we’re sure the general election will be held on May 6th. Not officially. Firm knowledge on the day Gordon Brown decides (and it is his personal decision) to take the short car ride to Buckingham Palace to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament. Which she certainly will, according to constitutional convention and because Parliament is near is legal end in any case. No, the unofficial confirmation of the date comes from the other various announcements that have been made, for instance about the budget – that’ll be held next Wednesday, the 24th – and about the Parliamentary Easter recess, which is from 30th March to the 6th of April. It’s then – just less than three weeks away – that we expect Brown to see the Queen. The election is almost upon us.

Downing Street | CreativeCommons

What this tells us is, first, that the Prime Minister feels fairly confident about the economic statistics that will be published at the end of April, figures that will say whether Britain continues even a fragile recovery or slips back into recession. He still might panic and go to the country before then, but would be visibly running scared. If there’s a chance the figures will look good, there was always a strong argument for his waiting for them. They may be politically priceless for him. Secondly, they tell us Gordon Brown may be preparing for a short election campaign, something that surprises some political commentators, since the long attritional period of pre-election talk has seen Labour narrow the gap with the Conservatives. Why not stretch the fight out even longer?

For two reasons, I think. First, precisely because the “phoney election” is going so well for Labour. Brown wants to stretch this surprisingly helpful period out as long as possible before changing the dynamic to the real campaign. Second, because Labour wants to fight a new type of campaign. The party is in real financial trouble, and while money from trades unions will come, it needs to neutralise what will surely be the Conservatives’ bigger spending power. The idea is to replace the type of election we’ve become used to – leaders expensively touring the country in helicopters day in, day out, glad-handing voters – with a much more concentrated fight centred on the three massively important, and entirely new, leaders’ debates. It’s not just about money, either. Psychologically, Brown wants to follow the phoney election, in which Tory support has gone soft as doubts have crept in – with a short, sharp wake-up campaign to focus minds more intently than ever on the choice between him and David Cameron. I’m sure he believes a short, intense campaign will help create the drama of choice he wants to produce.

Caribb | CreativeCommons

Two political issues have high saliency right now. First, the fact that Brown has had to correct his evidence to the Iraq inquiry, having wrongly claimed that defence spending rose in real terms in every year he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was a blunder that’s done him more harm that the spending record merits, in truth. Second, there’s the British Airways strike, planned to start on Saturday. The strike is politically embarrassing for the PM because the union involved, UNITE, is the biggest donor to the Labour Party. David Cameron tried at Prime Minister’s question time to make the strike a partisan issue; Brown must stay above it, and hope next week’s budget blows it out of the headlines. Yes, many people fly with BA. But in truth, the strike will affect Anglotopia readers, on average, more then the woman in the number 98 bus or the marginal Labour voter, who probably won’t leave the UK until summer, if then. And those Brits who are affected won’t necessarily blame the union or Gordon Brown.

CLF | CreativeCommons

In non-political news, England’s footballers are living up to two of their deserved reputations. First, John Terry who I wrote about a few weeks back (and who was later stripped of the England captaincy) is in trouble again, this time for injuring a steward while driving, apparently after having had a drink following a game. Second, it was always on the cards that one of England’s stars would be injured before the tournament: that always happens. If it happens to Wayne Rooney or Steven Gerrard, England really will be sunk. But it’s happened to David Beckham, still England’s most famous footballer internationally, although football watchers here know he’s past his best and would only have had a supporting role in the World Cup in any case. This is, in effect, the close of a distinguished sporting career. I’ve always thought Beckham overrated as a player, certainly not in the class of real England legends like Bobby Charlton or Bobby Moore. His considerable PR skills having gained him the international profile he enjoys. But even I can’t deny he was a very good player, who made important contributions that swung games for England at crucial times. Or that he was generally speaking a positive example of a well-behaved footballer. He once claimed to have no books in his expensive house, which didn’t impress me. But we may think worse of his coarser colleagues when he’s gone.

Inside the Lamb | Ewan-M | CreativeCommons

Beer? Happily, my local the Queensbury now sells real ale, I’m pleased to say: the quality of life in Willesden has just gone up a notch. Otherwise, I went to the Lamb, in Lamb’s Conduit Street, one of London’s fine old pubs, just north of Holborn. I’m very much hoping, whatever other cautious measures Alastair Darling takes in next week’s budget, that he doesn’t put more than a penny or so on a pint of beer. Much more than that, and all confidence could drain from my personal economy.

A Pint of Bitter: Brown’s plan for May 6th; the BA strike; and England’s Achilles heel is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Oldest royal remains found in Germany

A team of experts are currently trying to identify a set of bones discovered at Germany’s Magdeburg Cathedral. They believe they may have found 10th century Anglo-Saxon princess Eadgyth, the sister of King Athelstan and the granddaughter of Alfred the Great.

Tests on the bones are still pending at Bristol University in England, and if conclusive, will prove that it is indeed Eadgyth – pronounced Edith – whose remains were wrapped in silk and sealed inside a lead coffin. It will be the oldest remains of an English royal ever discovered.

Eadgyth’s description is reminiscent of Queen Marie of Romania: both were born charismatic British princesses who were sent abroad to marry well. Eadgyth became the wife of Otto I, the Holy Roman Emperor. The former Marie of Edinburgh wed Crown Prince Ferdinand of Romania.

Eadgyth was born at the beginning of the 10th century and her brother, King Athelstan is considered the first king of England.

Image: Sacred Destinations

The Independent

Gordo tells Prince to stay home

[picappgallerysingle id="5588080"]

The Prince of Wales has canceled his skiing trip on advice from the Prime Minister.

Charles, who usually visits the Alpine municipality of Klosters every year, has been advised by Gordon Brown to cancel the trip due to the current economic climate. Brown reportedly told the prince that it “sends the wrong message” to take such a trip at this time.

Charles’ son, Prince William, was scolded for taking a skiing trip with girlfriend Kate Middleton last year.

Prince William was accused of receiving “special treatment” from the Royal Air Force – with whom he had just started training a few months prior – after he was given permission to spend a week skiing in the French Alps.

Both Clarence House and Downing Street spokesmen have denied that Prime Minister Brown influenced His Highness’ decision.

“His Royal Highness never intended to go to Klosters this year,” said Clarence House.

“No such conversation took place,” said the Downing Street man.

…..

Wool making a comeback?

While Prince Charles may not be off on a swanky skiing holiday, he has put in a good word for wool.

A Clarence House spokesman said: “The Prince was getting very concerned about the prices that farmers were getting for their fleeces and decided that something had to be done to help them.”

Fashion designers, clothes retailers, and of course representatives of the wool industry have all been brought together under the Prince of Wales to promote the fabric.

Known for being environmentally active and a friend to farmers, Charles naturally intends to market wool products as green, sturdy alternatives to cheap “throwaway” garments that wear out easily. The Prince’s twin goal is to help increase profits for sheep farmers both in Britain and New Zealand.

Royal Round Up 1-26-10: More Royal Remains; Wild for Wool; Klosters Not Kosher Just Now is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Last time, I wrote about Anjem Choudary and his Islamist gang, Islam4UK. Well I doubt I’ll be writing about them again, because since then they’ve managed to get themselves banned. The government has power to “proscribe” organisations under Britain’s terrorist legislation, and Home Secretary Alan Johnson, spurred no doubt by the controversy over Islam4UK’s suggested Wootton Bassett March, has decided now is the time to ban this lot. It won’t last long: Islam4UK was itself at least the third manifestation of this outfit, and no doubt it will pop up again under another name. Choudary will make it as hard as he can for the government to ban him again. If he turns up in Cricklewood I might escape into the Windmill, which markets itself these days as a sort of gastropub.

The Windmill, Cricklewood

Otherwise, I doubt I’ll be going back quickly. There’s no real beer, it plays bad music too loudly, it has a pointless telly and a stark, uncomfortable, trying-hard to-be-hip feel that puts me off. A pity; this is potentially a cracking pub, with some lovely interior features. Much as I love old pubs, if I can’t have real beer I’d rather drink in a relaxed, welcoming space like the bar of the Hampstead Theatre, just near Swiss Cottage tube, than in the noise, gloom and awkwardness of the Windmill.

Hampstead Theatre bar

The Iraq war is of course no news to anyone, but the hearings of Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq Inquiry is quite a big story this January. There have been a number of inquiries into aspects of the Iraq war: the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances leading up to the death of Dr. Kelly, for instance, and the Butler inquiry into the government’s use of intelligence. This, though, is the proper inquiry many people have been pressing for for years into the whole thing – the government’s decision to invade together with America, the conduct of the war and the reconstruction of Iraq. Minds here are basically made up: a clear majority of British people think the war was wrong, and perhaps half the country thinks Tony Blair took Britain to war by deliberately misleading the public about Iraq’s biological and chemical weapons programmes. Some even see him as a war criminal. What’s less often reported is that there seems to be perhaps a third of the British public who continue to support Blair over Iraq. That third includes me, I should disclose.

Center for American Progress | CreativeCommons

Two weeks ago, Tony Blair’s former press secretary Aliastair Campbell – an enormously influential figure in his administration, and the combative inspiration for Malcolm Tucker of The Thick of It and In The Loop – stoutly defended the government’s public presentation of the case for action in 2002-3. This week, Jack Straw who was Foreign Secretary at the time has been defending his own role. The real action comes next week, though, as Tony Blair himself is called to give evidence in public for the first time, as is Lord Goldsmith, who as Attorney General advised that military action was lawful. Many opponents of the war see this as a sort of trial by ordeal for Tony Blair – a chance to grill him and “call him to account” in public – and hope the inquiry’s final report will damn him irretrievably. I doubt that will happen – it’s bound to criticise him to some extent but I think the worst it might do would be to conclude that the war was contrary to international law, as the Dutch inquiry did recently. I’m not sure it will do that. There’s also a  belief among some that the inquiry is an establishment stitch-up, and is bound to end up in a whitewash.

It’s possible that individual performances by the key players could change some minds – I suspect Lord Goldsmith may be able to make a minority reconsider the commonly and often unquestioningly held opinion that the war was clearly unlawful – but I doubt views are now shiftable, really. The real political (as opposed to historical) importance of the inquiry it that it revives the salience of Iraq in the run up to the general election. Will Gordon Brown have to give evidence before then? At the moment he’s not due to, and it’s up to the inquiry itself to decide. But he will hope and pray that he does not. Close scrutiny now of financial decisions he made then about military equipment would intensify the already heavy pressure on him; in any event, he needs to avoid being linked more closely than he already is to the political poison that is Iraq. The timing of his appearance is crucial.

What will please Gordon Brown is that unemployment is down, surprisingly. He needs to be able to argue in May that his policies through the recession have changed jobs and enabled early recovery – and if the figures continue on this trend, he may be able to make that case persuasively. Timing again will be crucial: his last chance, perhaps, is if next year’s budget combined with economic trends contrive to produce some sense of relief and confidence, before the effect of tax rises and spending cuts really bites on the public mind. He has a serious uphill struggle – but don’t count him out completely yet.

The bar at the Royal Festival Hall

Earlier I mentioned the relaxed Hampstead Theatre bar: even better is the bar of the Royal Festival Hall on the South Bank. There’s no real beer here either – which is truly a great pity. Otherwise, though, this is a surprisingly good place for a drink – roomy, relaxed (a customer started playing the grand piano when I was there last night) with lots of comfy sofas and free wifi, which is especially nice for bloggers and anyone who wants to tweet, say, about their visit to London. All in the middle of London’s leading arts centre. I’ll be there again soon – and back with you in two weeks.

A Pint of Bitter: Choudary banned, Blair and Iraq (again) – and UK joblessness down is a post from: Anglotopia.net

Happy New Year! Snow is on the ground again in London. It’s not like much of the rest of the country: my parents are actually snowed in, up North. There’s no infrastructural breakdown here, apart from the predictable tube delays. But cold, it certainly is. Ideal weather for settling down with a warming pint of winter beer somewhere like the St. Stephen’s Tavern, right by Westminster tube station, where Francesca and I enjoyed a pint of Pickled Partridge. This pub is much better than you’d think, being in such a tourist-grabbing spot practically underneath Big Ben. It’s plushly Victorian, very welcoming and has good beer – I like it. As do Scots musicians in kilts and the gin-drinking ladies who admire them. It was New Year’s Day. It doesn’t seem a very political pub, though – for that, I recommend the Red Lion, just round the corner opposite Downing Street.

St. Stephen's Tavern

Twenty-ten may only be minutes old, but believe it or not, Gordon Brown’s leadership is in question yet again. There’s been constant muttering: Labour MPs and Labour supporters know their party would be likely to do better with someone else at this year’s general election, and crucially, no one in Britain can imagine him serving as PM until 2014. He survived a serious crisis last June, when one of his Cabinet resigned, calling for a change at the top. Brown was vulnerable then – I thought he’d resign – but the Foreign Secretary David Miliband (much admired by Hillary Clinton) thought better of challenging Brown at that moment – he “bottled out”, as his critics would put it. I and many others thought Brown’s survival then made him safe until the election. But two former ministers, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt, astonished everyone on Wednesday by calling for a secret ballot of Labour MPs to decide once and for all whether Gordon Brown should lead Labour on polling day.

Downing Street | Creative Commons

In truth, this was an attempt to remove him, veiled only flimsily. It didn’t work. The coup was ineptly timed – Labour MPs were e-mailed the idea just as Gordon Brown was giving an unusually strong performance at Prime Minister’s question time in Parliament – and failed to trigger the ministerial resignations it aimed at provoking. It was much too narrowly based, coming from the New Labour right rather than an alliance of the right, centre and left, which could unseat Brown. And it’s come far too late, with only weeks left before Brown must go to the country. If Hoon and Hewitt really wanted, as they said, to settle the leadership question, then they’ve succeeded. Gordon Brown is now surely unremovable internally. The tepid loyalty displayed by some of his Cabinet weakens him politically outside the Labour Party, though: David Miliband could only say

I am working closely with the prime minister on foreign policy issues and support the re-election campaign for a Labour government that he is leading

a tactically bad response that surely damages his future. I think he’s missed his chance to be Prime Minister, and will never have another. Worse for UK PLC, Alistair Darling made the bare statement that

The prime minister and I met this afternoon and we discussed how we take forward economic policies to secure the recovery. I won’t be deflected from that.

What international markets and credit rating firms think of that evidence of unity at the top of H.M. Government, as they scrutinise Britain’s deficit-reduction plans, I don’t know.

Possible fans of Anjem Choudary | corono | Creative Commons

There was just time before the New Year Coup for another media storm to be shrewdly created by Britain’s leading Islamist, Anjem Choudary. He announced the intention of his group “Islam4UK“, which wants the UK to convert wholesale to radical Islam and to be subject to sharia law, to hold a procession in the market town of Wootton Bassett. It’s not a stronghold of Islam. It’s the nearest town to the RAF Lyneham, where the bodies of British soliders killed in Afghanistan land on return to the UK, and the public have taken to lining the streets as a mark of respect as their remains are driven through the town. There’s little doubt this obviously provocative march, if it was ever seriously planned, will be prevented. The Home Secretary Alan Johnson has already said he’ll stop it. But Choudary has succeeded in what was no doubt his primary aim, of gaining publicity for his strange outfit. It’s difficult to know how seriously to take him: few Muslims will agree with much he says, and his ideas are so extreme, they are unlikely to have any wide appeal. But the connection of Islamist ideology with violence, and that fact that a few vulnerable people can be susceptible to radicalisation and extremism in the service of mad ideas, means his activities can’t be dismissed as harmless crankery.

The Cittie of Yorke

Before I go, I should mention the Cittie of Yorke, a fine, quirky old pub on High Holborn, just by the entrance to Gray’s Inn, where I enjoyed a beer a few days ago. The small booths in the main, back bar are packed with young lawyers and Bar students if you don’t take your seat by 5.30. It’s a place with many memories for me, of drunken nights worrying about advocacy tests, and is one of the few grand old London pubs to have improved in recent times – the Sam Smith’s beer (real ale, but not with a great reputation among drinkers) has improved, there’s not a bad wheat beer alternative, and reasonable food is served. This is quite a good stop for visitors to legal London who are interested in seeing young professional London getting plastered in quaint olde surroundings. I don’t expect to see Anjem Choudary in there. I expect he’d close it down; which is one more reason to oppose him.

A Pint of Bitter: Gordon Brown survives brief blizzard Coup Attempt, Islam in the UK and Much More! is a post from: Anglotopia.net

This is quite an interesting development – with a mandated general election looming, several former cabinet ministers are calling for a fresh referendum on Gordon Brown’s leadership to ensure the Labour party is really quite sure they want him around to fight the general election.

From the Times just now:

Geoff Hoon, the former Defence Secretary, and Patricia Hewitt, the former Health Secretary, have written to all Labour MPs calling for the leadership issue to be sorted out “once and for all”.

A source close to the former Cabinet ministers, both of whom were allies of Tony Blair, said: “We can’t go on like this.”

The timing – just before the first Prime Minister’s questions – was intended to be devastating. The Prime Minister understood to been made aware of the attack shortly before the session.

Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt both wrote a letter to fellow Labour MP’s demanding a that Gordon Brown’s leadership be decided once and for all.

The Labour Coup letter in full: the letter from Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt:

Dear Colleague,

As we move towards a General Election it remains the case that the Parliamentary Labour Party is deeply divided over the question of the leadership. Many colleagues have expressed their frustration at the way in which this question is affecting our political performance. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the only way to resolve this issue would be to allow every member to express their view in a secret ballot.

This could be done quickly and with minimum disruption to the work of MPs and the Government. Whatever the outcome the whole of the party could then go forward, knowing that this matter had been sorted out once and for all.

Strong supporters of the Prime Minister should have no difficulty in backing this approach. There is a risk otherwise that the persistent background briefing and grumbling could continue up to and possibly through the election campaign, affecting our ability to concentrate all of our energies on getting our real message across.

Equally those who want change, should they lose such a vote, would be expected by the majority of the PLP to devote all of their efforts to winning the election. The implications of such a vote would be clear – everyone would be bound to support the result.

This is a clear opportunity to finally lay this matter to rest. The continued speculation and uncertainty is allowing our opponents to portray us as dispirited and disunited. It is damaging our ability to set out our strong case to the electorate. It is giving our political opponents an easy target.

In what will inevitably be a difficult and demanding election campaign, we must have a determined and united parliamentary party. It is our job to lead the fight against our political opponents. We can only do that if we resolve these distractions. We hope that you will support this proposal.

Yours fraternally,

Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt

The buildup to the British General Election just got a hell of a lot more interesting. We’ll keep you posted.

Breaking News: Prime Minister Gordon Brown Faces Fresh Leadership Challenge is a post from: Anglotopia.net

I haven’t really posted anything about the ongoing Parliamentary Expenses Scandal in Britain. While I have a great interest in British Politics and have been watching the story with great interest as it has played out – I generally avoid talking about British Politics on Anglotopia.

One reason really, I’m not British and it’s not really my place or fair for me to comment on, criticize or express my opinion on the matter when there are Brits out there who may take issue with that.

Sure, I have my opinions on British politics as I’m sure Brits have opinions on American politics as well. But, until one day in the future when I hold a scarlet passport – it’s not really my place to criticize a system, that even I don’t understand fully yet.

Besides I don’t really want to say that I’ve been entertained by the scandal – because Brits are genuinely, angrily upset about the whole scandal and I don’t want to act like I get enjoyment out of their political system being flogged on the world stage.

That being said, The New York Times had a very well balanced, outsider’s view of the whole scandal this week that I thought I’d share.

It gives a rundown of the scandal, it’s effects and how it may end up changing British Politics forever.

From the article:

There have been no angry mobs storming the House of Commons, nor much of anything in the way of organized protest. But the mood of anger is palpable in every pub and on every bus and train. It concerns far more than the latest scandal, touching grievances that have been building gradually for at least 30 years — perhaps for nearly a century — about the growth of a self-serving political class, arrogant habits of rule and an inward-looking cadre of senior civil servants, for all of which the most appropriate adjective seems to be “high-handed.”

Now the popular resentment has reached proportions that are drawing comparisons to the situation 180 years ago, when the Great Reform Act of 1832 was speeded through Parliament by riots in several cities. That act laid the basis for modern democracy in Britain by widening the males-only franchise and shifting power to the country’s cities from the “rotten boroughs” controlled by rural grandees.

Some of the Parliament members caught up in the current turmoil, and as many who have not been, argued in its early stages that the expenses scandal was no more than a storm in a teacup — involving at most £30 million to £50 million in dodgy claims over the past five years. A mere bagatelle, as these proponents would have it, at a time of government-financed bank bailouts that have cost British taxpayers tens of billions.

Overall, it’s a very interesting read and it’s a good commentary on British politics and where they’re heading.

Check it out here.

If you’re at all interested in my opinion – I think it’s time for Gordon to go and for a good number of MP’s (from both parties) to go with him. Though, I think they should wait until public anger has cooled a little bit before calling a game changing general election.

Thoughts on Britain’s Expenses Scandal is a post from: Anglotopia.net

President Obama’s visit to the UK seems to be going decently. The riots turned out to be rather tame (by British Standard – look up Poll Tax Riots) and the G20 meetings seemed to go well. Though, I’ll try to keep out of the politics of the day. Gordon Brown and The Queen showed Obama how to properly welcome a head of state, which makes me proud to be an Anglophile.

Obama was sure to give a better gift this time around. He gave the Queen an video iPod loaded with footage of her trip the US in 2007 and an Richard Rogers autographed songbook. At least he didn’t give her region coded DVD’s!

I’d like to welcome all the new readers who found us via the Telegraph. Thanks go out to Toby Harnden for linking to us from his blog! Thanks so much!

If you’re new to Anglotopia, be sure to check out our featured posts on the frontpage as well as our most popular posts in the right sidebar. I hope you enjoy the site as much as I enjoy working on it!

Now, for some videos from today.

This video is hilarious. Obama’s Limo driver masters the 20 point turn trying to turn around the limo in narrow Downing Street.

Parking ‘The Beast’ at Downing Street

You’ll need to click through to watch the video, as the BBC as disabled embedding on the funny video.

The most exciting video from the G20 protests in London concerns some protestors who smashed the windows at the Royal Bank of Scotland’s headquarters. They were clearly being egged on by the media. There were more cameras than people!

US President Visits London – Videos from the Day is a post from: Anglotopia.net

I’ve vented my frustration over the last few weeks over Gordon Brown’s treatment at the hands of the Obama administration. And now there’s salt to rub into the wound.

So, we gave Gordon a DVD set of classic Hollywood movies. Well, it turns out he sat down to watch one the other day and guess what?

The DVD’s were for Region 1 coded. Meaning they could not be played outside of North America.

(Massive Diplomatic Facepalm).

I’m so sorry Prime Minister. So sorry.

Check out the Article in the Telegraph Today.

White House Gift Gate Continues is a post from: Anglotopia.net

And I’m inclined to agree with him. Many of you may recall my rant last week about the grave mistreatment of Gordon Brown at the hands of the Obama administration (read it here). Well, now Car God Jeremy Clarkson has chimed in with his two pence.

Not only does he view it as an insult, he think it’s time to cut off America and it’s ingratitude and end the ‘special relationship‘ that America and Britain supposedly have.

From the article:

However, if you look at Gordon Brown’s recent trip to Washington, Johnny Frenchman would appear to have a point. Gordon gave Obama Barrack a penholder carved from the timbers of an antislavery ship. The sister ship, in fact, of the one that was broken up and turned into the desk in the Oval Office.

Barrack, meanwhile, gave Brown The Graduate on DVD. Which smacks of an “Oh, Christ. What shall we get him?” moment at the local petrol station.

Then we have the issue with crime. The British authorities have to present a robust prima-facie case to the American courts before we can extradite someone to the UK. Whereas an American cop can drag you across the Atlantic if he even so much as thinks your beard is a bit dodgy.

Read the read of Jeremy Clarkson’s Column here.

Jeremy Clarkson Thinks the ‘Special Relationship’ Should be Thrown in the Skip is a post from: Anglotopia.net

It simply slipped my mind to post this. There were big events for Anglophiles this week and I didn’t think to post the video of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown addressing the US Congress. This is only the fifth time a sitting British Prime Minister has addressed a join session of Congress.

See below for some of my gripes about the recent visit, if you’re interested.

Gordon Brown Address Joint Session of Congress:

I’m pretty happy with the reception he got in Congress. However, I was appalled at Gordon Brown’s treatment by the Obama administration.

Let me first say that I’m an Obama supporter, so this is not misplaced conservative angst. I was rooting for Obama long before was running for President and my wife even worked on the campaign.

I understand that Obama is busy trying to fix the country and all, but it’s insulting to Gordon Brown and the British people that he was simply crammed into Obama’s schedule and not even accorded a joint press conference or dinner.

According to the Londonist, many of the British newspapers have picked up on the ‘Obama Snub.” On top of the poor political treatment he got, the traditional gift exchange was lopsided. Gordon Brown gave Obama a pen holder carved from the hull on an old ship. What did we give him? A DVD set of old movies.

I should also make it very clear that Barack Obama is NOT an Anglophile and has said as much. From what I understand, he doesn’t have much of an affinity for Britain at all because of the way Britain treated Kenya during the colonial period (and treated his father during those years). There are also lingering issues in Kenya that can be traced back to the colonial days and affect his relatives to this day. So, it doesn’t surprise me that Obama snubbed him. Post-colonialism is playing out right on TV with the world’s most powerful leaders.

It’s a shame. When Obama visits London later this month, I hope the Brits go above and beyond and show him how it’s done. If anyone can do pomp and circumstance, it’s the Brits!

Gordon Brown should make his way to Chicago sometime, we’ll give him a right a proper welcome!

Watch Gordon Brown’s Address to Congress Plus a View on the Recent Visit is a post from: Anglotopia.net

If you’re interested in keeping tabs on the British Prime Minister and what he’s up to, you can now follow him on Twitter.

10 Downing Street on Twitter features updates of the Prime Minister’s movements and meetings. It’s pretty fun to follow. Check it out.

Downing Street on Twitter

Follow Downing Street on Twitter is a post from: Anglotopia.net

With the iconic Tony Blair standing down at the end of this month, the world loses a great leader. He changed the nature of the Premiership and Britain’s place in the the world. So, now is a good time to discuss the role of the Prime Minister in government. What’s the history of the position? Where does his authority come from? What exactly does he do? How does it compare to the American system of government?

History of the Prime Minister

For as long as there has been a Monarch in England,  he or she has had a loyal servant to do their bidding. The first Prime Minister is largely considered to be Sir Robert Walpole. The Prime Minister is the de facto head of state; meaning he is not the official Head of State but has all the power of that position.  In modern-day England, the Queen is the Head of State but all her power has pretty much been stripped away into a ceremonial position. This is in contrast to the American system where the Head of State, the President, exercises real authority. The term Prime Minister is also relatively new; having come into official usage in 1905. 

The Prime Minister is chosen by the party that has a parliamentary majority, usually determined after a general election held every five years. He is then asked by the Queen to form a government in her name. The PM’s official title is actually the First Lord of the Treasury, giving him statutory power over the functions of government. 

There have been many interesting characters to inhabit the office. Benjamin Disraeli was known to be a homosexual and happened to also be Jewish. By far the most famous PM, Winston Churchill was half-American. Margaret Thatcher was the first female PM in British history and also ruled the second longest.

Authority of the Prime Minister

The constitutional authority of the Prime Minister derives from the consent of a Monarch to form a government. However, his real authority comes from Parliament. If a PM loses the support of his party and parliament in general, he will lose power. Though the PM is considered first amongst equals, he wields an extraordinary amount of authority. The PM  has the power to command the army, set government policy, engage in diplomacy and much more. The office is a de facto position, meaning that it doesn’t have a clear definition or clear legal grounding. That is why many PM’s make the office their own.

What does the Prime Minister do?

Everything, apparently. Because their is no real official definition of the job, a PM can do whatever he wants. He can wield as much or as little power as he chooses. It is the job of the PM to lead the cabinet and maintain the functions of government. 

The actual dayd-to-day functions of government are handled by the Cabinet. Though the Cabinet of Ministers has a great deal of independent authority, they generally obey the wishes of the PM.

The PM also has  duty to his party and must spend time on party matters in addition to the matters of government.

American Comparison

The best way to understand the differences in American and British government is to think of the branches of government. America has three branches of government, all considered to have equal power under a system of checks and balances. The British government has just one branch of government. Parliament is the Executive, Legislative and the Judicial bundled into one inseparable package.

In America the Head of State is the President. The Head of State of the UK is the Queen, but she has no power. The real Head of State is the Prime Minister. The only direct comparison in the US system, is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The speaker has a similar role as the PM but does not run the government. The President runs the government.

Tony Blair has often been criticized for being too ‘Presidential.’ There is a big difference between the President of the US and the Prime Minister. They derive their power from different sources. The Prime Minister is continually answerable to Parliament and to his party. If he fails horribly or is involved in a scandal it will not take long for him to be removed. Oftentimes, government changes in England can happen overnight under tumultuous circumstances. In the American system, the President can be as answerable to his party, congress and the American people as he wishes. They will be stuck with him until the end of his term either way. Removal from office has never happened, though it is possible.

What Exactly is the Prime Minister? is a post from: Anglotopia.net