Ed Vaizey

I was on my way to meet my local farmers when I heard the news Ming had resigned.  In fact, I was told by Andrew Forsyth, the secretary of my local NFU.  Which was lucky, because the Oxford Mail was on the phone a minute later for a quote.  I told them my genuine view - Ming is an amazingly distinguished man who has excelled in athletics, the law and politics.  But he should never have led the Lib Dems.

Now it is between Clegg and Huhne - and as is well known I like Clegg a great deal.  Susan Kramer has also decided to run - to make sure a woman is on the ballot.

Will Clegg’s leadership revive the Lib Dems?  May be.  But two causes for concern.  First, they are being squeezed not just through poor leadership but because British politics is again a two horse race.  Secondly, there is huge personal animosity among Lib Dem MPs, based on the way Ming was treated.  It will take time to heal.

Labour MPs are apparently calling on the law to be changed to limit spending between elections.  This is because those in marginal seats believe the Conservative Party are spending too much money in marginal seats and this will cost them their places.

If this argument was somehow objective, you might be able to give it some credence.  But of course it’s not.  What Labour MPs are really saying is “we already enjoy a massive advantage, please can we have yet further help”.

Consider how the balance of power is balanced between an incumbent Labour MP and his opponent:

- the incumbent is full-time, the opponent normally has a job and can only fit in campaigning as and when

- the incumbent has just voted himself an annual £10,000 communications allowance which he can use to promote himself

- the incumbent deals with hundreds, if not thousands of constituents every year

- the incumbent receives money from trades unions, and his party receives millions from them at election time.  Often the unions will be running advertising campaigns during the election to complement his party’s campaign

- the incumbent is a member of a party that received fewer votes in England than the Conservatives but still got 93 more seats.

And they feel hard done by…

My political antenna is broken.  I didn’t think David Cameron should go on the election at PMQs.  In the Chamber I thought it was a score draw.  Then I came out and found David had trounced Brown.  I have since tried to work out why I got it so wrong.  I think it is because (a) I want David to win, so I over-compensate (b) I can see Brown’s face, but not David’s and (c) I can hear lots of Labour MPs shouting.  I’m going to watch it on telly in future.

As the wheels continue to come off Brown’s Darling’s budget, I am receiving a lot of correspondence from local business.  They make an interesting and particular point.  A lot of them were encouraged (rightly) by the Government to take out Enterprise Management Incentives - essentially a way to give employees shares in a tax efficient manner.  And of course, the reward for these people working in a small business for low salaries was a capital gain at the end (the end being many years of hard work).  Now they find that the tax on the gain has just been increased by 80 per cent and they are furious.  I will be asking the Treasury just how many of these schemes exist, just to establish how many are furious.

As Darling’s Budget (we might as well call it that) unravels, the sigh of relief breathed by the arts world will turn to one of disappointment.  Gordon Brown called them all in last Thursday to discuss their issues, so we knew they would receive an inflation matching settlement.  But what has been hidden in the small print is cuts to heritage, a sector which has now lost £100 million over the last ten years.  But then Labour hates history.  Add to this that the arts and heritage now receive approximately £120 million a year less from the Lottery, and Labour’s claim to have presided over a golden age for the arts seems somewhat tarnished.

All this is bad enough. The additional problem was that this spending review was so late, very few arts organisations were able to plan.  They spent the last few months worrying about cuts which they had been told to expect, and had no idea what budget they would receive.

All pretty pathetic.  Off to the Frieze Art fair now, will report back. 

The headlines will be obvious.  Darling has stolen the Tories’ clothes.  Depending on your political leanings, you will either be delighted by the audacity, or gnashing your teeth at the injustice.  Politicians shouldn’t spend too much time lamenting political opportunism - it won’t garner votes on polling day.  Rather there are more important, strategic points to make. 

First, the fact that Labour have stolen our clothes shows they have run out of ideas.  Take away inheritance tax and non-doms (and the change to airline tax), and there is no big idea, and no vision.  So why does Brown need two years to show Britain something that does not exist.

Second, a further lesson to the media, as if they needed one, on Labour spin.  Ask yourself why policies that could not be afforded or implemented last Tuesday when George Osborne set them out can now be introduced a week later.  When the Tories propose modest tax cuts in future, please don’t waste time and coverage on Labour claims that this means X number of teachers or Y number of doctors will have to be sacked to pay for them.

Finally, ask yourself why we have a Government that implements last-minute policies in its Budget and then pays for them with a tax on entrepreneurs and wealth creators. 

I met a hero in Downing Street today - and no, it wasn’t Gordon Brown! It was a young man by the name of Connor Greer. Connor lives in East Hagbourne in my constituency. He is eleven years old and has just started at St Birinus school in Didcot. But this young man has had to grow up fast. He land his mum live on their own.  His mum contracted meningitis when she was pregnant with Connor. As such, Jackie suffers from a range of disabilities including impaired hearing and vision. A couple of years ago she collapsed, and Connor had the bravery and foresight to call an ambulance, saving her life. Connor makes sure the bills are paid, and does the cleaning in the house.

I bumped into our ex-Lord Chancellor last night, who told me of a constitutional anomoly of which I was blissfully unaware.  Apparently, since the days of FE Smith, Lord Chancellors have been prevented from practising at the Bar when they retire. This is because it could be perceived that they would be treated favourably by Judges who they had appointed.  It’s logical, I suppose, when one recalls the House of Lords overturning the Pinochet Judgment because one of the Judges had been a member of Amnesty International.  Justice must be seen to be done, but it’s rather a shame in this case.

Iain Dale has very kindly publicised my last post, on the condition that I do a “blog a day”.  Having missed SUnday, I have already broken my promise.  May be I will manage two today.

Parliament returns today, after a mere 10 weeks off.  Despite the cancelled election, the atmosphere, I expect, will be feverish, with announcments on Iraq, the pre-Budget Report and Government spending, as well as Prime Minister’s Questions, all in the next three days.  It will be interesting to guague the mood of Labour MPs.  I did the Westminster Hour with Labour MP Emily Thornberry last night, and while she was subdued, she played a loyal straight bat both on and off the air.  Certainly more so than Harriet Harman, who could not bring herself to say the fiasco has not damaged Brown.  Cue her imminent departure.

Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, was also on the programme.  She raised the issue of fixed-term Parliaments.  I declared my support for them in my last post, only to see my Leader say that he was emphatically against them on Andrew Marr’s show yesterday.  One objection, raised by Prague Tory in my last post, is the possibility of having a minority Government stagger on for four years.  In my view, that is not an objection, as Parliament could still be dissolved “mid-term” if the Government lost its majority.  Then one would either re-set the clock or have another election on the set date.

I discussed the issue with a senior colleague at the Tory party conference.  While still sceptical, he said he was coming round to the idea.  He also pointed out two problems  in Gordon Brown’s proposals which no one else seems to have noticed.  Brown, you will recall, has spun stated that Parliament will be allowed to vote on any dissolution.  This is a recipe for disaster, as a minority Government could be kept in power by the Opposition simply in order to make it suffer.  It is also a trap for Oppositions, as they would be forced either to agree to a dissolution, thus being unable to accuse the Government of cutting and running, or vote against it, and thus be accused of being frightened of having an election.  Thus, again, we see an apparently straightforward proposal by Brown suffused with political calculation and potential political disaster…

One of the little noticed and earliest casualties of the recent speculation about an election was the Association of Circus Proprietors.  My colleague Peter Luff had planned to hold a reception in their honour in Parliament on 5th November, but e-mailed at the end of September to say that the event had been cancelled because of election fever.  I, of course, held my nerve, and continued to organise my Archive Summit for the end of October.  Since then of course, there have been many other casualties, ending with Gordon Brown’s reputation.

There are so many things that can and will be said about Gordon Brown’s extraordinary decision to prepare the country for an election and then pull back.  I will try in this post to make a few pithy points.

First, and most obviously, this will have caused Gordon Brown immense damage.  Those that say that this is just a Westminster village issue are wrong.  The public were more than aware that an election was looming, and more than aware that it was Gordon Brown and his team that were driving it.  Now he has pulled back, they will make their judgement.  The last hundred days, carefully crafting an image of a man that can control events and handle a crisis, have been for naught.  The public have seen Gordon Brown bottle it, in the most spectacular and public fashion.  There will be a lot of Blairites quietly muttering “this is what we put up with for a decade”.  A wry smile may even have played across Tony’s face.  A guffaw will have emerged from Cherie.

Secondly, this was David Cameron’s victory.  Brown and Cameron went eye ball to eye ball, and Brown blinked.  Like the bully who asks you to “come outside if you think you’re hard enough” and then ends up getting chinned, the mystique has been lost.  Not that he ever did, but Cameron has no need to fear Brown ever again.  It will fundamentally and permanently change the dynamics of the contest.

Thirdly, Brown has inadvertantly taught the Conservatives a lesson.  Everyone, media included, thinks our conference in Blackpool was a huge success.  It was.  David Cameron reminded the party why they elected him as leader.  Indeed, he performed the same feat as he did two years ago in the same hall, using a speech to come from nowhere to pole position.  But the leadership was also reminded what a force the Conservative party can be when it is wooed.  The inheritance tax cut has proved hugely popular, proving that old and new can co-exist.  And finally, all of us were reminded of how powerful we can be when we are united and energised.  I hope the only bottling we do from now on is bottling that Blackpool feeling and taking it back to Westminster.

Finally, there is a lesson for the country.  Our ancient, creaking constitution, so revered by us all, allowed Brown to play politics with the election.  There is not one single sensible argument against fixed term parliaments, unless you are a sitting PM wanting to sneak an election.  I hope our new politics extends to making this very sensible reform, and many others that are long overdue.