Let’s be absolutely clear. A body responsible for passing laws which tells the rest of us how we should behave should be beyond reproach. A culture of sexism and boorish behaviour generally, often fuelled by too much alcohol, is at odds with this. That such an environment exists is beyond doubt, particularly when it is on show each week at Prime Minister’s Question Time.

The strange nature of a parliamentary career with unsociable hours, proximity to power, ruthless ambition combined with often humiliating disappointments, all lived in the public eye, is fertile ground for such a culture to flourish. But this is no excuse. It is vastly out of date. No wonder parliament is losing our respect with the consequence that not enough good people of both sexes are entering politics.

But the caveat must be that accusations need to be carefully verified. Some allegations are more serious than others and it is important individuals are not deemed guilty from the start. Witch hunts can have their own unfortunate consequences.

The solution to all this is to stop the abuse of power at source and clean up procedures so that unacceptable behaviours can be reported confidentially and without repercussions to an independent body in parliament. Business has been doing this for years. Amateur hour for politics is over. MPs need HR guidance and parties, of course, need their own governance to be enhanced. And ending subsidised alcohol in parliament wouldn’t go amiss either.

Theresa May started the luckiest of politicians and now must be the unluckiest. In tracking what may bring her government down, the first reason might have been a challenge to her leadership, the second was Brexit chaos and Labour’s more aggressive, astute opposition tactics. The third must now surely be these scandals. They have ensnared all parties equally but the impact is greater on the Conservatives as they are in power. More revelations are likely to lead to by-elections as politicians walk away from public humiliation and it will be this which will bring down a government already looking shaky.

Politics will be better off after the longer term repercussions of these scandals bear fruit. A new government operating under a reformed, healthier culture feels more imminent but it might not be a Conservative one.

Is it too much nowadays to assume political crises can be resolved calmly and without conflict? In the Catalan crisis we have the extraordinary situation in a modern European democracy of Spain’s attorney-general calling for charges of rebellion and sedition to be brought against the deposed Catalan leader, Carles Puigdemont, and his cabinet. This could lead to trials and jail. He, in return, has ‘fled’ to Belgium which may potentially offer him asylum!

Politics seems to be getting crazier. The situation could so easily have been resolved by sitting round the table to discuss further autonomy for the region with possibly a referendum on independence. It particularly makes sense from Madrid’s perspective when regional opinion polls suggest Puigdemont would have lost.

In this sense lessons could be taken from how London dealt with a call for Scottish independence. No threats to jail Nicola Sturgeon (umm…tempting) but a boil lanced at least for the time being. Of course, her call was not illegal but such demands should never be in a functioning democracy. Rajoy’s thin-skinned authoritarianism is embarrassing for the whole of Spain.

But where has the EU been in all this? Rather than riding to the rescue with a stance of maintaining democratic principles in its member states, it has been depressingly quiet. Quite different from its approach to authoritarianism in Eastern Europe.

Much has been said about the EU’s over-arching powers, but it has abdicated its responsibilities with Spain. Hypocrisy is everywhere, (not least amongst Brexit supporting commentators who support Catalan yet hated the thought of Scottish independence), but the EU should intervene to stop the Madrid government pursuing the ambitions of its excitable public prosecutor. We know why – it does not want its members splintering – but principles are not a luxury to be applied only when self-interest doesn’t get in the way. It undermines moral authority, so important when dealing with Putin, Xi and the Trumps of this world.

To be clear, Puigdemont has been being entirely self-indulgent in his behaviour. There is no logic in Catalan going independent. Spain is not a dictatorship; Catalan is a prosperous region and better for being part of Spain. He held a provocative, illegal referendum and his government’s subsequent vote for succession has caused a wholly unnecessary crisis. Sadly, however, Rajoy has made the situation worse and his government’s threatening legal tactics are unacceptable. The EU should speak firmly of the need to compromise and help broker an agreement. After all, if it can’t do this, what does it exist for?

An alarming report published by the Financial Conduct Authority this week paints a grim picture of the financial future for many in the UK. An astonishing 26 million people are described as ‘financially vulnerable’ with a growing gap between the wealth of young and old. A reliance on expensive credit products and reckless borrowing generally means there is a financial time bomb ticking.

The report based on a survey of 13,000 adults revealed that over 4 million 25-34 year olds are already in serious financial difficulty. The overall number will rise sharply if, as expected, interest rates start to rise with a staggering 17% of households saying they would struggle if mortgage repayments or rent rose by less than £50 per month.

There may be some unnecessary fear in these results with individuals too ready to plead imminent poverty but the scale of those under threat is too great to ignore. The fact is people are simply too ignorant about managing their financial futures responsibly with little understanding of the need or level of savings required for retirement being a prime example. With pressures on housing costs, inflationary rises in the price of utilities and travel, restrictions on welfare budgets and a well-documented transfer of wealth to older voters (rises in house prices, winter fuel allowances, triple locks on pensions, student loans etc.) taking their toll, perhaps the report is hardly surprising.

One statistic which is nearly always alarming is the household savings ratio. At an almost all time low compared to other developed countries, second only to the US, it needs to rise in the UK. Building an economy on credit and rampant consumerism is hardly a path to financial success in the long run. It is a moot point whether it reflects a generational change in values or record low interest rates; probably a combination of both. But with regard to the latter, it is worth remembering that inflation is never dead and rising interest rates are now not far away.

The need for comprehensive financial education from school age upwards with increased support from the private sector has never been more needed.

Lastly, specifically for those reliant on benefits, an immediate threat to their financial future is the roll out of Universal Credit. Whilst it is widely supported in principle, of the 8% of claimants so far effected, there are, it seems, too many horror stories developing of delayed payments creating real hardship. With Conservative MPs this week instructed not to vote in parliament on a Labour proposal to ‘pause’ the roll-out and the Government forced to make a U-turn so that the Universal Credit hotline is free (why wasn’t this the case from the start?) it is rapidly becoming a symbol of Conservative heartlessness. It would be ironic if initiatives such as this rather than the disarray over Brexit was the catalyst that ended this current administration.

Why are we where we are with Trump, Brexit and a move to the far right across Europe to name just a few exciting political developments…?

Quite simply because complacency and arrogance all too often builds up in a cliquey governing liberal elite whose hypocrisy has been regularly exposed. If it wasn’t so serious, with potentially tragic consequences, it would almost be comical.

Where to start. Well let’s begin with Harvey Weinstein. The same liberals who rightly condemned Trump’s behaviour stayed silent for years whilst Weinstein abused women. The same Clinton’s, Obama’s and liberal media who must have known the back story or at least strong rumours of it took Weinstein’s donations and advertising revenue whilst ignoring or suppressing stories about him. Now it is safe to do so they are falling over themselves to condemn him but a little late one feels….

Then you have Blair, Brown, Cameron et al embracing Europe to the extent of ignoring the pressures of immigration until it is also too late, all exacerbated by the awful European Commission. Now the worst sentiments of a xenophobic society are rising to the surface in the UK as well as elsewhere (witness the results from the Austrian and French elections) as we leave the EU.

Go back further and the same traits were found in the Tory Left in the 1960s/1970s (although I don’t think those active at the time and still alive today recognise it). Why is this relevant? It led to the radicalism of Thatcher. She was a force for good for a while but left an ideological, anti-European legacy behind her which is the foundation of today’s Conservative Party and where we are on Brexit.

There are other, numerous examples of hubris. Political correctness gone mad and an assumption that building an alliance across minorities is enough in itself (Clinton).

Democracy means you have to listen to the concerns of all voters, knowing when to lead and when to follow, to ensure your priorities never fall too far out of sync with their concerns (if only the European Commission understood this). It also means applying forward looking, liberal values evenly across people’s behaviour. So much progress has been made by this approach in so many areas both economically and socially. It is put at risk by the traits highlighted above which are too often on display, making liberal democracy an easier target that it should be from populism.

How did Catalonia’s desire for separatism reach such a crisis point in what is now a relatively mature democracy? It all seemed sorted back in 2006 when a Statute of Autonomy agreed by the Catalan and Spanish Governments seemed to solve the tensions. Unfortunately, the People’s Party (now led by Mariano Rajoy, the current Spanish Prime Minister) challenged the Statute in Madrid’s Constitutional Court and it was largely over-turned leading to the current crisis.

In recent weeks it has all gone downhill, culminating in an illegal referendum on 1 October. 90% of only 43% of voters who turned out supported independence; but this was less an issue than the heavy handed response of the national police who on the instructions of Madrid tried to head off the vote, closing ballot booths, dragging voters by their hair along the streets and generally inciting violence. These were shocking scenes which are wholly unacceptable in a western democracy.

The EU was uncommonly quiet on the issue and hypocritical in comparison to their response to anti-democratic events in Eastern Europe but the reason for this is obvious. They don’t want momentum to build in favour of a fragmented Europe where there are other regions wanting self-determination. The EU was hardly sympathetic to Scottish independence. But this is not the point. Principles of democracy and criticism of unacceptable behaviour by authorities should be applied with equal vigour across all of the EU, not selectively.

So what is the solution? First, it is unclear whether there is even a majority of support for full independence in Catalonia. Opinion polls across all voters in the region seem to suggest not. Second, in an uncertain, volatile world where larger power blocs dominate and economies of scale from globalisation (whatever Trump says) count, this is not a time for regional fragmentation (the same of course applies to Scotland and even the UK…).

Carles Puigdemont, the Catalan President, calls the referendum a sufficient mandate for succession but shows signs of compromise in part probably driven by the reaction of businesses who are moving/threatening to move activities out of the region. Rajoy has not reciprocated. He is an unpleasant Prime Minister who has taken a constantly aggressive, provocative approach to this issue.

There is a need to compromise, however unfashionable this concept is nowadays. In such a troubled world this issue should not have been allowed to escalate so far. Rajoy should stop bullying from his Madrid pulpit and re-visit the 2006 Statute and the EU should put pressure where it is needed. Catalonia and the rest of Spain should move on. It is the least of the region’s problems, let alone what is happening in other continents.

With a collective sigh of relief, the Conservative Party conference is over. The Tories are depressed and Manchester, which never really welcomes them, felt a strange venue for a lost tribe.

There was a vacuum at the heart of proceedings with ideas and leadership thin on the ground. In this gloom, any charisma disproportionally attracted attention, hence the spotlight on Ruth, Boris and Jacob. Only one of these merits serious consideration as a future leader but more of that later.

Fringe meetings, where the real action takes place, on the whole appeared dull, with repetitive topics only occasionally offering useful ideas. Advance policy announcements were also incredibly weak on student debt and housing policies which seem unintentionally designed to boost demand not supply. Despite protestations, this is a government so overwhelmed by Brexit, there isn’t the bandwidth for anything else.

And yet there were grounds for optimism, a silver lining in a dark Manchester sky. There was a growing recognition that the case needs to be re-made for free markets, competition and the benefits they bring to the long term enhancement of standards of living for all. Supporters have been negligent in doing this since winning the battles of the 1970s/80s and the new threat of a hard left Labour Party brings urgency to making up lost ground. Philip Hammond and Theresa May in their conference speeches both referenced this but, in fringe meetings, it was Ruth Davidson who articulated the case for centre right politics in modern, refreshing terms.

She wasn’t afraid to use the word ‘centre’ either and represents the future of the Conservative Party. But not yet. She needs time to grow into a leadership role with expectations carefully managed but the combination of insight, humour and authenticity is irreplaceable. The Tories will be reinvigorated by a new intellectual debate on the merits of compassionate, free market capitalism. This is the ground on which they will eventually see off Labour and it would be great if Ruth was eventually the one to lead it.

Lastly, to Theresa’s speech. She soldiered on through a prankster and coughing fits to deliver a solid case for her premiership. In what is surely the most depressing job in politics, she showed some humour and hopefully elicited sympathy in dealing with the trials of her speech. She deserves the respect of her colleagues and the electorate (after all, it was they who voted for Brexit) in managing the almost impossible demands of her role, not least the rampant and often unfounded speculation from the media. It is in everyone’s interest that she should be left alone to get on with that role for now.

 

A fair comment from Jeremy Corbyn. The Tories will be on trial next week and if they show the same self-indulgence of recent weeks the reluctant conclusion will be that they deserve what they get. Except the British people don’t deserve the consequences of a Labour Government.

The stunning achievement of Theresa May’s General Election campaign was to make Corbyn electable. In his radical and at times effective closing conference speech today, Corbyn presented a wish list of reforms including an array of spending pledges from re-nationalisation, to lifting public sector pay caps across the board; from wiping out student debt to cancelling PFI’s regardless of its impact on the national debt. He breezily swatted away the biggest issue of the day, Brexit, on which Labour are almost as divided as the Tories and left unaddressed the concerns of his Shadow Chancellor of a possible run on the pound. He stood there almost certainly supporting the Stalinist practices of Momentum and the likes of Len McCluskey (re-elected Unite’s General Secretary on only a 5% share of the membership’s vote) as they tighten their grip on the grassroots. However, the Labour Party, despite their hatreds, including barely disguised anti-Semitism, are speaking well and a weakened Conservative Party currently leaves them almost uncontested.

Deep down Labour remain a deeply unpleasant lot with a front bench almost totally unfit to assume responsibility for a larger State. And yet… and yet…today Corbyn in particular made some highly legitimate points. The Conservative Party often appears uncaring, talking about austerity in balance sheet terms rather than understanding the day to day impact on the poorest. The rich are embraced with enthusiasm whilst social liberalism is only reluctantly embraced by the grass roots. The politicisation of the Grenfell Tower fire is a disgrace, but it starkly showed the warped priorities of a Tory local government and exposed wider concerns about the direction society is heading. However unfair, Corbyn’s comments about disregard for rampant inequality, the hollowing out of public services and disdain for the powerless resonate. On foreign policy, a more moral approach and standing up to Trump’s America will also be widely supported.

The consequences of many Labour policies will to be damage the prospects of the very people they seek to help, creating a weaker economy and a larger State run by incompetent politicians. To head this off, the Tories need to stop obsessing about Brexit, find a new language to speak to broader sections of the electorate including the young, and introduce policies demonstrating their moral compass of caring for the more vulnerable in society, fronted by the most able up-and-coming MPs. They are on notice next week. Their actions will be unforgiveable if, by Wednesday, a Corbyn Government becomes more likely.

Well done Angela Merkel but not well done enough. In sticking to her almost suffocating position as the ultimate German safe pair of hands she has unleashed the Fringe Right with the AfD taking some 90 seats in the Bundestag.

Yet her policy on immigration was anything but safe. Letting a million asylum seekers into Germany in a short period of time, mostly from the Middle East, exhausted the goodwill of some Germans who voted for the AfD in frustration. She has unleashed the worst sort of xenophobic sentiments in voters which is so detrimental to the longer term health of democracy and the functioning of society as a whole.

Remind you of anything? UKIP at their peak in the 2015 General Election scored a similar 12.6% of the vote mostly based on a fear of immigration. Only the first past the post system saved us from hordes of UKIP MPs. But the end result was essentially the same. The EU, heavily influenced by Merkel, blocked the UK’s bid for any meaningful compromise on the free movement of people which ultimately led to Brexit. Now she has her comeuppance.

However much we dislike the reasons that the electorate votes for certain things, in a democracy politicians must listen and head off issues before they breed extremism. The EU was deaf, Merkel was deaf, the UK is out of the EU and Germany now has its own hordes of politicians focused on racial and religious division. There are so many lessons to be learnt in Europe and that is before we turn to the United States and Trump…

 

 

First, the pantomime from Boris. A 4200 word ‘please notice me’ advertisement in The Telegraph shamefully putting personal ambition before the interests of the Government and the Country. Then on Friday came a serious, concrete proposal by the Prime Minister in her speech in Florence ensuring no impact on the EU’s current budget from our departure. This would mean no country having to fill our contribution space in the interim period.

As the phrase goes, ‘it is not the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning’ and finally gets us to the starting line of exiting the EU in a grown up way. A two year transition period (at least) post departure is sensible as the economy slows and uncertainties for businesses mount. It marks the end of the nonsense that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’.

Those who advocate a clean break from the EU with little or no payment simply don’t get it. No one can forecast the full, long term impact of leaving Europe or indeed the benefits of doing so but the near future is damaged. We are now one of the slowest growing economies in Europe with further pressures to follow. We have a fantastic employment record (all whilst being a member of the EU) but this could reverse. We need an agreement first on money so that we can reach agreements on cross border regulation, in particular to protect our Financial Services industry, on enshrining the rights of European citizens under the European Court of Justice in UK law (a neat compromise) to keep talented European individuals in the UK and on a decent trade deal to protect our overall economy. That is before securing terms for an open border with Northern Ireland and new structures for mutual cooperation on research and security issues.

Some Brexit Cabinet Ministers have been heard to muse in private that we are better off outside the EU and poorer than being inside the EU and accepting its constraints. Try telling that to thousands of employees in the Financial Services sector alone who will lose their administration jobs as back offices are re-located to continental Europe. Leaving the EU is a serious game with the futures of many people reliant on getting the exit terms right. Theresa May’s speech was a step (finally) in the right direction. It is a time for compromise not ideology, a phased departure not a cliff-edge.

Which takes us to the imminent Conservative Party Conference. As we all suspected, this Sunday’s papers underscore what poisonous relationships exist within the current Cabinet. It is too much to expect many members not to be on manoeuvres during their happy stay in Manchester. One hopes they will be suitably punished in any future leadership contest.

 

As we approach the Conservative Party Conference, when anybody attending under 50 can be considered young, it is worth contemplating the complete alienation of this age group of voters from the Conservatives. A recent YouGov poll shows that only voters aged over 50 support the Conservatives over Labour, with younger age groups preferring Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party by a huge margin; 18-24 year olds, 65% versus 19% and 25-49 year olds, 55% versus 27%.

The reasons are almost too numerous to list; Brexit, tuition fees, 10 years of austerity seemingly bearing little fruit, a housing crisis, economic policies overall favouring the old over the young, to name but a few. Other polling suggests real pessimism about standards of living continuing to improve for the next generation, something once taken for granted.

Then there is the image of the Conservative Party…Whilst it is actually populated with some impressive young people (but clearly not enough), and of course good people of all ages, it is perceived to be influenced by a nostalgic longing for the 1950s combined with flashes of cavalier arrogance which grate on many sections of the electorate. To add insult to injury you now have Jacob Rees-Mogg touted as a future leader either based on delusion or a deliberate plan by opponents to sabotage the Conservative Party for a generation. It is not hard to see why the ‘affable, idealistic’ Corbyn (even with his many hard-line activists) is charging ahead.

So what is to be done? First, there should be no pale imitation of Labour’s policies in appealing to younger voters. A government paralysed by Brexit can still be radical. On tuition fees, there should be an immediate cut in the penal rate of interest of up to 6.1%, preferably close to the base rate, combined with a full scale review of the funding of higher education. This is particularly needed after the unedifying rush to charge the maximum £9k tuition fees regardless of the need or quality of teaching. The possibility of two year courses should also be examined as well as charging overseas students more and domestic students less. On Brexit, the language and priorities need to change and new, younger ministers should lead some of the reporting on the progress of negotiations. On housing, pro-actively working with banks to cut the deposit required for purchase, which many younger people say is currently prohibitive to getting on the housing ladder, would bring real benefits. Last but not least, on the economy, reducing the higher rate tax relief on pension contributions and means testing some benefits to older voters (an original manifesto promise…) would help make the case for austerity but with a little more re-distribution. Now this is the stuff of dreams but worth a thought anyway…

The challenges for younger voters should be seen as our challenges too. Only in this way will the Conservative Party broaden its base of support and prevent the awful prospect of Corbyn as Prime Minister.