CentreRight

At a time of the deepest recession since the Second world war, when thousands of families are experiencing real uncertainty about their jobs, their mortgages and their futures it is unbelievable that the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman can find nothing better to do than spend time arguing for an "international architecture" to enable politicians from different countries to work collectively to ensure women play an equal role in rebuilding economies after the credit crunch.

What is required is strong leadership to galvanize world leaders, whoever they are, to find the right solutions to the crisis. Yet our Labour Government, when in difficulty resorts to the usual tactics of applying dogma and distracting gimmicks to avoid serious debate about the core issues and avoid honest scrutiny of policy failures.

To most hard working families in this country whether the leader of the country or business is a man or a woman is neither here nor there. Like most people in modern Britain I have had male and female bosses throughout my business career , the gender of the person in charge is irrelevant.  What is important is that the right decisions are made and that the individual has credibility and respect amongst the workforce or those who report to her or him.

Reading the commentary on Andrew Lansley's Today interview from yesterday one would think he had said that Conservatives' policy was based around slaughtering the first born. It is ludicrous. Whilst the interview may present short term "headline issues" for the party today all Andrew Lansley has done, albeit unwittingly, is tell the truth about Labour's spending plans and started a proper debate of the true tracjectory of public spending beyond the next election. Labour lies now need to be nailed.

Over recent elections Conservatives have been understandably paranoid about discussing spending plans. A fear of the successful Labour smear campaigns about Tories shutting down schools and hospitals has fuelled this. We have been reluctant to discuss the detail and explain the problems of out of control spending. Superficial assessments by lazy journalists and damaging headlines have led to a lack of clarity over expressing our intentions.

The memorable ambush by Nick Robinson at the launch of "Tory cuts" poster campaign in the 2005 election managed to force Blair and Brown to admit Tory spending plans implied that spending would rise less quickly than Labour's - and would not mean cuts as their ads were claiming, was a breakthrough. But too often superficial journalism has led to a lack of truth in this critical debate.

Brown survived and I am now persuaded that he will stay until the election on the basis of the "turkeys don't vote for Christmas" logic. 

The reality is that whilst Brown is undoubtedly severely weakened, the choice Labour MPs have to make is between a year long inevitable death or a sudden one with an October election under a new leader. With every opportunity to get rid of him individual Cabinet ministers have decided the long game is the path they want to take. They have been persuaded it offers them the best chance of losing less badly when the election does eventually come. Seduced by larger salaries, enhanced individual status and no doubt the seductive logic of Peter Mandelson that with an economy showing vague signs of improvement (maybe!), the expenses scandal ended by robust and radical changes and ruthless Labour de-selections a whole new perspective will emerge on the Labour government and Gordon Brown by the late autumn. 

So when the diminished Gordon Brown faces his backbenchers at the weekly meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party on Monday evening I suspect the same calculation will have been made by them. Following Mandelson and Milliband's failure to back James Purnell on Friday it would be absurd if they reversed their decisions and withdrew their support on account of c. 50- 70 disgruntled ex-Blairite ministers and "usual suspect" Left wingers signing an email on Monday. Furthermore, given the complex rules governing any contest it would be impossible to mount a challenge without a credible serious challenger from outside the Cabinet. None exists. And with an inevitable immediate wipe out at a general election under any new leader I don't believe it will happen. Brown will survive in a semi-comatose like state; Mandelson controlling the life support machine.

Having just returned from a three day campaign tour of the West Midlands for the upcoming Euro and local elections - visiting a car factory, two mosques, numerous shopping centres, knocking on hundreds of doors and attending campaign meetings with various candidates it has given me fresh perspectives on the current political crisis.

After two weeks of avidly watching the expenses gate saga unfold in the newspapers it was refreshing to get out on the doorsteps and realise that the great British voters hold more nuanced perspectives than the media gives them credit for:

Here are my three reflections from the front line:

1. Voters are very angry but they are also confused - not knowing what to do with their vote.  A protest vote will be uneven and temporary.

Contrary to widespread media speculation - the evidence I found was that alongside the deep anger and frustration with politicians voters are not embracing the minor parties in a consistent way. My impression was that people understand the main three parties are the only conceivable parties of government locally and nationally and they realise  that minor parties do not offer a real solution to the crisis. Yes, they want the mess sorted out; they want to see MPs who have made dodgy claims get their comeuppance but the notion that we will see hundreds of BNP and UKIP Cllrs or MEPs emerging is unlikely - their share of the vote will increase this time but this will be a temporary phenomena.  

This is not to say I think there is room for any complacency. It will be different everywhere but people can see the opportunism of the BNP and UKIP and it is politicians in general they are fed up with - the BNP and UKIP, alongside their obvious substantive flaws on policy , are not perceived to be any better than Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative.

Amidst the debate over bankers' bonuses and Jacqui Smith's housing allowances this past few weeks we read today of a shining example of leadership from Sir Richard Pym, the Executive Chairman of Bradford and Bingley. Sir Richard has reportedly taken a £400,000 pay cut, given up his guaranteed £187,000 p.a. bonus and reduced his notice period from 2 years to one day. A rare example of someone showing leadership ahead of any ruling or action from the Treasury.

I don't know the man, the history of his leadership or whether he was overpaid to start with but in an era when the Boards of semi-nationalised banks and poorly performing privately owned banks are willing to pay themselves generous bonuses, regardless of performance and the economic climate, this decision is a great example to those who hold significant positions of leadership in our society. The question for me is why aren't there more examples of such behaviour today?

News of the recent fighting between the government and rebel forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has once again brought horrific images to our screens. The UN refugee agency has described the situation as "a total disaster". Foreign Secretary David Miliband is due to meet Rwanda's Paul Kagame and his Congolese counterpart Joseph Kabila with the French Foreign Minister today after talks with a senior EU official yesterday.

Like me your first instinct may be to think - oh no - another mess in Africa, there is nothing we can do, it is a lost cause - as we quickly move on to the debate over our domestic economic woes and whether Jonathan Ross should have been sacked. I suggest we need to pause and focus on a few facts.

What a strange world we live in when the DR Congo with a population of 62 million (21st in the world in terms of population) and a GDP per capita (even using sympathetic PPP numbers) of $311 a year sits next to the UK in the league table in terms of population size. We have a population of 61 million people (22nd in the world) and enjoy a GDP (using PPP) 118 times higher at $36,570 per capita.

Of course the answer to this grotesque disparity of wealth can be found in the DR Congo’s history, the tribal differences, the impact of colonial rule as a depressant to normal development of civil society and governance, the trauma of civil wars and poor relations with neighbouring countries leading to underdeveloped trading patterns. I am no expert on DR Congo specifically but what I do feel, as we read about the rapidly deteriorating situation, is how fortunate we are in the UK.

To read the ludicrous reporting of the recent events surrounding holiday visits to a yacht in Corfu it is clear that the story has led to a loss of perspective amongst commentators, an unleashing of years of pent up jealousy amongst George Osborne's colleagues and a great deal of unfounded excitement amongst blood thirsty journalists. I think there has been a loss of perspective all round and the dramatic headlines will prove to be very wide of the mark.

I worked with George Osborne - I was a junior flunky receiving my orders for quotes and facts when working in the Conservative Research Department in 2000-2001. I don't claim to know him well but he must be given credit as the best tactician we have; he is an authentic Conservative who has been the driving force behind the turnaround in the Conservative Party's fortunes – sticking with it in good times and bad. Who has made a bigger or more meaningful contribution to the Conservative Party over the past 15 years?

Throughout his career George has had masses of good fortune but his strongest qualities are courage and self belief. His courage - to take on the Special Advisor role for Douglas Hogg when no one else would during the BSE crisis, his shrewd judgment to back a 36 year old William Hague for the leadership in 1997, his nouse in framing the penetrating questions around the scandals of Peter Mandelson's activities in the Hinduja affair and the loan scandal -and again now posing still unanswered questions about Mandelson's contacts with Russian oligarchs, metals and tariffs demonstrate that he is someone with immense tactical insight and political judgment.

Watching the past few weeks’ speculation about an imminent leadership challenge to Gordon Brown intensify, then subside, then re-emerge I am left feeling deeply irritated with Labour politicians but more than that I am left somewhat frustrated with the political process.

To the generally disinterested public watching "loyal" ministers publicly standing by someone they clearly don't believe in privately is so damaging to the political process and the willingness of the public to engage seriously on substantive policy matters.

Why bother listening - politicians don't really tell us what they mean? At least when David Cairns MP resigned from the Government last week he did so because he could no longer say one thing in public and think the opposite in private - (i.e. the man had some integrity).

When watching Cabinet Minster after Cabinet Minster praising Gordon as "the best man for the tough job" I am left dumfounded. Twenty points behind in the polls for some considerable time and the startlingly obvious reality that Gordon Brown has completely lost the respect of the public I am left asking - why do politicians feel able to hold to such ridiculous expressions of "loyalty" when surely they have a bigger loyalty to their consciences, their common sense and above all the interests of the constituents they seek to represent?