CentreRight

Martin Bell was interviewed by the BBC - his erstwhile employers - this morning. You can hear the piece here. I was worried by the broadcast. It sounded more like a chat between old pals (which it may have been) than a rigorous cross-examination (which it should also have been).

This is further evidence of an unhealthy trend. The media increasingly make judgements about the psychology of individual politicians and will not deviate from that judgement, no matter what evidence is presented to them. And this assessment of a politician's inherent decency has become more important than the content of their argument.

Thus Dan Hannan is dismissed as an "arrogant right-winger in love with the sound of his own voice" by Adam Boulton, for which Tim Montgomerie rightly upbraided the usually excellent Sky correspondent.  Adam Boulton might know Dan Hannan better than I do, but it's not the conclusion I would draw. Dan has always been supremely courteous and good-humoured in my experience.

Meanwhile journalists are conniving in letting the Left misrepresent Dan's position. He outlines it straightforwardly here, in an article that proves that some of Labour's accusations are untrue and makes a good case on the policy stuff, which is up for debate. It seems to me that in order to assert that someone is venal as opposed to misguided, you ought to have overwhelming evidence.

Chloe Smith's comprehensive victory in Norwich North raises several issues. First of all, it suggests that the Conservatives are heading for a hefty victory at the next general election. Secondly, it begs serious questions of Nick Clegg's leadership of the Liberal (sic) Democrats (sic). (Why have they done so badly in recent elections? What is their unique selling point? Should they dump Mr Clegg for Vince Cable?) It also provides evidence that a well-run positive campaign can trump a desperately negative one.

Another matter that will doubtless have people muttering into their cornflakes is the relative youth of Miss Smith, who is 27.

There are lots of splendid arguments to be made about the undesirability of politics being overrun by the Political Class. Lots of MPs have very little work experience other than past membership of the Political Cadets - where they worked either in the civil service or at Party HQ. I agree that this has become a problem.

If you want to man the barricades to protest that older would-be candidates from outside the Political Class get discriminated against, then I'm in. But if you start chanting that no-one under the age of 35 should be allowed to stand for Parliament, I will vault the barricades and leave you to it. (Well alright, I'm not remotely agile enough to do that, but you get the point.)

Here's the nub of the matter. Experience isn't the most important quality; judgement is.

Amidst all the sensible suggestions flying around about how to reform the House of Commons there is one which I completely reject - that MPs should be banned from employing members of their family.

I see the temptation. There is a fear that expenses will continue to be abused by some MPs who won't demand that their spouse or offspring puts in adequate effort. Another worry is that it is nepotistic, and unfair on others who would like the chance to work for a politician. (Believe it or not, loads of us would.)

I think we get too het up about nepotism. It makes perfect sense, for example, for an immigrant to build a business that can offer financial security to later generations of their family. It is not reasonable, right or realistic to (try to) force everyone to pick their employees solely on the basis of a disinterested analysis of a pile of CVs.

It should be for each Member of Parliament alone to determine / predict what will make their office function most effectively. Certainly not everyone could make a good secretary. I wouldn’t, and nor would many MPs. But it’s not just about being well organised, good with computers and a whiz at filing. An MP needs to be able to trust their assistants implicitly and intimately. So - even in the current climate - we shouldn’t rush to the conclusion that the appointment of a relative is designed to trouser taxpayers’ money improperly.

Jonathan Isaby asks whether recent events have put an end to Labour's class attacks on the Conservatives. I think it's unlikely that all Labourites will be able to resist the temptation to have a pop at the backgrounds of David Cameron, George Osborne and others - if only because they are motivated by hatred - but I don't think it's going to fly with voters. And the exposure of Labour plans to smear Tory MPs helps crystallise why.

The point is that there are two types of class.

The first, social class, is by no means wholly trivial. Economic circumstances can greatly affect a person's wellbeing and life chances, and New Labour have failed to usher in a new age of greater social mobility. Many of us still sneer at 'common' people and are suspicious of the upper class. But I also think it's clear that people are much less concerned than they once were about the social class of their politicians.

John Prescott may whinge and moan about the Establishment, but he became Deputy Prime Minister. Contrastingly Tony Blair went to Fettes, the so-called 'Eton of Scotland'. Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher and John Major smashed the Tory mould. Gordon Brown's social class would be pretty hard to define. Today the front benches are awash with Oxbridge graduates from various types of secondary school. Social class didn't stop them getting to the best universities in the country, and it hasn't impeded or advanced their political careers.  

Daniel Hannan's speech - no longer infamous but just plain famous - has attracted widespread plaudits (I've received several emails from Americans I've never met asking me to pass on their admiration to Dan) and deservedly so.

I thought I'd put my speechwriter hat on (and perhaps perch a smaller stand-up comedian hat on top of it) and analyse the speech in some detail. I don't think readers need persuading it was a corker, and the hopelessly desperate nature of the Labour Party's response only serves as further proof. But it might be interesting to "break it down" - as the kids probably don't say any longer. 

First of all, Dan was perfectly polite throughout. Certainly he was cross, but it wasn't the synthetic splentic rage that politicians sometimes deploy to such ill-effect. A major reason that the speech was masterly was that it was so controlled. Critics might say that it resorted to personal abuse, but each accusation ("Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this house if your actions matched your words", "you have run out of our money", "I’ve long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things") resonated because they were fair comment. 

Labour MP Tom Harris had a rather pathetic stab at accusing of Dan of being unpatriotic:

"What was truly repugnant about his speech was the total absence of any sense of patriotism. ... Gordon Brown isn’t just Labour’s prime minister; he’s Britain’s prime minister, and for any UK politician to launch such a disgraceful, personal attack on his country’s leader — in a foreign country — is nothing short of disgraceful."

Nice try, Tom. But you've set a dangerous precedent. Will Labour MEPs follow a self-denying ordinance when Prime Minister Cameron addresses the European Parliament? And is it really on-message to stress the foreignness of the same? I thought we were all Europeans now. 

There is a fascinating little vignette in the Sunday Times's profile of Frank Field.

Mr Field was famously made a minister by Tony Blair and asked to look into radical welfare reform. But he was given a junior role to Harriet Harman, and emerged unsuccessful. In the Sunday Times Mr Field lays into Gordon Brown for the failure:

'He blames the then chancellor and now prime minister for kneecapping his welfare reforms. Blair, having asked Field “to think the unthinkable”, failed to back him against opposition from Blair’s jealous satrap. Blair at that stage, Field says, should have sacked Brown, not just for Field’s sake but to give Blair the opportunity and space to be an uninhibited PM. As Field tells it, Brown was a consistent roadblock, failing to produce alternatives to Field’s plans or even to participate in cabinet committee meetings. The result, as Field says Brown intended, was at best inertia and at worst “general chaos”.'

The reason that I found this particularly interesting is that it backs up something I have believed for many years; Lyndon Johnson's maxim about J Edgar Hoover - "It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in" - is a bad guide for leaders.

Of course by demoting or completely firing Brown, Blair would have incurred his wrath. But didn't he incur it anyway? Gordon Brown caused Tony Blair and his reformist ministers no end of difficulty. There is no guarantee that people will act in a loyal fashion if they are given a good job. Instead, they may find it easier to build up a power base and gain credibility from their enhanced status.

Moreover, a minister who has been banished to the backbenches for disloyalty is seen in that light by everyone else. Perhaps they can still build a coalition of the disaffected, but if that coalition has a realistic chance of usurping the incumbent regime then the game is probably up anyway. You may as well surround yourself with the people you want, and do everything you can before your political capital runs out.

If Blair really agreed to give Brown his head on domestic policy, he made a monumental mistake. I believe that Blair would have defeated Brown in a straight fight for the leadership. Yet even if I'm wrong, in Blair's shoes I would rather have risked a loss than allow myself to be a neutered prime minister.

I have felt the same when observing how certain Conservative leaders handled disloyal Shadow Cabinet members. On each occasion, I think they would have been better off sacking them than placating them. It's just as easy to pick up a phone and brief against your leader when you are on the front bench than when you are off it. Yet it's more newsworthy if you're on the front bench.

David Cameron really does seem to be blessed with a tremendously supportive team. Kenneth Clarke has clearly been brought back because of what he can offer, not because his frank and fearless approach has been disloyal. I disagree with Mr Clarke about a lot, but he is admirably candid and open.

However, if someone steps out of line, David Cameron should sack them and publicly brief against them. The only way to stand up to bullies is to confront them, and so it is with those who are not onside.

Instead of being consumed by paranoia and agonising about whether he can trust his ministers, Prime Minister Cameron should back his supporters to the hilt, seek to win new ones - and treat those who work against his efforts ruthlessly.

This could scarcely be more geeky, but this video shows how Presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt have fared in taking the oath of office. Barack Obama is not alone in struggling a bit (nor in deciding to do a retake - so too did Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur).

George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton both slightly jumped the gun. Richard Nixon did it in a masterful voice, ably led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Reagan was good too, as one might expect from an actor! And the famously tongue-tied George W. Bush cannot be faulted either.

Real props go to FDR, who managed to recite the whole thing in one go. Although I can't tell if he is reading or not!

Finally, note that Judge Sarah T. Hughes (not a Chief Justice) swore in Lyndon B. Johnson on Air Force One, so becoming the only woman in history to swear-in a President. This of course had to be done in a hurry, following the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Update: Many thanks to Stephen Lark for directing me to this quotation.

A reader whom I won't presume to name (but will happily credit if they'd like me to) has drawn my attention to these words of wisdom from the former Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan, spoken in 1976:

"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step."

Well, well, well!

It was very exciting to watch Barack Obama being sworn in as President of the United States this afternoon. Whatever their views of an incoming President, any political junkie can't help getting swept up in it all. America does pageantry well, and today had immense historical significance. Moreover, these are especially challenging times for the new Commander-in-Chief.

The BBC does some things well too. They had assembled some interesting talking heads for the occasion, and it was nice to have an uncluttered screen. I was even willing to forgive the uncritical and wholly optimistic appraisal of President Obama. But there was an annoyance; Huw Edwards and Matt Frei both talked far too much.

I'd be fascinated to see independent polling on how welcome viewers find TV punditry and commentary. Of course some is very helpful - although I was surprised that when former Vice-Presidents Al Gore, Dan Quayle and Walter Mondale appeared in shot only Vice-President Gore got a mention. I can't help wondering if the Beeb's experts failed to recognise the others!

What is not welcome - and I can't be alone in this - is when commentators prattle over proceedings. The cellist Yo-Yo Ma and some other superb musicians played a lovely arrangement by John Williams, but the beginning was spoilt by (inane) chat.

So that we knew what was what throughout couldn't we just have had a caption or a very quick explanation and been allowed to drink in what was a special moment?

I'm fond of the sound of my own voice, and I also like to share my opinions with the world in written form. But there is a time and a place to hold your tongue. The rule of thumb should be that commentary and captioning should not impede listening to or watching the event itself.

Interpretation yes, interruption no. 

I suppose I'm being a bit mischievous, but Kenneth Clarke's return to the Conservative front bench demonstrates that he remains thoroughly engaged with politics - and also hints at continued personal ambition. Could it be that at the back of that febrile mind thoughts about taking the top job still lurk?

David Cameron is extremely likely to be Tory Leader for many years to come, but you never know what will happen. If Mr Cameron were to be removed from the picture for some reason, Ken Clarke is now much more likely to emerge as a replacement.

As recently as 2005 he was eager to lead the Conservatives into the next General Election and become Prime Minister. Why - other things being unequal - should that have changed? And could not a commanding performance in a role (Shadow Business Secretary) that might otherwise be beneath him help persuade some of the doubters that Mr Clarke is the man to sort out Britain's economic woes?

Even some eurosceptics would be persuadable, I think. Realistically, withdrawal from the EU is not on the cards for some time, and Mr Clarke could well be willing to accept that his countrymen don't want the euro. Convinced that nothing on the European front is actually going to change for the foreseeable future, voters might be willing to give Mr Clarke a Parliamentary term to sort out the economy.

I'm not advocating it. I'm not expecting it. And I am sure that Ken Clarke's motives for joining the Shadow Cabinet are admirable. But it could happen, and I wanted to say it first!

Looking through the comment threads on ConservativeHome it is clear that quite a few of our readers either vote for the UK Independence Party or are tempted to do so, especially at European elections. As an arch-eurosceptic, indeed eurocynic, I thought I might explain why I am not with them.

I have been in the past. In the run-up to the 1999 European election I attended a rally hosted by friends. There I met the now leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage, and listened to various speeches. I wasn't wholly convinced - some ludicrous claims were made about UKIP imminently becoming a major force in Westminster - but I did share their view that Britain should leave the European Union, and decided that voting UKIP in an election based on proportional representation would not increase the chance that a federalist would win - which is a major objection many eurosceptics have to voting UKIP in Westminster elections.

It seemed to me that William Hague's mantra "In Europe, not run by Europe" was fatuous. First of all, Europe and the European Union are two quite distinct things. I was adamant that Britain could negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU and still be able to exert influence. We would be freed from unwelcome legislation emanating from a backward and economically sclerotic institution. We should be able to scrutinise, hire and fire our lawmakers.

So what's changed? Well in one sense, not much. I still say that Britain would thrive outside the EU. We could sign free trade agreements with other countries too, and open our markets to Africa, South America and Asia (which is vital if people there are ever to be lifted out of grinding poverty).

And I don't believe for a moment that ministers and officials in the EU would refuse to pick up the phone to a British Prime Minister. Liberated from formal structures, our influence on EU legislation might actually increase.

The European Union is necessarily, invariably and unavoidably undemocratic. It is far too large, and its practices opaque. It pursues the wrong policies. I loathe it.

I have come to love the Conservative Party, but not unconditionally. There are circumstances in which I would vote against it. I think I might well have voted for Oona King if I had lived in Bethnal Green and Bow in 2005, to try to prevent George Galloway winning. If I knew a Tory candidate to be corrupt, I would not vote for them. Policy could change things too. It would put a dangerous strain on my support for the Conservatives if the front bench advocated British entry into the euro, for example.

So why am I not tempted to vote UKIP at the next European election (safe in the knowledge that it will be conducted under PR) to send a message that I, like an undoubtedly large number of Britons, want us to get out of the whole mess? Might that not be a good way to make the Conservative Party come around? Couldn't it be an act of loyalty - if not to David Cameron then at least to true, core conservative principles?

I won't be doing that.

It's not just because I won't support a party that helps elect federalists to the UK Parliament, or that I have a very high regard for my local MEP Daniel Hannan. It's also because in ten years UKIP have achieved the square root of sod all.

My friend James just alerted me to this story. Justice Minister Jack Straw has cancelled an eight day comedy workshop in Whitemoor Prison, a top security jail in Cambridgeshire. Mr Straw said:

"Prisons should be places of punishment and reform, and providing educational, training and constructive pursuits is an essential part of this. But the types of courses available, and the manner in which they are delivered must be appropriate in every prison. ... There is a crucial test: can the recreational, social and educational classes paid for out of taxpayers' money (or otherwise) be justified to the community?"

I think Mr Straw has got this one wrong.

He is right that prisons should be places of punishment. But that doesn't mean that inmates should be treated like cattle. Mr Straw seems to acknowledge that broad principle, so what's his beef here?

Art - in the broadest sense of the word - matters in its own right, but it can also be critical in developing essential life skills. If it's right to let inmates take pottery, music or drawing lessons, why shouldn't they have a chance to do comedy?

Regular media coverage (often stemming from interviews), an appearance on Desert Island Discs, an ambition that almost literally glows from his very being - does anyone think that David Davis doesn't want to be Prime Minister any more?

Maybe he won't be in David Cameron's first Cabinet. Maybe he won't be in any Cameron Cabinet. Clearly, Mr Davis's resignation didn’t please the leadership, and it was certainly high risk in terms of his career. But it is also eminently possible that David Davis will get a Cabinet job, and indeed that he will become Home Secretary.

Here’s a scenario. I'm not having a pop at David Davis (nor indeed at David Cameron), but I do think this is interesting.

By forcing a by-election on a point of principle Mr Davis was bolstered among the Conservative Party membership. He also won the admiration of many non-Tory people, especially in the civil liberties lobby. And he has become even more famous – fame being at a premium. I reckon that David Cameron, William Hague and George Osborne are the only genuinely famous members of the Shadow Cabinet.

David Cameron may well conclude that he can’t afford to leave the even-more-powerful-than-before Mr Davis out of his Cabinet, and Mr Davis has seriously boosted his chances of becoming Leader if the opportunity arises (and you just never know when that might happen).

And my final thought is this: I don’t believe for a second that none of this has occurred to David Davis.

Now look, I'm not inclined to ban stuff by nature. I'm all for fun things, and especially fun things that encourage people to get out and about with their kids. And hey - it's good for the environment for people to avoid using their cars where possible. But there is a phenomenon quite in evidence in Oxford, and elsewhere for all I know, that horrifies me. It's the bike trailer.

The bike trailer attaches to the back of a bicycle, and is pulled along behind it. I suppose it could be used for books or clothes. But whenever I see one, it has a pre-pubescent child in it. On the road. Encased in something flimsy. Below eye-level for a car driver.

I cannot even begin to form a persuasive argument to the effect that they are not insanely dangerous. They should be banned immediately.

There's nothing like not hitching yourself to the latest trend. Localism - in a nutshell the philosophy that political power should be devolved to the most local level practicable - is very trendy indeed these days. Localists have captured the zeitgeist. They're hip to the jive. They seem to have won the argument in Conservative circles. Many of them are great policy analysts and great people. But they're wrong.

Certainly the (wo)man in Whitehall doesn't always know best. Our public services are sclerotic and out-of-date. Specifically, they are hopelessly unresponsive to public demand. About that much, any non-communist would agree, the localists are quite right.

But it doesn't follow that the answer is to let local councils take over.

To know me is to know that I adore America. I buy the American Dream wholesale - it is a land of startling beauty, energy, optimism and promise. As a political junkie as well as an Americanophile, it is natural that I take a keen interest in US elections.

But I do so conscious of the fact that I am not an American citizen. Of course we all have a right to our opinions, and of course what happens across the pond affects us considerably. Nevertheless, I understand why Americans get prickly when they see foreigners telling them how they should vote. It would behove us to show a bit more humility.

Four years ago I decided to take the moral high ground. I had strong views about American politics, and I was keen to express them. It seemed to me that the least I could do was put in some hard graft, rather than just hold forth from an armchair. So I travelled to South Carolina and worked unpaid for three months on the successful US Senate campaign of Republican Jim DeMint.

Now don't get me wrong; it wasn't a hardship. I had a whale of a time. I made some great friends, and played a small part in helping an outstanding (very) conservative politician get to the Senate. I've written this prelude to emphasise that, for a Briton, I have pretty good Republican Party credentials. Which makes it all the more surprising that I won't be too sorry if Barack Obama wins the Presidency.