Daily Archives: 5 September 2008

Where’s Lemby? Day Four

Where’s Lemby? In the Independent diary column, that’s where. Confirming his intention to stand, he says:

“I’m back in business. I’m definitely going to stand for president of the Liberal Democrats. It’s the one job I’ve always wanted.”

A paragon of modesty, of his chances he says:

“I’ve got to be regarded as the odds-on favourite. I came runner-up last time.”

He lost, therefore he must win. No, I can’t fault that logic either. Pandora suggests that “There have, however, been rumblings that party officials are cool about the idea of Opik landing the role, owing to his ‘overly comic image.'” Party officials? Name them. Apart from Shadow Foreign Secretary and Chair of the Campaigns and Communications Committee Ed Davey who is chairing Ros Scott’s campaign. He doesn’t count. And Lembit has this to say about rumours that he might be bottling it:

“Who are these people saying I’m not going to stand? People used to say I was standing for Mayor of London when I wasn’t, and now they’re trying to say I’m not standing for the presidency when I definitely am.”

As a sign of how serious Lembit is about the job, he reveals two slogans he has come up with for the campaign: “Epik Opik” and “Take It… You’ll Lembit!” Winners both.

Meanwhile, the Times suggests that Lembit’s lack of activity on the Presidential campaign front may due to the fact that he is preparing to serve time in pokey. Yes, just as Nick Clegg has announced that he is prepared to go to prison rather than register for a compulsory identity card, Lembit has announced his intention to go to prison for an equally important issue: the right of segway owners to drive on the public highway. Yes, lawmakers must not be lawbreakers, but there are some issues too important to not take a stand over.

Who is worse news for Labour? Charles Clarke or Compass?

Gordon Brown has ruled out a handout to help people with winter fuel payments a few days after his office was insisting that he definitely wasn’t. Add those two together and you have the possibility of a windfall tax which will only be used to reduce the PSBR. Since this would almost certainly be total insanity, I think we can safely say that the windfall tax won’t be happening no matter how hard Labour backbenchers stamp their feet.

I agree with Nick Clegg: there shouldn’t be a windfall tax but utility companies need to do much more to help people insulate their homes and tackle fuel poverty. Slooshing the money in and out of government coffers would be pointless even if it wasn’t likely to end up getting held up to pay for something else.

What interests me about this story though is how upfront Compass have been about pressuring Brown and Darling on the specific issue of a windfall tax. Superficially I can see why it ticks all their boxes; Compass has gone a long way from its original founding statement (pdf). This was steeped in liberalism. Since then, they have literally leapt into bed with the Tribunite left (the very thing that Lawson et al were denouncing in the 90s) and shown that when it comes to liberty, they are very fair weather friends.

They are very good on coming up with ‘solutions’ while Progress and whingers like Charles Clarke are notably silent when it boils down to specifics. But that doesn’t mean they are the right answers. Worse, the demand for a windfall tax has left Brown in a no-win situation. Either he refuses their demands and faces a backbench rebellion or he capitulates and looks weaker than ever. Frankly, given the parlous situation he’s in, I’m amazed that Compass think that Brown will ever conclude that the latter is the lesser of two evils. If he were to give in, after giving earlier this year on income tax and raising duty on petrol, his authority would be shot to pieces.

It’s weird, because I didn’t see it coming, but Labour is now tearing itself apart in a remarkably similar way to how the Tories destroyed themselves in the mid-90s. At least with the Tories it was over fundamental points of principle; with Labour at the moment it is more steeped in tactical judgement. There certainly are differences of principle, but that debate isn’t really getting a chance to get going while this agonising dispute about tactics and process rages.

All Charles Clarke provides us with is another frustrated ex-minister. Nothing new there. Compass offer Labour something far worse: an alternative power base. In the longer term that may be in Labour’s interests: a bit of ideological purity might be the only thing that holds the party together in the upcoming wilderness years. But at the same time, let’s not kid ourselves, it is helping to secure a Tory victory.