Why the Tories are happy to let Nick Clegg bash them.

My latest piece in The New Statesman. Which lots of pople read but hardly anyone commented on - they must largely agree with it!

A slightly unusual thing happened at Deputy Prime Minister's questions today. Nick Clegg had a go at the Tories. This in itself is not as unusual as many readers of The Staggers might think (nor as common as many Lib Dems would like) but what was remarkable was the target. Not a ragtag of Tory backbenchers (though the ever-reliable Peter Bone teed it up for him beautifully), but the Conservative chairman, Grant Shapps. In response to rumours that the Tories think the Lib Dems will do a "cash-for-boundaries" deal, Nick quipped:

I've already read in the press, reports that the chairman of the Conservative Party wishes to strike a deal with us on boundaries in return for a party funding deal. I suppose, Mr Speaker, finally that’s a get rich quick scheme that he’s proud to put his name to!

So, why does Nick suddenly feel able not only to say a confident "no" to proposed Tory policy, like welfare cuts, but also to start openly mocking his cabinet colleagues?

Well, partly it must be irresistible at the moment. Given the list of Conservatives in the cabinet whose position has appeared untenable at various points in the last few months – Jeremy Hunt, Andrew Mitchell, Shapps, and now Justine Greening – it must be like shooting fish in a barrel. And, partly, we are now more than halfway through the current Parliament, and the Richard Reeves positioning strategy moves from Phase A to Phase B (just 30 months too late, but, still, we’re there now).

But it's also because the Tories probably know that the received wisdom that a collapse in the Lib Dem vote benefits them is wrong. As this excellent analysis shows, such an outcome is far more likely to benefit Labour. So, bizarrely, the Tories probably need to allow the Lib Dems to do a little better in the polls if they are to stand any chance of winning a majority at the next election. Therefore, they have to take some poking from their coalition partners with a certain stoicism. It’s a short term loss for a long-term gain.

It also puts Labour in a tight spot strategically – spend the next two years bashing the Lib Dems and there’s far more chance of an electoral reward at the ballot box. But should, having made a lot of enemies in the Lib Dem camp, they fail to get over the line – what then?

For now, the Tories know that, in the absence of the boundary changes, their best hope for electoral success lies in a revival in Lib Dem fortunes. They’re going to have to take a lot more Grant Shapps jokes from their coalition partners in the coming months.

They really are going to have to investigate the Police Officers at the gate of No.10.

Ed Miliband got some well aimed digs in at Andrew Mitchell in PMQs today - "It's a night in the cell for the yobs, it's a night at the Carlton Club for the Chief Whip" is an especially good effort (credit where its's due).

But when Milband accused the Tory Chief Whip of swearing at the police - Mitchell made very clear that he hadn't. Here's a screen grab from the New Statesman...

But this means that Mitchell must be very clear, very confident, that a Police Officer has lied and made up his report of events that night in his log.

In which case - there really does have to be an investigation.

I presume Mitchell will shortly be calling for one...

What do Obama, Merkel and Nick Clegg all have in common? Choice of Clothes. No really...

In his amazing piece in Vanity Fair, reporter Michael Lewis (who was allowed to follow Obama everywhere close up for 6 months) revealed why Obama only wears Grey or Blue Suits. It's a great insight into the minds of politicians...

This time he covered a lot more ground and was willing to talk about the mundane details of presidential existence. “You have to exercise,” he said, for instance. “Or at some point you’ll just break down.” You also need to remove from your life the day-to-day problems that absorb most people for meaningful parts of their day. “You’ll see I wear only gray or blue suits,” he said. “I’m trying to pare down decisions. I don’t want to make decisions about what I’m eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make.” He mentioned research that shows the simple act of making decisions degrades one’s ability to make further decisions. It’s why shopping is so exhausting. “You need to focus your decision-making energy. You need to routinize yourself. You can’t be going through the day distracted by trivia.” The self-discipline he believes is required to do the job well comes at a high price. “You can’t wander around,” he said. “It’s much harder to be surprised. You don’t have those moments of serendipity. You don’t bump into a friend in a restaurant you haven’t seen in years. The loss of anonymity and the loss of surprise is an unnatural state. You adapt to it, but you don’t get used to it—at least I don’t.”

When I first read this I was fascinated that anyone had bothered to pare down their decision making in this way. But since then I've observed this is apparently a common habit amongst senior politicians. Take a look at this picture from The Guardian - of all Angela Merkels outfits in the last 12 months...

Yes, lots of colours - but every single jacket she wears in public is effectively the same style. Which I think is rather amazing.

Then think of Nick (or Cameron or Miliband).

Since they became leader of their respective party, every time they wear a tie it is a plain block colour. Often their party colour or purple (seen as neutral) but always a block, never a pattern. Here's a random sample.

To be fair there is one notable exception - Miliband wears this tie A LOT.

But generally speaking their choice of clothes is about NOT choosing what to wear - and little else.

Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, Milton Keynes.

I'd forgotten just how brilliant this is.

Plan A, Plan B, bankers not having a clue, but being delivered favours in government - all in 3 minutes. Nothing's changed. Genius

You might think you don't want to see this picture - but you do

This is a healthcare related blog post. An American Healthcare post.

This is the front cover of this week's New England Journal of Medicine. It is the US equivalent of The Lancet (sort of).

It carries only serious, thought through, academic papers.

Check out the two first authors.

This was not trailed or promoted. They just did it.

Extraordinary. Click to enlarge...

Wouldn't it be great if the same happened here. No room for doubt about bottom up/top down reorganisation then...

Julia Gillard: All the right words, all the wrong reasons

Don't get me wrong. I agree with every word Julia Gillard said in this barnstorming take down of Tony Abbott in the Australian Parliament. He has expressed some alarmingly misogynistic views and she is quite right to take him apart over it. There's no argument there.

No my problem is her motivation for what she did.

For she is defending a second politician - Peter Slipper - who has expressed similarly distasteful remarks, as well as allegedly homophobic ones; these views can be found here and despite Ms Gillards speech (and the fact that she won the debate) he resigned as Speaker over them the same day.

So what was her motivation?

Sadly, it appears not to be a deep rooted desire to crusade against misogyny - or else she would never have defended Peter Slipper. 

Rather, it was about her majority in the Australian House of Representatives. 

Gillard has a majority of 2. Peter Slipper, the speaker, was an independent. Now he has resigned, one of her own party has become the non voting Speaker, cutting the majority to just one.

Aha - you may say, surely Mr Slipper, even as an independent , will support the PM given her spirited defence of him in the House.

Sadly, it would seem Mr Slipper may be a little more slippery than that. Here's what he said after he resigned...

He also praised both Gillard and Abbott, saying he held nothing against the leader of the opposition whom he described as "a fine character".

Of Gillard he said: "I think it is a singular privilege to have a lady of the amazing stamina that we have as prime minister."

It would appear he has decided to play both sides. I suspect Miss Gillard knew this - which is why she didn't want him to resign and halve her majority.

So - while I applaud and agree with all Julia's fine words, her staunch defence of this man and his sexist texts, who in political terms appears slippery as a greased pig, does rather make me doubt her motives

Let's play name that speech

Leaders speeches at conference tend to be fairly vacuous affairs quite often - how many can we really recall? Kinnock vs Militant, the lady's not for turning, Go back to your Constituencies and prepare for government, Never underestimate the Quiet Man? That's about it.

So here's a word cloud of each of the three main party leaders speeches this year.

Can you name the leader that gave each speech?

And who had the strongest narrative?

It's interesting...