David Blackburn

Steve Richards writes a stirring defence for what is likely to be Labour’s last legislative programme. Richards argues that if you suspend your disbelief and ignore everything you have read about current political situation and you will see not a tired, regressive government but a radical political force. ‘Perhaps none of the proposals will be implemented by the election. Maybe they will all turn into dust, but they mark a departure from cautious incremental approaches usually adopted by the Government. The Conservatives' equivalent proposals have an echo with the mid 1990s, while their Euro-scepticism takes us further back, and their plans for spending cuts to 1981.

Last week, I argued that the Glasgow North East by-election would force the SNP to alter its tactics. The Scottish press are reporting that Salmond will scrap his plans for a straight referendum on independence in favour of a multi-option poll on what further powers Holyrood should assume, short of independence. Such a withdrawal was being mooted before the election but has been accelerated by the scale of the SNP’s defeat and its disintegrating confidence. This concession is seen as the only way the SNP minority government can maintain the co-operation of opposition parties on the issue. Only, according to the Daily Record, they won’t play ball.

David Cameron has written an apoplectic editorial in the Times condemning Gordon Brown’s partisan hijacking of the Queen’s Speech. Here is the key section: ‘We are mired in the deepest and longest recession since the Second World War, with deep social problems and a political system that is held in contempt. The State Opening of Parliament tomorrow ought to be about radical ideas to deal with this triple crisis. Instead, by all accounts, the Queen’s Speech will be little more than a Labour press release on palace parchment. Don’t take my word for it. As The Times reported yesterday, a Cabinet minister has been boasting about the contents of the speech. What was said? That it was the most ambitious since Labour had come to power?

There’s a tremendous post on the FT's blog, inviting 20 influential public figures to ask questions that they believe incoming MPs should be able to answer. Jim Pickard explains: ‘But what should we be looking for in the people we elect to run the country? The question of what knowledge and expertise the ideal MP should possess is not much debated. So FT Weekend invited 20 experts in various fields to come up with questions that – in their opinion – any would-be MP should be able to answer. This exercise throws up an obvious problem right away: the areas of knowledge that our questioners address are so disparate that no normal person could reasonably be expected to answer all 20 of the questions.

“Postal voting on demand is lethal to the democratic process. Wholesale electoral fraud is both easy and profitable.” That statement sounds like a description of Afghan electoral practices, but it was delivered by Richard Mawrey QC after an inquest into UK postal voting.   The Orange Party blog has an intriguing post about the sudden surge in postal ballots for the finally convened Glasgow North East by-election. Now, the Orange Blog may be being mischievous or merely preposterous, but it suggests that fraud could be a factor. History shows that Labour benefit from postal voting, notably at the comfortable Glenrothes by-election victory last year, when every indication was that the SNP would overturn the majority.

Further to Alan Johnson’s immigration statement on Monday, Gordon Brown will give a speech on the topic. The intention is to re-engage with core voters who have defected to the BNP. In an interview with the Mail, Brown acknowledged that the public were right to be concerned, especially in times of economic uncertainty and hardship. Brown is expected to tighten migrant employment controls so that migrants are only used where there are labour shortages. He will strengthen the ‘Labour Market Test’ by extending vacancy exclusivity for UK citizens from 2 weeks to a month, and pledges to retrain British workers. The proposals are welcome and the rhetoric is tough, giving some weight to the maligned call of ‘British jobs for British workers’.

The One Nation sentiments that David Cameron expressed at last night’s Hugo Young lecture have been almost uniformly applauded. Labour’s sneers about Cameron being an uber-Thatcherite are isolated from mainstream. Only Johann Hari dissents, suggesting that because Cameron is an OE and comfortably off it follows that ‘he has never known’ a poor person. Of course, if Cameron were the re-incarnation of Lord Salisbury, then Dave would have ample understanding of, and who knows perhaps even intimacy with, the various retainers, ostlers, scullery maids and farriers in his employ. Patricians have long since retired to enjoy what’s left of their estates, and Cameron’s sentiments are genuine and inflect his politics, simple as that.

I’d forgotten what it felt like to read positive news about the British economy. To be honest life is full of much more thrilling experiences, but my lack of enthusiasm is partially explained by the fact that a 6,000 employment rise is not proof of recovery. That half the population of Cranleigh have found employment over three months is seen as salvation puts Britain’s economic reality firmly into perspective. If you delve into the Labour Market Statistics the picture becomes clear. Unemployment was expected to rise and will continue doing so, but the employment figure is an anomaly. Britain is still visibly contracting, albeit at a decelerating rate. Vacancies fell by 1,000 and have never been at a lower level since records began in 2001.