Guardian

Who’ll win the old-Etonian stand-off over Cross-Rail?

The big development over Boris that Morus only touched on briefly in the last post was the huge row that’s apparently developing between Johnson (Eton and Balliol College Oxford) and Cameron (Eton and Brasenose College Oxford) over plans by Osborne (St. Paul’s and Magdalen College Oxford) to force a 5% cut to the £16bn London CrossRail project.

According to the Guardian, though denied by the Mayor’s office, Johnson has let it be known has let it be known that if all the money is not forthcoming then he will stand for parliament at the next available Westminster by-election. This, of course, raises the possibility of mayoral by election in London involving the capital’s 6m voters.

What the veracity of this is we do not know but Boris is a wily political operator who could be a big threat to Cameron’s leadership if he returned to the commons as an MP.

This could have an impact on a range of betting markets. Even though he is not an MP Boris is the betting favourite to be the next Tory leader. Ladbrokes have him at 5/1 the same as Michael Gove but tighter than the 8/1 against William Hague who has seen an easing.

Boris is also the 4/5 favourite to win the 2012 London Mayoral race - though Bet365’s 13/8 against Ken winning starts to look quite tempting. He has, of course, to be selected as Labour’s candidate - a party election that is taking place in September.

The problem with the “Boris returning to Westminster at a by election” theory is that safe Tory seats don’t come up very often. In the past decade only one sitting Tory MPs has died causing a by election - the total of Labour MP deaths in the same period was ten.

If Boris was to try to get back then the best route would be if a current Tory MP decided to stand down to make way for him - and that is fraught with danger. Voters have a history of punishing parties that cause unnecessary by elections. The Tories also have a miserable record defending by election seats while they are in government.

Mike Smithson

Guardian

Should the red team look at its own recent history?

One of the most provocative political columns this morning is John Harris’s look at Labour’s view of the Lib Dems by in the Guardian.

He concludes:”… Miserable poll ratings may serve to bind the Lib Dems in, for fear of another election and a real calamity. And one other thing: never forget their deep, burning and often understandable hatred of the Blair and Brown governments – which, given the basic messages given out by the Labour leadership campaign, will endure. As far as Lib Dems are concerned, the two Labour frontrunners effectively cancel each other out: the Miliband keenest to question the last government’s record (Ed, that is) lectures them about the alleged betrayal of their own traditions and jokes about making them “extinct”, whereas his brother is said to be more open to what we must now call “pluralism”, but remains more or less unrepentant about the New Labour fundamentals – and in particular the great Lib Dem irritant cum badge-of-honour that was Iraq.

Yes, this year’s Lib Dem conference will have its moments….But here is what far too many people are missing: that even if the most malign accounts are true and the party has been hijacked by a free market clique, the fact that it has delivered power will probably be more than enough to keep a lid on any trouble. Before Labour people get far too carried away, they ought to remember that until very recently, that was their story too.”

I’m not totally convinced by Harris’s conference point. Lib Dem conferences are much less controlled by the central party machine than Labour and there are fewer constraints on dissident elements. Things could erupt in Liverpool.

The big picture, of course, is that in the last decade and a half all three parties have at some point entered into what amount to Faustian pacts for the sake of power.

The Tory party acquiescence at aspects of the Cameron leadership and now the coalition is a case in point. After all what’s the point of being in politics if you are not in power or striving to achieve it?

Maybe until the events of May 11th many on the yellow side took a different view. Now for them the world has changed. It is far better, surely, to be under sustained fire than to be sitting on the opposite benches experiencing the impotence of opposition?

Mike Smithson

Guardian

Has Clarke become the Lib Dems’ most popular Tory?

On the afternoon of Monday September 20th Nick Clegg will have to make the speech of his life to his party gathering in Liverpool in what looks set to be THE event of the conference season. For the reaction of his audience could determine how long the coalition can survive and with it his own future.

The stakes are high and Clegg has to be able to demonstrate that his party is getting a real return for all it has invested in the controversial deal and that the government is being influenced by liberal values.

There is one area which hasn’t been given much attention but which could could provide good ammunition for Clegg that could resonate with his party - penal policy.

For after two decades in which the polices of home and justice secretaries such as Michael Howard, Jack Straw, David Blunkett, John Reid and Jacqui Smith have repulsed many Lib Dems there is now someone in the job who is pursuing a programme that has a lot of appeal to them - Ken Clarke.

As the Guardian’s, Anushka Asthana, observed in a recent feature “some of the most liberal ideas in the first few months of the coalition have come from the Ministry of Justice - with its Tory secretary of state.”

She noted: “Ken Clarke triggered a furious reaction from some Tory MPs when he argued for radical prison reform that would see less emphasis on locking people up and more on rehabilitation. He indicated that there would be an overhaul of sentencing policy with more alternatives to short sentences and plans to divert the mentally ill and those addicted to drugs into secure treatment centres. He argued it was “virtually impossible” to rehabilitate someone during a jail term of less than 12 months, adding: “Too often prison has proved a costly and ineffectual approach that fails to turn criminals into law-abiding citizens. In our worst prisons it produces tougher criminals.” Later, he claimed rising prison numbers were not linked to falling crime.”

What a rejection of the policies of the last Tory to be in charge - Michael Howard, him of “prison works” fame. You can bet that Clegg will rehearse all of this in his conference speech and that it will go down very well.

Clarke’s liberal (with a small L) regime has not won him friends on the Tory right but then the old bruiser is never one to worry about attacks from that quarter. In fact in the Mail of Sunday at the weekend James Forsyth suggested that Cameron is caused more trouble by Ken Clarke than anyone else.

So what might be an answer to some of Clegg’s problems is not making life easy for Cameron - but hey that’s coalition government for you.

Mike Smithson

Tom Harris blog

Who will win the AV referendum?

News broke overnight that Matthew Elliott, founder of the Taxpayers’ Alliance and BigBrotherWatch, will be leading the ‘No 2 AV’ campaign in the forthcoming referendum on electoral reform.

Guido has linked to the a betting exchange suggesting a ‘Yes’ win at time of writing. However, if you wander over to Ladbrokes, you’ll find the ‘No’ priced at 2/5 and the ‘Yes’ at 7/4 (again at time of writing). Now it doesn’t take a punter like OGH to spot a little arbitrage, but I’m actually more interested in the reason behind the disparity. Someone always knows, someone always tells, someone always bets - why are these prices so different, and who has driven it?

My assessment of this contest is that the ‘No’ vote should be the favourite. The Conservative party is united against AV, some Labour greybeards and the unions oppose it (though won’t spend too much fighting it), opportunists on Right and Left hope that a No vote might break up the coalition.

With the disclaimer that Matthew Elliott is a good friend of mine, I also rate him highly as an effective campaigner, and if his side (as it seems) combines all the requested support from the Tories (money, institutional support, footsoldiers etc) without actually being an official Conservative party campaign (ie, not a referendum on the government) then they should do well.

On the other side of the fence, it seems that the Yes campaign might be run directly out of Cowley Street (interesting but unconfirmed rumours about staffing to follow!), which might well make the AV vote a referendum on the Lib Dems in government. The proximity of the LibDems to the Yes campaign could be a great strength, if the whole party is mobilised (which I think would have been automatic if we were voting on AV+ or STV), but if support for plain old AV is tepid within their ranks, then association with one party, when the No campaign is a combination of Tories and Labour, could make it much harder for the Yes campaign to win.

For my money, the Liberal Democrat conference will be key. Nick Clegg this week sounded like he was bracing the party for the continuence of the coalition if/when the referendum on electoral reform was lost. If he wants to win it, and avoid the threat of a serious split in his party, then enthusing the LibDem base at conference could be all important.

I think the Ladbrokes price is probably about right, but suspect the market isn’t especially liquid at this stage. Also beware that, in an illiquid market, those with deeper pockets have disproportionate weight. In a campaign that no major party will want to spend too much of its funds on winning, rich philanthropists might have as great an impact on the campaign as on the betting markets following it.

Morus