London mayoral election hots up

With just two months until the London mayoral election, the campaign trail is picking up pace in the blogosphere.

Earlier in the week, Mike Smithson at Political Betting called the election “by far and away the biggest political betting event in the UK this year is,” despite the lack of polls. But later that day Anthony Walls at UK Polling Report resists the bendy bus analogy to announce: “After waiting months for a proper poll on the London mayoral election, two come along at once.”

The first of the two polls Walls refers to shows Ken Livingstone 5% behind Boris Johnson, and Smithson senses a whiff of politicising with the release of the second. “My understanding is that Labour and Ken knew about the MORI poll almost as soon as it had been completed,” writes Smithson, “but it was deemed to be a deadly secret because of the closeness of the finding.”

The mayoral election also attracted a great deal of interest on these very pages, as NS political editor Martin Bright criticised prominent Lefties for signing a Compass letter in support of Livingstone. Anthony Barnett at Our Kingdom reveals the frank conversation he had with Bright over his decision to sign, while Oliver Kamm offers Bright his support.

Also this week, Commons speaker Michael Martin found himself the subject of the latest sleaze allegations. The Daily Pundit, with tongue firmly in cheek, asks: “What’s a working class Scot who didn’t go to Oxford and knows what a day’s work is when he sees it doing with friends? It’s a disgrace.”

While, The Remittance Man takes a different view: “Michael Martin’s working class origins are not the issue here. Both George Thomas and Betty Boothroyd have been from working class backgrounds and both served the Labour Party prior to election as speaker, yet both managed to perform their tasks with reasonable fairness and retain the respect of MPs of all parties and the public. Martin has singularly failed to do the same.”

It doesn’t make for great reading for Martin at Iain Dale’s blog. In a poll of 1,122 readers – of whom, somewhat tellingly, only 46% are Conservative supporters – 91% believe Martin should step down as speaker, and 82% rate his performance as either poor or dreadful. Betty Boothroyd comes out as the best speaker of the past 30 years, with 49% of votes; Martin comes in with just 1%.

David Osler also joins the debate: “It is unclear if Martin has technically done anything wrong in pocketing the money from such a generous scheme for a property on which there no mortgage; perhaps Peter Mandelson or Tessa Jowell - given their special expertise in the field of how to finance home purchase the New Labour way - could advise?

“But whatever the rulebook says, this action is morally equivalent to housing benefit fraud, without the ability to claim poverty as a mitigating circumstance.” So there.

This also appears at www.newstatesman.com/blogs/best-of-the-politics-blogs.

So, farewell then Fidel

In the week Fidel Castro declared he would not complete his half century as leader of Cuba, the blogosphere said farewell to the longest ever serving communist leader.

Conservative Party Retile, who fears an “endless hagiographic encomia” from the BBC and Channel 4 following the announcement, writes: “Rather like one of his speeches, you rationally knew it would come to an end at some point, but had trouble really believing that it [would].”

Daniel Finkelstein brings together a collection of, what he describes as, some of the best reporting of Cuba under Castro's leadership, including Arthur Miller's account of when he met the bearded one.

Luke Akehurst bids farewell to Castro and looks to Cuba’s future: “Maybe the communists would win, but personally I hope Cubans would choose a third way which kept Cuba's commitment to free healthcare and education while bringing in freedom of speech, political pluralism and an end to the command economy.” Perhaps some sort of utopia will suffice.

Dave Osler uses his experiences of living in Cuba to weigh up the pros and cons of Castro’s regime. He concludes by describing his own dystopia: “We need to stress that a democratic opening is essential if Cuba is to avoid the build up of discontent on the scale of 1980s Eastern Europe, and the eventual introduction of a particularly savage brand of neoliberal capitalism.

“I’d hate to go back in a few years and find that heart-stoppingly beautiful Old Havana had reverted to its former role as one big extended casino-cum-whorehouse theme park for gringos.”

David Miliband’s apology on behalf of the government for cover-ups over US rendition flights was greeted by praise by some unlikely sources. Both Iain Dale and the Daily Mail’s Benedict Brogan showed support, the later writes: “His public performances have been criticised, often justifiably, as too glib or juvenile, but he hit the right note, and it was refreshing to have humility rather than swagger at the despatch box.”

The good will across the political divide extended to Tom Watson’s blog. When John Redwood responded to a Watson post, Ellee Seymour wonders if it marks a turning point in political bogging and if it is the first time an MP has posted a comment on another MP’s blog.

The Labour MP had quoted Redwood’s statement on the Conservatives’ view on the nationalisation of Northern Rock. The interaction was supported by other political bloggers, including Tim Ireland and Curly, for its civility. A far cry from the oft-raucous Commons floor.

This also appears at www.newstatesman.com/blogs/best-of-the-politics-blogs.

The prince and the departing editor

As Prince Charles used his address to the European Parliament to outline the need to act on climate change, it was interesting to note the differing views bloggers took depending on their political allegiance.

The Lib Dems concerned themselves with the content of the speech. Wit and Wisdom picks up with the military lexicon used: “The use of such language seems to be missing a trick, as any politician with a few years under their belts should know, not to mention being ever so slightly dismissive of the numerous wars which are going on around the world, killing, maiming and generally causing misery to millions every year. So why are we still resorting to such ludicrous exaggeration?”

Meanwhile, the Conservatives seemed more distracted by the choice of venue – and the speaker’s seeming endorsement of the EU – than the speech’s content. So strong is The Huntsman’s views, in fact, that he writes: “It would be far better if, in future, His Royal Highness, avoided such partisanship if he wishes there to be a future for the House of Windsor. If he is not able to do so and he continues to express his approbation for the EU this monarchist will, reluctantly, become a republican.”

UKIP’s refusal to stand at the end of the Prince’s speech led Nich Starling to ponder in what direction the party is moving. He writes: “Given that Galloway’s ‘Respect’ is falling apart, perhaps UKIP could become ‘Lack of Respect’.”

As Valentine’s day came along, Sky News produced its annual most fanciable MPs list, whose winners were described thus: “In at the top, a new entry – the shadow culture secretary Jeremy ‘always on the’ Hunt. Not sign of his opposite number, Andy ‘so hot I’ Burnham, much to the chagrin of certain colleagues in the Sky office.”

Iain Dale goes one better, assessing the most fanciable political hacks. Cathy Newman of Channel4 comes top, with the NS represented by Kevin McGuire in 20th place.

Finally, as NS editor John Kampfner steps down, Dale is moved to writes the following words: “It’s a real shame as the magazine under Kampfner’s editorship has experienced something of a revival. The redesign has been popular and circulation has increased.”

This also appears at www.newstatesman.com/blogs/best-of-the-politics-blogs.

The see of blog

The best way to unify the blogosphere against you, it would seem, is to come out in favour of shariah laws in Britain, as Rowan Williams did this week.

In a thoughtful piece on the subject, Cranmer concludes: “God forbid that Britain should ever return to the days when religious leaders should determine guilt or innocence, or legislate on matters of crime and punishment. For some of us, those memories are all too acute and dreadfully painful.”

The news brought a swathe of imaginative post titles. Iain Dale comes up with “Who will rid us of this idiotic priest?” Chris Paul responds: “Archbishop: who will rid us of this ID-iotic blogger?”, while Obsolete’s contribution is titled “Opening your mind so much that your brain falls out”.

In one of the few posts that supports Williams’s position, Brian Sloan writes: “It is an issue that calls for informed debate if we are to have a genuinely pluralistic society, and I admire the Archbishop for raising it. Given the ill-informed and immature reactions of some, such a debate seems a long way off.”

Apparently there have been some elections over the pond. At Harry’s Place, Gene serves up some Super Tuesday afterthoughts, including praise of John McCain: “Although I can't help liking McCain (if it wasn't such an insult in certain circles, I'd call him a decent man), I'm quite aware that on many of the social and economic issues I care about, he's far to the right of me. I actually was moved last night when he referred, non-sarcastically, to ‘our friends’ on the Democratic side.”

Danny Finkelstein calls the caucus voting system “ludicrously undemocratic”, highlighting some of the winning margins (e.g. Mitt Romney winning 25 seats in Montana on the back of 625 votes, while Mike Huckerbee needed 120,776 votes in order to win just 26 Arkansas delegates).

While acknowledging it may appear hypocritical judging American democracy as a Brit, Finkelstein states: “Romney, Huckabee and Obama all gained delegates as a result of this system that they otherwise might not have won. Caucuses (and state conventions) clearly favour the choice and enthusiasm of activists over those of ordinary voters.”

And finally, on the 90th anniversary of women winning the right to vote, Jon Bright at Our Kingdom assesses how far we have come in terms of equality of political power between both sexes. He concludes: “I hope that in another 90 years we are able to celebrate the equal access of men and women to positions of power, whilst also celebrating the anniversary of when change first began. Sadly, even today, this is a hope rather than a certainty.”

This also appears at www.newstatesman.com/blogs/best-of-the-politics-blogs.

Conning his way through the blogosphere

As the parliamentary sleaze-fest continued, with Labour passing the baton to the Tories over monetary irregularities, the blogosphere was quick to pounce. Bloggers from all quarters united in their condemnation of the Derek Conway & Sons revelations.

But Iain Dale outlined his reasons for not commenting on the Conway affair, and received a barrage of rebuttals from posters and bloggers alike. He writes: “I have no hesitation in telling you that Derek Conway is a friend of mine. Anything I have to say about his conduct, I will say to his face.”

Labour stalwart Phil Dilks sees hypocrisy in Dale’s stance: “Only a few days ago, Iain was quite happy to personally lead ‘the baying mob’ attacking Peter Hain for late reporting of private donations to fund an internal Labour Party election.”

Dizzy Thinks warns the financial misdemeanours of both parties could have murkier permutations: “Parties like the BNP will use these incidents and point out that they are not tainted by such things. You may think that people won’t vote in droves for the bigots and that is probably true, but the more they see the non-bigots acting so appallingly the more they will ponder of spoiling their ballots or protesting.”

While Chris Paul seeks to dispel any comparisons made over sleeze between Labour and the Tories.

Recess Monkey has dug up a three-year-old Daily Telegraph article on Conway Junior mk 2 and his extravagant taste in clothing. He concludes: “I can’t help feeling pity for the boy unable to buy £2,000 suits. Perhaps he should have asked his boss for a pay rise?”

Paul Walters highlights the lack of sleaze on the PMQ agenda over recent weeks, with Labour and the Conservatives avoiding the issue for fear of what skeletons may lurk within their own party’s cupboards: “The parliamentary equivalent of dancing round the handbags or ‘don’t mention the war’. The three party ‘beasts’ have bitten so many chunks out of each other than there is now an uneasy truce.”

Finally, Nich Starling reflects on the Conservatives’ former criticism of student grants because they saw students being subsidised to earn a higher income at tax payers’ expense. He comments: “It is perhaps a real throwback that Derek Conway also appears to me to see his parliamentary allowance as a means of subsiding students, even if they are his sons.”

This also appears at www.newstatesman.com/blogs/best-of-the-politics-blogs.

Hain today, gone tomorrow

In the week Peter Hain finally fell on his sword, Iain Dale salutes his fellow blogfather, Guido Fawkes, for breaking and persisting with the funding scandal story: “Bloggers do not exist to get political scalps. But when a blogger reveals possible law breaking and drives the media debate, as Guido has done, let’s recognise that as a good thing and give him the credit he is due.”

Dale was joined in his blog back slapping by scores of posters on Guido’s blog.

Reflecting on Guido's self-congratulation, Cicero revisits the blog v mainstream media debate. Somewhat stoically, he points out: "Perhaps it is fair to say that people are also recognising the limits of blogs. They do not change the world, they may not be very influential, they are merely a medium."

With William Hill having taken 7-1 that Hain would be out of the cabinet before the end of January, and 2-1 he would be the first to leave the cabinet, plenty of political punters were pleased to see the back of him, according to Political Betting. Five-to-one to see him return by the end of 2008 anyone?

Expecting a heady sense of panic in Westminster, Benedict Borgan is surprised to find: "The MPs, Cabinet ministers, junior ministers and political advisers I've spoken to all afternoon report the same thing: regret for Mr Hain, a sense of inevitability about his departure, and confidence in Mr Brown’s integrity. The political markets seem to have discounted this event."

Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray takes a nostalgic look back at the anti-apartheid campaigner who inspired him. While, Paul Flynn MP makes a case for Hain’s defence. This is derided by Nich Starling.

Mirror hack James Lyons expands on what he terms the "Welsh Cabinet curse". Where once Ron Davies fell foul of Clapham Common, read Hain of Scotland Yard. Maguire also reveals: “Now [Hain’s successor as Wales secretary Paul] Murphy is being tipped to head a new department for regions and nations when Gordon Brown carries out a full reshuffle in the summer.”

The cutest line of the day comes from David Lindsay: “We all know that [Hain] stands no chance of being prosecuted. But just to be certain, he should now call for the police to be paid in full.”

This also appears at www.newstatesman.com/blogs/best-of-the-politics-blogs.

Blogospherical musings

As the dust begins to settle on the party funding fiasco, other matters are chewed over in the blogosphere.

Over at Burning Our Money, Wat Tyler is firmly behind the government’s plans to go nuclear. A comprehensive, if partial, evaluation of the wind power concludes: “The bottom line is that windmills may be a highly seductive idea from a distance, but once you get up close all you find is another giant dollop of wishful thinking.”

As if in response, Rupert Read, a Green Party councillor from Norfolk and EU candidate, blogs a compendium of his anti-nuclear arguments. He also speaks out against biofuels, claiming the craze for them is destroying rainforests when other sources of fuel are less damaging. He hails Biofulewatch, and calls on Greens to: “Firmly resist the biofuels bubble.”

Cassilis looks back on the persistent party funding revelations and says: “I really, really struggle to see why this should be such a big political issue. It reeks of the sort of problem that 100% of the non-political classes could agree on in five minutes but politicians are determined to offer a multitude of ifs and buts and pretend it’s more complicated than it is.”

Hot Ginger Dynamite takes an interesting look at the reportage of the Russian government closing British Council offices. Western journalists – he states – are feeling nostalgic for the Cold War compared to today’s faceless terrorist enemy. He writes: “Our decades of hostility with the Russians provided a wealth of artistic and romantic allusions, which with each passing year become harder to separate from the reality of years at the brink of horrifying mutual destruction.”

As BA pilots are praised for saving scores of lives, Nick Robinson blogs while being hauled up with the PM’s entourage at Heathrow watching the crashed plane on the runway.

And finally, on the tenth anniversary of Matt Drudge’s web revelations of the Clinton-Lewinksy affair, Guido Fawkes pays homage to the act he feels began to turn the tables on the mainstream media (MSM), leading to the rise of the blogosphere: “Conventional journalists in the MSM have shifted from sneering to fearing, from deriding to envying. Technology means that any talented trouble maker with a modem can achieve Karl Marx’s dream: ownership of the means of production and distribution.” How romantic.

This also appears at www.newstatesman.com/blogs/best-of-the-politics-blogs.