CentreRight

A civil service mystery

I'm not sure that Civil Servants should line up en masse at their Departments' doors to applaud new Secretaries of State when they arrive for the first time.

None the less, Treasury civil servants did so to greet Gordon Brown when he went to the Treasury in 1997.

And Business civil servants did the same for Peter Mandelson in 2008.

So just remind me: did they do so for George Osborne last week?  Or for any of the new Conservative and Coalition Secretaries of State?

If not, why not?

55%, Fixed-term Parliaments, elected Prime Ministers - Solutions in search of a problem

The proposal to require 55% of Parliament to vote for a dissolution to have an early General Election has created much excitement, but that the number should be above 50%+1 is really a pretty straightfoward implication of the fixed term Parliaments concept.  However, fixed term Parliaments are a bad idea.  And, like the proposal to require new General Election shortly after any change in Prime Minister, they are solutions in search of a problem - there is, though, no such problem for them to solve.

The Cabinet Office Twitter Guide

If you are at all interested in (a) Twitter, (b) bureaucracy or (c) both then you will find this 20 page document very interesting indeed.

A template created for each government Department to modify for itself, it's quite old (July 2009) but I haven't seen it linked to before (and it will be interesting to see if the new Government embraces it, despite the new Prime Minister's well known attitude to the medium).

Learn about the Cabinet Office approach to the "zeitgeist", "credibility" and so much more...

Hat tip: AW

Who will speak for the government on 55%?

...and explain what on earth they were thinking of?

Nick Clegg, presumably, as Deputy Prime Minister, Lord President of the Council (with special responsibility for political and constitutional reform). He needs to do it quickly. This is fast developing into the coalition's first significant test.

Transforming green policy making

Ben Caldecott is a founding director of the Conservative Environment Network.

Our new coalition Government has an unprecedented environmental responsibility. On every front, from improving the energy efficiency of our homes to protecting the biodiversity of our countryside, urgent action will be required. David Cameron's long standing support of environmental policies, as well as a positive and constructive relationship with the Liberal Democrats, means that this Government has a real chance of translating bold words into necessary environmental action.

This is a prize worth fighting for. Decisive action in the national interest to tackle the great environmental problems of our age cannot wait any longer. Fortunately, our new Government has proposed many of the policies required to deliver a step change. For example: reforming our energy markets to enable greater investment, establishing a Green Investment Bank, creating a conservation credits scheme, introducing a carbon tax, reforming air passenger duty, preventing airport expansion, new energy efficiency financing, planning for high-speed rail, and promising to develop clean coal. Together this package could dramatically improve our quality of life, whilst also positively contributing to global efforts to tackle climate change and improve biodiversity conservation.

To be truly transformational, however, it will be critical for environmental issues to be imbedded in every aspect of policy making. At present it's still the preserve of officials and advisers in departments such as DECC and DEFRA, whereas it must become a fundamental part of policy appraisal and evaluation throughout every level of local and central government. In some ways this is easy to achieve: simply change policy guidance and training for civil servants. But we can go further, for example, by adopting John Gummer's idea of a Chief Environment Secretary to the Treasury who would be responsible for ensuring that all departments meet their carbon budgets and other environmental commitments. In addition, we should ensure that key departments, especially the Cabinet Office and No. 10, have advisers making sure that environmental objectives are properly factored into the development and implementation of policy across government. These straightforward institutional reforms, complementing existing policy priorities, could make it much easier for this Government to deliver a better and greener future.

Mark Steyn: once you establish the principle that the state has the right to police ideas, sooner or later one of yours will catch their eye

The ever-impressive Mark Steyn (oh, how the Telegraph misses him) has written a blistering critique of modern society. I urge you to read it.

It ends:

The more you haul nobodies off to the cells for putting up a poster or quoting the Bible, the more a timid conformist populace will keep its head down, mind its own business, and avoid broader social engagement—or at any rate non-alcohol-fuelled engagement. Big Government is dismantling civic identity, and the slow-burn bonfire of liberties in Europe and North America will eventually consume us all.

The tyranny of the minority

ConservativeHome quite rightly links to a powerful invective in the WSJ by Iain Martin, attacking the mooted 55 per cent threshold for bringing down the coalition in Parliament. Even at first sight, such a change betrays the most basic and fundamental principles of how a democracy works. A majority of MPs could vote down a government, and yet it could keep on trundling in power.

I am not sure where this idea came from; it has rather a tinge from the days of the sacked European Commission.

Having pondered the revolutionary change last night and pored over Erskine May this morning, the reality seems even more striking. I could find in its many pages no actual definition of what constitutes a majority in Parliament. The centuries-old presumption is that it is a majority of one. Ink is expended explaining Speaker Addington’s decision of 1796, and three decisions by Speaker Denison between 1860 and 1870, where votes were tied and the Speaker’s vote (and his deputy’s) counted. But beyond that, the definition of a majority is so obvious it requires no comment or definition.

That is the measure of the revolution at hand. A peremptory 55% in the Chamber on one issue today could (as the WSJ piece points out) lead to 60% later. But it could also lead to other changes designed to limit the ability of simple majorities to undo coalition work, for instance in committees employing dissident coalition MPs, or in formalising limitations of the Power of Rescission and reversing decisions already made.

It is the slipperiest of slopes, worthy of a stage in Total Wipeout.

Erskine May was last amended in 2004, and reflects current practise. As such, it is already I am told in the process of being amended to cover what is happening under the developing terms of the coalition. The voters of Buckingham have returned their incumbent to the House. What will he – and other potential Speakers should there be a challenge – make of it all? Mr Bercow’s enduring reputation as a guardian of Members’ rights over the Executive may yet be made.

Why cuts must start from the top

There's some good news from this morning's Cabinet Meeting already - the new Government have all agreed that Ministers will take a 5% pay cut.

This is welcome for three important reasons.

First, it will save some money. Sure, it won't be enough on its own to tackle the £160 billion or so of deficit this year, but it's a start that taxpayers will welcome. Every penny counts.

Second, it is a step on the road to restoring public faith in Parliament. Although the new expenses scheme is fairly good, restoring Parliament's reputation requires the political class to make some sacrifices. There will be those in Westminster who deride this as tokenism but it doesn't do any harm to make a gesture sometimes.

Third, and most important, this is a crucial bit of groundwork for the essential spending cuts that must be made. Many quangos must be abolished, wide pay freezes must be implemented and many - particularly senior - salaries ought to be cut. There will undoubtedly be some strikes if the right decisions are taken, but can you imagine how much worse the resistance to cuts would be if Ministers refused to share any of the pain themselves?

This sends a clear message: spending must fall and we Ministers are leading by example.

More of the same, please!

Good things about the coalition

Enough whining.  Here are some things I like about the coalition.

- We have (some) power instead of none.
- By taking office, the Lib Dems will be tainted by the spending cuts, especially given they have taken Chief Secretary, the Cabinet position in charge of spending cuts.
- Once we're forced to cut NHS spending, we can blame the Lib Dems

- Raising the income tax threshold is good
- I'm pleased we are reviewing whether there are cheaper nuclear alternatives to Trident II
- Pleased that the proposal for fixed term Parliaments turns out to be purely cosmetic (since a 55% vote by the house to self-dissolve is enough, all we really do is shift the recommendation to the Queen for dissolution from the Prime Minister to the Commons - no problem)
- It's good that we have support for the Great Repeal Bill in respect of civil liberties

And of course we are implementing lots of other policies that are our policies with which I agree (and lots with which I disagree - but more of that another day).

A great day for think-tanks

As the fuzzy outlines of the new Libservative government gradually come into focus and a new, very different political landscape emerges, this feels like a great day for think-tanks - especially those who stand for freedom and opportunity. Party politics has had a huge shake up. Many Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicans will be out of their comfort zone; party allegiance is no longer taken for granted and old loyalties - and antipathies - must be stifled. The future is precarious and within each party the need for stability will force dissidents to suppress their unease.

But for those of us who trade in policy and ideas, free of political preferment, this new landscape creates huge opportunities. Each and every policy idea can be examined on its merits, not according to its party political provenance. Shrinking the State, closing down quangos and databases, taking the poor out of tax, freeing up schools,localising decision-making - these are great policies which the Centre for Policy Studies, among others, has long advocated and will be delighted to see implemented. We shall also be making the case for more freedom and diversity in energy supplies and strongly pro-growth policies for business and enterprise. Some of these policies will be more controversial in a coalition era, but the driving force behind them will be to pull Britian out of recession and make us a free and prosperous nation once again.

Policies which are 'liberal' in its classical sense are those which limit the power of the State. Every think tank on the centre right can therefore have reason to be confident of its purpose, its donor base, its supporters and - most of all - a ready audience for its ideas. In the world of ideas, everything is possible.

Radical Islam on university campuses

For anyone looking for some non-election related news, I must point you towards two especially shocking short videos.

The first comes from the University of California San Diego, and records a chilling exchange between David Horowitz, founder and the president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and a young Muslim student. That this kind of mindset exists anywhere - let alone a university campus - is about as depressing and as frightening as it gets.

The next piece of footage is of an assault - and subsequent celebration of this assault - on the artist Lars Vilks, at a university in Sweden. Vilks has received death threats and a great deal of censorship for producing artwork which portrayed Mohammed (the picture of which can be viewed here).

As I have posted before, and as previous studies have shown, this type of attitude is not uncommon on British campuses. Labour stuck their head in the sand on this issue for years. Let's hope the new government does not.

The EU really is a new religion

For those who felt my last post too soft, try this.

For as long as they are foolish enough to leave it online, here is the Order of Service for the "Service for Europe Day" held at Westminster Abbey on Sunday.

You have to read it. You would think otherwise that I am making this up.

(If you have just eaten, or are of a fragile disposition, look away now.)

- Those assembled stood as the flag of the European Union was presented at the Altar.

- An extract from the Schuman Declaration was read from the Pulpit (no, seriously).

- They congregation's amended Act of Penitence read "Let us bring before God our failures and weaknesses... the opposition seculaire which has hindered our unity..."

- The congregation prayed, "Giving thanks for the vision, courage, and example of Robert Schuman, let us pray for the European Union..." and then they prayed for the President of the EU. For the Parliament. For the Commission. For the Council. For the Court of Justice. For the ECHR.

- And then they stood and pledged an "Act of Commitment", beginning "Lord God Our Father, we affirm our commitment to the European Union..." (no, SERIOUSLY).

- And then they remained standing for "The Anthem of the European Union" and the processing out of the EU flag. Poor Beethoven did nothing to deserve this.

Cameron has his work cut out for him, mais non?

Hat tip: MM

The vanquished

I have written in the past about the sympathy all political participants should feel for the side that goes down - for "the footsoldiers who persevered in the face of consistent, horrifying polls, the volunteers who just kept plugging away for their beloved Party, and will now be feeling as wretched as can be."

I loathed the last government, and what it stood for. I campaigned against it. But I have no doubt that - no matter how wrongheadedly - they genuinely believed that they were doing what was best for our country, they worked hard for that, and, unlike some others in Parliament, the Labour Party had and has a coherent political narrative and set of principles which made and makes them worthy opponents.

I also thought that Gordon Brown spoke with a singular dignity last night as he conceded office. Nothing so became him in office as the manner of his leaving it, and I wish that he had governed in that style, but that moment should nevertheless be recognised. And I note that the first time I ever saw a photograph of his children was in this morning's papers, capturing them leaving Downing Street.

Modern Conservative = Liberal and Democrat?

Changing the voting system.  Fixed term Parliaments.  A vigorous opponent of religious freedom as Education secretary.

Maybe I've been looking at this all wrong.  I'd been assuming that I was a Conservative, and that the Conservative Party, though its platform had many elements I approved of, had chosen certain non-Conservative paths (I hoped temporarily) which I considered ill-advised both in Electoral terms but also in terms of integrity - because they were non-Conservative they were not True to Who We Are.

But maybe that's back to front.  Maybe the truth is that I am not a Conservative, and that although the Conservative Party (sadly, to a true modern Conservative) continues notionally to support some delusional ideas that a non-Conservative such as myself finds attractive, it has moved considerably in the direction of true modern Conservatism and will shortly purge itself of its last residual delusional aspects.

A Healthy Coalition?

In a constructive spirit, having said that the AV concesssion was unnecessary and mistaken, it might be helpful to suggest a policy area in which making some concessions to the Lib Dems might bring dividends. Given the importance that all parties attach to health and the NHS in particular, it's been a little surprising that so far as I have seen health has not yet been identified as an issue for coalition discussions, whether LibDem-Lab or LibDem-Con.

There are some areas where adopting the LibDem position would help disimpale us from hooks that, upon reflection, we may wish we had not fashioned and open up positions that we might like to move into:

• The "independent NHS Board": this would diminish public and political accountability not strengthen it. The Lib Dem policy of locally-elected health boards is much more appealing to many conservatives.
• Care of the elderly: our £8,000 insurance policy to cover the cost of care homes is actuarially vulnerable. It needs widespread take-up, and assumes that people won't use their insurance policy to enter care homes earlier than they might otherwise have done. The financial services industry needs to ensure that it comes up with transparent, loophole-free products, which it's not always good at doing. Insurance might have a place as part of a pluralist system, but it's not a complete answer. We have said very little about the cost of home care, which is the setting where most people want to stay as long as they can. The Lib Dem call for a Royal Commission to look at all of this is sensible, provided we then go on to implement its recommendations swiftly.
• Deficit reduction. It may well not prove possible to increase health spending every year. The Lib Dems did not make this commitment. In order to help fund other Lib Dem proposals which we might agree to (eg lifting the very poorest out of income tax altogether) we may need to revisit this. I accept this may carry too much political risk, but we should consider it.
• Personnel: Norman Lamb is liked and trusted in health and social care. He's also a reformer - Nick Bosanquet frequently calls him one of Reform's (the think tank's) "favourite sons." Andrew Lansley could still become Secretary of State for Public Health if David Cameron wants, but Norman Lamb could become a senior minister with special responsibility for accountability and efficiency. If for no other reason than my desire to see the headlines: "Lamb chops health fat" or "Lamb fleeces health waste", "Lamb shears...." etc etc

There are lots of issues in common between the parties as well, for example, shared commitments to reduce the DH, join up health and social care services, empower patients and carers, and do more to focus on prevention and public health. I hope they're talking about this behind those there closed doors.

If you use a wireless network, and care about privacy, you should read this

Back in April (I know, it seems a lifetime ago - Before Election) a remarkable letter was sent to Google by the Privacy / Information Commissioners of ten countries, including the UK.

The letter sets out privacy concerns about an array of Google products and services. They have significant criticisms about Buzz, Gmail and Streetview. I know that we're all gripped by the election fall-out but, chances are, you are affected by one or more of those products, so this is worth bearing in mind. 

This paragraph from the letter sums up the view from the Commissioners, and the problem with Google as I see it:

It is unacceptable to roll out a product that unilaterally renders personal information public, with the intention of repairing problems later as they arise.  Privacy cannot be sidelined in the rush to introduce new technologies to online audiences around the world.

Which is the point I made when Street View was rolled out across the UK.

Google has now responded to the letter from the Commissioners. 

Fine. But one thing that doesn't get addressed in the exchange is the fact that Google Maps can be combined with wi-fi provision to display the location of users.

Think about that for a second. Perhaps it applies to the computer or handheld device on which you're reading this now. You can see this at work if you go onto Google Maps and click the blue "where am I?" button, above the little "Street View" man (the issues about which, I leave for another day). It's useful - if you're lost. But think about the other potential uses. For the mischievous. For the malicious. For the state. If a device can locate itself, it can be located.

I've been impressed by Google's willingness to enter into conversation with constructive critics Big Brother Watch and Privacy International - there's certainly more interaction and response than one gets when pointing out what one perceives to be flaws with things run by the state. But concerns like these aren't going away.

I note that the Commissioners didn't raise issues with Google's search engine itself, perhaps the most important of all. I imagine you've used it today. When I was looking for the text of the original letter, it was easy to find. I Googled it.

Over at Spiked Online, an interesting set of essays about Google.

No one will trust politicians after this

Last week's election was the voters' opportunity to pass judgment on a politcal class badly damaged by expenses-gate, and there were many constituencies where an an individual MP's expenses record clealry affected the outcome. But the election also provided Westminster with the opportunity for a fresh start.

Depressingly, the last few days have done little to inspire confidence in politics and yesterday's events provided a new low. Whatever kind of deal is stitched together today (or tomorrow, or this week), it is hard to see how any of the parties involved can rebuild public trust - or inspire confidence in their ability to restore Britain's battered economy.

The 'phantom' Labour government remains in denial, ignoring the electorate's decision and the advice of its more principled old hands, refusing to relinquish the perks of office whilst neglecting to run the country - all the while clothing itself in pieties about the 'Consitution' which it has shown itself so ready to rewrite. The Conservatives, who might have been expected to defend the constitution and at least to hold true to the modest electoral changes pleged in their own manifesto, are apparently so desperate for power that they will found themselves in a Dutch auction of electoral reform, continuing to negotiate with a party despite finding that it has been two-timing them all along. And the Liberal Democrats deserve only contempt - whether they are entirely duplicitous or merely ill-disciplined matters little, they are clearly unsuited for government. If either of the main parties makes an accommodation with them now, it cannot be built on trust and is unlikely to last much beyond teatime - let alone through the stormy economic waters ahead.

I do not see how anything palatable can be retrieved from this. Maybe the best hope is that the whole fragile edifice collapses sooner rather than later and we have another election. May the least-worst party win.

It could be worse

Today’s papers remind us that however frustrating the aftermath of the General Election may be, things could be very much grimmer.

Iraq’s government has been pottering on while the "loser" in the election has been attempting to stitch together a working coalition of smaller parties.

In Iraq of course that is complicated by the explosive mix of ethnic minorities, politics and history in a way that (outside of Northern Ireland) doesn’t exist in the UK. But as yesterday’s events show at their most cruel and extreme, even an electoral defeat by a margin of two seats is enough to create a sense of outrage and of cheating where the incumbent party tries to hang on.

Clegg blinked; why did Cameron?

Driving back home I heard Radio 5 Live describe Gordon Brown's statement as "statesmanlike." I hadn't heard it at that stage, but of course it was nothing of the sort. As ever, Party calculation predominated. And by colluding in it and asking for talks, Clegg made himself vulnerable. Brown's resignation should not have made an iota of difference to LibDem calculations; his departure was inevitable. If the Lib Dems are seriously envisaging going into coalition with Labour (and also necessarily with the Scots Nats, Plaid, Green and...?) without knowing who Labour's next leader might be, and in the knowledge that whoever it is will be Labour's second unelected Prime Minister in a row, they should have been left to do so. The parliamentary arithmetic makes a coalition utterly impractical and unsustainable. It would have been old politics at its worst, and the best possible argument against any form of proportional representation. The markets would  react ferociously. Parties of the left would have to engage seriously with making the cuts that their profligacy has necessitated, and take the necessary heat. There would be another election swiftly, and all involved in such a coalition of losers would sustain further heavy losses. And if they failed to cobble this unedifying coalition together they would have had to return to the Conservative table in a much weaker position. So the Conservatives should have called their bluff.

Instead we folded. There was absolutely no need to offer the LibDems a referendum on AV or any other form of electoral reform. To the limited extent that there is any public transparency in these negotiations, we know that the Conservatives had offered a committee on political reform, and the voting system was but one part of that. There are other important system reforms: constituency size; postal voting; Lords reform, fixed term parliaments, MP recall by voters, to name but a few. But, by offering a referendum on AV we have put proportional representation on the table, and it will now be very hard to take it off again. We have said for a long time that we believe that FPTP is in the national interest, even when it works against us. If we believe that we should defend it. It looks tonight like a principle too cheaply discarded. And it makes us look weak. I am rocked.

No. We should not trade bad constitutional changes for short-term partisan advantage

No.  Politics is intrinsically a pragmatic business, and political parties are intrinsically coalitions involving compromise.  Sometimes I vote for things I don't like but you do, so that another time you will vote for things I like but you don't.  That's team play.  That's how parties are more than just a bunch of individuals of vaguely similar outlooks.  Whipping is absolutely essential to getting things done.

But there are different kinds of things one disagrees with.  Sometimes one thinks that the policy is right, but the priorities with which they are expressed are all wrong - as in 2001.  Sometimes one thinks that the policy is right, but being presented wrongly.  Sometimes one thinks the policy is wrong, but is an area of possible compromise.  But sometimes a policy is wrong and unacceptable.  Offering to change our electoral system - even offering a referendum on the policy which we could oppose - to secure a coalition with the Liberal Democrats is wrong and unacceptable.  Conservative MPs should not accept a whip on this matter.  A free vote of the Commons on a referendum - fine.  A whipped vote - no.

Could a “rainbow coalition” cope with our massive debt crisis?

By Neil O'Brien

Have you ever played the game Pass the Bomb?  You have to chuck the ticking timebomb on to the next person before it goes off in your hands. 

Our politicians are doing something similar - competing for the right to try and tackle a catastrophic fiscal situation. The government is borrowing nearly one in every four pounds it spends, and the Governor of the Bank of England has said that whoever wins will have to take such tough decisions that they will be out of office for a generation.

Nonetheless, now that Gordon Brown has offered to resign, some people on the left are talking about a “rainbow coalition”, which would bring together Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and politicians from Northern Ireland.

Such a cobbled-together coalition would have a majority of two. Add on one green MP, and one Alliance MP, and it might be as high as six.  

The new rainbow coalition would have to find a leader - which might be a bit tricky.  But perhaps a more difficult challenge would be the need to pass an emergency budget within a few weeks.  It would be very difficult for such a rickety coalition to vote through the package which is needed.  

Each of the smaller parties would presumably bring their own additional demands.   Plaid Cymru have already talked about their demand for 300 million pounds for Wales.  The SNP want no cuts in Scotland. And so on.

Labour have put a number of cuts in the pipeline already, including real terms cuts in public sector wages, and cuts in eligibility for incapacity benefits and benefits for lone parents.  But the left of the Labour party doesn’t really support even these changes.  And far, far more is needed.

To get some idea of the challenge facing such a coalition, here are some options for plugging the gap for the next parliament (and further cuts would still be needed in the parliament after):

1) Freeze all benefits (including the state pension) for the next four years, means-test child benefit and child tax credit, scrap the winter fuel payment, scrap free TV licences, scrap the carers allowance, and cut incapacity benefit by £2 billion.  Then raise the basic rate of tax by two pence in the pound.

2) Cut every government department’s budget - including the NHS, schools and police - by 11%

3) Increase the basic rate of tax by nine or ten pence in the pound, leaving people on low incomes paying more than 40 percent of their income in direct tax - even before they pay VAT on top.  In other words, put the poor on what used to be the top rate of tax.

Do we really think that the 20 Labour MPs who are members of the Socialist Campaign Group will vote for any of these kind of cuts?  Or will the Lib Dems, who promised to cut tax for the low paid, really now vote for a 10p tax hike on the poor? 

Whoever forms the next government will need a big working majority.  Trying to run a flimsy “rainbow coalition” in the middle of Britain’s worse post-war fiscal crisis would be like trying to cobble together a life raft out of a few twigs and some sticky tape - in the middle of a hurricane.  It would be blown to bits.  I just don’t think it’s even a plausible option.

Getting it right

The first time I did stand-up comedy I was terrified, but I got through it rather successfully. It was a huge relief, and inevitably I thought I was a bit special; perhaps even a natural. So I was considerably less nervous at gig number two. I took to the stage with some aplomb. And bombed.

Maybe it was a mistake to base a whole routine around the subject of cannibalism. But I wasn’t dreadful. I have been dreadful, and I will be again, but I wasn’t that night.

However, I learned a massively important lesson, one you can only learn from a bad gig. Not everyone is going to find you funny. Not everyone is going to “get” you. That realisation is wonderfully liberating. You can only go with what you think is funny and hope others feel the same.

Sure, you have to learn the craft. You have to know how to hold a microphone; you need to know how to adjust the height of the mic stand if the act before you is a dwarf or a giant. You need to project your voice and you need to stand in the spotlight. But you don’t need to pander. You need not to do that

Have you ever stood up in Islington and informed a bunch of middle class lefties that you are a right wing Tory, and then tried to make them laugh? I have. There’s only one way to do it: fearlessly.

As soon as a crowd sees that you’re desperate to please them, you’ve had it. That’s when the laughs die and the heckler senses his moment has come. But if you give it to them with both barrels and without apology they’ll listen. And the people in the room who find you funny won’t be afraid to show it.

But even when you’re on fire, you rarely win the whole room. The reason famous comics do so isn’t just because they’re good – it’s because they play to their fans. Household names have been known to bomb spectacularly on turning up unannounced at small gigs to try new material. No-one in the world is got by everyone.

The BBC in the new Parliament

The usual justification for our being coerced into paying the illiberal licence fee is the BBC's "quality broadcasting".

Perhaps, like me, you have watched BBC output in recent years and scoffed at that assertion. Nevertheless, let us agree that the production of "quality broadcasting" is a noble ambition - although whether we should be forced to pay for it is of course another question.

Given that we do have to pay for it, in furtherance of that ambition, should our national broadcaster not pick up Melvyn Bragg's South Bank Show? So argues John Lloyd in a column over at this weekend's FT (which begins, alas for that great journalist - "When this column appears we will know what government we have." Well, who can blame him?)

His suggestion made me think about the wider role of the BBC. Regardless of my views on the propriety of having a national broadcaster, given that we've got one, and given the declared remit, to my mind it's clear that they should take up Bragg's highbrow, thoughtful arts review. But they won't (despite the fact that it must cost tuppence ha'penny to produce) because they're just as concerned with ratings and the market as the commercial channels with whom their status and purpose supposedly means they do not compete.

It seems to me that we therefore have the worst of all worlds - a public services broadcaster whose existence is justified by some special purpose in output terms, a purpose which - with occasional exceptions - it has put to one side.

So let me ask you two questions:

• What do you think should happen with the BBC in the new Parliament?
• What do you think will happen?

Related post: my view on what should happen in broadcasting regulations, if the BBC subsidy is to remain

Why aren't Conservatives demonstrating on Whitehall to demand that Brown relinquish power?

By Anthony Browne, who writes in a personal capacity

If this extraordinary situation were reversed – and a Tory prime minister who lost the election refused to move out of Downing Street – there would be one inevitable response: trade-union organised popular demonstrators outside Downing Street, collaborating with left-wing groups such as the Socialist Workers' Party. There would be a huge rolling non-stop demonstration, the permanent focus of television cameras, creating a visible national sense of crisis, and stoking up a tsunami of public anger at a politician trying to steal an election. After all, left wing demonstrators didn’t need a dubious electoral outcome to shout “Maggie, Maggie, Maggie – Out, Out, Out!”

However, the Conservative Party has no such battalions of fellow travellers permanently on the brink of waving placards. But it would probably be useful for them if they did. Ukrainian style pro-democracy demonstrations outside Downing Street would grab the media attention, have huge popular support from across the political spectrum, put the pressure on Brown to leave, and make it easier for the Conservatives to negotiate good terms for entering government. Even Gordon Brown’s MPs, who declare publicly he has no mandate to stay in Number 10, might be tempted to join.

As a journalist who covered a few Eastern European pro-democracy movements, it often struck me that we have in Britain become very complacent about our democracy, whether it be from our fraud-prone election system to our apparent acceptance that a political leader who has just suffered humiliating electoral defeat can remain in power. In the former communist countries, the people wouldn’t still be sitting down if their leaders tried to ride roughshod over the wishes they expressed at the ballot box. Perhaps we have a lesson to learn from those we were recently trying to teach.

So: how was it for you?

... and: how should we behave, the (metaphorical) morning after? (I can't type that phrase without remembering the band in The Poseidon Adventure, do you remember? They sang There's got to be a morning after, in a plaintively melodic minor key, just before the iceberg struck and the ship went down: not, perhaps, the best image to have in mind just now. Anyway).

How it was for us:

• Astonishingly good, but not good enough. More like the mirror of 1992 than should have been the case.

How we should behave:

• As fully-paid up supporters of a Change Coalition. (I think the phrase is due to Guido or to Iain. It's a good one). Politics isn't football - something that may come as a surprise to those who treat the most important national conversation as an endless Spurs-Arsenal grudge match (a particularly New Labour characteristic, come to think of it) - and failure to win the league doesn't mean retiring from the field until next season when a new manager will 'win us the silver' like what we did in the 80s. We should aim for a Cameron-led Tory-LibDem administration that can stay in office for a reasonable length of time, for at least the next twelve months. No-one, surely, wants another election before the summer?