“There are few names on the opposition front bench who seem to be possessed of either gravitas or chutzpah, still less conviction.”

Is Liddle really so wrong? If he isn’t, then the PoliticsHome result isn’t so strange at all, but it does illustrate a significant problem that the Conservatives would seem to have.

Perhaps confounding expectations of what the Spectator would be like with Fraser Nelson as editor, James Forsyth at Coffee House has been quick to man the trenches on Cameron’s behalf and insist he “hasn’t broken a pledge on Europe”. Such activity from someone, who is, among “the leading commentators”, according to Danny Finkelstein, to well “understand what the Cameron team are trying to do” might suggest that this team is worried that UKIP could indeed save the day for Labour.

I’m doubtful that Nigel Farage and co have it in them to save Labour’s speck (at least any more than the BNP have the potential to steal this same bacon by similarly undercutting the vote of one of the major parties). But, certainly, it is in Labour’s interests to widen and magnify the divisions that obviously linger within the Tory Party on Europe.

Ah, a dividing line, Number 10 surely cries. But I hope it doesn’t. As I have argued elsewhere, Labour needs to be more realistic about our capacity to impact perceptions of the Tories. Essentially, our capacity in this regard is almost zero. Instead of trying to mine this very limited potential, we should be focusing on changing perceptions of ourselves; presenting a positive case for Labour. This argument holds on Europe as much as it does on other areas of policy. So, rather than any ”clever” tactical games, I suggest that Labour makes a positive case for the EU and for our position on the Lisbon Treaty and the future of the EU, while hoping that the snipping of Bill Cash et al opens up the divisions within the Tories that any ”clever” tactical games would seek to achieve and, in so doing, pushes some Tory voters in the direction of UKIP.

It might seem madness (even suicidal) to attempt to present a positive case for the EU and Lisbon Treaty in the UK at the moment. But, first, a more negative politics of dividing lines ignores the reality of our ability to impact perceptions of the Tories. David Aaronovitch’s ability in this regard is probably now stronger than the whole of the Cabinet’s combined. Second, part of the reason that this seems madness is because the dots between the Lisbon Treaty and our national interest remain so un-joined. Take, for example, Daniel Korski’s well-made argument today: ”Europe has the US president it wished for, but Barack Obama lacks the strong transatlantic partner he desired.” This is profoundly true and it is manifestly in the UK’s interest that the EU becomes this strong transatlantic partner. It is far more likely to be able to perform such a role once the improvements to its systems of governance enabled by the Lisbon Treaty are in place.

Labour should make arguments of this kind; arguments that are global and universal in focus, as we leave Cameron and Cash to petty and parochial arguments (Cameron and Cash even sounds suitably like a petty and parachial firm of solictors). Combining UKIP with an enlightened and far-sighted approach from Labour could yet save the day.

“When the House of Commons is about half full or more, MPs simply bellow and heckle each other, making intelligent debate impossible …  And the things MPs shout are not very nice, either. Sexist, rude, slanderous, irrelevant, childish. How long can it be before someone sits there, writes it all down and puts it on their blog? How long before first one MP, then another, is caught saying something inappropriate? The apologies, the disclipinary action. You can see it all, can’t you?”

I can see it all. But only from behind the parliamentary security screen which relegates parliament to the status of a zoo. Ordinary people can only view in person proceedings in the Commons behind a security screen that makes the sound very much akin to that which they would hear if they were watching proceedings on TV. This means that they are largely unable to hear things which are shouted by MPs other than the one who is supposed to be speaking at that particular time. The screen is supposed to protect the parliamentarians from the people – and the people have much cause to be angry with the parliamentarians at the moment – but the screen has the effect of protecting the people from the parliamentarians as if the parliamentarians are a gang of wild tigers or similar. I am not sure we need this protection and it certainly makes it harder for us to look forward to the blog that Finkelstein anticipates.

“A very interesting comment from Pregethwr underneath my post on Labour and its leadership:

‘No Blairite seems to acknowledge, even those who were around at the time, that Blair won in 1994 with a coalition that reached deep (very deep – Peter Hain, Harriet Harman) into the soft left of the party. He won because he squeezed Robin Cook to such extent that he could have only run as the candidate of the far left and lost. No Blairite seems to want to build that coalition, they seem to want to run a ‘back me or lose’ campaign and blackmail the party into supporting them. Worked well for Ken Clarke that tactic didn’t it?’

“I am quite sympathetic to this argument.

“During the three or four years that preceded David Cameron’s election to the leadership of the Tory Party, we modernisers often discussed how we had been better at diagnosing the electoral failures of the Tory Party, and less good at analysing our own political failure to persuade the Tory Party.

“That having been said, the alliance that Tony Blair built was only possible because the soft left abandoned their position. They accepted that they had to win and were prepared to make whatever sacrifice was necessary to do that.

“I agree with Pregethwr that the Blairites need to build a broad coalition in order to win. It’s just that this may not be possible”. 

To which I replied:

“Susan Crosland’s biography of her husband records that he said to Roy Hattersley just before his death:

‘We have got to keep making the point that the far Left are not the only people that can claim a socialist theory while the rest of us are thought to be mere pragmatists and administrators. It’s not enough to disagree with the Marxists et al. The centre must remember and keep reminding people that we are ideologists too’.

“The centre of the Labour Party must again do so”.

Danny Finkelstein suggests that Ed Balls is briefing against Ed Miliband as part of the next war; the race to be the next leader of the Labour Party. Balls, allegedly, wants to be the candidate of the left in this contest, though I can’t see him usurping Jon Cruddas from this position. Given that Labour could well swing leftwards in opposition, as a Blair/Brown backlash occurs against a backdrop of continued economic struggles, this is a position from which Cruddas could be victorious.

This is an outcome which is unlikely to delight either of the Eds, but the extent of Labour’s leftward swing in opposition may be directly proportionate to Cameron’s majority. Labour Party discipline will be easier to maintain if the party feels itself to be closer to a return to government. So the Ballses and the Milibands may best fight their next war (i.e. the Labour leadership election) by focusing entirely upon this war (i.e. the general election). In this much, Prescott is right. But, I think, there is more to be said for Taylor’s suggestion than he thinks. Certainly, the public appetite now is very much for sincere and strategic leadership, not political game playing. While I am not quite sure how one goes about “a unilateral political ceasefire”, Charles Clarke would seem to have suggested a good place to start.

“Surely it would be better both for Labour and for the country if the prime minister were now to announce the date of the next general election (my preference would be 6 May 2010). That would show confidence in the government’s economic approach, rebut any allegation that Labour was trying to manipulate economic decisions for party advantage and remove the rampant speculation around election timing which can erode the clarity and direction of the government’s leadership”.

“Barack Obama should shut Guantanamo Bay – which he’s said he’ll do – and also think of handing the entire naval base over to Cuba, to reverse the isolation of that country by the US, one of the most ridiculous reflexes of American foreign policy. Then he needs to send his team to the Middle East and its borders. The whole region, from Egypt to Pakistan and India, will dominate his presidency”.

While I see much to commend and nothing to oppose in this suggestion, it is rather a European answer. In that, as Danny Finkelstein observes, ”Europeans may see an American President as a world leader”. This isn’t quite the reality of the situation, however, as Finkelstein goes on, “US voters see him as, well, the leader of America. He should move first, therefore, to put in place his full economic plans for the banks. The longer he waits, the more confidence will seep out”.

Finkelstein is clearly right. “The economy is Obama’s obvious and overwhelming priority”, as Andrew Sullivan wrote a few weeks ago in The Times. The success of Obama’s economic policies will determine whether he is, “a liberal Reagan, riding a recovery towards realignment, or a black Jimmy Carter, overwhelmed by forces he was unable to control”. Thus, the political and economic stakes could not be higher. The failure of his economic policies will both lead to the ruin of millions of Americans (and non-Americans) and destroy much (if not all) of his political capital.

Immediately putting in place the best possible economic package is, therefore, an utterly pragmatic thing to do and, as Gerard Baker points out, “almost everything Barack Obama has done since he was elected has emphasised his commitment to a pragmatic rather than an ideological approach to confronting America’s many challenges. When he takes office he should make good on that commitment, stand up to ideologues in his own party and invoke a true spirit of national unity”.

The radical centre (or center) beckons for the pragmatic Obama. The Economist recently explained how this may take shape:

“Next year the Democrats will have large majorities in both arms of Congress, but not quite enough seats in the Senate to shut down filibusters and make Republicans irrelevant. The Senate will thus be the second-toughest check on the new president, after the rapidly emptying Treasury. But Mr Obama’s lack of a crushing Senate majority could actually help him govern better. If the Democrats had 60 seats, Mr Obama’s supporters would expect him to sign a bunch of narrowly partisan bills. Since they don’t, such bills won’t reach his desk. If, for example, his fellow Democrats try to abolish the right to a secret ballot before a workplace is unionised, Senate Republicans will stop them.

“The biggest and best reforms of the past have usually been bipartisan—think of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 or welfare reform in 1996. Mr Obama, too, has a better chance of changing America for the better if he reaches across the aisle. Take health care. He cannot substantially and permanently expand coverage (a Democratic priority) unless he also tackles soaring health-care costs (a Republican one). Or take climate change. It would be politically suicidal to force higher energy prices on Americans without bipartisan cover. There are plenty of moderates in the new Senate, from Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on the Republican side to Mark Warner and Claire McCaskill on the Democratic one. Charlie Cook, a political analyst, counts at least 23 centrists, who will in effect hold the balance of power. Mr Obama should work with them. He may find a useful ally in his old sparring partner, John McCain”.

So, Obama, roll out the economic big guns on day one, start engaging with the Middle East on day two (and maintain this engagement) and reach out to the radical centre (or center) throughout. Easy money, eh?

J-Lo’s claim to still be “Jenny from the Block” may stretch credulity somewhat after a decade of uber-stardom. Still her rise from humble beginnings in the Bronx was obviously marked by great dedication and hard-work. For example, dividing her time “between working in a legal office, dance classes, and dance performances in Manhatten night clubs”, as wikipedia describes, doesn’t sound like the easiest of lives.

With the lashings of patronage that come with her surname, no such struggles were required for Caroline Kennedy. The Mayor of New York endorses her candidacy on the basis that “her uncle has been one of the best senators that we have had in an awful long time.” So what? J-Lo’s Mum was a kindergarten teacher. The contrasting backgrounds of Lopez and Kennedy bring to mind the “American dream”. This was a phrase first coined by James Truslow Adams in 1931 when he wrote:

“It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

Beautiful words, which cannot fail to move, seduce and convince. Yet the appointment of Kennedy to the Senate would be a regression to the kind of Europe that the House of Lords Act 1999 tried to sweep away. It truly would be old Europe. While the rise of a kindergarten teacher’s daughter from the Bronx to global recognition of her talents, seems the very fulfillment of the American dream.

Of course, the appointments system is profoundly undemocratic and should be reformed, as Danny Finkelstein points out. And, of course, if Kennedy were to stand in a public election and so earn a place in the Senate, she would have won on her own merits and be fully deserving of this place. Until she does so, however, I’d prefer to see J-Lo in the Senate. She is the American dream in the form of a music video, which amounts to more than even the most distinguished of family lineages.

It remains the case, as Bill Clinton told the Democratic Convention, that “people the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.” The appointment of Kennedy – indeed, the appointment of anyone – is a betrayal of the American example, however.

[youtube=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=m8YWxzPKBSc]

“Before the PBR, You Gov gave the Tories a 5 per cent lead, now it is 6 per cent; Populus gave the Tories a 6 per cent lead before and a 4 per cent lead now; Mori gave the Tories a 3 per cent lead before and a 6 per cent lead now; ICM gave the Tories an 11 per cent lead before the PBR and a 15 per cent lead in their last poll.

“Only ComRes – which had the Tories on a 13 per cent lead some time before the PBR and now have them on a 1 per cent lead – shows a real shift after the PBR”.

So unless you buy the ComRes story, it remains the case that while Labour may have regained the ears of the country, more work still needs to be done to convert this hearing into voting intention.