Neither Of These Two Will Lead Labour

In their different ways, Mandelson and Harman have experienced all the oscillations of politics

With Gordon away, Harriet and Peter come out to play. In a series of headline-grabbing interviews, Harman speaks up for women in politics and in the private sector. Making almost as much noise in the summer calm, Mandelson re-frames the debate about Labour's spending plans and suggests sensationally that Brown might take part in televised leaders' debates during the election. Harman was not especially thrilled with Mandelson's ubiquity when she was supposed to be running the country. Friends of Mandelson have suggested that some of Harman's propositions in recent days were barmy.

The duo's hyperactivity has added spice because it is accompanied by speculation that one of them might be the next Labour Party leader. We are possibly witnessing the preliminary skirmishes of a full-throttled leadership contest. Mandelson was given the chance to rule out being leader in a recent BBC interview; he chose not to do so. Harman is the only member of the Cabinet to have won a leadership contest since 1994 when she became deputy leader, emerging triumphantly from a crowded field. She is a formidable campaigner and thick-skinned too, an important quality given the abuse she receives in much of the media.

Related articles

• Harman denies conflict over rape law

The re-emergence of Mandelson is already an astonishing story. If he were to become leader, all three founders of New Labour would have been given their chance, Blair first, then Brown and finally the figure who worked so closely with them in the dark days of the 1980s. His elevation would be vivid proof that the younger generation was not up to the job of leadership and was dependent still on those that formed New Labour in the mid-1990s.

Harman's further rise would also expose the lack of political talent among the younger ones that sit around the cabinet table. Like Mandelson and unlike most of the Cabinet, she was battle-hardened in the 1980s, winning a by-election in 1982 as Labour plumbed the depths of unpopularity. In their very different ways, Mandelson and Harman have experienced all the wild oscillations in politics. Most of the potential leaders from the younger generation were special advisers to Blair or Brown, protected from the frontline, functioning behind the scenes, hidden from the media. They are not well prepared for leadership.

There is, though, one big problem with the engaging vision of a Harman-versus-Mandelson contest. Harman has said publicly and unequivocally that she does not want to be the next Labour leader and will not stand in a contest. I have checked in recent days with her closest allies; they tell me emphatically that this remains the case.

If there is a leadership contest before or after the election, Harman will not stand. There are no get-out clauses, no statements about not being able to envisage circumstances where she would stand. She is not going to do so. I am sorry to disappoint those who believe politicians only utter statements with their own future ambitions in mind, but Harman says what she has said because she believes it.

I am told it is possible Harman may wish to remain as deputy after the election. There will only be a vacancy if she stands down. But when she argues that women might have made a difference to the performance of Lehman Brothers, or that a woman should always be in one of the top two positions in the Labour Party, she is putting a case and not preparing a leadership bid.

Mandelson's situation is more interesting. Tantalisingly for him as things stand, he is much the best-qualified member of the Cabinet to be Labour's next leader. Mandelson understands how to link tactics and strategy to policymaking, not an easy connection to make – as David Cameron is currently demonstrating. Mandelson also has the experience of government and recognises the weaknesses in the Conservative leadership. As a bonus, he understands the rhythms of the media fairly well, although he still makes a surprising number of gaffes.

Brown was indeed planning to announce during his party conference speech that he wanted to take part in televised debates with Cameron during the election. He had hoped to spring a surprise, to get momentum from the challenge. He still might go for it, but Mandelson gave the game away in advance by suggesting such a move was possible; quite a cock-up. On the whole, though, Mandelson's star shines brightly in an otherwise darkish sky.

In what context could he make his move towards the leadership? This is where the difficulties begin. When the new political season kicks off next month, he will be central to Brown's attempt at a comeback. Having made his decision that Labour's best bet is to buttress Brown, Mandelson would undermine his own credibility by knifing the Prime Minister, standing down as a peer, fighting a by-election and then taking part in a leadership contest as a newly-elected MP. Apart from anything else, there is no space between now and the election for such a time-consuming process, with the tottering Government on hold after a traumatic act of regicide as Mandelson becomes an MP in order then to become a candidate. I am exhausted outlining the sequence. It will not happen.

Nor would such a series of events enhance Mandelson's reputation. He has been at his best over the past year as the calm, good-humoured and influential elder statesman, slightly above the fray and yet at the heart of everything. Personally he has enjoyed the best media ever. All would change if he were to change from king-maker to king-seeker. If Labour loses the election, the focus will be on the next generation even if the party does not have a single credible younger candidate yet. In the event of a hung Parliament, there would be enough instability without adding to the frenzy as Mandelson moves to the Commons. The timing, context and sequencing make it impossible for Mandelson to become leader after the election.

If there is a leadership contest next summer neither Harman nor Mandelson will be Brown's successor; neither will even stand in a contest. The closest they will get to No 10 is their temporary occupancy during Brown's summer break. It is Peter's turn next week.

Our Constitution Is Far from Perfect - But Written Codification Is Not The Answer

I read with interest the article published yesterday calling for a codified constitution. It is clear that our current written but uncodified constitution - made up of an array of legislation, case law, and convention - isn’t perfect, far from it. However codification, or an attempt to create a new constitution, is not the way forward.

Whilst an uncodified constitution does not provide an easily accessible document detailing governance of the country and the rights of the individual, it does provide a living constitution. It is a constitution that can adapt and evolve with the ever-changing conditions in which we live. It is a constitution that has allowed, taking only recent examples: our entry to the European Community in 1973; the use of referenda as first seen in 1975; devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the Human Rights Act in 1998; the removal of most hereditary peers from the Lords (unfortunately 92 remain); freedom of information; and separation of powers, to name but a few examples.

Therefore it is not rigidity or the inability to enact change that is the problem. On the contrary, perhaps the real problem is that the constitution, in its current state, is too flexible. If this is the case then we must seek to ensure safeguards are put in place. But we need not to codify our constitution to achieve this.

Our entry into the European Community in 1973, bringing with it the European Court of Justice (ECJ), has provided a safeguard against infringement of rights since the decision in Factortame. The European Court of Human Rights, deciding on breaches of the Convention of Human Rights, acts as a further safeguard (although I admit its decisions are not binding).

Importantly, the separation of powers provides further safeguards. We have a judiciary, which - thanks to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 - will soon be fully separated from the legislature. It is free from political manipulation and the whims of whatever party governs and ensures that abuses of power do not take place - cases that involved detention of foreign subjects suspected of terrorism is just one example.

However many argue for a codified constitution neither on the basis that the current uncodified constitution is too restrictive, nor that the alternative is too flexible, but on the basis that we need a statement of values. We need to assert positive rights to make us feel British. If only there were a list of positive rights then people would come to understand the constitution, know what they are entitled to, and be able to emulate the citizens of America in their ability to recite their rights.

But we already have such a list. It is the Human Rights Act. Yet despite it clearly laying out a list of positive rights I can probably say with some degree of certainty that outside the bubble in which the legal and political apparatchik spend their time the majority of people cannot name even 5 of those rights.

Some argue that we should codify our constitution to outline basic entitlements, to education and healthcare, for instance. However, this presupposes that the UK is still a unitary state. It forgets that in a system of asymmetrical devolution, Parliament no longer legislates on education and healthcare in Scotland; unless of course we intend to go back on, or weaken, the policy of devolution.

Even if devolution hadn’t occurred and we were still a unitary state, then such entitlements would be meaningless without the right and ability to enforce them. We would need a constitutional court, similar to the Supreme Court in the US to be able to strike down contravening legislation.

Yet this goes against the very safeguards the Labour Government has strengthened since the enactment of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. It would weaken and undermines the separation of power; the second we give judges the power to strike down legislation we would spark a flurry of political interest in their appointment. And we would see situations such as those in the US - fierce political battles of judicial appointments; Conservative judges blocking Labour policy and vice-versa.

Perhaps instead we may just have rights, or entitlements, that aren’t tangibly enforceable? But were this to be the case, those rights may as well be written on the back of a cigarette packet. For what is a right if it cannot be enforced?

The current constitution isn’t ideal, but a codified version is certainly not the answer.

An Economic Update

This week we’ve seen one of the key forward-looking indicators of business confidence – the purchasing managers index for Britain’s services sector – move up to a 17-month high of 53.2 for July (surpassing expectations for an increase to 51.6). Office for National Statistics data shows an 0.5% jump in June’s industrial production (the largest rise in 20 months) and Halifax says British house prices saw a 1.1% monthly rise in July.

Commenting today, Paul Krugman writes:

‘Two months ago I wrote that there were hints of a relatively quick economic turnaround in Britain. Now those hints have gotten much stronger. Basically, aggressive monetary policy and the depreciation of the pound are giving Britain a boost relative to other advanced countries’.

Finally, the Bank of England has decided to to continue with its programme of asset purchases financed by the issuance of central bank reserves and to increase its size by £50 billion to £175 billion (the ‘qe’ programme), commenting:

”On the one hand, there is a considerable stimulus still working through from the easing in monetary and fiscal policy and the past depreciation of sterling. On the other hand, the need for banks to continue repairing their balance sheets is likely to restrict the availability of credit, and past falls in asset prices and high levels of debt may weigh on spending”.

This post was first published on Liam Byrne's blog.

Brown Should Debate Cameron - What Has He Got To Lose?

Peter Mandelson never says anything by accident. Not for him a rogue use of the word ‘twat’. So when Mandelson raised the prospect last week of a televised debate during the general election between Gordon Brown and David Cameron, he revealed that Labour’s strategists are seriously considering it. Mandelson was asked about a head-to-head debate, live on TV, between the Prime Minister and the man who wants his job. He replied "I don't think Gordon would have a problem with that".

And nor should he.

Britain has never gone in for US-style TV debates between leaders. Our general elections comprise 600-plus local constituency elections, not a winner-takes-all as in the USA, France, or other countries with presidents. The idea of a Prime Minister and a Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition point-scoring for the cameras seems very un-British.

Prime Ministers have always resisted the idea of debating their opposite numbers. In 1987 Margaret Thatcher dealt with Neil Kinnock’s demands for a TV debate like she was swatting a buzzing mosquito. John Major did the same five years later. When Blair was challenged to a debate by the four Conservative leaders he faced, he used the same line: the British people can see me and Tory leader debate every week, on a Wednesday, at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the House of Commons.

The problem with PMQs is that there is no debate: just set-piece arguments by Cameron and Brown, each hoping for a cheer from their backbenches, and a soundbite on the news. I’ve seen first-hand the inordinate amount of time that is spent preparing briefing folders for Prime Ministers for PMQs, all for a few seconds of shouting in the Chamber of the Commons. The public finds it incomprehensible and off-putting. And of course there are no PMQs during the election, because the Queen has dissolved ‘her’ Parliament.

Prime Ministers have nothing to gain from a TV debate. For Cameron it’s a win-win: either he can force the PM to debate on equal terms, or he can call him a coward for running away.

So why are Labour’s strategists even contemplating such an idea?

Firstly, there’s a real frustration at our inability to land a glove on Cameron. I’ve sat through presentations and discussions where ideas have been bounced around on how to nail Cameron. Remember how Labour started out calling Cameron a ‘chameleon’, willing to change his political colours to match whatever people wanted? Since then he’s been called an estate agent, a slick salesman, or a spin merchant. Calling him a ‘toff’ was less than successful. Alan Johnson tried to say Cameron was basically okay, it was just all the people behind that are the trouble. In a presentation to Labour advisers in March 2008, Brown’s new PR man Stephen Carter suggested that ‘focus groups’ of the public saw Clegg as a bunny rabbit, Brown as a polar bear, and Cameron as a rattle-snake.

Every jibe and label has slid off Cameron like an ice-lolly sliding off its stick. Labour’s latest attempt to ‘get Cam’ is to present Brown as the man of substance, and Cameron as the man of spin. This will be at the heart of Labour’s campaign at next year’s election. So a public debate, with enough time for substantive answers, and serious issues under discussion such as tax, immigration and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, might suit Brown more than Cameron. At least that’s what Labour’s strategists will hope.

Second, there’s a fear that people are so disillusioned with all the political parties following the expenses scandal, they’ll stay at home rather than come out and vote. We should all be terrified that a low turn-out will deliver Cameron the top job. The spin doctors are calculating that the novelty of a Britain’s first-ever TV debate, in prime time, will excite and enthuse the public in the same way as Strictly Come Dancing or Dancing on Ice. It might serve to get people talking about politics around the water cooler and at the school gates, and cajole them to the polling station on 6th May 2010.

Third, if Labour gets to Spring next year with the Tories still 20 points ahead in the opinion polls, and recession biting, any doubters around Brown are likely to conclude: what have we got to lose? Peter Mandelson has been test-driving the ‘Labour is the underdog’ line. If Cameron is widely seen as the Prime Minister-in-waiting by next year, but fails to best Brown in a TV debate, then people might think twice about taking the risk on him. Cameron might even lose his temper, like he did in PMQs in November when he sent his briefing papers flying - or best of all, swear.

I’ve listened to Gordon Brown in meetings away from the cameras speaking with great passion and conviction about tackling global poverty. That’s a side the public seldom see, and one the Downing Street spin doctors will hope comes through in a TV debate.

Brown will get the credit for being the first British Prime Minister to have the cojones to debate live on TV, and counter the Tories’ jibe that he is a ‘bottler’.

My advice, for what it’s worth: call Cameron’s bluff, name the day, and invite the world to watch.

What have we got to lose?

16,000 Vote In Tory Open Primary

UPDATE: In a response on Twitter, David Lammy MP has said it's "definite" that Labour should adopt open primaries across the board. View David's full thoughts here.

UPDATE: Andrew Sparrow has some choice quotes on the primary in Totnes from local Conservatives, including:

"The Lib Dems have got the candidate they wanted."

A record 16,000 voters - about 25% of the electorate - have selected Sarah Woolaston as the new Conservative Party parliamentary candidate for Totnes in the country's first open primary experiment.As we've said on these pages before, this is a bold move.

Anthony Painter says on his blog that he is "absolutely staggered and impressed" by the turnout, while Michael Crick of Newsnight said yesterday that any turnout of 15% or more would enable the Tories to claim this was a "successful exercise, even if it has cost them £4 a vote, or more."

I was initially sceptical about primaries in this country, and espcially about how they would be funded. But I've come round to the view that they are something the Labour party should seriously consider adopting - and the relative enthusiasm for the process in Totnes for a first time experiment should mean the party takes another look.

Although we wait to see the impact this may have on the general election result in Totnes, I suspect - with a majority of nearly 2,000 to defend and a relationship built up with constituents through primary campaigning - Sarah Woollaston will be successful.

Hands of Conservative Party On Northern Rock, One In 25 Northern Rock Customers In Mortgage Arrears

• Six-month losses of £724m
• Repossessions fall and signs of easing in early-stage arrears
• £1bn savings withdrawn as customers return to private sector
• Co-operative party urges government to remutualise
• Chancellor wants Rock to turn into an active lender again

Northern Rock

Almost one in 25 Northern Rock customers are three months or more behind with their mortgage repayments, the state-owned lender admitted yesterday as it revealed a jump in bad debts and deepening losses of £724m in the first half.

The Newcastle-based bank, which owes the taxpayer £10.9bn, has a rate of arrears of 3.93% of its mortgage book – or 22,141 customers – compared with an industry average of 2.39%.

It has repossessed nearly four times more homes than the industry average although the 2,522 homes it has in possession is down from the peak of 4,000 and fewer than the 3,620 at the end of last year.

Gary Hoffman, chief executive of Northern Rock, pinned the blame on the Together loan which allowed customers to borrow 125% of the value of their homes.

"Together mortgages are a third of the book, half of the arrears and two thirds to the repossessions," said Hoffman.

As a result 39% of the bank's customers are in negative equity after the 21% drop in house prices from their peak – a fact seized upon by the Conservatives.

Philip Hammond, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling promised taxpayers our money would be safe and that Northern Rock was a good investment. They were wrong, and ordinary families up and down the country are paying the price in higher taxes to fund their write-offs."

The charge taken to cover bad debts of £602m was up from £192m a year ago, although it was an improvement on the last six months of 2008.

As with HSBC and Barclays on Monday, Northern Rock is finding that the rate of problem loans is slowing. The City is waiting to see what guidance Lloyds Banking Group, owner of Halifax, gives on wednesday, when it is expected to report £10bn or more of bad debts.

But the number of Northern Rock customers in early stage arrears – missing just one or two mortgage payments – is slowing because of low interest rates. "We are seeing some encouraging signs in our early arrears," Hoffman said.

The government, which took control of Northern Rock 18 months ago, is waiting for EU state aid approval to split the bank up. Approval is expected in the autumn when speculation will mount that the Treasury is looking for a buyer for the business.

A new so-called BankCo will carry out £14bn of lending by the end of next year after being injected with more taxpayers' money but stripped of the existing government loans.

A "bad bank" known as AssetCo, will hold the troubled mortgage book as well as the government loans, which could make it easier for the cleaned-up BankCo to find a private sector buyer.

Hoffman insisted both operations could be attractive to buyers and said he did not know which arm he would run once the split took place. He was adamant that despite speculation the government wanted to sell the businesses before the general election, there was "no process underway".

The Treasury also insisted it was not looking for a sale. The Co-operative party, which sponsors Treasury select committee chairman John McFall and is affiliated to Labour, urged the government to remutualise the bank, which converted from a building society 10 years ago.

The Financial Services Authority is allowing Northern Rock to run on a depleted capital ratio while it awaits state aid approval, but even so Hoffman admitted that a target to lend £5bn for mortgages this year could not be met because of its weak capital cushion. He now expects to lend £4bn this year after resuming new lending in the middle of the year when the government reversed previous demands that the bank lose customers to enable it to pay off its taxpayer loan.

Rather than the £724m loss for the six months to June, caused by accounting technicalities, Hoffman highlighted the underlying loss, which narrowed to £270m compared with £443m a year ago.

While the lender suffered a dramatic outflow of funds in September 2007 when its difficulties first emerged and then inflows during last year's banking crisis when it was regarded as a safe haven because of the government guarantee, £1bn was withdrawn in the first six months of the year as the banking system returned to normal.

Israel Annexes Palestinian Village near Jerusalem

The Israeli Authorities annexed the Palestinian village of Beit Iksa by placing it on the map west of the Annexation Wall, and considered it part of Jerusalem. The decision means that the village would be isolated from the West Bank.

The decision comes in contradiction with a decision issued by the Israeli government in 2006 in which it decided not to annex the village.

Implementing the decision means that some 3000 Palestinians would be allowed to enter Israel without any permits, but would also be isolated from the West Bank.

The conflict on the future of the village started after the Israeli government, headed by the former Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, had decided in 2003 that the village would be on the Israeli side of the Wall.

The government of former Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, approved in 2006 the new route of the Wall which placed the village on the Palestinian side, only 200 meters away from the Green Line.

The Israeli police and security devices recommended that the Palestinian village should not be on the Israeli side of the Wall as this would allow thousands of Palestinians free access to Israel.

They said that such an issue would facilitate the smuggling of combat equipment, and could lead to ‘criminal offenses’ in addition to smuggling products.

The Wall route was never officially approved by the Israeli cabinet as it still awaiting a response to from the police and the security services. Therefore, the government decided to install a temporary fence that would “stop smuggling and attacks in Jerusalem”.

The fence would likely be electronic, and a road would be paved next to it to allow military patrols to man it. The project will likely cost dozens of millions of Israeli shekels.

The Price of Arab Peace

Once Barack Obama made up his mind to push for a resolution of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, it became inevitable there would be an epic test of wills between the US president and Israel’s prime minister, the irredentist Benjamin Netanyahu.

So it has proved, with Mr Netanyahu responding provocatively to US demands for a total freeze on Israel’s colonisation of occupied Palestinian land by expanding the number of settlers – on Sunday, for instance, evicting Palestinian families in Arab east Jerusalem to make way for Jewish families.

But, as everyone watches to see who blinks first, the Obama administration is seeing its strategy attacked from another flank.

Despite intense US diplomacy, Saudi Arabia, Washington’s closest Arab ally, has brushed aside efforts to extract Arab concessions – such as the opening of Israeli trade delegations in Arab countries – in exchange for a settlements freeze. On the face of it, it would seem reasonable for Arabs to gradually “normalise” relations with Israel, to help pave the way towards peace with the Palestinians. But their experience of the peace process has ensured that is not how most Arabs see it.

Prince Saud al-Faisal, the veteran Saudi foreign minister, is echoing widespread sentiments when he called for a “comprehensive approach” to peace that “defines the final outcome at the outset and launches into negotiations over final status issues: borders, Jerusalem, water, refugees and security”.

This is not just because Saudi Arabia is behind a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace plan, spurned by Israel since it was endorsed by the Arab League in 2002. It is not just because gradualist processes such as Oslo failed because there was no agreement on the final destination, enabling the extremists on each side to exercise a veto. Nor is it just because many Arab leaders cynically use the situation of “no war, no peace” as an alibi to monopolise power and resources.

In 1992-96, at the height of the peace process, Israel reaped a peace dividend without concluding a peace. Diplomatic recognition of Israel doubled, from 85 to 161 countries, exports doubled and foreign investment increased sixfold. Per capita income in the occupied territories fell in the same period by more than a third, while the number of settlers expanded by half. A broad-looking avenue led quickly to a road-block. The Arabs have not forgotten, and Mr Obama will have to get more than a settlement freeze out of Israel to lure them down that road again.

Labour Targets The Threat Of Right-wing Extremism, ''

It's about time that Communities Secretary John Denham does something about the threat of right-wing extremism.

White working-class estates are to be targeted in a government drive to tackle the threat of right-wing extremism, Communities Secretary John Denham has said.

About 100 of the most deprived neighbourhoods in England will be involved in the programme, which could include open discussion meetings to allow residents to air grievances about housing and immigration without being accused of racism and a requirement on councils to be more transparent about their social housing policies.

The plan comes after years in which the far-right British National Party (BNP) has made inroads into traditional Labour strongholds, culminating in the election of two BNP candidates to the European Parliament in June.

Mr Denham said that some of those backing the BNP were "undoubtedly people who have voted Labour in the past" and that the government had to launch a "sustained and visible campaign" to re-engage with white working-class communities.

"Very few people would actually see themselves as white supremacists or white fascists," he said.

"But we know that those communities are the ones that often say no-one's speaking up for us. That's a sense populist parties can exploit.

"I think that there has been a concerted effort over the last 10 years to target resources at the most deprived communities. But I think, if we're honest about it, the extent to which that work has really engaged a lot of local people has been patchy."

The neighbourhoods to be involved in the scheme are expected to be identified by Mr Denham's Department for Communities and Local Government towards the end of the summer, with work starting in September.

High-Salary Council Chiefs Face Sack, Say The Tories

What hypocrites the Tories are they are now claiming to cut high-salary council chiefs and could face the sack. Granted there is a lot of high-salary council chiefs across the UK who earn as much or less if they have done nothing wrong the only crime they face is because they earn a high salary, come on you can do better than that Eric Pickles.

Council chiefs paid as much as £240,000 a year face the axe under a Conservative government, after a senior Tory said the position of council chief executive should be abolished.

The party chairman, Eric Pickles, said recent changes to the structure of local government meant many chief executives were no longer needed. Since 2000, many councils have switched to having a leader and elected cabinet members handling specific portfolios.

"I'm not entirely sure that paying a quarter of a million pounds for a chief executive of a large local authority is justified," he said. "To a degree, they are being paid like football managers. In a time when members have executive responsibilities, I'm not entirely sure that can be justified."

At least 16 local government officials earn more than the Prime Minister, and almost 200 earn more than cabinet ministers. The highest-paid council chief is thought to be Joe Duckworth, head of the London borough of Newham. The Taxpayer's Alliance claims that Mr Duckworth earns a basic £240,000. Stoke-on-Trent city council has said it was to pay its new chief executive £195,000, £50,000 more than it paid its previous chief executive.

Tory insiders believe contractual agreements may make it impossible to remove incumbent chief executives but they are considering merging the roles of council head and chief executive. "I'm not one of these people who gets excited about high salaries but it should be in proportion to their responsibilities," Mr Pickles said. "A lot of council chief executives do not have that level of responsibility."

A spokesman for the council chief executives group, Solace, said: "The most successful councils are the ones where politicians elected to take the decisions work closely with excellent strategic managers trained to run large, complex organisations."

More Tory MPs To Quit As Expenses Row Takes Toll

Nearly 20 more Conservative MPs are expected to stand down at the next election as part of a fresh clear-out prompted by the parliamentary expenses controversy.

Thirteen sitting MPs have already announced recently that they will leave the Commons, but another 17 are expected to follow suit, the party chairman, Eric Pickles, told the Guardian.

The Tories still need to select candidates in about 100 constituencies. These include the 13 seats where Tory MPs have recently announced that they are standing down.

But Pickles said that he expected more MPs to quit and that "in total we might be looking at 30-ish Conservative-held seats [becoming vacant] before the general election". Pickles insisted that he expected Tory MPs to stand down not necessarily because they were afraid of losing, or had done anything wrong, but because they were demoralised.

"Some colleagues have found the process of expenses very wearing and they're very demotivated. They might not have had any problems themselves at all, but maybe they're feeling it's just time to move on," he said.

The Tories who have so far become casualties of the expenses furore include Andrew MacKay and his wife, Julie Kirkbride; Anthony Steen; Sir Peter Viggers – who notoriously spent £1,645 on a duck island; and Douglas Hogg. Nicholas and Ann Winterton were also criticised but said they were standing down because they had grown tired of the hectic life at Westminster.

In May, David Cameron announced that he was reopening the list of those approved to apply for seats – the candidates' list – because he wanted to "refresh" the party with independent newcomers who did not have a conventional political background.

Pickles said the departures would give the party the chance to bring dozens of new-style Tories with little or no background in Conservative politics into parliament. He said that about 4,000 people had applied since then and up to 70% of them were "new people".

"We've got ourselves a good mix: lots of doctors, lots of social workers, lots of community nurses … people who've got involvement with the community outside the political process."

Pickles said that about 20 to 30 of these "new people" were likely to end up in parliament after the next election.

To help the new-style Tories get selected, the party is changing the way candidates are evaluated. In future, working in the community will be given equivalent weight to party political experience.

In his interview Pickles also said that he was worried about Gordon Brown standing down before the election and that winning "wouldn't be as simple" if Alan Johnson were leading Labour.

Pickles said that, although his party was well ahead in the polls, he was not convinced that an election victory was certain – not least because Brown could be replaced as Labour leader. "It's going to require a lot of graft from associations, a lot of graft from candidates and unremitting pressure between now and next May, because you can't rule out the possibility of something in the later part of the year or next spring," he said.

Asked what he meant, he said he was referring to Brown standing down. He said that it would be harder for the Tories to win with Johnson as prime minister, but he did not think replacing Brown would "fundamentally change the picture" because voters were angry with Labour, not just its leader.

Writing in today's News of the World, the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, insisted that Brown standing aside before the election, expected next spring, was "not an option".

He urged Labour MPs and activists not to "meekly hand over power" but to prepare for a concerted fightback.

Accepting that Labour is trailing badly in the polls and will enter the election campaign as the underdog, he asked: "Do we shrug our shoulders, accept our fate and meekly hand over power to an arrogant Conservative party which believes it can do nothing, sit back and be given power on a plate? Or do we fight back? … When we come back in the autumn the party needs to roll its sleeves up, pull together and concentrate."

Points System To Deter Unpatriotic Immigrant

I have been listening to the debates from both MPs & Anti-fascist campaigners for a long time and i have come to the conclusion that we all should have a proper debate on this subject as we have to face up to that fact that immirgation may or may not have a impact in this country.


Anti-fascist campaigners and MPs have condemned government plans for a new points-based immigration system that could see people denied British citizenship if they get involved in "unpatriotic activities."

In one of the most controversial consultation briefs to date, Home Secretary Alan Johnson unveiled the new points-based system for acquiring British nationality which will take into account applicants' record of behaviour in addition to their labour skills and qualifications.

The government will today launch proposals for a new points system for immigrants seeking British citizenship, as it tries to deflect accusations that it has lost control of the country's borders.

The home secretary, Alan Johnson, will launch the consultation paper, which proposes that those wanting a passport could earn points for speaking English and doing community work, and lose points for anti-social behaviour, such as protesting against British troops.

The eve of the launch was marred when the Home Office was forced to confirm that a suspected illegal immigrant had smuggled himself into Britain under a coach carrying officials from the UK Border Agency who were returning from working in France. An inquiry has been launched, but officials say the vehicle's driver will not be fined because he carried out sufficient checks before setting off through the Channel tunnel .

The suspected illegal immigrant hid in a space next to the fuel tank and took flight once the coach reached Britain. The driver tried to catch him, but was unsuccessful.

A Home Office spokesman said: "An illegal entrant entered Dover by hiding underneath a coach returning from Coquelles, in France. The coach was contracted by the UK Border Agency.
"A full investigation is being conducted. This is further evidence of the extreme and dangerous illegal measures that are being taken to enter the UK."

Under the new proposals, immigrants will have to wait ten years before being granted a UK passport, compared to five years under the current system.

In an article in today's News of the World, Johnson wrote: "Already we require people earn the right to become citizens by paying taxes, speaking English and obeying the law ... I will go even further, unveiling my new citizenship proposals which will require people earn points for, among other things, their skills, their job and their qualifications.

"Bad behaviour will be penalised, and only those with enough points will earn the right to a British passport. No longer will there be an automatic link between temporary work and becoming a permanent UK citizen."

The home secretary predicted a short-term fall in migrant numbers from outside Europe due to the government's clampdown and because the recession makes Britain a less attractive place to live.

Migrants from outside the EU are already subject to a points-based system, introduced last year, which allows entry into the UK only if they have skills needed by the British economy.

A Home Office spokesperson said: "The points-based system has already proved to be a powerful tool for controlling migration for the benefit of both British people and the economy. We have already announced our intention to consult on applying these principles to the path to citizenship."

The Tory immigration spokesman, Damian Green, accused the government of "spin": "There never has been an automatic right to British citizenship. It is simply that this government has let an unprecedented number of people obtain citizenship, issuing someone with a British passport every five minutes. This is an act of desperation by a Government that ... has let immigration run out of control."

Far Right Launch Campaign Of Violence & Intimidation Against Opponents

How low can it get for the Aryan Martyrs' Brigade issues death threat against anti-fascism activist Weyman Bennett, while student attacked after BNP protest

Far-right activists have launched a campaign of intimidation and violence against political opponents including a series of death threats and physical attacks.

Hardline fascists are targeting students and leading anti-racism activists who campaigned against the British National party in June's European elections.

A group calling itself the Aryan Martyrs' Brigade has issued threats including a "death warrant" sent to Weyman Bennett, the joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism, stating he will be killed before the end of the year "for crimes against all loyal white patriots and British nationalists".

The threat, which the police are investigating and has a picture of Bennett in cross hairs, states: "We know exactly what you look like and what venues you frequent and can strike at will. The police, special branch, MI5, Searchlight cannot save you from the bullets coming your way. No matter where you are, we will get you, all we need is a lock on your mobile phone signal and you are one dead nigger."

Others have received threatening emails and at least one prominent activist was attacked after his picture appeared on an extreme rightwing website that was taken during protests against the BNP.

"There has definitely been an upsurge in attacks and intimidation since the European elections," said Bennett. "The fringe rightwing groups appeared to be on their best behaviour when the BNP were campaigning but once the election was over they seem to be trying to take their revenge on those of us who were prominent in the anti-fascist campaign."

The increase in rightwing violence comes after Scotland Yard admitted it was deploying more resources to monitor far-right extremists amid fears of a terrorist attack. Commander Shaun Sawyer told a meeting organised by the Muslim Safety Forum last month that there was a growing threat from the far right.

"I fear they will have a spectacular …they will carry out an attack that will lead to a loss of life or injury to a community somewhere," he said.

Sawyer added that more specialist officers needed to be deployed to counter the threat from far-right groups.

Bennett, who has received threats in the past, has been told by the police to take the latest death threat more seriously.

"Standing up against people like the BNP you do sometimes get verbal threats and intimidation but this appears to be more serious," he said. "I don't intend to stop organising anti-racism events or confronting the fascists in the BNP but something like this does make me think more about my personal security."

One of the people who has been assaulted in recent weeks is Gary McNally, who helped organise a Love Music Hate Racism festival in Stoke-on-Trent in May. After the European elections, when the BNP gained two MEPs, the 23-year-old attended a protest outside a meeting in Blackpool. Several photographs of the student appeared on the extremist Redwatch website, which is understood to be linked to the Aryan Martyrs' Brigade, alongside the slogan "Remember places, traitors' faces, they'll all pay for their crimes". A few days later McNally was attacked.

"I was about 200 yards from my house and I felt something smash against my face and I heard the words, 'You are a disgrace to your country,' and I saw a pair of shoes as I fell to the ground," he said.

McNally, a student at Staffordshire University, was taken to hospital where he was treated for cuts and bruises to his face and head.

"After I had been hit I thought I had gone blind in my left eye. The attack has left me very scared – the BNP put on this respectable front but I suppose this is the reality of what happens if you publicly stand up and disagree with them."

Simon Darby, deputy leader of the BNP, said the attacks and threats had nothing to do with the party.

"It is rather ironic that they are complaining about being attacked when they use similar tactics themselves," he added.