Ed Miliband Has Offered An Alternative – But Will Anyone Vote For It?

Miliband's indisputable leftward shift has put Labour at ease with itself but risks making the party less relevant than ever.












Ed Miliband hopes his vision, that he set out at conference, will connect with 'the country's wider shared values'.

Many years ago, I was walking down a street in London with a rising Labour politician. On a lamppost we caught sight of a poster advertising a SWP meeting. "Is there a socialist alternative to Kinnock?" the poster asked. "Yes, there is a socialist alternative," laughed Gordon Brown. "But the problem is that no one will vote for it."

Ed Miliband is certainly no Trotskyist. But his speech to the Labour conference in Liverpool this week is already raising some of the same questions that the old SWP poster did. For Miliband is gambling that there is an alternative to contemporary orthodoxy. He believes that the experience of financial collapse, public spending cuts and recessionary inequalities requires a resetting of the collective moral and economic compass. Crucially, he believes that the electorate can be persuaded to embrace it.

Miliband chose his words very carefully. Terms like socialism and capitalism do not appear in his speech. But they were implicit in it. Read in conjunction with the recent New Statesman article by Miliband's strategist Stewart Wood, this week's speech adds up to an attempt to reclaim social democracy as Labour's core route-finding principle. Cautious it may be – Wood sees Labour's aim as the creation of "a better capitalism", which won't please everyone in the Labour ranks – but the argument is put with clarity. It is indisputably a leftward shift from the New Labour years. It is also what Miliband has always wanted, which helps, sort of.

The large question now is whether Labour will succeed in shifting the national argument so that his version of social democracy stands at the centre of public debate. Miliband's conviction that it can is central to his entire leadership. It was embodied in the many sections of this week's speech that tried to connect Miliband's own vision with the country's wider shared values. If he succeeds in setting an agenda of market, welfare and community reforms that voters really want to and do believe in, then he may indeed reshape British politics. But if he fails, Labour's slide to the political margins will continue.

Less than three days after the speech, most of the reaction to it has already fallen into one of two camps. These strike me as too crude in both cases. On the one side there are those who welcome Miliband's commitment and think he can succeed – this was the general mood at Liverpool. On the other there are those who dismiss what Miliband said and think his approach is doomed to failure – which is what the Conservatives will undoubtedly say next week in Manchester.

In fact, the impact of Miliband's speech could be less straightforward than that. This is not an argument between a wholly laissez-faire approach and a wholly dirigiste one. In reality it is an argument about shifting the balance within a narrower set of priorities than those who insist on talking about the end of neoliberalism ever admit. Even so, this was one of the few party leader's speeches that may be remembered for longer than a week after it was given. Most of its actual phrases may already have gone down our mental chutes into the waters of oblivion. But it is quite likely that a lot of people will remember this as the moment when Miliband turned the party away from the New Labour orthodoxy that compromise with global markets is inevitable.

But there are turns and turns. To take an obvious example, which Miliband will have to address eventually, there is all the difference in the world between maintaining the coalition's tax and spending levels and committing to raise them. There is also a gulf between attacking economic predators and extolling producers, as Miliband did this week, and putting strict regulations in place to deny the former and promote the latter. And there is a massive difference between being a party of free trade, a principal that the left has always managed to embrace, and being a party of protection.

If he is dumb, Miliband may be tempted to do what the Tories would love him to do and promise to clamp down directly, almost certainly ineffectively and in all probability with unintended consequences, on morally indefensible excessive pay and bonuses. If he is smart, he will use the bully pulpit, as he did on Tuesday, at least as much as the tax system to encourage the better capitalism, and the better companies, to which he aspires.

The idea that there might be a workforce representative on remuneration committees caused outrage in the rightwing press this week, but it ought to be just the start, not to an expanded role for the unions, but for well-argued and flexible new models of workplace co-determination of the kind that have done so much for German companies.

The best news for Labour I heard in Liverpool is that Andrew Adonis is planning to focus on new thinking about industrial policy, a subject riddled with old ideas, especially in the unions, but which is crucial to any long-term reimagining of the UK economy. It does not follow that the left's traditional state-centred responses are the new centre ground just because people are outraged by the bankers and by indefensible wealth.

The experience of the last three years suggests public opinion has moved to the view that government deficits are part of the problem, rather than the solution. Thursday's vote in Germany and this week's budget in France were the latest reminders of that. Labour was canny about the economy this week: Ed Balls got the balance right in his speech. But parties of the left are losing ground across the world right now and Labour shouldn't imagine there is a magic moral bullet that will enable it to buck that trend.

Labour's move to the left can be, and has already been, exaggerated – by friend and foe alike. Yet it has been a significant declaration by the party nonetheless. The coalition parties will undoubtedly respond, and not merely with abuse and caricature. Expect surprise moves that try to undermine Labour claims to ethical uniqueness.

Electorally, the danger for Labour is that the party will have convinced itself that it has rediscovered its own sense of ethical virtue without persuading sceptical voters that it can run the economy. The party may be more at ease with itself but less relevant than ever. Miliband may want to see himself as the new Clem Attlee. But his ratings suggest that the voters still see him as the new George Lansbury – an unworldly leader and an electoral failure.

What Ed Miliband Should Say At Labour Conference, But Won’t

It is now beyond question that Ed Miliband is moving his party to the left, or redefining the centre ground if you prefer, or drawing a line under the New Labour era. Or whatever.










The latest symbolic move has been to back Palestinian statehood in advance of a vote at the UN. This is a peculiar decision that makes no real sense before knowing what the Palestinians are putting on the table, except to send a strong message to the party faithful that Ed Miliband is shifting policy on the Middle East. This line on Israel/Palestine is one that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would never have countenanced and that is the whole point.

Ed Miliband is determined to ditch the legacy of the Blair-Brown era (which is odd considering that he is its creature) and I can’t help thinking this is a terrible strategic error.

The opposition is hamstrung by the fact that it still hasn’t found the right language to take on the government. Miliband has squeezed himself into a tiny ideological sliver, where he can’t move any further to the left for fear of inviting ridicule, but can’t entirely embrace the achievements of the Blair-Brown years either.

In welfare to work, education and health, the Cameroons are engaged in implementing the Blairite reform agenda. The logic of Ed Miliband in the new post-New Labour era should make it possible to oppose this from the Left. But there are still too many Blairites around him to quite pull this off. With Liam Byrne in charge of the policy review it will be impossible to dump the New Labour policy agenda in its entirety.

Instead of trying to persuade people that Cameron is a Thatcherite in disguise, Labour should concentrate on questioning the Tories’ competence in government. Ed Miliband’s conference speech should recognise that all the most adventurous ideas of the new government are stolen from New Labour and give them a cautious welcome. He should then say that the job of opposition is to forensically examine the government’s record on delivery and stand back.

He won’t do this, of course, because to embrace the Blairite legacy would mean immediate death within the party.

Union Leaders Warn Of 'Long, Hard And Dirty' Battle Over Pensions

Ministers accused the unions of jumping the gun because negotiations on the pension shake-up are continuing.










Delegates at the TUC conference in London voted unanimously for co-ordinated opposition to public-sector pension reform. Leaders of 10 unions subsequently announced their intention to ballot their members on industrial action, and revealed plans for a nationwide 'day of action' on 30 November.

Trade union leaders warned that the dead will be left unburied and rubbish uncollected as they announced plans for the biggest programme of strikes for a generation over the Government's decision to cut public sector pensions.

Officials raised the spectre of the 1978-79 "Winter of Discontent" as another 10 unions announced that they will ballot more than 2m members on industrial action.

The first "day of action" will be held on 30 November, the day after the Chancellor George Osborne unveils his autumn economic statement. Action will include one-day walkouts to lunchtime rallies, and is expected to range from senior civil servants to dustmen.

Workers being balloted include firemen, hospital and ambulance workers, police support staff, teachers and lecturers, care workers, meals-on-wheels staff, prison officers, refuse collectors, street cleaners and cemetery workers.

Four unions representing civil servants and teachers held a one-day strike in June, and yesterday the University and College Union announced that 77 per cent of its members had voted in favour of action over pensions.

Students at 67 universities could face disruption from next month, including a work-to-rule by lecturers, who may set exams but refuse to mark them.

After the TUC conference in London voted unanimously in favour of co-ordinated action, 24 public sector unions agreed their detailed strategy at a "council of war".

They are preparing for a "long haul" running through to next summer, with warnings that the London Olympics and celebrations to mark the Queen's Diamond Jubilee could be disrupted.

"We are talking about something that is long and hard and dirty," said Brian Strutton, national secretary for public services at the GMB. "We are assuming this will be a huge setpiece conflict running for a long time."

Ministers accused the unions of jumping the gun because negotiations on the pension shake-up are continuing. They said the talks could continue until December so there was no justification for taking action in November.

Downing Street said the proposed action was "very disappointing", while Mr Osborne appealed to the unions to halt what he called "this deeply irresponsible action".

Ministers said they would not back down on their plans to shave £2.8bn a year off the pensions bill by 2014-15 as this would unsettle the financial markets. But they said they were open to "different ways of cutting the cake".

However, on the final day of the TUC conference, union leaders queued up to condemn the Government's stance and declared that the talks were making no progress.

Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, said there was "huge anger" over the pensions proposals and said 30 November would see "the biggest trade union mobilisation in a generation".

He added: "We remain absolutely committed, in good faith, to seeking a fair, negotiated settlement of this dispute so that this action will not be necessary. But the Government needs to understand the strength of unions' resolve."

Labour urged both sides to step back from the brink.

Angela Eagle, the shadow Chief Treasury Secretary, said: "Ministers must show a willingness to conduct proper and meaningful negotiations rather than pursuing a path of deliberate confrontation. But unions should also demonstrate they intend to exhaust every option of reaching a settlement."

The Liberal Democrats Aren’t Especially Liberal – Or Even Democratic

The junior Coalition partner’s policies have made a mockery of its historic name.












What is Sarah Teather's party actually delivering for Britain?

If the Liberal Democrats didn’t exist, under what circumstances would you choose to create them? I’ll assume that it’s the “Liberal” bit of their historical accident of a name that matters (not many anti-democrats run for election these days). If we did feel the need for a Liberal Party, I guess it would be because neither the Labour nor Tory organisations were being sufficiently, well, liberal in their policy-making.

Ten years of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown making illegal anything that moved, while repeatedly trying to give the state the power to lock us up without charge for longer and longer periods? Yes, I can see a need for some more liberalism; that there could be a useful role for a party to react viscerally against Labour’s criminalising tendencies. Ten years of Margaret Thatcher? I’m hardly one to criticise my political hero, but I can’t deny that prolonged exposure to her governing style might make a voter yearn for something a little less prescriptive; a little more laissez-faire in matters social. Regardless of your own political disposition, then, I don’t think it’s hard to make the case that political space could exist for a party which prioritised the autonomy of the individual over either stateist or corporatist collectivism.

Now imagine that you are a Liberal Democrat. Your organisation has been in the wilderness for 80 years, since the time of Lloyd George. The general election of 2010 gives you the chance to share government with the Conservatives; this is the first time in recent history that an administration will have a serious Liberal presence. How would you behave? Me, I would be bending over backwards to demonstrate that not only is a liberal instinct a useful one to bring to the art of government, but that it also makes sense to have that instinct embodied by my organisation. Anyone anyone can call themselves a “liberal”. The trick is to convince voters that such an instinct requires a party to carry it.

Instead, what has happened? Andrew Lansley’s Health Bill, which made a tentative step towards liberalisation of health provision in the UK, is first of all postponed, and then watered down, largely at the behest of the Lib Dems. Even after the Bill passed the Commons this week, Baroness (Shirley) Williams and the dis-elected ex-MP Evan Harris continued to mutter darkly and publicly about their inability to support it. Lib Dems ensured that the planned GP consortia – supposed to act for us, the patients – will include hospital doctors and nurses; a prioritisation of the producer over the patient. Unelected peer and dis-elected ex‑MP – I withdraw my opening remarks about the party’s name: they’re not even democratic, let alone liberal.

Also this week, Nick Clegg gave a speech about the Coalition’s flagship free schools. These schools are the last, best hope of those children failed by local education authorities. Academic excellence through freedom of choice: what could be more liberal than that? Instead, Mr Clegg chose to focus on the importance of preventing anyone running such a school from making a profit – profit is bad, apparently, because successful schools might use the money to expand – and went out of his way to support an even greater role for councils – the LEAs – in controlling access. In a straight choice, the Lib Dem leader prioritises the producer interest.

I could go on. Lib Dems also want to delay the election of local police commissioners. Anti-democratic again; and when was denying a voice to the people a “liberal” characteristic? And I’ve not mentioned the party’s support for the Human Rights Act, largely because it defies parody, let alone analysis. “Votes for prisoners”, say Lib Dems. It’s not quite the heady fight of the People’s Budget of 1909, is it?

Ah yes, say Lib Dem activists, but think of all the good we bring to the Coalition. When pressed, they trumpet the lack of recognition of marriage in the tax system. I’m not clear why it’s liberal to penalise the natural pair-bonding affinity of human mammals, but there you are. They also claim to have secured the increase in the personal allowance for the poorest taxpayers, as well as the retention – thus far – of the 50p top rate.

The 50p top rate is economically illiterate, and needn’t detain us. Symbolism does matter, though, and if keeping it there for a few months longer means that those such as Simon Hughes (“Champion of University Access”, no less) continue to vote with the Government, so be it. But did we need the Lib Dems to make the case for the increase in personal allowances? Tories have campaigned against the complex and inefficient recycling of income from the poor, to the government, and then back to the poor, for years. More importantly, the Right-wing view of tax (to reduce it wherever possible) is truly liberal, because it seeks to free people from state dependency. Lib Dems view tax as an instrument of social engineering; hence the posturing over 50p.

Eighty years in the wilderness, 80 years protecting the flame, and they can’t even mount a coherent case for electoral reform (“AV is a miserable little compromise” – Nick Clegg. But then: “Vote for AV” – Nick Clegg). Measured as the opportunity to show that British liberalism deserves the vehicle of its own party, coalition has been a disaster for the Lib Dems.

We have to face up to this political category error. Just because we can all agree that there’s a need for some liberalism in our politics, just because some unpopular politicians have given themselves that name, we’ve taken the Liberal Democrats at their own valuation. But Shirley Williams and Evan Harris are not liberals, and nor are the other former leaders and big Lib Dem beasts who haunt the media airwaves with a greater prominence than the paucity of their electoral support could ever justify.

Not that a political position has to be popular in order to be worth holding; and if a party wants to act as a pressure group for the producer interest in health and education, or as a supporter of judicial activism on Human Rights, or to call for ever-greater European integration (as Danny Alexander did this week), then good luck to it. But it shouldn’t mis-name itself.

Where the Lib Dems have been politically effective in the Coalition, they have been anything but liberal. And when they claim to be liberal, they are merely copying policy which the larger party would implement anyway. Neither tactic makes them a worthwhile coalition partner for a Conservative; worse, from the Lib Dem point of view, neither tactic has demonstrated that the 80 years without them were a political loss for Britain. If the Liberal Democrats didn’t already exist, to answer my opening question, I suspect that few would contemplate breathing life into the politically unattractive, social democratic clay from which they are fashioned. We already have a party to represent the sectional producer interest. It’s called “Labour”.

Government To Investigate 'West Lothian Question'

Commission will look into long-running complaints about rights of MPs from parts of UK with their own parliaments or assemblies to vote on legislation affecting only England.












The commission will look into complaints about the rights of MPs from parts of the UK with their own parliaments or assemblies to vote on legislation at Westminster affecting only England.
Ministers are to set up an expert inquiry into limiting the voting rights of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs at Westminster, the government has confirmed.

The commission into the so-called West Lothian question will look into long-running complaints about the continuing right of MPs from parts of the UK with their own parliaments or assemblies to vote on legislation affecting only England.

Mark Harper, a junior Cabinet Office minister, said the panel of "non-partisan" academic experts on the constitution, the law and parliament would investigate how England-only laws are handled by both the Commons and the Lords, now that there are devolved legislatures in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast.

Backbench MPs in the main UK parties have stepped up their complaints about the anomaly at Westminster where Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can still vote on issues such as health, policing and education issues when they are onlyrelevant to England.

Many non-English backbenchers, particularly nationalist MPs in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, voluntarily often avoid votes on England-only legislation except on controversial measures or on bills which have a significant financial impact on their countries.

Michael Moore, the Scottish secretary, said: "We understand how exercised colleagues in England are but if there was a simple solution to this, it might have been found some years ago but we will endeavour to do this because it has been ignored for a very long time."

The West Lothian question was first posed by Tam Dalyell, then MP for West Lothian during a debate about devolution in 1977.

It is regarded as one of the most serious anomalies of devolution, with control over most major domestic policies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now solely in the hands of the devolved parliaments and assemblies.

Successive governments have played down its significance because they feared it would play into the hands of nationalist parties by weakening ties to the UK parliament, and diluting the influence of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at Westminster. It could also accelerate pressure for a more federal structure for the UK.

Even so, the UK government promised to set up a commission on the West Lothian question as part of their coalition agreement in May last year, chiefly under pressure from the Tories. The government had been expecting to make a formal announcement on the commission's remit and membership after the October recess. It will publish the final details about its scope later this year.

UK ministers were forced into an early announcement on Thursday to block a private member's bill from the Tory backbencher Harriett Baldwin, the MP for West Worcestershire, which seeks to limit voting rights at Westminster, and has unexpectedly passed a series of hurdles in the Commons.

Baldwin's bill, which is not supported by the UK government, is due to complete its passage of the Commons on Friday and would then go to the Lords. It would require ministers to state on each bill whether it only affected England, to put non-English MPs under pressure not to vote on it.

Baldwin said she wanted to study Harper's statement before deciding whether she would drop the legislation (territorial extent) bill and allow the issue to be studied by the commission instead.

Harper said the commission would not study the financial impact of devolution because of existing work by Treasury ministers, nor would it question the number of MPs sitting in the Commons. This issue was already being addressed by existing proposals to cut the number of MPs.

"The government is clear that the commission's primary task should be to examine how this house and parliament as a whole can deal most effectively with business that affects England wholly or primarily, when at the same time similar matters in some or all of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are lawfully and democratically the responsibility of the separate parliament or assemblies," Harper said.

Many English backbenchers across all the major parties have been critical of and irritated by the issue. As she unveiled her bill in February, Baldwin said the West Lothian question came from the "heart of middle England".

She told the Commons: "How can it be right for it to be possible for potentially decisive pieces of legislation to be voted on in this place by, and carried by a majority of, members of parliament who are not legislating on behalf of their own constituents? That is not a question that we can carry on parking in that car park for ever."

Tom Harris, the Labour MP for Glasgow South, said he disagreed fundamentally with limiting MPs' voting rights. He said the Conservatives had relied heavily on Northern Irish unionist votes at Westminster for 50 years, even while Northern Ireland had its own legislature.

It was right to do so, he said. "We're a UK parliament. MPs always have responsibilities outside their own constituencies and even outside their nations. MPs vote on issues affecting Libya, for example, and I don't have many Libyans in my constituency."

He said the ability of Scottish or Welsh or Northern Irish MPs to control or influence English policy was overstated. There were far more English MPs than those from other nations or areas: there are currently 533 English constituencies against 59 in Scotland, 40 in Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland.

The UK government's legislation to cut the total number of MPs to 600 for the next general election in 2015 will leave England with between 500 and 502 seats, depending on the size of the electorate in 2015, Scotland with 50 to 52, Wales with 30 and Northern Ireland with 16.

"My bottom line is this: Scotland got devolution because it is a small nation, and it's easily possible for every single Scottish MP to vote one way and be out-voted by a small fraction of English MPs, but Scottish MPs don't decide English issues. You would need every single non-English MP to vote in that direction."

Eddie Bone, chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, said the issue needed urgently to be addressed as discontent in England about the "imbalance" between Westminster and the devolved areas was increasing rapidly, particularly with the upsurge in support for the Scottish National party.

"If they don't deal with it soon, they will have missed the window of opportunity with the people of England to save the union," Bone said.

Elfyn Llwyd MP, Plaid Cymru's constitution spokesman, said it was time for a federal system: "The problem is that Westminster is trying to do two jobs. It is trying to act as both an England and a UK parliament.

"England deserves to have its own administration to deal with issues which affect England only. This would then ensure that there is a clear distinction between what is a matter for England and what is a matter for other countries too. The lines are too blurred as they are."

Cameron Rules Out Europe Referendum

David Cameron has insisted Britain must make Europe "work for us" as he again ruled out holding an "in out" referendum.








During Prime Minister's questions he was urged to listen to the calls of Conservative eurosceptics who want a swift vote on the UK's relationship with the EU.

However Mr Cameron, who is meeting president of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy on Wednesday, insisted there is "no case" for a vote.

Mr Cameron said: "I want us to be influential in Europe about the things that matter to our national interest - promoting the single market, pushing forward for growth, making sure we get lower energy prices.

"Those are things we will be fighting for but I don't see the case for an in out referendum on Europe. We are in Europe, we have got to make it work for us."

It comes as a group made up from around 80 new intake Conservative MPs plans to press the Government for significant changes in Britain's role in Europe.

Tory MP George Eustice, one of the group's conveners, insisted the initial aim was for reforms rather than a referendum. He said: "The aim of this new group is to promote debate about creating a new relationship with the EU and reversing the process of EU integration."

The group will work closely with think-tank Open Europe and could eventually expand to take in Labour eurosceptics and possibly some Liberal Democrats.

UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said: "The Prime Minster has said today that he didn't see the case for an in/out referendum on Europe. 'We are in Europe', he told us and 'we have got to make it work for us'.

"Well it is obvious that the EU is not working for us, and hasn't worked for us. So then what does Mr Cameron propose? By ruling out a referendum he leaves himself naked in the negotiations. Our EU colleagues must be laughing at his naivety."

Lib Dem Report Blames Nick Clegg For Debacle Over Lost AV Referendum

Deputy PM's insistence that the vote be held on the same day as local elections turned into a 'perfect storm' for his party










Nick Clegg wanted a May vote to boost the chance of a win for the Yes campaign.

Nick Clegg's decision to call a referendum on the voting system on the same day as local elections backfired disastrously, the Liberal Democrat inquest into the party's crushing double defeat has concluded.

A report to the party's annual conference in Birmingham later this month says the council elections turned into a "perfect storm" because the referendum on the alternative vote (AV) also took place on 5 May.

Although David Cameron wanted to delay the AV vote until this autumn, Mr Clegg insisted it was held in May in the hope that elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and English councils would boost the turnout – and the prospects of a Yes vote. In the event, AV was rejected by 68 to 32 per cent and the Liberal Democrats lost 700 town hall seats. With hindsight, the report concludes, the double poll meant that Liberal Democrat activists were unable to give enough time to the "Yes to AV" effort. It also prevented the seconding of staff to the referendum campaign, took media airtime away from the elections and allowed Labour supporters to "kick the party twice".

The report says: "Turnout among Conservative and socially-conservative Labour voters was at general election levels, driven out in consequence of the AV referendum. A huge trade union campaign in Labour-leaning areas targeted the party leader [Mr Clegg] personally and viciously."

A simultaneous AV referendum also meant that Mr Clegg's party got little or no credit from Tory supporters. "Conservative voters satisfied with the Coalition were reluctant to vote tactically for their coalition partners in Lib Dem/Labour marginals, in no small part because of the vociferous rivalry between the two parties in the national referendum," the report says.

The review by James Gurling, chairman of the Liberal Democrats' campaigns and communications committee, will be discussed on 17 September, the first day of the party conference. Some activists claim his inquest has been kept deliberately low-key to spare Mr Clegg's blushes. Many grassroots members remain angry about the defeat and may criticise the leadership at the conference.

The document admits: "Many dedicated community activists lost their seats through no fault of their own, and in the face of exemplary records of personal service. The challenge now is to ensure that the activist base which supported them is not lost."

The report concludes that Liberal Democrat achievements in government "had not been successfully communicated... the impact of the debate on tuition fees and NHS reform undoubtedly played a part".

It appears that some voters told Liberal Democrat campaigners on the doorstep that they would back the party but then failed to do so. The report says the Liberal Democrats may have to change their approach to canvassing now that they share power nationally.

Allies of Mr Clegg believe some criticisms are out of date. Since May he has adopted a more aggressive approach inside the Coalition, distancing his party from the Tories on some issues and trumpeting Liberal Democrat achievements such as changes to the Government's health reforms.

But as MPs debated the Health and Social Care Bill yesterday, the Social Liberal Forum, a pressure group on the left of the party, called for further changes to the legislation and for a full debate at conference. Evan Harris, a former MP, said the revised Bill would not prevent the "marketisation or fragmentation" of the NHS.

SNP ‘Ducking And Diving’ On Poll

Opposition parties have responded to a poll showing a Yes vote for independence leading a No vote by saying the First Minister should stop “ducking and diving” and get on with the referendum.


















The survey – the latest in a series of 10 identical snapshots by TNS-BMRB, revealed exclusively by The Herald yesterday – put those in favour of Scotland breaking from the rest of the UK ahead by 39% to 38%, only the second time this has happened in the series and the first time for more than three years.

Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said: “It is no surprise that, after the SNP winning a majority, many Scots are thinking about our constitutional future, and that is right.

“We saw a similar effect after the SNP first formed a government in 2007.

“The SNP is going to hold a referendum and the important thing is that it stops ducking and diving on the date, the question, and what it means by separation.”

He added: “The people of Scotland have a right to know what exactly the SNP is proposing, and to debate those plans for separation with all the information necessary.

“After four years and several White Papers, it is just not credible for Alex Salmond to claim he cannot answer the basic questions.”

Echoing those sentiments, Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie MSP said: “This poll confirms that independence is closer than ever before, with there now being a real danger than Scotland could split from the rest of the UK.

“The SNP has successfully created a warm fuzzy glow about how Scotland would perform as a separate country but has failed to provide any of the detail as to the costs of that separation.

“It has so far refused to answer the six big questions on independence posed last week but it cannot duck and dive for ever.”

The Scottish Tories, now in the middle of a leadership battle, did not respond but a Downing Street spokesman insisted: “The Prime Minister’s position on the Union is clear.

“He has said on a number of occasions that he would make the case for it again and again.”

A spokesman for the First Minister said: “We welcome this poll showing a majority for independence and showing growing numbers of people in Scotland are determined this country should aspire to a better future, taking responsibility for our own affairs.

“Clearly, the attacks on independence in recent days from the Westminster Tory and LibDem Coalition Government – far from making a positive case for the Union – have backfired badly and boomeranged on them.

“The UK Government has so far refused to respect the result of the Scottish election in May, in terms of the need for more powers, and has resorted to recycling old scare stories instead.

“The people of Scotland do not respond well to such scare stories and the fact that negative campaigning does not work was one of the essential lessons of the recent Scottish election, but the Unionist parties do not seem to have learned from that.

“The more that Scotland is talked down to, the more the people of Scotland will set their sights on a better future.”

The TNS-BMRB has used the wording suggested in the White Paper four years ago to ask people on a straight agree/disagree basis.

Apart from the headline figures of the 39%-38% lead for independence, the high level of undecideds, at 23%, would make a referendum campaign all to play for.

The poll showed greatest hostility to independence in Lothian and the south of Scotland, where opposition is still some 15 to 16 points ahead.

Support among men is higher than among women by 43% to 36% and peaks between the ages of 34 and 44 at 47% compared with 32% against.

Lib Dems Seek Candidates For Police Commissioner Posts, Despite Peer Revolt

Battle lines drawn as party touts for suitable candidates while its own peers work to derail controversial Tory policy.












Lib Dem peers hope to derail Theresa May's plan for elected police commissioners.

The Liberal Democrats are advertising for candidates to become elected police commissioners despite the party's peers still believing they can derail the policy in the House of Lords.

The bill to bring in one of the prime minister's and home secretary's most cherished policies was defeated in the Lords by Lib Dem peers in the last parliamentary term.

The Lords and Commons must now get together soon after parliament reconvenes in the autumn to agree how the legislation will reflect the Lords vote. The scene is set for a battle as Tories in the lower house do not want to water down their policy.

They are now highlighting the fact that the Lib Dems themselves are touting for candidates – a fact seized on as evidence that the party has little faith in its parliamentary efforts to derail the bill.

Campaigners in favour of elected police commissioners intend to have legislation in place in time for the first batch of police commissioners to be elected on the same day as next May's local elections.

The longer into the autumn the Lib Dems can delay the bill, the less likely that becomes, given the time the electoral commission would need to make the necessary arrangements.

In a speech delivered last week, the home secretary, Theresa May, used the police response to the riots to push her case again. "One thing is clear. The experience … makes the case for police reform more urgent than ever."

Senior Lib Dems opposed to the policy fear an elected police commissioner might play to a particular portion of their electorate in a bid for popularity. Cost is also a concern. According to a Home Office answer to a parliamentary question, the system could cost £130m to set up and run and another £50m every four years at election time – this while the government asks the police to cut their costs by 20%.

Peers voted in May against introducing elected commissioners, leaving open the possibility of their being appointed by a board of experts.

Tory sources said the issue was one of trust between David Cameron and Nick Clegg as the Lib Dem leader acquiesced to the policy in the coalition negotiations.

The coalition agreement reads: "We will introduce measures to make the police more accountable through oversight by a directly elected individual, who will be subject to strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives."

Advisers now say there is a small window of time for Clegg to decide whether he is going to face down his peers in the Lords to ensure the legislation is passed.

Blair Gibbs, research director at Policy Exchange said: "This policy has clear support from the top and if anything, after recent months, the argument for a clearer system of police accountability is stronger than ever.

"Most senior police officers now accept this reform is going to happen. There are some unelected peers and local councillors with a vested interest in the old regime who are still grumbling, but they cannot stop this reform from happening.

"The mandate is clear and the main parties are starting to plan for the elections and search for good candidates. It is no longer a case of if and why we should have police and crime commissioners, or even how and when, but who.

"These roles are really important and their success will depend more on the calibre of the office holders than any final minor amendments to the legislation."

Lib Dem MPs plan to hold an emergency debate at their party conference but Tory advisers believe the issue needs to be wound up in early September.