Would 21st century politicians would have any acted differently?

The politician allowing the unjust crucifixion of the Son of God was never going to get a particularly good press by history, particularly one the Church wrote.  Pilate accepting Christ’s innocence only causes his reputation to fall further: cynical political cowardice set against selfless suffering.  Yet the Church’s authorship of the story and the priorities of religion (as against government) do have quite a dramatic distorting effect.  Politics, after all, is the art of the possible; religion is not confined by such worldly limitations.

At this point, let’s not get too bogged down in the actual facts of the matter.  What’s important now is the myth rather than the man.  Partly that’s because the man is quite tricky to pin down given the partial (in both senses) and very distant evidence but mainly it’s because whatever the truth, it’s the image which resonates down the centuries.

Politicians have to reconcile any number of conflicting influences – the interests of their superiors, of their supporters, of their clients, of the mob (or these days, electorate); avoiding giving ammunition to those who have ill intent towards them; in office, governing effectively and avoiding excessive ferment, often with inadequate resources to impose a solution.  And that’s besides the advancement of any personal ambition or agenda that a politician has.  This remains as true today as it was two thousand years ago; it is simply a function of how power works.  Politics is compromise.

So when faced with what he would have seen as the Christ problem, Pilate first tried what many politicians would do: he passed it on to someone else.  When it landed back on his desk, he was faced with a choice between on the one hand, the demands of the mob and the local religious leadership, and of his imperial duty to maintain peace and order, and, on the other, of his inability to find good cause to satisfy the mob’s demands and of his own need to maintain Rome’s prestige by at least appearing to take decisions on his own initiative.  Unsurprisingly, he too tried to find middle way – Christ’s scourging rather than crucifixion and then the offer of his release (the alternative choice supposedly being unacceptable) – and twice they were rejected.  Such are the problems of governing irreconcilables.  Perhaps Pilate was fortunate that there was no tabloid press in the first century.

History records it as the ultimate act of political cynicism and indeed, standing for right against vested interest is a virtue, to a point.  If on a smaller scale, politicians go along with policies every day that they are not comfortable with or have actively opposed.  It’s part of the bargain that enables the state to implement other policies they do favour (or in opposition, the ability to build an electoral machine that can in future become the government).

Pilate in all probability wasn’t a pleasant person.  He certainly wasn’t a particularly successful politician or administrator.  Still, does he deserve the opprobrium of the ages?  I’m far from convinced so.  I doubt that many leaders, faced with the pressures he did, would have acted much differently.

David Herdson

The Annual National Hunt Racing jamboree starts at Cheltenham next Tuesday. It lasts four days and comprises 27 races, each of which can claim to be of championship quality. Mike has kindly invited me to give a suggestion for each race, as listed below.

Please don’t treat these as ‘tips’ in the normal sense. When I do put proper tips up on PB, I have invariably backed them myself. That doesn’t apply to these 27, which at this stage of the proceedings represent just my idea of horses that might offer some value. I certainly won’t be backing all of them – the odds on favorites are out for a start, and I am shooting from the hip on most of the handicaps, the shape of which will not become at all evident until final declarations are made.

Over the next few days I will be sifting the form to see if I can identify which horses I feel strongly enough about to support with real money. I expect I will change my mind about a few. I will try to keep PBers up to speed with how those views develop and of course will be very pleased to hear what others have to say.

Even if you have no interest in a financial involvement yourself, you may nevertheless wish to participate through the Telegraph’s Fantasy League competition. Lucian Fletcher has set up a PB League. The League Name is PB Tipsters and the pin is 8034812.Failing that, you can just sit back and see which of us gets most egg on the face.

You could even make a book on it.

All the best.

Peter Smith [Peter the Punter]

Day One

1.30 Supreme Novices 2m

My Tent Or Yours 7/4

2.05 Arkle 2m

Overturn 11/4

2.40 JLT Specialty H’cap Chase 3m

Cantlow 8/1

3.20 Champion Hurdle 2m

Rock On Ruby 5/1

4.00 Cross Country 3m7f

Balthazar King 6/1

4.40 Mares’ Hurdle 2m4f

Quevega 4/7

5.15 Rewards Novice H’cap Chase 2m4f

Attaglance 10/1

Day Two

1.30 National Hunt Chase (4 miler) 4m

Back In Focus 4/1

2.05 Neptune Investment Novices 2m5f

Rule The World 10/1

2.40 RSA Chase 3m

Hadrians Approach 10/1

3.20 Champion Chase 2m

Sprinter Sacre 1/4

4.00 Coral Cup 2m5f

Edeymi 9/1

4.40 Fred Winter Handicap (4yos) 2m

Hilali 20/1

5.15 Bumper 2m

Blackmail 14/1

Day Three

1.30 Jewsons Novices Chase 2m4f

Dynaste 5/2

2.05 Pertemps 3m

Sam Winner 4/1

2.40 Ryanair 2m5f

First Lieutenant 4/1

3.20 World Hurdle 3m

Bog Warrior 10/1

4.00 Byrne Plate H’cap Chase2m5f

Ballynagour 5/1

4.40 Kim Muir Handicap (Am) 3m1f

Toner Doudaries 16/1

Day Four

1.30 Triumph (4yo) 2m1f

Rolling Star
5/1

2.05 County Hurdle 2m1f

Cash and Go 20/1

2.40 Albert Bartlett Novices Hurdle3m

At Fishers Cross 5/1

3.20 Gold Cup 3m2f
W
Cape Tribulation 20/1

4.00 Foxhunter 3m2f

Salsify11/4

4.40 M Pipe – Conditional Jockeys 2m4f

Gevrey Chamberlain 6/1

5.15 Grand Annual Handicap 2m

Alderwood 7/1

So, what lies ahead for politics in 2013? Pausing only to admire my willingness to have a go, given my mediocre track record in predictions, let’s get stuck in.

The current state of play

Where are we now?

For this, I can borrow wholesale from my summary from last year.

1. The public doesn’t approve of the Coalition.
2. The public doesn’t much like David Cameron.
3. The public really doesn’t like Nick Clegg.
4. The public doesn’t rate Ed Miliband either.
5. The public doesn’t like the EU. Surveys show that more people want to leave the EU than remain in it.
6. In fact, it’s very hard to find anyone or anything at all that the public approves of right now. (Apart from the Queen and the Royal Family. The public love the Queen.)

But some things have changed a bit. Ed Miliband isn’t disliked as much as he was a year ago, while the gilt has continued to come off David Cameron’s gingerbread (though David Cameron and George Osborne retain a substantial lead on economic trust over the two Eds). Boris Johnson had a gala year, but has ended it with his star dimmed in the eyes of the headbangers because of his apostasy on matters connected to the EU.

Alex Salmond had a pretty mediocre year on the UK stage, saved only by the dismal quality of his Scottish opponents. The suspicion persists that he’s a flat track bully, too easily found out when he tries to take the step up against more serious opposition. And UKIP have definitely taken a step forward this year, consistently polling near or ahead of the Lib Dems in the polls, and having made some impact in by-elections.

Economically, Britain had a pretty dismal year. The best that can be said is that some other countries had grimmer years. But it was not a land of milk and honey. Employment is rising, unemployment is falling, but real incomes continue to decline. Growth remains fragile and the deficit remains stubbornly high.

On the plus side, the Eurozone did not collapse. That’s a much bigger achievement than seems to be acknowledged. It is leading to a financial union of the Eurozone, with Britain on the outside. The implications of this have not begun to be understood either in Britain or in the rest of the EU.

So, what’s next? Last year, I concluded that when no one commands public support, the public follow Newton’s First Law of Motion, proceeding in a straight line with no outside force operating on them. I stand by this judgement. If this is correct, then we should not expect events by themselves to make much difference until sections of the public are persuaded from their current default settings by the analysis of those events put forward by one or more public figures. Or, as happened this year, where one of the parties scores an own goal.

2013 has fewer set piece big events than 2012 that can already be foreseen, but three stand out as of particular importance:

1. The fiscal cliff

As I write, the news media are full of stories of the Republicans and Barack Obama’s failure so far to agree on how to avoid the fiscal cliff leading to a massive tightening of US policy. Whether or not agreement is reached by 1 January 2013 (I doubt it), some form of resolution will ultimately be reached, largely on Barack Obama’s terms – because he’s won the battle of public opinion in the USA and the Republicans will need to avoid lasting blame. This is likely to have a very substantial impact on the debate in the UK on the proper treatment of deficit reduction vs growth. This could be shaped by either George Osborne or Ed Balls in their favour if grasped quickly.

In practice, I expect neither to gain a competitive advantage by themselves, which means that the media will be decisive. I expect that on balance the press will regard this as giving more weight to Ed Balls’s “too far too fast” narrative, which may in turn mean that Labour gain some points in economic credibility.

2 The Royal baby

In the summer, assuming that the Royal pregnancy proceeds as we all hope, we shall succumb to Royal baby mania. Republicans may wish to check likely dates in order to book their holidays now.

While this story is not of direct political relevance, the papers are likely to spend some time considering the prospects for children born today. The coalition looks weak on family-friendliness. This may in turn give a nudge in Labour’s favour.

3. The German election

Germany will hold its federal elections in September or October. At present, Angela Merkel looks likely to win. But whoever wins, the new Government will be ready to take a more dynamic position regarding the Eurozone and its future. The end of the year is likely to be taken up (again) with interminable discussions about the future of the EU, and Britain’s place in it. I’m sure you can’t wait.

More generally, there is no obvious sign that Britain’s economy is going to start improving dramatically any time soon. There are a few recent signs that George Osborne is getting better at expectations management.

North of the border, the debate over Scottish independence will continue. To date, the NO side has been very effective with its message of fear, uncertainty and doubt, aided by some entirely avoidable blunders by the SNP.

Predictions

OK, time to bite the bullet. In a year where there are relatively few British political events scheduled, I suppose it should be harder to get too much wrong (famous last words).

Labour will keep and perhaps increase its lead in the polls

If the economy doesn’t improve, faith in the coalition’s policies will continue to wane. I have already noted two reasons why Labour may get additional support in the polls, and neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems are doing particularly well at media management, to say the least. Labour are not doing anything brilliant, and the public are not going to fall in love with them, but there aren’t too many options out there for the disaffected, and Labour remains the obvious one.

UKIP will rise further in the polls

The EU is going to be in the news a lot this year, from discussions about Romanian and Bulgarian migrants, Croatia’s accession on 1 July (another country to supply immigrants?), budgets, fiscal union and its consequences to Britain’s role in the new European order. Aided and abetted by the continuing hysteria of the Tory right acting as a fifth column, UKIP will pick up its share of the disaffected. Nothing David Cameron can say or do will ever satisfy the hardliners, of course.

But don’t expect major changes in the identity of Britain’s politicians

This will be another year where our top politicians stay put. Barring mortality, personal decision or unforeseen scandal, all three party leaders look safe enough for the coming year. David Cameron is likely to come under most pressure, but in the absence of a remotely credible rival, he should be safe enough (even in the Conservative party, which is addicted to plotting).

The Cabinet is unlikely to undergo a major reshuffle (it’s too complicated and anyway David Cameron doesn’t seem to believe in reshuffling endlessly). Will Andrew Mitchell or Chris Huhne return? Chris Huhne will have firmer party support if he rebuts the charges against him, but it would be easier to accommodate Andrew Mitchell (there are more Conservatives in Cabinet to eject). In practice, I expect both will find their political aspirations in 2013 progressing outside the Cabinet, unless others blot their copybook and create the necessary space.

The cause of Scottish independence will continue to languish

2012 showed that the SNP are nowhere near ready enough with their ideas as to what an independent Scotland would look like, or even what the route to independence would look like. Unless they can get a grip on this very quickly in 2013, the public will decide that it’s all just too big a gamble. Since there is no sign at present of them doing so, I expect the polls to look pretty dreary for the independence cause.

antifrank

This article first appeared on PB Channel 2

antifrank is a long standing contributor to PB, he would also like to stress, this piece was written mainly to help him form his own views as to what to expect, he doesn’t want anyone thinking he’s any kind of oracle.

Tonight is that great annual event, The Eurovision song contest.

It will be interesting to see if the issues in the Eurozone affects voting tonight.

I’m not expecting the Germans to give the Greeks zwölf punkte or the Greeks to give the Germans δώδεκα σημεία, but will the rest of Europe give the Greeks a sympathy vote?

There have been rumours that some countries don’t want their contestants winning as they don’t want the costs of hosting the event next year (which probably explains why Ireland have selected Jedward for two years in a row and why Engelbert is representing the UK this time around)

I’m not expecting Engelbert to win either, I’ll be happy if he doesn’t finish bottom, my money is on Serbia, Russia and Greece.

I’m not expecting any polls other than YouGov tonight, if this changes, this post will be updated.

TSE

Note: Mike Smithson is on holiday until June 7th.

And if not, are they condemned to eternal obscurity?

The Euro-elections in 2009 were close to a perfect storm for the minor parties. The electoral system, the (un)importance of the election, the Expenses scandal engulfing the main parties and the availability of candidates to vote for meant that all did well but UKIP especially so, finishing ahead of Labour and the Lib Dems. Come the General Election 11 months later, they were back in low single figures.

The events since then have again played to the advantage of the minor parties. The entry of the Lib Dems into government removed one natural protest vote vehicle and the election of Ed Miliband as Labour leader, and the recentness of their time in government lessens the attraction of them as another. It’s perhaps unsurprising that Others are now regularly polling in the mid-teens.

Most of that increase has come from UKIP. The Greens and SNP account for a small part of the rise but UKIP is now regularly polling around double the 3% it secured in 2010 in the daily YouGov polls, a trend also picked up by other pollsters, if not to the same extent.

Some of that increase is no doubt general protest voting against the government but the issue of Europe is again high on the news agenda, even if UKIP themselves are notable by their absence. That YouGov is regularly finding about 8% of the 2010 Tory voters now lining up behind Farage’s party tells its own story. Even more significantly, this is heavily concentrated in the older demographic, which has a much better record of turning out. Obviously, sub-samples need to be taken with a degree of caution but the figures are quite stable.

On the day of the vote in the Commons on the referendum, there was an article in the Evening Standard in David Cameron’s name indicating his thinking about reform in the EU. In it, he said

“Many of us have been waiting a generation for the chance to get the best deal for Britain in Europe. Now that fundamental questions are being asked about the euro zone, I believe that the opportunity to do that is coming. Put frankly, it would not be in our national interest to act rashly and prematurely [i.e. get sidetracked by a referendum], achieve nothing and blow this chance to negotiate a better deal for our country.”

What’s interesting is that this wasn’t just tactics aimed at reducing the backbench vote for the motion. Yesterday, I received a letter – also in Cameron’s name – reiterating a very strong line on Europe, emphasising the referendum lock, promising no transfer of power to Brussels without the British people having their say, restating that bringing back powers from Brussels to Westminster remains Conservative policy and implying that the problems in the Eurozone will be used to that end.

Saying it is one thing; doing it another. Indeed, saying it becomes counterproductive if it’s subsequently not done. Cameron is right that there will be opportunities and is also right that he’ll be expected to deliver.

There are, however, a series of careful balances to be drawn. While the public is generally sympathetic to a Eurosceptic line, it would do the government (and the Conservatives in particular) no good to allow the focus on domestic policy to drift or to appear obsessive. Cameron will be anxious to retrieve the 2-3% lost to UKIP but not at the cost of shipping other votes elsewhere. He also has to manage the relations with the Lib Dems in the coalition, where Clegg was opposed to any repatriation of powers.

Then there’s UKIP themselves. They ought to be making hay with the problems in the EU but are practically invisible; their polling gains have come by the coincidence of events, not their efforts.

Unless they can actually capitalise on the favourable conditions, those votes will drift back as they did in 2009-10. They have not as yet given any indication of appearing capable of doing so nationally, despite some good by-election performances.

That’s a major failing on Farage’s part. He ought to be all over the media with the prominence of the EU’s problems and UKIP’s key policy of withdrawal, which is backed by a very sizable part of the electorate. He isn’t. This is UKIP’s moment and they’re blowing it.

David Herdson

Will he get the required 100,000 by February?

As I’m sure we all know Guid is running a campaign to get capital punishment restored for certain cases of serious murder and he’s set up a petition on the Number 10 e-petitions site.

If the total reach the threshold of 100,000 within six months then it becomes eligible to be debated in the commons.

His move has received a fair bit of attention in the media and also prompted a rival petition from those wanting the current ban on capital punishment to be retained. These have only been up for 11 days but so far those against hanging are winning by quite a margin.

Will that change in the coming months?

Even though what polls there have been on the subject say most people want capital punishment to be restored it’s quite a challenge getting them to put their names down and go through the verification process.

The gap has closed a little over the past few days but there’s quite a big margin for Guido’s backers to surmount.

@MikeSmithsonPB

What’ll this do the Met’s battered leadership?

What a Monday morning. The riots in north London spreading with suggestions about the veracity of the original reports of the incident on Thursday that sparked off Saturday’s riots – and of course the financial turmoil across Europe.

The papers have no doubts about the main story – riots in North London which moved to Enfield last night.

If the latest reports about the shooting of Mark Duggan are correct then that is further blow to the Met whose leadership has come under extraordinary pressure in recent weeks.

The Guardian says it understands “that initial ballistics tests on a bullet, found lodged in a police radio worn by an officer during Thursday’s incident, suggested it was police issue – and therefore had not been fired by Duggan.” A similar report is carried in the Times and Daily Mail.

Meanwhile the financial markets open this morning following the action by the European Central Bank to buy Italian and Spanish bonds in an effort to create some stability. All this follows the down-grading of the credit rating of the US last week.

Have a good week.

@MikeSmithsonPB

How did so many lose the plot over the last decade?

Banking, politics and journalism have in the last three years been engulfed in their own crises. Is this just a coincidence? In some ways yes – the problems in finance were international in scope whereas those in politics and the media were domestic – but there are still striking similarities in behaviour and timing.

Ed Miliband spoke about it in quite a good speech earlier this week, which touched on a lot of the reasons but without going more deeply into the cultural changes that happened in the three sectors.

He was certainly right to flag up that the regulation was inadequate, either because it was insufficient or because it was ineffective. A second, and equally contributory factor was the opaqueness that surrounded each scandal. The details of MPs’ expenses were kept secret; the true nature of the risks banks were running were buried in impenetrable financial instruments; illegal activity in newspapers took years to surface. People did it because no one could see.

They weren’t the only reasons though. They also did so because they felt entitled and justified in doing so. A belief built up of ends justifying means, almost irrespective of the means. That was a change, otherwise these scandals would have happened earlier. What happened to the self-restraint that previously prevented or mitigated the sort of actions that ultimately brought opprobrium on each sector?

Miliband spoke much about responsibility in his speech but is it coincidental that these scandals happened at the same time as the growth of the compensation culture and the passage of human rights legislation which effectively transferred to the state responsibilities that previously lay with individuals? Both trends encouraged the belief in rights without counterbalancing responsibilities.

If that belief becomes engrained, it follows that so will the belief that it is the state’s job (i.e. not the individual’s or the organisation’s) to stop bad things happening – and that if the state hasn’t prevented it then it must be OK. There becomes an expectation that regulations should exist, and be enforced, to stop us acting against our own interests. Self restraint becomes unnecessary because others will restrain us.

It is not just the left who must shoulder the blame. Both the banking and hacking crises arose because competition got out of hand as companies took huge risks chasing higher profits and market shares. The state failed to protect the public interest and ensure adequate regulation. While the events may have take place under a Labour administration, the reforms that unleashed the forces that led to them date back to the 1980s.

Finally, society at large has to accept its responsibility in the crises and scandals, especially the media and banking ones. How many people who’ve been disgusted by the actions of the News of the World avidly purchased a copy precisely because of the details those actions discovered? How many borrowed what they couldn’t afford because they believed (and still believe) the lifestyle that money bought to be a right? In the light of the assumed response, it is surprising that politicians refused to play the killjoy and instead rode (and fed) the tiger?

There has been much soul-searching in recent years as each element of each new scandal became apparent, as to how to prevent recurrences in future. Regulation is always part of the answer but deals poorly with unknown unknowns. Without a fundamental reassessment of the relationship between state and individuals / organisations, and the respective responsibilities of each, some other, similar, scandal is highly likely to occur in the not-too-distant future, if it hasn’t already.

David Herdson