Grinding poverty

There have always been two different approaches to poverty. Some have seen poverty as a product of financial inequality, to be mitigated by additional resources, mainly welfare payments. Others have seen it as an indicator of insufficient inclusion or access to opportunities, in particular opportunities brought about by work. The first approach is largely driven by indignation about differences of means, whilst the second feeds on philosophies rooted in personal responsibility. The former leader of the Conservative Party, Iain Duncan Smith (IDS), who has resigned from his post as Work and Pensions Secretary on Friday was a believer in the second approach. Having been booted out by his party colleagues from the leadership post in 2003 he re-invented himself as a fighter against poverty and hopelessness. He founded the Centre for Social Justice, visited the Easterhouse Estate in Glasgow and, over the next 8 years, formulated a sophisticated welfare reform strategy. In 2010, being appointed Work and Pensions Secretary in the first Cameron cabinet, he implemented wide-ranging welfare reforms designed to tackled worklessness and poverty of working families. His efforts culminated in the announcement of the National Living Wage last year which will lift income from work beyond the level of means that can be obtained through out of work welfare payments. It crowned a long and distinguished career of a compassionate conservative. Yet, it was not always like this.

Vision for change - IDS at the Easterhouse Estate in Glasgow in 2002.
Foto Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian

Poverty has been an object of political reform ever since the industrial revolution created winners and losers in the world of work. In times of full employment until the 1970s, it was largely seen as a consequence of low wages. As the West was hit by large scale structural unemployment, poverty became a by-product of worklessness as well. Ever since these momentous years in the 1970s, the debate about poverty has centred around sufficient welfare payments to those in need, giving them the means to live a decent life. The watchword was dignity.

However, as it became clear that increasing welfare payments contributed to a fundamental change in people's attitudes towards work, reformers changed tack. They began to argue that, whilst little could be done to change people's willingness to work, the consequences of worklessness could, and should be, mitigated through ever higher welfare payments. In particular, it was argued, children of parents who were out of work required additional resources. The main avenue to eradicate child poverty was increasingly perceived to be higher out of work welfare payments to parents, reinforcing a vicious circle in which parents were incentivised to demonstrate to welfare officers how poor they were to gain access to additional resources. A tragic spiral of low levels of personal responsibility, de-legitimising work as a source of income and welfare as a legitimate replacement for income through employment ensued that eventually led to some British families in receipt of hundreds of thousands of pounds every year. The logic was undeniable. Once need was identified, adequate welfare had to be provided.

IDS was not the first person to challenge this logic, but, looking back, it is hard to imagine today how difficult it once was to articulate a different strategy. The impetus for change however did not come from this country, or from conservative politicians, but from social reformers on the left in the US. They recognised the link between out of work payments, behaviour and increasing welfare needs. In a way, they argued, the missing component in eradicating poverty was personal responsibility. What was needed as a hand up, not a handout, echoing the slogans of radical social reformers in the 19th century.

When coming to office in 1992, President Bill Clinton embarked on fundamental welfare reform, based on the principle of incentivising work. Other countries followed suit, interestingly mainly socialist and social democratic governments. In Britain, significant welfare reform was judged a shot too far within the Blair and Brown Cabinets, although progressive reform minded Labour politicians like James Purnell articulated the need for change.

The resignation of IDS on Friday ended one of the most effective welfare reforms this country has seen since the introduction of the welfare state under Clement Attlee. IDS changed for the better the references for the debate in this country. We now speak of the need to support people to get into work, assess their fitness to work, instead of patting them on the back and sending them home with a welfare cheque. This has undoubtedly created frictions and difficulties. Changes to welfare entitlements have been fiercely resisted by those habituated into a life on the dole and the proponents of the status quo.

However the main parameters of the national debate are now around how to sufficiently incentivise employment. And it is IDS's contribution to have brought about this shift.

A sovereign Britain?

Although the details are still a bit vague, the Prime Minister has given the starting signal for the referendum campaign for Britain in Europe. Some Cabinet ministers have already declared the unwavering allegiance whilst others see the chance of a generation to say good bye to the European Union. One big beast, Boris Johnson, is still sitting on the fence, no doubt carefully calculating how his political fortunes may fall if he campaigns for in or out.

Although I should declare an interest (I am not British and would surely like Britain to stay in the UK for matters of convenience), I have interrogated my own views recently in moments of quiet contemplation and found that I have little feeling either way. Similar to the Scottish independence campaign, I am firmly of the view that Britain would do well outside the EU, just as it will do well inside it. Sure, there are transitional arrangements and uncertainty to be faced if Britain would leave, but Her Majesty's politicians will clearly be in a good position to negotiate favourable trade terms with the EU.

The gripe I have with both campaigns is of a different nature. It is the vision of an independent, sovereign Britain that both sides appear to advance. Leave the EU and we will be free of onerous supervision from a bureaucratic class of pencil pushers in Brussels, or stay and the new terms of engagement gives Britain a special relationship approximating total national sovereignty.

Unencumbered Sovereignty - Do Cameron and Farage pursue the same pipe dream?
 Foto: Getty/LNP

What is so wrong with this ideal of unencumbered national power is how little it reflects the reality of nation states trading and dealing with other nation states in an interdependent, highly connected global arena. The animating vision underpinning both campaigns is one of total control, control over borders, trade and immigration.

This is a cartoonish picture of what modern government has been ever since the Westphalian Treaty was signed in 1648. Modern governments, of large or small states, have always had to recognise the interests of others and to negotiate compromises with adversaries or friends alike. We even gave a name to the art of negotiating (diplomacy) and reared a class of people with special skills in this field (diplomats). The vision of segregated, clearly demarcated political units, enjoying unmitigated sovereignty is little more than a pipe dream drawing its inspiration from a caricature of monarchical absolutism. Only, instead of the all powerful monarch we are now thinking of a unified people expressing their political will in Westminster. Nothing however could be further from the truth.

There is practically no issue of any importance to the British people, be it trade, business, war and peace, education, or health, that hasn't got some implications for our neighbours and vice versa. No matter whether we are in or out of the EU, we will have to deal with people and governments around us who think differently to ourselves. And it is this harsh reality of life that both campaigns neglect at their peril.

Summer games (not quite Olympic)

If anything, the recent spat in the Labour Party demonstrates once again its genuine altruism. As the great British public are getting ready to be bored by endless traffic jams and scorching summer heat on the beaches of Kent, the Labour Party provides us all with an entertaining spectacle worthy of Shakespeare. On one side, behold the modernisers, ready to pounce on anyone who dares to mention past ghosts still haunting the party (who are now jet-setting and sporting deep tans), on the other side, see the undead of the stalinist union sympathisers who smell a chance to hijack the party machinery for the ultimate battle to bring socialist nirvana to the (uninformed) masses. 

To any bystander however this spectacle resembles more shadow boxing than an actual debate about the future of the party. In the very centre of any party husting is the glaring black hole of ideas, right or left wing, or at least the stubborn unwillingness of either side to articulate any policies. That suits the incarnation of the stalinist undead from Islington who is trying to pass himself off as the older version of the Greek PM Tsipras, with some modest success. Corbyn, like any ideologue, revels in bland 'statements of principle' which offer instant appeal but have little to do with politics, the art of the compromise. 

The centre ground does not look much more attractive with a former PPS and Cambridge graduate trotting out the line that he is 'from Liverpool' which, he believes, gives him the 'common touch'. Then there is Yvette Cooper, who is mainly driven by an unfathomable ambition to be leader without ever quite revealing why she would want the top job. My best guess is that she does this as a kind of ego-trip to revenge the defeat of her husband. But that's only a hunch taken from the only comment of hers that made headlines so far, which was that she cried when Ed Balls lost his seat. Lucky those with supreme motives like her. 

And then there is Liz Kendall, which strikes everyone as a pale version of Tony Blair (pun very much intended). Her main characteristic appears to be that she lacks Blair's charisma and his way of connecting with people, or formulating any simple sentence that hits home, for that matter. Something she will undoubtedly learn in the next five years, even if not at the dispatch box opposite David Cameron. 

So, there we are, the sorry spectacle of the Labour Party selection process. I propose that we should talk about the really important things in life again. How about a national debate on whether we should put the clocks back for summer TWO hours instead of one? We always talk about this. Let's not be diverted by the small matter of the Labour Party making itself comfortable in eternal opposition. 

On 'being ready' for government

Popular wisdom has it that all it takes to win a general election is to have better answers to the problems a country faces than your opponents. A coherent vision and narrative may help too, plus a consistent message articulated on the door steps when canvassing the great British public.

A recently published study in the academic journal however questions this view (Hartwig Pautz, The Thinktanks behind Cameronism'. It argues that opposition parties that are successful at general elections undergo a period of intense debate about ideological renewal, often leading to political re-orientation. The arena for this debate are often think tanks that are more or less associated with the political party in question. Labour underwent such a period before it emerged as New Labour under Tony Blair. The hallmark of such a renewal, and measure of success in readying the party for government, may be the extent to which new policy ideas are being generated, debated, rejected or endorsed. Idea generation, in essence, is an indicator of how effectively a political party functions as a powerhouse for policy formulation necessary to formulate future government programmes. 

The Conservative Party experienced a similar period of internal debate and renewal under David Cameron before the general election in 2010. The jury is still out whether or not it was sufficient to make the Tories a genuinely modern party, but hardly anybody denies that the party has undergone fundamental changes with modernisers, such as George Osborne, in key positions. 

Squeezing through - Ed Miliband - Man without policies?

The picture is different for Labour under Ed Miliband. After five years of relative discipline and few internal squabbles, the party emerges almost empty handed to face the electorate in less than 2 months. Whilst Miliband himself tried to provide an overarching narrative in the 'cost of living' argument (a debate that is vanishing fast with wage rises gathering pace), the party is casting frantically around for policy ideas even at his late stage (note the recent speech of Shadow Education Secretary Tristam Hunt on 'innovation' in the classroom). Whatever Labour wants to be (a force for good in society) and who it wants to represent (the long suffering middle classes or people on zero hour contracts?) it lacks the wealth of ideas and the history of constructive policy debate that characterised New Labour in 1997. 

If it squeakes into government on 8th May, it will resemble the government of Miliband's political mentor: Gordon Brown. Having exhausted his energies and political capital in the fight against his own party and the Blair camp, Brown, when he finally moved into Number 10, had nothing to say and no policies to implement. If it hadn't been for the economic crisis, Brown's government would have quickly been revealed as one without purpose or direction. With Britain on the path to economic recovery, Miliband wont be so 'lucky'. The lack of ideas will come to haunt him as he steps into Number 10. If he gets that far. 

On Scottish independence

In 1630, at the height of the Thirty Years War in Germany, the French Ambassador to the Holy Roman Empire made a clear and unequivocal demand: reduce your troops and sack Wallenstein (the Imperial General). This placed the Emperor in a difficult situation. The Swedish King had just landed in Northern Germany and the Ambassador's demands were tantamount to leaving German lands defenseless. Still, the Emperor acquiesced. Wallenstein was sacked and most of the troops demobilised.

Listening recently to the debate about Scottish independence I was reminded of this episode in the Thirty Years War. In effect, the French Ambassador's ultimatum was something akin to President Holland asking David Cameron to sack the Chair of the General Staff in London. Our reaction, rightly, would be: 'Who the hell does he think he is?'

Comparisons are of course fraught with problems, especially if they bridge several hundred years of European history, but this historical example is instructive. Sovereignty never was and certainly is not the indivisible prerogative of national governments.

This is where the Scottish independence debate strikes me as curiously lopsided. Let me say at the start that I firmly believe that Scotland, independent or as part of the Union, is and will continue to be a prosperous country, with rich natural resources and a highly educated and skilled workforce.

However, the tenor of the independence campaign has strangely romantic overtones that I struggle to reconcile with any realistic assessment of modern nation states operating in an interdependent world. This cuts both ways, interestingly. How so?

Firstly, it's what I would call the French Ambassador test. Some in the independence campaign appear to suggest that, once Scotland is independent, it can decide its own fate (whatever that means). The experience of the German Emperor should be a lesson to the contrary. The vision of an unencumbered Scottish public will manifesting itself in a sovereign Scottish government free to do all it currently cant do, is hard to sustain in a world like ours. In a sense, those who argue that independence will grant eternal freedom from external strictures (English or otherwise) take a similar view of Scotland as those in UKIP entertain for Britain. If only those evil 'others' would grant us full autonomy, we could decide things for ourselves. There is good reason to believe that this may turn out to be a mirage.

Yet, secondly, this vision of an independent Scotland assumes that there is a consensus about what this future Scotland should look like. The picture put forward tends to be a strange amalgam of socialist egalitarian nirvana with prosperity for all thrown in. This strikes me as an even stranger case of romanticism gone wild. It seems to rely on a caricature of 'the English system' (which is everything bad on the planet) and an eclectic melange of utopian, socialist and proto-communist elements.

There are two arguments that strongly suggest that an independent Scotland will not massively divert from where England is going, socially, culturally and politically. First, the Scottish government already has full powers over pretty much anything that matters in people's lives. Education, health and social services are all fully devolved issues at present. The Scottish Executive has even tax varying powers (which it has not used so far). It is interesting to note that there has been very little divergence from the 'English' path in devolved areas so far. So, why should independence be the start of total transformation?

The second aspect however is that this vision of a radically transformative society post-independence somehow assumes that there is a broad consensus amongst Scots about the direction of travel (to this socialist nirvana). Nothing could be further from the truth. The polling (and previous elections for the Scottish Parliament) indicate that Scots are just as politically diverse (political scientists speak of electoral cleavages) as any other modern society. There are even a solid 15 percent of Scottish voters who vote for the Conservative Party. So, the utopian socialist consensus does not seem to extend much further than the one third of voters who favour independence in the first place.

Which brings me to the reason why I believe this referendum will be lost by the SNP. Right from the start the campaign for independence was strongly premised on a cultural, political and social vision of Scotland that is curiously narrow, something that speaks to the proto-socialist romantic convictions of those who supported independence in the first place. Yet, the campaign was to be won (or lost) with the votes of those who did not share the SNP's electoral manifesto. All polling suggests that the Yes campaign has failed to reach out to the moderate centre. Barring any major political earthquake, Scotland may thus just stay part of the Union it joined about 300 years ago.

The French view of Europe - solidarity one way

President Hollande has fired the first shot across the bow of the British Prime Minister. He said that Europe should not suffer from an 'a la carte' attitude of its members.

Without any doubt, Hollande is referring (not very subtly) to the desire of the British Prime Minister to give the British people a voice in the process of ever closer union in Europe. Presumably, for Hollande, Europe is not an affair that requires public support but something that is stitched up between the political elites of France and Germany.

Yet, his 'a la carte' comment is also of curious provenance given that France is doing exactly that when it comes to defending its own national interests in the annual budget negotiations. At present, French negotiators are celebrating because they are close to pass legislation in the European Parliament which will reward French farmers twice (yes, TWICE) for the same services. Which services? Not to farm anything.

Unbelievable as it sounds, it is true. French farmers want to receive European subsidies twice over for not farming their fields. British and German taxpayers will pay for this little extra for the French, but of course, asking British people whether they would like to do this, is an outrage in the mind of the French president. As always, for the French political class, solidarity is a one way street.

Yet, Hollande's real fear is not the referendum Cameron offered the British people. His real concern is that the paymasters of Europe, the Germans, will finally wake up and realise how they have been blackmailed by the French political class over the last 60 years to support an undemocratic and illegitimate political circus in Brussels and Strasbourg. Hollande does not want to put the European Union on a democratic foundation. After all, if they were ever asked, the peoples of Europe may decide to have no track with this 'free for all' for French farmers at the expense of everyone else.

Cameron calling the bluff of the other parties on Europe

Cameron is enjoying some good headlines in the newspapers after years of more or less open hostility from the press. Yet, the real issue he sparked off with his Europe speech is how the other parties will position themselves to the referendum call.

Labour leader Miliband has chickened out already. Nothing else to be expected from a largely timid leader of the opposition who is party leader only at the behest of the trade unions.

Yet, Cameron has also called the bluff of the Liberal Democrats and they are fuming. The former leader of the LibDems Charles Kennedy, struggled to keep his composure during an interview with Andrew Neill at the Daily Politics show yesterday when asked whether he would support a referendum on Europe. The background to this question: Kennedy vociferously demanded an in/out referendum for the last 20 years. Alas, he could only do so since the LibDems were never in government so they had no chance to get their wish.

Now, things are different. If Kennedy had the mettle he always pretended to have, he should join Cameron in his call for a referendum on Europe. It seems the chickens are coming home to roost.

More or less Europe, that is the question

The wait is over. After several delays, Cameron has finally delivered his lecture on Europe. He sketched the main parameters of Conservative European policy for the time after the next election. The shopping list is long, including the repatriation of powers from Brussels to the legitimate home of democracy, Westminster; and an 'in-out' referendum, once the new contract between Britain and the EU is drawn up.

Was this worth the wait? The lecture was certainly what most Brits expect their politicians to tackle: the nauseating interference of European bureaucrats in the daily life of British people, a flood of directives and laws from an unelected and illegitimate European Commission, and a promise to finally give people a say in the way in which Britain negotiates its relationship with Europe.

Whilst some of the reactions from abroad have been hostile to say the least, few politicians in Germany or France understand the real motives of Cameron. Most observers note that Cameron's chances to be re-elected depend on defeating the challenge from the right, that has emerged from some of his own back benchers and UKIP.

But the real motivation for Cameron's determination to re-negotiate the British bargain with Europe lies elsewhere. It is his deeply felt belief that European institutions lack legitimacy and have so for some time. This may not bother German or French politicians. Thomas Nipperdey, a German historian, wrote eloquently about the view of Germans to see 'the state and national bureaucracy as a true and impartial agent of freedom' (Nipperdey: Arbeitswelt und Buergergeist, p.592) as opposed to party political dispute which is widely perceived by Germans as bickering and an expression of narrow self-interests.

In other words, Germans may see European bureaucrats as the paragon of political altruism, where British people only see illegitimate and unelected pencil pushers. I have previously argued here that the Euro-crisis may force German politicians to think hard about the lack of legitimacy of the European Commission as it takes on budget-reviewing and monitoring powers. Yet, in any reform effort, the key element would have to focus on the weakest component of European institutions, the European Parliament, which hardly deserves the name given that its members are often elected with fewer votes than the local yacht club treasurer and have no power to hold the European Commission to account.

But a reform of the European Parliament would require political resolve from national politicians to transfer even more powers to an institution that has hardly left any positive impressions over the last 30 years. Such a move would be tantamount to political suicide. And so we muddle on.

Only, that Cameron has now put a stop sign up. He has clearly signaled that muddling through is not an option anymore for the British electorate. His courage to force the issue is to be commended. And although Labour is carping from the sidelines, even the leader of the opposition rushed to announce that a repatriation of some powers would be in order. The real question is whether Cameron has enough political capital in Europe to re-negotiate Britain's relationship with Europe. He will need strong allies with a similar agenda. Yet, of those there are very few indeed. It may be a sign how isolated Britain is with its wish for less integration. But then, you have to stand up for what you believe, and Cameron is about to do this.

Leveson falling apart - fast

The consensus around the Leveson report is falling apart at breathtaking speed. While the Prime Minister once quipped that he would implement it in full unless it was 'bonkers', and the leader of the opposition did not even feel the need to read the report before he made a commitment to fully implement it, the critics of Leveson's recommendation to introduce statutory regulation of the press are becoming more vocal and there are surprising alliances emerging.

Imbalanced and impractical - Leveson and his report on Press Media

The latest critical voice is that of Shami Chakrabarti, the human rights campaigner. She said in an interview with the Mail on Sunday that Leveson's recommendations may breach the human rights act. The irony of an alliance between David Cameron and Shami Chakrabarti converging on the territory of the human rights act may raise some eyebrows amongst Conservatives. But her view is well articulated and convincing. In essence, she maintains that a free press cannot be submitted to statutory regulation when other media outlets are not.

David Aaronovitch has recently voiced another concern. On Andrew Neill's Daily Politics he argued that Leveson was wrong to accord so much importance to the victims of press intrusion. While it is right to recognise the harm some journalists have inflicted on some members of the public, it was wrong to design a system of press regulation that only addressed the elements of journalistic activity that was wrong. Basing press regulation on the sentiments of the victims only was like asking a victim of medical malpractice to rewrite surgical procedure (my paraphrasing).

The chances that Leveson will be implemented are becoming more distant by the day, and that may be a good thing. While it is important that the victims of press intrusion are listened to, they may be bad advocates of any future regulatory system. Not to mention that Leveson seems to have disregarded the main challenge to any press regulation in the modern era: the fast and irreversible descend of national print media into irrelevance in the age of blogging and twittering.

Despite the sheer volume of the report, Leveson may just have gotten the balance wrong and his report may therefore just gather dust on the shelves. It may be small comfort to him that he shares this fate with countless other reports of the past. Britain does however need an effective system to address press intrusion and professional misdemeanors and let's hope that the industry itself will act swiftly.

Paedophilia and the Prime Minister's ignorance

Cameron has declined to investigate claims of paedophilia amongst politicians as he was shown a list of potential suspects by TV presenter Schofield on air. The prime minister is in good (or rather revolting) company with his denial to look into the matter. On Question Time, Chukka Umunna has equally defended the right of paedophiles to remain secret. To most people, this will come as no surprise. As more and more details emerge from the Bryn Estyn home abuse inquiry (the so-called Waterhouse Inquiry), politicians of all colour tried to draw up the terms of reference of the inquiry in such a way that paedophiles were protected and could not be prosecuted for their crimes.

Now, the Home Secretary Theresa May has urged anyone who has suffered from abuse to go to the police. She is either wilfully ignorant of the problem of paedophilia or deliberately tries to close down the discussion about why this type of abuse has gone on for decades in care homes in North Wales. As the Sandusky trial in the US has clearly shown, paedophiles are careful to build up strong networks of friends to protect them from prosecution if allegations are made against them.

The paedophile Sandusky after his trial sentenced to 60 years in prison in the US - in the UK he would likely have been given a community sentence at best

The Waterhouse Inquiry unequivocally demonstrated that the police and the prosecuting authorities at the time had no intention to investigate the crimes at Bryn Estyn. And now, May says the victims should trust the police. How ignorant can you be? After having failed for more than 30 years to prosecute paedophiles who abused children in care homes in North Wales, it seems obvious that there is only one way of making sure that paedophiles do not get away with their hideous behaviour. Name and shame them publicly!

What has the coalition achieved?

The coalition government under David Cameron has had a rough time recently. Surveys show that key ministers are deeply unpopular amongst the British people and the poll figures for both parties, the Conservatives and the LibDems, took a beating since the Rose Garden photo op in 2010.

Happier times! Cameron and Clegg in the Rose Garden of Number 10 in 2010

There have also been rumblings amongst Conservative members of parliament about the leadership qualities of David Cameron, prompted by a perceived advantage given to LibDems in key policy areas. Nick Clegg and his parliamentary colleagues, so the complaint goes, determine policies to a far greater extent than they should. Given the widespread disenchantment with the coalition one might be forgiven to ask: what is the point of the coalition? Has it achieved anything so far?

The most effective opponent of the coalition government is not Her Majesty's Opposition, yet perhaps time itself and the tendency of all electorates to indulge in selective memory. It is easily forgotten how radical this government actually has been, much to the consternation of some former Labour ministers who had similar plans for transformations of public services, yet either never got round to implement them or were blocked by Gordon Brown.

Just reviewing a list of recent reforms reveals the magnitude of the policy programme of the current government. Fundamental change and reforms have received legislative approval in education, health, constitutional affairs and welfare.

Take welfare for example. James Purnell was the one but last Labour Welfare Secretary and his plans for welfare reforms approximated closely those of the current postholder Ian Duncan Smith. When in power, Labour had a keen awareness that the current trajectory of welfare spending was unsustainable in the long term. Ian Duncan Smith, starting in 2010, implemented a radical shakeup of the welfare and benefits system which, for the first time in more than 30 years, involves the re-assessment of benefit recipients for payments.

Despite some criticism from disability rights organisations the reforms seem to be largely in tune with the views of the British public and there seems to be widespread consensus that benefit payments require better targeting at those in need. Ian Duncan Smith carefully built the case for reform and is about to implement it, ceaselessly reminding reform opponents that simply continuing to increase welfare expenditure is not an option and may exacerbate inbuilt injustices.

In other words, he managed to locate the current reforms in the wider context of equity and justice, as well as present them as largely continuous of previous postholder's intentions. Similar feats have been pulled off by the Education Secretary Michael Gove, who argued that his education reforms are in essence an extension of the academy programme started by Labour under Tony Blair.

Yet, how truly radical the policy agenda of this government has been is only revealed by looking at those areas that have little resonance with the British public. It is in matters such as constitutional affairs that investing political capital rarely pays off and hence little progress is often made over decades. Shortly after coming to office, the coalition legislated for fixed term parliaments which removed the prime ministerial prerogative to set the date of the general election, something not even Labour was ready to give up.

After only two years, the record of this coalition government compares positively with Tony Blair's first term, even though he always regretted not having adopted a more radical approach when coming to power. Yet as selective as collective memory might be, it is also usually arriving at a more balanced appreciation of achievements as time goes by. John Major's government, though deeply unpopular at the time, might be a case in hand. Major's term in office is now seen as laying the foundation for the unprecedented economic recovery in the second half of the 1990s creating the space for the expansion of public expenditure under Labour. In this sense, Cameron and Clegg may have their best time still ahead of them.

Louise Mensch to quit as MP

There is little else that can be said for Louise Mensch's decision to quit parliament than that this is a serious loss to the political life in Westminster. Mensch has brought qualities to politics that are often absent from other parliamentarians, such as eloquence, a sharp intellect and an admirable sense of impartiality as the member of the Culture Commons Committee investigating the phone hacking scandal.

She gained a high public profile very quickly after entering parliament in 2010 mainly because of her outspokenness on media and gender issues. Whatever her political loyalties to the Conservative Party she was certainly one of the greatest assets David Cameron could muster in wooing more moderate members of the public and Mensch played, inadvertently perhaps, a critical role in de-toxifying the Conservative brand by offering a different public appearance to the stale old male party hierarchy. 

One of her most memorable moments came when she defended the decision of the Conservative members of the Commons Culture Committee not to support the highly biased and partial report into phone hacking. The intemperate language of the report and the lack of evidence to support one of its conclusions led Mensch and other members of the Committee not to endorse it. The refusal of the Labour MP Tom Watson to amend one passage of the report, largely because of personal vanity, did serious damage to the impartiality of parliamentary committees. In contrast, defending her position on Newsnight, Mensch was balanced, fair and sharp, which provided a real highlight of political decency and honesty. 

Mensch's decision raises the question however why few people with similar intellectual abilities enter politics. One reason may be that politics is in fact a difficult and undervalued (yes, underpaid) occupation. The workload (of up to 60 hours a week) can be taxing and few people of high calibre with a professional background find this attractive as politicians' salaries in the UK are low compared to business or remuneration in the civil service. Add the unpredictability of the job and you get an unattractive package all around that offers little to intellectual high flyers like Louise Mensch.