And another thing…

THE AMIABLE Ed Vaizey provides the latest example in this occasional series of posts seeking to identify arrogant complacency by Tories and Tory-supporting blogs in the run-up to the general election:

I do think it’s over for Labour and Gordon Brown.

I ENJOYED my stint on The Westminster Hour last night, sharing a panel with Ed Vaizey, Lynne Featherstone and our host, Carolyn Quinn. If you missed it, you can listen to it here.

THEY’RE at it again.

This time it’s Ed Vaizey and Iain Dale who are donning the hairshirts on behalf of others by suggesting that the ministerial car is an unnecessary expense to the tax payer and should be abolished.

If you will permit me the conceit of quoting from my own words in the latest issue of Total Politics:

There are some questions that politicians can ask the general public and be absolutely guaranteed an affirmative answer. These include: do you think there are too many MPs? Do you think MPs should be paid less? Do you think MPs should have shorter recesses? Do you think MPs’ pensions are too generous? Do you think MPs’ allowances should be cut? You get the picture.

To which I could add: “Do you think Ministers should have their own cars and drivers taken away?”

It’s such an easy, lazy hit, and I’m surprised that normally sensible Tories (“sensible” being a relative term, obviously) are indulging in the “holier than thou” language normally reserved for Liberal Democrats. Of course you’ll get the baying mob to agree with you, but just because something’s popular doesn’t make it right. If the Tories think that asking popular questions is the way to govern, then we’re all in trouble if they do win next time.

As someone who no longer has a vested interest in the subject, I’m happy to defend ministerial cars. Ministers work ridiculously long hours, have to carry out all their ministerial duties on top of all their constituency duties and try, somehow, to fit in a family life as well. A car and driver makes life easier and, as Iain accepts, doesn’t cost the public purse that much in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, a ministerial car is a perk. So let’s hear it for perks! Because if you’ve just had a 12- or a 14- hour day and you’re leaving the Commons after the last vote, it’s wonderful to be able to slide into the seat of a car and relax while you’re taken home, knowing you’ll be lucky to get six hours sleep before your ministerial diary kicks in the next morning. I don’t grudge that privilege to any serving minister and I wouldn’t begrudge any future Tory minister, either.

But why draw the line at axing ministerial cars? Ministers also get paid extra on top of their MPs’ wages. Why should that happen? In fact, while we’re at it, why don’t we just cut MPs’ wages altogether? 

This is such a silly, dangerous little game that (some, not all) Tories are playing, not because it endangers ministerial cars and the jobs of their drivers, but because it feeds into the anti-politics culture which the media is constantly encouraging. If the Tories ever do make it back to government, they will suffer just as much as Labour has.

Instead of thinking up gimmicks to catch the headlines, perhaps Tory MPs might start thinking about… oh, I don’t know… some policies, perhaps?

UPDATE @ 8.01 pm: As expected, most of the comments have supported taking away ministers’ cars, reducing MPs’ salaries, pelting all MPs with rotten fruit, etc. So no surprises, then. The logic seems to be: “I don’t have a ministerial car, so why should you?” Impeccable.

JUST back from BBC HQ in Glasgow, having wildly overestimated the time it would take to get there and back in the snow. For those not following me on Twitter, I was doing The Westminster Hour along with Ed Vaizey.

The final subject we talked about was Ashcroft, and Ed, decent cove though he is, persisted with the myth that Ashcroft envelopes simply balance the money given to local Labour Parties by the trade unions. Oh, if only! He also claimed, interestingly, that the Communications Allowance, which all MPs have, are an unfair advantage to incumbent MPs. Does this mean that Tory MPs don’t use it to issue annual reports, I wonder?

Anyway, the point of the studio discussion was that the government has apparently conceded that we can’t legislate to stop Ashcroft throwing tens of thousands of pounds at marginal constituencies in between elections because we can’t get a consensus with the Tories on the way forward. Now, there’s a surprise. My view is that when you have a majority, you don’t need a consensus, especially when there are plans afoot to buy votes in the great  American tradition.

Alas, even if the Commons were to agree with me, there’s not enough time, or enough Labour peers, to get it through the Lords. So, green light to Ashcroft and his chequebook.

IS THE Conservative Party libertarian? Judging by comments left on this and other blogs by their supporters, the answer has to be a resounding “yes”.

But Dizzy has today has an intersting post, contrasting the populist views of leading Tories like Ed Vaizey and Iain Duncan Smith with libertarians on the specific issue of the controversy over The Dark Knight and its certification.

The fact, surely, is that the Tory party will only ever be as libertarian as the electorate will allow them, and as authoritarian as the electorate want. There’s no principle at all here. Should the party adopt a more libertarian stance on Issue X? A quick poll suggests 30 per cent in favour, with 32 per cent for a more authoritarian approach. Decision: authoritarian approach.

Isn’t politics so easy when you’re in opposition?