2013-05-21T21:19:35-04:00 James Dwyer http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=james-dwyer Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for James Dwyer Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1333241 2012-03-08T17:26:20-05:00 2012-05-08T05:12:02-04:00

James Dwyer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-dwyer/
Taylor makes a direct link in his findings between children struggling in schools the riots last summer, warning that a failure to give them a "first-class education" will mean the country pays "a heavy price". He also nots that the majority of the 14,000 children in pupil referral units come from deprived backgrounds - homes where "problems such as drinking, drug-taking, mental health issues, domestic violence and family breakdown are common".

What is most interesting about the Taylor Review is that it is one of the clearest manifest examples of the government's attempts to transform society and change the way people view responsibility. We have heard a lot from David Cameron about people needing to take responsibility for themselves. It is has been one of the pillars of Tory policy in Coalition, but has also struggled to really get going.

Most aspects of the reform agenda put into motion by the government has at its heart Cameron's idea of a more responsible society. The current furore over the welfare reforms is a prime example, with ministers calling on people to take more responsibility and not simply live off the state. The proposed £26,000 benefits cap - bizarrely opposed by Labour - makes sense for many.

But lots of these reforms are stuck in political quagmire, being subjected to endless debates, changes, amendments and challenges. The departure of the prime minister's chief guru Steve Hilton is being put down to, by many, the slow pace of reform and the countless hurdles needed to jump over to get anything done. Cameron himself hinted at this at the Liaison Committee earlier this week, saying he found the pace of change "frustrating".

Education is the one area of government where the reforms and changes are being pushed forward with vigour and with determination, by the Education Secretary and his Department. The Taylor Review is bound to be criticised by some, and is by no means perfect. It will also not transform education overnight, and will not completely eradicate the UK of "problem families". But what it does show is the, at the DfE at least, there is an appetite for reform and a real sense of urgency.

The educational underclass speech quoted at the start of the Taylor Review took place in September last year, and seven months later there has been a detailed review, with Michael Gove asking for the recommendations to be implemented "swiftly".

There are, it must be noted, reasons why other reforms are taking longer than some would like. The political system at Westminster can be extremely slow, and it is easy to see why some ministers feel frustrated.

But the government can take heart from the pace of reform in education, and should use what is happening at the DfE as an incentive to push forward in other areas. Following the example of Michael Gove and his team would take the government a long way towards their target of reforming Britain. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1258124 2012-02-06T15:47:20-05:00 2012-04-07T05:12:01-04:00

James Dwyer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-dwyer/
But one thing this recent international crisis has shown is the firm grip that William Hague has on his role as Foreign Secretary. I am by no means the first person to commend the work Mr Hague is doing at the FCO and will not be the last, but it is worth noting because amid a sea of uncertainty for the government, Hague is standing firm and delivering.

His statement to the House of Commons yesterday on the situation in Syria was a perfect example of this new-found, statesman like posture. Hague was commanding, strong, confident, assured and displayed the right level of concern; not so worried he looked out of control but not so complacent as to appear aloof to the problem. The events of the past week have been extremely troubling. The violence in Syria has drastically increased; it seems that just as the international community is realising the severity of the problem, Assad is turning the screw and upping the ante. The decision of Russia and China to veto the UN Security Council resolution - backing an Arab League plan - was a bitter disappointment.

In the chamber today, Mr Hague looked disappointed. So often ministers and secretaries of state attempt to express their concern about policies without showing any feeling at all. Granted it is harder to express emotions about some topics than it is about the loss of human life, but yesterday Mr Hague looked concerned but determined.

This was highlighted in the fact that - in a rare display of unity - the House was fully behind the Government. Again, this is on the one hand not surprising because of the topic at hand, but it also shows the grasp Mr Hague has on his job, and the command and reassurance he delivers when speaking about it.

As a former party leader - and a fairly unpopular one at that - it would have been all too easy for Hague to slip away from the frontline of politics, and perhaps from politics altogether. Instead, he has found a niche and the perfect role for himself, and he is asserting his position. There are many chinks in the armour of the Coalition; in general, their handling (read Mr Hague's handling) of foreign affairs is not one of them.

And at a time of such international uncertainty, it is reassuring not just for the government but for the country as a whole to have a man of Hague's command in one of the most important Cabinet positions. He is, as many have noted, an incredibly safe pair of hands.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1170894 2011-12-28T19:00:00-05:00 2012-02-27T05:12:01-05:00

James Dwyer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-dwyer/
"Populist pressure on David Cameron to drape the City in a union flag is counterproductive", the younger Johnson warns. He also strongly makes the point that defending the City is a "critical part of the defence of the the national interest" and a "precious European asset". There is no hiding the fact that Johnson Jr. is pushing the importance of Britain's relationship with the rest of Europe.

What is so interesting is that his comments are so at odds with those of big brother, who himself hasn't held back in his opposition to the level of British involvement in Europe. Boris is naturally outspoken and tends to exaggerate the point but his stance on Europe contrasts strongly with his brother's.

Coming so soon after Christmas - and in a week that it traditionally dead in Westminster - it is hard to think that there is not a hidden agenda behind Jo's comments. There is a whiff of political posturing about his comments, an intentional decision to stand against his brother perhaps.

Mr Johnson was unavailable for comment, but it will be interesting to see if this is truly a family feud or simply political differences. Time will tell.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1134059 2011-12-07T12:44:11-05:00 2012-02-06T05:12:02-05:00

James Dwyer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-dwyer/
The end of the Gordon Brown era was supposed to herald a new start for Labour. They would retreat, reform and advance forwards with new vigour and a sense of direction. Ed Miliband's arrival as party leader was relatively muted, and since then Labour have struggled to make an impact on the Coalition.

It's not been for lack of trying, and there's been no shortage of external elements which have been there for the taking. The eurozone crisis provided an opportunity for the opposition to really land some shots on David Cameron and his front-bench colleagues. Then there have been the u-turns, the ministerial complications (think Huhne, Lansley and the ill-fated Liam Fox) and perhaps most seriously the phone hacking scandal, with many senior Tories having links to those at News International.

Labour have, however, found it almost impossible to take advantage of these situations because they have at their helm two figures who are struggling to learn to be in opposition. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls both strike uncomfortable poses when debating in the Chamber.

Labour's leader is still struggling to find his feet and his message. He looks awkward when making speeches, and still stumbles over his pre-scripted words at Prime Minister's Questions.

He also seems to be finding it hard to accept that his party are not in power and will not be in power - barring some sort of catastrophe - for at least another two and a half years. Miliband seems to be trying to hurtle Labour toward some sort of early ascension of power, and is forgetting in the process to realise that one of the secrets of opposition is a long-term plan. The danger is that he runs out of steam halfway through the parliament and Labour have to elect a new leader shortly before an election.

At his side through much of this is Ed Balls, who is also struggling to get his message across. He is tarnished by being associated with the previous government and the deficit, and the public seem to be genuinely struggling to shake that from their minds every time he stands up. Whenever he lays down his fiscal policy, it is easy for George Osborne to simply say that you cannot get out of debt by borrowing more. That is the perfect soundbite, and makes Balls look out of touch. Osborne and Cameron are fond of saying that the shadow chancellor is one of biggest vote winners for the Coalition and they are right; as long as Ed Balls scraps his argument around, the Coalition look measured and determined.

There are some on the opposition benches who are demonstrating how to be in opposition. Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy are examples of shadow secretaries who are aware they are out of power for the long-haul and are making a decent job of holding the Government to account. There are also the 'rising stars' of the party, shadow ministers such as Chris Leslie and Chuka Umunna who have clear messages, are notably vocal at the right time and do not come across as petty and scrappy but dignified and sensible.

For the Coalition, this weakness could not have come at a better time. Were the opposition leader to be a stronger figure (dare I say David Miliband), Cameron and co. could be in trouble. Whilst the eurozone crisis is not the Prime Minister's fault, some decent arguments and a consistent, level-headed message could make him look weak. Ed Miliband has failed to take advantage of the u-turn fiascos the Government has put on a plate for him, but a stronger leader would surely have done better.

There is nothing to say that Miliband and Labour cannot turn themselves around and make themselves an effective opposition. They have the brains in the party, and the Government certainly has cracks to be exploited. A strategy and sense of direction could change things dramatically.

As it is at the moment, however, the Coalition can sleep easily at night knowing that, if anything, the opposition are playing into their hands. For Cameron, long may it continue. For Labour, the longer it continues, the longer they look like being out of power.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1026214 2011-10-22T03:48:56-04:00 2011-12-21T05:12:01-05:00

James Dwyer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-dwyer/
Those pushing for a referendum say that now is exactly the right time. The eurozone is falling apart before our very eyes, and there appears to be little hope on the horizon. Even France and Germany - the two countries meant to pull together and save us - are bickering. David Cameron isn't going to the haphazardly announced extra meeting next week as he's headed to Australia. He says he wants to ensure Britain isn't sidelined from the future of Europe, but his actions looks less and less convincing.

Realistically, now may well not be the best time for a referendum on our EU membership. It is completely true that, whilst the ship is sinking, it is not always advised to call a committee to discern whether you should stay or go. But then the flip side of that ship analogy is that, if you don't jump when you can, you risk going down. People should be given that choice at least.

William Hague - a strong Eurosceptic and well-respected Tory voice - has said this morning that now is not the time for a referendum, because it will cause a "distraction... and lead to economic uncertainty". His words have value and there is danger in ignoring his comments. But it's hard to feel that he's not, underneath it all, gritting his teeth and towing the party line.

Hague has rocketed back up the ranks of the Conservative Party to become one of their biggest hitters. For a former party leader this is quite unique, and when you listen to him questioned on the current state of the party, you can tell he is aware of it. He has long lamented the UK's membership of Europe, but he will be politically savvy enough to know that to cause a split now would be dangerous, not just for a Coalition Government struggling for support but for his standing as well. It is in his interest, the interest of the party, and perhaps the interest of Eurosceptics as well for him to tow the line.

This is the problem. There is never a good time for a referendum on this sort of major issue. Whilst things are bad, it will be too distracting and take attention away from the underlying issues. When things are good, people won't want to rock the boat. No one likes to cause a fuss when things are going well.

The danger of this is that no one ever gets a choice. It becomes the great non-vote, a catch-22 situation where everyone talks about the vote but no one actually votes. The UK's membership of an institution such as the EU is something that people should be given a say on. Many people who are now affected by the financial crisis and are feeling the ramifications of a collapsing eurozone had no say on whether they wanted to be a part of it or not. But the question is, will it ever happen?

It will be a brave politician who calls a referendum on the EU. It won't happen with this motion, and it is unlikely to happen under the Coalition. The danger is that, if no one steps up to the plate, it will never happen, and the British people will not be able to voice their opinions. That is more dangerous then anything else.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1002945 2011-10-10T19:00:00-04:00 2011-12-10T05:12:02-05:00

James Dwyer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-dwyer/
Each party, however, has its own internal differences, clashes of traditions and values which simmer away beneath the surface of every party, whether in opposition or in government. Often these tensions remain unseen by those outside of the Westminster bubble unless they take on a level of severity; the unravelling of the Labour Party and the Brown/Blair fiasco being a classic example of internal party disagreements spilling over dramatically into the national sphere.

Within the Conservative Party at the moment, the crisis in the eurozone is threatening to cause a lot of in-party tension. Many Tories - often those with more traditional values - are speaking up over their fears of Britain's membership of the EU.

The recent increase in the volume from these Conservative MPs - voices such as Douglas Carswell, Zac Goldsmith, Peter Bone, MEP Danial Hannan and most notably Foreign Secretary William Hague - should not be ignored.

Whilst they are not by any means threatening David Cameron's leadership of the party, these voices should be a concern for the Tory party leadership. Those who have been in politics for a long time will know that often, those that pose the most threat are found within your own walls; they have much more sway and more power to bring you down.

In an ideal world - one where the Conservatives won an outright majority in 2010 - David Cameron may have taken a stronger line on Britain and Europe. However, as Tory MPs were keen to remind the media during their party conference last week, they are part of a Coalition Government and have to, as a result, make compromises.

This may be a comfortable excuse to wheel out to the press, and it may to some extent subdue voters who have strong feelings on Europe. It is, however, the members of the party with whom such arguments will not wash.

Ironically, whilst the eurozone crisis is dominating the media to the extent which it is at the moment, these issues will most likely simmer away beneath the surface. Whilst those with doubts will speak their mind to a certain extent, they are also aware that being too outspoken would endanger not only themselves but their party as well. And seeing as how the only way they will ever be able to change Britain's relationship with Europe is to have an outright Tory government, it is in their favour not to bring down the Coalition.

The Prime Minister and the Conservative Party must - and rightly seem to be - focus on helping resolve the euro crisis. The argument that a stable eurozone is in Britain's favour may be mocked by some on the left, but it is true that if the eurozone collapses Britain's economy will suffer.

But as well as looking far away to the crisis on the continent, Cameron and his team must also keep a close eye on the crisis on his backbenches. If he fails to do so, the Europe issue could become a long-running saga which has the potential to drag the Conservative Party down.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.941460 2011-08-31T19:00:00-04:00 2011-10-31T05:12:02-04:00

James Dwyer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-dwyer/
Dictators always fall in cowardly ways, running away rather than facing the music, and Gaddafi is no different. Tripoli has been taken, Libya is now ruled by the National Transitional Council, and Gaddafi surely cannot hide out forever in Libya. He may have said he'd rather die than leave Libya, but his options are more and more limited.

For David Cameron, this is somewhat of a victory. The initial optimism surrounding the Libyan conflict soon fell away as parallels were drawn with Iraq and Afghanistan. America got out as quickly as they got in. It looked for a while as if the Libyan conflict would become long, expensive and - at times - a war with no conclusion. Cameron's initial statesman like attitude was replaced by a man desperate to look for small victories to reassure the war-weary British public that intervention was the right move.

So with Gaddafi gone, Cameron may think he can breath a sigh of relief. Whilst he can certainly be pleased with the fact an undeniably evil dictator is gone, there are a whole host of problems - at home and abroad - that now need to be addressed. The Coalition is coming under attack from all sides for a whole host of policies - schools, universities, the NHS, housing, the economy, transport and so much more. Whilst part of being in government is batting away the balls, it seems as if the Government at the moment are struggling to see them all come in.

Now that Libya is moving towards some sort of a conclusion - and the amount of work needed there should no be underestimated - Cameron must tighten the reins on the domestic front. He must push forward some policies that promote genuine reform and genuine change. The first year of his Government has been dominated by U-turns, war in Libya and a collapsing economy. If he does not produce a rabbit out of a hat soon, people will begin to question his position.

Global issues are easier to dismiss or procrastinate on, as they have international reaches. The economy, for example, is influenced so much by external factors that the argument that 'we're all part of a collapsing global economy' is valid and understandable, and gives Cameron time to formulate his argument. However, the Government's own policies are harder to deflect, as they originate from and lead back to Coalition ministers.

For David Cameron, the next few weeks are crucial. He must not dwell on the Libyan victory for long. He can take some credit, and acknowledge that it is a new dawn for Libya. After that, he must turn his focus to domestic affairs and make an honest and genuine push to deliver the reform he promised upon entering Downing Street. If he does not do so, he risks becoming one of the great under-achieving Prime Ministers. To a large extent, the decision rests in his hands.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.913917 2011-07-30T07:25:55-04:00 2011-09-29T05:12:01-04:00

James Dwyer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-dwyer/
The sudden burst of morality that has taken hold of the UK means that this crisis - arguably a more concerning and long-term one - has been pushed out of the spotlight. This is dangerous for politicians of all colours. Whist the hacking scandal should be given coverage, the way in which is has pushed all other news off our screens is disproportionate. In the same way, the US debt crisis is indeed important, and a US default would no doubt have an effect on the British economy. But we forget the impending Euro crisis at our peril.

The long-standing glue that holds the Eurozone together, Germany, is beginning to lose its will to do so. German taxpayers are beginning to question the benefit of them bailing out and supporting countries such as Greece and Ireland. At present, they have begrudgingly done so. If bigger economies collapse however - with Italy, Europe's third biggest economy, looking increasingly like it will - the Germans may not have the stomach for a rescue.

It is a catch-22 situation, because if these countries are not bailed out they will drag the Eurozone down with them. However, by bailing them out, other European countries are embroiling themselves in this whirlwind crisis.

Britain finds itself in a bizarre position in this crisis. Whilst not directly in the Eurozone per se, the import/export value of the EU is extremely valuable to Britain and, as David Cameron has said multiple times, keeping European countries afloat is in Britain's interest. Were there to be a serious collapse in the Eurozone, Britain would feel it, even though she is not directly linked.

This is a message that the Government must keep plugging and keep reminding the public of. The hacking scandal may be more appealing to the media, but the Eurozone crisis is more pressing. It also brings up a whole host of questions, the most urgent of which is whether Britain should remain in the EU at all. David Cameron seems reluctant to leave, his reasoning being the trade benefits mentioned above. Another reason for his reticence is that to abandon Europe now, whilst the continent is in crisis, would have a damaging impact on Britain's relations. Eurozone countries would be reluctant to trade freely with a country that effectively left them to sink.

On the other side of the coin, the Prime Minister is right to not involve Britain too much in the situation. The further sucked in Britain gets, the harder it is to get out. As the Germans are finding, the European ideal is not all it was built up to be. Britain has a valuable position on the outside, able to offer advice and assistance as and when without getting implicated beyond its means.

The Government must keep an extremely careful eye on Europe. Hacking and the US are bound to take up media space, but the Government must focus on the Eurozone. In such a fast-moving situation, taking an eye off the ball could be disastrous. For the benefits of our European neighbours and ourselves, the Eurozone crisis must be the Prime Minister's priority.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.890091 2011-07-18T17:55:00-04:00 2011-09-17T05:12:01-04:00

James Dwyer http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-dwyer/
Would he see himself as successfully pushing through his reform agenda, driving changes and pioneering a new, fairer society? Or would he see himself constantly battered by policy changes (or u-turns as the opposition like to call them), hindered by Coalition partners who want to peg him back and a core of his own party that seems unhappy with his leadership?

It would be interesting to know because, out there in the real world, David Cameron is quite a polarising figure. He seems either to be seen as a pioneer of reform and a capable, dependable politician, or as a leader out of touch with society and not able to connect with the vast majority of the British people.

Granted, a lot of this is propaganda from the opposition and the media who are anti-Dave. But then he is rather polarising in many ways. Take the fact that he went to Eton and Oxford. That is either seen as a ringing endorsement of his upbringing and his ability to do his job or a criticism of his privileged start to life. Some say that he has been well-educated and given the best experience to hone his political skills in some of the most prestigious education facilities that Britain has to offer. Others say that he is overly privileged, upper class and out of touch and that he is creating a culture of elitism within politics.

Elsewhere, look at Cameron's reform agenda and deficit cuts. They are either radical ways of bringing the country into the 21st century, of stepping out of the quagmire of the last decade or so and advancing with a fair agenda. Or they are cuts that are 'too far too fast' (Labour's favourite phrase) and reforms that are simply too radical, changing too much too soon and leaving Britain in a dangerous position. It's a case of take your pick.

It is true that any politician swings two ways with the voters, ranging from the positive 'they are the right leader' to the negative 'they are causing more harm than good'. Mr Cameron however seems to have made this more of an issue by his claims that 'we're all in this together' and that his Government is a 'listening government'.

Making the claim that we're all in it together is always going to require strong action and strong leadership, and Cameron seems to have failed to show those qualities. The changes of direction regarding his policies - whilst well-meaning - have been seized upon by his critics as a sign of his weakness as a leader, a hint that he is unable to properly lead his party and therefore the country. He is either portrayed as a listening Prime Minister or one who muddles his way through, and sadly it is the latter that is much more likely to stick with him.

Mr Cameron also treads the fine line between smugness and sincerity. It is hard to tell sometimes if he is being sincere in his comments, or lauding them over people. He can be extremely statesman like, as demonstrated when he announced to the House of Commons the British involvement in Libya. But at other times he can seem aloof, superior and - dare it be said - unaware of the problems facing ordinary people. This is something that does not sit well with the electorate, especially at a time when everyone is being told to make cuts and batten down the hatches for the storm of austerity measures coming our way.

It's not all bad for Cameron however. Ed Miliband is struggling to make an impact in his role as Labour leader, and Cameron nearly always come out on top in the contests between the two. He also has the potential to be a uniting figure. He is genuinely passionate about the Coalition Government, and is intent on creating a new path for British politics. However he needs to transfer that political desire to unification to his public persona, and present himself as a genuine figure of reform. If he does that, then he has a chance of being a great Prime Minister.
]]>