Blog Posts by Ian Dunt

In the US, 2012 will be remembered as the year the limitations of the Republican party's current trajectory became obvious. In the words of one analyst, the party finally ran out of 'angry white men' and Barack Obama was easily returned to the White House.

In the UK, 2012 saw the Conservatives also meet the limitations of their current trajectory, in a manner which was easier to repair but which they showed no signs of recognising.

To anyone who experienced politics in the 1980s, the current state of play in Westminster is baffling. Labour, the party which for years involved itself in seemingly irrelevant internal battles, has become impressively practical, pragmatic and focused on returning to government.

The Conservatives - still considered by many to be the natural part of government - behave more like an opposition party. Tory MPs joined with Labour to vote down plans for the EU Budget, inflicting the government's first Commons defeat, albeit on a non-binding vote. It was a

Let's be clear. Those attacking the Australian radio DJs who made the prank call to the hospital Kate Middleton was staying in are guilty of the very crime they are protesting against.

2Day FM presenters Mel Greig and Michael Christian will have had the floor fall out from under them when they heard of the death of Jacintha Saldanha, who transferred their call. Their careers are probably ruined, but the real cost will be psychological. They will be devastated with guilt.The company which owns the station, Southern Cross Austereo, is concerned about their mental health and described their emotional state as "fragile".

The death of Saldanha is unbearably tragic, but it was also unforeseeable. The presenters put on unconvincing impressions of the Queen and Prince Charles and saw what would happen. It is bog-standard prank radio. No-one could possibly have predicted it would prompt a suicide.

On the morning of the death, I watched this Brazilian prank video, which went viral on the

The gap between reality and fiction starts with the name. As commuters struggled to get to work because of ice on the line, George Osborne unveiled the autumn statement. There was nothing autumnal about it. This was winter all over.

By the time the chancellor got to the Commons, reality was his plaything, an annoying sound in the corner of the room which he could ignore if he put on headphones.

His tone was victorious, valedictory, magnanimous, triumphant. "It's taking time, but the British economy is healing," he began, starting as he meant to go on, with nonsense.

"The message from today's autumn statement is that we are making progress. It's a hard road, but we're getting there."

And how were we "getting there"? The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) says the economy will contract by 0.1% this year. Back during the Budget in March it thought we would grow by 0.8% year before that it predicted we would grow by 2.6% in 2012. Debt won't start falling as a share of national income

The screeching surrounding the Leveson report is utterly disproportionate to the recommendations found inside it. There are faults to this document and as a supporter of self-regulation I am not liable to be sympathetic to it. But the Leveson report is moderate, balanced, sensible and practical.

Is it, as Leveson claims, self-regulation? Sort of. Not really. If a man broke into your house and forced you to hug your wife at gunpoint that would still technically be giving a hug, but not in any genuine sense. Leveson is the man with the gun. He's allowing the press to set-up the body but if it doesn't Ofcom becomes the de-facto regulator. It's a threat so severe it makes self-regulation a mirage: technically true, but not in spirit.

So why would anyone who believes in self-regulation accept these proposals? Because the press had become an independent power structure in Britain. It was unaccountable, irresponsible, bullying and failing in some of the central tenants of its mission

The big question: Does Leveson  suggest legislation?

Yes, but in the most moderate way possible. He proposes an independent self-regulatory body with a statutory underpinning. It is self-regulation because it would be set up by the industry itself. It is independent because serving editors are banned from almost all its boards, as are MPs. A majority of the board must be non-journalists. It requires statutory underpinning because it needs legal recognition showing it's serving its mission statement and also so it can offer an arbitration service recognised by the courts.
The body's role is to uphold standards of journalism and the rights of individuals. It would create a code of conduct members would be expected to abide by.

So what does the legislation do?

The legislation would not establish the body itself. Instead it recognises the ideals Leveson want from the body, like independence from parliament and the media. It also provides a mechanism to achieve them. In this case it takes

Sally Bercow's slipped up again and this time it looks like it might be for good. Weeks after being faced with a libel claim for naming Lord McAlpine, she did also mentioned the girl who ran away with her maths teacher, breaching a Section 39 order and possibly committing contempt of court. She deleted her tweet hours later. The next day she told followers she couldn't reply. And then, finally, her Twitter feed became unavailable. Maybe it will come back. Maybe not.

It would be a genuine shame if it didn't. Bercow might be problematic, but most of the anger towards her reflects a nervousness about the kind of cultural change she represents in Westminster.

Even her announcement of her latest disaster reflects the benefits of having her on the Westminster stage. "Looking at tweets but (sadly) can't reply (#lawyerswhippedmyass #asdidMrB)," she tweeted. "So text/email/DM me if you're a mate. Hope 2 b back soon. xx."

Her mention of her husband's irritation — "#lawyerswhippedmyass #asdidMrB"

The political class has many self-serving theories about the British electorate. It's most blatant is that the public has mastered the political system.
Political pundits and MPs often look at the governments elected after World War Two — from Atlee in 1945 to the coalition in 2010 - and suggest the British people expressed their complex desires with surprising clarity when polling day came. Despite the tactical voting and confused mandates of a first-past-the-post constituency system, this view suggests the British people are very good at getting the result they want.

It is a non-falsifiable theory and therefore plainly nonsense. It is also a post-hoc rationalisation clearly designed to reassure the political class of its democratic mandate in an age of ever-lower turnout.

Today it may be true.

The British people have stayed away from the polls en-mass. The police commissioner elections have been an absolute shambles. Many have blamed the government for not giving candidates free

Where did the Tory paedophile accusations come from?

On October 24th, Labour MP Tom Watson stood up during PMQs and asked the prime minister a question. "I want to ensure the Metropolitan police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to parliament and No 10," he said. It was met by a stunned silence in the Commons chamber.

A week earlier, Watson had received a call from a former child protection specialist who believed a wider investigation regarding the activities of convicted paedophile Peter Righton had not been fully investigated. Some of the evidence, Watson said, suggested a paedophile ring was operated in care homes in Wales during the 1970s and 80s involving senior members of the establishment, including an aide to Margaret Thatcher and several other household names.

Did the abuse take place?

Undoubtedly. During the 1970s and 80s children in care homes in the Gwynedd and Clwyd Council areas were