Cardiff council election: a preview

As voters go to the polls this week, Cardiff is likely to be a bellwether council in terms both of the Liberal Democrat collapse and the Labour resurgence.

In power for the last eight years – albeit initially in a minority administration before an electoral pact with Plaid Cymru four years ago – Wales’s biggest council has given the Lib Dems a platform to prove their local government credentials.

The party currently has 35 councillors out of a total of 75, and an electoral pact with Plaid’s six members saw Glaswegian Rodney Berman return as council leader for a second four-year term after the 2008 vote.

But there is a very real prospect the party’s representation will be cut dramatically after the votes have been counted, and the intrigue is likely to be whether or not Labour can gain overall control of the council rather than whether they will be the largest party.

The problem for the Lib Dems is perhaps their surprising success in the last two council elections in Cardiff. They hold a swathe of seats which would appear to be typically Labour, including Butetown (the Labour defeat in 2008 was described by Cardiff South and Penarth MP Alun Michael as “an aberration”), Grangetown, Caerau, Adamsdown and Llandaff North. Labour dominance in Splott was also challenged by the election of a Lib Dem to one of its three seats in 2008.

Those wards alone comprise seven Lib Dem defences, and it would not be a surprise to see Labour gain all of them. Elsewhere, the four Lib Dems in the Plasnewydd ward – including Berman – face an anxious bid for re-election.

It is not only Labour which looks set to profit from a decline in Lib Dem support. Despite recent problems for their London coalition partners, and depending on how the Lib Dem vote holds up, the Conservatives could also cash in on such a collapse.

Seats in the leafy northern suburbs are far more Conservative-inclined than anywhere else in the city – Cardiff North is the only one of the city’s four constituencies to have a Tory MP – and the party will be targeting Lib Dem seats in wards like Heath and Cyncoed. In Heath, Lib Dem Fenella Bowden was elected alongside two Tories in 2008, beating out the third Conservative by just 58 votes.

Bowden is standing again, but as one of three Heath and Birchgrove Independents; that move is likely to fatally damage Lib Dem hopes of holding the seat, although whether Bowden is returned or the seat moves into the Tory column is too close to call.

But those Conservative gains will probably not be enough to offset the damage Labour look set to inflict. The Tories are the official opposition in Cardiff City Hall, holding one more seat than Labour. But the party of First Minister Carwyn Jones has a far broader appeal across the city and will be able to make far deeper inroads next month than the Tories managed in 2008.

Labour would be disappointed not to take the Conservative seats of Rumney and Pentyrch – which the Conservatives held in an August 2008 by-election by just 12 votes. The Tories will be pessimistic about Rumney, where one of the two Tory incumbents, Duncan MacDonald, resigned the party whip in March and is now standing as an independent. In Pentyrch, Conservative Craig Williams is a popular councillor but faces a near-impossible against the likely tide of Labour gains.

The Conservatives would be disappointed to lose any of the six combined seats in the wards of Pontprennau & Old St Mellons and Llanishen, although offensive material posted online by a Labour candidate in Llanishen caused him to be suspended from the party and handed the four Tory incumbents a boost.

Most wards of Cardiff North should remain solidly Conservative. But one of the largest, Rhiwbina, is certain to re-elect popular independents and Tory defectees Adrian Robson and Deputy Lord Mayor Jayne Cowan. Fellow independent Eleanor Sanders, replacing incumbent Brian Jones, should also be elected.

Plaid, meanwhile, have never managed to gain much of a foothold in the city and their six members – seven were elected in 2008, but a by-election in the Riverside ward was lost to Labour last year – come from just three wards.

They will almost certainly hold the Creigiau and St Fagan’s seat of Lord Mayor Delme Bowen and should be safe in Fairwater, where leader Neil McEvoy holds one of the three seats.

There has been almost a complete absence of Welsh polling since Leanne Wood took over as Plaid leader, so the electoral consequences of her victory have yet to be tested. But while Plaid are likely to struggle to hold on to their remaining two councillors in Riverside, they are working hard to pick up seats elsewhere.

In Butetown, where Labour are considered the nominal favourites, Plaid’s Liz Musa has fought a strong campaign and, after receiving the endorsement of a former Labour councillor and community stalwart, could take the seat in what is expected to be a close three-way battle.

McEvoy has also targeted Ely, Grangetown, Llanrumney and Canton, but if Plaid beat Labour in any of those wards it would be a grim night for the reds.

The minor parties are not likely to see any success, and UKIP will be unable to capitalise on recent poll boosts as they are only fielding two candidates across the city.

Wards to watch:

Butetown (1 member): Lib Dem incumbent. This diversified ward is traditionally a Labour seat but a strong Plaid campaign could swing it for the nationalists.

Grangetown (3): Three Lib Dem incumbents. Labour will be hopeful of retaking this ward, but there is likely to be a strong Plaid showing here. A party split would not be a surprise.

Heath (3): Two Tory, one Lib Dem (now independent) incumbent. Whether the vote for Councillor Fenella Bowden was for the party or personal will decide whether the Tories can hold their seats, gain Bowden’s or perhaps even lose their two incumbents.

Llandaff (2): Two Lib Dem incumbents. The “city within a city” is a tight three-way between the major UK parties. Labour could come from third, or a split left vote could allow the Tories through if their vote holds up.

Pontprennau & Old St. Mellons (2): Two Tory incumbents. Labour are breathing down the Conservatives’ necks. Dianne Rees should be safe; the second Tory seat is very much up for grabs.

Riverside (3): Two Plaid, one Labour incumbent. Labour’s 2011 by-election gain here might indicate this should be two more Labour gains, but new Plaid leader Leanne Wood will be hopeful of boosting her party’s appeal.

Republicans have to - but won't - nominate Governor Jon Huntsman

As Governor of the state of Utah, he received Soviet-like levels of support. He has served his country in diplomatic posts under four presidents. He has an economic plan endorsed by the Wall Street Journal.

His personal life appeals directly to the hearts of Middle America. He has seven children, of whom two are adopted and another two are in the US Naval Academy.

He is a fan of alternative rock, and played an impromptu version of Johnny B. Goode while appearing on the Late Show with David Letterman.

His style of choice is cowboy boots, denim jeans and a flak jacket embroidered with the Star Spangled Banner.

And yet Jon Huntsman struggles along towards the bottom of the race to be the Republican presidential nominee, with even the best national polls putting him at just four per cent.

For observers outside of the Republican Party, this comes across as something of a mystery, especially when considering the merits – or otherwise – of his opponents. Huntsman would appear to be vastly more presidential than Newt Gingrich, the philandering former Speaker of the House of Representatives.

He surely overshadows Ron Paul, the libertarian who has huge support from the online generation but who has failed to explain how racist and homophobic newsletters came to be printed in his name.

And that is before we even consider the remainder of the field: religious hardliner Rick Santorum, who is now polling second nationally; Rick Perry, who failed to remember during a televised debate which government departments he had vowed to cut (the Department of Energy, Rick. Come on, there were only three!); and Michele Bachmann, who told supporters God was going to bring her victory in Iowa – and who, after finishing sixth, has now pulled out of the race.

Alongside Huntsman, only Mitt Romney, the clear frontrunner in the Republican race but also, arguably, the least inspiring of all candidates, looks even vaguely statesmanlike. So why has Huntsman been unable to exploit a shambolic GOP field to take the fight to an embattled President Obama?

Perhaps an unfortunate paradox of the 11 month-long candidate selection process is the more level-headed candidates gain less attention. The media would much rather follow a sharp-tongued Gingrich, a gaffe-prone Perry or an ultraconservative Santorum than a sensible bloke.

So Huntsman has been ignored by the nation’s media. This denial of the oxygen of publicity and what would be the resulting name recognition has in turn given the media an excuse not to focus on the rank outsider.

Huntsman did not even campaign in Iowa, which held its non-binding caucus last Tuesday, focusing instead almost exclusively on the small New England state of New Hampshire, which traditionally holds the ‘first in the nation’ primary vote.

New England is not fertile Republican territory. On just one occasion since 1988 has one of its six states voted for a GOP candidate for president, when New Hampshire chose George W. Bush in 2000.

Registered independent voters are permitted to vote in the Republican Party’s New Hampshire primary, meaning the winner of the contest tends to represent the moderate wing of the party. John McCain, whose politics are hardly revered on the right wing of the GOP, secured a win in the last two New Hampshire primaries.

This time, the Granite State looks almost certain to opt for Mitt Romney. The frontrunner has a number of advantages. He was formerly Governor of neighbouring Massachusetts, which he governed relatively liberally. He has also secured the endorsement of McCain.

Crucially, Romney also has momentum after winning on unnatural territory (like Huntsman, Romney is a Mormon) in the evangelical heartland of Iowa last week, albeit by the slimmest of margins.

Huntsman must hope for a strong second-place finish in New Hampshire if his grassroots campaign is not to be trampled by the establishment power and Wall Street backing Romney boasts. Huntsman has made over 150 public appearances in New Hampshire, but with the exception of former Pennsylvania Governor and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, he has not received any high-profile endorsements from another political figure.

Huntsman did receive a boost last night (Thursday) when he received the backing of New England’s biggest newspaper, the Boston Globe, ahead of local boy Romney. That endorsement, as well as a pair of televised debates this weekend, and a media now focused on New Hampshire rather than Iowa, should help to nudge his numbers upwards.

The problem for the Utahan is he needs more than just a nudge. The Real Clear Politics poll average sees him sitting in fourth position in New Hampshire, albeit within the margin of error of both Newt Gingrich below him, and Rick Santorum, who has surged since his Iowa near-win, in third. Ron Paul is polling around one vote in five, with Romney well clear on 40 per cent.

Those numbers must be disheartening for Huntsman as he continues with his ‘handshake-by-handshake’ quest for attention. Before the campaign he would hardly have been familiar with such numbers. He was first elected Governor of Utah in 2004, and proved so popular that, four years later, when Republicans candidates struggled nationwide at the end of the Bush presidency, Huntsman romped to re-election by securing 78 per cent of the votes.

His record in Utah’s Governor’s Mansion is highly regarded, and he continues to boast his state headed the nation in job creation during his tenure while emphasising the marked contrast with Romney, whose Massachusetts ranked 47th. In the words of the Boston Globe:

With a strong record as governor of Utah and US ambassador to China, arguably the most important overseas diplomatic post, Huntsman’s credentials match those of anyone in the field. He would be the best candidate to seize this moment in GOP history, and the best-prepared to be president.

But Huntsman’s appeal to Democrats and independents is also what many in the Grand Old Party might take issue with. He accepts the concept of global warming, favours civil unions (though not same-sex marriage) and rejects creationism.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, he has downplayed that during recent weeks as he seeks to appeal to the conservative base. In the current economic climate, his proven record of fiscal conservatism, however, should be enough to appease the more pragmatic members of the right wing.

He has felt the need to take to promoting himself as the “consistent conservative” of the race, pointing to his tax-cutting, job-creating, growth-promoting record in Utah. With Romney and Paul battling out for much of the independent voting bloc, Huntsman has attempted to change tack – understandable, but surely too little, too late.

In a general election, it is not difficult to envisage him winning Rockefeller-esque support, as he did in Utah, from those who might be dubbed “Huntsman Democrats” by political scientists – but without GOP support, he will never be in a position to achieve that on a national level.

He has shown he is willing to be bipartisan, by accepting President Obama’s offer of the post of ambassador to China (Huntsman speaks fluent Mandarin). That appointment also clearly indicates the President respects his potential rival’s abilities as a diplomat. Meanwhile, Huntsman’s record at the helm in Utah has demonstrated he isn’t bad at the politics lark, either.

It is madness the most electable of all Republicans has been, by and large, ignored by the media, the public and his own party.

But if he falls short in New Hampshire and pulls out of the contest, America would be wise to start preparing for Huntsman 2016.

New blow dealt to Obama as Republicans win key seat

The Democratic Party in the United States hardly needs reminding of the rough ride it suffered on election night last November. Although President Obama’s party retained control of the Senate, it lost 63 seats – and its majority – in the House of Representatives to the Republicans, earning John Boehner the speaker’s chair at the expense of Nancy Pelosi.

One seat the Democrats did comfortably retain control of, however, was New York’s 9th Congressional District. Comprising parts of New York City’s districts of Brooklyn and Queens, this appears to be fertile Democratic territory.

Democrat Anthony Weiner was elected to serve the district in the House of Representatives six times between 1998 and 2010. He was also returned unopposed in 2006, and challenged only by an independent conservative candidate two years later, indicating the GOP’s acceptance of the hopelessness of their situation.

Weiner’s 2010 success came with a majority of over 20 percentage points – nearly 24,000 votes over his Republican challenger, Bob Turner. But in May this year, Weiner was embroiled in a scandal, involving his sending sexually explicit images to one of his followers on Twitter. He initially denied sending the pictures, a stance that only exacerbated his predicament, and which eventually forced his resignation in June.

President Obama would certainly have cursed the timing of the special election held to replace Weiner, but surely would not have envisaged that his party was in danger of losing the seat. The last time the Republicans represented this district was in 1923, the year of the death of incumbent president Warren Harding. Five US presidents had not yet been born.

Opinion polls, however, began to suggest that Bob Turner – the defeated GOP candidate in 2008 – was running ahead of the Democrats’ David Weprin. And yesterday, Turner did indeed capture the district for his party, indicating that the Democrats may be in even more dire straits than ten months ago. Less than a week after Obama’s keynote appeal to a joint session of Congress – but of course aimed specifically at the GOP-controlled House of Representatives – he must now contend with an increased Republican majority in the lower chamber.

Predictably, the two parties have reacted very differently to Turner’s victory, adopting the stances political watchers have come to expect after such a result. Reince Priebus, Republican National Committee chairman, explained that the result was a direct repudiation of Obama and his policies, indicating that even traditionally liberal areas, such as New York City, were abandoning him. By contrast, Democratic spokespeople emphasised that local issues played a key role, and that the contest should not be extrapolated to the national scene.

Whatever one’s interpretation, it was certainly a stunning success for the GOP. Turner was the beneficiary of a fifteen-point swing, with Weprin losing nearly three in five of voters who had selected Weiner last autumn.

The ninth congressional district has a heavy proportion of orthodox Jews, and is thus hardly a representative segment of the United States as a whole. Observers, including the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which described Weprin’s defeat as a ‘Jewish thumping’, have suggested that the President’s relative indifference to Israel – particularly compared with some of his predecessors, notably George W. Bush – cost his party votes.

Even the former Democratic mayor of New York City, Ed Koch, criticised Obama for “throwing Israel under a bus”. Turner played on his support for the Jewish community and his party’s traditional pro-Israel stance. Turner, a Roman Catholic, might have been expected to have been at a disadvantage considering that Weprin is Jewish. To win in such circumstances would apparently underline the phenomenon of the victory.

But, despite Weprin’s religion, he was not necessarily seen as a Jew-friendly candidate. He has previously pledged his support for the controversial proposals to build an Islamic cultural centre near Ground Zero, a position that is deeply unpopular with many of the Jewish inhabitants of Brooklyn and Queens. In any case, Weprin was generally regarded as a weak candidate, particularly in comparison to the hard-working Turner, who also received high-profile endorsements from former NYC mayors Koch and Rudy Giuliani.

Even so, Turner himself barely half the number of votes received by Weiner in 2010, and just a quarter of Weiner’s 2008 total (albeit when the Democrat’s only opponent was a fringe candidate). Perhaps most damningly for the Republicans’ claims, Turner received fewer votes than he did less than a year ago in the district, and only secured the seat this time because of a complete collapse in the Democratic vote. This was no great endorsement of the Grand Old Party – although they do not necessarily require that to win in 2012, as long as there is a dramatic fall in enthusiasm for Obama.

The Massachusetts Senate special election in 2010 bears a resemblance to Turner’s success. In the Bay State vote, held following the death of long-serving Democratic stalwart Ted Kennedy, brother of the president, little-known Republican shook Washington by securing an eventually comfortable win. If Massachusetts, that liberal bastion, had turned red, commentators remarked, Obama was already in huge trouble. But, then too, Brown faced a lazy, lethargic campaign from the Democrats’ Martha Coakley, who seemed to take her election for granted. Brown, by complete contrast, campaigned tirelessly.

But Turner did not gain votes in the manner that Brown did – he only lost fewer than his opponent.

It is also somewhat disingenuous of the Republican Party to imply that New York is a homogenous, Democratic-voting liberal block – if any city is a melting-pot of cultures, peoples and political opinions, it is New York. The ninth district, indeed, is one of the most pro-GOP in the city. It backed President Obama by the relatively small margin of eleven percentage points in 2008; this is not the equivalent of the Bronx going Republican, or Utah choosing a Democratic president.

Even so, this will be of no comfort to President Obama, as he continues his nationwide tour to promote his jobs bill. Republicans will be somewhat boosted by the impression of fallibility that surround the president and his party, but they will be acutely aware that there is much work to be done if Obama is to be a one-term commander-in-chief. There was no good news for the White House from the ninth congressional district of the State of New York – but there was also less than might be expected winging its way to Rick Perry and Mitt Romney HQ.

New Zealand general election: is the contest already over?

This (southern hemisphere) spring, New Zealand will host the biggest international event in its history. Tens of thousands of foreign fans are expected to descend on the Land of the Long White Cloud for the Rugby World Cup, which kicks off next month. There is a growing wave of optimism amongst Kiwis that that the All Blacks, seemingly perennial favourites for the tournament, can reclaim the trophy for the first time since 1987. Bookmakers see New Zealand as the favourites, but as has been proved time and again, in such a competition the overall winner is difficult to predict.

That cannot be said about another national event taking place later this year. Less than five weeks after the World Cup final – and timed, surely, to take advantage of what is hoped to be feelings of national pride and contentment that will fill New Zealanders as a result of that match – sees a general election in which Prime Minister John Key is expected to consolidate his position at the head of government. Three years after ending a run of three consecutive electoral wins for the Labour Party under Helen Clark, Key’s National Party looks set to be surging towards victory – and has his sights firmly set on achieving the first majority government since Jim Bolger’s 1993 triumph.

National, a party very similar in ideology to the British Conservative Party (indeed, John Key and David Cameron share a warm personal friendship; Key was one of the first world leaders to phone with congratulations for Cameron on his entry into 10 Downing Street last year), has held comfortably held off any Labour challenge throughout this Parliament. Indeed, Labour, under former Defence Minister Phil Goff, has been consistently around 20 percentage points in arrears of National.

Admittedly, one poll published on 22 July put National just ten points ahead, on 37.7 percent. That, however, appeared to be an outlier; National has not had any other poll rating of less than 48 percent since December 2008, while Labour has not polled higher than the mid-thirties since well before its defeat three years ago. The latest Herald Digipoll survey, published last Saturday in the New Zealand Herald newspaper, makes typical grim reading for Goff. His party sits on 33 percent, with National hardly visible in the distance on 52 percent.

Such poll ratings invoke the prospect that Key can overcome the hindrances of the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system (the future of which is dependent on the result of a referendum to be held on the same day as the election) that operates in New Zealand. To ensure that an overall majority of the new parliament’s 120 MPs are coloured National blue, Key requires a majority barely larger than he attained three years ago. At that election, National won 58 seats, three short of an overall majority, on less than 45 percent of the vote. With the party polling higher than that, this could well turn out to be an era-defining election.

National, if the vast majority of the polls are to be believed, look on course to become the first party to win more than half of votes cast since the party polled 54 percent sixty years – and twenty elections – ago.

Politics in New Zealand over the last decade has, in many ways, mirrored events in the UK. Both countries had three-term Labour governments during the late 1990s and the first decade of the twenty-first century. Both National and the British Tories elected young, charismatic and telegenic leaders who undertook rebranding exercises; both fell just short of parliamentary majorities. New Zealand’s current deputy prime minister, Bill English, has overcome leading the party into a landslide defeat in 2002 to become a key member of the government, in much the same way as David Cameron’s unofficial party deputy, William Hague, put behind his disastrous loss in 2001.

There, however, the similarities seem to end. New Zealand Labour dreams of a poll showing it with only a single-digit deficit; British Labour holds a relatively consistent lead over the Tories. Cameron has negative approval ratings; John Key appears to have had a honeymoon of record length and remains enormously popular.

The problem for Labour is that their leader remains politically toxic. In the ‘preferred prime minister’ stakes, Goff is suffering even more obviously than his party. While Key got the thumbs-up from 70 percent of voters, Goff’s score of 9 percent barely beat the rating received in the same poll by Helen Clark.

And even when voters express a preference for many Labour policies over those of National – as has been the case in recent weeks, for example, with the electorate expressing a general preference for Labour’s proposed capital gains tax over the government’s desire for increased privatisation – this trend does not translate into increased support for the party.

Perhaps, then, the largest obstacle for Labour is one that they have little power to shift: the stubbornly elevated level of approval for the Prime Minister and the government in general. Both have ridden out their share of controversies with no more than superficial damage, and the New Zealand public looks set to endorse overwhelmingly their three years in office.

Key’s down-to-earth attitude, his attempts to distance himself from the widely denigrated habits of the typical politician and his anti-waste austerity drive have played well with New Zealanders, and he is seen as somebody the electorate can easily relate to. Even his cringe-worthy comedic performance on the Late Show with David Letterman, when he announced the top 10 reasons to visit his country (including having the ‘loosest slot machines in the Pacific Rim’) was hailed by supporters to demonstrate Key’s likeability.

Ignoring the personal reasons behind support for Key and his party, the political implications for New Zealand and beyond are significant. For a party to be riding so high in the polls, in spite – or even because of – its announcement of spending cuts of NZ$1bn (around £500m) over the coming year perhaps bodes well for British Conservatives and Republicans in the Unites States who have supported similar plans. The New Zealand model of deficit reduction with the retention of political popularity may well be studied closely by David Cameron and George Osborne, as well as Republican presidential candidates and, indeed, fiscal conservatives throughout the West.

This article was originally published at The Vibe

Inverclyde by-election, 30 June 2011

Inverclyde, the scene of the latest UK parliamentary by-election this Thursday, perhaps demonstrates the Conservatives' difficulties in this belt of industrial Scotland. Having witnessed a huge decline in population in the latter decades of the twentieth century, blamed by many on Thatcherism, there is no chance that the Tory candidate David Wilson will follow the example of his wonderfully named predecessor Henry Scrymgeour-Wedderburn, MP for Greenock (a previous incarnation of the Inverclyde seat) until the end of the Second World War.

Inverclyde, in whatever form it has taken, has been rock-solid Labour territory ever since. With the Tories and Liberals the only opposition, Labour candidates have not had to work up much of a sweat in order to retain the seat. At last year’s general election, David Cairns – whose death last month at the age of just 45 prompted the contest – secured 56 per cent of the vote, a majority of nearly 40 percentage points over the Scottish National Party.

Thus, on the face of it this should be a comfortable hold for the Labour candidate Iain McKenzie. The required swing of nineteen percent is not unheard of in parliamentary by-elections, but would be almost unprecedented for an opposition party to lose on a swing that large. Labour, of course, is not in power in either Westminster or Holyrood. On the other hand, Labour’s position as a receptacle for protest votes is tempered by the continued affection for Alex Salmond’s Holyrood government – this Westminster seat will see protest votes against only the Tories and, especially, the Lib Dems. Labour has even lost one thing that they had in their favour in 2010, namely a Scottish leader in the form of Gordon Brown.

Yet despite the awesome task faced by the SNP to try and snatch the seat from Ed Miliband’s party, there are admittedly faint whispers in political circles that Labour could be in danger. David Cairns was a hugely popular constituency MP. In 2010, Cairns added seven percentage points and over 3,000 votes to his majority, and the swing to him from the SNP far outstripped the Scottish average. The personal vote unwind therefore may play into the hands of the nationalists.

What is most worrying to Labour, however, was its disastrous showing in last month’s elections to the Scottish Parliament. The SNP crushed all three major opposition parties, leaving Scotland – on the constituency map – as a sea of nationalist yellow, with just a sprinkling of red, blotches of blue and extremities of Lib Dem orange.

It is true that one of those red sprinkles was the near-equivalent Holyrood constituency, Greenock and Inverclyde. The Inverclyde Westminster seat does not have the same boundaries, but as a reference, the Scottish Parliament constituency result will surely make Labour palms sweat. Although the party’s MSP Duncan McNeil held the seat, his thirteen-point majority was slashed to less than two points. The SNP increased their vote by a half, primarily from disaffected Liberal Democrat and Conservative voters, while Labour’s own gain from those parties was cancelled out by the voters who left the party for the SNP, a pattern repeated the length of Scotland.

The SNP will hope to squeeze the Westminster coalition parties’ votes and gain a significant number of those who chose David Cairns rather than his party in 2010. It would be no less than an extraordinary result should the nationalists defeat Labour on Thursday, at least on a par with their nationwide triumph in May. The SNP are likely to erode Labour’s majority, but to take the seat would be a step too far. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will both see their vote shares decline, though, as they will be starting from a much lower base, it will probably be less than the Labour equivalent.

If Ed Miliband is questioned about a poor performance, it is not difficult to see him pointing to the probable rejection of the coalition parties. But Inverclyde is about as far from a Coalitionista hotspot as there is, and it is to be hoped that such an opinion, if it is forthcoming, receives little media attention. If Labour does well, even increasing its majority, on the other hand, it will bring relief to the beleaguered Miliband leadership in Scotland, which was so tarnished by the failings last month, nominally under the party’s outgoing Scottish leader Iain Gray.

2010 result:

Lab 56
SNP 18
LD 13
Con 12
UKIP 1

Predicted 2011 result:

Lab 47
SNP 36
Con 9
LD 6
UKIP 2

The repercussions of a No to AV will inflict yet more pain on the Lib Dems

It has had more than its fair share of back-biting, aggro and, ahem, mistruths. But tomorrow, we will finally arrive at polling day, and Britain will go to the polls to decide whether to change the way we elect our MPs.

In recent days and weeks, opinion polls have shown an increasingly large lead for the NO campaign - one eve-of-election poll put YES on 32% and NO on 68%.

With an apparently unassailable lead for NO, there is little to be done in the way of predicting what will happen when the votes are counted on Friday afternoon.

On the other hand, the repercussions could be significant. Nick Clegg will have seen to have failed to get out of the coalition the one thing that his party so desperately craves - electoral reform.

Indeed, his position as Lib Dem leader - if not necessarily as Deputy Prime Minister - could be under threat. Certainly, potential challengers such as Chris Huhne, Tim Farron and Vince Cable have recently sought to assert themselves and emphasise their differences with the Conservatives, the senior partner in the coalition government.

David Cameron will be reasonably satisfied with a NO vote. Ed Miliband has supported YES, but will let the Lib Dems take the flak for the result.

The referendum was desperately pushed by the Liberal Democrats - but what looks to be its landslide rejection will demoralise the party and could cause ructions in the coalition. One thing remains to be determined - the level of fallout as a result of a NO victory.

P.S. What a waste of time and space this piece will have been if it is a YES victory!

Message to the Labour Party over PM's remarks: Calm down, dear

There seems to be a massive overreaction to David Cameron telling shadow chief secretary to the Treasury to "calm down dear".

Labour sources have apparently called the remarks sexist and patronising. OK, so perhaps the PM had no need to give that impression, but his jibe was no more than a light-hearted reference to the Michael Winner insurance advert. Ms Eagle was being particularly annoying, too - the video of the incident makes clear the shrill barracking that she was engaging in while Cameron was trying to speak.

This is Prime Minister's Questions, after all - it's not surprising he was frustrated with her unneccessary and frankly rude efforts at undermining Cameron's answers.

The PM has been noted in the past to have a genial and polite manner in his dealings with MPs' questions, including those on the opposition benches. He has not given the impression of being a bully (unlike his predecessor in Downing Street, perhaps), and today's outburst was simply him snapping in response to uncalled for heckling.

If the Labour Party attempts to make political capital out of this throwaway comment, it will say more about them than the PM (although, in fairness, Ms Eagle has not demanded an apology herself).

Liberals slip further in Canada

There are a number of polls coming out in Canada, with less than a fortnight until the general election. Canada has had minority Conservative governments since 2006, and there is nothing in the new polls to suggest that that is definitely (at least imminently) going to change.

Two such polls, both of which were carried out by Ekos- iPOlitics, have caught the eye in particular, and paint an interesting picture as to what could happen on 2nd May. One, carried out between Monday 18th and Thursday 21st, had the following figures:

Conservatives 34.4%
Liberals 24.7
New Democrats 24.7
Greens 7.8
Bloc Quebecois 6.5

Giving a likely result in terms of seats - ON A UNIFORM NATIONAL SWING - of:

Con 134
Lib 88
NDP 47
BQ 36
Grn 0
Oth 3


The other poll, albeit published on Tuesday, had Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Tories surging:

Con 37.4%
Lib 24.9
NDP 20
Grn 8.4
BQ 7.8

which would translate into the following number of seats (same caveats):

Con 147
Lib 78
NDP 38
BQ 43
Grn 0
Oth 2

The polls tell us two things. Firstly, Harper looks almost certain to form another government, but that he is close - but not close enough - to that elusive majority government.

Secondly, the Liberals are in danger of being overtaken by Jack Layton's left-of-centre NDP, which is not good news for another hapless Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff.

Thirdly, the Bloc Quebecois is struggling - with some reports even suggesting they trail the NDP in Quebec.

Interesting times.

Yes to Fairer Votes?

Just a quick post, but the graphic below shows the fallacy of AV being a more proportional system, something that many will infer from its self-titled campaign of 'Yes to Fairer Votes'.

The graphs show the results of the 1997 general election in percentage of votes (left) and percentage of seats (right). On the right-hand graph, the lighter shades demonstrate the results under AV - Labour getting even more seats (nearly 70 per cent of all seats), and the Conservatives' 30 percent of the vote accounting for just 15 per cent of the seats, or 96 constituencies. Only the Lib Dems' seat share is more proportional - is it any wonder they are the only party united in favour of AV?

P.S. Calculations of what 1997 AV result would have been are from here.

AV set to be rejected?

Interesting to see an ICM poll suggesting that NoToAV would receive 58 per cent in next month's referendum, with a huge gap opening up between the camps.

ICM is regarded by many, particularly Mike Smithson at Politicalbetting.com, as the 'gold standard' pollster, so to have such a big NO lead will surely deflate the YES campaign.

Importantly, the poll also covered Northern Ireland - I believe it is the first time any AV polls have included the province, as its differing party system means it is not included in standard Westminster voting intention questions.

I am slightly wary about this poll, though, for two reasons:

1. It is the first to give such a substantial to either side, and I wonder what has caused such a big jump (even if it was nearly a month since the last ICM poll, the only one to which this latest survey can be accurately compared).

2. I still maintain that YES voters will be more likely to turn out. As with March's National Assembly for Wales powers referendum, many people who would vote NO if they went to the polling station, simply do not care enough to actually go and mark their ballot.

The effect of differential turnout in Scotland and Wales, and those parts of England with local elections, is difficult to gauge - but it may be crucial.

I'll update the blog with any interesting sub-sample results when I have seen them.

AV campaign intensifies in increasingly bad-tempered and divisive contest

Twelve months after the general election, British election machines are once again moving up through the gears. 5th May sees a plethora of different contests across the country:

AV referendum
Scottish Parliament
Welsh Assembly
Some English councils/unitary authorities/mayoral contests
Leicester South parliamentary by-election

It is curious to note, and one cannot help but do so, that the only national vote - whether or not the UK should change its method of electing MPs from the First Past the Post system (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote (AV) - is becoming increasingly ill-tempered. Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown has, in today's Observer, issued a strong rebuke to what he termed the "scaremongering" of the NO campaign.

Lord Ashdown also described the tactics of Conservative Party chairman Baroness Warsi as "tawdry" and "indefensible". Warsi's cabinet colleague, environment secretary Chris Huhne, has already been compared to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.

I will not here go into the merits of a YES or NO vote. What is becoming apparent, however, is the relatively small role of Labour leader Ed Miliband in the campaign. Admittedly, he did cause a minor stir after apparently refusing to share a stage with Nick Clegg, but ever since he has taken a back seat role.

This may turn out to be a wise move from Miliband. His detractors might argue that he is not a strong enough leader to take a more active role in the campaign, and with his net approval rating at -19 per cent according to today's YouGov poll, he is far from an automatic vote-winner.

In addition, his party is split almost down the middle on the referendum, making it hard for Miliband to push the issue without the risk of causing splits within the party. Labour grandees Lord Prescott, David Blunkett and Margaret Beckett favour a NO vote, while most of the shadow cabinet have endorsed a YES vote.

Miliband, though, will be pleased to see members of the government attacking each other over the issue, and with Vince Cable's attack on the PM's immigration plans, cracks within the coalition are perhaps starting to emerge. The coalition government has insisted that it will not be fatally wounded whatever the referendum result in May.

But Nick Clegg will be aware that this was his flagship policy from the coalition. The Lib Dems will be demoralised should NO prevail, and Ashdown's remarks display a palpable sense of worry within Cowley Street. Ed Miliband may be backing YES, but, from a political perspective, he might not be too disheartened by a NO vote. He will be able to sit back and take advantage of the likely repercussions.

Canadian General Election, 2 May 2011

On 2 May, Canada will have yet another general election, its fourth in just seven years. Conservative leader Stephen Harper has been Prime Minister since 2006, but has always fallen short of winning a majority, something that has led to the relative instability of politics in Ottawa.

Part of the problem is the existence of one of the strongest regionalist parties in the world – the Bloc Québécois, which desires independence for Quebec. That the party perennially wins around two thirds of the province’s ridings, or approximately fifty seats (in a Parliament of 308) makes it extremely difficult for the national parties – the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats (NDP) – to secure a majority. With 154 seats required for an overall majority, that hurdle is raised that much higher by the BQ’s consistent success. The national parties, in other words, have to win around 60 per cent of the seats not captured by the BQ.

In 2008, Harper’s Tories nevertheless did come relatively close to securing that elusive majority, winning 143 seats. This time, they may finally achieve it. Polls show them leading the Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals by eight percentage points, but the Liberals appear to be closing the gap.

This seems an election to watch, albeit with the most likely result at this stage being yet another minority government for Harper. Nevertheless, I will update the blog as the election campaign develops.


2008 results:

VOTE SHARE:
Conservative 38%
Liberal 26%
Bloc Québécois 10%
New Democrats 18%
Others 8%


SEATS:
Conservative 143
Liberal 77
Bloc Québécois 49
New Democrats 37
Others 2

AV broadcasts – which will resonate?

Political election broadcasts are usually dry affairs. This is perhaps no great surprise; parties have to attempt to condense into a few minutes the highlights of their manifesto as well as compelling reasons why the other lot should not be rewarded with your vote. It was, therefore, a refreshing change – purely from a point of view which values good television entertainment – to have finally caught up with the two Alternative Vote referendum broadcasts (link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13047896).

The NO to AV broadcast was shown first, last Monday evening. Attempting to illustrate what the campaign sees as the main drawbacks of AV, it featured three separate skits. Firstly, viewers saw the return of the fictional MP Alan B’Stard (apparently having abandoned the Conservative Party, which he was portrayed as a member of in the BBC political sitcom of 1980s and 1990s). Promising a raft of populist but unaffordable measures, B’Stard reveals that AV, which the film suggests leads to perennial and inevitable coalition governments, has given him a supposedly valid excuse for abandoning his promises.

The NO campaign has used Nick Clegg’s unpopularity as a key campaign theme, and the attacks on the Liberal Democrat leader are thinly-veiled in this broadcast. B’Stard emphasises his pledge to abolish all tuition fees, echoing a similar promise in the Lib Dem manifesto. Viewers will surely have made the link that NO wanted them to: Clegg broke his promise because parliamentary arithmetic forced him into a coalition. AV would lead to perennial coalition government, and increasingly hollow manifesto commitments.

B’Stard’s cameo role is followed by a horse race, in which the third place horse, ‘Lib Dem’, is awarded the winner’s trophy. Leaving aside the veracity of the argument (and the analogy is a false one), the sketch is effective at portraying what it claims is the inherent unfairness of an electoral system in which most (initial) votes do not necessarily a winner make.

Finally, perhaps the most compelling section of the broadcast. A teacher attempts to explain AV to a class of pupils, who are flummoxed by her explanation despite her reading from a chunky ‘AV manual’. Again, the teacher’s description of the workings of the Alternative Vote are not wholly accurate, but the concept of second- and third- (etc) preference votes being used surely confuses many voters. This is perhaps the most inherent weakness of AV, and although it is not, in fact, as complex as it is purported to be in the broadcast, there is a successful emphasis placed on the perceived complexity of the system.

By contrast to the relatively professional production of the NO broadcast, the broadcast, on Tuesday, by the ‘YES! to fairer votes’ campaign was a turgid affair. It featured a number of shouty constituents cornering their MPs, putting them on the spot by implying that AV encourages them to work harder.

Certainly, there are some merits to this argument. Candidates, under AV, would have to appeal to a broader range of voters than just their core support. Perhaps, too, there would be fewer MPs who felt they could take the risk of cheating on their expenses. Many members of Parliament, however, resent the insinuation that they do not work hard enough, and have said as much in response to the broadcast.

However, such a response perhaps plays into the hands of the YES campaign, allowing them to play their strongest card – that the current system of First Past the Post is a politicians’ wheeze. Again, this is not necessarily a credible argument, especially considering that most parties actually support a YES vote. However, the prevailing anti-politician mood remains strong, and if the YES campaign can be successfully portrayed as tapping this mood, it may tip the balance in favour of change.

Purely as television features, NO was clearly a superior production. Its demonstration of AV’s supposed complexity will resonate with voters, but perhaps only those who have begun to consider the referendum question, which, I daresay, is not a high proportion of the electorate. If YES can associate a NO vote with an implicit blind eye to political misdemeanours, however, it may trump any advantage that the NO transmission accrued. It is rather difficult to assess the potential impact of two overtly negative broadcasts.

By-election provides potential troubles – and opportunities – for party leaders

Thursday sees the first electoral test of this parliament, with voters in the constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth going to the polls to choose their new MP, following the disqualification – via a rarely-convened electoral court – of Labour’s former immigration minister Phil Woolas.

With national opinion polls giving Labour a slight lead over the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats apparently stuck at around 10 percent support, the by-election gives the parties the first hard evidence of public opinion on the coalition government and its efforts to reduce the deficit, including controversial measures such as raising the cap on tuition fees.

The vote in May gave victory to Woolas by the exceptionally narrow margin of 103 votes, out of the nearly 45,000 that were cast. The defeated Lib Dem, Elwyn Watkins, successfully argued to the election court that Woolas’ electoral literature, which suggested that Watkins was in league with Islamic extremists, was untrue and slanderous, and the result was voided.

The constituency’s ability to act as a political barometer is further enhanced by the fact that Conservative candidate Kashif Ali, despite coming third in May, was still only 2,400 votes, or 5.5 percentage points, behind Woolas.

With Ali and Watkins both standing again, challenging Labour’s Debbie Abrahams, the election will indicate how the fortunes of the parties have changed in the last eight months. The stakes are high for all three party leaders, but particularly so for Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.

Miliband has failed to stamp his authority on his party, and despite Labour’s strong polling, his personal ratings have steadily declined. One recent YouGov poll for the Sunday Times suggested that his net approval ratings stand at a lowly minus 21 percent, compared to David Cameron’s 2 percent. The net level of satisfaction among Labour voters is, at 33 percent, perhaps Miliband’s biggest headache – in comparison, the PM has a massive 92 percent net approval from Tory voters.

For Miliband to lose the seat would be a damning indictment of his leadership so far. Although it would be, in all probability, much too early for his position to be challenged, it would certainly weaken him, provide a further stick for his opponents, both within the party and without, to beat him with, and boost morale within the government.

Clegg has, potentially, a much bigger problem, however. If the Liberal Democrat vote collapses on a scale indicated by national opinion polls, his days as leader of the party – and almost certainly, as Deputy Prime Minister – may well be numbered.

Lib Dem MPs, heading towards electoral oblivion, may prefer to be led by a figure less personally and politically attached to the Tory hierarchy. With elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and local councils coming up, a poor Lib Dem showing in a seat they came within a whisker of taking last May could provide the party with the motivation they needed to ditch Clegg.

The prospects of a ‘yes’ vote in the forthcoming referendum on whether the UK should adopt the Alternative Vote system – a flagship Lib Dem contribution to the coalition agreement – would also be threatened if the unpopularity of Clegg’s party makes Lib Dem campaigning for its adoption toxic. If Clegg himself, and his unwavering support for the coalition, is seen as an electoral liability, he may be forced out even before the AV referendum.

Indeed, because the coalition would be put under threat if Clegg was ousted – and in turn because of a crushing defeat for Watkins – David Cameron has apparently deliberately undertaken a low-key Conservative campaign in the constituency.

Some from within his party have complained that the Conservatives had a legitimate chance of winning the seat, or at least pushing the Lib Dems into third, which has been scuppered by the PM putting loyalty to the coalition above party partisanship.

Nevertheless, Cameron’s preferences are justified. The Tories, even if they have maintained their levels of support since the general election, would find it very tough to take the seat from a resurgent Labour Party. The Lib Dems, on the other hand, have shed support, but tactical voting from Conservatives could make it a tight race.

In any case, Cameron needs to keep the support of the Lib Dems in the House of Commons. Clegg is his key asset in this regard, so Cameron needs Clegg to be reasonably successful, and a seat in which the Tories are third gives the PM scope to shore up his coalition ally without – seriously – undermining his own leadership.

As the campaign enters its final few days, two opinion polls of the constituency have suggested that Labour holds a comfortable lead, with the Tories a poor third. It is the job of Watkins and his activists to attempt to persuade Conservatives to support him as the only option that could lead to a Labour defeat.

A convincing Labour win would give them a boost to go on the attack and put real strain on the coalition, which would be shored up by a strong Lib Dem showing, especially if Watkins is catapulted to victory on the back of support from nominally-Conservative voters. Potentially, the very political direction of the country may be determined by the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth on a chilly Thursday in January.

Obama bloodied as Republicans snatch House of Representatives

When John Boehner, the Ohioan Republican representative who is expected to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, addressed cheering crowds last Tuesday night, he burst into tears.

On a night which saw Republicans gain control of the lower house with a number of spectacular victories, his were not tears of disappointment, even if the Grand Old Party did fall short of also seizing the upper house, the Senate.

Boehner will become the third most powerful politician in the United States, after President Obama and Vice President Biden, after the Republicans routed House Democrats, gaining 60 seats to split control of Capitol Hill between the two main American parties and deal a severe blow to Obama’s hope of implementing his agenda.

Boehner insisted, however, that this is no time for Republican celebration. This may be seen as a surprise considering the dramatic turnaround in GOP fortunes after their poor showings in 2006 and 2008. However, there may be a tinge of Republican regret stemming from the fact that although the party managed to trim the Democratic Senate majority to four seats, from eighteen in 2008, the results perhaps should have been even more positive for the party.

It is the Tea Party which has caused these Republican headaches. The Tea Party, a phenomenon that has dominated this electoral cycle, is a pressure movement which is opposed to central government interference in the lives of ordinary Americans. The nascent political movement, which competed in GOP primary contests and whose darling is Sarah Palin, may well have cost the Republicans a majority in the Senate.

The Republican mainstream candidate in Delaware, Mike Castle, lost his party’s nomination to an eccentric extremist backed by the Tea Party, Christine O’Donnell, who was even forced to deny rumours that she was a witch. Castle, the moderate former governor of the state, had polled consistently ahead of the Democratic candidate, Chris Coons by appealing to centrists. O’Donnell nullified this effect after her defeat of Castle, allowing Coons to win the state with some ease.

What would have been the most high-profile Republican scalp was the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who hung on to his Nevada seat. His challenger, arch-conservative Sharron Angle, committed a number of faux-pas on the campaign trail, including her declaration in support of the US withdrawing from the United Nations, in part to protest against the UN’s tendency to promote “fraudulent science such as climate change”. As with O’Donnell in Delaware, Angle isolated moderates and managed to snatch defeat for the Republicans from the jaws of victory in a contest against a very poorly regarded incumbent in Senator Reid.

There were some successes for the Tea Party, most notably for Marco Rubio, tipped as a future GOP presidential candidate, who was elected to the Senate candidate in the crucial state of Florida, comfortably defeating his former Republican colleague and incumbent senator Charlie Crist.

Nevertheless, the movement has had a polarising effect which may prove to be toxic to the Republicans’ chances of regaining the White House in 2012. O’Donnell, Angle, Joe Miller of Alaska (who was defeated by a write-in candidate, incumbent Republican senator Lisa Murkowski) and other right-wing politicians may have benefited amongst traditional conservatives, but have not endeared themselves to moderate Americans.

It may have been that Boehner’s tears betrayed a sense of apprehension at the looming prospect of a civil war for the soul of the Republican Party. That the GOP failed to pick up states that they might have been expected to win had there not been a divisive Tea Party-backed candidate instead of a moderate may have actually pleased the Republican establishment. Time alone will tell if the Tea Party proves to be a busted flush, but Republicans must hope that its influence and its polarising tendencies will have been severely blunted by its failures.

A further difficulty faced by the GOP is the distinct lack of credible, unifying challengers to Obama in 2012. Moderate Republicans such as Mitt Romney may be more appealing to Middle America, but the GOP base is far more enthusiastic for more conservative figures such as Palin. Tea Partyers – Palin was outspoken in her backing for Angle, Miller and O’Donnell – will have had their credentials weakened, however, by last week’s disappointments.

But if the generally positive results were tinged with some frustration for Republicans, then the Democrats find themselves in rather more trouble. Just two years after his triumphant and historic victory, Obama faces the prospect of political deadlock on Capitol Hill.

What will have pained – not to mention worried – the Democrats is the loss of a number of traditionally liberal states to Republican candidates. Perhaps most notable of these was Illinois, the state Obama himself represented in the Senate prior to 2008. The Prairie State, with a population of thirteen million and which gave Obama 62 percent of the vote two years ago, elected Mark Kirk, who won relatively comfortably in spite of allegations that he partly fabricated his military record, to the Senate and came within a whisker of taking the Governor’s mansion.

Obama’s approval ratings have been consistently below 50 percent, and among registered independents – a voting bloc which launched him into the White House – numerous polls have shown less than 40 percent approve of his presidency. Even Democrats have taken issue with their president. In the Democratic bastion of Rhode Island, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate told Obama to take his endorsement and “shove it”. He came third; the victor was an independent liberal.

Indeed, some Democratic victors may prove to be a challenge for Obama and the party hierarchy to work with. Joe Manchin, elected to the Senate to represent West Virginia, is a self-depicted conservative Democrat who has made a great issue out of the fact that he opposed President Obama’s plan to incentivise the reduction of carbon dioxide production.

Yet, in what may be seen as a blessing in disguise, Republican control of the House of Representatives may take some of the pressure off Obama and the Democrats. Obama may well attempt to pin the blame for political deadlock on to a stubborn Republican-led House. In addition, through worsening economic times, Republicans will not be able to wash their hands of responsibility and will have no choice but to share some of the blame. The anti-incumbency wave ridden by so many Republicans may not last now that they are part of the establishment.

In spite of the apparent torrent of bad news for Democratic strategists last Tuesday, the midterm elections still provide Obama and his party with hope. They will know that, but for the influence of the Tea Party, they may well have lost both Houses of Congress. Obama will also be warmed by the slim possibility of a unifying Republican candidate being selected following the long and divisive primary season, which starts in just fourteen months time.

Perhaps it was the thought of the hurdles ahead that drove Boehner to tears. Tuesday’s results were a great success for his Republican Party; but he as much as anyone is aware that there is little scope for celebration.

As the Browne Report is unveiled, Durham students express their views on the issue of tuition fees

AW, 4th year, St Aidan’s, Chemistry:

I think it’s really terrible – I don’t know how my brother is going to pay for his education. I’m glad I have got through before the changes are implemented. If Durham had cost more than other universities, I wouldn’t have been able to come here; my sister has ended up staying at home because of the cost of university.



CL, 3rd year, St Aidan’s, Archaeology:

It might work in a purist economic world, but the education of the individual is of value to society as a whole on more than just an economic level.



DCC, 3rd year, Grey, Politics:

I think that the Browne Report would represent an irreversible change in the affordability and the social mobility of our education system. The changes will create a tiered higher education system, with the debt burden caused by going to a prestigious universities being potentially off-putting to students from poorer backgrounds. I hope that Durham will strengthen its bursary and outreach programmes in order to mitigate against this.



CT, 3rd year, St Aidan’s, Politics:

It reduces education to a personal investment. It puts the entire cost of education onto an individual and neglects the role of both society and industry in funding education. I am very concerned about the idea of variable fees.



MV, 3rd year, St Aidan’s, Law:

The ever-expanding format of the country’s university system is weakening the quality of our institutions and courses. Therefore an uncapped tuition fee is one way of reducing the numbers in the university system and return quality to British education.



Not everyone is concerned though:

Anonymous, Van Mildert:

I haven’t heard of the report. Is it written by Dan Brown, author of the Da Vinci Code?

Labour prepares to enter a new era

Perhaps the 2010 general election will go down as being a good one to have lost. There is a widespread acceptance that whatever complexion the resulting government would have been would have had, as a matter of urgency, to deal with the stunning level of national debt. How hard, indeed, did Labour try to win?

Their last year in office was marked by a series of debacles, including botched leadership challenges, Gordon Brown’s hapless attempts to interact with the electorate and rumours of his temper paralysing the workings of inner government. To say that the previous government followed a scorched earth policy would probably be to take it too far, though Liam Byrne, Labour’s last Chief Secretary to the Treasury, appeared to allude to his government’s reckless spending habits when he left a note to his successor advising him that “there’s no money left”.

It is very hard to imagine a Labour government wishing to face the problems now encountered by the coalition government. One party staying in office for three terms naturally makes the public weary and increasingly attracted by the prospect of change (though the Conservatives failed to fully capitalise on such feelings during the campaign).

Yet the issue of cuts would still have needed to be addressed, in a Labour fourth term, whatever some Labour leadership contenders might pretend. As we are beginning to see, a conflict with the unions would become inevitable, and while this might be seen by some as a predictable result of a Conservative in Downing Street, for a Labour government to be presiding over general strikes might be seen as civil war.

Admittedly, Labour would have been less likely to have been quite so harsh to implement cuts, but the legacy of the winter of discontent, which brought down James Callaghan’s government and brought about eighteen years of Tory rule, still haunts Labour’s relations with the trade unions.

As it is, Labour is now on the verge of choosing a leader who may well be the next prime minister. Unlike the post-1997 Tories, who had three unsuccessful leaders (William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard), Labour has a realistic chance of returning to office relatively soon, and therefore realises that it must choose wisely.

For the government, it may all seem a little unfair. They have no choice but to reduce the public debt, something which Labour failed to address – (perhaps intentionally) – whilst they were in government.

The problem is the issue of how savagely expenditure should be cut. Public sector workers, perhaps eyeing developments in Greece and France, are naturally very worried about austerity packages, and scorn the Conservatives’ insistence that “we are all in this together”.

Unfortunately there is very little choice. We cannot continue to spend beyond our means. Unfortunately, some services will have to go, or else the situation will continue to be exacerbated for future generations. The sooner the clichéd ‘tough, long-term’ decisions are taken, the better. The later these cuts are left, the closer Britain will get to joining the economic graveyard of the GIP countries.

The previous Labour government, which endowed us with the majority of the problems, including giving bankers such as Fred Goodwin a free rein to borrow far beyond their means, will hope to appear as an innocent party in the sorry tale of the current problems we face. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have started the attempts to clean up this mess, and have been predictably pilloried for it.

It is to be hoped that their decisions shall, in time, not be seen to have been taken out of a particular desire to slash public services, but out of an unfortunate forced necessity.

As the end approaches, there are no real signs of great public enthusiasm

And so begins the last full week of campaigning before the General Election. For political junkies, it has undeniably been a fascinating battle so far, with the phenomenal rise of the Liberal Democrats – or perhaps more accurately, of Nick Clegg personally – capturing the imagination of the media.

There has apparently also been a great public interest in this ‘Cleggmania’, with one Facebook group, aiming to recreate the success of Rage against the Machine by propelling the Lib Dems into government, already attracting well over 150,000 members.

This is not necessarily a reflection of the country at large, though. Walking around Durham, signs of an impending election are conspicuous by their absence.

There is a smattering of posters backing the Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates, as well as a couple supporting the Conservative outsider and even one for the BNP. But the streets are hardly awash with indications of party support, in spite of the fact that this is a key marginal.

The media has assumed that since the leaders’ debates began, the level of public interest in the election has rocketed. It is true that this is the case to a certain extent, with fairly high viewing figures of around ten million for the first debate. The second, however, attracted just one tenth of the electorate, a figure so low that it cannot be entirely pinned on the fact that it was not broadcast live on terrestrial television.

Undoubtedly, the debates have sparked some interest in the campaign. However, paradoxically they appear to have taken the focus off issues of policy. Clegg’s strong showing, which has lifted his party into second place nationally ahead of Labour, has raised the strong possibility of a hung parliament, now the most likely result, according to bookmakers.

As such, the news has been led by speculation as to what might happen should there be a hung parliament. Most of Monday’s newspapers’ lead stories recount the parties’ positioning on these matters.

The Conservatives, who for long periods of the last five years looked to be able to start preparing for a majority government (including some polls suggesting a victory equivalent even to Tony Blair’s 1997 landslide win), have had to adjust their message particularly dramatically.

Their slogan, advocating people to ‘Vote for Change’, has been adopted by Clegg, who has called for a completely fresh break from the ways of the “two old parties”. In response, the Tories have tried to convey a ‘Vote Yellow, Get Brown’ message, and have insisted that elements within coalition governments, by their very nature, would bicker and have self-interests at heart – at a time in which tough decisions need to be made.

Labour has an even greater problem, with their current third place under little doubt. Although this does not preclude them from picking up the most seats, Clegg was fairly unequivocal last weekend that he would not prop up Gordon Brown if Labour finished third in the popular vote.

Labour, predictably, have seized on such comments, with the typically articulate Lord Mandelson warning voters that if they were to “flirt” with Clegg, they could end up “married to Dave and George [Osborne]”.

The Lib Dems, by contrast, must be enjoying their elevated status. It is unlikely to last, however. In all probability, the aftermath of the election will result in Clegg having to choose one of either Brown or Cameron to go into coalition with.

This could be a potentially damaging time for the party, with the options of backing Brown, whose party will most likely finish no higher than second in share of the vote, or choosing Cameron. Entering a coalition with the second-place party would surely conflict with the Lib Dem commitments to a fair voting system, while the latter option could split his party, two-thirds of which is more closely aligned with Labour than with the Tories.

It is only nine days until polling day, and postal ballots have already landed on doormats. Yet the parties are continuing to play a complicated game, asking supporters of other parties to vote tactically, warning that a vote for Clegg is a vote for Cameron (according to Labour) or a vote for Brown (according to the Conservatives).

The Lib Dems, for their part, have attempted to overcome such perceptions, insisting that they will not sacrifice their principles if or when they enter a coalition.

The electorate may be fed up of such politicking. But for most political anoraks, speculation over such scenarios has further fuelled interest in this, the most exciting and unpredictable election for generations.

The rise (and rise?) of the Lib Dems

This time last year the polls were fairly steady. One, the fieldwork of which ended on 18th April 2009, gave the Conservatives 45 percent, nineteen points ahead of Labour with the Liberal Democrats a further nine points back.

What a difference a year makes. 52 weeks is an eternity in politics. In nine of the last ten polls published, the Lib Dems have surged into at least second place, even leading in two, ending a sustained period of Conservative domination in which the Tories led in well over 300 consecutive polls.

Who would have thought it? (And who would have thought that this surge – a term the media seems to have collectively branded it, which seems an understatement – would be pushed from the top of the news bulletins by a non-fatal Icelandic volcano – admittedly rather an inconvenient one.)

It is an astounding turn of events. The polls suggest that the Lib Dems have doubled their vote in a matter of days, apparently thanks to the strong showing of Nick Clegg in the first Prime Ministerial debate last Thursday, which has been covered in detail elsewhere on this site.

It is barely believable that 90 minutes of admittedly engrossing primetime entertainment have put such a radically different complexion on British politics. This phenomenon is particularly curious considering that less than a quarter of the electorate actually tuned in, which comprised barely one third of people who were watching television at that time.

It was the creation of a media narrative which provided the greatest lift for the Lib Dems. At times, this has bordered on the ridiculous. One Sunday newspaper declared that Nick Clegg is the most popular politician since Winston Churchill, and this was symptomatic of a hyperbolic reaction from the public.

On Monday, Boris Johnson, in a typically non-politically correct article, compared so-called Cleggmania to the reaction to the death of Princess Diana in 1997.

The reaction should not be dismissed, though. Indeed, with barely a fortnight to go before the electorate trudges to the polling booths, it cannot be dismissed. A hung parliament has suddenly rocketed into being bookmakers’ ‘favourite’ status.

It is equally astonishing that Gordon Brown and David Cameron have been forced to attack Lib Dem policies, particularly their pledge not to renew the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons, their support for the single European currency and their “unrealistic” tax-cutting promises.

The problems for the Tories and Labour – who can no longer be referred to accurately as the ‘two main parties’ – is that Clegg’s party has picked up support from them both.

From the Tories, this consists of anti-Labour ‘change’ voters who might have been uneasy backing the party still associated with Margaret Thatcher. From Labour, the party has attracted left-wingers who find Clegg and his team far more appealing than the recently-dissolved administration.

It is anyone’s guess as to whether the Lib Dems can sustain their bounce. It was, after all, the first debate that so boosted them initially; there are two more of them to come. The final one of these three, one week before polling day, is on the economy and likely to be Clegg’s weakest.

The Liberal Democrats’ policies will also come under increased scrutiny. There has been speculation that their Europhilia will be at the forefront of this, and this might clash with what is generally accepted to be Britain’s scepticism over the Euro and perhaps even the EU itself. Lib Dem promises to offer an amnesty to some illegal immigrants is another controversial proposal.

Even so, it will undoubtedly take more than this to deflate the Lib Dems. Clegg took to the podium against Cameron and Brown on ITV on Thursday with a message that resonated with a disillusioned British public.

In such a volatile political environment, it would be futile to make a prediction as to what will happen before 6th May. One thing that cannot be disputed, though, is that this election will be one of the most fascinating for decades.

Election race kicks off as Labour launches bid for unprecedented fourth consecutive term

In what must bring a weary smile to the faces of the British public, disillusioned with politicians and their moats, trouser presses and bell towers, Monday marked the official dissolution of Parliament, and with it the close of a particularly turbulent period at Westminster.

There are, technically, no longer any MPs, and will not be until Parliament – in whatever complexion the electorate chooses – returns on 18th May.
With the credibility of politics arguably at an all-time low, today was also the day that Labour set out its blueprint for what they hope will be their record fourth consecutive term in government.

Perhaps the toughest task for members of an incumbent administration – particularly one which has served for thirteen years – is to keep voters inspired to vote for your party. It is easy to go negative, but such an approach probably isolates at least as much of the electorate as it galvanises.

So today’s launch of the Labour Party manifesto was a tricky task for Gordon Brown. Although the polls have tightened somewhat since the beginning of the year, Labour tends to trail the Conservatives by around seven or eight points.

The progress the party makes by continuing negative attacks will be limited. Sunday’s revelations about Labour supposedly targeting cancer patients, in what the opposition has labelled “scaremongering”, as well as the farcical portrayal of David Cameron as Gene Hunt, have demonstrated this.

A further concern for the government is that, in the context of the dire economic situation (whether one blames Labour or praises their handling of the crisis), there is a fine line to be drawn between being positive and appearing to bury the governmental head in the sand.

With these factors taken into consideration, the manifest launch was relatively successful. Granted, the illustration on the cover of the document brings to mind some sort of advertisement for a brand of butter, but most of the contents churned out from the Labour Party dairy are likely to provoke broadly positive reactions from the public and the media.

The headline measures include a pledge not to increase income tax levels, giving parents the right to dismiss failing headteachers and speeding up the time cancer patients have to wait for test results.

On the other hand, the manifesto also speaks loudly by its silence on certain issues. There is no guarantee not to raise the level of VAT, for example, a charge in recent days levelled against the Conservatives, most notably by the Liberal Democrats.

Of course, manifestos ensure that parties become hostages to fortune. The Conservatives have helpfully produced a list of what it describes as 102 broken Labour manifesto pledges from 2005. Such a list is designed to undermine trust in Brown and his party.

The most infamous such assurance was the promise not to return to “boom and bust”. Five years on, emerging from the worst recession since the 1930s, hindsight has revealed that Labour simply provided a stick for the other parties to beat it with.

Likewise, the promise to hold a referendum on the European Union constitutional treaty – which (albeit with some amendments) was pushed though Parliament by Labour MPs – incited similar hostility.

Nick Clegg has waded in and raises the point that Labour will perhaps find the most difficult to deflect: that the government of Blair and Brown have had thirteen years to ensure that there will be “a future fair for all”. If such policies are so meritorious, why, asked the Lib Dem leader, have they not already been introduced?
Despite such inevitable criticism, there is no doubt that Monday saw Labour finally leave the blocks of this election campaign, after being caught flat-footed by a number of episodes last week.

After setting out their stall, they will have to hope that the British people like what they hear and will reinstall Brown in Downing Street.

The Tories and the Lib Dems launch their manifestos later this week. With the first television debate scheduled for Thursday on ITV, serious assessment of the race to Downing Street will be a much simpler task by this time next week.