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.