Politics 2015: understanding the outcome

“Hello young man, do you know we’ve soon got an election coming up?”

Ha, thought I, he obviously was unaware of the type of company of I worked for.

“I am.” I said.

“Well can I ask, will you be voting for UKIP? There are many young people like you now joining our party.”

Oh my goodness, I thought. I am being cajoled/ harassed into voting UKIP by a canvasser using nudge theory, on my own doorstep!

“I’m not.” I said, with my arms folded. “I’m really not quite sure why voting for UKIP would be in my interest, indeed for the rest of the country.”

I’ll be honest, I’ve normally got a lot of time for people who go knocking on doors to talk about politics. 

Yes, it’s quite self-serving i.e. they’re just looking for voter intention and data for their own records, but it is quite a task to knock on the majority of doors in a constituency and ask what people care about and dislike.

“Well...” said the man.

If I was guessing, he was in his late sixties. He wore a tweed jacket, had slightly unkempt grey hair, merrily rotund. Overall quite friendly.

“It’s in all our interest because we no longer have control of our borders, we no longer have control to make our own rules. It’s all in done in Brussels now you see.”

Wow, I thought, he’s gone straight for the nuclear argument. He didn’t even ask me how long I’d lived here, where I worked or if I had any particular concerns about the local area.

“So, what do you suggest?” I retorted. “We pull out entirely? I’m all for reforming the place, very much so, but I’ve yet to hear how the transition period would work.”

Then came the numbers. The costs. The statistics. The data.

In the end, it was a case of agreeing to disagree, but here was a UKIP man on our doorstep. That was pretty unheard of in Harrogate. I remember once upon a time seeing them drive around the town centre with a megaphone attached to their car, reeling off number after number. This was in the years after The Referendum Party, when UKIP weren’t even considered to be on the fringes, but quite extreme. Now we’re in a world where they have the UK’s biggest representation within the EU Parliament and are considered to be ‘mainstream’. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by his appearance.

Yet, we’re still adjusting to it all. The left look on in glee as the right splinters and the Conservatives are dragged between their traditional base and the election winning centre ground, whereas the right are savouring the shambolic state of centre left politics led by Ed Miliband and his day-to-day issues. While the Lib Dems may have a place in Government after the next election, who’s not to say that power may lie from within the clutches of either Nigel Farage or the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon, if not in this election, then perhaps 2020.

The leaders' debate 2010.

There are no absolute truths in politics and the shape of the 2015 General election is becoming very interesting and completely unexplainable. A recent poll now puts the Conservatives ahead of the Labour Party by three points, but even in an economic recovery can we expect a Tory majority? Though some cruelly argue that a corpse could have done better against Gordon Brown in the 2010 election, is it likely that Conservatives will be able to maintain all their current seats, as well as gain the 40 or so more needed to gain a majority? The polls suggest it is unlikely.

The loyalty towards Labour’s Ed Miliband appears hollow and more importantly do voters have a real idea of what a Labour-led government would do with almost six months to go? Even the so-called 35% strategy may be pushing it at this rate.

Then there are the Lib Dems. Notoriously entrenched in the seats they hold and formidable grassroots campaigners, another ‘unknown unknown’ in this election is to whether they will be able to hold on to as many seats they forecast. Opinion polls before the 2010 election gave them a healthy 23%, yet they have slumped on average to this Parliament to a mere 7%. Will the public punish them for being part of the Government? Or will they claw on and fight?

The new SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon

Politicians and commentators often hint at the suggestion that when a General Election comes round and things ultimately get serious, people always revert to the mainstream parties. There is an historic precedence to this and who can disagree with facts. Yet, we don’t have that certainty and politicians are hesitant to jump to a conclusion that there will be a regression to the mean. Call it an end to ‘three party politics’ or as the UKIP MP Douglas Carswell calls it ‘iDemocracy’, times are changing.

What is interesting to see is that the emergence of UKIP and SNP and their subsequent rise is not simply down to the state of affairs from the established parties or a mood of anti-Westminster. Both SNP and UKIP, have successfully used a mixture of old and new campaigning techniques, along with a charismatic and likeable leader, to not only to get themselves recognised, but have a voice at the table. The question for the long-term is whether their campaigning can bring in support, money, votes and ultimately policies.

I did not go away and vote UKIP in the European elections. Yet, I went away and told numerous people that I spoke to one of their campaigners. Politics works in funny ways and until May 7 and the counting thereafter, we may only really have an idea then to what new politics really is.

Midterm blues: Can Cameron step up?

All governments suffer from mid-term blues, but for the current administration, it appears to be getting worse and worse. Since Chancellor George Osborne’s spring budget, the Conservative party’s poll ratings have fallen to their lowest in eight years.

Beyond the double-dip recession, the government has encountered negative press coverage regarding granny taxes, pasty taxes, charity taxes, caravan taxes and IMF loans. Furthermore, serious questions have been raised over the Home Secretary Teresa May’s inability to deport the hate preacher Abu Qatada and the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s dealings with News International over the BSkyB takeover. It was finally capped off after one Tory backbencher labelled both the Chancellor and Prime Minister David Cameron as ‘two arrogant posh boys who don’t know the price of milk’.

Osborne was recently asked when he last ate a pasty

By all precedents, the government of the day should not be too concerned about ratings half way through a Parliament. In 1981, Margaret Thatcher suffered terrible poll ratings, only 18 months into her tenure. Likewise, Tony Blair and New Labour faced an internal meltdown after the 2000 autumn fuel protests. Both went onto to win comfortably in the ensuing general elections.

As ridiculous as it sounds, the government of the day must also be prepared to take a battering in local and other elections. In 2008, during a recession and the unfolding days of Gordon Brown, New Labour lost the mayoralty election in London, nine councils and 334 councillors. When voters go to the ballot box this week, Labour will expect a host of victories across the country, whereas the Tories and Liberal Democrats should expect a decline in the polls. It is an ongoing exercise of electoral swings and roundabouts.

Strategically, the government’s main concern will be focussed on the next general election, probably in 2015. It is a time when voters truly voice their views on the current administration and whether they deserve another term in office. For the Tories, at this midterm point, the possibility of a majority government looks rather bleak. Despite a raft of radical policies including education and welfare reform, the payback is by no means guaranteed. Not only are they shackled to the electorally unpopular Lib Dems and face a slumping economy, but fundamentally, the Tories are still failing to shake off their image as a party of the rich.

Despite the government’s mission to reduce the size of the state and tackle the burden of a welfare culture, the Labour party constantly harangues the government’s ‘all in this together’ message and the current Cabinet’s composition of millionaires. Introducing reform to the NHS is portrayed as privatisation. Reducing the higher rate of tax from 50p to 45p, though economically sensible, is viewed as a tax break for millionaires, not so wise at a time of wage freezes, high unemployment and high inflation. It should be noted that Labour, still burdened as economically incompetent by the electorate, has yet to announce any of their own policies.

These problems link to the government’s ineffective communication strategy. Not only is the message weak, but it lacks the hard hitters to consistently reaffirm it. Mrs Thatcher’s attack dog was Norman Tebbit, whilst New Labour wasn’t afraid to throw John Prescott or John Reid to fend off the media. Despite the obvious constraints of dealing with a coalition government, even Conservative-only issues such as the current involving Jeremy Hunt lack any high-fliers to defend him. Apparently BBC Newsnight could only find backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg willing to appear on air. In a world of Twitter and 24-hour news, where opponents have a platform to criticise you immediately, it is important to have lieutenants in place to control the message.

Health Secretary's heckling.

It is twenty years since John Major was elected as Prime Minister in the 1992 election. Amazingly, Major polled over 14 million votes; the highest by any British party leader, even Blair and Thatcher. Perhaps it is more extraordinary when one contends the discontent regarding the poll tax and the effects of the ‘Lawson boom’. Certainly, no leader could expect such a result with the growth in regional parties such as Plaid Cymru and the SNP, but how ascertainable is winning a majority?

A recent poll by the Conservative Home website states that only 23% of party members believe that David Cameron can win a majority in the next election. Cameron is an extremely talented politician and continuously has better poll ratings than his party, not to mention other party leaders. Since his leadership victory in 2005, he has helped the Tories rebrand themselves as greener and more caring. However, no inquiry has taken place as yet to see why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority in the 2010 election. Why was it that a tired and economically-imprudent Labour party managed to hang on to as many seats as they did? According to some sources it is something you dare not speak about when in Number 10.

As the story in today’s Sunday Times suggests, ethnic minority voters are still wary to vote Tory. In fact, only 16% voted Conservative in the last election. This should be concerning because beyond the fact that this population is set to make of a fifth of the electorate by 2050, many of the party’s traditional pro-business and pro-family policies should attract these voters, not deter them. It highlights not what the party represents but what it says and looks like. There are few Tory MPs from ethnic minority backgrounds and we certainly don’t hear from them. It is the same in regards to the north. Maybe besides Eric Pickles, we rarely hear any northern accents. The party’s policy agenda has been impressive, yet it tends to be the same old faces that we hear from.

More talented politicians from different backgrounds like Paul Uppal MP

Maybe it is possible to over analyse these things, particularly halfway through an election cycle and when things look slightly unfavourable. As Norman Tebbit says, “if suspected terrorists were being kicked out, taxes and unemployment were going down and pay going up, it wouldn’t matter if it was being reported that the Prime Minister liked to lay in the baths full of champagne drinking Chateau Laffite, after a hard day’s hunting on one of Rebekah Brooks’s horses, the public wouldn’t give a damn.” Probably true as well.

If Cameron fails to win the next election, no matter how popular and reforming he may be, he will always be held in a lower regard. Certainly lower than Thatcher, most likely Major and perpetually compared to Heath.  It will not be Osborne stepping up, but one Boris Johnson.

You take the high road! - Scottish independence

Wales will be making final preparations for their Rugby World Cup semi-final tomorrow against France in New Zealand. Yet, as the only home nation remaining in the competition, many countries, including England, will be lending their support towards the French and beyond that New Zealand, to win the tournament outright. Sporting rivalries transcend traditional barriers and we are used to reading about hostilities descending across households when city rivals compete against each other in the local derby; but much of the national sporting rivalries have been antagonised from political factions and recently, the greater debate for Scottish independence and an English Parliament. Sport aside, would this really be a desirable outcome and would it really change the way the Union is governed?

For the past 10 years, a lone voice has become louder and louder in his desire to see a Scotland, independent of Westminster and England, his name is Alex Salmond. Salmond began his career as an economist at the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) before joining the ranks of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to where he has become the most prominent actor. Salmond, who spent time as a SNP MP at Westminster before standing to become the First Minister at the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, is best known for his quick and cerebral wit and expanding waistline. This aside, Salmond has continuously argued for greater determination for Scotland and one that can look after its own financial and strategic affairs.

Why would Scotland or Wales want to leave the Union? What has distinctly changed? In all fairness, calls for Welsh independence have been much quieter and the devolution acts at the turn of the last century were important in identifying the Welsh language and culture. Whereas in Scotland the calls have steadily grown, 50 years ago less than one per cent of the population voted for the SNP, yet now in 2011 we have a SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament. Why after over 300 years since the Act of Union in 1707 does Scotland see itself as more separate? For 300 years, Britain and the notion of ‘Britishness’ was distinct through Empire and the wars in which the Army and Royal Navy, drawn from all areas of the British Isles (including Ireland), fought. The wars in the Americas are notorious for the role of the Welsh Fusiliers and the Battle of Waterloo was lead by the cavalrymen of the Royal Scots Greys. It was also said that all across the Empire that for every Englishman there were ten Scotsman – building the railways or manning the garrisons in every isolated outpost. Yet, despite the link of the army and the Royal Family, links between ordinary families have declined with the dissipation of British industry. No longer, do Glasgow shipbuilders have the same links to the ports of Liverpool or Hull, nor the identity of Scottish miners with the collieries in Nottinghamshire or South Wales. Industrial decay has beset a British decline.

To the English, they have been irked by the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’ that has allowed Scottish MPs to vote on English matters, yet Westminster MPs could not hold sway over affairs north of the border. Party politically it is changing as well, the dominance of the SNP has saw the decline of traditional Labour safe seats and recently the Scottish Conservatives put forward an idea to move the party away from the its southern cousin. The English see the Scottish or ‘Jocks’ as lazy and subsidised by the revenues of the City of London. In fact, Aberdeen is the UK’s second richest city and Scotland’s budget deficit, if you include North Sea oil revenues, is well within the 3% limit of the European Union’s regulations, meaning it can compete without the handouts from England. Much of the scorn exists through the perceived inequalities that English taxpayers must pay for prescriptions, tuition fees and elderly care, something the Welsh and Scottish Governments provide free.

Alex Salmond has a vision of Scotland becoming a prosperous state, a mixture between Norway and Switzerland, an economy based on financial services and energy wealth. Scotland, as Europe’s windiest country, hopes to use the power of wind energy to become carbon neutral by 2020 and no longer rely on carbon fuel. However, the ‘arc of prosperity’ of countries like Iceland and Ireland that Salmond saw Scotland amongst, were engulfed in their own financial crises. Scotland’s two financial leviathans, the Bank of Scotland and RBS being saved by the UK Government and massively recapitalised by taxpayers’ money. Prominent Scots in England like the former Chancellor Alastair Darling said that an independent Scotland would have collapsed something Salmond remained muted about.

A Scotland with greater financial powers, control of its own waters (fisheries and oil) is the ideal that Salmond puts forward. Yet, the indecision within the Eurozone highlights the vulnerability of Scotland’s vision within the EU. After decolonisation we saw scores of new countries come into existence under the premise that life under your own flag is much better, yet despite globalisation, life for smaller countries relies on heavily on remittances from Diaspora and factors outside of their borders. The dream that Scotland will become a country similar to Scandinavian nations also seems uncertain, who is not to say that if Scotland obtains independence then the Shetland and Orkney Islands won’t follow the same path, taking the hydrocarbon revenues away with them.

The relationship that will continue to evolve for Scotland will probably be a semi-independent or ‘devolution max’, whatever you want to call it. One that retains the Royal Family, the currency, diplomatic corps and armed forces (minus Trident). Until then the English will continue to talk about Irn-Bru and deep-fried Mars Bars and the Scots will continue to back the opposition every time the England take to the sporting field.