Fight Night: will we see a 2015 live political debate?

For any political anorak, General Election night is one of the few occasions when staying up all night is a must. The exit polls, the swing-o-meter and the live interviews from the count all make for an entertaining night and early morning’s viewing. 2010 was no different and the campaign stands out for two particularly moments. Firstly, Gordon Brown’s cringing faux pas where he labelled off-camera and what he thought was off-mic, a life-long Labour supporter called Gillian Duffy ‘a bigoted woman’. Moments like this occur on every campaign trail, but what was most memorable this time around and completely untested was the live electoral debates.

On three separate occasions, Brown, Cameron and Clegg all duelled in live debates about matters that would sway how the British public would vote. Other Western democracies are used such set-ups, most notably in America, and despite frequent appearances on the likes of the Today programme or The Marr Show, such an event had never been held on British screens. In the context of UK politics, it was a chance for all three parties to gain. Gordon Brown felt that despite Labour’s lacklustre poll rating and the economic backdrop, he had nothing to lose, as well as his utterance that this was ‘no time for a novice’. David Cameron, his closest rival, buoyed by his polling had an opportunity to demonstrate the rebranding of his Conservatism. The dynamics of Britain’s three party system also gave a chance to a widely unknown Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

The 2010 debate

And it was Clegg who stole the show. The entire nation ‘agreed with Nick’ and as a consequence, Britain’s third party took 56 seats, down from the 2005 count, but substantial enough to see Britain’s first ‘hung’ Parliament since 1974. For most electoral strategists, there are many reasons to question why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority, but the ‘Clegg-factor’ was substantial enough to sway the ballot towards no overall control. The following five days in May saw the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to join together to form today’s Coalition Government.

To this date, and a General Election less than two years away, there is no agreement in place to whether we will see similar debates in 2015. And even despite Clegg’s performance last time, the question will be whether all three parties would want it to take place. The viewing figures from 2010 were around 10 million. That’s unheard of for political programming and simply cranks up the pressure on all party leaders, but if it has been done before and worked, why would the broadcasters not want to do it again?

And for the leaders, would they really want it to go ahead?

For the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg, history may well hold them hostage. The party remains bullish about its record in government and its ability to hang onto its seats. The Eastleigh by-election demonstrated their ability to win whilst in Government and the party grassroots will be as combative as ever. Yet Mr Clegg is no longer the outsider to the British public and they may well remember his paper promises come the vote next time, even if he puts in a strong broadcast performance. A debate may simply be part of a long drawn out annihilation.

For the Tories, David Cameron has yet to say on-record that he is willing to take part in similar debates, but it is more than likely that political pressure would force him to do so. Many would argue that Cameron remains the party’s biggest asset and that on all occasions when he has been put on the spot, most notably over Europe; he has triumphed and shown his statesman-like qualities. Yet others are quick to blame his 2010 performance for the party’s inability to win the previous vote outright. The continuing rebellion among backbenchers and the irresistable rise of Boris Johnson may put the pressure on Cameron on further. History shows that most leaders do not go onto better their previous vote, for many within the party; it may be another reason why they see it fit to unseat Mr Cameron’s leadership.

And what about Ed Miliband? The leader that to some extent remains an unknown quantity to the British public.  Would a ‘one-nation’ Labour transcend in a live leadership debate? Would voters warm to a Mr Miliband whose performances have become stronger since his rise to party leader in 2010? Or would they be turned off by his personality? His awkwardness and most notably, his political legacy in the Brown Government? Neither he nor Ed Balls have said that Labour overspent in the time in Government, despite Britain having the biggest deficit in the G8. Could a strong message and performance from Cameron and Clegg simply vanquish all rebranding attempts made by Labour?

Is it democratically unfair to ignore the likes of Farage and Salmond?

And what of UKIP or the SNP? Nigel Farage could well see his party storm to success in the 2014 the European elections. Despite no representation in the Commons, would it be unfair to exclude him from some or all of the debates? Or would exclusion only benefit him further and his party’s message? The same could be said of Alex Salmond. Why should the Conservatives, who only have one MP in Scotland, be given such preferential treatment on national broadcast? Who is not to say that the Independence debate in September 2014 could enhance the voice of the SNP in Westminster? Would it be unfair then?

There are many legal and broadcasting caveats to take into consideration, as well as the overriding political risks, but it seems implausible to go into 2015, without the prospect of a live leadership debate. As I outlined above, there are extra considerations to be had, but in what will develop into a crucial vote, the question is, who will we agree with this time?

Goodbye guru: Steve Hilton leaves

After a week of headlines questioning whether the Prime Minister David Cameron rode Rebekah Brookes’s ex-police horse, the Prime Minister may be looking to the Cheltenham Festival for a change in fortunes both nationally and within his own party.

The departure of Steve Hilton, the chief of strategy and the so-called architect of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ comes as a blow at a decisive time. Hilton, a former advertising executive and a long time friend of the PM, is taking a year sabbatical to California to teach at Stanford University. He has stated that he does intend to return to the post before the next general election. Should Cameron be worried and does Hilton’s departure open growing concerns?

Hilton arriving for work.

Over the past few months, the coalition government has seen a dip in fortunes in the press and politically. The Labour party have managed to castigate, successfully, the government’s Health & Social bill and much more focus is being placed on the lack of growth in the British economy. A couple of months ago, Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, was certain to win the Mayoral elections in May, now polls show him to be neck and neck with Labour’s candidate Ken Livingstone.

Since coming to power in May 2010, the coalition government have managed to pass through a great deal of radical policy. In education, the academies bill has given schools the potential to govern themselves and just last week the House of Lords passed the welfare bill that caps benefits at £26,000 per household. The localism bill plans to give further powers away from Whitehall.

Yet, Hilton’s departure shows the growing frustration from within Number 10. Mr Cameron and his aides appear now to be managing every policy decision, far from the style of government they had planned when they first arrived. The Prime Minister has had to intervene on numerous policy initiatives including: public owned forests, wild animals in circuses, the EU, but most notably the health bill and the economy.

Hilton’s plans for the ‘Big Society’ and less red tape for businesses appear to have been put to one side. There are growing frustrations of the Liberal Democrats and their often bizarre requests to delay legislation. Only last week in Cabinet, the Business Secretary Vince Cable was supposedly rebuked for the lack of growth policies coming out of his department. Not to mention the Deputy Prime Minister’s attempts to reform the House of Lords. At the same time, Cameron has to deal with a growing unrest from his backbenchers, who feel policy is being hijacked by the Lib Dems. Prime Minister’s Questions have repeatedly seen cheeky questions of whether Clegg is a ‘goodie’ or ‘baddie’ or why certain Lib Dem ministers have not voted for government bills.

This day-to-day reactionary politics appears to have been the reason why Hilton has left for now. His departure leaves Cameron without another key advisor, a year after Andy Coulson’s decision to leave. For now, Cameron will be glad to see the Health bill finally pushed through the House of Lords and a reshuffle in the spring may allow him to clean up some of his flagging departments. Ultimately, a return to growth and a re-election for Boris would be better than a 100-1 outsider in the Gold Cup.

                                                                                                                                                     

Jobs for the boys - Ministers/Advisors/Hacks/Lobbyists - apply here!

Every Government is subject to criticism, whether it is policy, sleaze or accountability, every Government will be scrutinised for its failures by the press and voters alike. Much of the criticism directed towards the Coalition Government is the aura of privilege and patronage. Many voters do not believe the mutterings of Messieurs Cameron, Osborne or Clegg when they say ‘we’re all in this together’ in recognition of a faltering economy and increasing burdens on everyday families. All three men and much of the current Cabinet are millionaires and come from what most Britons would describe as exceptionally comfortable backgrounds; Eton, Oxford and a job in the City are far from most people’s realities. Perhaps we are now being exposed to an American trait that we expect all our politicians to show compassion and feel our every creak and groan on a day-to-day basis. I suspect that many suspicions of politicians do not stem from envy or contempt, most likely it is from mistrust. For a politician to hear the phrase ‘you’re all the same’ or ‘you’re just like the last lot’ is nothing new nor revealing, yet the resignation of Defence Secretary Liam Fox does highlight something tawdry and something that will continue to blight how politics works in this country.

Most people would not usually be interested in following the blogs or commentary of Whitehall watchers and probably did not read a great deal into the resignation of Dr Fox last week. Yet, most journalists within the Westminster village live within a scramble of politicians, lobbyists, PR advisors and other hacks, in what has truly become a blur. It is increasingly becoming more prevalent and the agents within the game are becoming ever transient, one commentator said that it is like ‘the pavement retiring to become the lamppost’ i.e. the advisors are becoming the politicians and the journalists are becoming the PR men, Westminster is a corridor of ‘suit and tie’ men.

Prime Minister David Cameron spent time before joining Parliament as a PR man and an advisor in the Home Office and Treasury. Chancellor George Osborne joined Conservative Head Office soon after leaving Oxford. Labour leader Ed Miliband was a policy advisor to Gordon Brown and Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls was a financial journalist before also joining Brown as an advisor. The London Mayor, Boris Johnson, was the editor of The Spectator and still writes a column in The Daily Telegraph. Not forgetting Tony Blair who took up various consultancy roles with companies such as JP Morgan Chase. It is all too common for Ministers who leave office too simply find a job with an international firm and continue their work with more subtlety and better pay. The nature of Westminster is that everyone knows each other and the lobbyists will pay big money to scoop any of that influence.

The issue that ultimately arises is how you tackle such a sport, if it is possible. Government is unlikely to kowtow to the Civil Service anytime soon and Ministers will continue to surround themselves with special advisors and spin-doctors. One thing that was interesting to read regarding the Liam Fox affair was that one commentator said ‘he was acting like an American politician’ and maybe it is true that we have reached that stage. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that his father used his contacts to help him obtain an internship in the City when he left University, but it is this culture that we need to curtail. I’m not quite sure how soon it’s going to happen.

The Flashman papers.

The role of the media in politics and its use to construct and then ultimately destruct the careers of those in power is well known. For years sketch writers and cartoonists have lampooned the credibility and fallibility of politicians and in reverse speechwriters, spin doctors and political advisors have been hired to lionise their every move and utterance. The cult of personality in electoral politics can be grave or a procession to a Ministerial promotion.

It is particularly interesting to look at the relationship between the three major parties and their own ‘witticisms’ of each other. The age of coalition government has flipped the previous polarities and has increased the forensic detail on policy and partnership, particularly in the Liberal Democrat’s ailing leader Nick Clegg. Clegg, whose election debate performances spun the short-lived craze of ‘Cleggmania’ is now perceived as the manservant to the Bullingdon boy David Cameron. Clegg was previously deemed a fresh faced reformer on the outside, yet a year later his political reputation has been tarnished by his partnership in Government that supposedly quashed his principles. Clegg’s short lived ascendancy and decline, is through a cocktail of his political weakness and the media turning the screw on his every mistake.

Labour leader, Ed Miliband exclaimed that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was like Harry Paget ‘Flashman’, the ‘hero’ in the George Fraser MacDonald novels. Harry Flashman VC, KCB, KCIE, Legion d’Honneur and so on was a Victorian soldier who was chucked out of Rugby and whose father bought him a commission in the light dragoons. Some say he was a cavalier, cheat, thief and womanising cad – not exceptional talents for a politician to have. Though Flashman was heroic as well, he saved British India, confounded the French and defeated the Su Indians; he even took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade. It is not necessarily a bad portrait to take on. It was the Soviet’s who pejoratively called Mrs Thatcher the ‘Iron Lady’ yet she used this to enhance her personality.

Ed Miliband whose distinguishing features have seen him titled ‘Red Ed’ for his apparent Old Labour views. He has also been toyed because of his inferiority to his bigger brother, former Foreign Secretary, David. The issue with asserting a personality is that it can inevitably lead to parody and typecast. John Major, who came to power after ten years of Mrs Thatcher, was portrayed as the ‘grey man’ for his insipidness. Tony Blair, despite the charisma and personality, is known for his lack of substance too. Playing to the media helps politicians get to where they want to belong but the continuous airbrushing assimilates a portfolio to one of Lord Sugar’s rejects: all talk but utterly hopeless.

It is unfair because politicians are never going to get things right. The age of 24-hour news examines every single angle of a story and grasps every opinion. An apology shows weakness, but defiance can show a lack of sympathy or pure haughtiness. The end of Gordon Brown’s tenure in Downing Street reflected this perfectly. Enoch Powell famously said that ‘All political lives end in failure’ and whilst Cameron and Miliband will continue to play their Punch and Judy politics, Clegg will continue to stand in the background resembling Hamlet’s indecisiveness and retain his position as media/electorate punch bag.

Tuition Fees: This is Government

So the vote for tuition fees went the way of the Coalition Government. From 2013, students in England could potentially be paying up to £9,000 per year. Ignoring the anger on the streets and the mindless acts of violence by the protesters, the political games were extremely engaging and provoking. The Liberal Democrats, the junior partner within the coalition, abandoned their election pledge not to increase tuition fees.

Many will argue that free higher education should be a right and that society gains as a whole from having highly-skilled graduates. Yet, it is unaffordable and by having more and more students entering further education, it is causing a greater strain for the state to burden.

Perhaps this is what the Liberal Democrats have come to realise. From a party that within the past twenty years has been well-liked and input many policy pledges, it is learning that Government is far from comfortable and idealistic. Yes, it is difficult not to sympathise with the MPs who abstained or voted against the legislation, but we must commend the members that voted with the Government. Nick Clegg, who is sure to face criticism from party members. He has shouldered a massive amount of pressure for the coalition and David Cameron should be acknowledging.

It is obvious the policy will not always please everyone, particularly if Welsh and Scottish students are unaffected. But perhaps the leadership shown by Mr Clegg will be a realisation to Liberal Democrat members what politics is about and that the next few years will be tough.