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.

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?

David Cameron: a radical, a suit or more?

Prime Minister David Cameron goes into this week’s Conservative Party conference in Birmingham knowing that his job is secure but the lens on his leadership is closer than ever. 2012 has not been a particularly good year for the coalition government or for the Prime Minister and his Chancellor George Osborne. Despite the buoyant mood among the British people, fed by the Queen’s Jubilee and the wonders of the London Olympics, reaction to the Government has moved away from inauspicious to outright hostile. The so-called ‘omnishambles’ and constant U-turning on policies has seen the government increasingly labelled as out of touch and more worryingly incompetent.

Cameron, the Conservative leader since December 2005, has always outperformed his party in the polls, yet even this year his rating has started to flag. Unfavourable headlines about his relationship with News International executives, stories about him and his wife leaving their daughter behind at the local pub and Tory MP Nadine Dorries calling him and Osborne ‘two arrogant posh boys who don’t know the price of milk’. Politicians are used to being lambasted by the popular press on a day-to-day basis and inevitably must accept it as part of the job description. But for Cameron, portrayed as a snake by The Sun, these stories are starting to question his value and what he actually represents.

Cameron for a long time was described as ‘above the prey’ and distinctly agile against criticism, the main reason being his likeability. Cameron could not transcend class barriers like Tony Blair – not that he ever tried to - or have the ideological fervour of other Conservative leaders like Margaret Thatcher – not that he ever wanted to. Yet Cameron was intellectually fierce, approachable and extremely optimistic. People generally liked him and took him for his word.

However, things have become palpably fragile and for many reasons. Ed Miliband, though still far behind Cameron in the leadership polls, gave an effortless and impressively delivered speech (though rather vacuous) to the Labour Party conference last week. The government as well appearing rather feckless at times is making some rather unpopular decisions in a tough economic climate. Not to mention, the elephant in the room- and one with two electoral victories - one Boris Johnson.

So why is the PM being questioned all of a sudden. Why are many in his party appearing bitter?

Cameron is often described as a pragmatist. One not bogged down by ideology and one who leads by instinct rather than manuscripts. Cameron, as well as other Tory modernisers like Osborne, William Hague and Michael Portillo knew that the party had to change if it was to become electable again. The Conservative Party could not remain clinging to ‘meat and drink’ policies of the Right. It had to change and embrace a wider electorate. Some called it ‘compassionate Conservatism’ but in effect it is just pitching to the middle-ground. The ‘husky dog’ moment and ‘hug –a-hoody’ were attempts to re-approach these issues and they seemed to work. 

Yet now Cameron has appointed a climate sceptic Environment Minister and evicted the liberal Ken Clarke out of the Justice department. Who are we to believe? Is Cameron the moderniser? A Thatcherite evangelist or as some people lazily label him, someone who simply wants to be Prime Minister?

To a large extent Cameron’s perception has presented as a reality. He remains compassionate about environmentalism, but understands that the costs of implementing expensive environmental reforms must come second when reforming the economy. Here Cameron’s pragmatism takes charge. Ed Miliband may have put forward his bizarre ‘One Nation’ Labour vision but Cameron remains firmly as a modernising One Nation Conservative.

He is not someone who changes tact on the flip of the coin, but puts things into perspective. People turn their nose up at concepts like ‘The Big Society’ but they truly still remain in the Government’s plans and are taking shape, but like most things the economy must come first. Cameron is fully aware that he must balance the issue of the economy before anything else.

In his two and half years as Prime Minister, under huge economic constraints – more than anyone could have anticipated - he has still managed to perform huge reforms in areas like education, welfare, localism and planning – the Downing Street policy room does not lay dormant – all driven by the Prime Minister himself.

Advisors know that when headlines are bad and polls forecast an undesirable outcome it is easy to draw back to your comfort zone. There may be pressure from certain voices within and new think-tanks such as Conservative Voice calling for Cameron to move right, but that would be profligate. The country remains conservative on issues like law and order, welfare and tax, but the centre has by no means shifted in this Parliament. The recent reshuffle was important to freshen up the ranks and introduce new ideas, but strategically there has been no great shift. Cameron remains in the centre and that is where he intends to remain.

When Cameron approaches the platform on Tuesday he does not need to be like Miliband, in fact far from that. Cameron needs to be bullish and affirm the good this government has done and what is continuing to do. It is not about changing message, it is about ensuring about rebuilding the narrative and pushing for electoral success in 2015. Cameron and Osborne know this because if they fail, they’ll both be gone.

David Cameron: Be bold or blow it.

It is said that the unwritten rule in 10 Downing Street is not to mention to Prime Minister David Cameron why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority in 2010. Going by these standards it may be wise if ever in the Treasury not to mention the 2012 spring budget to George Osborne. Two months have passed since the chancellor delivered his now infamous budget and it has brought the government nothing but negative headlines ever since.

Not only did the Conservatives take a kicking in the recent local elections, but so have many of its ministers. Home Secretary Theresa May managed to get her days wrong when trying to finally deport radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, Sayeeda Warsi is the latest politician to be accused of fiddling her expenses. Not to mention the elephant in the room involving the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and his relationship with News International.

Happier times...

I suspect the chancellor; also the Conservative’s chief electoral strategist could not have foreseen what was coming around the corner. Far removed was the analysis regarding potential tax revenue increases or a shifting of the ‘Laffer Curve’, but endless reams of front pages calling it a tax break for millionaires and hyperbole over the so-called ‘pasty tax’. This decision was politically bold and one this blog believes to have been correct, but its aftermath has been managed appallingly. At a time of severe economic gloom and pain for many sectors of society, particularly the politically important C1s and C2s, if this change were to be ushered in, it had to be done effectively. This it was not.

As a consequence the Labour party have managed to take a 14-point lead in the polls with their leader Ed Miliband becoming noticeably better in his duels with Cameron at the weekly PMQs. Cameron, who has always ranked higher in approval ratings compared to his party, has also suffered. Probably the most popular Conservative in the country is the London mayor Boris Johnson and beyond that, people may start scratching their heads. The Liberal Democrat’s fortunes faded a long time before.

Theories of so-called ‘midterm blues’ have been thrown about by coalition MPs, but it’s not difficult to see why many already see the rot setting in. Despite the PM and his deputy Clegg renewing their vows in another rose garden moment at a factory in Basildon, the tensions are visible. Relations over Europe and most significantly the ways to see growth in the economy are causing tension.

Many commentators agree that it already appears to be getting to Cameron. He has lost his composure on several occasions of late, mostly during PMQs and particularly to the shadow chancellor Ed Balls. All coalition members are right to criticise Labour’s terrible economic legacy but even after two years of coalition government and a double-dip recession, Cameron is visibly pushing the same tired lines over and over again. It is not good politics and is increasingly starting to appear desperate.

Headache?

The hysteria over comments about whether Cameron and Osborne were ‘too posh’ should not have been given as much coverage as it warranted. The reason is that at any point, politicians are accused of being ‘out of touch’ from those outside the Westminster village. This was a story that overlapped with some of the previous week’s articles, but the trend had already begun.

Stories involving spin and sleaze are always damaging and became chronic in both the Major and New Labour years, but for this government and this leadership the issue that would be most alarming would be accusations of incompetence. This of course was a government coming together in the national interest. Admirers of Cameron’s leadership have always pointed to his ability to look for the practical solutions beyond ideology and his warmness to working with people. Cameron is best when he is bold. Most notably when he used the UK’s veto over the EU fiscal compact and when he famously called Gordon Brown’s bluff in the election that never was in 2008. So why does it appear to be going wrong?

The fact the economy hasn’t grown in 18 months is not helping anybody. The Tories must pure and simply rely on the strength of the economy to win a majority in the next election; and as things stand, that may not happen. The prospect of another hung Parliament and a potential coalition with the Lib Dems is bound to worry many backbenchers. This has inevitably led to questions regarding Cameron and his style of leadership.

A strong theme that emanates from websites such as Conservative Home, is the fact that he is not Mrs Thatcher. Despite being retired from public life and sadly suffering from dementia, Mrs Thatcher is very much the political pin-up for many Tory backbenchers, whereas for Cameron and Osborne, it is more likely to be Tony Blair. They admire Blair’s political intelligence and his ability to win elections, but certainly appear to have ignored his style of presentation.

Fewer special advisors within Number 10 and critically a weak voice from the communications department are making Cameron’s government appear feckless. This government, in only two years, has been radical in its reforms on welfare and education, but its inability to take control over the past two months has made them appear slightly aloof and the poll numbers reflect this.

Any press criticism can be damaging, but it is in the interest of a party, whether political or business to set the record straight. The government needs to get out there on and talk directly to the public. The Conservatives will not win a majority if they fail to make inroads into the north and Cameron and Osborne’s real political legacy will only be judged if they can establish something beyond this Parliament. A reshuffle may help in the short term, but if they are going to win, then they need to be bolder.

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.

Backbench rebellion - another headache for Cameron.

Awkward George is often how its peers on the continent refer to Britain. For centuries, Britain did not interfere with the administrations or the wars taking place on the continent. Britain was a seafaring nation and although it dabbled in several continental wars, most notably against the French, it preferred to look further afield with its international policy. It was not until the Battle of Blenheim in 1704 (part of the War of Spanish Succession) where the Duke of Marlborough, Randolph Churchill (relation to Sir Winston), helped defeat Louis XIV and the French forces, that Britain became a force to be reckoned with on mainland Europe. Fast forward three centuries of warfare at Waterloo, the Crimea, Flanders and World Wars One and Two, Britain still appears to be uncertain of its relationship with Europe. For Prime Minister David Cameron, it will continue to give him and the Conservative Party a headache.

Last night, MPs voted on a motion (that had no legal binding) on whether there should be referenda to decide whether Britain should remain in the EU. For many, during a time when the 17 countries that are within the Eurozone and debating the currency’s future, it was an opportunity for Britain to redress the power balance and restore powers back to Westminster. They see the EU as an undignified institution, full of overpaid bureaucrats based in Brussels and Strasbourg, who lack any accountability, squandering taxpayers’ money and dictating laws to European Parliaments that supersede the national sovereignty. Many Eurosceptics believe that EU legislation and red tape is placing barriers on UK businesses and stifling growth, something that could send the UK back into another recession. Last night’s vote saw 81 Conservative MPs back the motion, and despite the vote being unanimously put down, it could certainly be the beginning of trouble.

For backbench Conservatives, many who voted for and against the motion were displeased by the apparent aggressive nature used by the party whips. The vote was not binding and yet the Government sought to kill the bill as soon as possible. In doing so, it managed to generate more press coverage and appeared to reopen old wounds within the party that destroyed it from within back in 1993 up until 1997. The issue for Conservatives was highlighted by many of the speeches they gave to the House during the debate, some said they have promised to their constituents and associations that a referendum was something they believed in and to back down would appear to renege on their promises. The other points highlighted the fact that it has been over 35 years since Britain’s previous referenda on EU withdrawal, and within that time far from the economic market that the EU was, it has become a giant political project. Finally, if the debate wasn’t raised now, then when would be a good time to address these questions.

These displeased members are part of the first Coalition government in 70 years and for them climbing their way up the Ministerial ladder will be much more difficult than in previous administrations. They not only have to contend with Liberal Democrat appointments but with a party that is keen on promoting women into Government, this may be the best way of making their voices heard. In the vote on Maastricht in 1993, 41 MPs rebelled compared to last night’s 81. It took almost six years of the Blair Government to reach that mark and as political scientists pointed out; people enjoy the taste of rebellion and are only more likely to continue.

For David Cameron, the vote became a disruption as a leader and for his reputation in Europe. French President Nicholas Sarkozy apparently told him that he was fed up of Britain trying to meddle with Eurozone politics and many of his own MPs have deemed his leadership as weak. Cameron is part of a generation of politicians that are generally Eurosceptic and many of the comments he put forward to the house highlighted his displeasure with the organisation exactly. Yet, for Britain, one of the big players in European politics, to be outside of any discussions would be stupid. As Chancellor George Osborne and Foreign Secretary William Hague have pointed out, a fiscal union within Europe would make sense, yet with Britain on the outside, it would not take long before France and Germany would take control. Who is not to say this could affect the revenues of the City of London and all the while Britain is powerless to do anything. Britain has an important trading relationship within the EU and is too a big country to simply do what Norway and Switzerland do. For most Europeans the debates raised by Britain and the nation state is something they would associate with 19th and early 20th century politics, not early 21st. Cameron, Osborne and Hague are all aware of this but will be wary of the displeasure it brings among their own party and electorate.

When Britain joined the Common Market in the early seventies, Western Europe contributed almost 50 per cent of global trade and today it stands around 16%. Britain is right to question its relationship within the EU and what economic benefits it provides but we must have a sensible conversation and one that takes in all factors. Most British businesses have highlighted their issues with the EU but still remain reliant on its relationship. As long as the Euro crisis continues and Britain continues to contribute towards bailouts the debate isn’t going to go away.

Party politics - wooing the delegates

As we reach the final week of the party conference season with the Tories in Manchester. It has given us an opportunity to assess the speeches from the leaders of the three main political parties and listen to their thoughts on important issues such as the economy, jobs and education. Yet as David Cameron takes the main stage to address Tory delegates, questions will be asked on how important the speech really is and whether the party conference season adds any policy ammunition to the Government of the day or whether it is just plain and simply a talking shop for leading figures to allay members’ fears.

Party politics in Britain no longer holds ideological differences that embattled a generation of politicians. Throughout the 1950s and up until the mid 1980s, it was easy to determine where each party lay and where their votes came from. The Americanisation of democracy and the revolution in electoral communications has meant that politicians are now under scrutiny for every move they make on 24-hour news. They also have to contend with an all-encompassing comment vanguard, who have a brigade of Twitter and Facebook followers. No longer are the views of Benedict Brogan or Nigel Lawson restricted to the inside sheets of the broadsheets, they are blogged, retweeted and then cited by other commentators. Politics is truly a pervasive sport.

So how powerful are the party members and how influential are they in dictating policy for their leaders? I would suggest not very. Politicians have always had political/policy advisors surrounding them and the constituent base was always the barometer to assess what the grassroots were feeling. Mrs Thatcher’s neo liberal ideas came through the Centre of Policy Studies founded by her policy guru Keith Joseph. New Labour formed under the stewardship of Alastair Campbell – a former tabloid political editor, Peter Mandelson – a television producer and Philip Gould – a pollster who had worked in American politics. David Cameron had a background in public relations, Gordon Brown did not. It is necessary for a modern day leader to be surrounded by a coterie of special advisors (spads), spin-doctors, pollsters and all other sorts of political professionals. Policies develop through focus groups, intellects and advisors, not the hoi polloi. Even the atmosphere surrounding the recent Liberal Democrat conference, a party notorious for its grass roots, was distinctly corporate rather than village hall.

The main reason is the growth of the swing vote. People no longer are associated with the local Conservative or Labour club, for reasons of time, family and changing habits. The local association’s main role is the fundraising for elections and the selection of candidates. Besides support, perhaps the most important thing they provide is information. They identify for whom an individual or family is likely to vote and trends within a community, age group or gender. Democracy is a set of ideas and values, but electoral politics is about getting more people to vote for you on polling day. Looking and sounding respectable and trusting is the best way to get their vote.

So the Conservative conference, according to figures from Conservative Home (the digital home of Tories), shows that 10 per cent of members dislike the Coalition and two-thirds believe that David Cameron has given too many powers away to the Lib Dems. Unsurprising results, you would expect. As it goes, much of the substance from the conference yesterday involved traditional Tory thinking, tackling illegal immigration and repatriating powers from Brussels. Yet for the Tories, particularly David Cameron and George Osborne, the real issues do not lie regarding the Lib Dems asserting themselves or showing the Government to be more compassionate to female voters (they do matter), it ultimately comes down to the economy.

Most Conservatives are concerned about the jobs and taxes and believe the rate of cuts needs to hasten before the burden is placed on businesses. They also believe that any future amendments of EU treaties should provide the UK with an opportunity to repatriate powers from Brussels, but let’s be fair, if slightly trite, you could put a blue brick on stage and most Conservatives would vote for it. David Cameron and his cabinet colleagues are aware of the ramblings on Europe, the Human Rights Act and the difficulty in winning the female vote but he and his advisors will be more aware that if he doesn’t get the economy right then come 2015 they could all be out of a job.

The 'Right' of Europe

As the party conference season descends on the UK after the Summer Parliamentary recess, much of the focus will be on the three major parties and their policies towards the economy, education and health. One party that will be holding its party conference this week in Eastbourne, will be the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP as it is ubiquitously known, and its charismatic leader Nigel Farage. Known within the mainstream as a party that rejects UK membership of the European Union, UKIP is often seen as a place for right wing Tories to retreat to when they don’t like the direction of the Conservative Party. Yet, with bailouts within the Eurozone and increasing concerns about immigration, where does the future lie for parties of the right within Europe.

All across the continent, parties with right wing agendas have surged in popularity. Countries like Finland, in the heart of liberal Scandinavia, saw the True Finns party take almost a fifth of the votes in the recent Parliamentary elections, finishing third overall. The True Finns reject the EU bailout of countries like Greece and Portugal and promote Finnish women to stay home and have more children, preferably ‘ethnic Finns’. This was all democratic, whilst across the border in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik a lone gunman killed scores of younger members of Norway’s Labor Party, an institution he felt that had polluted the Norwegian way of life.

Traditionally, we associate right wing politics with racism and anti-Semitism. The massacre at Clifford’s Tower in York, the conquest of Toledo in Spain and latterly the Holocaust. Yet anti-Semitism is becoming less accepted by most European countries, all European countries recognise Israel and have anti-Semitism laws in place. In fact, figureheads of Europe’s right wing movement such as Marie Le Penn of France’s Front National or Geert Wilders, the Netherland’s most outspoken politician both embrace Judaism. Most right wing parties on the continent have turned their scorn towards Islam.

Too much immigration is not necessarily a right wing dictum; you are just as likely to feel resentment of uncontrolled immigration from traditional UK Labour Party members to traditional Tories living in the Shires. The right has always been successful in threading such political wisdom through appropriating the right of the individual and the need for a smaller government. Single issues parties like the British National Party (BNP) have usually failed because their narrow point of view and lack of political organisation, rare successes can be attributed to voters wanting to give the Government of the day a bloody nose, nothing more. UKIP does not pursue a racist agenda, it is libertarian, it believes Britain has the right to control its own borders and sees Europe as a talking shop full of unelected bureaucrats. In the last European elections in 2009, UKIP secured 13 seats, the same as the governing party of the day, Labour, and under an electoral system that is slightly more favourable to them.

When asked about what concerns voters most, Europe is normally an issue that comes way down the list of priority for most of the electorate. Yet, it would be interesting to see what would happen if UKIP perhaps took a sharper line on immigration, like other European parties. The current Conservative Government of the day would have a dilemma of what to do regarding its coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. In 2005, under the leadership of Michael Howard, the Conservatives took a right wing stance on crime, immigration and Europe, forcing Tony Blair to move his election strategy to the same audience, most likely because they did not have the capability of winning. In an age where austerity is king and voters want secure employment and an accountable political and tax system, it would be interesting to hear what Mr Farage has to say and whether he decides to tread on the toes Mr Cameron.

Porridge

There was much focus on Government services over the past week and questions of how deep can budgets be cut before it affects the administering of a public service. Ideologically for Conservatives, locking up criminals is a staple of maintaining law and order on the streets and protecting ordinary citizens. Yet, The Times lead with the story that six prisons may need to be shut as the Department of Justice looks for budget reductions, something sure to unsettle most Tory voters. Also, an European ruling found that Britain was in breach of prisoners’ rights by not allowing them to vote in elections or referenda. The approach of how we deal with prisoners is bound to create discussion amongst politicians because it poses questions of finance, authority and the role of prison itself i.e. to punish or to rehabilitate. In America, there has been a growth recently in the use of ‘supermax’ prisons, intertwined with solitary confinement.

Both countries share the values of Common Law, yet our attitudes to law and order vary greatly; most notably through some States use of capital punishment. Yet, it is the use of measures like solitary confinement that show the gulfs in treatment. In practice it is remaining in one’s cell without interaction or stimulus, something outlawed in the American constitutuion. Studies show it can lead to mental illnesses and depression, yet the US State department deems this as a legitimate way of treating some felons; and many would agree. It appears hard to gauge how we could stand ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ with America, when our attitudes to treating prisoners are entirely different. The British did not have the best record during ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland, however it didn’t affect the civil liberties of ordinary citizens nor prisoners.

The recent Freedom of Information releases in Poland indeed indict American agents in torture and that members of the British Security Services were aware of these occurrences (this has been denied by the British Government, but many leading figures believe that agents were complicit.) You could argue that torture is effective if it leads to information and that moral legitimacy can be shifted in the interests of national security. It does however weaken the often ‘megaphone diplomacy’ of human rights and democracy to countries like China and Turkey, if we meddle in such acts ourselves. France and Britain both have colonial memories of how ‘justice’ can swathe opinion against the so called good: Algeria and Ireland.

Prison should be a tool to punish the criminals of society and deter others from entering the world of crime. Solitary confinement and torture should be left to the annals of Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Mao’s China and Apartheid South Africa, ugly and shocking aspects of history. I am unsure of the importance of the European ruling and question whether it would really have an impact. It is a case of whether you believe prisoners should have a say on society or should be observers away from the polling booths. 85,000 and counting.