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?

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.

Bankers' Bonuses: A sensible policy.

The question surrounding bankers’ bonuses continues to dominate political debates. Fred Goodwin, the disgraced former Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), joined an unflattering list of people, including Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe, to have their Knighthoods stripped. His successor, Stephen Hester, also succumb to growing public and political pressure by waiving his annual bonus.

Goodwin, who oversaw the flawed takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro, was made to resign after the UK government were forced to rescue RBS with a bailout package worth in the region of £45 billion. In 2009, RBS went on to report the biggest loss in UK corporate history totalling £24 billion. Goodwin, meanwhile, left with a pension pot worth in the region of £703,000 a year. Hester his replacement, by all accounts a good manager, has had to oversee massive changes in the organisation and deal with plenty of criticism as he has put to task. The UK government still owns 81 per cent of RBS shares.

Bankers are still not popular in the UK after the financial crisis in 2008, and despite the curbs on pay and apologies from bosses, financial regulation and policy is still an affliction on government policy, particularly bonuses. As the public sector endures a pay freeze and high inflation, it would be difficult for a government to be seen endorsing bonuses to a bank which is owned by the public.

Last year, the Chief Executive of Barclays Bob Diamond, once called the ‘unacceptable face of banking’ by the former Labour Business Secretary Peter Mandelson, told members of the House of Commons Treasury Committee that the period of remorse and apology for banks needed to end. Diamond, who received a £6.5 million bonus in 2010, believed the language being used on British financial institutions was unfair and could have an adverse impact on future regulation. The Barclays chief, aware of the public mood, introduced a new ethics code for misbehaving or ostentatious bankers.

Bob Diamond

The government has been unable to counter the venomous attacks from the media and its ability to generate campaigns. The Daily Mail’s front page targeted ‘Sir Fred’ day after day and then subsequently Hester. The Transport Secretary Justine Greening was forced to be seen to prevent Network Rail chiefs from taking their annual bonuses too.

Perhaps this is where the Conservative party is getting into trouble. It is too keen to submit in what is developing into a shotgun democracy. It wants to protect the City but it doesn’t want to be seen as protective of bankers. The Labour Party, who can still form no sensible policy or opinion of their own, continues to flip flop on the spur of public opinion. They are more content on trying to target left-leaning Liberal Democrats and splitting the coalition. Their agenda is fast becoming one of envy and class, yet the Tories retreat from any form of debate. Most people agree that it was correct to strip Goodwin of his Knighthood, but the hysteria is spiralling out of control.

This is fast damaging London’s reputation. The RBS Chairman Sir Philip Hampton said that bankers’ pay is something that needs reforming but it would require an overview of how we want to the City to work. If the 50p higher rate of tax on highest earners remains in place until the next election, London and the UK could potentially become an economically and politically ugly place to do business. It is a question that government must answer sensibly and putting business and jobs first. Otherwise, bonus season will become a never ending carousel for government.