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.

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.

Ed Miliband makes a move.

A quick word on Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet reshuffle, if you want the full list then click here. What was distinct about the General Election in 2010 was the huge turnover in MPs out of the House of Commons. Many had been caught up in the expenses scandal and many were, like New Labour, shown the door. Commentators have rightly said that the new 232 MPs have brought in new ideas and freshness to what had become a toxic chamber since the Daily Telegraph’s excellent reportage in 2009.

Ed Miliband has decided to promote some of these new MPs within the Labour ranks with the hope that they may bring new fortunes to what has been a difficult start as leader of the Labour party. It is a good move because it does clear out some dead wood and shows to the public that Labour is trying to move on from the difficulties of the past few years, but the issue for Miliband is that he has visibly moved the party to the left. Many Tory delegates, particularly on the right, have not liked some of the decisions Prime Minister Cameron has made this year, but it is visible to see that the Cameron government now occupies the centre of British politics, something they haven’t managed to do in over a decade.

The major problem for Miliband is that he needs to remain left of centre because otherwise people will ask why didn’t we just elect his brother. The next few years will show whether Ed is a leader or the a dud that many have already proclaimed. We shall watch intently.

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.

A class above? - Britain's politicians

The concepts of Parliament and the evolution of the British political system appear to be extremely atypical. The rules of Westminster are dominated by tradition and convention. There is something very British about it all, the fact that there is and has been great disharmony; and yet we seem to get on with it. It does of course have its merits, the fact it is very flexible and nothing is entrenched in a written constitution. Of course, many people – mainly on the left – would say it is inherently unfair on the minority. Andrew Neil’s television programme about British politics being run by an Etonian and Oxbridge mafia highlighted the fact that the traditional routes taken by previous politicians are now redundant and the aggrandising of the professional politician is now pervasive.

This new breed of politicians has climbed the slippery pole through internships and research posts at Conservative or Labour Party HQ, to become advisers and then establish themselves as politicians. The issue Neil saw was that this coterie were emerging all from elite institutions that were becoming breeding grounds for future Ministers. Cameron, David and Ed Miliband, Osborne, Balls and Hague all read PPE at Oxford and generally followed the same route into politics. The argument is this: do our politicians, all coming from wealthy backgrounds, lack a real understanding of what politics is about at the grassroots? These men are extremely intelligent and have a great understanding of political theory and ideology; but does it justify them to make decisions on behalf of people they don’t particularly understand.

I think the problem of Neil’s examination is that he posed some questions but he didn’t really go anywhere with it. Surely we should be asking if there are so many old Etonians in the cabinet, then what happened to people like John Major and Gordon Brown. All these former Prime Ministers went through grammar schools, a selective institution that nurtured generations of pupils with a real possibility of high office. The irritable question that no one pointed out was that grammar schools worked, it was the secondary modern system that didn’t, creating a fault line that neither political party wanted to remain. It is a case that private education has maintained high standards whilst comprehensives had to adapt themselves to a universal education policy.

Perhaps it is just a case that this argument was more ‘explosive’ because of the news earlier on the day regarding the economy. For people struggling to make money in today’s climate, it may be seen as naive for Mr Osborne to blame the woes of the economy on the weather (How British!) The departures of the so-called working class influences of Andy Coulson and Alan Johnson only made the point a bit stronger. Historically, we must remember, it has been an easy gimmick to question someone’s experience or upbringing for political barracking; I don’t think this week’s analysis should detract away from that. Also after so much scrutiny regarding patronage and expenses, a great deal of effort has been made by all parties to regain public trust and enhance participation. As many commentators agree, the new faces within Westminster have a good grounding in the outside world and at a local level. I think ultimately we should be able to trust our politician’s judgement and their political record, not just their academic background because if you don’t like them then you can always vote them out.