Labour’s response to Philpott is dangerously out of sync with public opinion

For the past 18 months or so I’ve spent quite a bit of time defending Ed Miliband: a decent man with a broad vision about how our political system needs to be changed to work for the many instead of a privileged, sheltered few. I’ve applauded the leadership’s disassociation from the worst excesses of New Labour – its authoritarianism, ruthless attacks on civil liberties, reckless liberal interventionism. He has taken on powerful elites in a way few have dared to.

But over the last few months an immaturity and amateurish streak has taken hold. Beginning with his breathtaking naivety in fully endorsing the Leveson Report in its entirety with barely any time to take in the executive summary, let alone digest all 1,987 pages. Wanting to be on the side of the victims of hacking and new best mate to UK Celebs Are Us, clouded his judgement and put Labour on the wrong side of press freedom. But at least he had public opinion on his side. Even though Leveson and press regulation will barely feature come polling day.

Not so welfare.  As Dan Hodges pointed out this week:

“The “debate” over welfare playing out over the last few days has reminded me of where we were with the debate on immigration a decade ago.”

We are in the embryonic stages, meaning hyperbole, misinformation, accusations and counter-accusations shout down the moderate and measured. Mick Philpott, doting father of 17, misogynist, benefit-scrounger extraordinaire, and now guilty of the manslaughter of six of his children puts us firmly in hysteria territory. Vile product of Welfare UK? Of course not. But a man entitled to handouts not far off £50,000 a year according to some reports is evidence of a benefits system intent on self-harm.

There was nothing remotely controversial about George Osborne musing that:

“There is a question for government and for society about the welfare state - and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state - subsidising lifestyles like that, and I think that debate needs to be had."

Every right-thinking person would have been nodding in approval. I certainly was. Then in blunders Ed Balls with the equivalent of a studs-first two-footed tackle:

“George Osborne's calculated decision to use the shocking and vile crimes of Mick Philpott to advance a political argument is the cynical act of a desperate chancellor.”

No, Ed. Osborne’s comments will have struck a chord, even with Labour voters. Especially with Labour voters. Sarah Teather’s contribution bordered on the idiotic when she said that Osborne was seeking to:

“demonise anybody who receives any kind of welfare support."

Again, wrong. The extremity of a case like Philpott milking the system for all it’s worth is exactly the sort of thing that has the public foaming with rage. Its rarity is irrelevant to public anger. Opinion already formed only hardens.

When left wingers (rightly) point out that such abuses are isolated, they are merely preaching to other like-minded souls. Just because something is rare, doesn’t mean it isn’t worthy of public attention. Policy is often changed or loopholes closed in the face of extreme examples: the Dunblane school shootings and the subsequent law on handguns; the Soham murders and the never-ending growth of the CRB industry. One could reasonably argue that certain anti-terror laws are passed and are wholly disproportionate, all the result of the murderous acts and/or thoughts of a very small number.

Ed Miliband has yet to comment on Philpott, but don’t expect a deviation from his Shadow Chancellor’s script. Welfare, immigration and economic credibility: not so much Labour’s Achilles’ heel as an entire Achilles’ limb. Labour trails the Tories on all three. All three will dominate the election campaign.

Labour has made the right noises on immigration. Miliband shrewdly acknowledges economic impact versus its social and cultural effect. On welfare, all there is is a lot of hot air. See Peter Watt’s piece on these pages earlier in the week.

This is not to say I don’t support the party’s opposition to some of the government’s welfare reforms, such as the bedroom tax. I’m fairly confident that the sight of families or people with disabilities being forced to relocate under the gaze of the media will drive the government into a humiliating retreat.  It’s one thing freezing or cutting benefits.  Not something that can be really captured with the naked eye.  Yet, it’ll be a lot easier to film a man or woman in a wheelchair being led out of their home with all their earthly possessions in tow.  The pictures will look dreadful.

Labour’s job is to provide a solid and serious alternative to bringing down the welfare bill.  Opposing every government effort isn’t the way to do it, even if they are often right in doing so.  Opposition without an alternative is wasted energy.

Wanting to be heard at all costs has led Labour to play politics in accusing Osborne of playing politics this week.  It beggars belief that the party lack the maturity to simply echo Osborne’s sensible comments. Their intervention this week has shown that they offer next to nothing on the welfare debate, even when faced with a grotesque man having a laugh at the nation’s over-generous expense.  Sometimes it’s good to learn that opposition for opposition’s sake just looks desperate.

The best contribution to this week’s event was found in The Times from Tony Blair’s former speechwriter Philip Collins (£):

“By opposing the welfare consequences of austerity with no viable alternative, Labour is asking to be placed on the side of those who want the welfare bill to rise rather than those who want it to fall.

“The absence of a constructive Labour voice from the welfare debate means that the left is associated only with the shrill shriek of opposition”.

 

This article was first published by Labour Uncut on Monday 8th April 2013

Labour’s poll lead may be soft, but the Tories have most to fear

Two opinion polls out today put Labour’s lead at a soft, but steady, 8 points. It’s certainly nothing spectacular, and will serve as another reminder against complacency for any supporters naive enough to think the next election is in the bag. It’s not. But, that doesn’t mean Labour shouldn’t have room for (quiet) optimism.

The Conservatives are struggling. Struggling that is to get above 33% in any poll. Bear in mind that their 36.1% in the 2010 general election wasn’t enough to get them an outright majority, you can see the problems they have.

It’s become something of a game for contrary types on the left to suggest that Labour’s inability to stretch their lead to 15 points plus shows the party is vulnerable. Which may well be true. An ailing economy, rebellious backbenchers and those pesky Ukippers carving up the right, should result in a far more commanding lead.

But, right now, as they have been for a number of years, the public aren’t prepared to unambiguously endorse one party over the other.

I’d be far more concerned if I was a Tory than a Labour supporter. Analysing data from UK Polling Report, on the rare occasions they have led in the polls, it’s usually been nothing more than a couple of points or so. Without breaking through to that all important 40% mark, something Labour regularly achieves. Few Conservatives believe they’ll win a majority in 2015: 7% according to one finding.

Having said that, there are reasons to be hopeful. Three in fact. One: Ed Miliband. David Cameron is still his party’s biggest asset. The same cannot be said for Miliband, still being outperformed by his party. On a head-to-head, Cameron takes the points. Not by a huge margin, but it could still be enough to make peoples’ minds up come polling day. Although the public aren’t overly enamoured with any of the three leaders as things stand.

Two: if Labour’s lead is soft, it’s not as soft as UKIP’s. It would take a brave (and foolish) person to honestly believe UKIP will repeat their heroics in Eastleigh. 28% in a by-election is astonishing. But, also an anomaly. UKIP could perform strongly in a number of constituencies, but will fall well short of this figure. Peter Kellner, president of YouGov, expects their support to fall below 10%. And by three-to-one, Ukippers would choose a Cameron-led Tory government over an Ed Miliband-led Labour one. 

Three: an economic upturn can only benefit the incumbent. It will allow the Conservatives to justify their strategy, point to further good times ahead, and warn voters not to let Labour back in to undo all their good work, reminding them what they did to the nation’s finances when they were in office.

Yet, I’d still rather be in Labour’s position. Not only do the Conservatives have to compete against them in two year’s time, they now have an unwanted and potentially fatal battle on the right. UKIP may not reach double-figures, but that doesn’t mean they won’t have a large say in deciding who wins. Kellner found a quarter of Tories definitely or seriously planning to vote for them. It is these voters that could hand the election to Labour more than anything else.

 

This comment piece was first published on Speaker's Chair on Tuesday 12th March 2013

Only UKIP have reason to celebrate in Eastleigh

The last thing I wrote, for the online version of my local paper in Bristol, began something like this: “writers who make grand predictions risk looking like idiots...so here goes.” Such is the nature of political punditry, I was at it again, making mine on Wednesday, the night before polls opened in Eastleigh.

Lord Ashcroft’s poll on Monday, predicting a five-point win for the Lib Dems, with UKIP third on 21% (still 7 points behind the Tories), was enough to convince me that by the time people finished voting, UKIP would surge into second place (see here for my tweet predicting the result). And that they did. Increasing their share of the vote by an astonishing 24%. In 2010, UKIP recorded a mere 3.6%. Last night, this ballooned to almost 28%.

That UKIP are doing well shouldn’t surprise political anoraks (guilty) who’ve been studying the polls over the last year. They’ve regularly been beating the Liberals into third place, with support often into double-digits. Latest polls have them anywhere between 7 and 12%.

To capture 27.8% of the vote last night is a colossal achievement. Just don’t expect UKIP to be getting anywhere near this number come the next general election. By-elections can often produce freak results, with sitting governments punished. But, usually, it’s the opposition who benefits. Not that Labour were expected to challenge the top spot. I’ll come to their result later.

Why did UKIP do so well? And what does this mean for the Tories and the other parties?

Firstly, some people continue to point out that UKIP are a party of protest. Yes and no. We said the same about the Lib Dems not so long ago. Now, they’re in government. The odd crazy poll showing strong support might back this up. Not when UKIP are consistently doing well. Yes, because only the most deluded would expect UKIP to pick up 20 odd percent of the vote in 2015. They won’t. But, that doesn’t mean they won’t do well in carefully targeted seats, which must now be their strategy. A lack of resources means they’ll have to be picky, and last night’s performance should attract new investors.

UKIP’s incredible showing was a strike directly at David Cameron’s Conservatives. Whereas Cameron may have thought he’d won back disaffected, hardened Euro-sceptics, with the promise of an In/Out EU referendum, this wasn’t enough. Why? Two reasons. UKIP want one now. Not in the next parliament, where the chance of Cameron being PM again shrinks by the day. Cameron has offered a referendum, but wants Britain to remain in the EU. In other words, all three main parties will be campaigning to keep Britain in the EU. UKIP’s line couldn’t be clearer: we will take Britain out of the EU.

But, ironically, it’s not their stance on Europe that’s responsible for all these votes. In fact, polling consistently shows that for UKIP supporters, the EU doesn’t even make the top three in terms of its importance as an issue to them. The economy, immigration, crime and welfare come before Europe. Experts have found that:

“Their [UKIP] vote is driven more by concerns over immigration, disillusionment with the government and general unhappiness with modernity.”

In a bumper poll, carried out last December, Lord Ashcroft (yes, him again. His impact on British politics is only going to increase) and his team spoke to 20,000 UKIP, and potential UKIP, supporters. He found that policies were secondary to outlook. Those who are attracted to UKIP are:

“More preoccupied than most with immigration, and will occasionally complain about Britain’s contribution to the EU or the international aid budget. But these are often part of a greater dissatisfaction with the way they see things going in Britain: schools, they say, can’t hold nativity plays or harvest festivals anymore; you can’t fly a flag of St George anymore; you can’t call Christmas Christmas anymore...you won’t get social housing unless you’re an immigrant; you can’t speak up about these things because you’ll be called a racist; you can’t even smack your children”

“The mainstream political parties are so in thrall to the prevailing culture of political correctness that they have ceased to represent the silent majority.”

Sounds just like another party of the (very) right, whose support has plummeted in recent years.
In this respect, there’s not much the Conservatives could have done to stave this off. Their candidate held many views that wouldn’t look out of place in a UKIP manifesto. Even with a right wing choice, the Tories only managed to capture 25% of the vote. In one of their main target seats. One might argue that Maria Hutchings did badly because she was too right wing. But, it didn’t do UKIP any harm. It seems, for now at least, a large swathe of ex-Tories have settled on UKIP. It also assumes UKIP voters see themselves as naturally right wing. No doubt, many Labour voters also opted for UKIP in Eastleigh. The concerns expressed above can also be found amongst disillusioned Labour voters.

What should concern the Tories most is their share of the vote. A 14 point drop from 39% in 2010. YouGov’s latest puts the Tories, nationally, on just 29%. A Conservative majority in two year’s time looks further away than ever. A word about their candidate. Missing in action would be the best way to describe Maria Hutchings. The woman who refused to speak. To anyone!

What about Labour? If I was Ed Miliband this morning, I’d be pretty worried. This was way, way off, a target seat for Labour. That much we know. Scraping the barrel, a Labour spin doctor could point to its increase of its share of the vote. By 0.2%. Not exactly One Nation form. Whilst Labour never expected to win, it still hoped to be competitive. Instead, it couldn’t win over disaffected Tory voters, who flocked to UKIP. Much has been made of those angry and betrayed Lib Dems switching allegiance to Labour. Not if last night’s result is anything to go by. Like the Conservatives, the Lib Dems vote fell 14 points. Instead, not voting was preferable than plumping for Labour. It is these ex-Lib Dems that Labour desperately needs if it has any hope of securing a majority.

I liked John O’Farrell, Labour’s comic, writer, turned candidate. Refreshingly honest, not a party drone with over-rehearsed soundbites. But, Labour should have gone local. Issues centered around Eastleigh. To say, “I’m surprised how much of the literature from the Conservatives and Liberals has been about local authority issues…I’m not standing for the council. I’m standing for Westminster,” as O’ Farrell did last week, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the campaign that was being fought. As well as his admission that he wouldn’t move to the constituency, should he have won. Not clever politics.

So, why wasn’t last night a reason for celebration for the Liberals? Firstly, they now have a very vulnerable 1,771 majority. If you thought it was precarious, at under 4,000 before, then you were mistaken. I would imagine the Tories will target this seat with even more vigor in 2015. Complete with a far better candidate.

Secondly, to see your vote slip from 46% to 32% suggests much of your core support has abandoned you. It is worth noting that in recent elections, majorities have been slim in this constituency. You have to go back to the last by-election here, in 1994, to see a winning candidate leave with a handsome majority.

For Nick Clegg, I’d say the result doesn’t really alter his standing. He is still a liability for many of the party’s voters. Holding on to Eastleigh is more a victory for the Lib Dems’ formidable army of local activists than it is for the party leadership. They may feel relieved and satisfied this morning, but what this demonstrates, is the monumental task they’ll have in holding on to all their existing MPs, come the next election.

A final thought on UKIP. Had Nigel Farage chosen to stand, they could have gone all the way. Odds on, he’ll be his party’s candidate here in two year’s time.


This comment piece was first published on Speaker's Chair on Friday 1st March 2013

Bristol City’s Plan B will soon put paid to Ashton Vale

Writers who make grand predictions risk looking like idiots. So here goes: before the year is out, Bristol City will throw in the towel on its tortuous journey to Ashton Vale. As unveiled by the club last week, Plan B – redeveloping Ashton Gate – will soon become its only option.

How do I know this? I don’t. It’s only a hunch, based on four factors.  Firstly, the club has some breathing space. Plans for Ashton Vale are in limbo until October at the very least, with a second inquiry into the site’s supposed ‘town green’ status up for discussion. This doesn’t mean that once a decision is made, all will be plain sailing. The club needs to brace itself for years of legal wrangling.

Which leads me on to my second point. The people who run and finance Bristol City aren’t stupid. More than five years of fighting has surely started to take its toll. Steve Lansdown et al. are rightly making contingency plans. It seems more than likely that they are bracing themselves for another setback. The one later this year, should it happen, could prove fatal.

Thirdly, (and as far as I’m concerned the factor governing all others), is the club’s current league predicament. Still in the bottom three, and still in a relegation battle. Things have certainly improved with the new manager, but everyone else around City has started to improve too. Now seems the perfect time to go public with plans that we’re told have been worked on for the past six months.

It is surely the strong possibility that Bristol city will be relegated that has forced the club to take drastic action. Now of course nobody associated with it would come out and admit this, and I wouldn’t expect them to. This is just my interpretation of events.

I’ve stated my view on these pages before that whilst I wholeheartedly support the move to Ashton Vale, now is the wrong time for such a move to take place. Plan B gives City a get-out clause. And, to quote The Post’s editor, a “very seductive” one at that. In fact, Plan B is so good, and makes so much more sense than Ashton Vale, that I’m surprised is hasn’t been mooted before. Yes, there’d be disruption on match days, but the phased nature of the redevelopment would ensure it would be kept to a minimum.

Finally, it’s revealed that sprucing up Ashton Gate would cost less than half what it would cost to move grounds: £40m versus £92m. That’s some saving; current economic climate and all that.

As The Post’s editor goes on to say, this proposal “puts the club back on the front foot,” and, all being well, in control of its own destiny. Reading what Jon Lansdown, managing director and son of Steve, has said further convinces me that this is more than just a back-up plan:

“Ashton Gate has been the club's spiritual home for more than 100 years and these plans would improve and enhance the facilities in readiness for the next 100 years.

"Modern stadium facilities are a key pillar for the club, closely aligned with our community engagement, youth development, recruitment and financial prudence.

"This redevelopment plan is testament to all of that."

"We need to make sure we have an alternative as, regardless of where it is sited, the club needs a new stadium. We have had many frustrations and difficulties in our attempt to build a new stadium on Ashton Vale.

"These plans for Ashton Gate give us a viable alternative should we be unable to, or choose not to, proceed on Ashton Vale.”

In continuing the good relationship it has with its fans, City have vowed to consult supporters over the possible new design every step of the way, just as they did over Ashton Vale.

A further point, which hasn’t received as much attention, is the club’s announcement that Ashton Gate Mark II (and even Ashton Vale) would offer itself up to trial safe standing. That is, assuming a long list of hurdles are jumped before. It’s great to see the club putting itself at the forefront of the excellent Football Supporters’ Federation’s long campaign to reintroduce safe standing into the top two divisions of English football.

I don’t expect to hear much more until the close season, when the club will submit a formal planning application to the council. Considering Mayor Ferguson has already come out and enthusiastically backed Plan B, I can’t see there being much opposition from councillors. The delays over Ashton Vale look bad on the council and the city. Only a fool would turn this down.

And by the summer, we’ll know which division Bristol City will be playing in come August. If it’s League One, there’d no longer be any need for October’s inquiry. Relegation would be the final nail in the coffin for a ground at Ashton Vale.

This comment piece was first published by thisisbristol on Wednesday 13th February 2013

We don’t need “snow wardens.” We need community spirit and personal responsibility.

There’s only one thing more predictable than the sight of Britain coming to a standstill at the first heavy snowfall, and that’s someone moaning about the fact that Britain always comes to a standstill at the first heavy snowfall. Far be it from me to worry about such grumbling.

On Friday, it snowed in Bristol. A lot. For days, we were told to expect Snowmaggedon. Be prepared. Stay warm. Only make essential journeys. (Problem is, society hasn’t quite worked out what an essential journey is). The trains excelled themselves, with South West cancelling some its services before a flake had even fallen. That’s the Blitz spirit we all know and love. With some admirable exceptions, schools closed, forcing parents to take a day off work.

The thing about snow is that it starts off looking beautiful and magical, but soon the white fluffy stuff turns to the treacherous icy stuff. This is where you hope the council does its job and grits as many streets and roads as it possibly can. Where I live, the picture is mixed, with main roads clear, but pavements ungritted – and hazardous.  Traipsing down the Well Roads has become something of a trial. And getting down my own (non-main) road is hard enough at the moment.

But, it needn’t be.

I have just learned about “snow wardens.” The council appoints them for the hilliest parts of the city. Apparently, there are 58 of them. Their job? To help clear the snow and ice away. The council provides them with a shovel, some grit and high-visibility jackets (which might make them hard to distinguish from offenders on community service, assuming such schemes still exist).

Now, I don’t have a problem with the “snow wardens” idea per se. But, let’s be honest. The only reason such a scheme exists in the first place is because few of us can be bothered to scrape away the snow and ice from outside our homes. It’s great that there are volunteers out there happy to help, but is it too much to ask that each and every one of us who can, does their bit? Why should the council need to appoint “snow wardens?”

If we can’t be relied on to do something which should take no more than a few minutes, it’s no wonder older (and even younger) generations lament the passing of community spirit in this country. In times gone by, people wouldn’t need to be asked to bring out a shovel. They’d already be there, bright and early, and doing their neighbours’ path too.

This is only a small gripe. It’s not the end of the world. It just feels like nowadays we rely on authority, or the goodwill of others, to do everything for us. The council should get on with gritting and salting main roads. The rest of us can take care of our own streets and paths.

And for those worried about the health and safety police advising against removing snow without the appropriate training, or those concerned about being sued should a stranger slip over outside their home as a result of a homeowner’s inept clearing job, help is at hand. Government advice, issued in October 2010, sought to demolish the usual myths that get banded about. We now have a “Snow Code.” Yes, really. Commonsense is the order of the day and people have been reassured that they are “extremely unlikely” to be sued if someone slips. I mean “snow code!” What on earth have we become??

This comment piece was first published on thisisbristol on Sunday 20th January 2013

The Mayor deserves £65k a year. Now time to pay councillors a full-time salary.

Politicians and their salaries. I’m sure if some members of the public had their way, they’d be lucky to be paid minimum wage. For obvious reasons, councillors and MPs become rather queasy when talking about their salaries. There never seems to be a good time to raise the prospect of a pay rise. Sympathetic ears are in short supply. The British don’t take too kindly to people moaning about money, let alone an elected official. Instead, coming off the back of past furores when MPs have demanded a pay increase, they’ve taken the only (sensible) step they know how. If you’re a politician, and someone mentions the dreaded words “pay rise,” you remain silent, seem uncomfortable, and pull an awkward looking face.

Is it false modesty? Possibly. More likely avoiding the prospect of getting lynched in the street. But they can rest easy. I’m happy to do the talking for them. When it comes to councillors, it’s about time we paid them a full-time salary.

At present, every councillor in Bristol receives a basic remuneration of £11,416 a year. Those with additional responsibilities are granted an SRA (Special Responsibility Allowance). Before the election of Mayor George Ferguson, the council leader took home a tidy £52,000 a year. Executive members, committee chairs and political group leaders were also paid up to £20,000 on top of their basic salary.

All this has now changed. This week councillors from all parties agreed, rightly, that the mayor’s wages should match that of an MP: £65,738. Members of Ferguson’s cabinet get £21,000, as well as their basic pay. Most councillors will still get their basic sum, plus extras, as and when needed.

This needs to change. Last week, a panel of MPs concluded that councillors had a right to expect “an appropriate level of compensation,” although, unhelpfully, failed to say what this level should be. They argued that the setting of councillors' pay should be taken out of their hands and given to an independent body. What’s more, they stressed that low pay was deterring many young people from entering local politics. The average age of a councillor nationwide stands at a youthful 60.

Admittedly, this isn’t going to happen in the age of austerity, but it’s something that should be considered in the future. Most people are unaware of who their councillor is, and even less clear about what exactly they do. Some argue that the honour and pride of working for their community should be enough. Hence, it’s a role that is often taken up by those who are either retired or approaching retirement. But, we pay MPs, so why not councillors? Nobody is more in tune with the needs of the people around them than the local councillor. MPs are far too busy, and far too absent, to do anywhere near enough for their constituents.

It might seem a strange time to suggest this soon after Bristol has voted in its first mayor. After all, the power of the city’s councillors has been significantly diluted. But even more reason to give them a greater purpose in their own wards. Whilst the mayor has the ultimate say over almost everything, he cannot be expected to know the ins and outs of everything.

Bristol decided that it needed a mayor to grapple with the city’s problems. According to the Cities minister, he is now “one of the most powerful political figures in the country.” Properly paying councillors would also recognise the vital role they play. Yes, they don’t always deal with the glamorous stuff (grumbling about car-parking spaces and broken street lights just two examples of complaints they commonly come across), but this is the mundane stuff that we take for granted. We assume the roads will be gritted when it snows (all eyes on Friday), that our bins will be collected, that our electricity always works, that our parks are looked after. These things don’t happen by accident. Councillors, together with thousands of council staff, are working tirelessly behind the scenes.

Cutting the number of councillors in Bristol, from 70 to 35, would free up money to pay the remaining half, something in the region of £25,000 a year. It would also ensure that it attracts people from a wider cross-section of society. Rather than something that is done alongside the day job, resulting in late nights and busy weekends, becoming a councillor would become a profession in its own right. It’s the very least they deserve.


This comment piece was first published by thisisbristol on Wednesday 16th January 2013

A Lib-Lab Coalition would require some sturdy nose pegs

This week, David Clark, editor of the fine centre-left blog, Shifting Grounds, and other signatories from the world of leftism, called on Labour to begin Lib/Lab negotiations. Or at the very least start to draw up a timetable, paving the way for a “progressive coalition” in 2015. I use the word progressive hesitantly.

There have been a number of opinion pieces written on this subject in recent months. The political realists appreciate the current mood. Another coalition, whilst not desirable, could well be on its way, so forging a plan, even reluctantly, is a necessary step. Others recoil from the very thought of one, and will hear nothing of compromise and deals being made with the Liberals.

I find myself being pulled in both directions. The sensible, tribal-averse part of me knows that Labour should be prepared for every eventuality. They may not have a choice. After the last election, it felt like the political landscape had somehow permanently altered. Hung parliaments may well be a constant fixture in the future. Between 1945-1970, Labour and the Tories won approximately 90% of the vote. In 2010, this had plummeted to 65%. The support of UKIP and “Others” continues to eat away at the big three. Proponents of pragmatism say, in short, better to be faced with Lib-Lab than Con-Dem Part II.

Nonetheless, the vengeful part of me wants nothing to do with the 57 men and women who have sat back and allowed the Tories to rule with impunity. Who have forgotten what being in coalition actually means. Clue: this isn’t it. Yes, there are some good things that have been enacted, partly down to Liberal pressure, but not everything falls under the banner of deficit reduction. See: NHS and welfare reform.

A consensus seems to be emerging, amongst us sceptical types anyway, that Labour’s double-digit lead in the polls is a soft one. The public still isn’t convinced Labour can be trusted to handle our finances. After a year of fluctuating polls, when it comes to being trusted to run the economy, Labour’s support has barely budged. Ed Miliband still trails his party in terms of popularity, whereas David Cameron remains his party’s greatest asset. An upturn in the economy, and he can almost certainly expect to benefit.

The political mainstream must shoulder the bulk of the blame for hung parliaments or threats thereof. Under Ed Miliband, Labour has started, at last, to sound and feel different from the Tories. The trouble is, many of his party’s differences are too nuanced for the public to understand. And Labour’s stance on welfare isn’t backed by public opinion. Instead, fringe groups (the nuttier the better) fill the ideological vacuum.

It does seem strange to talk about future coalitions when current projections forecast a handsome Labour majority. But, politics has never felt more unpredictable. Second-guessing the electorate is fraught with problems. Labour continues to profit from disaffected and angry Lib Dems, and yet their support can’t be taken for granted. Will all those who claim to have been betrayed by Nick Clegg et al. really turn out and put a cross next to a Labour candidate at election day, or will they chose not to bother voting at all? Instinct tells me the latter is more likely, especially as many of these Lib Dem voters were disillusioned Labour ones in the first place.

Relying on UKIP to aid Labour by unseating Tory candidates is also a massive gamble. Again, this assumes ex-Tories will abandon their party when they need them most. It’s one thing someone saying they’ll vote UKIP, whilst still safely two and a half years from a general election. It’s quite another actually doing so. It would surely be an electoral miracle if UKIP polled anything close to their current showing, which sees them at an all-time high of 16%. Too many what ifs and maybes.

So I may not like it, and many like me may not like it, but not even entertaining the idea of a Lib-Lab partnership would be reckless in the extreme.

 

This comment piece was first published by Speaker's Chair on Sunday 13th January 2013