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

At last, Labour understands voters’ concerns on immigration

Ed Miliband is not someone who shies away from a challenge. He has demonstrated this admirably since becoming Labour leader. Getting to grips with the thorny issue of immigration is one thing. Getting to grips with his party’s record on the subject is another. This year he has attempted to do both.

It’s surely no coincidence he chose the week of the release of the latest batch of 2011 Census stats to give his second keynote speech on the subject. Official figures showed the biggest ten-yearly increase in population since the Census’ inauguration in 1801. An additional 3.7 million people now reside in England and Wales, with net migration responsible for 55% of this rise. Inevitably, this last figure got pundits talking and heads shaking. Unsurprisingly, because Labour was in office for most of this period, it has faced a barrage of criticism and been blamed for letting immigration spiral out of control.
 
Miliband has already conceded that Labour got certain things wrong. He has tried to reassure those who worry about high levels of immigration; about Britain’s ability to cope with such a large influx in such a short space of time. Back in June, he told an audience, at an event organised by the think tank IPPR, that people had every right to be concerned:
 
"Worrying about immigration, talking about immigration, thinking about immigration, does not make them bigots. Not in any way. They are anxious about the future.” 

He admitted that his party had lost touch with the real life experiences and worries of ordinary voters, acknowledging that anxieties were wrongly dismissed:

“Quite simply, we became too disconnected from the concerns of working people. We too easily assumed those who worried about immigration were stuck in the past. Unrealistic about how things could be different. Even prejudiced.

“But Britain was experiencing the largest peacetime migration in recent history. And people's concerns were genuine. Why didn't we listen more?
 
“At least by the end of our time in office, we were too dazzled by globalisation and too sanguine about its price. By focusing too much on globalization and migration's impact on growth, we lost sight of who was benefiting from that growth – and the people who were being squeezed. 

“And, to those who lost out, Labour was too quick to say ‘like it or lump it.”

Last week, he picked up where he left off. Once again, he delivered a speech which was measured and sensible in both tone and substance. Again, he returned to the theme of voter unease:

 “We must not fall into the trap of believing that to talk about people’s anxieties is to fuel them.”
 
This time he touched upon social and cultural matters: the crux of the problem for many people, the trickiest to speak about, and the hardest to measure using cold empirical data. 

“The capacity of our economy to absorb new migrants was greater than the capacity of some of our communities to adapt.”
 
“Of course immigration has always been unsettling. With new ways of life, new religions, new people in neighbourhoods. It takes time for people to get to know each other. The extent of change can intensify the anxiety.”

“But too often we were a bit optimistic. Thinking people’s connections with each other would just take care of themselves. That as long as the economy was doing well, that services were well-run, people would learn to get on together, and our common life would flourish automatically.
 
“And while the problems were real. Our solutions seemed too abstract. We talked about “shared citizenship”. But we did too little to tackle the realities of segregation in communities that were struggling to cope.” 

Slowly but surely Labour are skilfully tackling this issue. Ed Miliband has been very careful not to demonise or caricature, but to see immigration as a complex, multi-layered topic. One which leads to a number of sub-topics. Sometimes these are incorrectly conflated but, for now, Labour has the balance about right.

Robert Ford, lecturer in Politics at Manchester University, identified the pitfalls for left wingers confronting this issue:

 “Any proposal will be dismissed by commentators on the right as tokenism which does nothing to address the real issues, and by many on the left as pandering to prejudices which should be challenged. On top of this, the media will reinterpret any message on immigration and identity in terms of its own negative dominant narrative of segregation and division, regardless of whether this accurately reflects the content.” 
 
Over the course of last Friday, discussion was more focused on how this speech had been pre-spun, with heavy attention given towards integration, and a call for immigrants to know how to speak English, than its actual content. 

Stressing that those hoping to work in publically-funded, public-facing jobs, should be proficient in English, seems about as uncontroversial a proposal as one could suggest. People doing important jobs that involve dealing with the public need to be able to properly communicate with them. And yet, there are still some on the left who won’t even accept this, seeing it as “hollow populism.”

The commentator Suzanne Moore correctly tweeted about the importance of women from immigrant groups learning English: “I want people i.e. women to speak English. Without it they are often trapped at home, dependent on children to translate.”

I have written about what one academic has called the “culturally threatened” before. What certain left wingers see as economic grievances, decades of research has found to be:
 
“...a perceived sense of threat to the cultural unity of the nation – rather than economic threat – that is the strongest driver of prejudice, and also the desire for more restrictive immigration and asylum policies.” 

It is far easier and a lot safer to approach immigration from an economic perspective. To talk about it in terms of its effect on wages, jobs, and housing. The real challenge is to talk about it in terms of its effect on demographics and culture. Not an easy thing to capture in an opinion poll, hard to articulate, but something which people see with their own eyes. At long last, Labour seems to understand voters’ concerns on immigration.    

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Wednesday 19th December 2012

 

Bristol Labour councillors undermined by blinkered NEC

A farce and an embarrassment is how I’d describe recent events in Bristol. In under a week, Labour have managed to score not one, but two own goals. All coming off the back of the election on November 15^th of the city’s newly elected mayor, George Ferguson, the independent candidate.

From the moment he took office, Ferguson has called for a “rainbow coalition” to sit in his cabinet. Based on the election results, he vowed to fill it with three Labour councillors, one Tory, one Lib Dem, and one Green. A city beset by years of political squabbling and inertia was finally going to put Bristol first. Indeed, the city has felt just that little bit more upbeat, hopeful that this time things will be different; a mayor, with bite, and the power to get things done.

Well, that was the fantasy, anyway. Labour has shut the door on the chance to be a part of Ferguson’s cabinet. Last Wednesday evening, Bristol Labour Party members gathered to reflect on defeat, and to look ahead to the future, where it was to decide on whether the party should accept a role with the new mayor. A vote was taken, where much to my dismay but not surprise, most members voted against entering into coalition rule. I was at this meeting and voted in favour.

Then, last Thursday, Labour councillors had their own meeting to discuss what to do next. On Friday morning, live on BBC Radio Bristol, Labour’s leader on the council, Peter Hammond, revealed that the party had voted in favour (discovered yesterday to be 9 to 8,) of working with Ferguson. I was stunned, shocked, and delighted. Naturally, those who supported this decision took to Twitter (where else?!) and the blogosphere to express their relief, more than anything else, that sense had prevailed. Other not so happy members naturally had a somewhat different take, angered that the views of the party membership had been ignored.

And then the NEC got involved. On Sunday, Hammond told the local media that the party had been instructed to abide by the wishes of its members, and to take its place in the new administration as “constructive opposition.” Something which prompted Hammond to resign as party leader, but not before he articulated what many Bristolians, both within and outside the local Labour Party, felt:

“Earlier today the Labour Party announced that they were not prepared to endorse a proposal from Bristol’s Labour councillors to take up the offer of three seats (out of six) in George Ferguson’s cabinet. As a loyal member of the Labour Party I must and will abide by that decision however flawed I think it is.

“[But] in all conscience I cannot publicly support a decision that runs contrary to the advice I gave to Labour councillors which they accepted by a majority decision as they are entitled to do.

“To date I have received numerous emails and had numerous conversations (with Labour Party members and members of the public (Labour voters and otherwise) who told me that Labour should forget what they saw as narrow party self-interest and ‘get in there’ to argue for the values and practical measures Labour represents.

"I have never believed that Labour participation in this cabinet would deliver the manifesto upon which we contested the mayoral election but in these changed political circumstances we should at least be able to be at the table to advocate Labour’s approach in dealing with the issues facing the people of Bristol in the face of government actions which do not benefit Bristolians.”

I couldn’t have put it any better.

A chance for Labour to put some of its agenda at the heart of George Ferguson’s first cabinet has been squandered in the most chaotic fashion. There’s no doubt in my mind the behaviour of the Lib Dems in government has somewhat sullied rule by coalition. For every unpopular decision made by the Tories, the Liberals have taken the greater battering in the polls. Those members opposed to this political union from the start argue that they don’t want Bristol Labour to be associated with every unfair cut, or ill-conceived policy, that may be enacted. We’re told that cuts of up to £32m are on their way.

To which I say, use the power available to you – remember, Labour have been offered three cabinet posts, to the three offered collectively to the Tories, Liberals and Greens – to ensure our city’s most vulnerable and most in need of help don’t get penalised. Rather than carping from the sidelines in a city which has stopped listening to you.

This was a wonderful opportunity for Labour to try and shape the policies of the city’s first directly elected mayor. Ferguson himself has expressed his desire to work with Labour, saying he is sympathetic to some of its ideas and proposals put forward during the campaign. Labour, and the Greens, have led the way in calling for a living wage. Their pressure has resulted in Ferguson agreeing to implement it by the end of his first term.

The NEC’s intervention has ensured that if any Labour policies are passed, it won’t be Labour getting the credit. The NEC’s stance is idiotic, foolish, and short-sighted. Naked tribalism over the majority has won the day. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of peoples’ feelings towards the council over how things have always been done in Bristol.

George Ferguson’s election has generated a lot of good will. I’m sure even amongst Liberal or Tory voters, resentment has been somewhat tempered. The NEC has badly misjudged the mood of the city. They have imposed diktat from afar. Lambasted by the public following Wednesday’s vote, Labour councillors had started to restore some pride to its party. Only for it to be cruelly and humiliatingly taken away a couple of days later.

Labour’s refusal to jump on board has been met with incredulity. Some proclaim this now makes Labour irrelevant in the city.

Bristolians want to see some action. They want to see a change from the bad old days. They want someone to come along and make this great city even greater. They want affordable, reliable buses; they want more homes built; more primary school places; anti-social behaviour dealt with. They’re not interested in incestuous party politics. If Labour doesn’t want to be a part of this, that’s fine, we’ll carry on and leave them behind. You can guarantee these thoughts are going through the heads of a great many locals right now.

A browse through some of the comments on the pages of “thisisbristol,” the online version of the local newspaper, The Post, should make for sobering reading for key party strategists. They are not uninformed rants, but highly insightful, and in tune with what the city needs at this moment.

My feeling is that this is a mistake Labour will come to regret. Every justification the party makes, with the same reasons monotonously churned out, only serves to strengthen this belief.


This article was first published on Labour Uncut on Tuesday 27th November 2012

Labour councillors undermined by party’s blinkered governing body

What a farce. What an embarrassment. In under a week Labour have managed to score not just one, but two major own goals. A chance to put some of its agenda at the heart of George Ferguson’s first cabinet has been squandered in the most harebrained fashion.

The reaction last Thursday from many Bristolians to the news that party members had voted against joining Ferguson’s “rainbow coalition” was met with a mixture of incredulity and dismay. Worse, some proclaimed this now made Labour irrelevant in the city. Again, in the interests of openness, I declare that as a Labour Party member I attended Wednesday’s meeting, and of course voted in favour of joining the cabinet. Unfortunately, I was in a minority. A browse through some of the comments on these pages would have made for sobering reading for key party strategists.

And one can only assume certain personnel read them, judging by the decision from Labour councillors to defy its members and vote in favour of coalition politics. Assuming that the party’s councillors would go along with the views of its members, I was somewhat stunned, and delighted, to hear the news that sense had prevailed. I’d like to think someone, somewhere, had listened to me. I should be so lucky!

This morning on BBC Radio Bristol, Labour MP for Bristol South, Dawn Primarolo, revealed that councillors had voted in favour by the narrowest of margins: 9 to 8.

And then yesterday we had the dramatic and humiliating u-turn. Humiliating for councillors to see their wishes, however small, overruled by the NEC, the governing body of the Labour Party which oversees its direction and policy-making process.

George Ferguson’s election has generated a lot of good will. I’m sure even amongst Liberal or Tory voters, resentment has been somewhat tempered. The NEC has badly misjudged the mood of the city. They have imposed diktat from afar. Lambasted by the public following Wednesday’s vote, Labour councillors had started to restore some pride to its party. Only for it to be cruelly taken away a couple of days later.

What the NEC doesn’t realise, or for whatever reason has chosen to ignore, is the possible damage all this is doing, and will do, to the party in Bristol. They are either so removed or so unaware of the politics of this city that they haven’t the faintest clue how this looks to non-Labour voters. Only the most tribal, the most blinkered, would think their intervention has helped.

There is certainly a debate to be had about whether elected party councillors should be able to brush aside the desires of party members. But, it’s a debate for another time, and certainly one that the wider public couldn’t give two hoots about.

Bristolians want to see some action. They want to see a change from how things have been done in the past. They want someone to come along and make this great city even greater. They want affordable, reliable buses; they want more homes built; more primary school places; anti-social behaviour dealt with. They’re not interested in incestuous party politics. If Labour doesn’t want to be a part of this, that’s fine, we’ll carry on and leave them behind. You can guarantee these thoughts are going through the heads of a great many locals right now.

Again, I sympathise with some of the reasons Labour have put forward for wanting to sit in opposition, even if I think they are wrong. There’s no doubt in my mind the behaviour of the Lib Dems in government has somewhat sullied rule by coalition. For every unpopular decision made by the Tories, the Liberals have taken the greater battering in the polls.

Bristol Labour doesn’t want to be associated with every unfair cut, or ill-conceived policy, that may be enacted. But, then do your best to fight them. Use the power available to you – remember, Labour have been offered three cabinet posts, to the three offered collectively to the Tories, Liberals and Greens – to ensure our city’s most vulnerable and most in need of help don’t get penalised. Rather than carping from the sidelines in a city which has stopped listening to you.

I strongly believe that refusing to sit in cabinet is a mistake and one the party will come to regret. As touched upon above, read some of the comments by readers of these pages in response to Wednesday’s vote. If these are anything to go by, the backlash has already begun. They shouldn’t be dismissed as rants and ravings. Many are highly insightful.

At least Peter Hammond, Labour’s leader on the council, did the honourable thing over the weekend and resigned. How often do we get to say that in politics? Citing central party interference, Hammond declared that he wasn’t prepared to ignore his colleagues’ wishes:

“Earlier today the Labour Party announced that they were not prepared to endorse a proposal from Bristol’s Labour councillors to take up the offer of three seats (out of six) in George Ferguson’s cabinet. As a loyal member of the Labour Party I must and will abide by that decision however flawed I think it is.

“[But] in all conscience I cannot publicly support a decision that runs contrary to the advice I gave to Labour councillors which they accepted by a majority decision as they are entitled to do.

“To date I have received numerous emails and had numerous conversations (with Labour Party members and members of the public (Labour voters and otherwise) who told me that Labour should forget what they saw as narrow party self-interest and ‘get in there’ to argue for the values and practical measures Labour represents.

"I have never believed that Labour participation in this cabinet would deliver the manifesto upon which we contested the mayoral election but in these changed political circumstances we should at least be able to be at the table to advocate Labour’s approach in dealing with the issues facing the people of Bristol in the face of government actions which do not benefit Bristolians.”

I couldn’t have put it any better.


This article was first published on thisisbristol on Monday 26th November 2012

It’s a no brainer: if invited, Labour should join Ferguson’s cabinet

Newly elected mayor, George Ferguson, may soon find that winning proves to be the easy part. The tricky bit will be bringing all the city’s power brokers together. It’s pretty much accepted that the Lib Dems will find themselves in Ferguson’s cabinet, together with the Greens. After all, it was those disenchanted Liberals who helped get him elected.

What about Labour? Noises coming out of Bristol’s Labour’s Party suggest things may not be quite as straightforward. Early indications are that being a “constructive opposition” would be preferable to accepting a place at the top table. An opposition which scrutinises and holds its leaders to account is essential in a democracy. I accept this.

Except, this isn’t Westminster. This is Bristol. Local democracy should at times be able to rise above the dog eat dog world of the Commons. Now with an elected mayor, it’ll finally have some bite. For the first time in a generation we have a chance to get this city moving and release its untapped potential.

Labour can sit idly by watching/opposing Ferguson et.al. implement cuts they perceive to be damaging, disproportionate, and unfair, or they can do something about it. By not joining, they are showing the city that they are putting their own party’s interests above the city’s. Or that’s how some might see it. Remember, perception is everything in this game.

In Bristol, we exist beyond the suffocations of the Westminster Village. Labour can have a very real and positive influence. In an ideal world, it’d be great to see Marvin Rees, Labour’s mayoral candidate, offered a prominent role. As I mentioned in my previous posting, of all the mayoral candidates, only Rees truly grasped the damage that is being done to the city by the gaping chasm that is its social inequality. If anything, his concession speech proved what Bristol stands to miss out on. I had always hoped that whoever won would offer the losing candidate a significant role in the mayor’s first cabinet.

But, I find some of the reasons given for why Labour should turn down possible cabinet posts incredibly depressing. In a piece for LabourList, Labour’s premier grassroots blog – independent, but supportive of the party – its editor, Mark Ferguson, outlined his rationale, warning Bristol Labour people why they should do just this:

“Some Labour people will be placed in a difficult and uncomfortable position – being offered positions in an independent administration, perhaps alongside Tories, Lib Dems and others. In a way it’s understandable if some consider taking roles working alongside independents. Four years in opposition is a long time, and the need to help those who only Labour can stand up for is great.

“And yet by working for an “Independent” – those Labour people could end up doing a great deal of harm to Labour voters, and the party.

“Labour politicians helping a politician push his anti-Labour agenda would leave a bad taste in the mouth for sure, but it would also damage the party in Bristol… It would be a betrayal of the party that got them elected to advance their careers.

“Bristol is the kind of place where Labour needs to maintain and extend its support, and this task will be made harder if local Labour councillors are acting as apologists for a non-Labour Mayor who will (like everyone else in local government) be forced to make unpopular cuts.”

Normally, I have a lot of time for what Ferguson writes. He is often astute and measured in his analysis. But, on this, I think he is wrong.

Firstly, it’s hard to pre-judge what kind of mayor George Ferguson will be. Labour doesn’t know. None of us know. Part of his appeal was this unknown quantity. Yes, cuts will be on their way. Up to £32m, so we’re told. This is therefore a chance for Labour to help in shaping the mayor’s agenda, ensuring it isn’t the city’s most vulnerable who bear the brunt.

In fact, this is a chance for all the four parties in Bristol, (including the Greens) to show that for once, they are above party politics. Don’t you think this city has had enough of the pettiness and the mud-slinging? It’s held Bristol back for years. Now, with a mayor, with cross-party support, we can put the past behind us.

Some may dismiss this as idealistic and naive. I’m happy to accept both charges. There’s nothing wrong with believing that all parties, and none, can work together.

Labour accuses George Ferguson of having run an unashamedly “anti-Labour” campaign. Of course he was going to do this. He knew full well that getting voters to reject Labour represented his best chance of cashing in. In the end, it was their rejection of the Tories and Lib Dems that benefited him the most. Of course asking voters to reject one party, rather than positively endorsing another, is negative and cynical. But, everyone does it. It’s just electioneering.

Not joining Ferguson’s cabinet would be short-sighted, foolish and wrong. It would also show voters they were right to reject business-as-usual party politics. It is also worth pointing out that Ferguson doesn’t have to bring Labour along with him. Let’s be honest, had Labour won, would Ferguson be invited to join the cabinet? Unlikely.

Rather than putting their careers ahead of the party, as Mark Ferguson says they would be doing, I ask Labour to put Bristol ahead of their party. After all, it could end up benefiting the party rather than harming it.


This article was first published on thisisbristol on Wednesday 21st November 2012

Why George Ferguson won, or why Labour lost

Bristolians have always known what makes their city special: its beauty, diversity and edginess, as well as the locals’ refusal to follow the herd. Once again, for the second time in six months, Bristol has dared to be different. There are several reasons why George Ferguson won last week’s mayoral election. Some of them are the same reasons why Labour lost, some are not.

If it were a choice between who had the better manifesto and the most alluring pledges, Marvin Rees, Labour’s candidate, should have won hands down. Rees understood from day one the key issue Bristol needed to address: its social inequality. Yes, the buses are a disgrace, we all know that. And, most of the candidates promised to fix them. But, only Rees was talking the language of equality, or lack of. Who better to address the alarming gaps in quality of life – be it housing, work, crime, or even just life expectancy - between residents of Lawrence Hill and Westbury on Trym, than a resident of the former, who has seen with his own eyes what happens when parts of the city get left behind?

Whilst Ferguson played lip service to this crucial issue, Rees made it a centrepiece of his campaign. But it wasn’t enough. Voters across the country have been in punishing mood for some time now. Punishing the establishment that is.  For many, Rees, irrespective of many of his qualities – such as freshness and authenticity – was the Labour Party. The same Labour Party that people blame, along with the Tories and Lib Dems, for the stalemate and inertia at the council. It’s often been my belief that Bristol is a wonderful city, despite, not because of the work of the council.

Voters were clearly not prepared to take a chance on what they perceived to be just another Labour councillor in the making, with a far bigger paycheck, no matter how unfair that may seem or how strong a candidate Rees was.

Seeing a steady stream of the Labour Shadow Cabinet visiting Bristol would also have convinced many that Rees was, and would be, answerable to Labour Party HQ down in London. Whatever policy ideas Ed Miliband put forward, people would wonder if they’d be replicated here. Opposition attacks on the government? Bristolians would assume these were also Rees’ views.

The mayoralty should be an opportunity for political independence, or at least a little free-thinking, no matter what party you are standing for. That’s part of its appeal. Ken Livingstone, and even Boris Johnson, have made a name for themselves doing just this. The sight of Ed Balls, Harriet Harman, Diane Abbott, and even Ed Miliband, swanning around East Street or Cabot Circus reminds people of the very politics - or should that be the very politicians? - they are rejecting in greater numbers than ever before.

This is not about you; this is about us, Bristol. This should be an election about local issues, led by local activists, some may have thought. Not by big hitters vying for a return to government.

There’s no doubt that the low turnout – at 27.9%, only marginally better than the 24% who voted ‘yes’ in May – benefited an outsider. Historically, low turnouts tend to harm Labour. By the same token, it is the Conservatives who usually benefit, confident that their supporters will turn out on polling day. It’s simple demographics:  the elderly are statistically more likely to be Tory voters and they vote in greater numbers.  

Both of the above happened, but with a twist. The Conservative vote, like the Lib Dems’ (as expected) collapsed. Among Labour activists, there was concern that the Tories would vote in larger numbers than Labour folk. They were right to be worried. Except they didn’t turn out to vote Conservative. They voted for George Ferguson. Right across the city, people snubbed mainstream parties in favour of the untested independent.

There’s little doubt that George’s charisma, his refreshing honesty to admit to not knowing something in hustings, and his ‘none of the above’ appeal, won him many admirers, both old and new.

Ferguson’s main theme was to convince that he could transcend the squabbling party politics that have dogged the council for years. I was never swayed by the argument that he was being disingenuous in proudly proclaiming his independent credentials, when he had been, until recently, a long-standing member of the Lib Dems. He’s always maintained that he hadn’t been an active member for a while. But, more than this, I always felt this line of attack was fruitless and unlikely to have much of an impact on voters. Clearly they agreed.

It is also worth mentioning that, in general, this has been a pretty clean campaign, thankfully devoid of the dirty tricks and cynicism that can often dominate local politics. To this, all the candidates must take credit.

There was however one exception: politics as practised in the Twittersphere. As a Labour Party member (yes, cards on the table time) I was often appalled and rather disappointed at the incessant taunting and baiting of Ferguson online. Some Labour supporters seemed to feel it more worthwhile to devote their energy to unleashing a barrage of negative tweets in his direction, rather than singing the praises and highlighting the strengths of their own candidate. This is the kind of thing that drives people away from politics. To his credit, Ferguson, more often than not, refused to let it get to him, and responded, as far as Twitter is concerned, by being civil, respectful, and good humoured.

Finally, to all those who voted against having a directly elected mayor in May (that’s most of you), let me say this. At least now we know who’s in charge. Who to blame when things go wrong. And who to thank when they go right. Because I imagine most of you couldn’t name our last council leader. A victory for local democracy, if nothing else. (It was the Lib Dems’ Simon Cook, by the way).

 

This article was first published on thisisbristol on Tuesday 20th November 2012  

From the Fringe: The Times, polling, and Labour’s challenge

We have swing voters. We also have swing newspapers, of which The Times is one example. Whether they’re an accurate barometer of public opinion – do they move with the mood of voters or the other way round – is disputed. Either way, The Times is moderate enough, and less tribal, to be taken seriously.

At a fringe event on “Labour and the voters,” chaired by the paper’s editor, James Harding, a panel including Times writer Philip Collins, director of the polling firm Populus, Rick Nye, and Liam Byrne, cabinet member during Labour’s time in office, weighed in to that overcrowded debate: what does Labour have to do to get back into power?

Summed up thus: the party must show it is serious about cutting, that it won’t overspend again, has a plausible plan for job creation, and a leader who the public can see as their PM. Tick all these boxes and prepare for government.

As far as Collins is concerned, there are grounds for optimism. The Labour brand is in decent shape and the party hasn’t descended into factional fighting. The public are starting to listen to the opposition. The key question is what is the function and purpose of a Labour party without funds? Collins also pointed out that despite a double dip recession and missed deficit reduction targets, the approval ratings of the two Eds have remained relatively static in over a year and a half, locked around 32%.

According to Populus’s latest figures, the parties have reverted to type. The Tories trusted most to deal with immigration, crime, and welfare abuse, the so-called ‘hard’ subjects. Labour dominant on the softies of looking after the NHS - by a whopping 32 points – and improving standards in schools.

It also seems to be accepted wisdom that Labour’s lead, be it 10 or 15 points, is fragile. And this will remain so until a significant number are able to view Ed Miliband as a future PM. Certainly a majority.

For Liam Byrne, Labour has to ‘win on welfare’, with three challenges it must address: first, youth unemployment, with 40% under 25s without work. Second, a fierce and uncompromising attack on Conservative cuts which have targeted the most vulnerable. The party has ‘crossed the line on compassion,’ according to Byrne. Third, dragging social security into the 21^st century and getting an extra one million women into work which would in turn bring in an additional £4.5bn in tax receipts.

When drawn on an outcome for the next general election, and despite Labour’s poll lead, Rick Nye came down on the side of there being another hung parliament with Labour as the biggest party. Findings from Populus see evidence of a ‘spiral of silence’ of support for the Tories. Part of Cameron’s success lay in making it okay to admit to being a Tory voter again. Some of these voters have gone back underground. Nye also believes there is a substantial minority still in favour of Plan A, and yet to forgive Labour’s profligacy.

As this was an event co-hosted by The Times it seems only right to end with a look at its Monday editorial. It is this fundamental point that Labour must grapple with over the next 12 months:

“Mr Miliband would make a foolish mistake if he were to rest on the laurels of opinion poll leads that have been consistently more than 10 percentage points. The feeling persists, in the absence of a clear prospectus from Labour, that this lead is a soft indication of the failings of the coalition rather than a hard index of Labour popularity.” 

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Tuesday 2nd October 2012 

Labour must be ready for a Tory onslaught

Labour beware. The Tory high command are poised to unleash the attack dogs. The party has been given a free ride these past few months, coasting on the back of its double digit lead in the polls, a government forever on the defensive, and gobby backbenchers on the Tory Right doing their best to nibble away at David Cameron’s authority.

But the Tories are now ready to pounce and hone in on their number one target: Ed Miliband. So says Tim Montgomerie, the indispensable voice of the Tory grassroots, in his column for The Times this week. When the onslaught will come is uncertain, but when it does Labour needs to be ready and prepared with its own fight back.

According to Montgomerie the one thing that has kept Cameron and his aides going is their belief that in Miliband they have found their whipping boy. And not just Miliband but other members of the Shadow Cabinet too. Whenever there are concerns about the state of the economy, worries about defections to UKIP, the top brass reassure themselves they’ll always have Ed Miliband.

Montgomerie notes that party strategists have been using this time for information gathering:

“While until this moment the Tory guns have been silent, Tory operators have not been idle. They have been carefully researching Labour’s weaknesses. Lessons have been learnt from the 1996 and 1997 period when the Conservative Party never settled on a consistent critique of Tony Blair. There’ll be no return to the counter-productive demon eyes campaign. There will just be three endlessly repeated messages and they’ll be delivered whenever possible by trusted surrogates.”

Picking out Labour’s opposition to the government’s deficit reduction strategy remains high up on a list, along with their stance against caps on benefits and immigration, something Labour must know leaves them trailing public opinion on.

But the real prize remains the Labour leader. Whilst the party lingers around 40 odd percent in the polls, the public’s view of Miliband on the critical qualities of being ‘decisive,’ ‘strong,’ and ‘a natural leader,’ remains obdurately poor. Expect this to be exploited in the coming months. And yet for a sitting PM Cameron’s own ratings are hardly much to write home about. His descent has been rapid and dramatic.

It is also worth mentioning that Miliband scores well when it comes to being seen as on the side of ordinary people. Four times more so than Cameron. A PM also has an obvious advantage and the scope to display the traits that he beats the Labour leader on. When it’s mattered, Miliband has taken aim and put the government on the back foot on many of the big issues of the last 12 months.

So, how should Labour respond? At this stage, fixing the public’s attention on policy might be its best bet. The NHS must take centre stage. The effects of this year’s Health and Social Care Bill are yet to be felt. When they are, Labour must be ready to act. Of all Labour’s proudest achievements in office the huge improvements in the NHS stand out.

No law is irreversible, but Labour must spend time spelling out just how these changes will alter the NHS as we know it, and why it aims to reverse them should it retake power. The NHS is a beloved, cherished, institution which unites people of all political stripes. If the public see in practice what opponents have warned about, a full on backlash could carry Labour all the way to 2015.

Polling over the last year or so has given off a confusing picture. Labour leads, but not by nearly enough. Miliband isn’t seen as prime ministerial and yet the figures show he may well become PM. Are the public convinced by Labour or just not overly enamoured with the Tories? Something tells me that there are still a significant number of people ready to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt. Even disgruntled right wingers in his own party. Better to moan in power than in opposition. Remember, all it takes is a big crisis or incident, whether at home or abroad, and a commanding response, for the PM’s ratings to shoot up again.

I’m guessing those Tory schemers know this, which is why they will be praying for a rejuvenated Cameron, ready to fight the next election, and why Labour won’t be too upset if things remain as they are.  

 

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Tuesday 18th September 2012

Latest mega Tory poll: Cameron still their best asset

When Lord Ashcroft speaks, the political right listens. The last few years have seen the release of three meaty publications. In 2010 he gave us his Minority Verdict, a look into the reasons why the Conservatives had failed to secure an outright majority. In it, he gives his blessing to the coalition and argues that the party had put the country first in agreeing to govern with the Lib Dems. At the time, the country needed stability. He also asked Tories to consider the context:

“The elections of 2005, 2001 and 1997 produced, in descending order, the Conservative Party’s three worst ever results. The Conservatives had never before managed to return to government from a position as weak as the one they faced in 2010.”

The gist was that rather than just seeking to discredit Labour’s record, failing to make immigration and crime key electoral issues, the Tories lost (or failed to win outright) because the public never truly grasped what they were about. They wanted change, but were confused as to what type of change the Tories were offering.

In Project Blueprint: Winning a Conservative majority in 2015, out last May, he gave his now infamous warning that:

“...while the Conservatives struggle to piece together two fifths of the electorate, Labour’s core support plus left-leaning former Lib Dems could theoretically give Ed Miliband close to 40 per cent of the vote without needing to get out of bed.”

With Labour now regularly polling above 40% this is becoming more of a distinct possibility. The verdict of the 10,000 people he sought provided some worrying news for the Conservatives.  Whilst nine of ten of those who voted Tory in 2010 were largely satisfied with how things were going, believing the right decisions being made, recognising the need for compromise in a coalition, it was the first time Tory voters who were most likely to grumble. Almost half said their view of the party had changed for the worse, with a large number not too keen to see a Conservative majority at the next election, with only a small majority pledging the party their support in 2015.

Last week saw Project Blueprint Phase 3: The quest for a Conservative majority. As with his previous publications, its findings will provide food for thought for the strategists at Tory HQ. The size of the samples, 8,000 on this occasion, mean these reports need to be taken seriously.

Lord Ashcroft identifies those whom he calls the ‘Conservative Universe’ (terrifying thought, I know): the Loyalists (the over 65s disproportionately fall into this category), Joiners (most voted Lib Dems in 2010, but have been impressed by Cameron and Osborne’s handling of the economy, many would vote Tory at the next election), Defectors and Considerers (more likely to vote Lib Dem, favour a coalition over a Tory majority). Winning the support of all four groups may well win David Cameron his much prized overall majority. In theory at least.

It’s the ‘Defectors’ who should be giving the Tories most concern:

“One third of those who voted Conservative in 2010 say they would not do so again tomorrow. Two fifths of these say they do not know how they would vote in an election tomorrow, and most of this group feel the Conservative Party is not on the side of people like them. Around three in ten say they would vote UKIP. “

The one thing that unites all four groups is their view that Cameron/Obsorne are better trusted to run the economy than Miliband/Balls. Most support the austerity programme but are sceptical as to what it has achieved in practice.

The government’s propensity for u-turning has been greeted with some suspicion:

“For a government to change its mind was not a bad thing in principle, and could be a sign that it was listening. However, the number of reversals suggested to people that policies were not being thought through properly”

As he has been since he took over, David Cameron is still the reason Tories and Tory considerers have stuck by the party. Despite George Osborne’s reputation taking a nosedive in recent months, Cameron is the glue that binds the loyalists and waverers together.

When asked whom they thought would make the best Prime Minister, all four groups plumped for Cameron by some distance. It’s hardly surprising to read 97% of ‘Loyalists’ and 91% of ‘Joiners,’ saying this, but the 69% figure from both ‘Considerers’ and ‘Defectors’ should trouble Ed Miliband. Only 21% of ‘Defectors’ and 12% of ‘Considerers’ – the kind of people Labour should be targeting – opted for Ed.

If David Cameron is still seen as an asset to his party, according to Lord Ashcroft’s poll, the same can’t be said for Ed Miliband. When asked whether they were more favourable towards David Cameron or the Conservative Party, and to either Ed Miliband or the Labour Party, the results are quite stark. Amongst all responders (i.e. excluding the ‘Conservative Universe’), the results are close: 19% are more favourable towards the PM than his party, 21% the other way round. Damningly, only 9% are more favourable towards Ed than the Labour Party, but this rises to 41% when the question is reversed.

For ‘Considerers’ the figures read: 39% versus 23%, and 15% versus 47% for the ‘Defectors.’ When applied to Ed and Labour, only 5% of ‘Considerers’ prefer him to his party, with 47% the reverse. For ‘Defectors,’ 8% and 29%, respectively. As previous polls have shown, and continue to show, the Labour Party remains far more popular than its leader.

Even though this study aims to look at the viability of a Conservative majority in three years time, there is plenty for Labour to ponder. The knocks the Tories have taken in recent months haven’t done too much damage to David Cameron’s standing. Whilst he seems to be on the attack from the right on issues such as Europe and House of Lords reform, he can take comfort from the fact that on the Tory frontbench only William Hague, who maintains he wouldn’t want to be party leader again, comes close to matching his popularity. Overall, Boris Johnson remains, head and shoulders, the most popular Tory. For now, he is safely ensconced in London. For now.  


This article was first published by Speaker's Chair on Monday 23rd July 2012

Labour's biggest risk: renationalising the railways

Back at the beginning of April, with Labour starting to make some headway in the polls, I wrote a piece for LabourList entitled “7 Steps to Re-election.” I drew up a list of possible, some slightly tongue-in-cheek, policy ideas that could catapult the party into power. The need to take the odd risk, get a bit radical, was uppermost in my mind. Among them a personal favourite: renationalising the railways.

Predictably, this drew derision from the comments section - some wondering whether this was a belated April Fools - and Twittersphere. You can always rely on fellow Labour folk for support!

And then last weekend, when doing my own Sunday paper review online, I stumbled across this gem in The Observer, and the headline: “Labour backs calls to return railway network to public control.” According to the paper:

“Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its policy review.”

This comes off the back of a detailed report released this week by the Transport for Quality of Life think tank, and its publication, Rebuilding Rail; a union funded report, although its authors maintain that their research is thorough and wide-ranging.

The report claims that over a billion pounds a year could be saved if the railways came back under full public control. The current system of privatised railways is:

“failing society, the economy and the environment, whilst draining taxpayers’ money into the pockets of private shareholders. Common sense and expert railway knowledge have ceded to a misguided private-must-be best ethos, leaving Britain with a fragmented dysfunctional railway system that other countries view with disbelief.”

The biggest myth surrounding privatising is that our system was ever truly privatised. Taxpayers have gone from forking out £2.4bn pre-privatisation (the period 1990/1-1994/5), to around £5.4bn post-privatisation (2005/6-2009/10). Renationalising the railways could see users benefit from an 18% reduction in their fares.

At present, Britain’s commuters pay far more than their European counterparts (four times more in some cases), and are continuously faced with a baffling and convoluted ticket price structure, which, despite assurances, never seems to get any simpler.

The report notes that throughout Europe between 80% and 100% of passenger train services are run by the public sector.

Labour’s Shadow Transport Secretary, Maria Eagle, welcomed many of its findings and recommendations, and said the party was keeping an open mind:

"Labour's policy review is looking at all options to make our railways work better for passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be extended to rail services."

According to Stephen Joseph, chief executive of Campaign for Better Transport, transport could well play a part in deciding the outcome of the next general election. He points out that a key number of marginal constituencies in outer London and the south-east are stuck in commuter belt territory. Every fare rise hits families hard, eating into the wage packet.

Whilst passengers get treated like fools, the bosses of Network Rail reward themselves handsomely with bonuses of £1.7m, despite missing many punctuality targets last year.

I have long wondered why political parties are so reluctant to make transport an election issue, considering how many people rely on buses and trains. Inevitably, the economy will take centre stage, with the NHS following closely behind, but Labour will be missing a rather large trick if it doesn’t seek to use the trains as a potential voter winner. Surveys consistently show the public rejecting private ownership.

It could start off by distancing itself from the flawed HS2 project, which may well be dead in the water come 2015, anyway. If £58bn can be found for such a misguided and poorly thought out scheme, surely something which saves taxpayers money should be in the offing? A commitment to renationalising our railways would be Ed Miliband’s riskiest and boldest move yet. But, it could also be his most rewarding.


This article was first published by Speaker's Chair on Thursday 5th July 2012

Where does Labour now stand on civil liberties?

A firm and unequivocal commitment to standing up for civil liberties will not win Labour the next election. But, they should make one anyway.

If there’s one issue which the party badly lost its way on, it was this one. Too quick to kowtow to a hysterical and unforgiving right wing press, the party passed a whole series of regressive and disproportionate pieces of legislation, mostly in the fight against terrorism. In some cases, laws which were pitched as necessary counter-terror measures soon became hijacked by nosey and over-zealous councils.

Last week’s fascinating study by the Fabian Society brought to focus Labour’s new-found appeal to ex-Lib Dems. Three-quarters of ‘Ed’s converts’ hail from the coalition’s junior partner, apparently more left-wing than either Labour or Lib Dem voters from 2010.

In order not to squander this support, Labour should dangle a civil liberties promise under their noses. This means moving beyond Ed Balls’ admission that the party skewed the balance between liberty and security. It is after all still a bread and butter issue for Lib Dems, something which unites and galvanises many of its members and MPs.

The dilemma Labour has is that whilst it flirts with its new allies, it still needs to speak to its traditional, working class base. According to Andrew Harrop this could define the party’s strategy for the next three years:

“Labour still has a long way to go to develop ideas and language that appeal both to lower income communities and left liberal voters, who now make up two distinct ‘core’ constituencies for the party. These blocs can be brought together on economic issues, but Miliband faces a real challenge in defining a social agenda that motivates both blue-collar voters and social liberals.”

In other words, the party could find itself pulled in two directions.

Let’s be clear, safeguarding civil liberties will capture few headlines. It’s not one of the public’s most pressing concerns. One could argue that it’s merely an issue for the chattering classes. It’s more about perception, but perception is everything in politics. Unfortunately, in almost every poll, the public have sided with laws which trample on civil liberties in exchange for assurances over their safety.

The debate in favour of protecting the public has been skilfully, but simplistically, framed in terms of those who are ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ on terror. The battle to be crowned ‘the party of law and order’ never ends. The moment the Tories get a sniff that Labour is starting to speak the language of the ‘appeaser,’ the right wing attack dogs will be unleashed, painting Ed Miliband as someone who’s more concerned with the human rights of terror suspects than the rights of terrorism’s victims.

It is therefore vital that the party lead from the front, taking the fight to the government. In opposition, the Conservatives pledged to turn the tide back towards liberty, and published a pamphlet, Reversing the Rise of the Surveillance State, where they vowed to take an axe to  the UK’s ‘mammoth databases’ and the excessive details it stores :

“A Conservative government will take a fundamentally different approach. We believe that your personal information belongs to you, not the state.”

Except, a couple of months ago, ‘Snooper’s Charter’ entered the political lexicon to decry government plans to track everyone’s email, text, Facebook and internet use. It was left to groups such as Liberty and Big Brother Watch to lead the charge against these proposals. The response from the opposition bench was muted at best, perhaps still conscious of the fact that the previous Labour government failed to cover itself in glory on this very issue. In fact, if it sounded like something they would have introduced themselves, that’s probably because it was.

Comfort should be taken from Ed Miliband’s leadership victory speech and his remark that Labour had appeared "casual" about civil liberties, professing that he wouldn’t let the Tories or Lib Dems "take ownership of the British tradition of liberty". Two years on, there may still be a feeling within the party that they are standing on dodgy ground, unable yet to convincingly oppose such ideas.

If this isn’t something which resonates with the public, why waste time pursuing it? Because it goes to the very essence of what it means to be a liberal. And because many of these liberals have decamped over to Labour and should be rewarded. Where Andrew Harrop’s research comes unstuck is in his assertion that a large proportion of ‘Ed’s converts’ have permanently settled:

“Intuitively this stands to reason, since a largely left-leaning group has few other places to turn.”

Taking any voters for granted, least of all swing ones, is fraught with danger. Many could decide that staying at home is preferable to voting for either party. An unambiguous, genuine, commitment to undo some of the harm of the past should be enough to satisfy new friends.

It’s also the right thing to do. Ed Miliband has already demonstrated that he’s not afraid to take on certain sections of the press. He’ll need plenty of ammo if he is to win this latest battle. But first he needs to convince the liberal left that he’s also on their side.

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Tuesday 22 May 2012