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

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

Nick Clegg: if you want to really apologise, withdraw from the coalition

Yesterday, we had an example of the worst sort of political apology. Nick Clegg has apologised for his pledge not to raise university tuition fees, but not the actual act of doing so. The same from Vince Cable. It’s one of those occasions in politics where I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. What does Clegg expect? A pat on the back for being honest enough to say that he shouldn’t have made this pledge? A round of applause for admitting when he’s made a mistake? Or is this a plea to left-of-centre/liberal voters everywhere to remind them that he’s still one of them, and not Tory-lite?

On these pages, Neil Monnery, a Lib Dem, does his best at defending Clegg’s apology. He makes a good point that rather than hoping voters flock back to his ailing party, this is primarily aimed at disillusioned Lib Dems wanting to feel good about their own party again. Wanting to be able to trust them again. Which seems fair enough.

Except, I’m afraid, for me, it doesn’t wash. Call me a harsh, unforgiving, so and so, but in my opinion, this apology further weakens the standing of Nick Clegg, Deputy PM. The apology changes nothing. It doesn’t help the first cohort of students starting university this month saddled with £27,000 debt, before we even get in to cost of living and accommodation. It’s an apology that says: “I shouldn’t have promised not to do it, but I did, and anyway, I’m glad the policy got enacted because it was, and still is, the right thing to have done.”

Expect opprobrium to rain down from the Labour ranks. Higher top up fees is probably third down on the list of awful policies that the Lib Dems in government have voted through. The selling off and destruction of our NHS, and unfailing commitment to stick to damaging austerity make up the top three.

Clegg may get a Conference boost, a larger audience for his Conference speech. The Lib Dems may inch up one or two percentage points in the polls. But, that’ll be it. It’ll be short lived and long forgotten come election day. After all, the policy stands and has his unconditional support. The only thing Clegg can do to satisfy his sternest critics is to withdraw from the coalition, forcing the possibility of a general election. Except, this won’t happen. This ‘apology’ guarantees what I’ve felt from day one: that the coalition will go the distance.


This comment piece was first published by Speaker's Chair on Thursday 20th September 2012

Cameron and Clegg need each more than ever

All together now: “Paaaaarliament’s out. For. Summer.” Who will be the most relieved? Probably both of them. It’s been several months to forget for the coalition. Cue a summer of recriminations, backstabbing, briefings, and counter-briefings.

The Tories, in particular the school of 2010, pin the blame on those pesky Lib Dems, getting in the way of them being able to force through proper Conservative policies. Funnily enough, many of them accuse David Cameron of much the same. The saner wing of the Tories are easier to please, recognising that being in coalition demands compromise, and much of the government’s agenda is still being pursued anyway.

The Lib Dems are on the verge of blowing a fuse. Any opportunity they get to show the electorate that there is in fact more than one party in government, that the authentic voice of the Liberals is on its way, seems to fall by the wayside. Constitutional reform, no matter how important (very, if you care about having a genuinely democratic and representative system) just doesn’t cut it with the public, and gets drowned out by the usual “we should be focusing on the economy and jobs,” criticism.

The media now has a good couple of months to speculate about the coalition’s future, which should keep them amused. Dead before the next election, according to Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 committee, a body of backbench Tory MPs, very much on the right of the party:

"I think it would be logical and sensible for both parties to be able to present their separate vision to the public in time for the public to form a clear view before the election.”

Some have taken to threats on Twitter, with Tory MP Stewart Jackson promising the Lib Dems political annihilation if they hold the government hostage on Lords reform:

“Memo to bolshy Lib Dems: Break deal on boundary changes and you'll be out of government the next day and maybe for ever. That vote has consequences too."

Senior Lib Dems, such as Sir Menzies Campbell, fret that not getting through at least one of their constitutional pet projects would further damage the party in the eyes of its supporters. Others gaze forlornly into the future and wonder if it’ll be possible to count on two hands the number of Liberal MPs left after permanent coalition scarring.

It’s no surprise then that as the coalition heads towards half-time, Clegg and Cameron seem to increasingly find comfort in each other. Their latest public display of affection comes in the form of a £9 billion rail investment package for the north of England. The Lib Dem leader can probably take a little more solace in the fact that Cleggites seem to be a lot more loyal (in public at least) to their man than the wavering Cameroons. Much of the venom directed at the former has come from the public and Labour.

It is Cameron’s rapid fall from grace that should most trouble Conservatives. It was, after all, his rebranding of the party that got them into government (that, and of course other factors, notably Gordon Brown). It was no longer shameful to vote Tory (it’s all relative of course). As I’ve argued on these pages before, the Tories give the impression of a party who were told they only had a few weeks to prepare for government, and not the five years they actually had.

Cameron seems to have no answer to Britain’s economic woes and rising unemployment. All he offers the country is a recipe of cuts and more cuts. Not much of a sell on the doorstep.

Many Conservatives question his Conservatism, calling for a return to bread and butter issues. Ex-Cabinet minister, David Mellor, speaking for many of the party’s grass-roots, decries the current state of the party:

“I think they’re desperate for David Cameron to show fundamental Conservative credentials.

“The worry is for a lot of Tories is that David Cameron is not enough of a Tory...why vote for this pale sad shadow of what the Tory party used to be.

“I think the Tory party is rather ripping itself apart now because of the sense that David Cameron is a prisoner of Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems.”

But, it seems that David Cameron understands the electoral arithmetic more than most, with the latest projections showing that under current boundaries, a huge swing of 10.5% would be needed just to deliver his party an overall majority. This falls to 7.6% under the proposed new boundaries. Is it any wonder the Conservatives are so keen to see this piece of legislation go through? Cameron needs to calculate whether this is more or less likely in coalition. Considering the Tories trail Labour by anything from eight to ten points, his interest lies in keeping the coalition together, and hoping for a significant upturn in the economy.

For Nick Clegg, it’s a question of enjoying it (or not) whilst it lasts. If polls are to be believed, armageddon awaits. Convincing a sceptical electorate that the Lib Dems have tempered the worse Tory instincts will be a priority in the lead up to 2015. No easy task. A change in leader would certainly help.

Both men face enormous challenges, both within and outside their parties. It is within their interests to keep things going. Calls by some for a snapshot election, possibly in the autumn or next spring, will surely be resisted by both leaders. Reality dawns.

London mayor Boris Johnson summed things up perfectly when he said that the coalition was ‘doomed to succeed.’ That’s pretty much how I feel too.

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Monday 16th July 2012