This General Election is Unpredictable in Fragmented Britain

Leaving aside how badly wrong most of the opinion polls were at 2017 General Election, so far all the pollsters give the Tories a decent lead over Labour, although the lead has narrowed over the last week or so. The picture is being further complicated by regional variations and even variations within regions.

Take a look at these local council by-election results from this week, as supplied by Britain Elects. Yes, council by-elections have a low turn out of voters, usually around 30%, and yes local issues can and do play a part in swaying the voters. But they are real votes, not (weighted) surveys of what people tell pollsters they intend to do.

St Mary's (Powys) result:

LAB: 37.4% (+16.3)

CON: 26.5% (-14.9)

PC: 14.1% (+14.1)

LDEM: 11.1% (-16.3)

IND: 11.0% (+11.0)

Labour GAIN from Conservative.

No GRN (-10.2) as prev.

Goodrington with Roselands (Torbay) result:

CON: 49.3% (+17.6)

LDEM: 35.5% (-)

BREX: 9.3% (+9.3)

LAB: 4.0% (-3.2)

GRN: 1.9% (-8.9)

Conservative GAIN from Liberal Democrat.

No UKIP (-14.7) as prev.

Culverden (Tunbridge Wells) result:

LDEM: 46.7% (+33.5)

CON: 24.9% (-19.1)

WEP: 10.2% (+10.2)

TWA: 9.5% (+9.5)

LAB: 5.2% (-14.3)

GRN: 3.5% (-7.5)

Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.

No UKIP (-12.2) as prev (2016).

Shap (Eden) result:

LDEM: 48.5% (+17.3)

CON: 33.8% (-17.4)

PCF: 17.7% (+0.1)

Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.

PCF: Putting Cumbria First.

Dunfermline East (Fife) first preferences:

SNP: 33.2% (+9.1)

CON: 24.8% (-6.5)

LDEM: 22.8% (+13.8)

LAB: 13.5% (-6.3)

GRN: 5.1% (+0.9)

LBT: 0.6% (+0.6)

SNP GAIN from Conservative.

Rosyth (Fife) first preferences:

SNP: 42.8% (+16.5)

CON: 24.4% (-2.3)

LAB: 15.2% (-4.3)

LDEM: 7.9% (-0.9)

IND: 5.0% (+2.9)

GRN: 4.2% (+0.7)

LBT: 0.5% (+0.5)

SNP HOLD.

No other Ind(s) (-13.1) as prev.

Rhos (Neath Port Talbot) result:

PC: 53.9% (+23.1)

CON: 24.3% (+0.8)

LAB: 21.8% (-23.9)

Plaid Cymru GAIN from Labour.

As you can see, the results cover England, Scotland and Wales, and vary considerably in different parts of the country. There looks to be something for all the parties to cheer in these results. The St Mary's result appears indicate the Labour party benefiting from there being no Green candidate standing.

The Scottish results confirm what the polls have been saying about the Scottish National Party's prospects in Scotland, they look good. In England and Wales though, no clear winner is indicated by these results. Although it looks as though things are going fairly well for the Liberal Democrats.

The local elections just before the 2017 General Election were disastrous for Labour, gaining only 27% of the popular vote, and losing 382 council seats. They were good for the Tories who got 38% of the vote and gained 563 council seats. Only a month later at the General Election the Tories scored 42.4% of the vote, whilst Labour got 40%, and the Tories duly lost their majority in Parliament.

Labour is probably in a better position now that it was at this stage of the 2017 campaign, but they do look to have ground to make up, to be in with a chance forming a government, although it will probably need to be some kind coalition, with Labour the largest party.

The mood may be different from 2017, after all of the paralysis in Parliament of the last two years, with voters getting increasingly frustrated with the inability of MPs to agree something, anything, to move us on from the Brexit debate, and this is something that the Tories are trying to cynically exploit.

But judging by the times that the Tory leader Boris Johnson meets actual voters on his walk-abouts though, not all voters are absolving him from blame for this, and voters want to talk about other issues, the NHS, cuts to council services and environmental concerns, especially in recently flood hit areas. I also think it is fair to say that the Tory campaign has been pretty shambolic, and no better than the car crash campaign they had in 2017.

It is hard to see how the recent floods will play well for the Tories, and it could be even worse with the looming winter crisis in the NHS, so there is all still to all play for the opposition parties over the next four weeks. Over 850,000 people under the age of 34 have registered to vote since the election was called, who tend to favour Labour over the Tories and also tend to be mainly anti-Brexit.

The coming election could well shape the country for a generation, and I think it is the most important General Election since 1979. I’m sure many people have not engaged with the campaign so far, but traditionally tend to in the last two weeks. This time though it will be almost Christmas by then, and it is to be hoped that voters are not distracted by that. There are so many unknowns in this election which makes it so difficult to call.    

The Lib Dems and Electoral Pacts

The Liberal Democrats are making a lot of noise in the media about electoral pacts in the almost certainly upcoming General Election. They have been forced to deny a pact in Scotland with the Tories, which would seem to be aimed at taking some seats off the SNP, in some sort of anti-independence alliance, although no talks have been mentioned with Labour in Scotland.

The new leader of the party Jo Swinson, was also forced to deny rumours of standing aside in favour of former Tory MP Rory Stewart in Penrith and the Borders, Cumbria, because of differences about leaving the European Union (EU). Recent weeks have seen a small procession of former Tory MPs, expelled from their party for voting against the government’s leaving the EU with no deal, joining the Lib Dems. Two of these MPs, Phillip Lee and Sam Gyimah, have distinctly illiberal, if not down right homophobic views, but why let principles get in the way of a good political news story?

The Lib Dems have though admitted that they are looking at a pro-Remain electoral alliance with parties, in England and Wales, who support staying in the EU, or at least want another referendum on the issue, with remain an option. Given the Labour party’s latest policy shift, towards holding a referendum on any leave deal they can negotiate with EU, with Remain the other option, the Lib Dems are not looking for any deal with Labour. Perhaps this is why they have moved to a revoke Article 50 policy, putting clear yellow water between the parties?

Swinson was on BBC Radio Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland programme on Monday:

The Press Association reports, Swinson said that a pro-Remain agreement had worked well previously, including in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election last month where Jane Dodds was elected as a new MP for the party. She went on:

There was obviously success for that kind of arrangement in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election. Plaid Cymru and the Green party stood aside, stood shoulder to shoulder if you like, with the Liberal Democrats and Jane Dodds was elected to be a very unequivocal voice in parliament for remain. So, that happened already and it’s successful.

Asked whether the party would stand aside for Labour candidates, the Lib Dem leader said:

That’s a different question because Labour are not a remain party, Labour are trying to deliver a Labour Brexit. But where we agree with others on stopping Brexit, we are in those discussions.

The first thing to say about this, is that in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, the local Green party did not endorse the Lib Dem candidate. They did not field a candidate, but they didn’t in the 2017 General Election either, judging it was not worthwhile, given the associated required spending. This has not stopped the Lib Dems propagating this untruth though, ever since the Greens decided not to stand.

Plaid Cymru did say that they had stood down in favour of a pro-Remain candidate, but they only polled about 3% in the constituency in 2017, so probably didn’t make much difference to the outcome, albeit in a narrow triumph for the Lib Dems, on a low turn out. It is possible that such arrangements will happen in some constituencies at the next General Election, but I wouldn’t expect it to be on a large scale.

It comes as no surprise that the Lib Dems will not contemplate any arrangements with the Labour party. Firstly, Labour don’t do pre-election deals with any other party anyway, and given the Lib Dem’s record on propping up David Cameron’s Tory coalition government, the Lib Dems would be the last party (apart from the Tories) they would break with their usual stance on alliances.

But it also appears to be part of the Lib Dems wider electoral strategy. Something like five million Tory voters voted Remain in the 2016 referendum, and it is these pro-Remain Tories that the Lib Dems are hoping to court. These voters are unlikely to support a party that they see in some kind of electoral alliance with the Labour party, so it fits with their strategy to attack Labour, not do deals with them.

It is also evident in the blind eye approach to defecting Tory MPs, who hold questionable views on gay people, as each Tory MP (or ex- Tory MP) provides a media story of Remain supporting Tories going over to the Lib Dems. The defecting ex Labour MPs, are seen as New Labour types who were at odds with Corbyn’s Labour, so can safely be pouched in the hope that some Labour voters who liked Tony Blair, may be persuaded to shift to the Lib Dems. This is only a minor part of the Lib Dems electoral strategy though, it is Tory Remain voters that they are really after.

Labour may decide not to try too hard in constituencies they have no hope of winning, to concentrate resources where they can win. This may help the Lib Dems, but is a side issue for Labour.

At the end of the day, electing Lib Dems, is just electing another type of Tory. The Lib Dems appear to want to resurrect a David Cameron style Tory party, and although marginally better than the head bangers running the Tory party now, it would still be Tory.

Where does all of this leave the Green party? Well, I would suggest that local parties be very careful about helping the Lib Dems, for the reasons above, and the possibility of being tarred with the same brush. 

As for helping Labour, by standing aside in some places, this should be a local decision, and taken on a case by case basis. Labour's new stance of a referendum on their deal or Remain, seems to be reasonable to me. But we should remember too, that not all Green voters will vote Labour in any case.  

May’s Charm Offensive to Labour MPs Smacks of Desperation

Theresa May’s piece in The Observer on Sunday, was ostensively aimed at Labour voters, with talk of antisemitism, threats to national security and the deselection threat to ‘moderate’ MPs, as evidence of Labour being unfit to govern. This narrative has been running for some time in the Tory supporting press, a smear campaign no less, of what May refers to as the ‘Jeremy Corbyn party’. But more immediately, she needs to win over ‘moderate’ Labour MPs to get her Brexit deal though Parliament, rather than voters.

In the Tory party in Parliament the numbers just don’t stack up for May’s Chequers Brexit plan, so she is really appealing to Labour MPs in thinly veiled code with The Observer piece. There is said to be up to 80 Tory MPs who are ready to vote against the Chequers plan, although some estimates put it as low as 20 in the end game. I suspect there are more than twenty. These MPs are from the hard Brexit wing of the Tory party, and probably prefer no deal at all, to the prime minister’s plan, even before the European Union (EU) starts chipping away at it, which it is sure to do.

What the most pro-EU Tory MPs will do, maybe a dozen or so MPs, I’m not sure, and it probably depends on what final deal May brings back to Parliament, but they might go along with it - perhaps. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) might well prefer a no deal scenario, as I think they want a hard land border with the Republic of Ireland, so May has to find a way of keeping them on side, which she has so far. She really has no other choice though, or the numbers in Parliament become even shakier than they look now.

There are 316 Tory MPs at present, with 10 DUP MPs sustaining the government, a total of 326. 326 is the magic number for a majority in the House of Commons, but one MP is the speaker, and seven represent Sinn Fein, who on principle take no part in the British Parliament historically, and show no signs of changing. This effectively reduces the number required for a governing majority to 318.

Labour has 257 MPs, excluding 6 who have lost the whip or are self declared independents. The Scottish National Party has 35 MPs, the Lib Dems 12, Plaid Cymru 4, and the Green Party one, and two other independents. An ‘opposition’ total of 317 MPs, who mostly look likely to vote against the prime minister’s Chequers plan. If this is the case, then it will take only a handful Tory hard line Brexit MPs to defeat whatever the government ends up with as a deal with the EU.

But as I say, I am pretty sure that more than 20 Tories will vote the against the government, and perhaps as many as 30 or so, and it could be even more than that, so May needs twenty odd votes from elsewhere at least, and Labour, together with its ex-MPs, now independents, is surely where May is hoping to get them from. It is not clear to me whether these independents will support the government though, as some may prefer a no deal scenario, so I don’t think these MPs can be taken for granted by the government.

The other target will be disaffected, and pro-EU Labour MPs, of which there are many, but from public statements from MPs like Chuka Umunna, they have expressed opposition to May’s proposals so far. It is possible that the EU will propose something more to their liking, but that might mean even more that 30 or so Tories rebelling.

Pro-EU Labour MPs will probably prefer to vote May’s plan down, so that Parliament could then manoeuvre to get no Brexit rather than no deal. In other words, postpone Article 50. This in turn might lead to a second referendum, which may see us remain in the EU. That is a more attractive prize to these MPs, even if they are nervous of Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister. 

There is a cultural resistance amongst Labour MPs to the Conservative party too, not to mention an instinct for self preservation, that will make many recoil from supporting the government. Defeat for the Tories may lead to a general election giving Labour the chance to make a better job of Brexit than the Tories are ever likely to do.

May’s tactics look to be a forlorn attempt to square the Brexit circle, and is almost certainly doomed to failure.   

Electoral Boundary Changes – A Fair System for All?

The government has revealed its proposals for re-drawing the Parliamentary boundaries and so reduce the number of constituencies (and therefore MPs) from the current 650 down to 600. The new boundaries will favour the Tories, in terms of net MPs gained or lost.

The reduction in seats impacts on all parties but Labour most of all. While the Conservatives are set to lose 10 seats overall (down from 318 won last June, a figure that includes the Speaker) the re-distribution means that Labour falls by 30 seats, and the Lib Dems 5. The Scottish National Party will likely have a net loss of 6 seats and Plaid Cymru in Wales a net loss of 2. The Green party would remain unchanged with one MP.

The Electoral Reform Society said changes to equalise constituencies were just tinkering, when the first-past-the-post electoral system meant the number of votes per MP elected in 2017 varied from just under 28,000 for the Democratic Unionist party to more than 500,000 for the Green party.

It all looks suspiciously like gerrymandering in favour of the ruling Tory party, although the government says that the current boundaries favour the Labour party, and so reform is necessary. They say that the new boundaries will just be an exercise in ‘fairness’ as most constituencies will be equalised to 71,000 to 78,000 registered voters rather than the 55,000 to 110,000 range currently.

The new boundaries do not equalise all constituencies though, for example, the Isle of Wight will go from one constituency of 110,000 to two of 55,000, both likely to be won by the Tories.

The government is keen to stress that the proposed changes are the recommendations of the boundary commissions for England, Scotland, Wales (and Northern Ireland), but the government did set the parameters of their remit, particularly the equalisation of registered voters. Inevitably this would favour the Tories, with Labour voters less likely to make sure they are registered to vote.

One study by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, academics at the University of Plymouth, calculated that the new boundaries would have given the Conservatives an overall majority of 16 in last year’s election, which resulted in a hung Parliament, under the existing boundaries.

The proposals will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, which may be no easy feat given the numbers in both Houses, but is likely to be introduced next year. Some prominent Tory MPs are at risk, like Boris Johnson and David Davis, so getting this through Parliament may not be straightforward. The Tories tried to get similar proposals adopted in 2013, but had to withdraw the plan when the Lib Dems refused to support it.

Whichever way you look at it, our present First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system is unfair, wherever the boundaries are drawn. The fairest electoral systems have at least some element of proportional voting, with top lists for those under represented by the FPTP system. It also avoids arguments about gerrymandering.

The Tories and Labour are reasonably happy with FPTP, because no other system would be likely to give them majorities in Parliament, big majorities sometimes, so they get carte blanche to do pretty much what they want, on about 40% of the vote. How can this be fair?

I know we had a referendum on the replacing FPTP with the Alternative Vote (AV) system in 2011, which resulted in a heavy vote to reject AV, but AV is not really a proportional system, and little better than what we have in terms of fairness. But if we are to try make the system fairer, then proportional voting is the best way to achieve this.  

Something like the Additional Member System used for electing the Scottish Parliament, could be used for Westminster elections, giving a much fairer reflection in Parliament of the wishes of voters. But then, in the end, this proposal is not really about fairness, but party political advantage.

Labour’s 31% UK General Election Strategy seems to be Paying Off

At the 2015 general election, the Labour Party leadership were said to be pursuing a 35% strategy. This referred to Labour trying to appeal to its own supporters and those of the Lib Dems who were appalled by the party going into coalition with the Tories in 2010. If Labour had achieved a 35% vote share they would probably have had a small overall majority in Parliament.

The opinion polls put them not far off scoring 35%, but in the end Labour only polled 30.4% of the share of the vote in the 2015 general election, and the Tories ended up with a small majority of their own. It is important to note what the 2015 opinion polling was predicting, because they got the result badly wrong, and what I say below is based on this year’s opinion polls, and may well be wrong again.

In the last few days opinion polls have started predicting Labour getting into the low 30 per cents of the national vote share. ORB’s weekly poll in the Sunday Telegraph has topline figures of CON 46%(nc), LAB 32%(+1), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 7%(-1). Whilst Opinium in the Observer has topline figures of CON 47%(+1), LAB 32%(+2), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 5%(-2), GRN 2%(nc). A third poll by YouGov/Sunday Times has topline voting intention figures of CON 49%, LAB 31%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 3%.

A fourth poll released on Tuesday by Panelbase has topline figures of CON 47%(-1), LAB 33%(+2), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 5%(nc), which is the highest figure of the campaign for Labour. What is different now though to the 2015 general election is the Tories are polling much better than they did in 2015, where they got only 36.9% of the vote share. You can see from the above polling that the Tories are polling in the high 40s per cent, so a 31% strategy for Labour, or indeed a 35%, will not be enough for Labour to even remove the Tories small majority from 2015, and the Tories look to be on course for a substantial majority this year.

But that is not the point of the 31% strategy at all. It is not about Labour getting a majority, or even limiting the Tory majority much, it is all about the internal, ongoing struggle for control of the Labour Party. The Unite union leader Len McCluskey, gave the game away really by saying that Labour winning around 200 seats in the general election would be a good result, although that would be the worse general election result for Labour since 1935. McCluskey later backtracked on the coment.

What the 31% strategy would achieve, and this seems to be the objective of it, is that it would beat the 2015 share of the vote which ex Labour leader, Ed Miliband, got. Then it can be argued after the election, that Labour are heading in the right direction, and secure Jeremy Corbyn’s future as Labour leader. In terms of ambition, this is pretty piss poor, but Labour are only interested in internal party conflicts here rather than winning this election.

Of course, changing the Labour Party is a big job, and may well take more than one general election to cement, but it does leave the country at the mercy of an ultra-right wing Tory Party, with a huge majority in Parliament. For this not to happen, Labour needs to take potential voters off the Tories, and the Lib Dems need to as well, with the SNP holding off the Tory revival in Scotland, and retaining their gains from 2015.

There are still three weeks to go until the election, so maybe the Tory vote can be eaten into, but we need to see the Tory polling figure falling below 40%, which to be fair was the case in the recent local elections where the Tories got only 38% of the vote share. So maybe this is possible. 

I’m clutching at straws perhaps, but the alternative of a rampant, emboldened Tory government, is a very scary prospect indeed. As John Cleese says in the film ‘Clockwise,’ “It's the HOPE - that's what's killing me.”  

       

Would an Anti-Tory government really be a Coalition of Chaos?

We are only just into the general election campaign but the Tory government’s themes are already crystal clear. They will paint themselves as the only party to deliver Brexit, attack Labour as economically incompetent and attack the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, as soft on defence and security. Part of this strategy is to claim that they are the only party who can deliver ‘strong and stable government.’

At Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday in Parliament, every question from the Labour leader, went unanswered by Theresa May, the Prime Minister. Instead, she repeated campaign slogans, especially ‘strong and stable government,’ over and over again. She is not a quick thinker on her feet, and finds it difficult to respond properly to unexpected questions, which is why she is refusing to take part in televised debates, which have become de rigueur in recent general elections.

What the Tories are trying to do is frame the debate around the fact they are the only party likely to gain an overall majority in Parliament, at this election, and that Labour would need to form a coalition of at least three parties, probably more, to be able to form a government.

This worked well two years ago at the last general election, when they managed to worry English voters with the prospect of Labour needing to rely on the Scottish National Party (SNP), to form a government. This was graphically illustrated by the poster showing Ed Miliband, the Labour leader at the time, tucked away in the then SNP leader, Alex Salmond’s, top pocket.

So, this is a tried and trusted tactic, and the Tories have rehired Lynton Crosby who masterminded their successful 2015 campaign. They appear to be broadening this out this time to include the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the Northern Irish SDLP and the Greens, to make the prospect seem even more ‘chaotic.’ The Lib Dems sensibly, have ruled out a coalition with either Labour, or the Tories, so this may reassure voters to some extent, but the British tend not to like the idea of coalition governments, especially such a multi-party one.

The Tories themselves, of course, entered into a coalition with the Lib Dems in 2010, because they were short of an overall majority, but with just the Lib Dems as partners, and it was briefly popular. The Lib Dems were routed in 2015, by the Tories in the main, so the coalition in the end was not popular.

The British electoral system, first past the post, as it is known, makes for a clear winner more than in other countries which have a proportional electoral system, although over recent years, the number of voters that the big two parties, Labour and the Tories, can command has gradually got less and less of the share of the vote. So this may be changing a little on some levels, but I still think coalitions are something of an anathema to most British voters.

But maybe it is changing. Vince Cable, Lib Dem, who was business secretary in the last coalition government, told Sky News: “The coalition of chaos stuff is pathetic. It did work last time. People were frightened of Ed Miliband and the SNP. This [time it] isn’t cutting through, nobody seriously believes Jeremy Corbyn is going to get into government. It is almost certain that we are going get a Conservative government, probably with quite big numbers. What we now need is credible opposition.”

The point Cable is making is that a coalition government is unlikely, and not really the aim of tactical voting, but reducing the size of the Tory government, in what is a special election, centred mainly around the issue of Brexit.

I watched BBC TV Question Time last night with interest, and when they discussed tactical voting and coalitions, the audience didn’t seem to be phased by this, judging by the applause for points raised in favour. This was in Oxford, so may not be representative of the country at large, but even so, I was taken a little by surprise by the reaction.

If the opposition parties did achieve a majority, which is not impossible I think, I see no reason why a ‘progressive’ coalition could not be formed, and there is no inherent reason why this needs to be either chaotic or unstable, since there is plenty that these parties can agree on, enough for a full Parliamentary term at least. It will depend on how the numbers add up, of course.

Perhaps someone should knock up a meme (I don’t have the skills for it) showing Theresa May in Donald Trump’s top pocket? Now that would be a powerful image of what this election is all about.

Who’s ready for a snap election – and who isn’t?

Written by Tom Quinn And first published at The Conversation

Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to call an early general election was bold and unexpected. She could have waited three more years before going to the polls, by which time she would already have negotiated Britain’s exit from the EU. The word from Downing Street had repeatedly been that May opposed calling an early election, as there was too much to do with the Brexit talks approaching to justify taking time out.

And yet this once seemingly bland politician has again surprised everyone with her decisiveness. In announcing her intention to hold a vote on June 8, May explained that divisions in Westminster led her to seek a mandate for her Brexit vision. She accused the opposition parties of obstructionism, arguing that they are weakening the government’s negotiating hand with the EU. May’s hope is that a solid Conservative majority will settle the question of whether she has the consent of the electorate to take Britain out of the single market – a position her opponents have dubbed “hard Brexit”.

So, has May made the right call? UK election cycles are normally four to five years, but occasionally earlier elections are called. Harold Wilson called one in 1966, just two years after winning the 1964 election with a wafer-thin Labour majority of four seats. He increased that to 96. In February 1974, Labour, still led by Wilson, formed a minority government when the election resulted in a hung parliament. He called another election in October and this time secured a majority – although it was only by three seats.

One of the most famous instances of an early election, however, was one that was not called. In 2007, Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair as Labour prime minister, two years after the previous election. Three months into his premiership, Brown toyed with the idea of going to the country, encouraged by favourable polls. Speculation was allowed to build up over a fortnight to the point where an early election was expected. However, a shift in the polls during the Conservatives’ annual conference was enough to kill off the plan. Brown’s credibility never recovered from “the election that never was”. It symbolised his indecision and he was dubbed “bottler Brown” by his opponents. He would later face several coup attempts by Labour MPs, clinging on only to lead his party to defeat in 2010.

There appear to be no such dangers for May. Unlike Brown, she is seen as decisive and capable. She did not allow speculation about an early election to generate. Her announcement was a bolt from the blue. Neither is it likely that May was worried by the prospect of late poll swings. YouGov’s most recent poll put the Conservatives on 44%, a massive 21 points ahead of Labour on 23%. For a government with a small majority in parliament, that poll lead makes an early election extremely tempting.

Meanwhile, Labour continues to languish under Jeremy Corbyn. The party is split between centrist MPs who despair of their leader and a left-wing mass membership that has twice elected Corbyn with thumping majorities.

The party is in a desperate position and heads into an election in its worst shape since the collapse of Ramsay MacDonald’s Labour government in 1931. That year saw Labour reduced to a rump of just 52 seats, and while a defeat on a similar scale won’t happen this time, Labour could well find itself losing seats for a fifth consecutive election – unprecedented for the party.

YouGov’s recent poll suggests a seven-point uniform swing from Labour to the Conservatives since 2015. Even if the polls narrowed somewhat, the Conservatives would still win about 40 seats from Labour on a five-point swing. Dozens of Labour MPs will be panicking at the prospect of this election, fearing that the Tory triumph in the Copeland by-election of February 2017 is a harbinger of things to come.

Brexit on the ballot

Does all this mean it’ll be plain sailing for the Conservatives? This will be a Brexit election and the government’s negotiating aims will come under fierce attack. The Liberal Democrats will hope to win back some of their lost seats in south-west England, urging a “soft Brexit” or even a second referendum.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) will accuse the Conservatives of ignoring Scotland’s vote against Brexit and the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, will fight the election seeking a mandate to hold a second independence referendum. If the SNP retains the vast majority of its Westminster seats – it won 56 of Scotland’s 59 seats in 2015 – Sturgeon will claim her mandate and May will find it harder to postpone a so-called #indyref2. However, if the SNP slips back, with gains for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, May will feel emboldened to resist Sturgeon’s demands.

There could have been greater dangers for May in delaying an election. Governments can easily be blown off course by events. James Callaghan might have won an election in the autumn of 1978 but decided to wait until 1979, by which time his government had been destroyed by the winter of discontent.
British politics is currently in a state of extreme flux, leaving the government at the mercy of events. The Brexit negotiations could get messy and heated. The Lib Dems could win by-elections. Labour could replace Corbyn with someone more credible. Given time, each could have eroded support for the government, leaving it electorally vulnerable and undermining its negotiating strength.

May might never get a better chance to drive home her advantage. If she wins big, she will be able to end the taunts that she is an “unelected prime minister” who has no direct mandate for her Brexit vision. If, somehow, things do go wrong, and she fails to achieve a majority, all bets will be off and a second EU referendum would become a realistic prospect. But as things stand, that looks highly unlikely. The smart money is on an increased Conservative majority.

Snap General Election – It’s Theresa May that is Playing Politics not the Opposition

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, surprised everyone today by calling for a snap general election, intended for 8 June. May has been saying for months that there is no need for a general election before the scheduled date in 2020, so today’s announcement is a complete U-turn.

With the Fixed Term Parliament Act, calling snap elections is now not in the gift of the Prime Minister, but needs a two thirds approval by MPs. The opposition parties though have said they will vote in favour of the early election, perhaps as soon as tomorrow.

May insists that her change of heart on the matter has been brought on by the opposition parties opposing, (which is what they are meant to do) her version of Brexit. This is a rather weak excuse, and I suspect will fool no one. People, I think, will see it for what it is, pure political opportunism.

With the main opposition party, Labour, in disarray, and big leads for the government in opinion polls, as much as a 21% lead over Labour in some polls, and with uncertainty over how the Brexit negotiations with European Union (EU) will pan out, the temptation to increase her government’s majority in Parliament, was too much.

The Tories will probably win the general election easily, but there are risks involved for May in holding the election next month. The first is of a possible backlash against the decision from voters, who have shown no desire for an early poll. We had a general election two years ago, and the EU referendum a year ago, and voters don’t like having listen to all the political spin on too regular a basis. And they don’t like politicians ’playing politics’ with important issues and they may decide to punish those responsible for this – the government.

Connected to this, could be a low turn-out at the election. The EU referendum last year had a higher turn-out than any UK general election since 1992. If some of those leave voters don’t bother voting, but remain voters are galvanised by the chance to clip May’s wings, and do turn-out in big numbers, anything is possible.

Even worse, voters might see May's tactics akin to that of Turkish President Erdoğan's, dictatorial power grab, with his dubious referendum win at the weekend, which increases his powers over Parliament considerably. This looks suspiciously like what May is up to here with the snap general election.

Another risk, with the Lib Dems recovering their popularity to an extent, and I hear that those Tory MPs who won seats from the Lib Dems in 2015, are nervous of losing to a resurgent Lib Dem party, especially in areas where the majority voted to remain in the EU. May could end up with a smaller majority than she has now, which would weaken her politically, if it didn’t finish her off as Prime Minister entirely.

And then there is Scotland. May’s argument for denying the Scots a second independence referendum, is that nobody wants one and that the Brexit deal will not be complete (in terms of the exact outcome) and will be unknown. May can’t really use these arguments anymore because exactly the same can be said of holding a general election now.

Perhaps the most unlikely risk is that Labour will pull themselves together and do better than the opinion polls are forecasting, but this can’t be ruled out completely. We live in strange electoral times as we have seen in the last year or so, so it is unwise to dismiss this possibility entirely.

This certainly looks like a cynical ploy from the Prime Minister. If she really wanted to give the ‘people’ a say in her Brexit strategy, she could have called the election before triggering Article 50, which was the starting pistol for our formal leaving of the EU. 

But she didn’t want that at all, she just wants to bolster her position, as leader of the Tory party and to wipe out any opposition to her version of how we exit the EU. I just hope this all backfires, and May’s political career is brought to an ignominious end.

That is a cheery thought to end on. Let’s throw the arrogant Tories out! 

Brexit – Merry Old England Plan runs into Cold Reality

To paraphrase the former Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, a few days in politics is a long time. On Wednesday, the UK government formally triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, beginning the nation’s exit of the European Union (EU). A letter signed by the current UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, was handed to the EU president, Donald Tusk, at 12.30pm.

On Tuesday, the Scottish Parliament voted to hold a second, Brexit induced, independence referendum, with First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, sending her own letter to the UK government to formally request the powers to do it, set to arrive today.

Within hours of Article 50 being triggered, voices in the EU were claiming that linking security to any future trade deal between the EU and UK, amounted to blackmail. The UK government was quick to issue a counter claim, that the letter had been ‘misinterpreted.’ It is easy to see why the EU would interpret it the way they did, as the UK has got form on this, saying in the past the Royal Navy may discontinue patrols in the Mediterranean, which are intended to intercept illegal immigrant boats.

On Thursday, the Brexit Secretary of State, David Davis, introduced the ‘Great Repeal Bill’ to Parliament. The government wants to use executive powers, dating back to the reign of Henry VIII, under the 1539 Statute of Proclamations which allows the sovereign to bypass Parliament and amend legislation by dictak. This power is now only technically held by the sovereign, in practice ministers will apply it.

The government argued that it is just a practical solution to amending thousands of EU laws into UK law, so it was necessary and nothing to worry about. Lord Judge spoke strongly against such clauses whilst he was Lord Chief Justice in 2010:

“You can be sure that when these Henry VIII clauses are introduced they will always be said to be necessary. William Pitt warned us how to treat such a plea with disdain. "Necessity is the justification for every infringement of human liberty: it is the argument of tyrants, the creed of slaves."

Opposition parties in Parliament have all said that they will fight the use of this political manoeuvre derived from the Tudor era. Why should we trust this government not to abuse these powers? It is a Tory Brexiteer’s wet dream, where they can sweep away employment and environmental protections, for example, as ‘red tape.’

Davis also admitted that immigration to the UK after Brexit, may need to go UP, to fill essential vacancies in the economy. The leave voters will be dismayed by this, I would imagine, but it does follow all of the lies we were told during the referendum campaign by the leavers. An extra £350 million a week for the NHS, post Brexit, UKIP’s tawdry anti-immigration poster ‘bursting point’ and the rest.

Today, the EU confirmed that no discussion of trade agreements between the EU and UK will take place until agreement is reached on the status of EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU, security cooperation and the UK honouring financial commitments made whilst a member of the EU. All perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.

The UK government should make agreements on these issues straight away, as it is fair and sensible, and then we can get on with dealing with trade issues. So, it looks like they will have to think again, if they want to achieve a decent trade deal in good time.

And this is the rub really, for months we have been told that the EU will roll over to our demands, because we are so important, and the EU will not want to upset us. Well, from what we have seen this week so far, that is a pipe dream. These negotiations are going to be tough, and we haven’t done ourselves any favours by our arrogant attitude to Brexit, which has pandered to the Daily Mail and the frothing at the mouth Tory Brexiteers. We need cooperation, not conflict with the EU, if we are to do a half decent job of Brexit.

The Guardian reports that one senior European diplomat based in the UK said: “My worry is that there are people in London and in Europe who do not want the talks to succeed. They want them to break down quickly”.

The Guardian also reports today that the EU will allow Spain to exclude Gibraltar from any transitional single market access arrangement or future trade deal with the UK if it is not satisfied with the status of the territory.

Meanwhile, a poll of Londoners in the Evening Standard this week shows by three-to-one margin (45 - 15) they think London will be economically worse off. Almost half, 48 per cent, think Britain will be worse off as a whole.

Not the best of starts to the Brexit process, then. I’m braced for the right wing media’s denunciation of ‘Johnny foreigner’ in the upcoming two years of negotiations, but it will not be pretty. As each day goes by, I feel more ashamed to be English. Will it get worse? Almost certainly.  

The Play ‘Limehouse’ and the Parallels for the Labour Party Today

Over the weekend I went to see the new play written by Steve Waters, ‘Limehouse,’ which is set in 1981 and dramatises the meeting in Limehouse, east London, where the Social Democratic Party (SDP) was formed. This led to the so called Limehouse Declaration. The play depicts a Sunday brunch at the home of David Owen and his wife Deborah Owen (née Schabert), with Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams and Bill Rogers, where they wrestle with the idea of breaking away from the Labour Party and founding the new party. Most of the audience were, like me, old enough to remember this episode of British political history. The remaining ‘gang of four’ as they became known, have said that the play is a reasonably accurate portrayal of the day.

Some wrestle more than others, with Owen and Jenkins, although having their differences, chiefly over linking to the Liberal Party, are in favour of making the break, but Williams and Rogers are less convinced. The play brings out this division in the group, and not only because of the practical difficulties of forming a new party with no roots and an electoral system which makes it very difficult for new parties to flourish. Williams and Rogers are also the most attached to the Labour Party, it is ‘in their blood,’ as Rogers says in the play.

Something I wasn’t really aware of, which the play picks up on, is that Deborah Owen was central to the meeting even taking place and handles the differing personalities in attendance with great skill, much better than her husband does. The new party may never have come in being without Deborah Owen’s input.

The play is well written and well acted, David Owen (Tom Goodman-Hill) comes across as vain, arrogant, ambitious and impatient; Roy Jenkins (Roger Allam) as rather pompous with a penchant for fine red wine, but persuasive and passionate, who confesses to always having been uncomfortable in Labour; Shirley Williams (Debra Gillet) loyal to Labour and very cautious about political moves and a very sharp political thinker; Bill Rogers (Paul Chahidi) also loyal to Labour and with a deep love of politics, modest, as well as being a genuinely nice bloke. Deborah Owen (Nathalie Armin), a very good ‘people person,’ with excellent communication skills, and very supportive of her husband’s ambitions.

Photo credit BBC, from the play 'Limehouse'

I can confirm that Bill Rogers does have a love politics and is a very nice bloke, as I have actually met him. In 2008, I had my first council by-election as Green Party election agent, in the ward of Highgate (Haringey). I was manning one of the polling stations as a teller on the day of the by-election, and imagine my surprise to find the Lib Dem teller was none other than Bill Rogers.

I had quite a long chat with him about politics, as is the way amongst tellers, and I remember mentioning to him that I had recently read the SDP’s 1983 general election manifesto on the web and that I thought it was, by today’s standards, pretty left wing. Bill said that politics was very different in 1983, for one thing the Green Party didn’t exist then (this is technically true, but the party was still known as the Ecology Party at the time), but I took his point. It was a very enjoyable chat I had with Bill Rogers, and I was a little surprised as he hadn’t come across that well in the 1980s. Maybe it was because I hated the SDP at the time, for letting the Tories get in government with landslide majorities with only 44% of the vote.

The opening line in the play is spoken by David Owen to his wife, ‘the Labour Party is fucked.’ So we are straight away into in the parallels with todays’ politics. How many Labour people have been saying much same since Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the party in 2015?

In 1981 the left-wing Bennites had taken control of Labour’s conference, a faction of the party that Corbyn belonged to, although he didn’t become an MP until 1983. In the play, David Owen laments the abilities of the then Labour leader, Michael Foot, as useless, another echo of the present day, with Labour MPs queuing up to share that sentiment now. A woman Tory Prime Minister, hell bent on pursuing hard right policies, and the Labour Party in the midst of a civil war, expending most of their political energy on fighting each other. The Labour Party moving to the left, creating tension in its right and centre sections. A possible catastrophic defeat at the next general election looming, probably even worse than 1983, given that Scotland has now been lost to the SNP. And Europe.

There are differences today of course, Scotland being one, but inside Labour itself the new membership phenomenon that has carried Corbyn to victory, is largely uninterested in Labour rule books and boring meetings trying gain tactical advantages in local parties. The right in Labour is using the same tactics as the left in the 1980s in local parties, and boring the average member away.

But the main difference is that there will be no breakaway this time. The Labour right has learnt the lesson of the SDP, which after much media fanfare and gaining 50% in the opinion polls, gradually faded away. It merged with the Liberal Party to become the Liberal Democrats in 1989. David Owen resigned and carried on the SDP, until they finished behind the Monster Raving Loony Party in a by-election in Bootle, Liverpool. 

The party promptly disbanded.

Political parties can’t be made from the top down, they need roots in communities, that is as true today as it was in the 1980s, and although a break away Labour might call itself Social Democratic Labour, or such, to try to retain some roots, it could only possibly work with the support of the big unions, which looks unlikely. We are into another rule book war over the number of MPs nominations needed to stand for leader, when Corbyn does stand down or is defeated in a members’ ballot. That much is certainly the same carry on as in the 1980s, and it will cripple the party in same way as it did then.   

    

'London should become a city state after hard Brexit'

Written by David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham in north London and first published at the Evening Standard

Last week Nicola Sturgeon stole the headlines by firing the starting gun on another Scottish independence  referendum, but it is London that stands to lose the most from Brexit. To borrow the Prime Minister’s favourite phrase, now is not the time for London to foot the bill for this hardest of all hard Brexits.

Sturgeon complained that the Government has ignored the wishes and interests of Scotland, leaving her with no choice but to push for independence. London’s economy is double the size of Scotland’s and there are almost twice as many people living in London as in Scotland, so why have the capital’s interests been totally sidelined and why isn’t London’s voice being heard?

Throughout history there have been great cities that are essentially also states in their own right — Rome, Athens, Singapore and Hong Kong. London — given its predominance in our economic, social and cultural national life — certainly fits the bill too.

What all great cities have in common is an ability to change with the times. If London is to retain its position as the pre-eminent global city we must recognise that this is not a Brexit that will work for the capital — this is a Brexit for the Europhobe hardliners on the Tory backbenches.

This Brexit at any cost, regardless of the consequences, will be absolutely catastrophic for London and our place in the world. But as things go pear-shaped, there is a way out of this and nothing should be off the table when it comes to protecting the strength and future prosperity of our capital.

Whitehall has begun the devolution of control over adult skills, criminal justice services and employment support to City Hall, but Brexit changes everything, so it is perfectly rational to consider more radical proposals than piecemeal devolution.

Let’s not forget that 60 per cent of Londoners voted to Remain. The referendum result sent a shock wave through the capital, but as the dust begins to settle, London finds itself increasingly constrained by — and at odds with — the policies and priorities of our central Government.

If Scotland can have another referendum on independence, then why can’t we have a well-overdue debate about London becoming more autonomous and independent from the rest of the country? If Brexit was a victory of smalltown conservatism, resurgent nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment, then London’s status as the financial and cultural capital of Europe depends on resisting these shifts.

Earlier this year the London Finance Commission proposed a comprehensive London devolution package in light of Brexit, including additional control over the tax paid by Londoners and London businesses to bring us into line with our global competitors. New York keeps around 50 per cent of the taxes raised in the city and Tokyo keeps almost three quarters, so a comprehensive settlement to enable London to keep more of the taxes generated here would give the capital the tools we need to mitigate the impact of Brexit and stay ahead in the global race.

Take the issue of immigration. Huge swathes of our nation — including the ministers calling the shots around the Cabinet — view freedom of movement as a problem so severe that we must leave the single market in a desperate bid to reduce net immigration to the “tens of thousands”, regardless of how much it hurts our economy. But London would grind to a halt without European migrants coming to the capital to work, and separate visa arrangement will be essential to enable London to maintain access to the talent it needs to grow.

Fast forward a couple of years and London’s status as the world’s pre-eminent global city will be under threat. Our position as the financial services capital of Europe is at risk and could disappear overnight if there is a flight of capital and talent to cities on the Continent.

Over the course of the next two years as the reality of Brexit begins to bite, the economic, social and political cleavages between London and other parts of the country will become more pronounced. London’s status as a de facto city-state will become clearer and the arguments for a London city-state to forge a more independent path will become stronger.

London already accounts for just under a third of all UK tax revenue — up a quarter in real terms since 2005 — so it beggars belief that the interests of the capital have been completely overlooked when planning for Brexit. The Treasury is increasingly reliant on London to subsidise expenditure and investment in other regions so embarking on a course that will hurt London economically is bad for the whole country, not just the capital.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimated the cost of Brexit at around £60 billion in additional borrowing over the next five years, and it is London that will foot the bill. We cannot afford a lost decade. We are already seeing London schools hit by huge cuts as money is shifted from the capital to the shires. Local authorities in the capital are already on their knees after seven years of swingeing austerity.

This is the last thing we need when urgent attention and huge investment is crucial to address the capital’s housing crisis and a deepening chasm between top earners and workless poor in many London boroughs. We can’t go back to the Seventies: needles strewn across our public parks; our schools falling apart; the National Front marching on our streets; political paralysis, civil unrest and economic turbulence.

What has become clear since June is that the Government will not fight London’s corner in the Brexit negotiations. The case for a London city-state has never been stronger. As Sturgeon told the SNP conference: we are not powerless, we can still decide which path we take. If you identify with London’s values, it’s time to fight for them.

Scotland Indyref2 – Tell May where to Stick her Hard Brexit

Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, fired the starting pistol on a second Scottish independence referendum today, by announcing her intention to hold a vote in the Scottish Parliament on the matter, probably next week.

Although the Scottish National Party (SNP) does not hold an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Green Party announced today that they will support the SNP, and their six MSPs are enough for an overall majority, even if all, as seems likely, the other parties vote against.

Scotland will need authorisation by the full UK Parliament, which may prove more problematical, although the Prime Minister, Theresa May, fell short of over ruling the referendum at Westminster today. What she did say was that there is no demand in Scotland for it, which is open to question, the SNP was playing politics and that it will be ‘divisive.’

What a cheek May has. She has been playing politics all along with the Brexit issue, fighting tooth and nail to stop MPs have a say on the outcome of negotiations with the European Union (EU), and using her hard Brexit stance as way to consolidate her power within the Tory Party. Her predecessor, David Cameron, only held the referendum in the first place to manage the Tory Party Euro-sceptics. And as for divisive, well her hard Brexit stance has further torn apart the country, when what was required was a healer of the wound, a one nation approach, if you like.

No, May has made Indyref2 inevitable with her hard Brexit approach to the issue, and now the chickens are truly coming home roost. May could have aimed for a softer version of Brexit, perhaps retaining membership of the European Free Trade Association (Efta) and through that joined the European Economic Area (EEA) with Norway and others. She could have conceded some ground to Sturgeon on Scotland staying in the single market, but she has refused point blank to concede anything to the Scots.

If the referendum goes ahead, it will be tough for the SNP to win a yes to independence vote, but the opinion polls have been moving in that direction in last couple of weeks, since it has become clear what the UK government strategy is going to be. Demand everything from the EU, and when they don’t let you have it, howl about foreigners aided and abetted by the right wing media, and crash out of the organisation with no deal at all.     

This may be the start of the unravelling of the UK, with much unhappiness in Northern Ireland about the UK government’s handling of Brexit. Northern Ireland as well as Scotland voted to remain in the UK, and if one good thing comes out of all of this, Brexit might lead to the overdue uniting of the island of Ireland.

Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood has also called for an independence referendum in Wales, despite a majority of the Welsh voting for Brexit.

And then there is London, which voted almost as strongly as Scotland to remain in the EU. I’ve written before on the desirability of London independence from the UK, but unfortunately we in London are saddled with a Labour Party mayor, Sadiq Khan, who refuses to countenance the idea. He gave his rather feeble response reported on Labour List today to the latest developments on Brexit. But pressure may now increase on Khan, with Scotland making its intentions clear today. In 2014, at the time of the first Scottish indyref campaign, I saw a poll of Londoners which showed 20% support for London independence, and this time it could well be higher. It seems when the Scots consider independence and it is in the national news, Londoners think along the lines of ‘if they can have it, why not London, with a bigger population and economy than Scotland?’

Who can blame the Scots for wanting to ‘take control' of their destiny, rather than be lashed to the mast of a Tory government in England, hell bent on a potentially disastrous Brexit? Having to live in a shit country, where racism and bigotry is on the rise, when they can rule themselves, in the way they want to be ruled.

Solidarity with Scotland from the people of London.