Aggregated UK political opinion content, stakeholder research and policy consultations.
Andrew Gwynne\'s blog

Our push-me-pull-you Government

June 1st, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

If a week is a long time in politics, then a full five year parliament is an eternity.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2010 General Election, commentators speculated that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government wouldn’t last; that this marriage of convenience would crumble under the pressure of tough decisions in office.

Now I never subscribed to that scenario, although it is still very possible. The Coalition is undoubtedly fragile and there are two competing agendas with people in both parties (let alone the Labour opposition) who want the whole project to collapse in failure. It reminds me of Dr Doolitle’s push-me-pull-you.

For the Lib Dems, the challenge is to remain a distinctive and relevant political entity. The risk is they become seen as one with the Conservatives, and particularly so with every unpopular decision made. Is it possible, over a five year term, to maintain a degree of independence whilst equally maintaining effective collective cabinet government?

The Lib Dems like to portray themselves as the ‘nice guys’ in British politics. When they have to start making very unpopular decisions in government, how will they cope? Presumably this is where Simon Hughes’s ludicrous suggestion at still having Lib Dem ‘shadows’ despite being in government (as well as to snaffle some opposition Short money) comes from.

But the fragility of the Coaltion should be a worry for Labour too, because it breeds complacency. There were quite senior people back in the early 1990s, following the party’s fourth consecutive defeat at the polls, who wanted to halt the whole process of ‘modernisation’. Their theory was that Labour needed just one more heave to propel it to power, irrespective of the policy platform which had been resoundly rejected by the electorate.

Thankfully, Tony Blair accelerated the process of modernisation, setting the foundation for Labour to govern for thirteen years. As then, Labour should not now put off making the changes it needs to make to win back the support it lost in 2010. To sit back and hope for the Coalition to implode would be disastrous for Labour. The party needs not just to be a credible opposition to the Coalition, but a real alternative government to it.

Of course, there is just a possibility, too, that in five years time the Coalition- having held it together and directed Britain through the economic morass – will have re-found political popularity. If that happens then people may start to believe that a more consensual style of politics, transcending the traditional left-right splits, has worked and that Britain, perhaps with a new electoral system, will have genuinely entered into a new era.

We shall see!

Pomp and Policy

May 25th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Today is the State Opening of Parliament.  I am going to admit that it is a day I always enjoy.

Ok I accept, this year’s isn’t the Queen’s Speech that I would have wished for (it’s not Her Majesty’s fault, she didn’t vote for this lot either), but in my opinion, a bit of pomp and ceremony is what we do best, and it does no harm at all once a year.

To some, I imagine the spectacle of the Monarch travelling from Buckingham Palace to Westminster in the State Coach, with the Crown Jewels in tow, is irrelevant or even a complete anathema.  But I still think this ceremony serves a real purpose in the 21st century.

Firstly, whether we like it or not, it reminds us all that we do live in a Monarchy, and Queen Elizabeth II is our Sovereign.  The State Opening is also the one time that all three branches of government come together under one roof.

It further reminds us that it is a Constitutional Monarchy – in that the Queen comes to Parliament to summon the new House of Commons to come to the House of Lords to listen to her read a speech written by her Prime Minister, a member of the elected House of Commons.

It also reminds us, through the slamming of the Commons’ door in Black Rod’s face, of the battles scattered throughout history for power to be relinquished from the Monarch and then eventually, the Lords too, and given to the elected House of Commons.

The pomp and ceremony is actually relatively new; introduced by Edward VII in the early 20th century because his mother, Queen Victoria, couldn’t really be much fussed with the event.

Of course, the real purpose of the State Opening of Parliament is to set out the new Coalition Government’s business for the next year; much of it we already know through the Coalition’s programme for government, which was published last week, or via the ‘leaks’ to Sunday papers.

After the pantomime finishes today, then the real business of Government, and for me, Opposition, really begins.

Is it 1983? Fire up the Quattro!

April 17th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Last night I watched Ashes to Ashes on BBC1. For those who didn’t get to see it, it is set in 1983, and the storyline last night was linked to the General Election of that year.

The relevance to this post was a piece of footage of the election, showing Roy Jenkins, one of the gang of four who left Labour in 1981 to form the Social Democratic Party; The BBC news commentator said Mr Jenkins is buoyed up by recent polls placing the Alliance ahead of Labour”… ominous stuff following the first-ever televised leaders’ debate this year.

As I type, the dust has barely settled on the YouGov/Sun poll last night showing a massive bounce for the Lib Dems, just pushing Labour into third place. Now there are reports of two other polls showing a similar trend (though ICM still has Labour in second place).

Of course none of us really knows how the debate will affect the dynamics of the remainder of the campaign. Can the Lib Dems solidify their position, or have they peaked too early? Who knows? And frankly it is pointless speculating. What we have seen is our politics (and this election) getting interesting. When I wrote my blog piece on the February polls, and the speculation of a hung parliament, it was just that – speculation. Now it is looking more and more likely as an outcome.

Even before the debates, the Tory leads in most polls were not quite enough to deliver them a majority in the new House of Commons on a uniform swing (though with local factors and a concentrated effort in the marginals and a non-uniform swing in key seats it was actually possible). Now, with each of the main parties appearing to be very close to each other with around a third of the votes each, a hung parliament is looking very likely indeed.

Back in 1983, and because of our electoral system, the surge in support for the SDP/Liberal Alliance didn’t translate into seats. It did however help to deliver a massive Conservative majority by depriving Labour of seats it needed to hold (and others it needed to win back which it had lost in 1979), and it pretty much kept them out of power until the Blair landslide of 1997.

If the current poll trends are to be believed (and they may settle back down into the pre-debate positions in a few days), and because of the same electoral system, Labour on around 30% would win just short of 300 seats and would be the largest party in the House of Commons. The Tories and the Lib Dems also on around 30% would win something like 200 and 100 seats respectively.

Unlike in 1983, the present Lib Dem surge is actually a disaster for the Tories. Undoubtedly, if replicated in the election, the current polls would spell the end of any hope of a Conservative majority. The Cameron project will have spectacularly failed. The scale of the Tory slump is really clear when yesterday’s YouGov/Sun poll is compared with the YouGov/Sun poll from just TWO days earlier:

14th April Con: 41%, Lab 32%, LD 18%

16th April Con: 33%, Lab 28%, LD 30%

17th April Con: 33%, Lab 30%, LD 29% (Update at 9pm)

Nothing yet is written in stone. There’s still two debates and three weeks left to go. The Alliance surge of 1983 didn’t in the end ‘break the mould’ of British politics. Will 2010 be different?

How is it for you? GE2010

April 16th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Please understand that I’ve been a bit busy and so I haven’t sadly been able to blog as much as I would have liked, what with the general election (and local elections in Stockport and Tameside (have to keep my councillors sweet!)). I know the first rule of blogging is keep things up to date, so I apologise.

Even in a constituency like Denton and Reddish, a parliamentary candidate’s diary very quickly fills up. I’ve had the official campaign launch; opened a £6m new primary school in Audenshaw; opened a new play area at a local SureStart centre in Haughton Green (both done before I officially ceased to be an MP) and today I’ve had a school visit and a hustings both in South Reddish. Tomorrow, there’s the delight of our street stall at Houldsworth Square in Reddish, too!

Anyway, for any candidate, elections are a very hectic time. We are completely obsessed by polls and newspaper headlines. We stress about nomination papers, getting leaflets from the printers, batching them up and getting them delivered. We are absolutely fixated on canvass returns and voter ID; but of course, the reality is that while the rest of the population may have a passing interest in the election, most people are just getting on with their daily lives.

So how is the election for you so far? Two weeks in and lots of leaflets and direct mail delivered, media coverage galore, and the first-ever televised leaders’ debate… has the election campaign in 2010 set you alight yet?

PS, only three weeks to go!

Sometimes we can change the world

April 7th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Thank you Gordon Brown… having been told yet again by the doctors (and the Whips) to “take things easy and rest” the prime minister has gone and paid a visit to Her Majesty and called a General Election.

Semi-joking aside, 6th May was the worst kept secret in all Christendom. Given that the local elections were already scheduled to take place on that day, it made no sense to hold the two polls on different days – although that did last happen in 1992 (when the General Election was in April and the Council polls just four weeks later).

Of course, until next Monday I remain a Member of Parliament. Then the current parliament is formally dissolved and a Writ is published for elections to the new parliament. As I type, MPs are currently pushing legislation through streamlined parliamentary procedures so that some Bills can become law in this session. Commonly known as the wash-up, the procedure is usually non-contentious, although this time round the Digital Economy Bill is causing real concerns to people (if Twitter is anything to go by). I agree. I think a Bill of this magnitude probably needs full parliamentary scrutiny.

The good news from the wash-up though is my Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill was included on the list of Bills agreed between the Government and Opposition and, thanks to Sally Keeble MP for stepping in once again, it completed its Commons stages today. Tomorrow it is in the Lords and – with a bit of luck – it should become law! To everyone who supported my bill, thank you!

My private members bill succeeding is actually quite a nice way to end this parliament. After all the (self inflicted) bashing politics and politicians have taken in recent years, let the Debt Relief Bill serve as a reminder that most people are involved in politics for the right reasons, to help change the world… and sometimes, just sometimes, we manage to do just that!

Over the next month I plan to blog from the campaign trail…

Farewell Michael Foot (1913-2010)

March 4th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

I was genuinely saddened to hear of the death of the former Labour Leader, Michael Foot, yesterday. Without a doubt, his death marks the passing of one of the great parliamentarians of the post-war era.

Born into a Liberal family, Foot became a committed socialist after he witnessed extreme poverty in Liverpool. He subsequently came to London and worked for both Tribune, and for Beaverbrook as a highly successful journalist and writer. Foot gained his first great claim to fame as the author of Guilty Men, the 1940 polemic against the pre-war appeasers.

In Labour’s 1945 landslide victory, Foot unexpectedly won Plymouth Devonport for the party. After losing Devonport in 1955 he succeeded his hero, Aneurin Bevan in Ebbw Vale after his death in 1960.

Michael Foot represented a tradition in the Labour Party that often fell out with the party’s leadership, and he even had the whip taken from him in the early 1960s. He also shunned high office, despite several offers of ministerial posts from Harold Wilson; he finally he relented to be Employment Secretary and then Leader of the House under Callaghan.

Much has been written about Foot’s great oratory (a skill sadly lacking in modern politics) and for me, one of his most memorable Commons speeches had to be the one he gave as Leader of the House of Commons on 28th March 1979, when he closed the ‘No Confidence’ debate on the night the Callaghan Labour Government fell.

He became my party’s leader in the aftermath of that 1979 election defeat and Callaghan’s resignation the following year, as the candidate most acceptable to both wings of the party. It is easy to be critical of Foot’s leadership not least because he led Labour into near oblivion in the 1983 General Election where we came close to third place behind the SDP-Liberal Alliance!

I actually take the more sympathetic ‘Kinnock view’ that Michael Foot did his best to hold what had become a divided and self-indulgent party together in extremely difficult circumstances. In any case, the Labour Party survived (which was by no means certain back in the early 1980s) and after 18-years in the political wilderness, eventually returned to government.

The 1997 Labour manifesto couldn’t have been more further removed from that of 1983 – or ‘the longest suicide note in history’, as Sir Gerald Kaufman famously dubbed it.

Whatever Michael Foot thought of Tony Blair’s new Labour project, he continued to passionately support the Labour movement and the Labour government, and loyally kept quieter than I imagine he would have done in the 1950s!

Tags [ , , ]

Categories [ UK Politics ]

Comments [ 11 ]

Leave your comment

How hung? (The next parliament!)

February 21st, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

A few weeks back, I did warn you that politicians were obsessed by the polls, and particularly as an election approaches. I suppose after this post, I now have to include myself in that category!

Since that earlier post, there have been a number of public opinion polls published and most (to a greater or lesser extent) showing the gaps between the main parties narrowing – so exciting times for political junkies like me!

The media narrative now is that we are in hung parliament territory, and indeed on the face of it, that is precisely where we are. Most commentators will tell you that, because of the electoral system, the Conservatives will need an 11% or 12% lead over Labour on polling day to be certain of a small overall majority. Today’s poll for the Sunday Times shows the Tory lead at just 6%, the lowest level with YouGov since 2008.

On a uniform swing, that poll would leave the Conservatives over 30 seats short of an overall majority, and only around 10 seats ahead of Labour. Of course, there are a few caveats here, not least that there isn’t going to be a uniform swing. Results will differ from region to region, seat by seat, and largely down to local factors.

Indeed this is starting to show through in more detailed polling. The assumption has to date been that the Tories are doing much better in the marginal seats they have to win than in constituencies like mine, which are completely off their political radar. Having said that, there was an interesting set of polls published by ICM/Kindle Research yesterday for the three Brighton and Hove constituencies showing that Labour has pulled ahead of the Conservatives in all three seats. These are precisely the kind of constituencies David Cameron must win.

So on that basis how hung will our next parliament be? On paper, it currently looks a likely outcome that no party will have a majority after the election. But so too, if we throw our minds back, did the 1992 election and yet the Tory government held on with a 21 seat majority in the end.

Our first past the post electoral system actually makes hung parliaments very difficult to achieve – though not impossible. Will 2010 be another 1992 or will it be another February 1974, the only post-war election with an inconclusive result?

Time will tell when Britain votes on March 25th, April 8th, April 15th, May 6th, June 3rd. *Delete as appropriate depending on this week’s rumours (the date of the election itself is a whole separate post!!!). In the meantime, we’ll just have to be patient and obsess over a few more polls!

Since I posted this earlier today, He’s Spartacus has added his views on the subject here

Brighton and Hove Kindle Research Polls – Feb 2010:

LAB CON GREEN LD
Pavilion 41% (+5) 25% (+2) 19% (-3) 8% (-8)
Kemptown 38% (-1) 36% (+2) 13% (+7) 11% (-6)
Hove 38% (+1) 34% (-2) 10% (+2) 10% (-8)

-

Latest National Polls:

CON LAB LD Con Lead
YouGov 21st Feb 39% 33% 17% +6%
ComRes 21st Feb 38% 30% 20% +8%
YouGov 18th Feb 39% 32% 18% +7%
YouGov 17th Feb 39% 30% 18% +9%
ComRes 11th Feb 40% 29% 21% +11%
ICM 4th Feb 39% 30% 20% +9%

Time to end the Vulture Culture

February 20th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Every year I have put my name down on the Private Member’s Bill ballot – just in case I am lucky enough to be drawn – and for the past four years, I have failed miserably to get any slot for my own piece of legislation.

Then, one morning in November 2009, I got up and switched on my BlackBerry (which had been charging overnight) and received instantly about 500 emails begging and pleading with me to take up a variety of good causes in my Bill. By the time I had reached my Commons office, it was over 1,000 emails. And a few days later, the snail mail had started to drop on my desk too!

Actually I think the ballot was a Mancunian “fix” this year – all top three slots went to Greater Manchester Labour MPs (Dr Brian Iddon, David Chaytor and myself).

I have spent a great deal of time considering which issue I should take forward and that’s no easy task… everyone wants to be your friend! But when I was elected to Parliament one of my personal pledges was to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves in this world.

One of the things I have personally been concerned about has been the operation of so called “vulture funds” whereby a small number of investment companies buy up the defaulted debts of the world’s poorest countries at very low prices and then take them to court to aggressively recoup the debts at full value. So after long consideration this is the issue I have decided to deal with through my Private Member’s Bill.

Very recently in the UK High Court two investment funds won the right to recover over £20m from Liberia, one of the poorest countries in the world. This was for an initial loan in the 1970s of only £6m. Surely this is money that could be better spent on things such as health and education by the Liberian Government?

For too long, some companies have been allowed to get away with exploiting the debt relief received by developing countries for their own profit; taking vital resources away from those that need it most.

The second reading debate is next Friday, 26th February. For health reasons, I am unable to personally present the bill, but kindly the whips’ and the Speaker have allowed me to be able to have it presented by another member (Sally Keeble has agreed to do this) although the Bill remains in my name.

In all seriousness, I’m not entirely sure how likely my Bill is to make it onto the statute book. The timing of the General Election and the dissolution of Parliament will to some extent determine that. But we’ll give it a go and hopefully help to change the world in a small way!

For more information, see the Jubilee Debt Campaign.

The text of the Bill and explanatory notes can now be found here.



Comments [ 17 ]

Leave your comment

Poll Position?

February 7th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Ok, the picture has nothing at all to do with the article other than it fits the title nicely! (it’s a screen shot of one of my favourite early 1980s computer games – Pole Position – on the Atari 2600).

All politicians will tell you they don’t look at opinion polls; that the only poll that counts is the real election. You’ll have heard all that before, I’m sure! Firstly, don’t you believe it… if politicians didn’t concern themselves with such trivia, why then do the various polling organisations do so much work privately for political parties?

That aside, as we approach the General Election, both politicians and the media will become ever more obsessed with a one percent drop or rise in a particular party’s poll ratings. So just what can we gauge from the polls?

Firstly, it is clear that the Conservatives have been ahead of Labour consistently since their 2007 party conference, often cited as the reason why the planned ’snap’ election that autumn was pulled. Their support peaked in 2008 at round 49 percent and has steadily dropped back to just below 40 percent. Likewise, Labour’s lowest points were in the aftermath of the 10p tax abolition in 2008 and during the depths of the MPs’ expenses scandal in 2009, where sometimes less than a quarter of the electorate supported the governing party when asked.

The situation has changed considerably since Labour’s painful drubbing in last June’s European elections. In part this is because Gordon Brown has been exuding a degree of confidence recently that was sadly missing through most of 2008 and 2009. Ironically, I think the failed coup by Hoon and Hewitt has been good for him. He can now focus on the real fight ahead without constantly having to look over his shoulder. As a result, Labour’s ratings are now pretty much back above 30 percent.

As the polls stand now, it would appear we are headed into the territory of a hung parliament. The Sunday Times today even reports that the Queen is being advised on her constitutional role in the event of such an outcome.

Of course, all this assumes there will be a uniform swing across all seats (which isn’t going to happen). It also assumes the polls are correct, though they are all showing pretty consistent trends at the minute. Certainly the pollsters now factor in for ‘shy’ respondents, something they didn’t do back in 1992 when all the polls pointed to a small Labour majority or, at least, a hung parliament with Neil Kinnock leading the largest party.

As if you needed a reminder, the actual result in that contest was a Conservative government re-elected with a majority of 21 seats. In fact the only thing ‘red’ on that (for me, rather depressing) election night, seemed to be the faces of the pollsters!

The last five polls:

CON LAB LD
ICM 4th Feb 39% 30% 20%
ComRes 31st Jan 38% 31% 19%
BPIX 30th Jan 39% 30% 18%
YouGov 29th Jan 38% 31% 19%
Ipsos Mori 28th Jan 40% 32% 16%

Comments [ 4 ]

Leave your comment

MPs are NOT above the law

February 6th, 2010 by Andrew Gwynne

Charles IPublic anger from the 9-month-old MPs’ expenses scandal is still very real. From the revelations in the Telegraph last year right through to this week’s publication of the Legg report, the issue of MPs’ expenses has never really been that far from the minds of the electorate, and it is certain to be an issue in the next General Election, which is only a couple of months away.

After lengthy and detailed police investigations, we now have the prospect of at least three MPs and a Peer of the Realm appearing in court to answer specific charges under the Theft Act 1968. I’m not going to comment on the individual cases or the circumstances surrounding the charges. That’s for the courts to now adjudicate upon, but there is an issue I do want to explore, and that is the notion of Parliamentary privilege.

My own basic (and I have to admit, limited) understanding of Parliamentary privilege is that it is in place to ensure that MPs’ may speak freely in the chamber of the House of Commons without the fear of legal action. Things that I could be sued for saying outside parliament, I am able to talk about freely in the House. This is a precious facility that shouldn’t be abused or misused by parliamentarians.

The history of Parliamentary privilege goes back to the period immediately before the English Civil War when King Charles I ordered the arrest of five ‘troublesome’ Members of Parliament. The MPs escaped arrest and the event became a defining moment in the protection of Members from the other branches of government.

The concept of Parliamentary privilege, certainly as we understand it today, was further codified in the 1689 Bill of Rights which gives protection to MPs “for words spoken or things done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, any proceedings in parliament”.

If the newspaper reports are correct, it is under this provision in the Bill of Rights that the Members in question are seeking protection. The Director of Public Prosecutions yesterday conceded that the reach of Parliamentary privilege is unclear in this respect.

Quite frankly it is an abuse of this historic freedom to argue that because the expenses regime was a Parliamentary function (of course now it is a function of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) it is therefore covered by privilege.

The forthcoming court hearings may be of real constitutional significance – redefining the whole notion of Parliamentary privilege for the modern age.

Tags [ , , , ]

Categories [ UK Politics ]

Comments [ 4 ]

Leave your comment