The Slow Rise of the Greens and the Fragmentation of Two Party Politics

Photo: Heather Stanley (flickr)

 

Richard Wood discusses the fundamental shifts in the nature of British party politics and the rise of alternative contenders.

One could easily be forgiven if they made the mistake of thinking that UKIP won the 2013 county council elections and took control of every council with overwhelming majorities. The media attention on Nigel Farage and his purple revolutionaries has been tremendously high, resulting in more than needed airtime for the party.

Although UKIP made a ‘breakthrough’, as they finished with a total of 147 councillors from almost zero, they did not end up in control of any councils and did not make significant gains in the north. Due to all the UKIP hype, one political force has suffered in terms of public attention – the Greens.

Natalie Bennett’s party made a modest net gain of five councillors, but has been somewhat marginalised by the media. Compared with Farage’s total of 147 it does not look like much, but the party gained seats in places outside its heartland of Brighton, such as in Bristol, Essex and the West Midlands.

The Green Party (of England and Wales, as Scotland has a separate Green Party which supports Scottish independence) has made progressive gains over the last few years. In the 2009 European parliament elections the party, lead by Caroline Lucas at the time, won almost 10% of the vote share, gaining over a million votes.

A year after this result, which was once again overshadowed by UKIP’s successes as they came second in the elections to the Conservatives, the party made history. 2010 was the year when Gordon Brown’s Labour fell from power, Nigel Farage was in a plane crash and lost when standing against the House speaker John Bercow, and significantly the Greens won their first MP – Caroline Lucas.

In contrast to UKIP, although the far right party is a force to be reckoned with, the Greens are one up on them in Westminster. Unlike UKIP, they have an MP. Nigel Farage has confirmed he will stand in 2015 for a seat, however he has not thought about where. The Greens plan to put forward more candidates than before and win more MPs.

What the 2013 county council elections have shown us is that the British people are not afraid of change. Whether that be disaffected Labour supporters moving towards the Greens, or grumbling traditional Tories moving towards UKIP, the outcome is the same – a change in the political landscape. The old party system is breaking up.

Natalie Bennett has recently stated that “What we’re seeing is a break-up of the traditional two – or three- party system in Britain”. This further reiterates the point that the old power game of ping-pong between the largest parties is drawing to an ultimate close.

Commentators say we are moving towards a four party system with UKIP being the third force in British politics. But there are not just four parties. The left and right are fragmenting into different factions. Change is happening right now. It is clear that the first-past-the-post system for English and Welsh councils, as well as for Westminster, is becoming unsustainable. With the rise of the Greens and UKIP, more people are wanting more change. 
Professor John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde pointed out that 2013 was the first election where the projected national vote share (PNS) for the main three parties was below 30% each. Something is happening in British politics. That is a tremendous change, and it is manifested by not just UKIP, but the Greens and other small parties too. For example, the SNP’s recent success in Scotland.

British political ground is shifting, and it’s not just UKIP making the change.

By Richard Wood.

Can Labour reclaim Scotland from the Nationalists?

Photo: Scottish Labour (Flickr)

A sea of yellow flooded the Scottish political landscape back in 2011 when Alex Salmond’s SNP turned their minority into an undeniable majority. However, 41/59 of Scotland’s MPs in Westminster are Labour, whereas the SNP only have 6. Although this is partly down to the fact that the Scottish Parliament has aspects of proportional representation and Westminster does not, it is still clear that Scots vote differently in Holyrood and Westminster elections. To put it crudely Scots vote Labour to keep the Tories out at Westminster, but vote SNP at Holyrood as they see the Salmond administration as being better at protecting Scottish interests. Labour once dominated Holyrood and have been fundamental to Scottish politics for years, but now that their influence has been significantly diminished is there anyway to get it back?

First of all Scottish Labour need a well recognised and respected leader. The previous leader Iain Gray was a decent enough figure, but without someone on a par to Alex Salmond, Scottish Labour’s chances are noticeably weakened. Furthermore, as for the current Labour leader – Johann Lamont – before the leadership election no one had ever heard of her. Even now, many still have not, which is not a position the party should be finding themselves in. She was democratically elected, but whilst Mr Salmond leads the SNP, Scottish politics is dominated by the politics of personality and oratory. Policies and ideas matter, but not as much as they should. If not being able to rival Alex Salmond’s personality (and ego) is a cause for Labour’s decline and the party wishes to remain a legitimate force, it must find a solution.

Alistair Darling currently leads the ‘Better Together’ campaign and so is in no position to take the reigns of the party, however, he is often suggested as a viable alternative. He is charismatic, energetic and often deemed a popular figure in the Labour party and across Scotland, hence his role in ‘Better Together.’ Maybe after the referendum in 2014, which will undoubtedly be a ‘No’ vote, he will resign as an MP, find a byelection and become an MSP. Then maybe he could try for leader. This is all speculation of course, but it offers an interesting solution.

In terms of policy, Scottish Labour attempt to disagree with the SNP at almost every turn. The politics of opportunism is rife in Holyrood. The SNP have taken over the centre left of Scottish politics, which is where Scotland’s centre ground is situated. In September of last year Johann Lamont made a speech where she denounced commitment to free tuition fees as well as free prescriptions. Furthermore, there has been a lot of speculation on her acceptance of Trident and the keeping of nuclear submarines in Faslane. It is clear that Scottish Labour members, who have always been further to the left than their Westminster contempories, are at last following the trend. This is probably to show opposition to the SNP, but Scotland is traditionally a left of centre nation and such a response to SNP governance is just moving away from the Scottish centre ground. If Labour wish to reclaim Scotland they are going to have to start thinking about what the Scottish people want, rather than play at opportunism with the SNP.

It is clear that Labour have got a long way to go if they wish to reclaim Holyrood. In 2014 after a vote to keep the union together, perhaps Alex Salmond will stand down and Labour will have a chance again. However, there remain other popular figures in the SNP, such as Nicola Sturgeon, who would probably take Alex Salmond’s job in the run up to the 2016 election. As for Labour’s policies, moving away from their traditional left of centre ground will have a damaging effect on them as Scotland is traditionally left of centre. Perhaps Alistair Darling will make an entrance into Holyrood or Johann Lamont will become extremely popular, but right now it is far too early to tell. 2016 could see Labour’s comeback as the SNP will undoubtedly lose the referendum, but the SNP consistently outstrip the other Scottish parties in the polls, showing that perhaps even a vote to keep the UK together may not kill of the SNP flame. The 2014 referendum results and repercussions will draw the battleground for 2016. Only after the results of 18th September 2014 and May 2015 can we make a more accurate guess as to what the fate of Labour in Scotland will be.

Richard Wood. Follow on Twitter @rwood94

The free Press keeps democracy ticking. Its failings can be covered by conventional laws.

Not the only one hacked off. Photo: Liberal Democrats (Flickr)

It isn’t often that I wish I wasn’t born in Britain. I am proud (or at least as proud as anyone can be about an accident of birth) of my country: I find its history fascinating, its past leaders inspiring, and the lessons it has provided for the rest of the world powerful reminders of the rule of freedom and the continuation of ‘modern’ values. There’s a reason why Westminster is referred to as the ‘Mother of Parliaments’, after all.

One of the key things keeping democracy ticking is the concept of a free Press. British Press has not faced any state regulation since the Bill of Rights in 1689 agreed freedom of speech and the restriction of royal prerogative; this was supplemented by Parliament not renewing the Licensing Act in 1695. It is therefore ironic that a Royal Charter will be used to implement the proposed regulation of Britain’s media, not an Act of our democratically accountable Parliament. The way that this plan has been created; cobbled together in the dead of night, by a group of wonkish SpAds, shows its qualities resemble a shoddy compromise, but this time not over petty policy, but the fundamental liberties of British citizens.

It is here where the ancient traditions of the United Kingdom begin to unravel in the face of modern technology; and the persistent efforts of a few affronted celebrities. One online petition – of which numbers are impossible to verify – seems to suggest that a lot of people want regulation, and so, to appease the fatal opinion polls, it was quickly, and shamefully, called for.

I can’t think of a less trustworthy bunch than Hacked Off. Their primary support base is made up of sleazy semi-notables who wish to get compensation for being found out; people like the disgraced actor Hugh Grant, who has become a professional windbag and wants to find a way to censor the tabloid newspapers whom he so despises. They didn’t force him to pick up a prostitute, they merely reported on it, but who thinks his vigour to regulate such a vital institution came from anything other than spite?

My patriotic admiration is now sorely lacking. Britain’s leaders are homogenous clones, each coming from cosily secure affluent households. They get away with the gulf between them and the majority of the British people by hiding their vast wealth and always appealing to the unidentified ‘middle class’ (an annoying habit it appears they have picked up from across the Atlantic). I’m not knocking net worth or privilege here at all: as some of our greatest leaders were from less than ‘ordinary’ stock: Churchill, for example, was from a powerful ducal line.

It is the concentration of power in a small microcosm, below genuine aristocrats, but above almost everyone else, which irks me. All of our Prime Ministers from Harold Wilson in 1964, to the end of John Major’s premiership in 1997 were state-school educated. Since then; all of our heads of government have attended fee-paying schools. It is this concentration of power which is causing the elitist attempts to hurt tabloid newspapers above all others, as they publish unfavourable stories about Hacked Off’s millionaire donors.

America got it right with the First Amendment; it stands as a lasting testament to the freedom of individuals in the Great Republic. What is particularly galling, then, is that this rallying call on behalf of free speech and a free Press was based on the aforementioned British Bill of Rights, which is now being cannibalised to suit the tastes of a very wealthy and powerful media lobby, keen to protect their ‘clean’, but misattributed images.

I think it is genuinely deplorable for Max Mosley; whose German-themed spanking parties were uncovered by tabloid journalists, to hide his shadowy support of tight regulation behind innocent victims like the parents of Millie Dowler, a murdered teenager who’s mobile phone was hacked by News of the World journalists before that paper’s closure. They do have a case against some sections of the media, but all of the egregious offences committed against them are covered by conventional laws.

What we have now is the isolated political class desperately trying to regulate the Press; based on nothing more than a heartbreaking tale, and a list of wrongs which could all be punished by extant legislation. This is incubated by the back-scratching culture of supposedly ‘wronged’ love-rats, liars, cheats and frauds.

James Snell. Follow on Twitter @James_P_Snell

High Speed 2: the one-way ticket to prosperity

Photo: Renaud Chodkowski (Flickr)

The lack of depth in debates concerning High Speed 2 has been frustrating. Many of the real advantages of developing this new infrastructure have been ignored, let alone fully explored. Generally, the potential wider economic benefit is mentioned and to counterbalance this, a country gent is interviewed who contradicts the economic expert as well as attempting to make the viewer think that he is the victim in all of this, despite the fact that he will be more than compensated for his troubles, and as we know, the more he kicks and screams the more compensation he and his comrades will make.

In reality there is no debate; there is no alternate option but to deliver HS2; which is why there is cross-party agreement on the matter. How often do all three major parties agree on something as major as an international scale infrastructure project? The reason why they agree is simple, the West Coast Mainline (WCML) is our flagship bit of rail kit, it directly connects five of our biggest cities; London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh. It also can be used indirectly to access Leeds and Liverpool via the Transpennine Express interchange at Manchester, so if you factor those two in, it connects 7 of our economically most important cities.

The trouble with it is that, for some time, it has been operating over-capacity; you will know this if you have ever travelled from London Euston to Birmingham New Street during a peak hour. You could well have paid up to £100 to stand up for 90 minutes, maintaining quite an intimate relationship with the twelve folk in your immediate vicinity, in a Tube-like fashion. To alleviate this capacity problem on the WCML, we are gradually phasing in up-sizing the 56 Pendulino sets we run on it from being 9 carriages to 11, by ordering extra units from Alstom and as soon as the upgraded sets come into service the extra capacity is being eaten up. And, because of complications like platform lengths we can’t really upgrade capacity much more than 11 cars. Just in case you are wondering why frequency isn’t increased instead, it can’t be, we can’t fit a piece of tracing paper in that timetable.

The issue is tat we are not only operating a saturated rail passenger network, but also a saturated rail freight network; with companies like Tesco and Asda now transporting an increasing amount of goods by rail, keen to display how ‘green’ their logistics operations are, demand for rail fright is at a high. If we build HS2, we can free up slots on the West Coast Mainline, resulting in larger freight operations, aiding this economy to move faster.

Whilst critics argue that HS2 will be a resource for the wealthy, it will bring true competition to intercity rail travel; with two operators providing rail travel between the same cities it will mean that whoever is operating the WCML franchise will have to ensure their ticket prices are low enough to entice people away from taking the faster, more exiting and more novel high speed route. If too many passengers opt for the classic line, then HS2 will have to drive its own prices down and this will mean, for the first time, we will actually have real competition on the re-privatised railway network resulting in real consumer choice; the West Coast Mainline could become a real budget option.

Also, it is worthwhile throwing into the equation another transport debate that is already well within the public realm; airport capacity. When HS2 is hooked up with HS1, a whole world of new international opportunities will unfold, especially now the bidding for slots is open to transport providers operating outside of the UK. The Deutsche Bahn will be the first to take advantage, when they begin operating direct services from St Pancreas to Frankfurt in 2015. This sets a precedent; Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham will host their own international rail terminuses and this will relieve pressure on airports, meaning additional runways won’t have to be built, securing more green space for Britain. Heathrow will also benefit if attached to the high speed network, making short-haul aviation less popular, reducing our carbon footprint.

Wherever there is high speed rail in the world there is prosperity, no railway in the UK has ever been developed and since regretted. The development of HS2 will bring an impetus to this wilted economy at a time when it needs one most. It will bring with it the biggest multiplier effect we have seen for some time, and may well, save our bacon.

Matthew Stimpson is a graduate of Transport and Town Planning, currently practising in the private sector. Follow on Twitter @matthhew

What Adam Afriyie’s first major interview really meant

Adam Afriyie: Going somewhere? Photo: Roo Reynolds (Flickr)

There’s no doubting the appeal of Adam Afriyie; with a rags to riches personal story he represents the epitome of what the Conservative Party should stand for. But his answers, during his first major interview with Andrew Neil on Sunday, were sketchy, overtly astute, and his political message – essentially business, business, business – somewhat lacking.

By saying very little, he ended up giving away rather a lot. Not only did Afriyie make mention of the ‘efforts of’ a ‘team’ around him, he also categorically refused to support David Cameron’s leadership. Surely even the most rebellious of MPs would have given the PM their backing, at least for now? It’s difficult to say what exactly Afriyie is planning, but here’s my take on what his interview really meant;

Andrew Neil: You’ve already written that you are ‘prepared to be disappointed’ (with George Osborne’s budget)?

Adam Afriyie: Well budget’s are always disappointing, and there’s a lot of hope for different groups within society and I think sometimes not all those hopes can be met. The key thing for this budget in my view is that we must have business friendly measures, and I think it’s really important that any government both likes business but also is business-like in its approach.

Translation: Budgets are usually disappointing, and this one will probably be no exception. We need more tax cuts for businesses, and of course we need to move on from the ‘omnishambles’ delivery of last year’s Budget.

AN: Liam Fox has called for a public spending freeze for the next five years to fund tax cuts, is he right?

AA: A lot of people will be calling for a lot of different things. My focus is on those things, sometimes they’re boring measures, measures which aren’t headline grabbing, sometimes they aren’t politically attractive. The key thing is that we are business-like about this and introduce measures that genuinely boost growth.

Translation: Sounds good to me.

AN: Is it time to means test universal benefits like the free TV licence and the winter fuel allowance?

AA: These are ideas that need to be considered for sure. But I think, overall my view is that we need to simplify for tax system. I think people are uncomfortable that multimillionaires are receiving benefits from the state, that’s something that needs to be look at in the long term. But if we simplify the tax system then some of these problems disappear over time.

Translation: I don’t want to answer that, so I’ll talk about tax instead. But yes, millionaires shouldn’t receive benefits.

AN: Do you think Cameron and Osborne spend enough time listening to what ordinary members think?

AA: I think they’re listening very carefully. There will always be frustration if the economy isn’t doing well and the answers for getting a thriving Britain aren’t forthcoming. I’m hopeful that this budget will have those measures where people begin to feel more confident. The future for the country lies with a wholly Conservative government that has enterprise and economic growth at the heart of everything it does.

Translation: They might be listening, but not enough. The economy is a mess, and the government does not have enough of a focus on creating a thriving economy. Of course, not much helped by having to work with Liberal Democrats.

AN: Is there any doubt in your mind that Mr Cameron will lead the Tories into the 2015 general election?

AA: I don’t want to get into gossip politics. We have a very good chance of winning the 2015 election if we can demonstrate some economic growth before 2015. Government needs to learn to like business.

AN: You don’t answer me. There is some doubt in your mind? Is there or isn’t there?

AA: I’m not prepared to speculate. What people want to see is leadership and a commitment to getting Britain back on top.

AN: There have been many reports that you have leadership ambitions, do you?

AA: I’m ambitious for the country. I chose to come into politics from a business background, and I’m happy to serve the country in any way I see fit. I’m not ambitious for any position in the party or the government.

AN: Let’s put this to bed, do you want to lead your party?

AA: I have no ambition to lead my party. I’m ambitious to get Britain back on top. The effort’s of my team around me are focused on trying to deliver those policies for a better future.

AN: So you wouldn’t rule out being leader?

AA: You’re asking the question in different ways. You’ve had an answer.

Translation: I don’t much rate Cameron personally, so I’m not prepared to back him. What people want to see is leadership and a commitment to getting Britain back on top; Cameron is failing in both regards. At the same time his position is still fairly safe so I’m not going to call for his head either. I’m ambitious, but I’m not about to mount a leadership challenge. In the future though, I’m happy to serve the country in anyway I see fit. Which might mean leader of the party.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

Votes at Sixteen? No thanks.

Photo: Steve Lawson (Flickr)

With the recent questions about the legality of the planned referendum on the future of Scotland, much has been made of the inclusion of 16-year-olds in the decision. However, barely a month ago, MPs in the UK Parliament stealthily voted in favour of lowering the voting age. This is not the end of the debate, but it is certain to be defeated unless there is a dramatic swing in current opinion. The can of worms, however, has been opened again, and it is firmly back in the news.

The biggest new group of political supporters which are being ruthlessly courted are the young. This is seen most recently in the transparently politicised move by Alex Salmond, who has already chosen to give younger voters the opportunity to decide on Scottish Independence, a calculating move more based on potential numbers rather than any real conviction. He knows that younger voters are more naive, and also more likely to identify with Scottish nationalism as a result. They don’t pay taxes too, and so this serves as a boon to socialist parties, as they know that the level of financial self-interest will be lowest among those who the state (or indeed mummy) props up.

But the pathetic drive for politicians to associate with the young is derived from the baseless idea that they are a huge, and yet untapped, electoral resource. This is unsound logic, considering the massive lack of any apparent political interest among the under-25s. The very nature of the current political approach to dealing with the young has been misguided. Politics is not, and will never be ‘cool’. Any spin saying that enfranchising 16-year-olds will make them more involved is obviously rubbish. Even the website of the British Youth Council (which campaigns for a lower voting age) is mothballed and out of date; for example getting the age at which teenagers can leave school wrong.

It is often said that the young today are now more educated about politics, with citizenship lessons in schools. This is wrong, not only as citizenship is a total waste of time, but also because people are overwhelmingly more likely to be influenced by external factors, such as celebrity endorsements and parents’ voting habits. They could vote in a silly way, but are unlikely to come to any mature political decisions on their own.

Initiatives such as Youth Councils and Parliaments have succeeded in not only eroding national dignity by debasing the House of Commons chamber, but also subjecting minors to the irritating busybodies which always inevitably run for the ridiculous jobs. These self-regarding mini-Milibands run for the wrong reasons, but even those are trivial compared to the corruption of the older generation. It is not a salary or a grace-and-favour mansion which motivates them; but a slightly less dismal UCAS record. It has come to something when not even their cynicism is as grown-up as that of the professionals.

Politics has been described as ‘showbusiness for ugly people’, so we should not expect the young to take to the current crop of greying marionettes which dominate the political stage. Already we have seen age and experience in our ruling classes diminish, to be replaced by vacuous younger men who are not as accustomed to holding power as those who took office fifty years ago.

There is a worrying trend towards the superficial in political discourse, aided and abetted by the televised leaders’ debates which lead governmental selection to be little more than an immature popularity contest. With the involvement of younger voters; we could end up with a system more disfigured by physical attributes like attractiveness than before. It is a possibility that we could end up choosing the candidate who is the best looking, like a school council election, but this time investing them with actual power.

In short, our democracy is in difficulty already, with the rise of a statist Labour party, and equally statist Ukip (masquerading as Libertarians); as well as a cultural elite happily cracking down on press freedom. Now is not the time to risk denigrating our already anemic ruling class by mixing in the moronic would-be demagogues of the younger generation. We could do with a more serious political process rather than one conducted like a pin-up contest.

The young are flawed, selfish and arrogant; their major concerns are too domestic to truly matter in national debate. Their natural apathy is actually a good thing, as a disinterested youth are less likely to stir the pot for the sake of it. I myself would be enfranchised by any new legislation, but knowing my contemporaries as I do, I know for certain that without the maturity adulthood provides, they would damage democracy with their triviality and lack of life experience.

Giving 16-year-olds the vote is only a tired last throw of the dice from the political runts of the 2010 intake in Parliament. These people are absurdly ambitious and desperately seeking a way out from the crumbling shambles that is our political class. Shattered by expenses scandals and the over-riding sense of isolation from the very people they are paid exorbitant salaries to represent, this is failing attempt to break the toxic mold, and not to be seen as anything but a bid for publicity from some balding semi-notables.

James Snell. Follow on Twitter @James_P_Snell

What do you think? Vote in the poll below.

Party political cocktails: The ingredients to 2015 success

Which will you be ordering in 2015?

It is not unknown that the result of the hard fought Eastleigh by-election, with a voter turnout-out of 53%, was a shock to the polls, prospective candidates, leading parties and the country as a whole. Following the Chris Huhne scandal it would not have been unfair to predict a change from the usual Liberal Democrat control to what looked to be a Conservative gain and ultimately another feather in Cameron’s cap.

With a 32% share of the vote for the LibDems and a mere 25% for the Tories, UKIP emerged from being the ‘non-contender’ to the election vanquisher with a surprising 29% share, subsequently reducing the Tory vote and allowing for a LibDem triumph.

Looking ahead to the 2015 General Election, here I look at the essential ingredients needed for each of the three major parties to create a recipe for their own electoral success.

‘Cosmopolitan-Cameron’

With Cameron on the defensive following the catastrophic election results of the Eastleigh by-election last week, a picture of his political advisors and spin-doctors frantically clambering for a solution comes to mind as they desperately attempt to cling on to a second consecutive term in Government. Perhaps the following ingredients for the party’s next manifesto would serve as a thirst quenching relief.

| Europe |

The Prime Minister’s long awaited speech on the UK’s membership to the European Union (EU) left the country questioning the sincerity behind Cameron’s promise to hold a referendum on the issue in the next Parliament. This was clearly a tactic in procuring the hearts, and more importantly the votes, of the right wing members of his party – those whose loyalty has recently remained uncertain.

However, the Prime Minister would have undoubtedly been better off had he promised the referendum in 2014, a short time before the 2015 election. If the majority vote to leave the EU, then the Prime Minister would have time to decide on his course of action or carefully scripted his U-turn ready for the next Parliament – a far greater incentive for the electorate to re-elect his party into Government than the cold promise he has made.

| Economy |

Despite the UK loosing its triple ‘A’ status, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, exclaimed that he ‘will go on delivering the plan that has cut the deficit by a quarter.’ Unfortunately though, while the deficit decreases, the debt sores and the Government’s current plan will unequivocally be challenged by the electorate who have seen little sign of recovery in the years that the Conservatives would have been in power come 2015. Whether you believe the Chancellor’s strategy is working or not, it certainly won’t win votes should it be repeated in the party’s next manifesto.

| A Liberal Perspective |

Although coming under fire for his proposals and consequent reforms to equal marriage, which has unmistakably won the support of youthful generations, Cameron and his party must provide young and first-time voters an additional incentive to side with the Conservatives. Having taken a tough knock over university tuition fees the Liberal Democrats have freed up votes that the Prime Minister must now make a grab for.

‘Mojito-Miliband’

Ed Miliband’s performance at Prime Minister’s Questions could be mistaken as a repeat played on a weekly loop – one of the clearest indicators that Miliband and his party have very little direction with regards to policy, if any. However, with a manifesto flourishing of sound policies and a strong sense of ideology, the Labour party might be in with a fighting chance of snatching election victory, if they acquired such a document.

| New Leader |

Firstly then, the key ingredient to this recipe’s success is a complete new appearance. Its presentation is lacking, and that must fundamentally change.

It’s safe to say that while Miliband is at the helm, the ship will be sailing against the wind, making very little progress. Unfortunately, the public realises that Miliband lacks the competencies of leadership, whilst his party refuses to acknowledge it for the sake of appearing as a united front. If his brother, David Miliband, had won the leadership contest however, then the situation would have been completely different.

Until the party boosts in the confidence required to overhaul their leader, it will not accomplish a taste of power for some time. Perhaps, with some polishing, the rising Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Chuka Umunna, would be a strong contender?

| The Fighting Ground |

As briefly mentioned, the body of votes for the Liberal Democrats that lead to their success in the 2010 election are ‘up-for-grabs’ following the disastrous decisions that they’ve taken during their time in office – namely the rise in university tuition fees – therefore isolating their large voter base, many of which were students. The release of this portion of voters could bestow election supremacy for the party that successfully appeals to their interests.

Whilst the Labour leader enjoys the support of trade unions, of which appointed him into his position, he must begin to appeal to the more liberal of voters. An easier achievement than for Cameron. A policy on child adoption for same-sex couples would be an interesting example.

| International Intervention |

Similar to the legacy of economic recession that has loomed over the Labour party, military intervention in the Middle East branded New Labour distinctly interventionist. A drastic foreign policy that sides with limitations on foreign intervention is likely to bode well with those who have military connections and the public more generally. A policy that promises no UK military intervention in a foreign nation unless the Government secures a UN Resolution to legitimise its actions as just, exemplifies the style of foreign policy needed.

‘Caruso-Clegg’

Unfortunately for the Liberal Democrats, and for Nick Clegg moreover, the 2015 General Election is going to taste bitter. To conjure up a recipe of sweet success for this party is more likely to produce a sour poison. The declining reputation that the party are affording themselves from abandoning their promises continues to speedily disintegrate their voter base.

| New Leader |

Unlike the Labour party, a change of leader would be ineffective. Nonetheless, it would signal an end to an era that the LibDems would very much wish to forget and would allow for minor progress towards repairing its broken image.

| Housing & National Affairs |

Property construction and social benefits to first-time buyers would be a safe bet. Once again appealing to younger voters is a realistic and reliable option. Policies on the economy or foreign affairs would convey the party as unrealistic and incapable of governing. Therefore, it is essential that the Liberals first heal the wounds of domestic politics. Core domestic policies, such as housing, can allow the party to gain a foothold on the ladders of trust and influence once more. From there, the party can regroup, reorganise and rearrange themselves in preparation for an opportunity for leadership to arise once again.

The 2015 General Election will unquestionably be messy following a long period of uncertainty. Will a leading party emerge as the forerunner in the remaining years? It’s doubtful. Instead, we can expect to see a scramble for every available vote no matter what its position on the party continuum. We can also be sure to witness a head-to-head collision between the Tories and Labour party, with no indication of the LibDems as a sincere competitor in the race to power.

But, what looks increasingly likely is another hung-parliament. We already thought the political and economic situation was dreadful – it’s likely to get a lot worse.

Conservative Cocktail

Ingredients:
(12.5ml) Grenadine
(12.5ml) Chambord Black Raspberry Liqueur
(12.5ml) Strawberry Liqueur
(12.5ml) Cherry Sourz

Directions:
In shaker, mix together and strain into cocktail glass.

Labour Cocktail

Ingredients:
(25ml) Southern Comfort Lime Liqueur
(25ml) Smirnoff Vodka
(25ml) Archers Peach Schnapps
(A Dash) Blue Curacao

Directions:
In shaker, mix together, strain into cocktail glass and add a generous helping of fresh lemon juice.

Liberal Cocktail:

Ingredients:
(25ml) Ameretto
(25ml) Banana Liqueur
(25ml) Fresh Orange Juice
(30ml) A ‘Liberal’ helping of Brandy

Directions:
In shaker, mix together, strain into cocktail glass and top with lemonade

Alex Bright is the Managing Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @alexanderbright

Eastleigh, the late surge of UKIP and Cameron’s balancing act

Nigel Farage and Diane James will be smiling for some time to come. Photo: Jennifer Jane Mills (Flickr)

By-elections often follow a familiar script: a date is announced, we are told how significant the outcome will be on the ‘political landscape’, a leading candidate emerges before then it becomes a tight race where the outcome will be ‘difficult to predict’ as pollsters unconfidently bemoan the ‘margin of error’. Ultimately, the result comes through which is similar to the one initially expected and it has little effect in a wider political context.

All of that might have been the case in Eastleigh had it not been for one factor: the late surge of UKIP. For much of the campaign, the outcome was considered to be a two-horse-race between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The battle was portrayed as the two Coalition partners going ‘head-to-head’.

Ultimately, however, rather than the Conservatives, it was UKIP who narrowly missed out on taking the seat away from Nick Clegg’s party. Nigel Farage was right to say it was the Conservatives who had split the UKIP vote rather than the other way round. Today there might be a few right-leaning voters in Eastleigh cursing the fact they thought the Tories offered the best prospect of defeating the Liberal Democrats. For a party currently wielding the loudspeaker of protest in British politics, the late surge of UKIP was a surprisingly quiet one. Only until the last remaining days of the campaign did the chance of a victory even come into the picture; a Tory campaign leaflet, designed in the colours of purple and gold, proves how worried of UKIP the Conservatives had become.

So why, at the expense of the Tories, did UKIP perform so well? One thing is clear; voters vote for the eurosceptic party for a number of reasons, eurosceptism often less prominent than you’d expect; as an anti-establishment protest? In support of a more right-wing message? Or simply in support of a straight-talking, common-sense message? Perhaps the strength of the candidate locally swayed the voters? Indeed, the impressive candidate Diane James puts paid to the idea that UKIP are a group of ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’. The words of David Cameron himself, if anything last night’s result might encourage the Prime Minister to take more seriously what is becoming his party’s most significant threat.

But does that mean tacking back to a core right-wing message to win over lost supporters? Or does it mean continuing with a centre-ground ideology to win over an increasingly liberal society? Ultimately, Cameron will have to do both. Despite Labour’s embarrassingly poor performance in Eastleigh, Ed Miliband will stroll into Number 10 by default if the Tories continue to loose support from both the left of the party and the right.

Eastleigh is a major setback, but David Cameron’s conference speech of last year suggests he understands the task in hand. Yesterday Daniel Boomsma argued that the party could learn from perhaps it’s greatest forefather, Edmund Burke. Embracing liberal laissez-faire economics at the same time as developing a moral critique of pure capitalism ‘may help get rid of the Conservatives’ toxic image’. Today, Tim Montgomerie once again calls for a ‘full spectrum, big orchestral, across-the-stage Conservatism’. To pin the party down on the liberal left or the conservative right would be the incorrect response; but the message must be clearer, more optimistic, and reflective of a ‘common ground’ rather than ‘centre ground’. Finding the right balance will be no easy task. But then why should it be; power, after all, is at stake.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

Translating Burke: How the Conservative Party can overcome its crisis

Edmund Burke, the ‘founder of modern conservatism’. Photo: Roger Marks (Flickr)

The Conservative Party is in a crisis, there’s no doubt about that. Apart from the polls – Labour has taken a 12 point lead – the party seems unable to cope with a serious identity crisis, a crisis that makes one think of the fundamental questions the Republican Party in the United States is currently facing.

So how to characterize this identity crisis? In an article for the Spectator philosopher Roger Scruton argues, reacting on the recently published books Britannia Unchained and Tory Modernisation 2.0, that the conservatives are having trouble formulating a coherent and genuine ”conservative” philosophy. The so called modernisers, including David Cameron, are leading the party to ”a new kind of conservatism which conserves nothing, changes everything, and is guided by the very same rhetoric of equality (the Conservative Party website says on equality: ‘We want a fairer society and will use every lever to tear down barriers that prevent equality’) and human rights that shapes the left-liberal agenda.” The modernisers, Scruton says, don’t seem to understand that their efforts to reformulate the conservative philosophy are actually counterproductive.

But the attempt to modernize the Conservative Party does not mean making it ‘2.0’, ‘innovative’ and ‘fresh and colourful’. Neither does it mean that some sort of post-modern conservative agenda has to be developed. It does mean however, that conservative principles, rooted and clearly traceable in British history, must be reformulated and translated to our century.

In reformulating, the Conservatives are confronted with the fact that their philosophy is not like that of other parties. Labour has had it’s Clause IV and the Liberal Democrats too value their party constitution. For the Conservative Party however, a constitution or a pamphlet has a different, less fundamental, meaning. The American political theorist and historian Russell Kirk (1918-1994) wrote that conservatism ”being neither a religion nor an ideology…possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata.”

Where to start then? From the very beginning, I would say, without ignoring both the history of conservatism and the realities of the twenty-first century. The eighteenth-century statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke (1729-1797) is generally considered to be the father of (British) conservatism, and it is Burke that the Conservative Party shoud take as a starting point.

In order to understand Burke properly, one needs to keep in mind that (and this is self-evident yet of crucial importance) that the eighteenth century differs in almost everything from modern times and this requires a translation of his ideas. Conservatives tend to forget that ideas are no ‘solid rocks’, that they do not exist in isolation and that their meaning changes over time.

What is Burke’s philosophy all about? Without popularizing his thought, it comes down to the following statement made by Burke in the House of Commons:

Combine devotion to liberty with respect to authority; hope for the future with reverence for the past; support of party with service of the nation; profound patriotism with sincere goodwill to all the vincinage of mankind; essential moderation with zealous enthusiasm; a sane conservatism with cautious reform.

The first ‘object of translation’ that the Conservative Party should derive from Burke’s philosophy, is his notion of constructive change. Constructive change means that one needs to be very careful with reform, whether it’s economic, legal or political. Take the issue of gay marriage which many people experienced as an attempt to ”enforce social equality” upon the nation. The Burkean conservative would stress the importance of public support or opposition in this matter. Issues that lead to great turmoil, such as gay marriage or the European Union, should either be left alone in order to let time do its work or seen as long-term matters. Change must be organic. At the same time change as a political term has changed : the change Burke talked about cannot be compared with what we see in our century. Translating Burke’s constructive change therefore means two things: seeing cautious reform or gradual development as the cornerstone of policy making, but also acknowledging that social hierarchies and traditional orders do change, and sometimes even rapidly in this century, whether you like it or not.

Burke believed that the state ”ought not be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern…” and he stated that the end of government is the welfare of the nation. The Conservative Party should turn to the idea of the state again with Burke’s central thoughts as a guide. Burke believed in the classical liberal laissez-faire economics of Adam Smith, but he would also admit, if we interpret his philosophy properly, that a libertarian stance towards government, markets and people in a  globalised, interconnected, world of multinationals and NGO’s would contradict his conservatism, which sees the role of the state as something more fundamental than just a ‘sleeping regulator’. Translating Burke’s notion of government to the 2013 reality therefore means moving away from libertarian politics without embracing an articial ‘planning and control’ view. This is not necessarily incompatible with Big Society, the Conservative Party greatest tribute to Burke (despite it’s failed execution).

Reinterpreting the state also means reviewing the market. The Conservative Party should develop a critique on the market (‘the’ referring here to the larger companies and banks) based on a moral premise (something which the Christian Democratic party in the Netherlands tried to do during the last Dutch general elections), as formulated by Burke: ”…liberty with respect to authority”. Burke always stressed the importance of virtue and moral consciousness, just as much as liberty. Moral critique provides an opening to critize the market without advocating state regulation, and it may help get rid of the Conservatives’ toxic image. In this sense the crisis makes it the right time (constructive change) to let Burke colide with Thatcher.

Last, Burke had a great disposition for spiritual values and he saw religion as an essential element in society. Cameron sees this as well but the problem is that the Conservatives can’t bring about a message that makes non-material values and religion not an object of mockery but  a means for living a good, virtuous and happy live. It could also provide the Tories with a language that goes beyond the pure political and sees a party as more than a mangerial organisation, something which Burke maybe more than any other politician in his time expressed.

In conclusion, translating Burke for the Conservatives means acknowledging the rapidness of change in our modern age as well as the significance of constructive change, perceiving the different meaning of state and market in modern, post-industrial society as the ‘adapting’ Burke would have seen them, and stressing the importance of spiritual values in an increasingly materialistic world.

Daniel Boomsma is an Associate Editor of Politiker

One Nation is the right direction for Labour

Photo: Plashing Vole (Flickr)

At the last general election under Gordon Brown, Labour failed to convince the electorate that it was the party to lead Britain. Despite re-branding the Conservatives, Cameron fell short of achieving an overall majority, but through a deal with Nick Clegg gained the keys to Number 10.

Three years on from the last general election, we have seen the Coalition government move from crisis to crisis. Osborne’s ‘omnishambles’ budget, a double dip recession and recently the loss of Britain’s coveted triple A credit rating. Recent polls have shown Labour to be leading the Tories by double digits, however even with poll leads and the poor economy commentators have highlighted that Labour, with a void of policy and clear direction, have nothing to offer.

Some refer back to Neil Kinnock; citing his poll leads prior to 1992 general election. Indeed, polls at this stage rarely reflect the final outcome of general elections.

Stepping aside from speculation, it is clear that three years on, the Labour Party under Ed Miliband has remained united and stable. This stability at the autumn Labour Party conference was further reinforced; Ed Miliband boldly answered his critics by re-branding Labour under his One Nation vision. A move which enabled him to rid himself once and for all of the ‘red Ed’ label, and firmly demonstrate the direction he wishes to take the nation.

The party has admitted its past mistakes, and the electorate are warming to Labour’s message. With a policy review starting to produce results, if communicated with the right policies the One Nation vision will continue to move Labour in the right direction.

However the One Nation vision may not be sufficient alone. Labour must improve the campaign on the ground. Getting their message across to voters in every marginal seat, putting the coalition cuts and people’s experiences at the centre of their argument.

Ed Miliband has done a great job in cutting ties with Labour’s past, but what he must now do is to convince the public that Britain will be better under his One Nation vision. This will not be an easy task, but with the economy in free fall and the coalition cuts beginning to bite, this is the perfect moment to lay out an alternative plan for Britain.

Martin Edobor writes about health and foreign policy. Follow on Twitter @martinedobor