Political Warfare - The Battle of Newark

Following UKIPs historic victory in the European elections all of the noise was surrounding the so called political earthquake, but before the results were even in those who understand how the British electoral system works had already turned our attention somewhere else.

Our focus instantly switched to a small town North East of Nottingham on the River Trent, to the constituency of Newark.

While the purples success in the race to Brussels was expected, getting seats in Westminster has proved problematic for them, not least because of the first-past-the-post system (don’t blame me I voted for AV).

However, with their current undeniable momentum Newark offers an interesting opportunity for them and the polls suggest they could do well, but with the circus now firmly focuses on the midlands this is going to be no ordinary by-election.

Under normal circumstance this would be a forgone conclusion with a massive Conservative majority, but following the resignation of Patrick Mercer in a lobbying scandal there is potential for an upset.

The first poll out of Newark by Survation suggests the Tory’s are winning with 36%, UKIP second on 28%, just ahead of Labour on 27%.

With a week to go, a lot of media attention and the election machines in full swing this is not set in stone and the outcome is far from guaranteed

But regardless of who wins the result is going to be interesting, so what will end up happening?

Con Hold – By far the most likely outcome, but by how much they win will be a telling factor.

It is unlikely they will extend or even get a similar majority, but this was to be expected following the nature of the former MPs resignation.

However, a strong performance with an eight point margin (as the current polls suggest) would be a great result even if a lot of ground would have been lost, while a four point win would be more than acceptable.

This would allow the Conservatives the chance to claim UKIP are not a national force and the government’s economic policies are benefiting the British people, but all this assumes it stays roughly the same.

Con Hold, but only just – With UKIP and Labour snapping at the Conservatives heals the result could be a lot tighter than currently predicted.

If the Tory’s win by just a couple of points then the pressure to address the UKIP issue and the fact they are hurting the blues more than the reds will only mount on David Cameron.

However, the person under the most pressure might be Nigel Farage as it could be argued his personality could possibly have tipped UKIP over the top and gained them their first Westminster representative.

UKIP Win – Given the conservative leanings of the constituency this is probably the second most likely outcome after a Tory win and would signal the earthquake promised by Mr Farage.

It is going to take a big swing and it is unlikely UKIP candidate Roger Helmer will be able to bridge the gap given his age and previously expressed opinions on certain issues, most recently the weekends newspaper story about his views on the disproved theory of gay conversion therapy.

Similarly, the Conservatives have more backing and greater experience in running these campaigns so it would be difficult for UKIP to overturn the lead.

This said the Tory’s are down 18% on 2010 and most of this seems to be going to UKIP so in fact all that is required is a four point swing to the purples and we could have a UKIP MP.

Labour Win – Very unlikely, but with UKIP splitting the Tory vote then it is possible. This would be a massive win for Ed Miliband and the red team, who last won Newark in the 1997 landslide.

Overall second place, or a close third would be a relatively successful day for the red corner. The problems only really start with a distant third or a significant Labour voter swing to UKIP.

However, a win is not impossible, just unlikely.

Everybody Wins – Sounds ridiculous, but arguably the most likely scenario would see everybody happy and claiming a victory, or at least a moral one.

Tory’s hold the seat by a few points with UKIP a Labour on similar scores allows everybody to save face as Conservatives can claim the actual win, while UKIP will point to a massive increase in vote share and Labour promoting the strong gains in a difficult seat.

Conclusion – This could be a very close election and will go a long way to assessing UKIPs long-term success on the national stage, but it is difficult to look past a relatively easy Tory win, or as easy as can be expected when the former MP was forced to resign in disgrace.

However, we will have to wait until Friday morning to have any idea just how much the political landscape has changed.

No To Co’s - An Unexpected Promise

If the public had not already, it appears the major political parties have decided they do not like coalition government and are coming under increasing force to rule out a joint-rule arrangement after the 2015 election.

First it was the Conservatives with a variety of sources claiming David Cameron was under pressure to rule out another power share, which saw him move into 10 Downing Street in 2010.

Barely a day later Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, claimed Labour leader Ed Miliband should similarly rule out coalition in their election manifesto.

While it would be fair to say few are enamoured with the manner in which the Con-Dem coalition has operated over the past four years, this idea of ruling out a similar set-up after 2015 is slightly ridiculous.

For starters, the obvious weakness in both the major parties means a minority government, formed by either the Conservatives or Labour, would struggle to get anything done and would probably have to call an early election.

There is far too much posturing and difference of opinion for either to carry all its own MPs in a vote, let alone pick up cross-party support.

Secondly, in a business where unbridled personal ambition is all-to-often put front and centre are we seriously expecting our leaders to turn-down the opportunity to come to power?

Thirdly, why would any leaders think this would be a good idea when a hung-parliament is the most likely outcome of the next election?

There is of course some legitimacy in the view of ruling out coalition.

Although it came to power with a substantial public backing, the overriding opinion of the coalition’s performance has only headed south over the years.

This backlash has mainly focused on the Liberal Democrats, who have been seen as weak and ineffective by their supporters and an ever-present road block by the Tories.

Current electoral math suggests the next election will not produce a majority government, meaning the Liberal Democrats would yet again become the king makers, with a potential second term for Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister regardless of who occupies the top-spot.

When you consider the substantial and growing anti-Lib Dem feeling, an instant return to power would be slightly unpalatable to many voters.

However, it is equally true no other third-tier party would be able to gain enough seats to push either Conservatives or Labour over the finish line.

In the current parliament, the party with the largest number of seats after the Lib Dems are the Democratic Unionists (with 8 seats and no framework outside Northern Ireland), the Scottish National Party (6 seats, no framework outside Scotland and the possibility of national independence), Sinn Fein (5 seats and links to the IRA), Plaid Cymru (3 seats and no framework outside of Wales) and the Social Democratic & Labour Party (3 seats).

Even if Nick Clegg’s party lost half its MPS in 2015 they would still have 28 seats (down from 56), meaning any minority government would require their support to pass any legislation.

As a political tactic from the Conservatives, whereby ruling it out themselves means the Labour party would have to follow suit, it certainly could succeed so all they would need to do at in 2015 is get more seats than Labour, however there is an element of all eggs in one basket.

While the coalition might not be a popular choice of government, the voters have to accept it is what they voted for and is still the most likely outcome of the next election.

Any party which rules it out in 2015 not only forsakes any chance they had of getting into government, but also corners itself completely on post-election bartering and could lead to serious accusations of lying to the electorate if they were eventually forced to join forces with another party.

Regardless of how loud the anti-coalition voices get it is hard to imagine either party leader is so devoid of ambition as to rule it out completely.

However, most importantly politicians should remember they do not get to decide this, it is up to the voters to determine if any party is worthy of a majority.

If we the people decide no one party should then it is up to them to form either a minority government and risk stagnation and an the calling of an early election or a cross party consensus and govern in a coalition.

About Face: Is Ed Miliband Serious?

During the Tony Blair years if the organised left were as excited about a conference speech as they were about Ed Miliband’s this week it would have normally spelled trouble.

It was certainly a day for the liberals, and yes even socialists, to celebrate with the return of “Red” Ed.

New policies included a rise in corporation tax to offset lower rates on small businesses, a threat to reclaim land which developers did not build on and, most controversially, a promise to freeze energy prices for two years.

This last policy, unsurprisingly, was met with a veritable tidal wave of criticism from the Tory party and the big-six energy companies, although the Liberal Democrats were suspiciously quiet on the subject.

Few would deny there are numerous problems with energy production and supply in this country.

Price spikes and volatile supply from fossil fuels, ineffective renewable alternatives, unpopular fracking and nuclear power, green taxes, carbon reduction targets and substantial price hikes forced onto consumers at a time of stagnant wages are just a few of these issues.

Nevertheless, direct price controls are, to put it mildly, controversial. There are few examples of them working and when they do it is normally with nationalised, not private, energy companies.

The concept is incompatible with a free-market economics and will incense energy firms who might decide not to invest at all in the UK and, assuming Labour got into power, challenge the policy through the courts.

This, in theory, could lead to energy blackouts and other energy supply problems, although it is hard to imagine any energy company would get into financial problems over a two year price freeze.

However, could there be the possibility Miliband does not want to implement this policy at all?

Sounds ridiculous, but this could be his plan.

There is massive public support for some measure to reduce the cost of fuel, giving Miliband and the Labour party a big stick to hit with.

Imagine this scenario.

The energy companies, worried about appearing as if they are gouging the life out of hard working people with substantial price rises, offer a compromised deal, possibly involving a guarantee on lower pricing over a fixed period of time while still offering infrastructure and “green” investment.

Ed moves the goalposts, claims victory and bags a ten-point lead in the polls while David Cameron is left scratching his head wondering why Lynton Crosby didn’t think of the same idea.

The same could be said about reclaiming not being built on by the developers.

The legal ramifications of this policy are staggering and could take years to iron out, but if the developers, again afraid of being on the wrong side of public opinion, offer guarantees on building affordable housing over a set number of years Ed could easily claim another victory.

What this comes down to is policy bait-and-switch, pulling a political white rabbit out of a hat, essentially launching a policy he does not want to introduce, instead hoping to steal the agenda, ride the positive wave of public opinion and get a compromised deal even more beneficial to the public than his original policy.

If this is what Miliband is going for, and this is certainly up for question, it could be a great example of politicking and make the often-criticised Labour leader a major player at the next election.

Of course there is the possibility Miliband is serious about these policies, in which case he faces an uphill battle to convince the middle-class, whose votes he needs to get into government.

However, there are still numerous Blair and Brownite big-business pragmatists on the Labour benches who will not want to see a return to the extreme left of the 1980s, lending credibility to the argument Miliband is not going as hard-left as it might appear.

This strategy, if it is attempted, is risky and leaves Miliband open to attack, but this would not be the first time a political rope-a-dope has been attempted and successful.

But, as with everything in politics, it comes down to maintaining momentum.

After last years “One Nation” speech Miliband and the Labour party disappeared, unable to make ground on any of its key policies.

If this more high-risk strategy is to work for the leader and the party the same drop-off in political energy cannot be allowed to happen.

Shadow Cabinet Miscalculations

There were really only two questions in the aftermath of Ed Millband’s election as Labour leader. Would David stay in front line politics and who would end up with the challenging task of opposing George Osborne’s cuts as Shadow Chancellor?

Ed Balls had to be top of most people’s lists serving as Gordon Brown’s right hand man at the treasury and being rewarded with a front line cabinet post during his ill fated premiership.

However, when his wife Yvette Copper topped the cabinet vote many started to suggest Balls would be overlooked.

It turned out we were all wrong. Alan Johnson, the former Home Secretary, came out for arguably the second most important job in opposition.

Surprising choice yes, but as this shock new choice was analysed many started to believe this was in fact a stroke of genius by the young new leader.

His humble background as a postman and union leader are certainly in stark contrast to his opposite numbers background which was referred to by many Labour MP’s as aristocratic.

Having served as health and education secretary during the Labour administration he is certainly more used to spending rather than saving cash and his lack of economic background may hinder him in a knock-down-drag-out with Osborne.

Like him or loath him, Brown was a gifted economist with the facts at his finger tips and the type of analytical mind suited to commons debates over financial issues, think back to Brown challenging Nigel Lawson as stand in Shadow Chancellor in 1988.

There are of course other issues here as well. Balls has a reputation for confrontation, admirably and useful maybe in defending any Labour stance in protesting any spending cuts as is his economic and treasury experience, but are these as useful as Shadow Home Secretary?

Theresa May is not universally loved (understatement of the century). She is a bit too far to the right for any Labour or Liberal Democrat supporter and, although many Conservative backbenchers may love her, a lot of moderate Tory’s have their reservations.

Under these circumstances is not Balls exactly the right man to take her on? His combative nature and more left wing stance could contrast May in exactly the right way.

Although not as widely reported as the shock of Johnson’s new position, the other shock appointment was making Copper Shadow Foreign Secretary.

If this had been the story of the day the public’s reaction o this would have surely been similar to when Baroness Ashton was elected as the EU’s foreign representative.

Has she any foreign policy experience? She has served in the cabinet as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Work and Pensions secretary.

Admirable and important positions granted, but more economics based than foreign relations.

It is certainly true the Conservatives have said they will continue British presence in Afghanistan on the basis of a coordinated pull-out with the US making it one of the few points where there is little tension between the parties.

She is, however, being asked to take on William Hague, one of the most experienced politicians in the house. At what level is she going to be able to highlight the differences so important in making Labour electable again?

But let us play out a scenario. The coalition does not go well or the public are so furious about the spending cuts the Labour party are re-elected in 2015 and Ed Milliband becomes our new Prime Minister.

Are we to believe we will have a Chancellor with no economics background, a Foreign Secretary with no diplomatic experience and a Home Secretary more comfortable in combat than in forcing social change?

Yes, you can reshuffle a Shadow Cabinet, although there is the risk it will look like an initial miscalculation and be seen as a sign of chaos.

Admittedly on closer inspection Johnson and Balls may seem well suited to these new roles, with the possibility of Balls taking over later at the Treasury, and Cooper may turn out to be a fantastic states…person.

There will, however, remain fears that Milliband has made a big miscalculation not equipping the Shadow Cabinet with the best people for the roles but instead showing a transparent line of party unity.