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.

And Repeat – Ed Miliband’s Public Service Reforms

After tackling energy companies and big banks Ed Miliband has now shifted his attention to what is always a tricky subject for Labour, public service reforms, but like Michael Gove on education is this little more than hot air?

Labour is to the public sector what the Conservative party is to private companies, a vital part of its political identity, a non-negotiable aspect of its philosophy, a singular defining element.

This in particularly true of Ed Miliband who was elected to the party leadership largely based on the backing of the trades unions, not to mention the party rely heavily on the political and financial backing of public sector workers and those who use government services.

However, in the same way as Gove’s education reforms, Miliband is in danger of simply saying the right things without any reasoning.

Essentially his argument was for a more consumer-focused approach to everything from education to health care to pensions.

This sounds fantastic, in the same way it has done every time an opposition leader has stood-up and said it, which is every parliament for as long as anyone can remember.

Putting parents are the forefront of how schools are run sounds wonderful because it is parents who truly care about how their kids are educated, not politicians.

Giving patients control over their medical records and adding choice of hospitals and doctors similarly gives 

those who care most control over the system.

Like Gove, Miliband is saying all the right things.

However, unlike the Education Secretary’s reforms this will attract floating voters to the party, although it is very much in the same dangerous ball-park of talking the talk, but not walking the walk, because fundamentally both have similar flaws.

The reason for this is because in most cases the only people who know how to reform these services are the people working in them, be they teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers or refuse collectors.

Most parents are not teachers and even fewer patients have any medical training above a first-aid course.

When you feel unwell you go to a doctor to find out what is wrong with you because they actually have the training assess your complaints, perform diagnostics and provide a cure.

Why would you want to be in control of your own medical records? Is this ever going to lead to anything other than people assuming they know better than professionals?

This trend continues with this idea of parents being able to oust head teachers and have greater involvement in how education is provided in their children’s schools.

Parent power in this situation could be counter-productive to what is trying to be achieved because the percentage of parents who know anything about teaching is negligible.

If you want proof of this fact just go and stand by a school sports pitch and listen to the ill-informed comments coming from certain sections of parents.

Gary Linker has even had to put up with this kind of nonsense with other parents at his children’s school thinking they know better than England’s second highest goal scorer according to an article he wrote for the New Statesman.

Many people agree with the need for reform of these vital public services which are all too often inefficient, bureaucratic and staggeringly expensive, but while people-power seems like a great idea and is certainly popular with the voters it is not necessarily the way to make things work better.

Even more worrying is this idea was touted at the last election by David Cameron and his Big Society idea, which is yet to manifest itself in any serious manner.

So while this might give Miliband a political bat and ball on this difficult issue and might even gain the Labour party a boost in the polls, his ideas will certainly need to be developed a lot further to convince anyone this is anything other than the same idea trotted out by any other opposition leader.

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.