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.

Underestimating the Unemployed – IDS and the Back-to-Work Programme

Following the landmark decision by the Appeal Court last week the governments sector-based work academy programme is the latest Conservative policy to hit the metaphorical buffers, but what does this decision mean for the job seekers and what is the problem with the system?

It should be made clear right from the start the Appeal Court did not say the programme, which was criticised for being tantamount to slave labour, was illegal. The issue was about the lack of information being given to benefits claimants and the suggestion it was a mandatory requirement.

The programme itself works like this. Job seekers are placed into unpaid work, usually stacking shelves or other low-paid work, and in return receive government benefits. The idea is this gives them relevant experience, gets them into the habit of going to work and increases their chances of getting full-time paid employment.

However, right from the start the policy was fundamentally flawed, something which the recent court decision brought into the spotlight.

Cait Reilly, one of the claimants in the case last week, is a 24-year-old geology graduate from the University of Birmingham. Having left university she volunteered at a local museum, but was on benefits as she was unable to find full-time paid employment.

As part of the scheme she was told she had to go and work at a local Poundland store stacking shelves for no pay if she wished to continue claiming. This meant she had to give up her voluntary work and had less time to apply for paid work.

Regardless of your view of people who claim unemployment benefit it is hard to see any benefit for a well educated university graduate to get ‘work experience’ stacking shelves when it is clearly not what they are interested in or trained for.

The truly ironic thing about this is volunteering at a museum was actually better work experience for her and more likely to result in gainful long-term employment than the government scheme.

Long-term unemployment is a major problem in this country. There are far too many people leaving education with no qualifications who then spend years on unemployment benefits at the tax-payers’ expense.

It is these people who benefit from the sector-based work academy, not a university graduate.

When I finished training as a journalist at the height of the credit-crunch in 2009 I came out into one of the worst job markets in history and was forced to claim unemployment benefits and although this scheme did not exist at the time I suffered from many of the same problems.

Job Centre staff did not care about my qualifications, skills and experience and were only interested in getting me to apply for as many jobs as possible, almost all of which had no bearing on my qualifications or experiance.

At one point I was effectively ordered to apply for a temporary Christmas position in a retail store at a local shopping centre. I then had to explain to the advisor that, while I was willing to apply, there was no chance of me getting the job as it was the kind of position offered to 17-year-olds looking for work during the school holidays.

Thankfully I now have a great job working for a media company in London which I love and is well paid, but being asked to stack shelves would have, if anything, hindered my chances of this.

The experience of Ms Reilly and myself just goes to show the Job Centre is not fit for purpose when it comes to dealing with educated people who are unemployed.

To make matters worse over the weekend Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith had the audacity to criticise people “who think they’re too good” to stack supermarket shelves, then saying those involved in the programme were not unpaid as they were “paid” job seekers allowance.

The problem is Ms Reilly did not feel she was too good to stack shelves, it is just it is not a suitable work-

placement for somebody who is a university graduate.

Has this government completely given up on people who have aspirations to get into more gainful long-term employment, or does it honestly believe the privileged should be able to do what they want and the rest should go and work in Tesco?

Anybody taking more than a cursory glance at the policy can see how to get it to work.

Firstly look at the job seekers CV. What is their highest level of qualification and do they have any marketable skills or experience? If the answers are in the negative, or they are long-term unemployed then yes, getting them into any workplace is going to be beneficial.

Secondly, for people who have higher qualifications, for example, degrees, A-levels and the equivalents, look at their areas of specialisation and find out what can be done to help them into employment in their area of expertise, be it volunteering, internships or apprenticeships.

People stay in school and go to university so they can get better paid work, not so they can graduate and get a job in Poundland. It is not that they are too good for the job, it is that they have made the effort and are trying to get a better future for themselves and their children.

This in fact might be the first time in history a government has been against people aspiring to do better by staying in education.

Ms Reilly was not caught in the vicious circle of unemployment, she was just unlucky enough to graduate into an artificially uber-competitive job market.

There is nothing wrong with the sector-based work academy, it is just it has been implemented really badly by an organisation [Job Centre] who have no interest in actually helping people into relevant employment.

If this programme was aimed at the right people, people with no qualifications and the chronically unemployed, then it would be a great programme, but it should not be seen as a one size fits all solution to joblessness in this country, particularly not for skilled workers and graduates.