We can win a fourth term

'Governing party does badly in midterm election' is hardly a shocking story. We are familiar with the arguments about local & Euro polls being second-order elections. We know that the Guardian advocated a vote for the Lib Dems or Greens1. We know that Labour's fratricidal tendency has come to the fore.

And yet, the share of the vote won by the Conservatives was 38%. That translates into a Commons majority of perhaps 45 seats that could be easily turned into a hung parliament if Labour voters who stayed at home on Thursday can be coaxed into voting. It could even be, with a following wind, a historic fourth term.

How?

The first part of winning a fourth term must be a simple message to all the plotters: put up or shut up. There is a debate to be had about whether we'd fare better under Gordon Brown or another, as yet unnamed, leader. There is no debate that another year of rumour and intrigue under gothic arches will be worse than either. If Brown is still in place on Tuesday - after the PLP meeting - he must stay in place, unopposed, until the election. The discontent about Gordon has been rumbling on for some time. This is the most recent, and most self-destructive, manifestation of that discontent. If senior members of the party continue to undermine our leader, calls for an election will grow louder and louder and our ability to articulate an effective policy platform will grow weaker and weaker.

The reason the Tories want an election now is that they know a year of Labour policies that appeal to people in these nervous economic times could deprive them of government. A good year of governance and progress, with the economy improving - it would appear that the green shoots of economic recovery are poking through - might bring us our fourth term.

Secondly, we must recognise who deeply unattractive this looks to people outside politics. I ask: what are the policy differences between Brown & Purnell? Between Brown & Blears? Between Brown & Flint? It does seem as if these are indeed the first ministers to resign solely on issues of style.

Thirdly, the party as a whole must use the summer recess to regroup and to articulate a set of coherent policies to take us forward into the next election. They must focus on the economy and constitutional reform, but we must keep talking about our successes in the NHS, education and building a fairer society.

xD.

1 - in fairness, they also said vote Labour if your local councillor is a good one. I wonder how many Guardianistas can name their local councillors.

Cross-posted fromthe Blog of Dave Cole.

To sign or not to sign

That is the question I have been asking myself this week.  I am referring, of course, to the ethics pledge that many Labour PPCs have been signing - over 130 so far.  Being a Labour PPC in a safe Tory seat, I wasn't expecting to have any significant decisions to make but everything is a bit strange in the world of politics at the moment.  For a start, with my Tory opponent being one of the more shameless expense-claimers and showing no signs of  remorse or refund the seat is less safe for him than it was. Read More »

I’ve got the solution, now show me a problem

Martin Kettle's piece on political reform starts off sensibly enough, noting that the window for action is really pretty small as, after the election, the new government will find bigger fish to fry. But soon enough, we get on to electoral reform and discover once again that there is no political problem that a new voting system won't solve.

In this case, the "main advantage" of the AV system is that it will ensure MPs have a true majority of votes. Kettle doesn't actually say why this is an advantage; I'm going to guess that the idea is that it would encourage MPs to worry more about keeping all their constituents happy. This is probably true, in that MPs who rely on second or third preferences to get elected will want to maintain a minimum level of acceptability. That's why it's a bad idea.

MPs, frankly, should be prepared to make unpopular decisions. AV puts a campaigning MP in the position of persuading her 1st preference supporters that she's true to the ideals of her party, and her opponents' 1st preference supporters that she's a perfectly acceptable alternative to their party. It's a balancing act, with the concomitant risk of falling between two stools. Proponents will argue that this leads to government by consensus, which I don't doubt. But it's not a consensus based on winning the argument, just on finding an innocuous middle-ground: the consensus of the lowest common denominator.

Wholesale reselections are needed …. if the public really want them

Reselect

Today, I've set up a website called Reselect.org with advice and support from the Spectator's Martin Bright and Slugger O'Toole's Mick Fealty and Sunny at Liberal Conspiracy among others. I'd like to get some Tory and Lib-Dem bloggers involved as well because I think this is an issue that effects all of the parties.

This site is designed to encourage members of the public---from all sides of the political spectrum---to offer the political party that they support the following deal:

We will double the membership of the local party that we support---but only if they will let us re-select our candidate.

Read More »

Hypocrisy of the highest order

That would be from the Taxpayers' Alliance. After all, no pressure group expends more energy (and expensive resources) demanding transparency from others.

In order to legitimise their ludicrous claim to somehow represent taxpayers, the Taxpayers' Alliance takes all steps to cover up it's donor list and ensure that we have little idea of where they get their funds.

And why is their claim to represent taxpayers ludicrous? Well, it would be fair to conjecture (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that the TPA's donor base are the kind of people that have offshore arrangments of one kind or another.

From 'The Other Taxpayers' Alliance' site:

It's simply not true that all political organisations are secretive about their funding. Most declare their income and expenditure, and some give a break-down of income sources, including donors. The TPA does neither. It publishes abbreviated accounts which means income and expenditure are withheld. The last time it published full accounts was in 2006, when it recorded an income of £130,000. But the current organisation has ten full-time staff across two offices, which suggests either its income has jumped substantially or it is loaded with debt.

The centre-left campaign group, Compass, by contrast, publishes a great deal in its annual report (which can be readily downloaded from its publications page) - and goes beyond that which is statutorily required. Thus you can learn how much was earned through members' subscriptions, members' donations, grants from various sources, etc, and how that money was spent. And---"in the interests of transparency"---all donors who gave £5,000 or more are listed, along with the amount donated.

If Compass can do it, then the TaxPayers' Alliance---which claims to stand for transparency and probity - can do it too. No, it is not legally obliged to do so, but the TPA should practice what it preaches

This shady and secretive Right-wing pressure group needs flushing out. The journalists who uncritically publish their misleading press releases should be derided by their colleagues.

Economic Roundup, Friday 15th May 2009

  • Economic commentators this week have been attempting to outdo each other with recession shapes this week. Beyond L shaped, V shaped and W shaped we have Stephanie Flanders suggesting square root shaped, Moodys suggesting hook shaped and Deutsche Bank suggesting diminishing sine wave shaped recovery.
  • There's a fair amount of talk about green shoots, the Bank of England's inflation report reckons the worst is over although it's suggested that the economy will shrink by about 1% more than the Treasury's estimates. The OECD also seems to reckon the worst is over.

Read More »

Under our noses

logicOne of the lessons of Mancur Olson's 'Logic of Collective Action' is that of 'forgotten groups' - the fate of those that don't have the resources to get stuck into a battle of wills over a particular area of public policy.

You can have a policy area in which there are a number of options. At either end of the argument, big rivals will have their preferred solutions.

In the middle, there is one option that isn't massively attractive to any powerful lobby, but it is one that is the 'least worst' one on offer. It's often one that is a bit complicated to grasp, and one that commercial lobbies hate disproportionately. It may have lots of potential supporters, but they are dispersed and don't feel too strongly about it.

It's a classic example of the way that competing interests create a sub-optimal outcome. Read More »

The Apostasy Slot: Abolish Prime Minister’s Question Time

Today's Apostasy slot comes courtesy of Labour blogger Dave Cole, who reckons that Prime Minister's Question Time is a stain on our democracy and it should be abolished.

Ask most people what happens in Parliament and they will describe PMQs. They will describe it as overgrown public school boys cheering their side and shouting down the other side. They will describe it as feeding-time at the zoo. They will not recall the questions asked, the answers given or the points conceded. Read More »