How the Tories Could Win the Next Election. Oh, and Labour*.

As things stand, we’re probably heading towards another hung parliament. Cameron is not repelling people as much as many thought he would, despite his apparent lack of anything approaching a spine. Ed Miliband is a total disaster for his party, and is largely responsible for that party failing to make headway even as the coalition becomes less popular than dysentery. But both of those leaders could win the next election – but only if they are willing to take a gamble and do something bold. But both could do it.

How? Cameron could offer an referendum on the EU. Or, even more radically, he could redress our membership of the EU perhaps even to the point of pulling us out of that whole fucking mess. In doing so, he would become the hero of his party (including those on the right who remain very suspicious of young Hug A Husky). People across the country would also love this; it would be met with rapt applause from The Sun and The Daily Hate. Sure, many wouldn’t like this, but they would be the sort of people who wouldn’t vote for Cameron anyway. The ex-marketing man would be the hero to millions of people across the country, and he’d be able to spin himself as the courageous and visionary leader who dragged his country out of an expensive, bureaucratic mess.

What about Miliband Minor? Well, he could try being the socialist he sometimes hints at wanting to be. He could ramp up the rhetoric against the banks, and present himself as a genuine man of the people fighting on their behalf against reckless and dangerous financial institutions. He could get himself photographed with those members of Middle England struggling to make ends meet, and talk about how he is going to help them. Hell, he could even stand with those at the Occupy protests and claim that he, too, represents the 99%. Of course, it would be a blatant attempt at naked populism. But talking at the anti-war demos never hurt Charles Kennedy, for example. In fact, the opposite is probably true. And yeah, some people would find this sort of approach utterly repellent – myself, for example. But guess what? Those people, including me, would never vote for Miliband Minor anyway.

Which is part of the problem our party leaders have; they are so determined to try to please everyone all the time they lose sight of the fact that to do so is impossible and in trying they run the risk of really pissing off their core supporters. They fight so hard for the centre ground that they become myopic about the whole, broad range of the political spectrum. And then they wonder why fewer people vote, and they get approval ratings that, at best, are flat-lining, and at worst in free-fall. There is a real need for bold leadership in this day and age; unfortunately our leaders do not seem willing or able to provide it. So instead, we end up with cowardly, centrist jellyfish who actually please no-one; not even the core supporters of their own parties.

*And the Lib Dems? How could they win the next election? Well, they can’t. Hell, I don’t even know how they can maintain the disappointing result they got in 2010. Unless something pretty bloody spectacular happens, then the next election is not going to be very pleasant for the Liberal Democrats. 

I heartily recommend reading this article on why the Yes to AV campaign failed. It makes it clear that appealing solely to your core supporters and trying to patronise the floating voter into backing you is a sure-fire recipe for disaster. Something Ed Miliband would do well to remember...

Yes to AV - Where Did It All Go So Wrong?

May as well jump on the bandwagon and spend a bit of time autopsying the Yes to AV campaign - because, and let's be clear on this, Yes to AV were pretty much humiliated at the polls.

They'll be some who argue that the problem was that AV is more difficult that FPTP to explain. Well, yes it is. But then again FPTP can be summed up in a short sentence. Yet AV isn't that much more difficult to explain. It isn't like trying to explain the Theory of Relativity, or Plato's Theory of Forms. Besides, the campaign had the best part of a year to explain it's preference to voters. Frankly, that should be enough time to explain that voting system.

And they'll be others who point out that the No to AV campaign had more money than the Yes campaign. Which is true, and certainly an advantage to No to AV. But Yes to AV could have made money for themselves had their campaign been a little better. They could have rivaled the spending power of No to AV had their campaign actually been good.

Which leads me nicely to the biggest problem Yes to AV had. Their campaign, with the best will in the world, was shit. It seemed entirely to consist of them trying to rebut claims made by their opponents. Which means, almost every time they spoke, they were not only on the defensive but also reinforcing everything the No camp threw at them almost by default. If you feel you have to answer a charge in a political campaign, you are saying that there is something credible within that charge. And I think the No camp clocked this, and made their claims more and more outrageous. Therefore, you ended up with headlines along the lines of "Yes to AV will help the BNP" closely followed by headlines like "Yes campaign reject BNP claims". Which creates the mental association of "Yes to AV" and the BNP. And it is no good carping that the BNP's Nick Griffin did not favour a yes result in the referendum - he's a slack-jawed, know-nothing moron anyway who wouldn't know something was good for him if it smacked him square in his jowly face.

And finally, the No to AV campaign really thought about who it had speaking on its behalf. You had David Cameron - the incumbent Prime Minister - on a stage with a Labour heavyweight and former Home Secretary supporting No to AV. Margaret Beckett - a former Labour Foreign Secretary - also argued against electoral reform. On the flipside, you had Ed Miliband and Vince Cable on the same stage - something that will only really appeal to self-identified progressives who would probably back AV anyway. And on the sidelines you had Chris Huhne chuntering away - surely counter-productive, as he seems to be a man that precisely no-one likes. And the whole keeping Nick Clegg at arm's length thing ended up being counter-productive as well, if only because it generated much press speculation about why Clegg was not spear-heading the campaign.

So in short the Yes campaign was always fighting with one arm tied behind its back - its mistake was to tie the other hand behind its back as well through utterly inept campaigning. There is much to learn from the Yes campaign for those who would reform the electoral system, and they've going to have a long time to learn it since, given the result announced yesterday, it is going to be a long time before electoral reform is on the agenda again.

Election Predictions

With the usual caveat about how dangerous it is to make predictions in politics, allow me to speculate on what might happen in the elections today.

Firstly, Labour should do reasonably well. Not because they deserve to, but simply because it is far easier for the opposition party to fare well in these sort of elections than the governing one. And also because, in the stale end to the Blair years and in the abysmal failure that was the Brown administration, Labour was damn near wiped out in many parts of the country at a council and regional level. It is far easier gain seats when you have previously lost so many, and far easier to end up with a victory that looks far better than it actually is since all you are doing is making up the ground you've lost.

The Liberal Democrats are, of course, going to get a drubbing at the polls. Again, they don't really deserve this - or, at least, their leaders don't. Their supporters - in particular those who cannot understand the need to be pragmatic and flexible in power for the sake of the country - perhaps do deserve it. But then again, it will be those ones who will be flooding into the Labour camp. Which is fine, as far as I am concerned. Stupid people flocking to the stupid party.

And the Conservatives? There'll be losses, and perhaps a partial retreat into their heartlands. But I'd be surprised if there was a wipeout. Mainly because many of their supporters have vivid, recent memories of just how appalling the last Labour government was.

And as for AV, I suspect the "no" camp will win. Mainly because their campaign was simple, overwhelmingly negative and very well-funded. It'll be a victory for them, but hardly the sort of victory that political legends are made off. They won by spending a fortune on slagging off their opponents. Well done you.

And how will I be voting? I won't. Not because I don't want to, but because Leeds City Council have effectively disenfranchised me. Nice work, Leeds. You're breaking new ground in the fiercely contested field of incompetence in local government.

On Electoral Reform

The recent news about a potential referendum on electoral reform has created a lot of excitement for some. Despite the fact that I can see a case for the reform of the electoral system, I can't get too excited about this referendum. Firstly, all electoral systems have flaws, and you're not going to get true representation under any system. As far as I can see, we'd be replacing one flawed system with another, equally flawed, system.

And there's another reason why I don't think it is worth getting too excited about the concept of electoral reform - it isn't going to happen. I think the referendum will go ahead - it is too important for the Liberal Democrats and therefore for the coalition to be abandoned in the Commons. But at that referendum, only the Liberal Democrats will be campaigning for electoral reform. The Labour party will have overcome their brief flirtation with electoral reform that they experienced after the election, and will use the chance to fight against electoral reform during the referendum campaign as an opportunity to punish the Liberal Democrats for not joining them in a so-called "progressive coalition". The Tories aren't going to campaign for electoral reform either; the current system served them very well prior to 1992, and (the way things are going) will give them a workable majority at the next election. The electoral machines of the two main parties in this country will almost certainly campaign against electoral reform which means, with the best will in the world, that it ain't going to happen.

However, let's not get too carried away with the notion that the Liberal Democrats are seeking electoral reform because, unlike the two main parties, they are concerned with issues of representation. The reason why the Liberal Democrats want a new voting system is because it will benefit them. They are the victims of this current situation, and they - perhaps understandably - want to change that. However, this has nothing to do with democracy; instead it is down to self-interest.

And that's the biggest problem I have with electoral reform - it isn't going to change the way politics in this country works. It is smokes and mirrors - creating debate about a potential change that will, in reality, change very little. The problem with our democracy is that it is now dominated by three parties which, on so many areas, operate in open agreement on political fundamentals. And their party machines choose candidates - they take them, remove independence and thought from those candidates - and turn them into blind automatons to fight elections without using ideology or controversy. Then they can enter the Commons, where they become lobby fodder. In the unlikely event that they reach a position of real political power, they will be so used to conformity and so fearful of taking a controversial position that they will be just as bland as every post-Thatcher PM has been. The problem isn't with the electoral system; it is down to the fact that our "democracy" has become a self-perpetuating oligarchy dominated by bland party machines lost in a general ideological consensus.

Sure, yeah, let's have a referendum on electoral reform. Let's change the electoral system. But until we are actually willing to use that electoral system to reject the bland mainstream parties and consider more radical alternatives, nothing will really change in British politics.

Just What is Boris Playing At?

The ever-mighty BoJo is causing problems for his party with his *crazy* demand that the people should be consulted over further integration into Europe. No doubt his intervention - just at a time when Cameron was no doubt celebrating having a united party ready to take office - has moved the London Mayor from the top of the Tory leader's Christmas card list to the top of his shit list.

This does beg the question, though, of what the hell Boris thinks he is doing raising this highly contentious and divisive issue at this point. As far as I can see, there are three potential answers:

1. Boris doesn't know what he is doing. He isn't politically canny enough to realise the damage he is doing to his party. He is an airhead in City Hall who is so lost in his own little world that he doesn't take into account just how damaging his outburst is. Now, this is persuasive for those who wish to fool themselves as to BoJo's intellect. Yes, he looks a little shambolic. Yes, he struggles to be coherent sometimes. But he isn't a stupid man. He is, despite appearances, a very canny politician. And he knows exactly what he is doing here.
2. This is all part of Boris positioning himself for his next move. Let's not deny Boris is ambitious; you don't become an MP and then Mayor of London if you're not. And I don't think that Boris' ambition has been fully satisfied as yet. I think we will see Boris returning to parliament at some point, and being a viable contender for the Tory leadership. He has the experience of direct government, and by speaking out on the EU, he is showing himself to be an independent mind who will not bow down to the leadership on every issue. If he continues like this, then when Cameron is a discredited, unpopular Prime Minister (say in six years time) and the party is looking for someone different to Cameron, BoJo will be able to step forward and point towards his independence, and use that as a reason to run for the Tory leadership.
3. Maybe he believes what is saying. Maybe Boris thinks that the British people should consulted over EU expansion and the erosion of the powers of the UK government. This is what I like to think is the reason behind his intervention, although the self-serving nature of politicians in this day and age makes me doubt it. But part of me really wants to think that Boris is doing the right thing, and acting as a politician with opinions and a respect for giving the people of this country a voice.

Still, whatever happens Boris' intervention is good news. It may not help unity at the Tory party conference - although that doesn't worry me in the slightest - but at least it puts a crucial question facing the UK back on the political agenda. The Tories - as our next government - need to sort out just what their policy towards Europe is going to be. Pretending it isn't there in the hope that it will go away isn't a constructive or responsible position for the Tories to be taking.

The Tory "policy" on an EU referendum:

One well placed Tory said: "There is virtually no hope of changing the main institutional architecture of the EU once Lisbon enters into force. If the treaty enters EU law you will find that a Conservative government will want to focus on repatriating powers that affect the UK. This is not going soft. If other EU leaders say they will not accommodate us, then we have the threat of a referendum on our reforms."

Reading that hardly fills me with hope that a Tory administration would look to the views of the people on the EU and the Lisbon Treaty. And it really comes to something when a referendum - something that consults the people through democratic means - is viewed and used as a threat.

Still, this would seem to suggest one thing: that if you want a choice on the EU, then best not to vote for the Tories.

Against the Euro

A new poll suggests that a majority of the British people would not vote for the Euro:

The survey of 1,000 adults revealed that just 23% would vote "yes" to joining the European single currency, while 6% said they were unsure.

Hardly surprising, really. For some people joining the Euro would be a disaster – further loss of our national political autonomy at a time when maximum room for political movement is crucial, and also when the zeitgeist is towards greater national and regional autonomy rather than increasing international homogenisation.

Yet for other people, the main reason why they don’t want to transfer to the Euro is because they don’t understand what it is for. I’d guess that the majority of those who oppose the Euro do so partly because of some (perhaps irrational) commitment to the pound, but also because no-one has bothered to explain to them why they might want to switch from the pound to the Euro.

Which is typical of the arrogance of the EU. They don’t seem to see the need to explain to the poor citizens of the member states exactly what they are getting from being part of the European Union. No, let me rephrase that – they don’t seem to deem the poor citizens of the member states worthy of an explanation of what the EU does and why they should be demanding more commitment from us. They appear to think that we should just sit back and not question; we should make the assumption that whatever the EU does is in our best interests. Rather than simply in the interests of their back pockets and the fabled and reviled EU gravy train.

Still, whatever the reasons for people rejecting the concept of the Euro, I’m happy enough that people in this country would go the way of the Irish in their referendum and reject the Euro if it was put to us in a referendum. But therein lies the danger:

Last month, European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said the UK was "closer than ever" to joining the euro and that the "people who matter" in British politics were contemplating giving up the pound.

For “people who matter” read Gordon Brown and his cadre of Europhile sycophants.

Because that is the danger. Given the arrogance of the Brown administration, the EU, and Brown’s seemingly deep fear of any sort of election, there may well not be a referendum for us. In fact, poll results like this one are likely to make a referendum on the EU even less likely.

Under the current government, there is a real danger that we will wake up one morning and find that our elected leaders have made is part of a European super-state without recourse to elections, referendums or even any kind of public debate. And regardless of whether you want to be at the heart of Europe or on the outside looking in, you should want to have that public debate.

This poll shows that the Europhiles have a lot of work to do if they want to make the case for the Euro and, in line with that, a case for further European integration. They should, if they truly believe what they want is the right course of action, make that case. Rather than ignoring the weight of public opinion and plowing on with further moves into the EU project.

The Irish: Still Happy

Good news for anyone who believes that the pinnacle of future human achievement isn't further immersion in the stifling, bloated Euroepean Union. The Irish have shown that, despite the protestations of some, they are happy with their referendum and don't need to vote again:

Fifty-four per cent of those polled said they were happy with the result, while 34 per cent were unhappy, and 11 per cent were undecided.

And why would they want to vote again? Nothing has changed, another vote would be a waste of time. In fact, this expectation that Ireland would vote again because the leaders of the EU didn't like the result is staggering. It is the politics of Robert Mugabe - if the vote doesn't go their way, then everyone concerned can damn well vote again until they get the right result. Can you imagine the outcry if the Tories had said in 1997 "yep, we know you've voted, but you need to vote again as you've voted for the wrong people?"

At a time when the international zeitgeist is towards increasing national and regional autonomy the European Union should be making their case for a vast, bureacratic monolith as the future for the member states. This pig headed approach of "keep voting until you get it right" is not good enough. It is indicative of the arrogance of the EU that they believe such an approach is ok. And it is the same arrogance that led to the Irish Referendum result. The sooner the EU realises that in democracies you have to make a case before you can expect a vote, the better.

Vote, vote vote for the Treaty!

Via Open Europe, I've come across this humdinger of a quote from Nicholas Sarkozy on the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty:

"They [the Irish] are bloody fools. They have been stuffing their faces at Europe's expense for years and now they dump us in the shit."

I don't think Sarko really understands that the Irish have rejected the Lisbon Treaty, rather than the EU. And why would they vote for further integration of Europe just because they have benefitted from the EU? Voters don't make choices on national sovereignty based on French perceptions of how much they owe other countries.

What has shone through from EU leaders is a naked contempt for the opinions of the Irish voters. They didn't vote from the EU, therefore they are stupid and deserve to be ignored. The German Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, best sums up this mindset:

"Of course we have to take the Irish referendum seriously. But a few million Irish cannot decide on behalf of 495 million Europeans."

That is an impressive stat, but also a misleading one. Because, other than those few million Irish, no other voters in the EU have been given a chance to decide about the Lisbon Treaty. The decision hasn't been made by the people; rather, it has been made by an increasingly unaccountable EU elite. But since the Euro-philes can throw around misleading stats, I'll do the same too. Of the countries that have voted on the Lisbon Treaty, 100% have rejected it.

If the case for the EU was strong and if there was a real reason for the Treaty, there would have been votes across Europe. Make no mistake about it - the reasons why governments are holding votes on the Treaty is for one, simple reason. They are afraid of losing.

And, irony upon irony, the one country who may get a vote on the Treaty is Ireland. Yep, as Valery Giscard d'Estaing states, the mentality is simple:

"The Lisbon Treaty is not dead... It is imperative that they vote again."

Ireland can keep on voting; the EU demands it. And they must keep on voting, until the EU gets the answer it wants.

EU leaders: arrogant twats.

EU No, thanks

Ireland - the only country to actually allow the people to vote on the EU Treaty - have apparently replied with a big fat no in their referendum on that Treaty.

That doesn't kill the Treaty, and the last time countries voted against the EU, the Union responded by changing the title of the document from Constitution to Treaty. I wonder whether they will do this now - and if they do, I wonder what the new title will be. Perhaps the EU Agreement. The EU Meeting of Minds. The EU oh-no-it-isn't-the-constitution-honestly-guv-it-is-called-something-different-anyway-innit. Rest assured, they'll find a way to keep the project going. Good God helps us all, they'll find a way to ignore the will of the people.

This quote, from an Irish Labour MP, is quite eye-opening:

"That was one of the biggest problems of this campaign – thousands and thousands of people couldn't even understand what the treaty was about."

Not just the treaty - I think a lot of people look at the EU and wonder what the ruddy fuck it is all about. The more referendums we have on the EU, the better - if only because it will make that amorphous, nebulous, expensive and undemocratic institution justify exactly what benefit it actually offers to the citizens of the member states.

If, of course, there are any benefits to boast about.