55% - the price of stable government

The past week has provided us with a taster of the kind of things we can expect from the dawn of “new politics” and a “renewed democracy”.

While many have been hailing our new government as a breakthrough in progressive politics, something decidedly undemocratic and self-serving has been bubbling away in the corridors of power of late and - perhaps most worryingly of all - nobody seems to mind too much.

The coalition’s proposals to raise the threshold at which parliament must be dissolved from 50% plus one of the Commons vote to 55% are unconstitutional, undemocratic, and in my opinion, unjustifiable.

“Fixing our broken politics” was not supposed to include “fixing” our constitution - so that it becomes the responsibility of parliament, not the coalition partners, to prop up a government. If the coalition partners can’t work together and lose the confidence of parliament then there is only one remaining option that can give an elected government the mandate to carry out its legislative programme – another general election.

To remove the right of over half of parliament to throw out a government through a vote of no confidence is a matter of convenience – not a position of principle. It is naked self-interest of the worst kind.

At a time when public support for proportional representation and a more responsive politics is at its peak, its seems strange that the very same public are happy to handover the keys to a Prime Minister for five years, come what may – and with no strings attached.

All the talk of “stable and strong government in the national interest” has left us sleep-walking into an era where credibility is becoming secondary to stability. We can only hope that the rebels within the coalition’s ranks can make the rest of their parties see beyond their own needs.

The Labour Leadership Race

Labour needs to grasp the opportunity it has been given to renew. The electorate did not wholly reject the party as it did the Tories in 1997, and the Liberal Democrats have now conceded any pretence to progressive politics by entering a coalition of the centre right.

Therefore, the Labour leadership election needs to invigorate a debate on the centre left about how the progressive agenda, in particular themed around social justice and localism can unlock the political stalemate and set out a new electable government of the centre left.

The ideas and policy will matter as much as the charisma of a leader who gets it. That is the vacuum of power and personality that has been left by the New Labour era. Neither Nick Clegg or David Cameron get it, and they appear to be fighting over yesterday's agenda, seeking to right the wrongs of New Labour rather than defining a new politics as they much talk about.

The real political debate is not some coalition of the mediocre or mutually agreeable, but a strident renewed progressive centre left reaffirmed in the values that were such an embodiment of the 1997 tide which need to be recast and reflect modern Britain today.

What do you think?

Elections - 2010 and beyond!

Curtin and Co asked three of our consultants - one Conservative, one Labour and, of course, one Lib Dem - to give us a view of the recent Election and following negotiations from where they sit.

Each of them have been closely involved in this year’s election on a ground level basis. One as Theresa May’s campaign manager, one as Labour’s Basingstoke campaign co ordinator and one as a Liberal Democrat campaign assistant.

Here's what they had to say................................

Conservative viewpoint

After the deals are done….

Oil and Water

As every school child knows Oil and Water do not mix, but the political equivalents - the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties - are doing their best to prove the theory wrong. Will this be a truly significant reshaping of the political landscape or a project too fundamentally flawed to succeed?

The not so ‘odd couple’

At the top there is a real hope and commitment; Clegg and Cameron come from surprisingly similar backgrounds and have almost an indistinguishable outlook on many issues.
They have shown a real commitment and determination to setting out a political agenda that starts to address some of the key issues that need urgent attention and a semi-coherent vision for the new Parliament.

There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader. - Alexandre Ledru-Rollin

The flaws start at the grass roots. The Conservative Party remains a fundamentally right-wing party. For all Cameron’s efforts to detoxify, rebrand and reposition the party, it remains more right-wing than the leadership and is deeply suspicious, as well as disappointed in Cameron. Clegg is also removed from his activists. He is more right-of-centre on many issues than the membership and, whilst lauded for delivering the opportunity to wield power for the first time for generations, he has not delivered the Holy Grail for the Lib Dems: Proportional representation.
As demonstrated by the time it has taken just to agree broad principles and personnel, coalitions are hard work. Whilst there is clear chemistry and commitment from the top there has to be a question about the belief in the project at the grass roots and activists level. Go too far ahead of your supporters and there’ll be hell to pay.

The invisible elections

Whilst the Nation’s eyes were focused on Westminster and Whitehall, significant events were unfolding in town halls up and down the land. The Blue tide that had benefited the Conservatives over the last decade - making them the largest party in local government - was turning. Labour actually did rather well in this set of elections, winning control of some 15 councils and gaining an extra 420 councillors. Whilst this doesn’t change the overall picture it marks the start of the swing against the Conservatives.

Frank Browne

Frank is the former leader of Wokingham BC and was also Theresa May’s campaign manager in this years election






Liberal Democrat viewpoint

So, three TV debates, four days of talks and one Prime Minister later, here we are; facing the prospect of a fixed-term parliament Con-Lib coalition for the next five years (or at least for the next six months). Voting reform, and influence over tax, education and deficit reduction policies was the price the Tories would have to pay for power, and eventually they coughed up (sort of).

How substantive Conservative commitments to Liberal reforms are remains to be seen. Some (including this particular Liberal Democrat) are less than convinced the coalition will deliver what Clegg has optimistically forecast it to.

Doubts over Clegg’s ability to get his party on side have, for now, been suppressed. Concern did not translate into a close vote from the Liberal Democrat Federal Executive, who returned a vote of ‘three quarters in favour’ of a coalition with Cameron’s Conservatives.

Although the party hierarchy have blessed this unlikely union it seems hard to believe that this attitude prevails amongst the majority of the party membership; particularly its campaigners and activists. For many Liberal Democrats the idea of working with a party committed to inheritance tax cuts for the top income bracket, renewal of trident, an immigration cap, and no discernable commitment to climate change beyond the cursory references to ‘Green enterprise’ and ‘sustainable economy’ was hard to stomach. To some it still is.

Of course there is agreement on some areas of policy (moving towards a £10,000 threshold for income tax and a pupil premium, for example) and it’s certainly in the country’s best interests for the coalition to get on with the business of government as best it can. More intriguing though is how the coalition will leave the parties if/when we all go back to the polls towards the end of the year. Labour, for now, remain something of an unknown quantity without a leader in place. A Milliband or Balls approach to the situation will provide another input to what has been a fascinating contest so far, and one that will continue unofficially in the months ahead.

Sick to death of sound-bites, smokescreen politics and gameshow TV debates we may be; but round two of the election tussle is upon us, and is likely to prove far more decisive than its predecessor.

Ally Kennedy

Ally has recently joined Curtin&Co and previously worked on policy and research for the Liberal Democrats at their Headquarters in Westminster and at constituency level.




Labour viewpoint

The 2010 election is actually a tale of two polls. The Parliamentary election is a fascinating story of the voters choosing to elect no-one to an overall majority. Labour lost 90 seats, a terrible defeat in any estimation, but go back a year and look at the 20 point Tory lead in the opinion polls. On May 6th 2010 the Tories could only poll 36% to Labour’s 29%. The truth is that the Tories and Labour both lost the 2010 election.

Labour won 258 seats, the predicted meltdown didn’t happen, Labour held seats like Bolton North West, Hampstead and numerous seats in Yorkshire, the Midlands and East Midlands that should have been won by the Tories. In 1997 the Tories were wiped out, down to 195 seats, Labour are not in that position. Yes, Labour lost and badly in the South East, but the party position is stronger than anyone expected and they are just 40 odd seats short of the Tories.

What is expected now following the formation of the Con Dem coalition is a move by both those parties to fix the system in their favour. They will now change the boundaries away from urban seats and increase the size of constituencies whilst reducing the number of MPs, depriving Labour of many seats and stacking the battlegrounds in the Tories favour. They will change the rules on votes of confidence so no longer will it be 50% plus one, but an unassailable 55% of the Commons. The Labour Party may be within striking distance of the Tories on paper, but the other two parties know this so they will now bend the system to keep Labour out.

The other big story of the election is the picture in Local Government. Labour made huge gains at both the Tories and Liberals expense. Nearly 400 council seats gained and 15 councils. Labour now controls Liverpool and Leeds again. The story in London is the most intriguing. Labour held 49% of the vote and gained 9 Council’s including Enfield, Waltham Forest, Hounslow and Ealing. These local elections results are a massive boost to the Labour Party especially as it now moves to choose a new national leader.

As with the usual pattern of Parliamentary and Local Government elections the party in power nationally loses out locally. This time saw the Liberals and Tories losing roughly 150 seats each, and losing the control of flagship councils paints a different picture to that of the national scene. Over the coming years and for as long as the Tories and Liberals remain in power the swing to Labour locally will gather momentum.

The story of election night and since for the progressive centre left was one of shock and dismay. The ‘liberal’ Liberal Democrats are in the ascendency and have done a deal with the Tories that many of the ‘social’ Liberal Democrats will find increasingly difficult to stomach. Watch this space; this won’t last 5 years....

Dr Paul Harvey

Paul is the former leader of Basingstoke and Deane County Council and a current Labour councillor who also managed the Labour Basinstoke Local and National Election 2010 campaign.

RIBA has today warned that the new government should encourage "positive localism" to avoid NIMBYism.

The problem is that 99.9% of the population is NIMBY: Everyone wants green energy but no-one wants a wind turbine in their back garden; those who oppose wind energy want nuclear power stations..but not in their back garden; everyone thinks that affordable homes should be built so that young people can buy...but nobody wants a new estate anywhere near them.

The planning system already gives ultimate authority to councillors and politicians who, whilst having their constituents' best interests in mind, are not necessarily experts. At least they are advised by officers, though. Providing greater opportunity to question and oppose development is likely to lead to one result: An increase in NIMBY victories and a lack of development.